Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1266 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2012 at 11:48 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-24 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?
 
Displayed 50 of 394 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report