Today is Thursday, July 30, the 212th day of 2020. There are 154 days left in the year.
Today’s Highlight in History:
...
In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a measure making “In God We Trust” the national motto, replacing “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of many, one).
Very interesting. I'd vote to change it back.
Amen to that.
In that case, I take it back. 
. No but seriously, I'm God fearing and all but I feel like this contradicts separation of church and state.
LALTS, you think?
"Separation of Church and State" is a descriptor of a legal concept, not a law that can be violated. What you mean to suggest, perhaps, is that it "violates the establishment clause." But the Supreme Court has long held that it doesn't, which is to say, the SCOTUS says you're both wrong. Not that I particularly care, mind you.
Also, while it didn't become the national motto until 1956, it first started appearing on the money in 1864, and originates, of course, in the fourth verse of the national anthem, ca 1814.
Mr. Raz bursts forth as a font of historical info.
Good morning sir!
I just get annoyed when people make pat pronouncements about things when they haven't looked at the history or legal precedent or whatever. My fellow Christians have historically been really bad about doing this, but progressive Democrats have caught right up to them in the past three decades.
"In God We Trust" didn't "replace" E Pluribus Unum. That was never officially a motto of the United States.
In other words, ClemsonDave posted #FakeNews ?
Mine was more a philosophical wish that separation of church and state was a concept that was actually followed. I'm not naive enough to think this will ever happen.
And while we're at it, let's get churches, the NFL and Amazon to actually pay taxes.
What taxes do you think churches don't pay?
All the ones the IRS has exempted them from?
Sure...and they are?
It's okay, general categories will do. I won't make you be overly specific.
In general - federal, state, local income and property.
By the way, LOLing at "won't make you be overly specific".
In general, Federal is a categorical distinguisher, not a type of tax. Types of federal tax would include "income taxes," "property taxes," "payroll taxes," "capital gains taxes," "estate taxes," and a few other lesser-known and infrequently used types. There is no federal sales tax, nor property tax.
The only federal tax that Churches are exempt from is income tax, and the exemption doesn't cover income unrelated to direct church ministry. Basically, what goes in the offering plate or gets provided to the church via a fundraiser is exempt from federal tax. Income from unrelated business is not exempt. Churches are not exempt from any other type of federal taxes, with the exception that official clergy meeting some specific criteria get to skip some of the payroll taxes (Social Security), but they also don't get the benefit of those either. So that's a wash.
In this regard, churches are no different than any other charitable organization, or any other non-profit entity. So...if you're going to tax churches, then you also have to tax the NAACP, the United Way, March of Dimes, MDA, yadda, yadda, yadda. And the reason that we don't tax those entities is twofold - they provide a service to the community, and there isn't a lot of income left over to tax. It'll cost more to impose and collect the taxes than will be gained.
State property tax exemptions only go so far as well, and if you don't think those taxes are fair then you're just not a progressive. Imposing property taxes on churches fails to recognize that they are non-profit organizations. So it is a frequent case that the property the church sits on is more valuable than the income-producing capability of the organization (remember, churches can only produce income so many ways before running into Unrelated Business taxation). So property taxes on churches would inherently be regressive in nature.
So...what great national windfall are you expecting to collect by taxing charitable non-profits?
Yes, federal is a categorical distinguisher. You DID ask for general categories, did you not?
And while churches provide a service to the community, I would counter that meth dealers do as well, but I wouldn't consider either of them good services.
Finally, I don't remember saying we would be solving the debt crisis or anything here. Merely that they, sports leagues like the NFL and huge corporations that take in billions a year in profit should be forced to pay taxes, like the rest of us.
It's an inarguable fact that the NFL and huge corporations DO pay taxes, and I know you're too intelligent to try and make a serious case they don't. So the NFL and corporations are a separate discussion, because the only rational position you could assert is that they aren't paying enough.
Regardless of your personal feelings about whether non-profits provide good services, the fact is we don't tax (most of) the income or property of non-profits for the simple reason that they do not exist to enrich anyone, and cannot enrich anyone. The reason they exist, and the reason they continue to exist, is that they provide services, to enough people (who do not share your personal sentiments) to stay afloat. And because of that we don't burden the organizations. Any non-profit who doesn't provide services valued by enough people will not be able to stay afloat, and will go away, because they can't exist on tax exemption alone. So your personal feelings don't really factor into the equation. We let charitable organizations do their thing and we leave them alone.
