No, you (not I) made a claim: churches should pay taxes. I didn’t make any claim, at least not here. I only pointed out that you didn’t support your point. Secondly, I don’t see why the “separation of church and state” position needs further defense. It’s an established precedent and status quo for hundreds of years. To that end, your “everyone pays taxes by default” claim is obviously wrong because churches don’t pay taxes by default. Moreover, proponents of separation of church and state don’t need you to find their arguments compelling; their will is law—your position is the challenger and it needs persuasive support if you would like the status quo changed.
> ah yes. the tax exception for a church means churches don't pay taxes by default. i like that circular logic. just like women not being able to vote for hundreds of years - they shouldn't vote now.
That's not the argument I'm making. I'm arguing that the onus is on you to persuade, not that the status quo is inherently superior by virtue of being the status quo. I was very clear about this.
> your claim was that I needed to prove my point that churches should not pay taxes. i said the claim is invalid, because taxes are paid by default, by everyone, unless an exception is granted.
The exception has been granted and is well-entrenched in precedent. You can disagree all you want and demand that someone needs to make an argument that persuades you; nevertheless, the law protects churches and you don't agree with it, so you must be mistaken about the burden of persuasion.
> my position is not a "challenger." rules and laws are not written in stone as the word of god you pretend the bible is. they need to be reexamined frequently, and someone granted a tax exemption needs to prove again why that exception is still valid.
The law prohibits taxation of churches, and your position is that we should change the law, ergo it's (by definition) the challenger (the status quo being the incumbent). No one here is claiming laws are written in stone; our disagreement appears to be whether or not changing the laws requires a persuasive argument, and here you are mistaken. Specifically you're mistaken that churches are legally obligated to reprove the validity of their tax exemption--you may wish that churches were so obligated, but they aren't, and if you insist there is such a legal obligation, it's incumbent upon you to furnish evidence to support your claim.
Anyway, this conversation has diverged from an interesting subject to litigating burden of persuasion which is well established and obvious. I'm not interested in debating the obvious unless there's some evidence that can call into question its obviousness. If we can't agree on obvious matters, I don't think this conversation is likely to enlighten, so I bid you adieu.
> the onus is on you to persuade
and I am saying this is false. but it is expected you believe this. the status quo was people believing in a god. now we don't. it is not on us to prove there is not one. it is still on you to prove there is one. just like it is on you to prove an exemption should still be given, or you don't get one anymore.
yes, that is my opinion. this is what we do in comments on a subject matter. state our opinions on it. there is no need to prove to the irs churches should not be taxed. they take tax rules all the time and reexamine them, and drop ones that are no longer appropriate, which is soon coming for churches. as can literally be seen in this article being discussed.
