If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   "If Obama continues to lose Catholics by the margin the Pew poll suggests, that means he could lose the key swing states of Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Iowa"   (thehill.com) divider line 394
    More: Obvious, Obama administration, pew poll, Catholic Association, Iowa, Ohio, Catholics, Colorado, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops  
•       •       •

1265 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2012 at 11:48 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



394 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-24 12:46:12 PM

EWreckedSean: tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?

Try and understand this. I'll say it slowly. Once you put a tax requirement on a religion, you've made religion a pay to play organization, which is a violation of free exercise.


If they remain separate from government, then they can remain tax-exempt. However, when they advocate legislation then they should help pay for the new financial burdens created fromnthat legislation.
 
2012-04-24 12:46:37 PM

Blathering Idjut: This discussion is silly, even for Fark. A given church's tax-exempt status is statuatory, not constitutional. If a church fails to follow the rules governing 501(c)3s then it should lose it's certification. The only thing keeping this from happening is a yellow streak in the administration ordering the IRS to do it's job and revoke said certification.

There is absolutely nothing in the 1st Amendment barring the state from taxing churches. As pointed out up-thread to do so actually singles out churches for special treatment by the state expressly contrast to that amendment.


Churches have to play by the same rules as non-religious non-profits under the tax code. As you note, to create such a distinction would violate the First Amendment.
 
2012-04-24 12:46:57 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Instead of confronting protestors with a police presence, just send IRS lawyers to each protest with a stack of tax bills for each parish and diocese that is participating.

If you're going to use the pulpit to gin up votes, then you better look like paying some farking taxes.


I think they should all pay taxes anyway, whether or not they get involved in politics. Churches use roads, public infrastructure, and emergency services, as well as benefiting from the rule of law.

Besides, there is something unseemly about the government buying off their silence with tax breaks.
 
2012-04-24 12:47:14 PM
My religion requires me living in a 4 bedroom house, which I can't afford while paying taxes. Therefore, paying income taxes violates my first amendment rights.
 
2012-04-24 12:47:19 PM

tnpir: And YOU try to understand this, which I'll say even slower: HOW. Newspaper companies pay taxes, that doesn't infringe on freedom of press. So how is a church paying taxes an infringement of free exercise? And cite examples if you can actually come up with any.

Seriously, stop being a retard.


chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?

What happens when any other business can't pay its taxes? Again, this will not in any way stop a citizen from worshiping their god of choice.


Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.
 
2012-04-24 12:48:57 PM
i think the church should make the government pay a 10% tithe.
 
2012-04-24 12:49:23 PM
Remember when Kennedy was running for President and all teh Republicans said that he'd just be taking orders from Rome and therefore, shouldn't be President?

Here they are a few decades later saying that Obama shouldn't be President because the government isn't taking orders from Rome
 
2012-04-24 12:49:33 PM

EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.


Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.
 
2012-04-24 12:49:33 PM

tnpir: EWreckedSean: tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?

Try and understand this. I'll say it slowly. Once you put a tax requirement on a religion, you've made religion a pay to play organization, which is a violation of free exercise.

And YOU try to understand this, which I'll say even slower: HOW. Newspaper companies pay taxes, that doesn't infringe on freedom of press. So how is a church paying taxes an infringement of free exercise? And cite examples if you can actually come up with any.

Seriously, stop being a retard.


Newspaper companies are taxed on profit, not on freedom of speech. A news paper is available for tax exempt status so long as it is non-profit based.
 
2012-04-24 12:49:53 PM

I alone am best: If your asking how forcing them to practice their religion in a different manner would be "free exercise" i don't know what to tell you.


Who is forcing anyone to practice their religion in a different manner? This mandate involves only businesses. It has nothing to do with churches.

Would you support a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness to not allow employees of other faiths that they have hired to blood transfusions because that somehow blocks the owner's right "to practice their religion"?
 
2012-04-24 12:50:46 PM

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! So, because the gov't can't establish a religion, and persons can worship anyone they choose, that makes it illegal to tax a church business. Tard.

Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?


You keep saying "religion." How does one tax a religion?
[i13.photobucket.com image 222x282]

I think you are confusing a religion with a religious belief. Catholicism as a religion has a whole infrastructure behind it.



No, you're the confused one. Taxing a church does not infringe on your ability to practice the religion of your choice. But you know that.
 
2012-04-24 12:51:00 PM
This thread has many enlightening comments, balanced discussion of the issues, and I have learned so much from the many posts. Cheers all around. Another great farking learning experience.
 
2012-04-24 12:51:13 PM

downpaymentblues: Would you support a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness to not allow employees of other faiths that they have hired to blood transfusions because that somehow blocks the owner's right "to practice their religion"?


Arizona is trying to make that sort of thing legal.

Link
 
2012-04-24 12:53:55 PM

Blathering Idjut: This discussion is silly, even for Fark. A given church's tax-exempt status is statuatory, not constitutional. If a church fails to follow the rules governing 501(c)3s then it should lose it's certification. The only thing keeping this from happening is a yellow streak in the administration ordering the IRS to do it's job and revoke said certification.

There is absolutely nothing in the 1st Amendment barring the state from taxing churches. As pointed out up-thread to do so actually singles out churches for special treatment by the state expressly contrast to that amendment.


Seems pretty clear that if churches were tax exempt simply by virtue of being churches then they would not need to follow rules governing 501s. The IRS agrees, BTW. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Also seems to me that someone could give an actual cite to a case by name and number in which the Supreme Court or any Federal Appeals court overturned a tax on a religious institution based on First Amendment grounds. Whole lot bald assertion going on here.
 
2012-04-24 12:54:01 PM

EWreckedSean: tnpir: And YOU try to understand this, which I'll say even slower: HOW. Newspaper companies pay taxes, that doesn't infringe on freedom of press. So how is a church paying taxes an infringement of free exercise? And cite examples if you can actually come up with any.

Seriously, stop being a retard.

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?

What happens when any other business can't pay its taxes? Again, this will not in any way stop a citizen from worshiping their god of choice.

Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.



PRAYING IN YOUR ROOM IS STILL THE ABILITY TO WORSHIP THE GOD OF YOUR CHOICE, IDIOT!
In fact, Jesus said quite clearly that's how it should be done anyways. You have read the Bible, haven't you? Do I need to list a citation?
 
2012-04-24 12:54:11 PM

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.

Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.


If it's symbolic cannibalism, they really should use bacon.

/mmm, short pig.
 
2012-04-24 12:54:13 PM

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.

Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.


What priest? You've eliminated the church infrastructure, which includes the priests.
 
2012-04-24 12:54:32 PM

Bhasayate: This thread has many enlightening comments, balanced discussion of the issues, and I have learned so much from the many posts. Cheers all around. Another great farking learning experience.


There are two kinds of minds on Fark.

Some of us are:

media.teamxbox.com

But others are:

www.scottdecker.com

The latter restricts the depth of the debate we can have. (Often on purpose.)
 
2012-04-24 12:55:10 PM

EWreckedSean: tnpir: EWreckedSean: tnpir: EWreckedSean: 1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.

You CANNOT be serious. Dare I ask how you reached that conclusion? Or do you have the same GED in Law as our resident legal expert clown?

Try and understand this. I'll say it slowly. Once you put a tax requirement on a religion, you've made religion a pay to play organization, which is a violation of free exercise.

And YOU try to understand this, which I'll say even slower: HOW. Newspaper companies pay taxes, that doesn't infringe on freedom of press. So how is a church paying taxes an infringement of free exercise? And cite examples if you can actually come up with any.

Seriously, stop being a retard.

Newspaper companies are taxed on profit, not on freedom of speech. A news paper is available for tax exempt status so long as it is non-profit based.



!!!! Thanks for proving our 1st amendment point for us.
 
2012-04-24 12:57:05 PM
"Church infrastructure" appears no where in the Constitution.
You sound like an activist. Why aren't you a strict constructionist like your breathren?
 
2012-04-24 12:57:25 PM

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: tnpir: And YOU try to understand this, which I'll say even slower: HOW. Newspaper companies pay taxes, that doesn't infringe on freedom of press. So how is a church paying taxes an infringement of free exercise? And cite examples if you can actually come up with any.

Seriously, stop being a retard.

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?

What happens when any other business can't pay its taxes? Again, this will not in any way stop a citizen from worshiping their god of choice.

Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.


PRAYING IN YOUR ROOM IS STILL THE ABILITY TO WORSHIP THE GOD OF YOUR CHOICE, IDIOT!
In fact, Jesus said quite clearly that's how it should be done anyways. You have read the Bible, haven't you? Do I need to list a citation?


Really, you can receive Baptism, Communion, the Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Marriage and Holy Orders all from your room? And by the way, you've never read the bible.
 
2012-04-24 12:57:32 PM

EWreckedSean: tnpir: And YOU try to understand this, which I'll say even slower: HOW. Newspaper companies pay taxes, that doesn't infringe on freedom of press. So how is a church paying taxes an infringement of free exercise? And cite examples if you can actually come up with any.

Seriously, stop being a retard.

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?

What happens when any other business can't pay its taxes? Again, this will not in any way stop a citizen from worshiping their god of choice.

Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.


Bullshiat. As an ex-Catholic the follow of sacraments requires no infrastructure. All the sacraments can take place in any location, even outside in the wide open, if the participants wish it too, on public or private property.
 
2012-04-24 12:58:55 PM
We should enact some of their social and economic justice beliefs too.

I'm sure the folks in this thread wouldn't be opposed to some taxation and wealth redistribution in the name of religious liberty.
 
2012-04-24 12:58:57 PM

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.

Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.

What priest? You've eliminated the church infrastructure, which includes the priests.


Bullshiat. Taxing a church on its profits will not in ANY way eliminate the church's infrastructure. If a church can't survive off of its tithes then it's a worthless business model and the free market will deal with it accordingly. Forcing it to pay taxes as any other business doesn't change that fact.
 
2012-04-24 12:59:53 PM

Bhasayate: This thread has many enlightening comments, balanced discussion of the issues, and I have learned so much from the many posts. Cheers all around. Another great farking learning experience.


Why would you come here to learn? See my helmet advice above.
 
2012-04-24 01:00:03 PM

turbidum: ginandbacon: The bishops only prosper and succeed because the laity support them. You want people to not confuse the two? Maybe the laity should do the talking with their feet like many did after the revelations of how widespread and legitimate the allegations of kidfarking by priests were.

Look, I'm not Catholic. I am in fact an atheist. But I've worked a lot in politics and the one thing I know is that you really can't take whatever statement the USCCB releases as any indication of how Catholics will vote. They don't obey the way that hardcore white evangelicals do. They will vote for candidates who are so far to the left they make Italian Communist Party leaders look like members of the John Birch Society. The Bishops have power because Rome grants it to the most conservative (male) leaders. One of the things the Church has always struggled with is the complete disconnect between leadership and adherents on social issues. If the GOP wants to get in bed with the Bishops, I say go for it! It will only benefit progressives in the end, just like most of their disastrous decisions in the last few months.

Okay, but what redress does the laity have when their bishops (i.e. their leaders) purport to speak for them? You've already said that the laity finds it "tacky" to speak out against their bishops.

If we are not supposed to take their silence on the issue as complicity, how exactly are we supposed to take it?


They vote their conscience. Isn't that the ultimate redress?

Sorry. That was rather flip. There is a long history of the laity pushing back on the Church's official doctrine and even clergy have gone against the Bishops (allowing nuns to officiate at christenings and so on.) Disobedience is almost an undeclared virtue for Catholics at all levels. Certainly, few of them have any problem ignoring rants from the pulpit once they get into the voting booth. The GOP is making a very big mistake here.
 
2012-04-24 01:00:35 PM

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.

Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.

What priest? You've eliminated the church infrastructure, which includes the priests.

Bullshiat. Taxing a church on its profits will not in ANY way eliminate the church's infrastructure. If a church can't survive off of its tithes then it's a worthless business model and the free market will deal with it accordingly. Forcing it to pay taxes as any other business doesn't change that fact.


What profits exactly? Which part of non-profit organization is confusing to you?
 
2012-04-24 01:01:15 PM

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.

Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.

What priest? You've eliminated the church infrastructure, which includes the priests.

Bullshiat. Taxing a church on its profits will not in ANY way eliminate the church's infrastructure. If a church can't survive off of its tithes then it's a worthless business model and the free market will deal with it accordingly. Forcing it to pay taxes as any other business doesn't change that fact.


Wait...a church is really a franchised business?

www.xenu.net

"MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972, MS OEC 384
 
2012-04-24 01:01:20 PM

Lord_Baull: PRAYING IN YOUR ROOM IS STILL THE ABILITY TO WORSHIP THE GOD OF YOUR CHOICE, IDIOT!
In fact, Jesus said quite clearly that's how it should be done anyways.


No it isn't. I know a lot of people like to argue it is, but that wasn't the point of that admonition if you read the entirety of the passage, not just cherry picked that quote up, and I don't think for a second you actually have read that. You probably cribbed it from the countless times it has been parroted and tucked it away, but the whole point of that famous sermon had to do with how God knows true piety from false showings of piety done by people wanting to make a big show to others. He was not saying, "Thou shalt never pray in public." It's a pretty shallow interpretation of that passage. If you continue reading, Jesus goes on to lead the crowd in what is known by some as "The Lord's Prayer." ("Our father...") You're wrong, and it's a completely ignorant notion.
 
2012-04-24 01:01:34 PM
F*ck the Catholics.
 
2012-04-24 01:01:38 PM

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.

Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.

What priest? You've eliminated the church infrastructure, which includes the priests.


Nonsense. Priests do not have to be supported by a church structure, and could easily perform their services as a priest on a part-time basis supporting themselves with real employment. Many Catholic church deacons do exactly that.
 
2012-04-24 01:02:04 PM

downpaymentblues: I alone am best: If your asking how forcing them to practice their religion in a different manner would be "free exercise" i don't know what to tell you.

Who is forcing anyone to practice their religion in a different manner? This mandate involves only businesses. It has nothing to do with churches.

Would you support a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness to not allow employees of other faiths that they have hired to blood transfusions because that somehow blocks the owner's right "to practice their religion"?


No, that is a company not a church. A church is not a company nor does in operate in a for profit manner. If you work for the church though, I don't think that church should be forced to pay for something that is against their religion. I don't think the church should be able to fire someone for getting a blood transfusion.
 
2012-04-24 01:03:40 PM

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.

Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.

What priest? You've eliminated the church infrastructure, which includes the priests.

Bullshiat. Taxing a church on its profits will not in ANY way eliminate the church's infrastructure. If a church can't survive off of its tithes then it's a worthless business model and the free market will deal with it accordingly. Forcing it to pay taxes as any other business doesn't change that fact.

What profits exactly? Which part of non-profit organization is confusing to you?


What helping the poor might look like:

upload.wikimedia.org

No profit at all...
 
2012-04-24 01:04:21 PM

Blathering Idjut: This discussion is silly, even for Fark. A given church's tax-exempt status is statuatory, not constitutional. If a church fails to follow the rules governing 501(c)3s then it should lose it's certification. The only thing keeping this from happening is a yellow streak in the administration ordering the IRS to do it's job and revoke said certification.

There is absolutely nothing in the 1st Amendment barring the state from taxing churches. As pointed out up-thread to do so actually singles out churches for special treatment by the state expressly contrast to that amendment.


www.evilinternet.com

Even god has to play by the rules if he wants to play the game.
 
2012-04-24 01:04:51 PM
I'm glad to see so many liberals want unions to be taxed and the separation of church and state to be abolished.
 
2012-04-24 01:05:37 PM
If Catholic voters agreed with the church position on contraception, Obama might be in trouble. But they don't. http://mediamatters.org/research/201202080008

/Possible public opinion's moved that much in 2 1/2 months - this is a fairly old poll - but somehow I doubt it.
 
2012-04-24 01:05:53 PM
My mom has stopped going to church after 50+ years. She said she was tired of all the talk about abortion and birth control and protecting children from a hierarchy that did nothing to protect thousands of young boys. Not to mention she also felt the church had boiled down it's social role to that one issue forsaking anti-war and anti-poverty. I told her welcome to the church of the lapse our pews are way more full than the ones you are used to.
 
2012-04-24 01:05:55 PM

EWreckedSean: What profits exactly? Which part of non-profit organization is confusing to you?


The part where "non-profit" is a lie.
 
2012-04-24 01:06:12 PM

I alone am best: downpaymentblues: I alone am best: If your asking how forcing them to practice their religion in a different manner would be "free exercise" i don't know what to tell you.

Who is forcing anyone to practice their religion in a different manner? This mandate involves only businesses. It has nothing to do with churches.

Would you support a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness to not allow employees of other faiths that they have hired to blood transfusions because that somehow blocks the owner's right "to practice their religion"?

No, that is a company not a church. A church is not a company nor does in operate in a for profit manner. If you work for the church though, I don't think that church should be forced to pay for something that is against their religion. I don't think the church should be able to fire someone for getting a blood transfusion.


What more non-profit work might look like:

www.ldschurchtemples.com
 
2012-04-24 01:06:37 PM

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: What profits exactly? Which part of non-profit organization is confusing to you?

The part where "non-profit" is a lie.


Citation needed.
 
2012-04-24 01:06:57 PM

ginandbacon: They vote their conscience. Isn't that the ultimate redress?

Sorry. That was rather flip. There is a long history of the laity pushing back on the Church's official doctrine and even clergy have gone against the Bishops (allowing nuns to officiate at christenings and so on.) Disobedience is almost an undeclared virtue for Catholics at all levels. Certainly, few of them have any problem ignoring rants from the pulpit once they get into the voting booth. The GOP is making a very big mistake here.


Oh, I have no doubt the laity are not the proverbial sheeple. And if I had to choose between dealing with Catholics and fundies, I'd choose Catholics every time.

I'm just saying that it is not unfair to burden the laity with the viewpoints of their leaders if the laity is unwilling to take a stand while continuing to support the Church.

For example, when that Susan G. Komen stuff happened recently, no one blamed the innumerable people who have supported the Komen foundation because they spoke out loudly and swiftly. If they had remained silent (while continuing to support Komen), they would have shared some culpability in the decisions effected by the Komen leadership.
 
2012-04-24 01:09:22 PM

tartie_pants: My mom has stopped going to church after 50+ years. She said she was tired of all the talk about abortion and birth control and protecting children from a hierarchy that did nothing to protect thousands of young boys. Not to mention she also felt the church had boiled down it's social role to that one issue forsaking anti-war and anti-poverty. I told her welcome to the church of the lapse our pews are way more full than the ones you are used to.


When I was growing up in Dayton, Ohio, there were at least three full-time Catholic churches all with schools. All three have now been consolidated into one church/school. The Catholic church is dying, at least in America.
 
2012-04-24 01:09:52 PM

I alone am best: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: What profits exactly? Which part of non-profit organization is confusing to you?

The part where "non-profit" is a lie.

Citation needed.


upload.wikimedia.org

www.jesus-is-savior.com
 
2012-04-24 01:10:16 PM

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: tnpir: And YOU try to understand this, which I'll say even slower: HOW. Newspaper companies pay taxes, that doesn't infringe on freedom of press. So how is a church paying taxes an infringement of free exercise? And cite examples if you can actually come up with any.

Seriously, stop being a retard.

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Yes actually, it does. What happens if a religion can't afford to pay it's taxes genius?

What happens when any other business can't pay its taxes? Again, this will not in any way stop a citizen from worshiping their god of choice.

Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.


PRAYING IN YOUR ROOM IS STILL THE ABILITY TO WORSHIP THE GOD OF YOUR CHOICE, IDIOT!
In fact, Jesus said quite clearly that's how it should be done anyways. You have read the Bible, haven't you? Do I need to list a citation?

Really, you can receive Baptism, Communion, the Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Marriage and Holy Orders all from your room?



And he sayeth, "LET THY GOALPOSTS BE MOVED." And they were moved.


And by the way, you've never read the bible.

Try me.
 
2012-04-24 01:10:55 PM
What's most retarded is that the actual institutions that were bothered by the initial contraception issue are satisfied with the compromise Obama offered months ago. The people actually involved in the situation are content. It's everyone else white-knighting for them that have their panties in a twist.
 
2012-04-24 01:11:00 PM

RyogaM: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.

Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.

What priest? You've eliminated the church infrastructure, which includes the priests.

Nonsense. Priests do not have to be supported by a church structure, and could easily perform their services as a priest on a part-time basis supporting themselves with real employment. Many Catholic church deacons do exactly that.


A deacon isn't a priest, and can't administer most, if any sacraments. (been a long time since I quit the Catholic church so I'm not sure exactly)
 
2012-04-24 01:11:08 PM

I alone am best: No, that is a company not a church. A church is not a company nor does in operate in a for profit manner. If you work for the church though, I don't think that church should be forced to pay for something that is against their religion


So we are in agreement. This mandate is for businesses only, not churches.
 
2012-04-24 01:11:12 PM

RyogaM: tartie_pants: My mom has stopped going to church after 50+ years. She said she was tired of all the talk about abortion and birth control and protecting children from a hierarchy that did nothing to protect thousands of young boys. Not to mention she also felt the church had boiled down it's social role to that one issue forsaking anti-war and anti-poverty. I told her welcome to the church of the lapse our pews are way more full than the ones you are used to.

When I was growing up in Dayton, Ohio, there were at least three full-time Catholic churches all with schools. All three have now been consolidated into one church/school. The Catholic church is dying, at least in America.


Maybe they shouldn't have used tax-free money to facilitate child rape and to prevent homosexuals from having equal rights.
 
2012-04-24 01:12:22 PM

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: PRAYING IN YOUR ROOM IS STILL THE ABILITY TO WORSHIP THE GOD OF YOUR CHOICE, IDIOT!
In fact, Jesus said quite clearly that's how it should be done anyways.

No it isn't. I know a lot of people like to argue it is, but that wasn't the point of that admonition if you read the entirety of the passage, not just cherry picked that quote up, and I don't think for a second you actually have read that. You probably cribbed it from the countless times it has been parroted and tucked it away, but the whole point of that famous sermon had to do with how God knows true piety from false showings of piety done by people wanting to make a big show to others. He was not saying, "Thou shalt never pray in public." It's a pretty shallow interpretation of that passage. If you continue reading, Jesus goes on to lead the crowd in what is known by some as "The Lord's Prayer." ("Our father...") You're wrong, and it's a completely ignorant notion.



What?
 
2012-04-24 01:13:09 PM

gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: Actually it will. Catholicism especially involves the following of sacraments, which require church infrastructure outside of praying alone in your room.

Then the priest can get off of his fat, lazy, kiddie-diddling ass and go to your house to help you with your symbolic cannibalism.

What priest? You've eliminated the church infrastructure, which includes the priests.

Bullshiat. Taxing a church on its profits will not in ANY way eliminate the church's infrastructure. If a church can't survive off of its tithes then it's a worthless business model and the free market will deal with it accordingly. Forcing it to pay taxes as any other business doesn't change that fact.

What profits exactly? Which part of non-profit organization is confusing to you?

What helping the poor might look like:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x359]

No profit at all...


It is an impressive church, but in the end, it is still a church.
 
Displayed 50 of 394 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report