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  
•       •       •

1264 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2012 at 11:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-04-24 10:34:16 AM
Go ahead US Council of Catholic Bishops.

Go and protest women having access to health care. Do it.
 
2012-04-24 10:36:34 AM

Aarontology: Go ahead US Council of Catholic Bishops.

Go and protest women having access to health care. Do it.


Bring it. Seriously.
 
2012-04-24 10:38:52 AM

Aarontology: Go and protest women having access to health care. Do it.


And especially make sure you admonish the 98% of Catholic women that will use birth control in their lifetimes. That'll be sure to help.
 
2012-04-24 10:45:01 AM
In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.


And speaking of encroachment.
 
2012-04-24 10:47:14 AM

Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.


You're not suggesting that religious bodies that actively engage in politicking should, I don't know, have to pay taxes, are you?
 
2012-04-24 10:49:37 AM
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.
 
2012-04-24 10:51:50 AM

ginandbacon: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

You're not suggesting that religious bodies that actively engage in politicking should, I don't know, have to pay taxes, are you?


I'm suggesting they politely shut the fark up. And take a moment to appreciate how the separation clause is there to protect them and their interests as much as it is to insulate our governance from theocrats.

If that fails, then taxes.
 
2012-04-24 10:52:59 AM
I'm Catholic. I will very likely vote for Obama unless it turns out that he's a Reptloid.

And even then, might end up as a coin flip.
 
2012-04-24 10:53:10 AM

Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.


When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?
 
2012-04-24 10:54:51 AM

Diogenes: ginandbacon: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

You're not suggesting that religious bodies that actively engage in politicking should, I don't know, have to pay taxes, are you?

I'm suggesting they politely shut the fark up. And take a moment to appreciate how the separation clause is there to protect them and their interests as much as it is to insulate our governance from theocrats.

If that fails, then taxes.


Pretty sure I could live with either outcome.
 
2012-04-24 10:57:33 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?


After the election, if ever. There is zero chance that Obama would make a single move against religions using the church as a political tool. Not before the election for certain, because you can just see the media running with the "Obama comes out against churches" angle and obfuscate the details of the situation. If he wants to lose the election, that is what he should do. Otherwise, maybe wait until the election is over, and assuming he wins bring out all the evidence saying "Such and such church used its influence for political purposes, they will be taxed henceforth."
 
2012-04-24 11:00:20 AM

Shostie: I'm Catholic. I will very likely vote for Obama unless it turns out that he's a Reptloid.

And even then, might end up as a coin flip.


It would make for a much more interesting election.

"TUESDAY, TUESDAY, TUESDAY! Come see RomneyBot 3000 battle Reptobama in a smack down royale for the soul of the country! He's got circuits and a capacity to dispatch his challengers with cold, emotionless precision. He's got an impenetrable armor of scales capable of deflecting the most ridiculous and withering assault, and a forked tongue that will charm you as it indoctrinates you with his liberal ideals."
 
2012-04-24 11:04:14 AM

Elandriel: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

After the election, if ever. There is zero chance that Obama would make a single move against religions using the church as a political tool. Not before the election for certain, because you can just see the media running with the "Obama comes out against churches" angle and obfuscate the details of the situation. If he wants to lose the election, that is what he should do. Otherwise, maybe wait until the election is over, and assuming he wins bring out all the evidence saying "Such and such church used its influence for political purposes, they will be taxed henceforth."


Yeah... rhetorical question
It pisses me off that churches can get away with being overtly political and still flaunt their tax-free status. If they want to be political, then pay the same ticket price the rest of us do.
 
2012-04-24 11:06:55 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: It pisses me off that churches can get away with being overtly political and still flaunt their tax-free status. If they want to be political, then pay the same ticket price the rest of us do.


Or at the very least, incorporate a political/influence peddling arm and be taxed on that.

I'm sure these medical institutions they run have to pay the government in some form or fashion.
 
2012-04-24 11:13:21 AM
And yet I keep hearing that Catholics here are progressive and don't listen to Rome.

You're as bad as the Fundies.
 
2012-04-24 11:23:09 AM

GAT_00: And yet I keep hearing that Catholics here are progressive and don't listen to Rome.

You're as bad as the Fundies.


Don't confuse the Bishops with the laity.
 
2012-04-24 11:23:51 AM

Shostie: I'm Catholic. I will very likely vote for Obama unless it turns out that he's a Reptloid.

And even then, might end up as a coin flip.


static.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-24 11:27:20 AM
Came in for Pew Pew, leaving disappointed.
 
2012-04-24 11:31:13 AM

ginandbacon: Bring it. Seriously.


There's no way this could backfire.

unyon: And especially make sure you admonish the 98% of Catholic women that will use birth control in their lifetimes. That'll be sure to help.


Oh, definitely. No way that'll lead to fewer people in the pews.
 
2012-04-24 11:32:26 AM
And he'd lose Catholics...why?

Because of the contraception issue? That nearly all of the Catholics (that aren't the ones running the church) are on Obama's side of the issue? That issue?

Give me a break.
 
2012-04-24 11:32:36 AM
Did you know that disco record sales are up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue...
 
2012-04-24 11:37:00 AM
 
2012-04-24 11:38:39 AM

Aarontology: ginandbacon: Bring it. Seriously.

There's no way this could backfire.


Oh no. It's a sure thing. They should DEFINITELY run with this.
 
2012-04-24 11:39:45 AM
Ignoring for a moment how much of a losing proposition it is to rail against access to contraception, Obama has what you would call a firewall with Catholics in the form of the Hispanic vote. The people getting asspained by this contraception deal are primarily evangelical protestants, not Catholics, and they weren't voting for Obama to begin with.
 
2012-04-24 11:41:19 AM

Fark It: Ignoring for a moment how much of a losing proposition it is to rail against access to contraception, Obama has what you would call a firewall with Catholics in the form of the Hispanic vote. The people getting asspained by this contraception deal are primarily evangelical protestants, not Catholics, and they weren't voting for Obama to begin with.


Good point.
 
2012-04-24 11:43:06 AM

ginandbacon: GAT_00: And yet I keep hearing that Catholics here are progressive and don't listen to Rome.

You're as bad as the Fundies.

Don't confuse the Bishops with the laity.


What's the big difference?
 
2012-04-24 11:46:36 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link


Well that was interesting.

"51% of the public say that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party."

"Since 2010, there have been sizable increases in the percentages of white mainline Protestants, white Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated saying that there has been too much discussion of religion by political leaders."

And most significantly: "A majority of Americans (54%) say that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters, while 40% say they should express their views on social and political questions. After a decade in which the balance of opinion tilted in the opposite direction, this is the third consecutive survey in the past four years in which more people say churches should keep out of politics than say churches should express their views on social and political issues."

Keep farking that clucker.
 
2012-04-24 11:49:23 AM

ginandbacon: GAT_00: And yet I keep hearing that Catholics here are progressive and don't listen to Rome.

You're as bad as the Fundies.

Don't confuse the Bishops with the laity.


Whyever not?
 
2012-04-24 11:51:00 AM
There once was a Lady from Drew
who said,
as the Bishop withdrew,

The Vicar is quicker and slicker and thicker
and 4 inches longer than you!
 
2012-04-24 11:51:06 AM
here's my prediction from yesterday in the thread about Obama gaining in swing states:

The polls and speculation from the media who seems desperate for a close race and will try to do anything they can to get one is not reliable. The media was telling us 2008 was going to be close too all the way up to the end when Obama crushed McCain by 10 million votes. Later today we will have an article about how Obama is in trouble, the constant back and forth is what keeps people tuned in.

I was wrong, it took a whole day...
 
2012-04-24 11:51:31 AM
Eh, I'll just leave Catholicism. Oh wait, I already have.
 
2012-04-24 11:51:51 AM

Fark It: Ignoring for a moment how much of a losing proposition it is to rail against access to contraception, Obama has what you would call a firewall with Catholics in the form of the Hispanic vote. The people getting asspained by this contraception deal are primarily evangelical protestants, not Catholics, and they weren't voting for Obama to begin with.


This
 
2012-04-24 11:52:04 AM
Wasn't so long ago that the GOP was questioning a Catholic's loyalty to the nation.
 
2012-04-24 11:52:52 AM

Diogenes: ginandbacon: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

You're not suggesting that religious bodies that actively engage in politicking should, I don't know, have to pay taxes, are you?

I'm suggesting they politely shut the fark up. And take a moment to appreciate how the separation clause is there to protect them and their interests as much as it is to insulate our governance from theocrats.

If that fails, then taxes.


Why would they have to pay taxes? The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it. Oh wait, they are not bound by constitutional limitations where the government is.
 
2012-04-24 11:54:07 AM
After covering up child rape for decades, these farks expect us to take political cues from them?

Fark you, ya farkin' mackerel snapping bead mumblers.
 
2012-04-24 11:54:15 AM
He's not going to lose Colorado. I know we have some anti-tax crusaders and the religious nutters around the Springs, but they are not a majority in this state (not that we're majority libby-lib either, mind you). Most people here are sick of the social conservatives - we're a practical people who don't have a lot of patience for this much shenanigans and nosing into everyone's personal business. Witness the slaughter at the polls the last few times they've introduced Personhood as a ballot initiative, for example.
 
2012-04-24 11:54:19 AM

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.


The only problem is that this will never happen.

First, neither the GOP nor the Democrats wants to that Pandora's Box open; both sides have too many friendly tax-exempt organizations who might be adversely affected by it.

Second, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to avoid the appearance of political persecution, especially since these things always pop up during election years; coupled with #1, it wouldn't be long before it actually becomes political persecution.
 
2012-04-24 11:55:05 AM
Catholics make up less than 20% Coloradoans and many of those Catholics are brown. I don't think they will swing Repub in enough extra numbers to flip Colorado red this year. Colorado could go red this year, but it won't be because of the Catholic vote.
 
2012-04-24 11:55:23 AM

GAT_00: ginandbacon: GAT_00: And yet I keep hearing that Catholics here are progressive and don't listen to Rome.

You're as bad as the Fundies.

Don't confuse the Bishops with the laity.

What's the big difference?


The laity is very liberal/progressive on social issues and the Bishops are decidedly not. Both of them have a basic commitment to not ramping up defense spending and increasing spending on things like education and health care, but the laity tends to be way ahead of the Bishops on issues like women's reproductive health, rights for the LBGT community, and the rights of women within the Church.

Individual Catholic voters are not represented by the USCCB in terms of their political views. But most Catholics will not speak out in public against the Bishops. It's sort of considered tacky. That doesn't mean their vote comes from the pulpit on Sunday. Catholics are one of the least obedient congregations.
 
2012-04-24 11:55:43 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Wasn't so long ago that the GOP was questioning a Catholic's loyalty to the nation.


Hell, the Evangelicals didn't even consider Catholics to be Christian until they thought they could turn them against Obama.
 
2012-04-24 11:55:54 AM

I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes?


Because they own land and have income. What makes them so farking special?
 
2012-04-24 11:55:55 AM

I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes?


Why should any organization get a special exemption?
 
2012-04-24 11:56:01 AM
Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.
 
2012-04-24 11:57:03 AM

GameSprocket: HotWingConspiracy: Wasn't so long ago that the GOP was questioning a Catholic's loyalty to the nation.

Hell, the Evangelicals didn't even consider Catholics to be Christian until they thought they could turn them against Obama.


Mormons too. Hatred of black people is an amazing unifier.
 
2012-04-24 11:58:36 AM

RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.


Yes, keep going with this. It's a winner. The GOP should totally keep pushing anti-women's health and reproductive rights legislation all across the country while touting their ZERO accomplishments and almost complete avoidance of dealing with the country's economy over the last few years.
 
2012-04-24 11:58:41 AM

RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.


Yeah, women are concerned about health care, not issues directly related to health care for them and their families!
 
2012-04-24 11:59:29 AM
When you stop raping children, I will start to think about giving a damn about your opinion.
 
2012-04-24 11:59:48 AM
To: Steve Schulin; Gelato; BlackElk

Mitt Romney's role, should he be elected, is to consolidate the socialist gains of Barack Obama, and to secure the gains of the sodomite lobby as well. Including in our military.

4 posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:27:59 AM by EternalVigilance ('A man with God is always in the majority.' -- John Knox)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
 
2012-04-24 11:59:55 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?


As soon as the free amendment is over turned.
 
2012-04-24 12:00:48 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.


That would be true if they engage in campaigning for a candidate.

Objecting to the current administrations abuses does not qualify.


Please keep trying, though. It really helps to frame the debate clearly in terms of antireligious groups.
 
2012-04-24 12:01:02 PM

RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.


And if the Republicans stand for anything, its for a better economy* and greater access to healthcare**.

*Tax cuts for the wealthy
**Less regulations for wealthy businesses
 
2012-04-24 12:01:07 PM
What is the number of votes Romney is losing to Catholics?
 
2012-04-24 12:02:58 PM

ginandbacon: GAT_00: And yet I keep hearing that Catholics here are progressive and don't listen to Rome.

You're as bad as the Fundies.

Don't confuse the Bishops with the laity.


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.
 
2012-04-24 12:03:46 PM

Jake Havechek: Fark you, ya farkin' mackerel snapping bead mumblers.


LOL. That's hilarious.

/Catholic. Voting Obama...unless it turns out he's a Reptloid. Then it's a coin flip.
 
2012-04-24 12:03:51 PM

Urbn: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.

Yes, keep going with this. It's a winner. The GOP should totally keep pushing anti-women's health and reproductive rights legislation all across the country while touting their ZERO accomplishments and almost complete avoidance of dealing with the country's economy over the last few years.


I dont think "free birth control for all" is gonna win it for Barry O this round. Too much circus and not enough bread.
 
2012-04-24 12:04:07 PM

RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.


i13.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-24 12:04:36 PM

EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.


Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?
 
2012-04-24 12:05:06 PM
You know what is losing Catholics faster than Obama?

The Catholic Church.
 
2012-04-24 12:05:10 PM

GAT_00: And yet I keep hearing that Catholics here are progressive and don't listen to Rome.

You're as bad as the Fundies.


Hey, a bigot!
 
2012-04-24 12:05:48 PM
They didn't care when Republicans did it,

But now, suddenly, it is an issue for them when a Democrat is president. I'm not sure how this can be labeled as anything BUT politics from the pulpit. It really does deserve scrutiny over their tax exempt status.
 
2012-04-24 12:06:04 PM

Animatronik: Urbn: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.

Yes, keep going with this. It's a winner. The GOP should totally keep pushing anti-women's health and reproductive rights legislation all across the country while touting their ZERO accomplishments and almost complete avoidance of dealing with the country's economy over the last few years.

I dont think "free birth control for all" is gonna win it for Barry O this round. Too much circus and not enough bread.


Good thing that isn't what anyone is running on. Paying for health insurance =/= getting stuff for free
 
2012-04-24 12:06:09 PM
I truly feel sorry for liberal Catholics having to tolerate the politicization of their beliefs by their leadership. It's also a great lesson in why Protestantism was born...
 
2012-04-24 12:06:13 PM
If religious organizations want to ensure that their employees don't have access to evil birth control, they should simply stop giving out paychecks. I have done some research and this seems like the best way to handle the religious organization's "no baby problem". However, no research was done to discover any negative effects, so don't blame me if something bad happens.
 
2012-04-24 12:06:22 PM

EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.


wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.
 
2012-04-24 12:06:44 PM
Democrats want voters this year to focus on what they have branded a war on women, but the flip side of the debate - the so-called war on religion - is not going away anytime soon.

That's a nice way of admitting that religion is often anti-woman.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

"It's not just Catholics that are against the contraception mandate. I think you'll see a lot more people troubled by this. If this goes through, there's no stopping what's next," he said. "It's all about all the religious freedom issues, from putting God into the Pledge of Allegiance to putting 'In God we trust' on money."


Isn't forcing God into secular activity the OPPOSITE of religious freedom?
 
2012-04-24 12:06:57 PM
Why do people still take these kid-farkers seriously?
 
2012-04-24 12:07:35 PM

Lsherm: GAT_00: And yet I keep hearing that Catholics here are progressive and don't listen to Rome.

You're as bad as the Fundies.

Hey, a bigot!


"Darn these people who are intolerant of our intolerance!!!"
 
2012-04-24 12:08:01 PM

I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes? The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it. Oh wait, they are not bound by constitutional limitations where the government is.


Where in the Constitution does it say churches are guaranteed tax exempt status no matter what they do?
 
2012-04-24 12:08:04 PM

Animatronik: Urbn: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.

Yes, keep going with this. It's a winner. The GOP should totally keep pushing anti-women's health and reproductive rights legislation all across the country while touting their ZERO accomplishments and almost complete avoidance of dealing with the country's economy over the last few years.

I dont think "free birth control for all" is gonna win it for Barry O this round. Too much circus and not enough bread.



So, do you realize "free birth control" is basically the same as "less welfare recipients" and "less emergency room costs passed on to the taxpayer" or are you purposefully obtuse?
 
2012-04-24 12:08:58 PM

Car_Ramrod: "It's all about all the religious freedom issues, from putting God into the Pledge of Allegiance to putting 'In God we trust' on money."

Isn't forcing God into secular activity the OPPOSITE of religious freedom?


No no no. You don't get it. It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion!tm

/sarcasm
//bitter, bitter sarcasm
 
2012-04-24 12:09:05 PM
Some activists expect civil disobedience, which could lead to powerful images of priests and nuns being led away in hand restraints.

No need to get disobedient. You can just be standing there.

30.media.tumblr.com

Or sitting there.

www.astrochicks.com

I'm sure the Catholics will experience the same reponse.
 
2012-04-24 12:09:09 PM

Animatronik: Urbn: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.

Yes, keep going with this. It's a winner. The GOP should totally keep pushing anti-women's health and reproductive rights legislation all across the country while touting their ZERO accomplishments and almost complete avoidance of dealing with the country's economy over the last few years.

I dont think "free birth control for all" is gonna win it for Barry O this round. Too much circus and not enough bread.


I also notice you didn't touch on the lack of accomplishments for the GOP on the economy front so I'm glad to see we're in agreement there. ;)

Also, limiting access to birth control is far from the only GOP attack against women's healthcare/reproductive rights over the last 2 years.
 
2012-04-24 12:10:10 PM

Car_Ramrod: Democrats want voters this year to focus on what they have branded a war on women, but the flip side of the debate - the so-called war on religion - is not going away anytime soon.

That's a nice way of admitting that religion is often anti-woman.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

"It's not just Catholics that are against the contraception mandate. I think you'll see a lot more people troubled by this. If this goes through, there's no stopping what's next," he said. "It's all about all the religious freedom issues, from putting God into the Pledge of Allegiance to putting 'In God we trust' on money."

Isn't forcing God into secular activity the OPPOSITE of religious freedom?


Free to promote their brand of Jesus-osity. America is a Christian nation, right?

// just don't ask what brand of Jesus we stock the larder with
 
2012-04-24 12:10:24 PM

Lord_Baull: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.


If you were really concerned about contraception as a health care issue you'd be pushing for free condoms, because that's the only part of this discussion that relates to health.

You're not really interested un health care in this issue and neither is Sebelius. Its just politics in the Democratic Party in an election year.
 
2012-04-24 12:10:34 PM

qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?


The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.
 
2012-04-24 12:10:53 PM

Urbn: He's not going to lose Colorado. I know we have some anti-tax crusaders and the religious nutters around the Springs, but they are not a majority in this state (not that we're majority libby-lib either, mind you). Most people here are sick of the social conservatives - we're a practical people who don't have a lot of patience for this much shenanigans and nosing into everyone's personal business. Witness the slaughter at the polls the last few times they've introduced Personhood as a ballot initiative, for example.


You're right. As a native Coloradan, I would be perfectly happy if Colorado Springs and Grand Junction would just secede and form their own little Jesusland enclaves.
 
2012-04-24 12:12:18 PM
Anyone against the use of contraception for 'moral' reasons, needs to get new morals.
 
2012-04-24 12:12:48 PM

Animatronik: Lord_Baull: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.

If you were really concerned about contraception as a health care issue you'd be pushing for free condoms, because that's the only part of this discussion that relates to health.

You're not really interested un health care in this issue and neither is Sebelius. Its just politics in the Democratic Party in an election year.


You're right, the Democratic Party was completely unprepared to fight a battle they won in the 1960s.
 
2012-04-24 12:12:49 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?

The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.


Please quote the part of said amendment you refer to that says what you think it says.
 
2012-04-24 12:13:05 PM
This is one of the reasons Biden is VP. He connects well to blue collar rank and file Catholics, believe it or not.
 
2012-04-24 12:13:09 PM

downpaymentblues: I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes? The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it. Oh wait, they are not bound by constitutional limitations where the government is.

Where in the Constitution does it say churches are guaranteed tax exempt status no matter what they do?


In the first amendment. Jeffersons letter to the Danbury baptists and the intent of the amendment to be "separation of church and state."
 
2012-04-24 12:13:29 PM

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.


1st amendment, and yes. As soon as you start taxing churches, you've violated the free exercise clause.
 
2012-04-24 12:13:39 PM
The poll in question:
http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/more-see-too-much-reli g ious-talk-by-politicians.aspx?src=prc-headline

I assume there was no link in TFA since the actual results of the poll contradict the story.

Oh Noes, only 42% of catholics think the administration is 'friendly' towards religion, compared to 25% who thinks it is "unfriendly." That means President Obama has a mere mere 17% margin. How will Obama survive?

/Also, that poll found that 54% of americans thoyught that "Churches should keep out of political matters".
 
2012-04-24 12:14:05 PM

Animatronik: Lord_Baull: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.

If you were really concerned about contraception as a health care issue you'd be pushing for free condoms, because that's the only part of this discussion that relates to health.


LOL, this guy is running with "contraception has nothing to do with health!" line. Good times, good times.

BTW, why would anyone need to fight for free condoms? You can already get free condoms everywhere.
 
2012-04-24 12:14:09 PM

Jake Havechek: To: Steve Schulin; Gelato; BlackElk

Mitt Romney's role, should he be elected, is to consolidate the socialist gains of Barack Obama, and to secure the gains of the sodomite lobby as well. Including in our military.

4 posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:27:59 AM by EternalVigilance ('A man with God is always in the majority.' -- John Knox)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


These people have some serious mental problems don't they? Do they seriously expect Romney to do what he says after being elected given his floundering on every.single.issue. It's almost like they don't understand that politicians say anything to get elected then go and do whatever the fark they want after. The republican(yes both sides are the bad) mind is like a perpetual motion device driven by buyers remorse.
 
2012-04-24 12:14:20 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I alone am best: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?

The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.

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;"
 
2012-04-24 12:14:48 PM

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.

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


[iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg]
 
2012-04-24 12:15:13 PM

Urbn: Animatronik: Urbn: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.

Yes, keep going with this. It's a winner. The GOP should totally keep pushing anti-women's health and reproductive rights legislation all across the country while touting their ZERO accomplishments and almost complete avoidance of dealing with the country's economy over the last few years.

I dont think "free birth control for all" is gonna win it for Barry O this round. Too much circus and not enough bread.

I also notice you didn't touch on the lack of accomplishments for the GOP on the economy front so I'm glad to see we're in agreement there. ;)

Also, limiting access to birth control is far from the only GOP attack against women's healthcare/reproductive rights over the last 2 years.


This isnt about access and you know it.

Its about King Obamas Edict That All Shall Pay for Womens Hormonal Birth Control and Next Day Abortions.

So it is written and so it shall be done.


/ I doubt we agree on anything; not evn th imprtance of vwels.
 
2012-04-24 12:15:53 PM
Weird...I would have thought they would vote for the Christian candidate.
 
2012-04-24 12:15:57 PM

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?
 
2012-04-24 12:16:01 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I alone am best: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?

The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.

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; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.
 
2012-04-24 12:16:03 PM

Car_Ramrod: Democrats want voters this year to focus on what they have branded a war on women, but the flip side of the debate - the so-called war on religion - is not going away anytime soon.

That's a nice way of admitting that religion is often anti-woman.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

"It's not just Catholics that are against the contraception mandate. I think you'll see a lot more people troubled by this. If this goes through, there's no stopping what's next," he said. "It's all about all the religious freedom issues, from putting God into the Pledge of Allegiance to putting 'In God we trust' on money."

Isn't forcing God into secular activity the OPPOSITE of religious freedom?



You're still perfectly able to worship the Jesus of your choice.
 
2012-04-24 12:16:55 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Animatronik: Lord_Baull: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.

If you were really concerned about contraception as a health care issue you'd be pushing for free condoms, because that's the only part of this discussion that relates to health.

LOL, this guy is running with "contraception has nothing to do with health!" line. Good times, good times.

BTW, why would anyone need to fight for free condoms? You can already get free condoms everywhere.


Seriously. Plus, you don't need a doctor's visit and a prescription to get a condom.
 
2012-04-24 12:18:16 PM

Animatronik: Urbn: Animatronik: Urbn: RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.

Yes, keep going with this. It's a winner. The GOP should totally keep pushing anti-women's health and reproductive rights legislation all across the country while touting their ZERO accomplishments and almost complete avoidance of dealing with the country's economy over the last few years.

I dont think "free birth control for all" is gonna win it for Barry O this round. Too much circus and not enough bread.

I also notice you didn't touch on the lack of accomplishments for the GOP on the economy front so I'm glad to see we're in agreement there. ;)

Also, limiting access to birth control is far from the only GOP attack against women's healthcare/reproductive rights over the last 2 years.

This isnt about access and you know it.

Its about King Obamas Edict That All Shall Pay for Womens Hormonal Birth Control and Next Day Abortions.

So it is written and so it shall be done.


/ I doubt we agree on anything; not evn th imprtance of vwels.


Keep going with this. It's good. It's sure to win the hearts and minds of swing voters, independents (the real ones, not the Fark ones), and even liberals this November!
 
2012-04-24 12:18:37 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Some activists expect civil disobedience, which could lead to powerful images of priests and nuns being led away in hand restraints.

No need to get disobedient. You can just be standing there.

[30.media.tumblr.com image 300x300]

Or sitting there.

[www.astrochicks.com image 379x337]

I'm sure the Catholics will experience the same reponse.


farm7.staticflickr.com

cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com

media.salon.com

But those girls and veterans had it coming.
 
2012-04-24 12:19:06 PM

Animatronik: If you were really concerned about contraception as a health care issue you'd be pushing for free condoms, because that's the only part of this discussion that relates to health.

You're not really interested un health care in this issue and neither is Sebelius. Its just politics in the Democratic Party in an election year.



a) thank you for telling me what I'm thinking, without Fox News, I'm lost.
b) The Democratic Party did not bring contraception to the political forefront. The GOP did.
c) Thinking women's contraception is not a health issues just shows me how ignorant you are on the topic. Next you'll be telling me evolution turns fish into monkeys.
 
2012-04-24 12:19:44 PM
TRUE Christians don't believe in that "health care for all" nonsense. Just like Jesus said, stop being a lazy welfare leech and get a job!
 
2012-04-24 12:22:15 PM

I alone am best: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I alone am best: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?

The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.

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; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.


Laws that carve out a special exemption for a religious organization actually run counter to the idea of the First Amendment, by respecting an establishment of religion.

How does removing tax-exempt status "prohibit the free exercise [of religion]"? Note the bolded word.
 
2012-04-24 12:22:45 PM

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.
 
2012-04-24 12:22:48 PM

turbidum: ginandbacon: GAT_00: And yet I keep hearing that Catholics here are progressive and don't listen to Rome.

You're as bad as the Fundies.

Don't confuse the Bishops with the laity.

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.
 
2012-04-24 12:23:05 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Some activists expect civil disobedience, which could lead to powerful images of priests and nuns being led away in hand restraints.


Yeah, that didn't happen when priests were raping little kids. Why would it happen now?
 
2012-04-24 12:24:11 PM

Animatronik: Its about King Obamas Edict That All Shall Pay for Womens Hormonal Birth Control and Next Day Abortions.


Given that the alternative is "All Shall Pay for Single Mothers and Their Children on Welfare for The Next Eighteen Years"...
 
2012-04-24 12:24:16 PM

turbidum: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.

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

[iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg]


Yep, I was thinking free exercise clause of the first amendment and typed free amendment. Oh well.
 
2012-04-24 12:25:05 PM
Florida--only 26% Catholic, won by Obama in 2008
Ohio--only 21% Catholic, won by Obama in 2008
Colorado--only 19% Catholic, won by Obama in 2008
Iowa--23% Catholic, won by Obama in 2008

Any other deeply burning concerns you would like to voice?
 
2012-04-24 12:25:11 PM

EWreckedSean: turbidum: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.

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

[iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg]

Yep, I was thinking free exercise clause of the first amendment and typed free amendment. Oh well.


How would removing tax-exempt status prevent you from practicing whatever religion you choose?
 
2012-04-24 12:25:34 PM

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.
 
2012-04-24 12:25:50 PM
Ok, I see the pew, but where's the poll?

www.lolsaints.com

pew poll
 
2012-04-24 12:26:12 PM

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?
 
2012-04-24 12:26:17 PM

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?


It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.
 
2012-04-24 12:27:46 PM

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?


Too bad?
 
2012-04-24 12:28:18 PM

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?


Fortunately, "a Christian church" does not equal "Christianity".

What happens to any church that breaks the law? Or are you suggesting that churches should be above all laws?
 
2012-04-24 12:28:25 PM

chaoswolf: 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?

It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.


I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.
 
2012-04-24 12:28:39 PM
I might add that Obama won New York with a 26.9 % margin. NY is over 40% Catholic.
 
2012-04-24 12:28:49 PM

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?


They can go meet in Ethel's basement.
 
2012-04-24 12:28:50 PM
ITT, I learn that not only does money equal speech, but money also equals religion.
 
2012-04-24 12:29:44 PM

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: 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?

It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.

I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.


What if the church breaks that separation first?
 
2012-04-24 12:29:48 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I alone am best: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?

The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.

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; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.

Laws that carve out a special exemption for a religious organization actually run counter to the idea of the First Amendment, by respecting an establishment of religion.

How does removing tax-exempt status "prohibit the free exercise [of religion]"? Note the bolded word.


Because the power to tax is also the power to destroy.
 
2012-04-24 12:30:36 PM
Don't worry Catholics, your leaders can go on sexually abusing little boys and/or covering up that abuse, he's not going to encroach THAT much into your "religious freedom"...

Can you guys imagine how easy it wold be to get actual TRUTH into the discussion if we could just take out all of the Fox News assets? 99% of the lies that have any legs either start with them, get bumped higher into the discussion by them, or are 'discovered' by them...
 
2012-04-24 12:31:08 PM
If the Catholic Church's hierarchy wants to be the party responsible for the demise of health insurance for the poor and the young, a foreign policy that shoots first and asks questions later, more children going to bed hungry and the legalized plunder of our retirement savings and women dying of sepsis in emergency wards from botched abortions, then let them swing the elections to the GOP.

The cry of the poor, the widow and the orphan against the Catholic Church hierarchy shall ascend to God, who will deal with it at His pleasure.
 
2012-04-24 12:31:15 PM

EWreckedSean: I'll say it slowly.


If you are saying things slowly in a text based internet forum, it's probably because of a combination of stroke symptoms and a fundamental misconception regarding technology. Helmets save lives.
 
2012-04-24 12:31:19 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.



Try and understand this. Taxing a CHURCH (note, not a religion) that engages in non-religious activities - like, I don't know, let's say politics - does not keep you from believing in that religion. You're still FREE TO EXERCISE YOUR RELIGION.
 
2012-04-24 12:31:36 PM

GAT_00: What's the big difference?


The hats.
 
2012-04-24 12:32:32 PM

Car_Ramrod: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: 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?

It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.

I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.

What if the church breaks that separation first?


The church isn't the government and not bound by the constitution.
 
2012-04-24 12:33:02 PM

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
 
2012-04-24 12:33:06 PM

EWreckedSean: turbidum: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.

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

[iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg]

Yep, I was thinking free exercise clause of the first amendment and typed free amendment. Oh well.


No, I was more pointing out the fact that both your argument and the argument of I alone am best seem to have no basis in fact or the wording of the amendment, when in fact you both saw through all the bullshiat, straight through to the Founders' true intentions:

The free exercise of religion should be just that: free. You can't tax it, because it's free!
 
2012-04-24 12:33:07 PM
Manufactured outrage is manufactured.

At this point, Obama isn't losing votes. Anyone that feels Romney is a better candidate was voting Nobama anyway.
 
2012-04-24 12:33:25 PM

Shostie: I'm Catholic. I will very likely vote for Obama unless it turns out that he's a Reptloid.


You didn't see him on 'V'? Most definitely a Reptloid. According to Glenn Beck, that was a documentary, not a TV Drama...

/Reptloid still better than any of the Republicans, save Huntsman, that one would actually give me pause.
 
2012-04-24 12:34:00 PM

Animatronik: Objecting to the current administrations abuses does not qualify.


Please define an "abuse"...
 
2012-04-24 12:34:39 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I alone am best: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?

The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.

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; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.

Laws that carve out a special exemption for a religious organization actually run counter to the idea of the First Amendment, by respecting an establishment of religion.

How does removing tax-exempt status "prohibit the free exercise [of religion]"? Note the bolded word.

Because the power to tax is also the power to destroy.


If someone was proposing tax rates of 100% on churches and churches only, you might have a point.

Why should churches get a special exemption from this "power to destroy", and why does this special exemption not run counter to the idea of the First Amendment? Remember, we are talking about churches, as in physical buildings, not organized religion, as in "Christianity".
 
2012-04-24 12:35:56 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

mundabor.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-24 12:36:05 PM

I alone am best: downpaymentblues: I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes? The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it. Oh wait, they are not bound by constitutional limitations where the government is.

Where in the Constitution does it say churches are guaranteed tax exempt status no matter what they do?

In the first amendment. Jeffersons letter to the Danbury baptists and the intent of the amendment to be "separation of church and state."


You think the first amendment gives churches tax exempt status? You are just being funny, and I am missing the joke, right?
 
2012-04-24 12:36:12 PM
Oh, look, it's a thread about Catholics on FARK.

i2.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-24 12:36:12 PM

EWreckedSean: 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.


No you haven't, you've just started treating it fairly. If they don't want taxes, they should remain income neutral, paying for operating costs, and donating everything else.
 
2012-04-24 12:36:44 PM
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. All religious institutions should be taxed.

If anybody wants to convince me otherwise, you'll first have to convince these idiots (and the Baptist idiots, and the Mormon idiots...) to get out of politics completely. No more laws pulled straight from their personal interpretations of the Bible, no more campaign contributions or fundraisers, no more election-year "If you really love God, you'll vote GOP" pamphlets in the mail.
 
2012-04-24 12:37:38 PM

Animatronik: That would be true if they engage in campaigning for a candidate.

Objecting to the current administrations abuses does not qualify.


They never objected when Republicans did it for the last decade

Link

How is it "current administration abuses" when they didn't care prior to a Democrat being involved?
 
2012-04-24 12:37:52 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.


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.
 
2012-04-24 12:38:00 PM

downpaymentblues: I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes? The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it. Oh wait, they are not bound by constitutional limitations where the government is.

Where in the Constitution does it say churches are guaranteed tax exempt status no matter what they do?


This ! Do we tax lobbying groups? Are certain religious institutions lobbying the governor for preference and favor?
 
2012-04-24 12:38:00 PM
I would say that 99 percent of Catholics aren't really Catholic, maybe culturally, they went to Catholic school and their grandparents from Ireland and Italy were Catholic, but practicing Catholic?

Less than 1% of so called "Catholics"
 
2012-04-24 12:38:08 PM

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?
 
2012-04-24 12:38:58 PM

EWreckedSean: 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.


Bzzt. Wrong. No tax requirement is being placed on a religion. It would be placed on a church. A church is a pyramid scheme based business where consumers pay for a product that makes the church leaders wealthy. That wealth should be taxed. Taxing a church in no way infringes on someone's right to follow a religion.


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.


EWreckedSean: I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.


Yes, I can call you stupid for being stupid.
 
2012-04-24 12:39:35 PM

I alone am best: Car_Ramrod: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: 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?

It was an incredibly ignorant statement. He apparently holds the belief that taxation is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the first amendment. So why are any of us taxed?

I've seen more ignorant spew on fark before, but the belief that churches can't be taxed because of the first amendment is up there on the stupid list.

I so love that you call me stupid while ignoring 200+ years of case law on the separation of church and state.

What if the church breaks that separation first?

The church isn't the government and not bound by the constitution.


When does a church stop being a church and becomes a political entity?
 
2012-04-24 12:40:06 PM

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.
 
2012-04-24 12:40:53 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.


That "infrastructure" is called the catholic church

DERP
 
2012-04-24 12:40:55 PM
Obama has is going to lose Florida anyway.

He can thank Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers.
 
2012-04-24 12:42:26 PM

Mildot: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 528x505]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x397]

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 528x378]

[mundabor.files.wordpress.com image 600x339]


One would think stupidity wasn't so elastic.
 
2012-04-24 12:43:16 PM

qorkfiend:
If someone was proposing tax rates of 100% on churches and churches only, you might have a point.

Why should churches get a special exemption from this "power to destroy", and why does this special exemption not run counter to the idea of the First Amendment? Remember, we are talking about churches, as in physical buildings, not organized religion, as ...


That's how some people exercise their religion. 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. While were on it are you for labor unions tax exempt status being revoked?
 
2012-04-24 12:44:17 PM
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.
 
2012-04-24 12:44:24 PM
Guys, at least the teabaggers are now acknowledging the separation of church and state.

Sure, they think it means religious institutions are above any and all laws, but hey. They're pro separation of church and state!
 
2012-04-24 12:44:48 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Obama has is going to lose Florida anyway.

He can thank Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers.


True, that probably hurt his FL numbers.

Obama doing well in Florida

Barack Obama starts the general election with a 5 point advantage over Mitt Romney in Florida, 50-45. This is the biggest lead Obama's had in Florida over the course of five polls PPP's done in the state since the beginning of 2011.

Or not.
 
2012-04-24 12:45:28 PM

I alone am best: While were on it are you for labor unions tax exempt status being revoked?


Sure. I'd like to see ALL businesses taxed. Or quit taxing all of them and crank up a federal sales tax. I'm good either way. It's the fact that the businesses calling themselves churches get special treatment that pisses me off.
 
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.
 
2012-04-24 01:14:36 PM

Lord_Baull: 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.


Really, how is your Koine Greek?
 
2012-04-24 01:15:00 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.


The only thing keeping our Catholic schools going is that MA still doesn't require full day K and many of the school offer academic pre schools at a low cost. So you have 50 kids and 4 classes of 3 yo and then you get to 12 8th graders.
 
2012-04-24 01:15:31 PM

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?


The church goes under, but your right, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, to practice whatever religious belief you choose, remains unbroken.

/probably too many commas, oh well
 
2012-04-24 01:15:53 PM

I alone am best: I'm glad to see so many liberals want unions to be taxed and the separation of church and state to be abolished.


Arguing against preferential treatment for religious organizations is exactly the same as advocating for the abolition of the separation of church and state.
 
2012-04-24 01:16:01 PM

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

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


The last I checked the Catholic church wasn't paying out dividends...
 
2012-04-24 01:17:11 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.


See: Worth of Vatican City
See: Average salary of megachurch pastors.

Then STFU for being a retard.
 
2012-04-24 01:17:27 PM
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-6 RSV)


How is any of the bolded taken out of context?
How is explaining to the crowd what the words to the lord's prayer relevant?
 
2012-04-24 01:17:28 PM

Lord_Baull: 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?


Yes, when you say that you are wrong. The point of the whole sermon eluded you, most likely because you've never read it. Not that I think you care. But when you tell people of faith essentially to shut up based on that, you're wrong, and even anyone with a passing knowledge of the context of that knows you're of base. I know you've never read the chapter in it's entirety, and I know you don't care, because any other interpretation than the erroneous one of the solitary nugget you've committed to memory won't suit your purpose. The sermon was about how God knows whether you are truly pious or not.
 
2012-04-24 01:17:51 PM

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

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

The last I checked the Catholic church wasn't paying out dividends...


Last I checked profit and dividend were not the same thing.
 
2012-04-24 01:17:51 PM

EWreckedSean: 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.


Is that the kind of facility through which a tax-exempt organization should operate? Do similarly opulent religious facilities really help the companies to accomplish their stated works?

Most not-for-profits aren't equipped with their own child rape facilitators, either:

4.bp.blogspot.com

www.infiniteunknown.net

///I know...I know. You're going to point out that there isn't much profit in child rape.
 
2012-04-24 01:18:24 PM

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

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

The last I checked the Catholic church wasn't paying out dividends...


Then what's that plate of money they hand out every week?
 
2012-04-24 01:18:38 PM

turbidum: 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.


I think I get the point you are making, but I would be a little reluctant to compare supporters of a single-issue charity to the adherents of a very complicated system of faith that has immortal souls at it's foundation. It's a bit like comparing the way people talk about their sports teams vs. their families. Not quite the same thing.
 
2012-04-24 01:19:37 PM

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

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

The last I checked the Catholic church wasn't paying out dividends...

Then what's that plate of money they hand out every week?


An indulgent pile of tip money.
 
2012-04-24 01:19:56 PM

Lord_Baull: "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-6 RSV)


How is any of the bolded taken out of context?
How is explaining to the crowd what the words to the lord's prayer relevant?


Google searched it, didn't you?
 
2012-04-24 01:20:29 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.


Good f'ing Lord, you're straight out of the John Bolton School of Debate. You have no evidence or reason to back up anything you're saying other than a BELIEF that you're right.

The Tax Code has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. If you can't see the obviousness of that, I don't know what else to tell you.
 
2012-04-24 01:21:09 PM

I alone am best: downpaymentblues: I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes? The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it. Oh wait, they are not bound by constitutional limitations where the government is.

Where in the Constitution does it say churches are guaranteed tax exempt status no matter what they do?

In the first amendment. Jeffersons letter to the Danbury baptists and the intent of the amendment to be "separation of church and state."

I alone am best: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I alone am best: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: In late January, priests in scores of churches across the country read letters from the pulpit urging congregants to contact members of Congress to oppose the new rule.

Larry Cirignano, a Catholic activist, said evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition had sent out direct mail to raise money to push back against the Obama administration.

And speaking of encroachment.

When do these political organizations lose their tax exempt status?

As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

Which amendment is tax exemption guaranteed under?

The first. It was common law long before churches had to be 501c3 orginizations which only happened in the mid 50's.

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; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.


Taxes ain't never had nothin to do with speech, bud.

And I'm sure when the tables are turned you argue just as vehemently for the wall of separation and don't just claim that Jefferson's letters aren't in the constitution and therefore the purpose is unclear.

-_-

Go fark a moving train.
 
2012-04-24 01:21:17 PM

EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?


Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.
 
2012-04-24 01:22:40 PM
Mildot

Those cartoons are the dumbest pile of lying, misleading bullshiat I've seen from a right winger in awhile and that's saying a lot. The "artists" are either deliberate liars or so farking stupid it's a miracle they remember to breathe. They are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts.

the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called for two weeks of public protest in June and July against what it sees as growing government encroachment on religious freedom.

ie. A group of delusional old misogynists have become shills for the Republican party. Somehow I'm not surprised they'd feel at home there.

And by "delusional" I'm not even getting into their belief in God... it's their belief that there's a "growing government encroachment on religious freedom". They're morons sucking up the latest GOP propaganda like sponges.

/Today's GOP: #1 with delusional misogynists
 
2012-04-24 01:23:10 PM

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: 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?

Yes, when you say that you are wrong. The point of the whole sermon eluded you, most likely because you've never read it. Not that I think you care. But when you tell people of faith essentially to shut up based on that, you're wrong, and even anyone with a passing knowledge of the context of that knows you're of base. I know you've never read the chapter in it's entirety, and I know you don't care, because any other interpretation than the erroneous one of the solitary nugget you've committed to memory won't suit your purpose. The sermon was about how God knows whether you are truly pious or not.



So, you're in agreement that one does not need to physically go to a church to practice his faith. Excellent.
 
2012-04-24 01:23:24 PM

EWreckedSean: 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)


And it still would not matter. A priest is not forbidden to support themselves with a real job and can do all that is required on a part-time basis. The deacon at my church never received a salary from the church and supported himself and his family with a real job. A priest is not forbidden by any church teaching to do the same.
 
2012-04-24 01:23:27 PM
gah, to clarify, the part I quoted above is not from Mildot, it's from TFA.
 
2012-04-24 01:23:38 PM

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-6 RSV)


How is any of the bolded taken out of context?
How is explaining to the crowd what the words to the lord's prayer relevant?

Google searched it, didn't you?


Why does that matter?
 
2012-04-24 01:24:05 PM

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.


I wasn't aware that the whole of Christendom had adopted the King James version as the definitive English language translation.
 
2012-04-24 01:24:23 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...


Too lazy and my links never seem to work.. but ever see the part of religiocity where Maher and the priest are outside the Vatican and the priest is pretty much.. yeah the grandeur of place is pretty much against everything Jesus taught us. The priest was on of those rare ones who knows the church is full of it.

What drives me nuts is that the Catholic church has so much potential to be a power for good especially in the face of the crazy bible thumpers. Evolution, sure ... bible well it's mostly allegory so don't be so literal we have a guy to help with that stuff. Socialism? Yup that is pretty much what the big guy wants so let's do it. Does the church do any of this? No it picks one stinking issues and tries to out crazy the crazy then elects Emperor Palpatine to head it.

I'm too inherently Catholic to be anything else. I tried the JV squad but then even they doubled down on the cray cray.
 
2012-04-24 01:24:29 PM

Nabb1: Google searched it Copied it verbatim so I wouldn't be accused of distortion, didn't you?


FTFY
 
2012-04-24 01:25:18 PM

Lord_Baull: So, you're in agreement that one does not need to physically go to a church to practice his faith. Excellent.


No, one does not have to go to church to pray. But doing so doesn't break any rules, either.
 
2012-04-24 01:25:47 PM

chaoswolf: 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.

See: Worth of Vatican City
See: Average salary of megachurch pastors.

Then STFU for being a retard.


Megachurch's aren't a part of Catholicism.
The worth of Vatican City is meaningless. It is the center of a religion of over a billion people, not somebody's property. What's the value of Washington DC, which is the center of government for only 300 million people?
 
2012-04-24 01:26:00 PM

Shostie: I'm Catholic. I will very likely vote for Obama unless it turns out that he's a Reptloid.


But if you vote for a non-lizard, the wrong lizard might win!
 
2012-04-24 01:26:14 PM

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Google searched it Copied it verbatim so I wouldn't be accused of distortion, didn't you?

FTFY


You can copy and past, but Thomas Aquinas you ain't.
 
2012-04-24 01:27:01 PM

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

I wasn't aware that the whole of Christendom had adopted the King James version as the definitive English language translation.



Maybe you should brush up on your religious history. Can you think of an earlier English version that all other translation are based on? Or is your argument that, because very few people today read Latin and Greek, we cannot quote the Bible?
 
2012-04-24 01:27:41 PM

pciszek: Shostie: I'm Catholic. I will very likely vote for Obama unless it turns out that he's a Reptloid.

But if you vote for a non-lizard, the wrong lizard might win!


pciszek: Shostie: I'm Catholic. I will very likely vote for Obama unless it turns out that he's a Reptloid.

But if you vote for a non-lizard, the wrong lizard might win!


I'll take lizard leader over robot any day.
 
2012-04-24 01:27:47 PM

ginandbacon: I think I get the point you are making, but I would be a little reluctant to compare supporters of a single-issue charity to the adherents of a very complicated system of faith that has immortal souls at it's foundation. It's a bit like comparing the way people talk about their sports teams vs. their families. Not quite the same thing.


Definitely not a perfect analogy. There are other charities that do the same work that Komen does, just on a smaller scale. There is no "smaller scale" Catholic Church. And even analogizing the pedophilia scandal isn't entirely fair; the pedophile stuff in no way compares to the issue of birth control. Further, I'd for sure lay the lion's share of the blame (for both of those issues) at the feet of the bishops.

BUT (and this is speaking as an areligious agnostic) I can't understand how someone can sit idly by while their leaders say things they actively disagree with, "tacky" though it may be.

/btw, no need to apologize for being flip earlier. I was the one who dropped the term "kidfarkers" in response to your civil post.
//yay for reasonable discussions on fark
 
2012-04-24 01:27:50 PM

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.


Lol the King James bible? Really? Bad enough you are reading a translation of a translation, but the King James bible in particular was altered by the Church of England to fit their beliefs better. again I say, you've never read the bible.
 
2012-04-24 01:27:58 PM
Catholics love Mormons. Maybe not yet, but they will, they will! Muahahahaha.
 
2012-04-24 01:28:38 PM

qorkfiend: Why does that matter?


Because Nabb1 has to win.
 
2012-04-24 01:28:49 PM

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: So, you're in agreement that one does not need to physically go to a church to practice his faith. Excellent.

No, one does not have to go to church to pray. But doing so doesn't break any rules, either.



Well good, because you butted your nose into a conversation where TrainWreckSean was stating you do.
 
2012-04-24 01:29:27 PM

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: 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.

See: Worth of Vatican City
See: Average salary of megachurch pastors.

Then STFU for being a retard.

Megachurch's aren't a part of Catholicism.
The worth of Vatican City is meaningless. It is the center of a religion of over a billion people, not somebody's property. What's the value of Washington DC, which is the center of government for only 300 million people?


18 A certain Farker asked Jesus, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

21 "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
 
2012-04-24 01:29:35 PM

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

Lol the King James bible? Really? Bad enough you are reading a translation of a translation, but the King James bible in particular was altered by the Church of England to fit their beliefs better. again I say, you've never read the bible.


What's your recommended translation?
 
2012-04-24 01:30:42 PM

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

Lol the King James bible? Really? Bad enough you are reading a translation of a translation, but the King James bible in particular was altered by the Church of England to fit their beliefs better. again I say, you've never read the bible.



Ahh, so now we've moved into the "no true scotsman" level of debate. Tell me, what is the "correct" Bible I should be quoting from? NIV?
 
2012-04-24 01:31:28 PM

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

I wasn't aware that the whole of Christendom had adopted the King James version as the definitive English language translation.


Maybe you should brush up on your religious history. Can you think of an earlier English version that all other translation are based on? Or is your argument that, because very few people today read Latin and Greek, we cannot quote the Bible?


You don't know too much about Catholicism, do you? The New Jerusalem Bible is the version most widely used by Catholic churches, and it was translated straight from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts in the late 20th century. Not every English translation has come from the King James. The King James version is a tremendous literary achievement, equaling in historical importance, but its by no means the definitive text.
 
2012-04-24 01:32:10 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.


Reading trollery is always a learning experience. Proxy fights by trolling predators helps cull the rational argumentary herd of slower members so that the stronger can flourish even beyond Fark's borders. Trolls are doing a service to mankind by making us all smarter by allowing us to experience reductio ad absurdum vicariously.

If you can recognize logical fallacies, Thank a Troll!
 
2012-04-24 01:32:22 PM

turbidum: yay for reasonable discussions on fark


Very much so! I've really enjoyed this conversation, thank you :)
 
2012-04-24 01:33:26 PM

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

Lol the King James bible? Really? Bad enough you are reading a translation of a translation, but the King James bible in particular was altered by the Church of England to fit their beliefs better. again I say, you've never read the bible.


Ahh, so now we've moved into the "no true scotsman" level of debate. Tell me, what is the "correct" Bible I should be quoting from? NIV?


Conservapedia's Conservative Bible Project
 
2012-04-24 01:33:42 PM

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

Lol the King James bible? Really? Bad enough you are reading a translation of a translation, but the King James bible in particular was altered by the Church of England to fit their beliefs better. again I say, you've never read the bible.


Ahh, so now we've moved into the "no true scotsman" level of debate. Tell me, what is the "correct" Bible I should be quoting from? NIV?


You need to look up the meaning of the No True Scotsman fallacy. As for correct, in English, there isn't one. They are all translations, all translated with a bias toward the beliefs of whatever organization is doing the translation.
 
2012-04-24 01:33:49 PM
Holy shiat you guys are all missing the best part. TFA COMMENTS ARE FULL OF DERP! Like, extinction event levels of derp.
 
2012-04-24 01:34:00 PM

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

Lol the King James bible? Really? Bad enough you are reading a translation of a translation, but the King James bible in particular was altered by the Church of England to fit their beliefs better. again I say, you've never read the bible.


Or he can read the New American Bible Revised which is approved by the Conference of Bishops for Catholics. Whichever.
 
2012-04-24 01:34:27 PM

unyon: Aarontology: Go and protest women having access to health care. Do it.

And especially make sure you admonish the 98% of Catholic women that will use birth control in their lifetimes. That'll be sure to help.


probably bigger than that, they are against sex at all... see how well being anti sex polls anywhere...
 
2012-04-24 01:35:04 PM

EWreckedSean: Megachurch's aren't a part of Catholicism.
The worth of Vatican City is meaningless. It is the center of a religion of over a billion people, not somebody's property. What's the value of Washington DC, which is the center of government for only 300 million people?


This is like watching a sock puppet trying to bury itself alive with marmalade.
 
2012-04-24 01:36:07 PM

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

Lol the King James bible? Really? Bad enough you are reading a translation of a translation, but the King James bible in particular was altered by the Church of England to fit their beliefs better. again I say, you've never read the bible.


Ahh, so now we've moved into the "no true scotsman" level of debate. Tell me, what is the "correct" Bible I should be quoting from? NIV?

You need to look up the meaning of the No True Scotsman fallacy. As for correct, in English, there isn't one. They are all translations, all translated with a bias toward the beliefs of whatever organization is doing the translation.


Which one is your preferred translation? More importantly, can you describe how the meaning is substantially changed between your preferred translation and the King James Bible?
 
2012-04-24 01:36:29 PM

Fark It: Obama has what you would call a firewall with Catholics in the form of the Hispanic vote.


Are Hispanics more or less likely to listen to the bishops about this birth control stuff than non-hispanic catholics? I got the impression that "cafeteria catholics" were mostly non-hispanic.
 
2012-04-24 01:37:08 PM

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

I wasn't aware that the whole of Christendom had adopted the King James version as the definitive English language translation.


Maybe you should brush up on your religious history. Can you think of an earlier English version that all other translation are based on? Or is your argument that, because very few people today read Latin and Greek, we cannot quote the Bible?

You don't know too much about Catholicism, do you? The New Jerusalem Bible is the version most widely used by Catholic churches, and it was translated straight from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts in the late 20th century. Not every English translation has come from the King James. The King James version is a tremendous literary achievement, equaling in historical importance, but its by no means the definitive text.



Well, I stand corrected. This translation totally contradicts my previous post:
3 But when you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing;

4 your almsgiving must be secret, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.

5 'And when you pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners for people to see them. In truth I tell you, they have had their reward.

6 But when you pray, go to your private room, shut yourself in, and so pray to your Father who is in that secret place, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.
 
2012-04-24 01:37:10 PM

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: 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.

See: Worth of Vatican City
See: Average salary of megachurch pastors.

Then STFU for being a retard.

Megachurch's aren't a part of Catholicism.
The worth of Vatican City is meaningless. It is the center of a religion of over a billion people, not somebody's property. What's the value of Washington DC, which is the center of government for only 300 million people?


The property is owned by the church. The church purchased it with the profit they have made through their pyramid scheme business and through theft and war. Why shouldn't the international corporation called Catholicism have its American branches taxed like any other international business with branches in America?

Vatican City is what protestant American megachurches want to become. There is no difference between the two.
 
2012-04-24 01:37:51 PM

qorkfiend: What's your recommended translation?


It doesn't matter. These turds are arguing for the sake of argument.
 
2012-04-24 01:38:56 PM

Counter_Intelligent: qorkfiend: What's your recommended translation?

It doesn't matter. These turds are arguing for the sake of argument.


God help me, I know...
 
2012-04-24 01:39:27 PM

Nabb1: 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.


Not according to the IRS.
 
2012-04-24 01:40:41 PM

I alone am best: Why would they have to pay taxes? The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it. Oh wait, they are not bound by constitutional limitations where the government is.


Nor does the constitution say that churches should be tax exempt. So if churches fark with the government, the government can tax the churches same as it taxes everyone else. That's not prohibiting free exercise.
 
2012-04-24 01:40:59 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.


I'm afraid you are so wrong that I actually have to correct you. And I don't like correcting you, in particular.

Here's the entire passage from the Sermon that talks about prayer.

5 "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

7 "And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this:
[lords prayer]

14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

It's all about the purpose and purity of prayer. How gentiles pray for ceremonial purposes, and how they've subsequently forgotten why they pray. Who they are praying to. Keep your prayers personal between you and God. It's about how the Pharisees aren't praying to God at all, but instead are praying to men. Their reward is the praise of men returning to their ears. To maintain the purity and purpose of your prayers, Jesus outlined a basic format. Say hello to God, acquiescing to his supremacy. Re-affirm our very limited understanding of his will, and your willingness to adhere to it. And then politely ask God to give you only what he feels you deserve. And when you pray, he absolutely recommends doing so alone, in your room, with the door locked and nobody listening. Again, it helps maintain the purity of purpose in prayer.

Then later Jesus followed this format on his own, in the Garden of Gathsemane. In fact, it specifically repeats the point that Jesus went off into the garden *ALONE* to pray. And his prayers were again of that form. God, I really wish this wasn't how it had to be... but your will be done.

Your interpretation is a *terrible* interpretation of the passage. In fact, it's almost as bad as the "eye of the needle refers to some ancient gateway!" revisionism we see around here.

Was it a "commandment"? No, of course not. It was a recommendation. But the format of that sermon makes its purpose very clear. One of the recurring themes in it is that very thing. Performing these actions in public is potential hypocrisy. To avoid the temptations to do good things for the wrong reasons, try and actively do these things in private. Give the poor food. Where nobody can see it. Don't tell anyone you did it. Blessed are those who receive no reward on Earth for their rewards are reserved for heaven.

I mean. It's basic stuff. Where'd you learn this weird backwards revision of the most famous sermon in the history of human civilization?
 
2012-04-24 01:41:03 PM

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

Lol the King James bible? Really? Bad enough you are reading a translation of a translation, but the King James bible in particular was altered by the Church of England to fit their beliefs better. again I say, you've never read the bible.


Ahh, so now we've moved into the "no true scotsman" level of debate. Tell me, what is the "correct" Bible I should be quoting from? NIV?

You need to look up the meaning of the No True Scotsman fallacy. As for correct, in English, there isn't one. They are all translations, all translated with a bias toward the beliefs of whatever organization is doing the translation.



Do I?
 
2012-04-24 01:41:37 PM

I alone am best: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.



No Supreme Court decision mandates tax exempt status for churches. Churches go untaxed by statute.
 
2012-04-24 01:42:13 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"?


I would support their right to not have to pay for it just as I would support the Catholic church's right to not have to pay for contraception or abortion.

Because that is what we are arguing about. Not access because everyone has access but who pays.

The way out of this is for the Catholic church to stop paying for a prescription drug benefit for it's employees. They may have to stop paying for insurance entirely if the laws don't allow you to opt out of paying for abortions. It might get to the point where they have to stop having employees all together and get out of the charity businesses that they are involved in like hospitals.
 
2012-04-24 01:44:45 PM

chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: 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.

See: Worth of Vatican City
See: Average salary of megachurch pastors.

Then STFU for being a retard.

Megachurch's aren't a part of Catholicism.
The worth of Vatican City is meaningless. It is the center of a religion of over a billion people, not somebody's property. What's the value of Washington DC, which is the center of government for only 300 million people?

The property is owned by the church. The church purchased it with the profit they have made through their pyramid scheme business and through theft and war. Why shouldn't the international corporation called Catholicism have its American branches taxed like any other international business with branches in America?

Vatican City is what protestant American megachurches want to become. There is no difference between the two.


I don't really care too much about the income tax a church pays, due to the issue of trying to determine what is a profit. But property tax is easily assessed yearly on the value of the property owned and the buildings on that property. My city apparently taxes my business on gross receipts rather that profits (I'm still trying to puzzle that one out.) Priests can be taxed on the value of the "wages" they receive, including living stipends. We never even have to get to what is a profit, although anything over and above the ordinary operating expenses of the church minus deductions for actual charitable giving should be obvious profit.
 
2012-04-24 01:45:14 PM

BeesNuts: And I'm sure when the tables are turned you argue just as vehemently for the wall of separation and don't just claim that Jefferson's letters aren't in the constitution and therefore the purpose is unclear.


I'm not arguing vehemently for anything. I am just stating why the church isn't taxed and why it should not be. Additionally I'm an agnostic so I don't even have a horse in the race. I'm just not an intolerant bigot like a lot of other people are.
 
2012-04-24 01:48:54 PM

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

I wasn't aware that the whole of Christendom had adopted the King James version as the definitive English language translation.


Maybe you should brush up on your religious history. Can you think of an earlier English version that all other translation are based on? Or is your argument that, because very few people today read Latin and Greek, we cannot quote the Bible?

You don't know too much about Catholicism, do you? The New Jerusalem Bible is the version most widely used by Catholic churches, and it was translated straight from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts in the late 20th century. Not every English translation has come from the King James. The King James version is a tremendous literary achievement, equaling in historical importance, but its by no means the definitive text.


Well, I stand corrected. This translation totally contradicts my previous post:
3 But when you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing;

4 your almsgiving must be secret, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.

5 'And when you pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners for people to see them. In truth I tell you, they have had their reward.

6 But when you pray, go to your private room, shut yourself in, and so pray to your Father who is in that secret place, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.


The whole thing is about being pious and not doing things to make youself look better for the sake of other people but to do things for the sake of being "good". Its not meant to be taken as litterally "Go pray by yourself".
 
2012-04-24 01:49:01 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.


Just curious. What part of


when you pray, go into your room and shut the door



did you not understand?
 
2012-04-24 01:49:01 PM

RandomExcess: Liberals fail to realize that women in the US care about the economy and health care and are not as concerned with contraception and funded childcare.


For women, "health care" necessarily includes "health care below the waist", which is where the conflict with the conservatives begins.
 
2012-04-24 01:49:28 PM

RyogaM: Priests can be taxed on the value of the "wages" they receive, including living stipends.


They already are.
 
2012-04-24 01:50:21 PM

CujoQuarrel: I would support their right to not have to pay for it just as I would support the Catholic church's right to not have to pay for contraception or abortion.


You are mixing businesses up with churches.

Just so I am clear: You support a businesses right to not cover just about any medical treatment, based on the personal beliefs of say, the CEO?

Do you support the single payer government option?
 
2012-04-24 01:51:07 PM

halfof33: RyogaM: Priests can be taxed on the value of the "wages" they receive, including living stipends.

They already are.


That's true. Now it's time to tax the church's income and vast property holdings.
 
2012-04-24 01:51:27 PM

Baz744: 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.

Just curious. What part of


when you pray, go into your room and shut the door


did you not understand?


That whole paragraph just went right over your head, didn't it?
 
2012-04-24 01:51:35 PM

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

I wasn't aware that the whole of Christendom had adopted the King James version as the definitive English language translation.


Maybe you should brush up on your religious history. Can you think of an earlier English version that all other translation are based on? Or is your argument that, because very few people today read Latin and Greek, we cannot quote the Bible?

You don't know too much about Catholicism, do you? The New Jerusalem Bible is the version most widely used by Catholic churches, and it was translated straight from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts in the late 20th century. Not every English translation has come from the King James. The King James version is a tremendous literary achievement, equaling in historical importance, but its by no means the definitive text.


Well, I stand corrected. This translation totally contradicts my previous post:
3 But when you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing;

4 your almsgiving must be secret, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.

5 'And when you pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners for people to see them. In truth I tell you, they have had their reward.

6 But when you pray, go to your private room, shut yourself in, and so pray to your Father who is in that secret place, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.


Praying is only one part of being a practicing Catholic. You understand that right?
 
2012-04-24 01:53:17 PM

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

Lol the King James bible? Really? Bad enough you are reading a translation of a translation, but the King James bible in particular was altered by the Church of England to fit their beliefs better. again I say, you've never read the bible.


Ahh, so now we've moved into the "no true scotsman" level of debate. Tell me, what is the "correct" Bible I should be quoting from? NIV?

You need to look up the meaning of the No True Scotsman fallacy. As for correct, in English, there isn't one. They are all translations, all translated with a bias toward the beliefs of whatever organization is doing the translation.


Do I?


Well I guess only if you want to use it correctly.
 
2012-04-24 01:53:17 PM

I alone am best: The church can mess with the government all they want. I was unaware that they were bound by the constitution to stay out of it.


C'mon, say it after me "It's got nothing to do with the Constitution, it's statutory and regulatory".

Congress specifically has the Constitutional power to levy taxes. It likewise has to power to exempt certain bodies if certain conditions are met, and it achieves these end via statute and enabling regulations. Fall afoul of them, and you can have your tax-exempt status revoked.

It's like you don't understand the basics of taxation, yet still feel qualified to pontificate about it.

The validity of an argument is inversly proportional to the vehemence with which it is expressed
 
2012-04-24 01:53:27 PM

I alone am best: Its not meant to be taken as litterally "Go pray by yourself".


Other than the part that literally says "Go pray by yourself", you're exactly correct.
 
2012-04-24 01:53:39 PM

bugontherug: I alone am best: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.


No Supreme Court decision mandates tax exempt status for churches. Churches go untaxed by statute.


Since 1954 when they were added to the tax code as 501c3 organizations? Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before. However there are plenty of SCOTUS decisions dealing with taxes and churches such as Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York.
 
2012-04-24 01:53:46 PM

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

I wasn't aware that the whole of Christendom had adopted the King James version as the definitive English language translation.


Maybe you should brush up on your religious history. Can you think of an earlier English version that all other translation are based on? Or is your argument that, because very few people today read Latin and Greek, we cannot quote the Bible?

You don't know too much about Catholicism, do you? The New Jerusalem Bible is the version most widely used by Catholic churches, and it was translated straight from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts in the late 20th century. Not every English translation has come from the King James. The King James version is a tremendous literary achievement, equaling in historical importance, but its by no means the definitive text.


Well, I stand corrected. This translation totally contradicts my previous post:
3 But when you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing;

4 your almsgiving must be secret, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.

5 'And when you pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners for people to see them. In truth I tell you, they have had their reward.

6 But when you pray, go to your private room, shut yourself in, and so pray to your Father who is in that secret place, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.

Praying is only one part of being a practicing Catholic. You understand that right?


Just like praying is only one part of practicing the traditional Mayan religion. The government has no right to restrict people from any other of their traditional practices.
 
2012-04-24 01:54:20 PM

gimmegimme: halfof33: RyogaM: Priests can be taxed on the value of the "wages" they receive, including living stipends.

They already are.

That's true. Now it's time to tax the church's income and vast property holdings.


Huh, OK, so long as you are OK with doing that equally with all Churches and non-profits.
 
2012-04-24 01:54:55 PM

I alone am best: BeesNuts: And I'm sure when the tables are turned you argue just as vehemently for the wall of separation and don't just claim that Jefferson's letters aren't in the constitution and therefore the purpose is unclear.

I'm not arguing vehemently for anything. I am just stating why the church isn't taxed and why it should not be. Additionally I'm an agnostic so I don't even have a horse in the race. I'm just not an intolerant bigot like a lot of other people are.


At that point, you'd repeated the point that Thomas Jefferson's letters detailed the wall of separation that is intended to be erected by the first amendment. And your conclusion from that is that the separation is one way. The state needs to GTFO of churches, even when those churches GTFI to politics.

This is why you fail.

I agree, churches shouldn't be taxed. Unfortunately, when you're standing in front of several hundred to several thousand people and telling them who to vote for, or on what topic to base your vote, you're not exactly a church. You're a non-profit still, but you're not a church.

Now pay your farking property taxes. Go ahead and keep your shiatty tithes that you grifted off of some gullible rubes who don't want to feel ashamed that they aren't "helping" or whatever. But pay for that farking land on which you got a sweet-heart deal and built an enormous temple to opulence that you claim to use to better the community while also building private schools that generate more income for you organization and which lower the quality of the public schools you utterly refuse to support.

Deal?

/twats.
 
2012-04-24 01:55:21 PM

I alone am best: bugontherug: I alone am best: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.


No Supreme Court decision mandates tax exempt status for churches. Churches go untaxed by statute.

Since 1954 when they were added to the tax code as 501c3 organizations? Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before. However there are plenty of SCOTUS decisions dealing with taxes and churches such as Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York.


Are 501c3 organizations absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office?
 
2012-04-24 01:55:57 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: Its not meant to be taken as litterally "Go pray by yourself".

Other than the part that literally says "Go pray by yourself", you're exactly correct.


Not understanding allegories is fun!
 
2012-04-24 01:56:10 PM

downpaymentblues: CujoQuarrel: I would support their right to not have to pay for it just as I would support the Catholic church's right to not have to pay for contraception or abortion.

You are mixing businesses up with churches.

Just so I am clear: You support a businesses right to not cover just about any medical treatment, based on the personal beliefs of say, the CEO?

Do you support the single payer government option?


Yep and yep.
Single payer is really the only way out of this mess.
 
2012-04-24 01:57:06 PM

halfof33: gimmegimme: halfof33: RyogaM: Priests can be taxed on the value of the "wages" they receive, including living stipends.

They already are.

That's true. Now it's time to tax the church's income and vast property holdings.

Huh, OK, so long as you are OK with doing that equally with all Churches and non-profits.


Regular non-profits already have to jump through those hoops. It's just churches that get special lenience.
 
2012-04-24 01:57:37 PM

halfof33: gimmegimme: halfof33: RyogaM: Priests can be taxed on the value of the "wages" they receive, including living stipends.

They already are.

That's true. Now it's time to tax the church's income and vast property holdings.

Huh, OK, so long as you are OK with doing that equally with all Churches and non-profits.


Churches, yes. Non-profits, no. (Non-profits often do things to benefit mankind.)
 
2012-04-24 01:57:49 PM

BeesNuts: while also building private schools that generate more income for you organization and which lower the quality of the public schools you utterly refuse to support.


HAHAHAHA!

Oh Mercy, good one.

Oh wait, you are serious?

Let me laugh even harder!
 
2012-04-24 01:58:10 PM

I alone am best: Jeffersons letter to the Danbury baptists and the intent of the amendment to be "separation of church and state."


But Republicans claim that "separation of church and state" is a myth.
 
2012-04-24 01:59:41 PM

gimmegimme: halfof33: gimmegimme: halfof33: RyogaM: Priests can be taxed on the value of the "wages" they receive, including living stipends.

They already are.

That's true. Now it's time to tax the church's income and vast property holdings.

Huh, OK, so long as you are OK with doing that equally with all Churches and non-profits.

Churches, yes. Non-profits, no. (Non-profits often do things to benefit mankind.)


Gotcha, I thought you were leaning that way.

/thank God for the First Amendment
 
2012-04-24 02:00:29 PM

I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before


Intended by whom...?
 
2012-04-24 02:01:09 PM

VJStinger: Do they seriously expect Romney to do what he says after being elected given his floundering on every.single.issue.


No, they just expect him to be someone who isn't Obama. Mostly.
 
2012-04-24 02:01:43 PM

EWreckedSean: Praying is only one part of being a practicing Catholic. You understand that right?


As long as you understand that taxing a church for doing non-religious business does not keep one from being Catholic nor destroy the Catholicism.
 
2012-04-24 02:02:12 PM

Nabb1: Baz744: 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.

Just curious. What part of


when you pray, go into your room and shut the door


did you not understand?

That whole paragraph just went right over your head, didn't it?


No, but it clearly went over yours. What those with the capacity for reading comprehension call the "main idea" of those words are don't make public display of your religiosity. It doesn't say "I don't recommend it," or, "I don't think it's a very good idea to." It says do not do it. It says you must not make public display of your alms giving. It says you must not be like the hypocrites. And it says, to avoid being like the hypocrites,when you pray, go into your room and shut the door.

Words like "must" and the use of the command form of expression are big clues here.

I know I know. Religious conservatives have reaped massive political rewards by making public display of their religion. To the cynical conservative, fixated solely on obtaining, exercising, and maintaining social dominance on earth, giving up those rewards must feel like giving up crack.

Someone famous once said "you have your reward." Who was that?
 
2012-04-24 02:02:35 PM

halfof33: gimmegimme: halfof33: gimmegimme: halfof33: RyogaM: Priests can be taxed on the value of the "wages" they receive, including living stipends.

They already are.

That's true. Now it's time to tax the church's income and vast property holdings.

Huh, OK, so long as you are OK with doing that equally with all Churches and non-profits.

Churches, yes. Non-profits, no. (Non-profits often do things to benefit mankind.)

Gotcha, I thought you were leaning that way.

/thank God for the First Amendment


Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.
 
2012-04-24 02:04:35 PM

gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.


But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.
 
2012-04-24 02:05:37 PM

BeesNuts: I alone am best: BeesNuts: And I'm sure when the tables are turned you argue just as vehemently for the wall of separation and don't just claim that Jefferson's letters aren't in the constitution and therefore the purpose is unclear.

I'm not arguing vehemently for anything. I am just stating why the church isn't taxed and why it should not be. Additionally I'm an agnostic so I don't even have a horse in the race. I'm just not an intolerant bigot like a lot of other people are.

At that point, you'd repeated the point that Thomas Jefferson's letters detailed the wall of separation that is intended to be erected by the first amendment. And your conclusion from that is that the separation is one way. The state needs to GTFO of churches, even when those churches GTFI to politics.

This is why you fail.


It does go one way. Its ya know, how the constitution works and always has. Unless of course you think that the limitations on government in the constitution also applies to private entities. Then I suggest you do more research.
 
2012-04-24 02:05:44 PM

halfof33: gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.

But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.


Is the Catholic Church an overtly political organization? A wolf in sheep's clothing, as it were?
 
2012-04-24 02:09:48 PM

halfof33: Huh, OK, so long as you are OK with doing that equally with all Churches and non-profits.


How about, we let all non-profits that do not participate in political campains remain tax-free. That way, the local volunteer fire department doesn't have to pay taxes on the land the firehouse is sitting on (which, being one of the last lots without a McMansion on it, would have an incredibly high taxable value if it wasn't left off of the tax roles), and even a few churches that actually understand the "separation of church and state" thing can avoid taxes. They need it, too, as they tend to be the least profitable churches out there.
 
2012-04-24 02:10:47 PM

EWreckedSean: Do I?

Well I guess only if you want to use it correctly.



So, as I understand you, when the conversation goes like this:
LB: The KJ bible states X.
EWS: KJ is not a real bible.

You're saying that is NOT an example of NTS?
 
2012-04-24 02:11:28 PM

halfof33: RyogaM: Priests can be taxed on the value of the "wages" they receive, including living stipends.

They already are.


I did not know that. Thanks!

Actually, I think you told that to me before, and I still got it wrong.
 
2012-04-24 02:14:27 PM
Wait a minute. From what I'm reading in this thread, the right-wingers are essentially saying, "Not letting religious institutions engage in state politics is a violation of the separation of church and state?"
Am I reading that right?
 
2012-04-24 02:14:28 PM

CujoQuarrel: downpaymentblues: CujoQuarrel: I would support their right to not have to pay for it just as I would support the Catholic church's right to not have to pay for contraception or abortion.

You are mixing businesses up with churches.

Just so I am clear: You support a businesses right to not cover just about any medical treatment, based on the personal beliefs of say, the CEO?

Do you support the single payer government option?

Yep and yep.
Single payer is really the only way out of this mess.


Thank you for the clarification.
 
2012-04-24 02:15:54 PM

halfof33: gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.

But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.


And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-04-24 02:16:35 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?


Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?
 
2012-04-24 02:17:14 PM

BeesNuts: halfof33: gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.

But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.

And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about.


What non profits are taxed?
 
2012-04-24 02:17:43 PM

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Do I?

Well I guess only if you want to use it correctly.


So, as I understand you, when the conversation goes like this:
LB: The KJ bible states X.
EWS: KJ is not a real bible.

You're saying that is NOT an example of NTS?


I think he's trying to say that his use of the No True Scotsman fallacy isn't a true example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's pretty meta.
 
2012-04-24 02:18:35 PM

God's Hubris: Wait a minute. From what I'm reading in this thread, the right-wingers are essentially saying, "Not letting religious institutions engage in state politics is a violation of the separation of church and state?"
Am I reading that right?


No.
 
2012-04-24 02:19:16 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?


There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?
 
2012-04-24 02:19:46 PM

gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Really, how is your Koine Greek?

Pretty poor. But fortunately, we've been able to reference the King James Bible for that past 400 years, so I don't have to brush up.

I wasn't aware that the whole of Christendom had adopted the King James version as the definitive English language translation.


Maybe you should brush up on your religious history. Can you think of an earlier English version that all other translation are based on? Or is your argument that, because very few people today read Latin and Greek, we cannot quote the Bible?

You don't know too much about Catholicism, do you? The New Jerusalem Bible is the version most widely used by Catholic churches, and it was translated straight from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts in the late 20th century. Not every English translation has come from the King James. The King James version is a tremendous literary achievement, equaling in historical importance, but its by no means the definitive text.


Well, I stand corrected. This translation totally contradicts my previous post:
3 But when you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing;

4 your almsgiving must be secret, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.

5 'And when you pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners for people to see them. In truth I tell you, they have had their reward.

6 But when you pray, go to your private room, shut yourself in, and so pray to your Father who is in that secret place, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.

Praying is only one part of being a practicing Catholic. You understand that right?

Just like praying is only one part of practicing the traditional Mayan religion. The government has no right to restrict people from any other of their traditional practices.


As long as they find somebody willing then no, they don't. Your right to free exercise though doesn't include the right to deprive somebody else of their right to life. That's not how rights work.
 
2012-04-24 02:19:47 PM

BeesNuts: halfof33: gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.

But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.

And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about.


Spit take.

Wow, they repeal 501c3 of the farking Tax Code? I'll be damned. I thought I would have heard about that!

/face palm.
//stop posting sport, you are dumb as a box of rocks.
 
2012-04-24 02:20:29 PM

gimmegimme: Just like praying is only one part of practicing the traditional Mayan religion. The government has no right to restrict people from any other of their traditional practices.


Including polygamy, peyote, or human sacrifice?
 
2012-04-24 02:20:46 PM

halfof33: BeesNuts: while also building private schools that generate more income for you organization and which lower the quality of the public schools you utterly refuse to support.

HAHAHAHA!

Oh Mercy, good one.

Oh wait, you are serious?

Let me laugh even harder!


HAHAHAHA!

Oh Mercy, good one.

Oh wait, you don't have a point?

Let me not bother talking to you then!

/Almost started to waste my time on a supremely unsatisfying discussion!
//Thank goodness you dropped your load so quickly to help us both avoid any further embarrassment.
 
2012-04-24 02:20:46 PM

I alone am best: BeesNuts: halfof33: gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.

But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.

And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about.

What non profits are taxed?


The ones that don't fill out form 1023 (or do fill it out and get turned down)?
 
2012-04-24 02:21:26 PM

I alone am best: BeesNuts: halfof33: gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.

But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.

And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about.

What non profits are taxed?


HAHAHAHA!

Oh Mercy, good one.

Oh wait, you're serious?

Let me laugh even harder!
 
2012-04-24 02:21:57 PM

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Do I?

Well I guess only if you want to use it correctly.


So, as I understand you, when the conversation goes like this:
LB: The KJ bible states X.
EWS: KJ is not a real bible.

You're saying that is NOT an example of NTS?


No, that's not.

No True Scotsman would be if I said: "No real Christian would read the King James bible."
 
2012-04-24 02:22:14 PM

God's Hubris: Wait a minute. From what I'm reading in this thread, the right-wingers are essentially saying, "Not letting religious institutions engage in state politics is a violation of the separation of church and state?"
Am I reading that right?


Their argument is that there isn't a separation because it's not specifically in the Constitution. Then again since it's not mentioned restrictions wouldn't be violating it either.
 
2012-04-24 02:24:35 PM

BeesNuts: I alone am best: BeesNuts: halfof33: gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.

But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.

And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about.

What non profits are taxed?

HAHAHAHA!

Oh Mercy, good one.

Oh wait, you're serious?

Let me laugh even harder!


Oh Mercy, good one.

Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

Let me not bother talking to you then!

/Almost started to waste my time on a supremely unsatisfying discussion!
//Thank goodness you dropped your load so quickly to help us both avoid any further embarrassment.
//Bees Knees: thinks private schools are bad. Enjoys 47 kids per classroom.
 
2012-04-24 02:27:19 PM

I alone am best: Because the power to tax is also the power to destroy.


So, to avoid that, you render unto Caesar, bee-yotch!

barneyfifesbullet: Obama has is going to lose Florida anyway.

He can thank Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers.


Somebody, Mark These Words!
 
2012-04-24 02:28:02 PM

halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??


You do realize that "non-profit" and "501(c)(3)" aren't synonyms, right?
 
2012-04-24 02:31:53 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?


Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?
 
2012-04-24 02:33:07 PM

Biological Ali: halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

You do realize that "non-profit" and "501(c)(3)" aren't synonyms, right?


Yes, you do realize that all 501c3's are non-profit, right?
 
2012-04-24 02:33:38 PM

Deucednuisance: I alone am best: Because the power to tax is also the power to destroy.

So, to avoid that, you render unto Caesar, bee-yotch!


So, you're going to argue that the separation of church and state has anything to do with the bible? To an agnostic?
 
2012-04-24 02:35:06 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Colorado


Colorado is only 1% Mormon, but the media acts like it's flooded with Mormons and therefore a Romney stronghold.
 
2012-04-24 02:36:29 PM

BeesNuts: I alone am best: BeesNuts: halfof33: gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.

But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.

And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about.

What non profits are taxed?

HAHAHAHA!

Oh Mercy, good one.

Oh wait, you're serious?

Let me laugh even harder!


Ahhh you don't have any. I see. Your google foo isn't working?
 
2012-04-24 02:37:17 PM

halfof33: Biological Ali: halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

You do realize that "non-profit" and "501(c)(3)" aren't synonyms, right?

Yes, you do realize that all 501c3's are non-profit, right?


You were responding to a comment about whether "non-profits" were tax-exempt. Not all non-profits are 501(c)(3).
 
2012-04-24 02:38:38 PM

Deucednuisance: barneyfifesbullet: Obama has is going to lose Florida anyway.

He can thank Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers.

Somebody, Mark These Words!



Coincidentally, I have marked words from this amazingly accurate prognosticator before, when he was guaranteeing a McCain win.
 
2012-04-24 02:39:39 PM

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.

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


How so? Churches are getting more and more involved in issues that directly involve the taxpayer's money and influencing a whole party of people. Shouldn't they render to Caesar what is his then?
 
2012-04-24 02:40:18 PM

Biological Ali: halfof33: Biological Ali: halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

You do realize that "non-profit" and "501(c)(3)" aren't synonyms, right?

Yes, you do realize that all 501c3's are non-profit, right?

You were responding to a comment about whether "non-profits" were tax-exempt. Not all non-profits are 501(c)(3).


Do you have any examples of non profits that are not tax exempt?
 
2012-04-24 02:44:27 PM

I alone am best: Biological Ali: halfof33: Biological Ali: halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

You do realize that "non-profit" and "501(c)(3)" aren't synonyms, right?

Yes, you do realize that all 501c3's are non-profit, right?

You were responding to a comment about whether "non-profits" were tax-exempt. Not all non-profits are 501(c)(3).

Do you have any examples of non profits that are not tax exempt?


What difference would "examples" make? I've already indicated to you what the requirements for tax-exemption are. Not every non-profit is going to be able to meet those requirements so there will obviously exist many non-profits in the US that aren't tax-exempt.
 
2012-04-24 02:44:58 PM

I alone am best: bugontherug: I alone am best: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.


No Supreme Court decision mandates tax exempt status for churches. Churches go untaxed by statute.

Since 1954 when they were added to the tax code as 501c3 organizations? Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before. However there are plenty of SCOTUS decisions dealing with taxes and churches such as Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York.


Walz vs. Tax Commission doesn't mandate tax exempt status for churches. Rather, it says the Constitution permits states to exempt churches from taxes. That's a major difference by itself, but what's more important is the case's underlying implication: the controversy over whether the Constitution permits tax exempt status for churches presupposes that churches are not tax exempt in the first place.

Churches are tax exempt by statute, not by constitutional right. Your own case establishes that.
 
2012-04-24 02:45:17 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?


Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?
 
2012-04-24 02:47:06 PM

EWreckedSean: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Do I?

Well I guess only if you want to use it correctly.


So, as I understand you, when the conversation goes like this:
LB: The KJ bible states X.
EWS: KJ is not a real bible.

You're saying that is NOT an example of NTS?

No, that's not.

No True Scotsman would be if I said: "No real Christian would read the King James bible."


i13.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-24 02:48:59 PM

Biological Ali:
You were responding to a comment about whether "non-profits" were tax-exempt. Not all non-profits are 501(c)(3).


No, actually, I was responding to this:

"And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about."

And then I mentioned 501c3
 
2012-04-24 02:49:05 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?


Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?
 
2012-04-24 02:49:09 PM

I alone am best: Biological Ali: halfof33: Biological Ali: halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

You do realize that "non-profit" and "501(c)(3)" aren't synonyms, right?

Yes, you do realize that all 501c3's are non-profit, right?

You were responding to a comment about whether "non-profits" were tax-exempt. Not all non-profits are 501(c)(3).

Do you have any examples of non profits that are not tax exempt?


Unrelated Business Income Tax - Special Rules for Organizations Exempt Under Code Section 501(c)(7), 501(c)(9), 501(c)(17), or 501(c)(20)


Even though an organization is recognized as tax exempt, it still may be liable for tax on its unrelated business taxable income. An exempt organization that has $1,000 or more gross income from an unrelated business must file Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return. For additional information, see the Form 990-T instructions. Section 512(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provides for special unrelated business taxable income rules for organizations that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(7), 501(c)(9), 501(c)(17), or 501(c)(20)*.

I also can't find the thread right now, but there has been at least one Farker here claiming that their church is NOT a 501(c)(3), specifically because they wanted to be politically active and actually believed in following the applicable laws.

You also have to consider that something being Federally tax-exempt does not guarantee exempt status on a state or local level.
 
2012-04-24 02:50:21 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?


The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.
 
2012-04-24 02:52:34 PM

halfof33: Biological Ali:
You were responding to a comment about whether "non-profits" were tax-exempt. Not all non-profits are 501(c)(3).

No, actually, I was responding to this:

"And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about."

And then I mentioned 501c3


"They" being "non-profits" (and specifically, ones that are "overtly if not singularly political").
 
2012-04-24 02:59:35 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.


Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?
 
2012-04-24 02:59:49 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.


Would be rather odd if it did. All US entities, church, business, or private individual were exempt from taxation unless covered under a specific tax levy up until the Tariff Act of 1894. (Which did exempt charitable and educational groups)
 
2012-04-24 03:00:49 PM

roadmarks: I alone am best: Biological Ali: halfof33: Biological Ali: halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

You do realize that "non-profit" and "501(c)(3)" aren't synonyms, right?

Yes, you do realize that all 501c3's are non-profit, right?

You were responding to a comment about whether "non-profits" were tax-exempt. Not all non-profits are 501(c)(3).

Do you have any examples of non profits that are not tax exempt?

Unrelated Business Income Tax - Special Rules for Organizations Exempt Under Code Section 501(c)(7), 501(c)(9), 501(c)(17), or 501(c)(20)


Even though an organization is recognized as tax exempt, it still may be liable for tax on its unrelated business taxable income. An exempt organization that has $1,000 or more gross income from an unrelated business must file Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return. For additional information, see the Form 990-T instructions. Section 512(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provides for special unrelated business taxable income rules for organizations that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(7), 501(c)(9), 501(c)(17), or 501(c)(20)*.

I also can't find the thread right now, but there has been at least one Farker here claiming that their church is NOT a 501(c)(3), specifically because they wanted to be politically active and actually believed in following the applicable laws.

You also have to consider that something being Federally tax-exempt does not guarantee exempt status on a state or local level.


There is only one church that has had the tax exempt status revoked. Thanks for answering my question though.
 
2012-04-24 03:03:41 PM

halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??


I work for one and we pay taxes.
 
2012-04-24 03:03:44 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?


Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.
 
2012-04-24 03:07:50 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.


What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?
 
2012-04-24 03:07:59 PM

I alone am best: roadmarks: I alone am best: Biological Ali: halfof33: Biological Ali: halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

You do realize that "non-profit" and "501(c)(3)" aren't synonyms, right?

Yes, you do realize that all 501c3's are non-profit, right?

You were responding to a comment about whether "non-profits" were tax-exempt. Not all non-profits are 501(c)(3).

Do you have any examples of non profits that are not tax exempt?

Unrelated Business Income Tax - Special Rules for Organizations Exempt Under Code Section 501(c)(7), 501(c)(9), 501(c)(17), or 501(c)(20)


Even though an organization is recognized as tax exempt, it still may be liable for tax on its unrelated business taxable income. An exempt organization that has $1,000 or more gross income from an unrelated business must file Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return. For additional information, see the Form 990-T instructions. Section 512(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provides for special unrelated business taxable income rules for organizations that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(7), 501(c)(9), 501(c)(17), or 501(c)(20)*.

I also can't find the thread right now, but there has been at least one Farker here claiming that their church is NOT a 501(c)(3), specifically because they wanted to be politically active and actually believed in following the applicable laws.

You also have to consider that something being Federally tax-exempt does not guarantee exempt status on a state or local level.

There is only one church that has had the tax exempt status revoked. Thanks for answering my question though.


Hmmm, don't think that those two churches are related, the Farker didn't claim that it was revoked, but a conscious decision on their pastor's part to follow the law.

Also, non-profits that are primarily support/self-help groups usually do not qualify as tax-exempt either, but then again, they usually have no money anyways.....
 
2012-04-24 03:08:53 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.


I'm almost convinced he's trolling now, since he's been confronted with the reality that his own cited case on the subject actually disproves his view--and he's got nothing to say to it at all.
 
2012-04-24 03:09:55 PM

bugontherug: I alone am best: bugontherug: I alone am best: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.


No Supreme Court decision mandates tax exempt status for churches. Churches go untaxed by statute.

Since 1954 when they were added to the tax code as 501c3 organizations? Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before. However there are plenty of SCOTUS decisions dealing with taxes and churches such as Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York.

Walz vs. Tax Commission doesn't mandate tax exempt status for churches. Rather, it says the Constitution permits states to exempt churches from taxes. That's a major difference by itself, but what's more important is the case's underlying implication: the controversy over whether the Constitution permits tax exempt status for churches presupposes that churches are not tax exempt in the first place.

Churches are tax exempt by statute, not by constitutional right. Your own case establishes that.


The important part of that isn't the direct outcome its the opinion that states churches are historically not required to pay taxes and a tax exempt status is much less interference than taxation insulating the separation of church and state.
 
2012-04-24 03:10:15 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?


Find a temple?
 
2012-04-24 03:12:31 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?


That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.
 
2012-04-24 03:12:38 PM

CPennypacker: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

Find a temple?


I cant, they couldn't pay the taxes and the property was seized by the state.
 
2012-04-24 03:13:36 PM

I alone am best: CPennypacker: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

Find a temple?

I cant, they couldn't pay the taxes and the property was seized by the state.


Too bad?

What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?
 
2012-04-24 03:14:04 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.


That means that the government has interfered with my right to free exercise of religion. Which they cannot do.
 
2012-04-24 03:15:59 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.

That means that the government has interfered with my right to free exercise of religion. Which they cannot do.


Nope, you're still fully able to exercise your religion. You might have to find a different temple, though.
 
2012-04-24 03:17:15 PM

CPennypacker: I alone am best: CPennypacker: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

Find a temple?

I cant, they couldn't pay the taxes and the property was seized by the state.

Too bad?

What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?


Uhh, you can.
 
2012-04-24 03:19:30 PM

I alone am best: bugontherug: I alone am best: bugontherug: I alone am best: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How about all of it? But mostly the bolded. See Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists and 200 years of supreme court decisions.


No Supreme Court decision mandates tax exempt status for churches. Churches go untaxed by statute.

Since 1954 when they were added to the tax code as 501c3 organizations? Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before. However there are plenty of SCOTUS decisions dealing with taxes and churches such as Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York.

Walz vs. Tax Commission doesn't mandate tax exempt status for churches. Rather, it says the Constitution permits states to exempt churches from taxes. That's a major difference by itself, but what's more important is the case's underlying implication: the controversy over whether the Constitution permits tax exempt status for churches presupposes that churches are not tax exempt in the first place.

Churches are tax exempt by statute, not by constitutional right. Your own case establishes that.

The important part of that isn't the direct outcome its the opinion that states churches are historically not required to pay taxes and a tax exempt status is much less interference than taxation insulating the separation of church and state.


The important part is that to even consider the question of whether tax exempt status is permissible presupposes that tax exempt status is not mandated. New York wouldn't even have passed a law exempting churches from taxes if churches were already tax exempt under the First Amendment. This is not a question of opinion. It is a question of whether you understand the case at all. It may be that churches have, in some places, at some times, enjoyed tax exempt status. But the very case you've cited proves that that has not been so, even in the United States.

The First Amendment does not mandate tax exempt status for churches.
 
2012-04-24 03:20:44 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.

That means that the government has interfered with my right to free exercise of religion. Which they cannot do.

Nope, you're still fully able to exercise your religion. You might have to find a different temple, though.


Alas it is a small religion and there was only one temple. Since it was taxed until it closed I can no longer practice.

Or maybe there are more temples but I am not economically able to travel far enough to attend the new one.
 
2012-04-24 03:21:05 PM

I alone am best: CPennypacker: I alone am best: CPennypacker: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

Find a temple?

I cant, they couldn't pay the taxes and the property was seized by the state.

Too bad?

What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.


t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-24 03:23:04 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.

That means that the government has interfered with my right to free exercise of religion. Which they cannot do.

Nope, you're still fully able to exercise your religion. You might have to find a different temple, though.

Alas it is a small religion and there was only one temple. Since it was taxed until it closed I can no longer practice.

Or maybe there are more temples but I am not economically able to travel far enough to attend the new one.


That's too bad. You're still not prohibited from practicing your religion.
 
2012-04-24 03:23:24 PM
This article can't be true because I disagree with it.
 
2012-04-24 03:24:36 PM

I alone am best: I cant, they couldn't pay the taxes and the property was seized by the state.


And what if it was shut down for being a safety hazard? Should the government also exempt your temples from the safety codes that all other organizations have to follow?
 
2012-04-24 03:24:39 PM

CPennypacker: I alone am best: CPennypacker: I alone am best: CPennypacker: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

Find a temple?

I cant, they couldn't pay the taxes and the property was seized by the state.

Too bad?

What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]


CPennypacker: I alone am best: CPennypacker: I alone am best: CPennypacker: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

Find a temple?

I cant, they couldn't pay the taxes and the property was seized by the state.

Too bad?

What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Well, the federal government cant stop you.
 
2012-04-24 03:26:04 PM

I alone am best: What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Well, the federal government cant stop you.


o_O
 
2012-04-24 03:27:50 PM
Can you guys believe some of the comments on there?
 
2012-04-24 03:30:25 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.

That means that the government has interfered with my right to free exercise of religion. Which they cannot do.

Nope, you're still fully able to exercise your religion. You might have to find a different temple, though.

Alas it is a small religion and there was only one temple. Since it was taxed until it closed I can no longer practice.

Or maybe there are more temples but I am not economically able to travel far enough to attend the new one.

That's too bad. You're still not prohibited from practicing your religion.


I'm not free to exercise it because of government interference though.
 
2012-04-24 03:32:20 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.

That means that the government has interfered with my right to free exercise of religion. Which they cannot do.

Nope, you're still fully able to exercise your religion. You might have to find a different temple, though.

Alas it is a small religion and there was only one temple. Since it was taxed until it closed I can no longer practice.

Or maybe there are more temples but I am not economically able to travel far enough to attend the new one.

That's too bad. You're still not prohibited from practicing your religion.

I'm not free to exercise it because of government interference though.


You are free to exercise it. You have chosen not to because you have decided it's a burden.
 
2012-04-24 03:32:35 PM

Biological Ali: And what if it was shut down for being a safety hazard? Should the government also exempt your temples from the safety codes that all other organizations have to follow?


This may even be the case in some places. I hate to think what would be needed for a baptismal tank to comply with OSHA.
 
2012-04-24 03:32:43 PM

I alone am best: Alas it is a small religion and there was only one temple. Since it was taxed until it closed I can no longer practice.

Or maybe there are more temples but I am not economically able to travel far enough to attend the new one.



Can you find just one real world example where this would be even remotely possible?
 
2012-04-24 03:33:31 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.

That means that the government has interfered with my right to free exercise of religion. Which they cannot do.

Nope, you're still fully able to exercise your religion. You might have to find a different temple, though.

Alas it is a small religion and there was only one temple. Since it was taxed until it closed I can no longer practice.

Or maybe there are more temples but I am not economically able to travel far enough to attend the new one.

That's too bad. You're still not prohibited from practicing your religion.

I'm not free to exercise it because of government interference though.


Well this has gotten about as stupid as it can
 
2012-04-24 03:33:56 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Well, the federal government cant stop you.

o_O


Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal. It stems from a church wanting to use a schedule one drug for religious purposes.
 
2012-04-24 03:37:04 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Well, the federal government cant stop you.

o_O

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal. It stems from a church wanting to use a schedule one drug for religious purposes.


And you think the same freedom would be extended to, say, the Rastafarians?
 
2012-04-24 03:38:01 PM

qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Well, the federal government cant stop you.

o_O

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal. It stems from a church wanting to use a schedule one drug for religious purposes.

And you think the same freedom would be extended to, say, the Rastafarians?


Maybe, the SCOTUS should hold it up though.
 
2012-04-24 03:38:47 PM

thamike: halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

I work for one and we pay taxes.


It would be handy if someone had some examples they could list. Are (for example) Obama's and Romney's campaign organizations incorporated as non-profits? Do they pay taxes because they are (duh!) backing one specific candidate in an election? How about other highly political organizations like NOM, the NRA, etc.?
 
2012-04-24 03:39:58 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Well, the federal government cant stop you.

o_O

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal. It stems from a church wanting to use a schedule one drug for religious purposes.

And you think the same freedom would be extended to, say, the Rastafarians?

Maybe, the SCOTUS should hold it up though.


The point is, its still illegal and that makes it hard to get.

WHAR FREEDOM OF RELIGION WHAR
 
2012-04-24 03:46:39 PM

bugontherug: The important part is that to even consider the question of whether tax exempt status is permissible presupposes that tax exempt status is not mandated. New York wouldn't even have passed a law exempting churches from taxes if churches were already tax exempt under the First Amendment. This is not a question of opinion. It is a question of whether you understand the case at all. It may be that churches have, in some places, at some times, enjoyed tax exempt status. But the very case you've cited proves that that has not been so, even in the United States.
The First Amendment does not mandate tax exempt status for churches.


It has been so since our founding until 1954 when they were required to register as a 501c3 organization. I will have to concede to you because the law was never challenged and therefore I could not postulate as to the outcome if it were.
 
2012-04-24 03:50:38 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Well, the federal government cant stop you.

o_O

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal. It stems from a church wanting to use a schedule one drug for religious purposes.

And you think the same freedom would be extended to, say, the Rastafarians?

Maybe, the SCOTUS should hold it up though.


My church says we have to sacrifice a virgin to make sure the spring crops are bountiful, but that darn government won't allow me to murder someone.

That is about how absurd your argument has become. I take it you realize you are wrong, but think it is "fun" to just be contrary.

I will never understand people like you.
 
2012-04-24 04:11:34 PM

downpaymentblues: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: What if my religion requires me to smoke weed but its illegal so I can;t find any?

Too bad?

Uhh, you can.

[t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Well, the federal government cant stop you.

o_O

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal. It stems from a church wanting to use a schedule one drug for religious purposes.

And you think the same freedom would be extended to, say, the Rastafarians?

Maybe, the SCOTUS should hold it up though.

My church says we have to sacrifice a virgin to make sure the spring crops are bountiful, but that darn government won't allow me to murder someone.

That is about how absurd your argument has become. I take it you realize you are wrong, but think it is "fun" to just be contrary.

I will never understand people like you.


That isn't a very good argument, your right to freely practice your religion does not allow you to violate someone else's right to life.
 
2012-04-24 04:27:39 PM

I alone am best: That isn't a very good argument, your right to freely practice your religion does not allow you to violate someone else's right to life.


So, then, you admit and agree that contraception and abortion should be freely available to all, gay marriage should be considered no different to straight marriage, marijuana should be legalised, the prison-industrial complex should be cut down at the roots, and so on?
 
2012-04-24 04:33:51 PM

EWreckedSean: chaoswolf: EWreckedSean: As soon as the free amendment is over turned.

wut?

If you're attempting to state that we would have to overturn the 1st amendment which gives us freedom of speech and freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the right to worship as we see fit in order to tax the businesses called churches, then you're a moron.

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



Why is taxing churches violating the free exercise clause, but taxing the New York Times is not an abridgement of the freedom of the press?
 
2012-04-24 04:34:02 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: I alone am best: That isn't a very good argument, your right to freely practice your religion does not allow you to violate someone else's right to life.

So, then, you admit and agree that contraception and abortion should be freely available to all, gay marriage should be considered no different to straight marriage, marijuana should be legalised, the prison-industrial complex should be cut down at the roots, and so on?


Contraception is freely available to everyone. I don't view abortion as a reproductive right. I don't view marriage as a right. I don't see why marijuana is illegal, i would like to see it legalized and taxed. What do prisons have to do with anything, if you committed a crime you should probably be in one and so on is a pretty large spectrum isn't it?
 
2012-04-24 04:49:00 PM

CPennypacker: Well this has gotten about as stupid as it can


Yeah even for Fark this is an astonishingly stupid thread. The two topics that seem to bring out the dumbest arguments are climate change and religion.
 
2012-04-24 04:55:04 PM

I alone am best: I don't view abortion as a reproductive right. I don't view marriage as a right.


Ah, so you're either a retard or a troll. Nevermind, then. I don't debate against your kind; it's a bit too much like an Olympic weightlifter kicking a one-legged puppy for my tastes.
 
2012-04-24 04:58:32 PM
What this article is basically saying is, "We haven't got a leg to stand on or a pot to piss on regarding the economy, so we're going to scare the rubes with Jesus again."

So ladies and gentlemen, here is the GOP's fall election strategy. Thanks t o The Hill for laying it all out for us libbying libs. Dumbasses.
 
2012-04-24 05:04:14 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: I alone am best: I don't view abortion as a reproductive right. I don't view marriage as a right.

Ah, so you're either a retard or a troll. Nevermind, then. I don't debate against your kind; it's a bit too much like an Olympic weightlifter kicking a one-legged puppy for my tastes.


You lumped the prison industrial complex into an argument about religion paying taxes and i'm the retard. Get lost moron.
 
2012-04-24 06:07:09 PM

pciszek: thamike: halfof33: Oh wait, you don't have an example of a 501c3 that pays taxes??

I work for one and we pay taxes.

It would be handy if someone had some examples they could list. Are (for example) Obama's and Romney's campaign organizations incorporated as non-profits? Do they pay taxes because they are (duh!) backing one specific candidate in an election? How about other highly political organizations like NOM, the NRA, etc.?


The one I work for is a 501c (4), which I believe is a bit more pertinent to that topic. Campaign donations or any lobbying for specific political parties or candidates must be declared to the IRS, and I believe are not exempt, nor can funds sent be a tax deduction. My particular non-profit is apolitical by nature, so I'm not sure how it works for the others. NRA ideally should be completely apolitical, but I'm sure there's a healthy portion of fuzzy legality for them to graze on. The non-profit I'm with is basically a veterans' organization, so we wouldn't be caught dead pushing for a political party on the organization's dime.
 
2012-04-24 06:25:21 PM

I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.

That means that the government has interfered with my right to free exercise of religion. Which they cannot do.

Nope, you're still fully able to exercise your religion. You might have to find a different temple, though.

Alas it is a small religion and there was only one temple. Since it was taxed until it closed I can no longer practice.

Or maybe there are more temples but I am not economically able to travel far enough to attend the new one.


I love the religious right. You take this attitude when you want churches, but for people who are economically unable to have health care? Fark you...I got mine.

//I'm not a bad enough person to be a Christian.
 
2012-04-24 08:47:50 PM

GoodyearPimp: When you stop raping children, I will start to think about giving a damn about your opinion.


I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that more kids are raped by people who are not Catholic priests.

Also, as a Catholic, I can say from first-hand knowledge that the open politicizing of Catholic policy with a slant toward Republicans is not as popular among Catholics as some people think. In other words, we aren't all buying it.
 
2012-04-24 08:51:45 PM

T-Boy: GoodyearPimp: When you stop raping children, I will start to think about giving a damn about your opinion.

I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that more kids are raped by people who are not Catholic priests.

Also, as a Catholic, I can say from first-hand knowledge that the open politicizing of Catholic policy with a slant toward Republicans is not as popular among Catholics as some people think. In other words, we aren't all buying it.


I agree with you that there is a divide between the Catholic hierarchy and the laity.

The problem is that the Catholic hierarchy has facilitated child rape for decades and refuses to do the moral thing. The Catholic laity is not excommunicating politicians for their public stances (jeopardizing the Church's tax-exempt status), the Catholic laity is largely not.

Wow...it seems as though Catholics don't even need the hierarchy at all. (Which is what Jesus advised in the first place.)
 
2012-04-24 08:56:31 PM

I alone am best: That isn't a very good argument,


Which was my point about your non-argument.

"I can't afford gas, so that means you are violating my religious freedom". Ridiculous.
 
2012-04-24 08:59:03 PM

downpaymentblues: I alone am best: That isn't a very good argument,

Which was my point about your non-argument.

"I can't afford gas, so that means you are violating my religious freedom". Ridiculous.


argumentum ad petroleum
 
2012-04-24 09:41:00 PM

I alone am best: So, you're going to argue that the separation of church and state has anything to do with the bible? To an agnostic?


Wow, you're intentionally missing the point.

As I said before. Congress has the specific power under the Constitution to levy taxes. They can create exemptions by statute, and regulation.

You want to enjoy that exemption? Follow the law (i.e. "render unto Caesar".)

This isn't hard. Unlike the torturous construction you've been flogging.
 
2012-04-24 10:49:23 PM

I alone am best: bugontherug: The important part is that to even consider the question of whether tax exempt status is permissible presupposes that tax exempt status is not mandated. New York wouldn't even have passed a law exempting churches from taxes if churches were already tax exempt under the First Amendment. This is not a question of opinion. It is a question of whether you understand the case at all. It may be that churches have, in some places, at some times, enjoyed tax exempt status. But the very case you've cited proves that that has not been so, even in the United States.
The First Amendment does not mandate tax exempt status for churches.

It has been so since our founding until 1954 when they were required to register as a 501c3 organization. I will have to concede to you because the law was never challenged and therefore I could not postulate as to the outcome if it were.


One could argue quite easily that said law (Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c))) is already an unconstitutional law regarding religion and should be abolished and all churches forced to comply with existing tax codes and employment laws.

They are employers, they do take in money, everyone else has to pay taxes, why do churches get special rights?

Why do theists demand special rights?
 
2012-04-24 11:03:44 PM

TheBigJerk:

Why do theists demand special rights?


The debate of our century right here, people.
 
2012-04-25 08:58:25 AM

TheBigJerk: Why do theists demand special rights?


Well, the argument is that they provide a benefit to the State that is unlike any other. Not only works of Charity, but they provide a moral framework that makes for a more orderly Society.

Not saying I agree with it, just that that's the argument: Special Rights, because we do Special Things.

And the State is within its rights to confer benefits on those enterprises in which the State has a compelling interest: say, the social benefits that encourage Marriage. So, the State can confer tax-free status on the Churches without running afoul of the law.

That said...

I'm more inclined to say that that Social Contract with churches breaks down as their hierarchies show themselves to be avaricious (see: Prosperity Gospel) criminal (see: kid-touching, and it ain't just the Catholics, folks) enterprises, and as they more and more blatantly enter into Politics. It's the same reason most folks consider lobbying to be dirty business, if you are encouraging certain political outcomes, which benefit you and yours, you shouldn't get to do it on everybody's dime.

"Tax the Churches. Tax the businesses owned by the Churches." - FZ
 
2012-04-25 10:27:41 AM

I alone am best: BeesNuts: I alone am best: BeesNuts: halfof33: gimmegimme: Don't worry; I would defend to the death your right to practice a religion. I just don't want you to support an overtly political organization on my dime.

But you already do. Many, many MANY non-profits are overtly if not singularly political.

And they are taxed. It's almost like you people have no god damned idea what you're talking about.

What non profits are taxed?

HAHAHAHA!

Oh Mercy, good one.

Oh wait, you're serious?

Let me laugh even harder!

Ahhh you don't have any. I see. Your google foo isn't working?


I try to talk to people who listen. If I wanted to talk to a wall I have four handy ones right here.
 
2012-04-25 12:37:08 PM

gimmegimme: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: qorkfiend: I alone am best: Before that is was just common law to not tax churches as was intended since the founding of our country and before

Intended by whom...?

Our founders. Do you think they just overlooked churches when deciding who should be taxed?

There's a list of "People to Tax" in the original Constitution?

Do you think they didn't legislate taxation?

Do you think they didn't grant that power to a branch of the government so that branch, now and in the future, would be able to make that determination?

Do you think that it was covered in the bill of rights under the first amendment and therefore didn't need to be done?

The First Amendment does not deal with taxation.

Doesn't it deal with free exercise? Wouldnt it also be true that it been interpreted to be a seperation of church and state?

Free exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

What if my religion requires me to go to some sort of temple to practice?

That doesn't mean the government has to give you temples.

That means that the government has interfered with my right to free exercise of religion. Which they cannot do.

Nope, you're still fully able to exercise your religion. You might have to find a different temple, though.

Alas it is a small religion and there was only one temple. Since it was taxed until it closed I can no longer practice.

Or maybe there are more temples but I am not economically able to travel far enough to attend the new one.

I love the religious right. You take this attitude when you want churches, but for people who are economically unable to have health care? Fark you...I got mine.

//I'm not a bad enough person to be a Christian.


Two things... I am not part of the "religious right" and I have stated it several times in this thread and the last time I checked you do not have a right to health care.
 
2012-04-25 01:11:57 PM

I alone am best: Two things... I am not part of the "religious right" and I have stated it several times in this thread and the last time I checked you do not have a right to health care.


So you're part of the "agnostic right." Does that mean your bullsh*t may or may not be infallible?
 
2012-04-25 06:31:13 PM
I alone am best:

I know...I know. I have no right to life, but a zygote does. I get it. Right-wingers don't care about people once they're born.
 
2012-04-26 03:25:21 AM

cryinoutloud: F*ck the Catholics.


right back at ya
 
2012-04-26 09:22:59 AM

Fish_Fight!: cryinoutloud: F*ck the Catholics.

right back at ya


This is getting sexy!
 
Displayed 394 of 394 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report