[Star Traveler]

I don’t know what is so hard for you to understand about what I’m saying (and have said since this thread started).

I say that Mosques get a tax exemption and this can’t be taken away unless they break the law for receiving that exemption.

You say they are political and can therefore have the tax exemption removed.

It’s real easy to prove which is correct, by either seeing that Mosques keep their tax exemption from here forward, or they don’t keep it from here forward.

Show me the results ... of Mosques being declared political and having their tax exemption removed ... and I’ll know what you say is right. And if the tax exemption stays in place with the Mosques, then what I say about them being protected under law is right.

All I’m saying is show me the results, because “my results” (as I state and explain it here) is already “in place and active” as we speak.

[Steve Newton]

Star that is what we are trying to do—show you. But we can’t do this alone. We need your help and everyones.

We have to start somewhere, I think even you would agree to that. Lets move this forward.

[LibertyBorn]

Star traveler, you seem to "say" quite a lot, but in my brief experience it appears to have too little substance, and inconsistent reference when substance is attempted. There's nothing at all "hard to understand" about what you're saying; in fact it's all overly superficial.

Your argument at this point consists of "status quo semper eadem", or the situation always being the same, which is in truth no argument at all. Belaboring this yet again, in this last post, is rather pointless after I pointed out the silliness of your claim, stating that that "the reason we're having this discussion today is that Islamic organizations are tax exempt today."

In fact I've indicated why this current status is wrong, given references to the Constitution, and the repeated dictate of the Quran.

It is not only a gross flaw of logic, but also an unsavory prejudice to corruption, to assert that "which is correct" is proved by that which is 'here' and "in place and active" at this moment in time. Nonsense.

I've no more interest in "showing" you anything, any more so than I do in "pinging" you. We're having a discussion here, with various perspectives being argued. However your current approach is not really an argument at all, just a statement of the obvious, while presuming status quo to be valid.

My own argument breaks down to being a "religion", and being guaranteed the freedom to exercise that religion in this country, are not compromised by Islam losing its tax exempt status due to the fact that Islam is invariably, by the repeated indications of the Quran itself, a political ideology, and one entirely hostile to this country's principles, as well as denying the existence of any "freedom of religion" at all.

In truth, an ideology calling itself a religion nowhere guarantees that ideology tax exempt status by any terms in the Constitution. Evidently you're finding this simple recognition "hard to understand."