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.

(Orlando Sentinel)   One state considers undoing that whole separation of church and state thing   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 102
    More: Florida, Religion News Service, Central Florida, Cory Booker  
•       •       •

9947 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2013 at 8:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-19 08:00:50 AM  
But not the Church's don't pay taxes part, because that would be wrong.
 
2013-08-19 08:02:26 AM  
thiswillnotendwell.jpg
 
2013-08-19 08:10:02 AM  
These people would do well to remember that not only does the state need protected from the church, the church needs protected from the state.  Careful what you wish for, etc.
 
2013-08-19 08:13:01 AM  
One state? Just one?
 
2013-08-19 08:14:53 AM  
WTF is the "one state?" This was a syndicated column that appeared in a Florida newspaper and there's nothing going on in Florida that is remotely like what the headline alleges.
 
2013-08-19 08:14:55 AM  

nekom: These people would do well to remember that not only does the state need protected from the church, the church needs protected from the state.  Careful what you wish for, etc.


*protection

And people should protect themselves from both as much as they can.
 
2013-08-19 08:15:14 AM  

nekom: These people would do well to remember that not only does the state need protected from the church, the church needs protected from the state.  Careful what you wish for, etc.


Western PA? *checks profile* Yup.
 
2013-08-19 08:17:50 AM  
Sure, we need the dues! 

astro.temple.edu

J/K - render unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's and all that
BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses
 
2013-08-19 08:18:59 AM  
So is Florida trying to make congress Congpass  law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Hmmm, interesting
 
2013-08-19 08:20:45 AM  

swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses


but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested
 
2013-08-19 08:23:28 AM  
Meh. Both are based upon the art of lying anyway.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 08:23:35 AM  
These people certainly don't understand what freedom of religion actually means.

http://jezebel.com/5923898/republican-horrified-to-discover-that-chr is tianity-is-not-the-only-religion

That's a story about a state senator going apeshiat because the money for religious schools she set up is going to dirty muzlims.
 
2013-08-19 08:23:39 AM  

Lady J: swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses

but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested


Probably giving and doing more good than the Red Cross and other "non-profits".
 
2013-08-19 08:23:40 AM  
Welcome to the Church of the First Republican, brothers and sisters. What a great day our Repubican leaders have made.

Please turn in your bible to Book of Reagan, First Term chapter 3. And he did see the tax rates for the rich cuteth and they did trickle down. Amen, brothers and sisters. Amen. And catsup shall be a vegetable for ever and a day. Amen.

And now time for our hymn. Please turn to Page 347 and sing along

Obama is wrong. he can't see the light
Even though he's exactly like George W
The man just can't see the light.

Though the national debt did fall
from 2001 to 2009
Obama's been spending crazily
and that's an impeachable crime


All together now

And that's an impeachable crime...

Okay. It's time to pass the plate. Everyone pony up 10% as is the custom. But if you make over $250,000, you get to cut 4% because you pay way too much for what you get. And if you make less that 40,000, pony up an extra 5% because you really don't pay your fail share.

Now go in peace and remember Commandment 3: If thou are opposed to it, complain loudly and with much blind rage. Change shall come in 8 years.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 08:24:18 AM  

Lady J: but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?


For a mega church, "good works" is defined as another private jet for the company... I mean church.
 
2013-08-19 08:24:55 AM  

Joe Blowme: Lady J: swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses

but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested

Probably giving and doing more good than the Red Cross and other "non-profits".


citation?
 
2013-08-19 08:25:50 AM  
im not going to keep saying 'citation', im just going to think it
 
2013-08-19 08:26:39 AM  
Alliance Defending Freedom

img202.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-19 08:27:27 AM  
LOL - you all are gettin' trolled by subby.

The first sentence of the article is:  Religion News Service reporter Sarah Pulliam Bailey writes about a commission of religious leaders urging Congress to drop its ban -- in the name of free speech -- on preachers making political endorsements from the pulpit.

Try reading the article.  I find it helps with that annoying knee-jerk.
 
2013-08-19 08:29:58 AM  
Which one of the 57 states is that?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 08:30:22 AM  

Lucky LaRue: LOL - you all are gettin' trolled by subby.

The first sentence of the article is:  Religion News Service reporter Sarah Pulliam Bailey writes about a commission of religious leaders urging Congress to drop its ban -- in the name of free speech -- on preachers making political endorsements from the pulpit.

Try reading the article.  I find it helps with that annoying knee-jerk.


There IS NO ban.  It's just they have to pay taxes if they DO become political.  That seems plenty fair to me.
 
2013-08-19 08:30:53 AM  
A commission of religious leaders has called for clarity in churches' ability to endorse candidates and issues from the without fear of losing their tax-exempt status.

Ok, here you go: once you start telling your parishioners who to vote for and what propositions to support, you're no longer a "church." You're a political organization and should have your tax-exempt status revoked immediately. This is something you and the IRS agreed to.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 08:31:02 AM  

oryx: Which one of the 57 states is that?


*drink*
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 08:34:00 AM  

Lucky LaRue: LOL - you all are gettin' trolled by subby.

The first sentence of the article is:  Religion News Service reporter Sarah Pulliam Bailey writes about a commission of religious leaders urging Congress to drop its ban -- in the name of free speech -- on preachers making political endorsements from the pulpit.

Try reading the article.  I find it helps with that annoying knee-jerk.


I've read it.  It pretty clearly referred to the tax exempt status of churches and being able to endorse candidates without losing that status.
 
2013-08-19 08:34:40 AM  

oryx: Which one of the 57 states is that?


Denial.
 
2013-08-19 08:34:55 AM  
Tax them.
You want to lobby politics?
You pay the piper.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 08:35:36 AM  

nekom: These people would do well to remember that not only does the state need protected from the church, the church needs protected from the state.  Careful what you wish for, etc.


I think it's too late to worry about that.  Politics has already corrupted the Evangelical Churches.
 
2013-08-19 08:35:45 AM  

NutWrench: A commission of religious leaders has called for clarity in churches' ability to endorse candidates and issues from the without fear of losing their tax-exempt status.

Ok, here you go: once you start telling your parishioners who to vote for and what propositions to support, you're no longer a "church." You're a political organization and should have your tax-exempt status revoked immediately. This is something you and the IRS agreed to.


But if the IRS asks you things like "Are you telling the parishioners who to vote for?"  They are unfairly targeting Republican Churches.   Never mind, that as soon as you say Republican Church, you are proving that you are not being unfairly targeted.
 
2013-08-19 08:37:08 AM  
Nothing at all wrong with churches getting into the politics game. However, they should pay the admission fee like any other group/person has to.
 
2013-08-19 08:37:20 AM  

sxacho: Western PA?


Born and raised.
 
2013-08-19 08:37:49 AM  

vpb: Lucky LaRue: LOL - you all are gettin' trolled by subby.

The first sentence of the article is:  Religion News Service reporter Sarah Pulliam Bailey writes about a commission of religious leaders urging Congress to drop its ban -- in the name of free speech -- on preachers making political endorsements from the pulpit.

Try reading the article.  I find it helps with that annoying knee-jerk.

I've read it.  It pretty clearly referred to the tax exempt status of churches and being able to endorse candidates without losing that status.


Then I guess you decided to skip the submitted headline about how a certain US State was considering undoing the separation of church and state?  Or are you trying to tell me that what you read parallels that implication?
 
2013-08-19 08:39:12 AM  

Lady J: swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses

but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested


they may in fact give money towards charitable efforts and the poor.  but I also know you don't build something like this without having a WHOLE LOT of scratch:

commonsenseatheism.com
 
2013-08-19 08:40:07 AM  

nekom: These people would do well to remember that not only does the state need protected from the church, the church needs protected from the state.  Careful what you wish for, etc.


And not a truer thing was said this day

People advocating one tend to forget the other and the consequences that come with it
 
2013-08-19 08:41:51 AM  

swankywanky: Lady J: swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses

but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested

they may in fact give money towards charitable efforts and the poor.  but I also know you don't build something like this without having a WHOLE LOT of scratch:

[commonsenseatheism.com image 500x309]


I always wondered about people who attend places like that.  It can't be for the "community", because you can only care about so many people.
 
2013-08-19 08:42:08 AM  
You know what kind of countries don't separate politics and religion?  ones like Egypt.

Look how farking well that's going for them.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 08:42:16 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Then I guess you decided to skip the submitted headline about how a certain US State was considering undoing the separation of church and state?  Or are you trying to tell me that what you read parallels that implication?


No, the comments were mostly about taxation and candidate endorsements.  I thought that was what you were talking about.
 
2013-08-19 08:42:29 AM  

d23: Lady J: but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

For a mega church, "good works" is defined as another private jet for the company... I mean church.


We've got a local Baptist church that has been in this generally nondescript brick and wood building for as long as I can remember (and even longer, I'm sure).  It's right across the street from them gay-lovin' Universalists, so they had to get the hell out of Dodge.  So, what they did was this:  they bought out the ice cream parlor at the top of a nearby hill (same street, just further up the road), plus the surrounding land, and built a megachurch, replete with a gymnasium and school.  It's right across the street from Crazy Wood-Carving Guy, who was forced by the town, at the urging of these good Christians, to remove all these 'eyesores' because they freaked out the straights.

So, now we have less art (although, a lot of it was pretty freaky, but that's not for me to judge) and a big megachurch at the top of a hill.

I hate this place, sometimes...
 
2013-08-19 08:42:44 AM  

swankywanky: Lady J: swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses

but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested

they may in fact give money towards charitable efforts and the poor.  but I also know you don't build something like this without having a WHOLE LOT of scratch:

[commonsenseatheism.com image 500x309]


in fairness, them doing their god bothering in a nice venue benefits everyone involved, not just the church leaders. do those church leaders live in ridiculously fancy houses and own islands in the south sea though?
 
2013-08-19 08:43:35 AM  

Wyalt Derp: sxacho: Western PA?

Born and raised.


On a playground is where I spent most of my days.
 
2013-08-19 08:44:25 AM  

swankywanky: commonsenseatheism.com


Ok, our 'megachurch' isn't quite THAT big, but it's still probably the biggest building within 50 miles...

/minimegachurch?
 
2013-08-19 08:50:31 AM  
This article is crap. Pastors are allowed to have personal opinions, and are allowed to express them.

And dropping references to black churches weirds me out for some reason.
 
2013-08-19 08:54:49 AM  

Wyalt Derp: Born and raised


Likewise, and din't waste a second to beat feet after getting out of highschool.

Going back is like visiting the orphanage you escaped from and finding out the students weren't really "special," just taught to think they were.
 
2013-08-19 08:58:48 AM  

EvilEgg: But if the IRS asks you things like "Are you telling the parishioners who to vote for?" They are unfairly targeting Republican Churches. Never mind, that as soon as you say Republican Church, you are proving that you are not being unfairly targeted.


If you ask the IRS to revoke your tax exempt status, you can avoid those conversations altogether.
 
2013-08-19 08:58:50 AM  

Lady J: Joe Blowme: Lady J: swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses

but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested

Probably giving and doing more good than the Red Cross and other "non-profits".

citation?


gis Administrative cost as a % of "income" for red cross.

/not defending mega churches or any others, just sayin
 
2013-08-19 09:07:39 AM  

Lady J: them doing their god bothering in a nice venue


Phrase of the week.
 
2013-08-19 09:07:44 AM  

Joe Blowme: gis Administrative cost as a % of "income" for red cross.



but i donate to them! it assuages my middle class guilt. i dont want to find out that's actually a waste of money and I need to do something real!
 
2013-08-19 09:07:48 AM  
"My concern is what that kind of change would make to the integrity and the unity of the church itself,"

Oh, that's rich.

*my emphasis*
 
2013-08-19 09:12:54 AM  
"The report shows that black churches have, for lack of a better word, gotten away with it for many years"

Heh.  "Well, the BLACKS are doing it, so we should be able to have all the white churches openly campaigning for the Republican party."
 
2013-08-19 09:21:56 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: Welcome to the Church of the First Republican, brothers and sisters. What a great day our Repubican leaders have made.

Please turn in your bible to Book of Reagan, First Term chapter 3. And he did see the tax rates for the rich cuteth and they did trickle down. Amen, brothers and sisters. Amen. And catsup shall be a vegetable for ever and a day. Amen.

And now time for our hymn. Please turn to Page 347 and sing along

Obama is wrong. he can't see the light
Even though he's exactly like George W
The man just can't see the light.

Though the national debt did fall
from 2001 to 2009
Obama's been spending crazily
and that's an impeachable crime

All together now

And that's an impeachable crime...

Okay. It's time to pass the plate. Everyone pony up 10% as is the custom. But if you make over $250,000, you get to cut 4% because you pay way too much for what you get. And if you make less that 40,000, pony up an extra 5% because you really don't pay your fail share.

Now go in peace and remember Commandment 3: If thou are opposed to it, complain loudly and with much blind rage. Change shall come in 8 years.



Was I supposed to hear this guy:
escapetoreality.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-19 09:23:06 AM  
They're just looking out for the black churches, huh?

You know, you can legally endorse candidates today. Now about those past due taxes...

It is also a good thing that they've studied the New Testament so much. They really took the parts about Jesus establishing a literal kingdom on Earth to heart.
 
2013-08-19 09:24:34 AM  

Joe Blowme: gis Administrative cost as a % of "income" for red cross.

/not defending mega churches or any others, just sayin



Do you have similar figures for any mega-churches or televangelists? Kinda difficult to make a comparison with only one set of numbers.
 
2013-08-19 09:32:31 AM  

EvilEgg: I always wondered about people who attend places like that. It can't be for the "community", because you can only care about so many people.


It's quite simple.  You're looking at it from the wrong direction.

It's not that You care about "so many people".

It's "Look at all those people!  And they all care about ME!"
 
2013-08-19 09:48:09 AM  

swankywanky: Lady J: swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses

but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested

they may in fact give money towards charitable efforts and the poor.  but I also know you don't build something like this without having a WHOLE LOT of scratch:

[commonsenseatheism.com image 500x309]


When I was in grad school my girlfriend and I went along with her friend once to visit one of the large "new covenant" churches...it wasn't in an arena like this one, but it was in a *very* large metal building (kinda like a warehouse).

They collected money THREE TIMES during the service.  And it wasn't just pass around the plates...someone was on stage at the microphone, egging on the congregation to give, give, and keep giving.  Three times.
 
2013-08-19 09:51:42 AM  
What section of the law grants churches tax free status?

I do some stuff for our neighborhood org ad we are 501(c)3  we can do some political stuff as regards to issues, but the rules seem pretty clear that once we endorse a candidate we are violating the rules we agreed to.
 
2013-08-19 09:52:06 AM  
This is a recent development? I seem to recall this happening in churches I'd visited from 1985 - 2000. I wouldn't know about since then, because I've escaped and not gone back.
 
2013-08-19 09:53:27 AM  
ristst:
When I was in grad school my girlfriend and I went along with her friend once to visit one of the large "new covenant" churches...it wasn't in an arena like this one, but it was in a *very* large metal building (kinda like a warehouse).

They collected money THREE TIMES during the service.  And it wasn't just pass around the plates...someone was on stage at the microphone, egging on the congregation to give, give, and keep giving.  Three times.


that's fine... if it goes to feed the starving. or rebuilds community centres. or funds counselling for victims of domestic abuse. you get my drift.
 
2013-08-19 09:55:35 AM  

Red_Fox: You know what kind of countries don't separate politics and religion?  ones like Egypt.

Look how farking well that's going for them.


Oh come off it. There are fair more stable examples. Iran, for instance.
 
2013-08-19 09:56:04 AM  

Lady J: ristst:
When I was in grad school my girlfriend and I went along with her friend once to visit one of the large "new covenant" churches...it wasn't in an arena like this one, but it was in a *very* large metal building (kinda like a warehouse).

They collected money THREE TIMES during the service.  And it wasn't just pass around the plates...someone was on stage at the microphone, egging on the congregation to give, give, and keep giving.  Three times.

that's fine... if it goes to feed the starving. or rebuilds community centres. or funds counselling for victims of domestic abuse. you get my drift.


If I had to guess, it was probably for outreach programs. Evangelical churches view making converts to be a much higher good than mere charity, so why waste money on stuff thay doesn't save souls?
 
2013-08-19 09:56:58 AM  
Justice for Martin, hoodie and all!
hansa-hewlett.com
 
2013-08-19 10:01:23 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: Lady J: ristst:
When I was in grad school my girlfriend and I went along with her friend once to visit one of the large "new covenant" churches...it wasn't in an arena like this one, but it was in a *very* large metal building (kinda like a warehouse).

They collected money THREE TIMES during the service.  And it wasn't just pass around the plates...someone was on stage at the microphone, egging on the congregation to give, give, and keep giving.  Three times.

that's fine... if it goes to feed the starving. or rebuilds community centres. or funds counselling for victims of domestic abuse. you get my drift.

If I had to guess, it was probably for outreach programs. Evangelical churches view making converts to be a much higher good than mere charity, so why waste money on stuff thay doesn't save souls?


I just read AJ Cronin's Keys Of The Kingdom. I had not realised what rice christians were before.

well as long as they're feeding, educating and empoweirng those souls as well as saving them...
 
2013-08-19 10:03:23 AM  

hillary: Serious answer: Your fly is open and please stop wiping your boogers on your shirt.


So pleased that you've chosen to engage in serious discourse about a serious subject which you yourself brought up, and upon which you've seen fit to insult your readers and me in particular.

I have a sledgehammer and a wedge.  Nowhere in their descriptions is the phrase "neat stack of split firewood".  Is the existence of a  "neat stack of firewood" an illegitimately-drawn result from their existence?
 
2013-08-19 10:14:37 AM  
The IRS will only get involved if the church leans Republican.
 
2013-08-19 10:29:53 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: The IRS will only get involved if the church leans Republican.


Um...
 
2013-08-19 10:37:16 AM  
Idiot  subby didn't even read his own article.
 
2013-08-19 10:39:44 AM  
                                                      NO.
 
2013-08-19 10:42:12 AM  
"A 2012 Pew Research Center poll suggests about two-thirds of Americans oppose churches endorsing candidates."

Did people who do not go to church participate in that poll?
 
2013-08-19 10:55:11 AM  

EvilEgg: swankywanky: Lady J: swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses

but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested

they may in fact give money towards charitable efforts and the poor.  but I also know you don't build something like this without having a WHOLE LOT of scratch:

[commonsenseatheism.com image 500x309]

I always wondered about people who attend places like that.  It can't be for the "community", because you can only care about so many people.


Herd mentality
 
2013-08-19 10:58:30 AM  

Speaker2Animals: WTF is the "one state?" This was a syndicated column that appeared in a Florida newspaper and there's nothing going on in Florida that is remotely like what the headline alleges.


Forget it. You are attempting to reason with lunatics, and lunatics do not do "reason", "logic", or even "basic common sense". They see anything that talks about "politics in the pulpit" and they go full "Waahhhrrrrgarble! THEY IZ WANT REPEAL SEPARATION CHURCH AND STATE". They can't help it, given that their brains simply do not function in any of the regions higher than the cerebellum.

Here are the actual points of the article:

"Traditionally" Black Protestant churches are twice as likely as "traditionally" white Protestant churches to endorse political candidates.
1600 churches have actually invited an IRS audit in 2012. The IRS has not acted on this.
Pastor Jamal Harrison in Maryland has come out to support a Democrat politician in New Jersey.
Bishop Thomas Tobin, Rhode Island, is proud that he is a "registered" Republican.
A Pew poll "suggests" that 2/3 of Americans don't want "the pulpit" used to stump for politicians.

What this has to do with Florida or any single state attempting to eliminate a separation of church and state could only be understood by a lunatic.
 
2013-08-19 10:59:53 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: Welcome to the Church of the First Republican, brothers and sisters. What a great day our Repubican leaders have made.

Please turn in your bible to Book of Reagan, First Term chapter 3. And he did see the tax rates for the rich cuteth and they did trickle down. Amen, brothers and sisters. Amen. And catsup shall be a vegetable for ever and a day. Amen.

And now time for our hymn. Please turn to Page 347 and sing along

Obama is wrong. he can't see the light
Even though he's exactly like George W
The man just can't see the light.

Though the national debt did fall
from 2001 to 2009
Obama's been spending crazily
and that's an impeachable crime

All together now

And that's an impeachable crime...

Okay. It's time to pass the plate. Everyone pony up 10% as is the custom. But if you make over $250,000, you get to cut 4% because you pay way too much for what you get. And if you make less that 40,000, pony up an extra 5% because you really don't pay your fail share.

Now go in peace and remember Commandment 3: If thou are opposed to it, complain loudly and with much blind rage. Change shall come in 8 years.


Did you actually read the article?
 
2013-08-19 11:00:44 AM  

NutWrench: A commission of religious leaders has called for clarity in churches' ability to endorse candidates and issues from the without fear of losing their tax-exempt status.

Ok, here you go: once you start telling your parishioners who to vote for and what propositions to support, you're no longer a "church." You're a political organization and should have your tax-exempt status revoked immediately. This is something you and the IRS agreed to.


Unless you are a "black church", then the government must look the other way.
 
2013-08-19 11:05:37 AM  

EvilEgg: I always wondered about people who attend places like that. It can't be for the "community", because you can only care about so many people.


We have a mega church near us that actually does a huge portion of community support. They help fund the public libraries with endowments, have a college community center for vocational training (free to underclass and poor), they work with the homeless shelter and are going to open up a halfway house here soon, they do rescue for battered women, and they work hand in hand with the local Catholic charity here.

I'm telling you, I ain't into that whole god thing, but its one of the few churches I've seen talking the talk and walking the walk. I go on occasion with a friend of ours and their message is usually one of "Walk the earth as the lord commanded you, as him".

Ohh and they make a farking killer cup of joe
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-19 11:10:05 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: EvilEgg: I always wondered about people who attend places like that. It can't be for the "community", because you can only care about so many people.

We have a mega church near us that actually does a huge portion of community support. They help fund the public libraries with endowments, have a college community center for vocational training (free to underclass and poor), they work with the homeless shelter and are going to open up a halfway house here soon, they do rescue for battered women, and they work hand in hand with the local Catholic charity here.

I'm telling you, I ain't into that whole god thing, but its one of the few churches I've seen talking the talk and walking the walk. I go on occasion with a friend of ours and their message is usually one of "Walk the earth as the lord commanded you, as him".

Ohh and they make a farking killer cup of joe


And I applaud them.  Good.

However there are a shiat ton of Joel Olstein "God wants you to be rich" mega churches as well that should be incorporated and taxed...
 
2013-08-19 11:12:19 AM  
Why mix politics and fantasy?
 
2013-08-19 11:21:20 AM  

Lady J: but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested


yep. It all goes to help the poor.

www.digitalsecrets.net
 
2013-08-19 11:29:33 AM  

d23: And I applaud them. Good.

However there are a shiat ton of Joel Olstein "God wants you to be rich" mega churches as well that should be incorporated and taxed...


Ohh I totally agree that its the exception not the rule
 
2013-08-19 11:32:02 AM  

s2s2s2: Justice for Martin, hoodie and all!
[hansa-hewlett.com image 850x1212]


imageshack.com
Is that a gang sign?  That looks like a gang sign.
 
2013-08-19 11:41:58 AM  

Joe Blowme: Lady J: swankywanky: BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses

but surely all that money they're not paying in tax they're giving to the poor, or doing good works with?

im not being disingenuous here (well maybe a bit)... im interested

Probably giving and doing more good than the Red Cross and other "non-profits".


Good thing you have documentation to back up your asinine assertion.
 
2013-08-19 01:07:04 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: Okay. It's time to pass the plate. Everyone pony up 10% as is the custom. But if you make over $250,000, you get to cut 4% because you pay way too much for what you get. And if you make less that 40,000, pony up an extra 5% because you really don't pay your fail share.


Already built into the tax system.  The rich guy gets to deduct the donations, the relatively poor guy is still on the standard deduction and thus doesn't.

swankywanky: they may in fact give money towards charitable efforts and the poor. but I also know you don't build something like this without having a WHOLE LOT of scratch:


I'm willing to bet that given that the place looks to be beyond full, that per person it doesn't cost more than a more traditional church.  Well, except that many 'traditional churches' are around a century old and paid off for almost as long.

LemSkroob: yep. It all goes to help the poor.


Including starving artists, presumably.  ;)

Seriously, given the age of the Catholic church, even 1% of the budget going towards art would add up to a heck of a lot of art.  And at least they're generally open to the public.
 
2013-08-19 01:07:22 PM  
How lacking is the education of our yoots.

How weak, the tea of secular arguments

How vapid the insular view they know nothing of

How thoroughly the men of our Revolutionary past would smack your ass around for being dumbassery gone wild

upload.wikimedia.org
"I hate Jesus Christ and despise His churches, because they're trying to keep me from getting elected .."

In 1954, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, faced fierce re-election opposition from anti-leftist groups and conservative Christians.He successfully changed the IRS code, prohibiting non-profits and churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates.Such language is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - the law of the land which states,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Johnson's IRS insertion was then, and is now, a violation of individual rights of freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.Prior to this time, no restrictions on the free speech of church entities and their members existed.This is all condoned under a false view of Jefferson 's so-called "wall of separation" doctrine.
 
2013-08-19 01:08:12 PM  
Yes why not? We've seen how well it worked out for the Taliban.
 
2013-08-19 01:19:40 PM  

nekom: These people would do well to remember that not only does the state need protected from the church, the church needs protected from the state.  Careful what you wish for, etc.


I sometimes put it this way:

People who want to see religion in politics do so because they think that religion will sanctify politics. In truth, they are wrong: politics will always profane religion.
 
2013-08-19 01:24:16 PM  
How'd that praying for Romney thing work out?

I can normally skip right past religious spam and political nonsense but when both are rolled into one I just want to vomit.
 
2013-08-19 01:27:15 PM  
God is too busy helping people score touchdowns to vote Republican.
 
2013-08-19 02:07:42 PM  
Just one? I thought they were all in the game...
 
2013-08-19 02:19:43 PM  
Ever seen the army of cops that direct traffic at a typical megachurch on a Sunday? There are a lot of tax dollars being spent to facilitate the gathering at those churches, which subsequently pay no tax on all the money that is collected.

To allow their votes to be wielded like a weapon, especially when most "prosperity-doctrine" "true-believers" are encouraged to vote for conservative causes in conflict with true altruism, is disturbing.

The congregation will continue to be directed in the form of peer-pressure and strong suggestions. If they expect to go one step further into full, vocal, public support for a candidate - then they should be taxed.
 
2013-08-19 02:46:05 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Such language is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - the law of the land which states,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."


Plain and simple:  You are wrong.  Any Church that does not want it's lucrative and preferential tax exempt status is free to reject it and engage in whatever political speech they wish.  They are not prohibited from the free exercise of religion, they are prohibited from having both tax-exempt status and the right to, as an organization, engage in politics (not that it has ever stopped them)
 
2013-08-19 03:20:15 PM  

hillary: So every time I read about this idea of seperation of church and state, I note the idiot tossing out the phrase. It does not exist in our constitution. Nor in the Bill of Rights, nor in any amendment. It appears in case law only. I was once told that the phrase did appear in the U.S.S.R.'s official ccommunist manifestos, but I never found out if that was an urban myth.

So seriously, stop using that phrase. You are only showing yourself to be an idiot.


You mean idiots like Thomas Jefferson describing the first amendment?
 
2013-08-19 03:31:46 PM  

swankywanky: Sure, we need the dues! 

[astro.temple.edu image 435x244]

J/K - render unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's and all that
BUT....while we're on the topic, I would like to have some of these "megachurches" stop pretending they are houses of worship and start ponying up the taxes that they should be paying as businesses


Some (a minority) actually are houses of worship.

CSB:

I had the pleasure of attending one for a time.It started out as a small church, and you really felt at home there. People, especially the leaders, were genuine and non-judgmental. Understandably, it grew. The pastor who started the church took a small salary for himself so that he could dedicate himself to working there as well as with those in need full time. Staff members were paid depending upon what work they did. Building and operating expenses also absorbed a bit. Anything beyond that went straight to charity missions. I'm not talking about handing out Bibles in parking lots. I'm talking about travelling to Peru and working with orphans. And I know the finances because I worked in the church office during that time.  I also remember the pastor having us shred boxes of flyers that the local GOP and anti-abortion groups would drop off to have us pass out to the congregation. He was having none of that in his church, and he was a real "love your neighbor as yourself" kind of guy.

This of course lasted until the church got a little too big. Some old Baptists started quietly taking over and had big issues with the way things were being run. The pastor and some others in the church leadership were quietly nudged out, and it turned into a different church entirely. We eventually left after a few incidents left a really bad taste in our mouths, and we weren't the only ones. The associate pastor, who already had the fact that she was a woman against her with these people, started a drug and alcohol recovery group within the church because she figured that (gasp!) the church has aresponsibility to help those who are struggling. The group met outside of Sunday worship services, but the issue was that ashtrays had been placed outside the building. The busybodies made the argument that the ashtrays sent the wrong message about what type of people we would let near the church, I kid you not.

The former pastor and his associate pastor started another small church down the street, and it looks like they won't be formally joining a denomination this time. The membership from the old church has declined dramatically due to the current leadership, but the new church is thriving with the members who left.
 
2013-08-19 04:00:07 PM  

Joe Blowme: So is Florida trying to make congress Congpass  law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Hmmm, interesting


Read the article.  Subtard didn't either.  The article was printed in a Florida paper but has jack-shiat to do with Florida.
 
2013-08-19 08:48:35 PM  
Sure, we can end the ban- as soon as we end tax exempt status for churches, and audit every church in America.
 
2013-08-19 08:53:21 PM  

RobSeace: hillary: So every time I read about this idea of seperation of church and state, I note the idiot tossing out the phrase. It does not exist in our constitution. Nor in the Bill of Rights, nor in any amendment. It appears in case law only. I was once told that the phrase did appear in the U.S.S.R.'s official ccommunist manifestos, but I never found out if that was an urban myth.

So seriously, stop using that phrase. You are only showing yourself to be an idiot.

You mean idiots like Thomas Jefferson describing the first amendment?


Of course. And he was a godless communist, too -- even before Karl Marx was born. But Hillary's actually right. Jefferson talked about a wall of separation, spelling the word correctly. He never said anything about seperation. And thus, I note the idiot who can't spell.
 
2013-08-20 08:20:24 AM  

hillary: Yup. Even Tommy got it wrong.

"The concept of a 'wall' of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. . . . ut the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state." -- SCOTUS, Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984)


So, because his metaphor is not a 100% accurate description of the reality of the situation, he's an idiot and wrong for using it? Since when has any metaphor ever been a 100% accurate description of the reality of any situation? Are people who use any metaphors just all idiots in your opinion?

Even your chosen quote acknowledges the usefullness of the term as a figure of speech... So, I doubt they'd agree with you that anyone using such a useful figure of speech was an idiot... And, personally, I'll go with what one of the founders says about what the first amendment means over what some random Internet poster says, and am more likely to consider the latter to be the idiot of the two...
 
2013-08-20 09:11:46 AM  

supayoda: I'm talking about travelling to Peru and working with orphans


You guys had to travel to Peru to find somebody to help?
 
2013-08-20 09:17:08 AM  
A "semi-permeable membrane" of separation?
the State may not from a state religion, nada about what the preacher's say in the houses of God.  Or, for that matter, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
 
2013-08-20 10:01:03 AM  

manimal2878: supayoda: I'm talking about travelling to Peru and working with orphans

You guys had to travel to Peru to find somebody to help?


They did local missions as well, as does the new church. They help out with a local nursing home and hospitals and provide assistance to those who can't afford to pay various utility bills. (The poorer members of the community would come in and bring their utility bills and the church would help pay some of them.) As I'd already stated, they run an alcohol and drug recovery program that includes AA meetings. They provide assistance to pregnant teens that DOES NOT include guilt tripping. (The pastor is very adamant about that.) They work regularly with Habitat for Humanity. There's a ton that they do locally. I was already getting a tad long winded, though.
 
2013-08-20 11:26:00 AM  

hillary: Bottom line: You either have separation or you don't, just like you are either pregnant or you're not. There's no partial here. What those rulings above say is that while we ALMOST have separation, we don't have it. We just almost have it. We do not in this country have total separation, therefore we do not have separation. Period. You either win a race or you almost win a race, which is to lose.


Yes, because coming in second in a race is exactly the same as coming in dead last...

Bottom line: it's a motherfarking metaphor! It's not meant to be totally accurate... Jefferson didn't believe there was a literal "wall of separation" in place... It's a figure of speech... An offhand colloquial way of describing things in an easy to grasp manner... The fact that it's not 100% accurate doesn't make it any less useful a phrase, nor does it make everyone using it an idiot...

As for siding with the founders, which ones?

It doesn't matter, because the question involved siding with either a founder (pick one at random!) or a random Internet poster... In that matchup, I think you have to give the edge to the random founder when it comes to understanding the intended meaning behind Constitutional amendments...

Do you have any statements from any of the founders which contradict Jefferson's statements on the first amendment? Did any of them say there's no such thing as any kind of separation of church and state, and that's not what the amendment was intended to mean?
 
2013-08-20 11:44:39 AM  

hillary: Yawn. Oh puh-leeeeze. It wasn't a serious question. It was a rhetorical troll job, andand amateur one at that. You received the answer you fully looked forward to getting so that you could take this mock-superior pose job. Well done. Now you have a nice day, mmmmmmkay?


And I get a post pulled for "name-calling"?  For using the exact same word that I quoted from Hillary in his admitted troll job?  A word that more than a few people also subsequently quoted and used freely and extemporaneously?

Nice to know who the mods are, I suppose.
 
2013-08-20 12:39:54 PM  

hillary: RobSeace: Jefferson didn't believe there was a literal "wall of separation" in place...

Whaaaaa? Do you pay attention to your own posts? Jefferson did believe just that, and he wrote that he believed just that, and you quoted him earlier in this very thread writing just that, although your use of the word "literal" here is a bit off as nobody was talking about a brick and mortar physical construction.


Um, if you read my surrounding sentences for context, you'd realize that's exactly what I was talking about, and exactly why I used the word "literal" there, since the context was about metaphors and how they're not meant to be 100% accurate and literal descriptions of things... He believed there was a figurative wall of separation, not a literal one...

And, BTW, this figurative wall need not be totally without holes and cracks and even gaping doorways to walk through... It doesn't make it any less true to talk about there being such a wall of separation in place... Your assertion that unless there's complete, total, 100% separation, then there is no separation at all and anyone talking about there being any separation is just an idiot is just crazy talk...

But yeah, Jefferson and Madison both advocated that the First Amendment created a total and complete separation.

Perhaps, but the phrase itself remains useful even if the separation isn't total and complete... And, not everyone using it necessarily believes it's total and complete, nor are they necessarily idiots...

I strongly suggest that, as a beginning primer, you go to your public library and check out the DVD set of John Adams starring Paul Giamatti

I already own this on DVD, have it ripped to our streaming media server, and rewatch it semi-regularly... But, thanks for the recommendation anyway!
 
2013-08-20 12:48:49 PM  

hillary: RobSeace: Do you have any statements from any of the founders which contradict Jefferson's statements on the first amendment?

Sadly, yes, and it's an embarrassing one that I strongly disagree with, but it does exemplify the philosophical war being waged between the two sides of this issue:

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." -- George Washington


While interesting, I don't see that as any kind of interpretation of the first amendment at all... It just reads like his own personal opinion of how best to govern, not his interpretation of what the first amendment says...

Also, it seems like he never actually said that, anyway...
 
2013-08-20 02:21:35 PM  

hillary: RobSeace: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." -- George Washington

Also, it seems like he never actually said that, anyway...

Heh. That's all I can say to that. Hell, I've known that quote since Enforced Mandatory Sunday School For Kids Doomed To Hell Anyway.


Yes, we all learned lots of quotes over the years that were wrongly attributed to people who never actually said them... Usually it's just due to someone making a simple mistake and it spreading... Other times it's because someone wants to put words into the mouths of famous dead people to support their own beliefs, when in fact there's no evidence the person actually did support those beliefs... But, once one person misattributes a quote to someone, most others will just accept it without bothering to check the validity of it, especially if it sounds vaguely plausible for the person to have said it...

/P.T. Barnum never actually said "There's a sucker born every minute", either...
 
2013-08-20 05:38:39 PM  

hillary: That still doesn't make you right about separation.

YOU'RE WRONG, DAMMIT!!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

I CURSE YOU!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Heh. I think the problem is you just interpret it as an all or nothing thing, while I think most people are a lot looser in their interpretation of the phrase... You said before separation was a binary thing, like being pregnant or not, but it's really not, as most people use the term... If two kids are fighting and someone says to separate them, do you insist they haven't truly been separated unless at least one of them is fully encased in an impenetrable bunker with no possible way in or out? I think most people would say they're separated as long as they're merely located in a separate room or even on opposite sides of the same room... Even though they can still technically get to each other if they really tried, and even might be able to interact a bit even while separated... But, as long as they weren't within arm's reach of each other and beating each other to a pulp, I think most would say there is separation between them...

So, I think when most people talk about the separation of church and state, they aren't saying it's this absolute thing where there can be absolutely no interaction between the two at all... They just think there's some degree of separation there... They're not directly in bed together (or beating each other up)...
 
2013-08-20 09:16:29 PM  

RobSeace: hillary: That still doesn't make you right about separation.

YOU'RE WRONG, DAMMIT!!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

I CURSE YOU!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Heh. I think the problem is you just interpret it as an all or nothing thing, while I think most people are a lot looser in their interpretation of the phrase... You said before separation was a binary thing, like being pregnant or not, but it's really not, as most people use the term... If two kids are fighting and someone says to separate them, do you insist they haven't truly been separated unless at least one of them is fully encased in an impenetrable bunker with no possible way in or out? I think most people would say they're separated as long as they're merely located in a separate room or even on opposite sides of the same room... Even though they can still technically get to each other if they really tried, and even might be able to interact a bit even while separated... But, as long as they weren't within arm's reach of each other and beating each other to a pulp, I think most would say there is separation between them...

So, I think when most people talk about the separation of church and state, they aren't saying it's this absolute thing where there can be absolutely no interaction between the two at all... They just think there's some degree of separation there... They're not directly in bed together (or beating each other up)...


Well, just STFU -- you're arguing with logic and proper usage of language. There's no room for that with fun dies.
 
Displayed 102 of 102 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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