Should Churches pay Taxes?

farfromglorified

macgyver06 wrote:

I DO NOT ACCEPT WAR.

Of course you do. You're proposing to make it.

farfromglorified

macgyver06 wrote:

what is your motivation here??

i will state again... for the third time..lol (am i writing in english?)

i do not tolerate war and killing.

Excellent. So stop proposing to make war.

so yes.. maybe its time we got these religions together and sat them down... and told them no more.

Do you think that would stop them?

your little paragraph about me pretending to be peaceful is insulting..

Insulting how? If I'm wrong, what do you care?

so i ask again.. Whats the motivation behind it???

To highlight the hypocrisy I'm seeing, of course.

surferdude

macgyver06 wrote:

i do not tolerate war and killing.
so yes.. maybe its time we got these religions together and sat them down... and told them no more.

And if they fought back against this totalitarianism you'd just turn the other cheek and do nothing????

macgyver06

and once again..a good argument on here has resulted to posts that contain no facts, just personal attacks and unthoughtful opinions in attempt to do what? you say my hypocrisy but ive read my posts and see no twists and no swayiong of opinion... so i can only assume your reason for these position is to argue aimlessly without a goal...how can you continue to learn of new ideas and facts and new ways and new sides of something if you don't read?

macgyver06

surferdude wrote:

And if they fought back against this totalitarianism you'd just turn the other cheek and do nothing????

what do you mean? what would they be fighting this time?

Kel Varnsen

I am not a church-goer, but I think for the most part they are pretty much non-profit chairty like any other and should be treated as such. Now I do think there should be some sort of scrutinity to make sure that the head of a church is not stealing non-taxed company money so that he can have a mansion in Malibu. But that should be no different than making sure the CEO of a hugh company isn't using company funds for his own personal gain and not calling it personal income.

macgyver06

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course you do. You're proposing to make it.

what are you talking about... having churches pay taxes and sanctioning them to the point where they are crippled is not proposing war.. any religion who cannot live amongst other religions peacefully is a bully.. this is nothing more than glorified gangs.. any actions of agression towards another religion for spirtual reasons (which has been going on forever) will be dealt with towards the religion as a whole.. if you as an individual feel the nescessity in 2007 to place your personal beliefs in a pool with millions of other individuals who digest everything they are told than your church will be the victim not you as an individual... no one can tax your brain...and no one is proposing that.

macgyver06

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am not a church-goer, but I think for the most part they are pretty much non-profit chairty like any other and should be treated as such. Now I do think there should be some sort of scrutinity to make sure that the head of a church is not stealing non-taxed company money so that he can have a mansion in Malibu. But that should be no different than making sure the CEO of a hugh company isn't using company funds for his own personal gain and not calling it personal income.

exactly! majority of churches i bet you will find are well behaved.

surferdude

macgyver06 wrote:

what do you mean? what would they be fighting this time?

I could be mistaken but I took "i do not tolerate war and killing.
so yes.. maybe its time we got these religions together and sat them down... and told them no more." to mean you want no more religion. This is what people would be fighting against. And since you don't believe in war I can only suppose you'd follow through on your beliefs and turn the other cheek and submit.

If you mean no more religious wars I'm not sure what you mean by this. WWI was not a religious war. WWII was not a religious war. Vietnam and Korean Wars were not religious wars. Are these wars okay? Do these wars merit differrent treatment than a so called religious war? Are the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan religious wars? Was Clinton's bombing of Kosovo a religious war? If so what religion was he warring for?

farfromglorified

macgyver06 wrote:

what are you talking about... having churches pay taxes and sanctioning them to the point where they are crippled is not proposing war..

Hehe...it's certainly not proposing a fair war. But it is war, nonetheless.

any religion who cannot live amongst other religions peacefully is a bully.. this is nothing more than glorified gangs.. any actions of agression towards another religion for spirtual reasons (which has been going on forever) will be dealt with towards the religion as a whole..

Wow. How would you feel if I got carjacked by a black guy and proposed that it should "be dealt with towards the race as a whole"? How would you feel if an Iraqi came to Orlando and shot you in the face in response to the United States' war against Iraq? Are those actions cool with you?

if you as an individual feel the nescessity in 2007 to place your personal beliefs in a pool with millions of other individuals who digest everything they are told than your church will be the victim not you as an individual... no one can tax your brain...and no one is proposing that.

Sigh....

onelongsong

if they distribute their wealth to the poor and hungry; no. since they don't; yes.

macgyver06

surferdude wrote:

I could be mistaken but I took "i do not tolerate war and killing.
so yes.. maybe its time we got these religions together and sat them down... and told them no more." to mean you want no more religion. This is what people would be fighting against. And since you don't believe in war I can only suppose you'd follow through on your beliefs and turn the other cheek and submit.

If you mean no more religious wars I'm not sure what you mean by this. WWI was not a religious war. WWII was not a religious war. Vietnam and Korean Wars were not religious wars. Are these wars okay? Do these wars merit differrent treatment than a so called religious war? Are the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan religious wars? Was Clinton's bombing of Kosovo a religious war? If so what religion was he warring for?

im in no way against the beliefs of the individual... you are also right about the wars you mentioned...maybe to an individual fighting in the war could it have been about religion to them...but in the grand scheme those wars werent based on religion... but they were based on principles of a mass belief... whether its communism or capitalism.. I think its the agressor, the instigator that is slipping through history and being unnoticed and im not against religions like i wouldnt have been against the nazi party taking over in germany.. but as soon as the killing starts...thats what im against and why i would have been against them..just like i think you can say...hey its not the people who go to churchs fault that there is a consensus amongst christians that muslims want to rid the planet of non muslims or the consensus that we must kill americans for allah.. im saying the wrong people are being put at fault to protect the real, bigger problem and thats the organized crime of all
religions on a large scale...

as if to say...the people, the peaceful are victims of cult thinking.

macgyver06

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...it's certainly not proposing a fair war. But it is war, nonetheless.



Wow. How would you feel if I got carjacked by a black guy and proposed that it should "be dealt with towards the race as a whole"? How would you feel if an Iraqi came to Orlando and shot you in the face in response to the United States' war against Iraq? Are those actions cool with you?



Sigh....

again i question your motivation here. you are getting off topic and making half assed comparisons.

if the black guy was a pawn by the organization of black men than yes the black men should be sanctioned.. BUT THATS NOT REALITY MAN!!! AND BLACK PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS LIKE US ALL

try and stay in real time could you??

also i get a sense youa re tyrying to discredit me for some reason as you are acting like you are so advanced in thought that my posts are a waste of time.. if you cant make intelligent responses...why waste your own time


example.... ''sigh''

macgyver06

onelongsong wrote:

if they distribute their wealth to the poor and hungry; no. since they don't; yes.

hehe yeah

didnt jesus give bread... someone told me the other day bread is bad because of carbs... lol thats we get nowadays


instead of helping people we have gone to...you dont want that glass of water anyway


but excuse me while i go in private to get a drink

farfromglorified

macgyver06 wrote:

again i question your motivation here. you are getting off topic and making half assed comparisons.

Making a statement is not questioning my motivation. My motivation is simply to find out how "tolerant" and "peaceful" you actually are.

if the black guy was a pawn by the organization of black men than yes the black men should be sanctioned.. BUT THATS NOT REALITY MAN!!! AND BLACK PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS LIKE US ALL

So are church goers, priests, and all the "motherfuckers" you wish to "round up".

also i get a sense youa re tyrying to discredit me for some reason as you are acting like you are so advanced in thought that my posts are a waste of time.. if you cant make intelligent responses...why waste your own time

I am trying to discredit you. People who preach anger, hate, and intolerance in the name of "tolerance" and "acceptance" and "love" are no better than the fanatics that came before them, and I have no more interest in seeing you sway others in the same way of those who came before you.

example.... ''sigh''

I'll happily expound, then.

You criticize those if who "as an individual feel the nescessity in 2007 to place your personal beliefs in a pool with millions of other individuals who digest everything they are told". Yet I've seen little sign that you're any different. You're simply spewing a lot of the anti-religious junk that so many others do and proposing a series of contradictory responses that align themselves with the very things you pretend to be railing against. Furthermore, you suggest that individuals will not be "victimized", that only "churches" will. Well, what qualifies as a "church"? Are you going to tax buildings? Are you going to "cripple" steeples? Finally, you seem to try to comfort me or your readers by saying "no one can tax your brain...and no one is proposing that." Yet all this time you're suggesting that such brains have been compromised by religion, which implies that they could also be compromised by you. This, when combined with your statements about "crippling" things, makes me think you simply wish to indoctrinate the religious into your own contradictory belief systems.

So, let me make a proposal to you: why don't you leave them alone? Why don't you defend the things you do have a right to defend from them: your mind and your property, and leave it at that?

macgyver06

thats your answer... leave it alone.

Thecure

MahoganySouls wrote:

Very good point. Although, shouldn't the churches stay out of politics all together? I never understood that one.

you do know that Martin Luther King Jr was a minister? would you rather he didn't get involved?

macgyver06

farfromglorified wrote:

Making a statement is not questioning my motivation. My motivation is simply to find out how "tolerant" and "peaceful" you actually are.



So are church goers, priests, and all the "motherfuckers" you wish to "round up".



I am trying to discredit you. People who preach anger, hate, and intolerance in the name of "tolerance" and "acceptance" and "love" are no better than the fanatics that came before them, and I have no more interest in seeing you sway others in the same way of those who came before you.



I'll happily expound, then.

You criticize those if who "as an individual feel the nescessity in 2007 to place your personal beliefs in a pool with millions of other individuals who digest everything they are told". Yet I've seen little sign that you're any different. You're simply spewing a lot of the anti-religious junk that so many others do and proposing a series of contradictory responses that align themselves with the very things you pretend to be railing against. Furthermore, you suggest that individuals will not be "victimized", that only "churches" will. Well, what qualifies as a "church"? Are you going to tax buildings? Are you going to "cripple" steeples? Finally, you seem to try to comfort me or your readers by saying "no one can tax your brain...and no one is proposing that." Yet all this time you're suggesting that such brains have been compromised by religion, which implies that they could also be compromised by you. This, when combined with your statements about "crippling" things, makes me think you simply wish to indoctrinate the religious into your own contradictory belief systems.

So, let me make a proposal to you: why don't you leave them alone? Why don't you defend the things you do have a right to defend from them: your mind and your property, and leave it at that?

so tell me if this is correct

you believe this (since all your posts are just posts that analyze what i have said and not actually any input from yourself)

1. Religions must be left alone at all costs.
2. Black men and Iraqis are all the same.
3. An individual can only defend their land and their mind and nothing else.
4. You are uncomfortable with the word ''motherfucker''

farfromglorified

macgyver06 wrote:

you believe this:

1. Religions must be left alone at all costs.

No. Religions must be left alone to the same extent you expect to be left alone.

2. Black men and Iraqis are all the same.

No. Black men and Iraqis are all different, much like churchgoers and church staffers.

3. An individual can only defend their land and their mind and nothing else.

An individual can only defend something that is theirs. Anything else is not "defense", it is offense.

4. You are uncomfortable with the word ''motherfucker''

Not particularly.

mca47

bootlegger10 wrote:

Churches would lose their tax-exempt status for their political contributions.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a391d19af0f3b.htm

I guess I should have clarified my comment.
Churches don't cut a check to the political candidate or party. That doesn't happen. They do have influence over their congregation and those members can donate as much as they want.