Most domestic abuse shelters will turn away men. Rape relief centres will turn away men and most won't let men volunteer. The food shelter won't give me filet mignon and have a hard time meeting a vegan's needs.
having volunteered in a domestic abuse shelter they will tell men where they can go to seek safety even if that particular shelter can not take in men. they also do this to women when the local shelter is full. where I vounteered men couldn't work directly inside of the shelter with the abused women (oh jeez, i wonder why? :rolleyes: ) but they could voluteer with the shelter and their clients in other areas such as transportation, helping them find permanant housing or other outside services etc.
no one needs filet mignon. and that would be a waste of their limited resources. and since food banks rarely if ever give out meat or anything with animal products vegans shouldn't have much of a problem getting food if they need it
having volunteered in a domestic abuse shelter they will tell men where they can go to seek safety even if that particular shelter can not take in men.
This type of response is not acceptable when coming from your pharmacist when asking for a morning after pill to be dispensed and shouldn't be acceptable when coming from a domestic abuse shelter. Nearly all domestic abuse shelters receive federal funding and as such should have to comply with all anti-discrimination legislation and open to all who require the services.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
This type of response is not acceptable when coming from your pharmacist when asking for a morning after pill to be dispensed and shouldn't be acceptable when coming from a domestic abuse shelter. Nearly all domestic abuse shelters receive federal funding and as such should have to comply with all anti-discrimination legislation and open to all who require the services.
so telling these men exactly where they can go to receive services isn't enough? they should be allowed in with women and kids. the d.v. shelters in most communities will even have the intake person take the man to a shelter that DOES cater to men even if that means having to travel a distance. and if there's not any room in the shelter that they're taken to they will be given a hotel voucher for a place where they're not likely to be found.
how is it that if a women is homeless that shelters that only cater to men can turn her away?
do you not see that each and every shelter cannot possibly be helpful if they don't follow some guidlines to be able to help those most in need of the services that they provide?
This type of response is not acceptable when coming from your pharmacist when asking for a morning after pill to be dispensed and shouldn't be acceptable when coming from a domestic abuse shelter. Nearly all domestic abuse shelters receive federal funding and as such should have to comply with all anti-discrimination legislation and open to all who require the services.
oh and your pharmacist does not have to dispense the morning after pill to anyone that seeks it. however they do have to tell you where you can go to get it.
The food shelter comment about filet mignon was stupid but not the vegan. If you don't expect a food shelter to accomodate everyones beliefs when providing services you should not hold churches to a different standard.
sorry but i don't understand what you mean here. i am holding everyone to the same standard. i can understand why a catholic church will not start talking about god as an evil person so that the people who think that would be ok in the church.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
I would think there would be a difference in a NPF's stated primary mission to a church's stated primary mission ("saving souls" perhaps?)... I wonder why that distinction would be or is blurred in our laws. Indeed churches do a lot of community outreach, however, there's a big door left open within the large evanglical circles, and the laxness in which a preacher can contribute to himself.
no. im not in an organization that promotes separation of people and blind ignorance to my surroundings..
Perhaps not. Keep in mind, however, that no religious person would suggest that they are "in an organization that promotes separation of people and blind ignorance to their surroundings".
i promote acceptance
Not really. What you promote is a one-way acceptance of some by others and, in the process, an intolerance of those others. This is no different than the "acceptance" of most religions. It is simply intolerance in sheep's clothing. There is much anger and hate in your posts in this thread. Neither is the path to acceptance.
and if you or anyone else is religious...well i dare you to read the books of all religions and tell me you wont be a little more accepting..and this goes for anyone.
Definitely a fair point.
im giving ideas on how to tax them and why to to tax them...you arent giving anything here.
Hehe...you are giving ideas on those things. These ideas appear to be hypocritical and violent, in my opinion.
I'm giving you ideas about why you should leave them alone. If you wish to levy taxes on churches and you're willing to pay equal taxes yourself, then you're being logically consistent. However, if you're looking to use taxation as a means to "cripple" or "destroy" these groups and the people associated with them and would never tolerate a similar destruction or crippling of yourself, then you are nothing more than a violent and intolerant individual.
i never said round up church goers.. i said round up religious leaders and the countries leaders who for most part are acting as their countries religious leaders every time they use religion in their words to justify descisions to kill.
You identified religion as a source of warmaking and suggested that we "round these motherfuckers up". That implies religious people as subjects of your cattle drive.
Rather than worrying about religious and governmental leaders, you should try worrying about the conditions and mindsets that lend individuals into signing up with these groups. A thinking population has no interest in the business of faith and the faulty logic that comes with it. Take solace in the fact that the world is headed in a direction away from these ideologies, albeit slowly. You will be best served by not contributing, as opposed to adopting their methods.
I would think there would be a difference in a NPF's stated primary mission to a church's stated primary mission ("saving souls" perhaps?)... I wonder why that distinction would be or is blurred in our laws. Indeed churches do a lot of community outreach, however, there's a big door left open within the large evanglical circles, and the laxness in which a preacher can contribute to himself.
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''
????????? wow
"When you're climbing to the top, you'd better know the way back down" MSB
no. it would totally screw up the whole separation of church and state thing. i think we should boycott on churches not being involved in politics. i'm down with that.
have in mind.... these church members are taxpayers already. it would suck for them to pay taxes twice.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
It depends... some small churches have budgets that are so tight that they would have to close. But those huge mega churches, and even the big city catholic churches bring in huge amounts of money... Maybe have a minimum income level until the taxes kick in or something.
i could also buy this too. that joel osteen dude.... he's too rich.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
A besides the point, churches income is mainly from tithes which is a post tax donation. I'm not a big fan of taxing a dollar twice.
Me either, but surely you can see that a lot of churches benefit financially from not being taxed and it's not always their charitable efforts that benefit from the tax exemptions?
I see no reason for them not to have to contribute financially to the society that they spend a great deal of time influencing.
There are plenty of clubs and organizations that I participate in that are taxed, which I contribute to the finances of, and I have already paid income tax on. If it's good enough for them to have to pay tax on money that I have already been taxed on it's good enough for churches to do the same.
Me either, but surely you can see that a lot of churches benefit financially from not being taxed and it's not always their charitable efforts that benefit from the tax exemptions?
I see no reason for them not to have to contribute financially to the society that they spend a great deal of time influencing.
There are plenty of clubs and organizations that I participate in that are taxed, which I contribute to the finances of, and I have already paid income tax on. If it's good enough for them to have to pay tax on money that I have already been taxed on it's good enough for churches to do the same.
Well said. If you are donating money to clubs and organizations that are getting taxed, they need to find a new accountant.
It really isn't a black and white issue. It would be hard for the government to mandate some sort of service requirement for churches and other groups. But seeing as a churches main function is not making money, as long as they stick out of politics I'm fine with that. And that goes for the NAACP as well, they are notorious about sicking their nose where it shouldn't be... got investigated a few years back. And there are hundreds of groups on both sides of the fence that do the same thing. The purpose of giving these groups a tax free benefit is so they can benefit society, not campaign to further their agendas.
Well said. If you are donating money to clubs and organizations that are getting taxed, they need to find a new accountant.
It really isn't a black and white issue. It would be hard for the government to mandate some sort of service requirement for churches and other groups. But seeing as a churches main function is not making money, as long as they stick out of politics I'm fine with that. And that goes for the NAACP as well, they are notorious about sicking their nose where it shouldn't be... got investigated a few years back. And there are hundreds of groups on both sides of the fence that do the same thing. The purpose of giving these groups a tax free benefit is so they can benefit society, not campaign to further their agendas.
I agree. It's very complicated. I guess I would be a bit iffy on the churches on account of some of the stuff I see going on here, that I posted earlier. Such as The Exclusive Brethren who aren't getting taxed, DON'T VOTE but are using church money to place ads telling other people how they think they should vote AND not making it clear that it's them who are advertising OR what money they are using.
I'm all for there being tax breaks for churches OR any organization that is doing charitable work that the government or big business isn't funding.
I guess I just draw the line when it appears that financially the organization is benefitting by using the tax breaks for their own gain. Smaller churches and organizations that do good work helping the community should get tax breaks, but I think once you start getting such a free pass from the taxation department that you're able to build a megaplex to worship in and no one can really see what you are contributing to society as a whole, then I don't see why they can't be taxed. And I'm no financial whiz by any stretch, tax time is my LEAST favorite time of year, HOWEVER if the government has worked out ways to wring every little last drop out of me as often as possible I don't see any reason why it should be difficult for them to set up a fair and equitable tax for churches. One that doesn't interfere with those organizations that are doing the right thing.
Me either, but surely you can see that a lot of churches benefit financially from not being taxed and it's not always their charitable efforts that benefit from the tax exemptions?
I see no reason for them not to have to contribute financially to the society that they spend a great deal of time influencing.
There are plenty of clubs and organizations that I participate in that are taxed, which I contribute to the finances of, and I have already paid income tax on. If it's good enough for them to have to pay tax on money that I have already been taxed on it's good enough for churches to do the same.
but see... this violates constitution. it infringes on the religious significance of tithes. although, yes, many pastors misuse the money to their own advantage... i.e. jim baker and such. and if it leads to that point i have no problem that the gov't should take over.
at any rate, i don't think it'll happen anytime soon or maybe ever.
why would you want it to happen anyways? why is it so important that churches pay taxes? if that were to happen then by all means... take away the separation of church and state laws.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
but see... this violates constitution. it infringes on the religious significance of tithes. although, yes, many pastors misuse the money to their own advantage... i.e. jim baker and such. and if it leads to that point i have no problem that the gov't should take over.
at any rate, i don't think it'll happen anytime soon or maybe ever.
why would you want it to happen anyways? why is it so important that churches pay taxes? if that were to happen then by all means... take away the separation of church and state laws.
I take no issue with churches being tax exempt where they are providing services for the community and doing charitable work that benefits the community. When, by them not paying tax they are able to build great edifices, intefere or use their money to participate in the political process, or any other situation where by not paying tax they are able to "profit" by being a church, then I think they should pay tax. And as I've said earlier this also applies to some charitable organizations as far as I'm concerned.
And I know nothing of your constitution or tithes dead. Here in Australia there are LARGE churches who are profiting simply by being churches. It's all back there in the thread.
i wrote this before but i don't understand why so many people are saying that churches should not participate in politics.
Martin Luther King was a minister, would you have perfered him not to participate in politics. In canada, there are many churches who were fighting for same sex marriage (which i agree with)
i think the biggest issue is that all we hear about from some churches is their fight against abortion, gay rights. that is the media who is more focus are selling "news"papers, "news" broadcast.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Unless you have a specific fund or issue that the extra money from taxing churches would be used for, then saying churches should be taxed is just some form of petty, spiteful punishment.
I'd rather the churches have the money than the government...
I'd rather any of us have the money than the government.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The way I see it, they dabble in politics and education. Religion should be free, but wanting prayer in public schools and the 10 commandments displayed in courthouses and federal buildings kinda makes them a political entity in themselves.
The way I see it, they dabble in politics and education. Religion should be free, but wanting prayer in public schools and the 10 commandments displayed in courthouses and federal buildings kinda makes them a political entity in themselves.
the problem is that if you want teh church to fight injustices (like martin luther king) than you have to allow people who you don't agree with do the same things.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Perhaps not. Keep in mind, however, that no religious person would suggest that they are "in an organization that promotes separation of people and blind ignorance to their surroundings".
Not really. What you promote is a one-way acceptance of some by others and, in the process, an intolerance of those others. This is no different than the "acceptance" of most religions. It is simply intolerance in sheep's clothing. There is much anger and hate in your posts in this thread. Neither is the path to acceptance.
Definitely a fair point.
Hehe...you are giving ideas on those things. These ideas appear to be hypocritical and violent, in my opinion.
I'm giving you ideas about why you should leave them alone. If you wish to levy taxes on churches and you're willing to pay equal taxes yourself, then you're being logically consistent. However, if you're looking to use taxation as a means to "cripple" or "destroy" these groups and the people associated with them and would never tolerate a similar destruction or crippling of yourself, then you are nothing more than a violent and intolerant individual.
You identified religion as a source of warmaking and suggested that we "round these motherfuckers up". That implies religious people as subjects of your cattle drive.
Rather than worrying about religious and governmental leaders, you should try worrying about the conditions and mindsets that lend individuals into signing up with these groups. A thinking population has no interest in the business of faith and the faulty logic that comes with it. Take solace in the fact that the world is headed in a direction away from these ideologies, albeit slowly. You will be best served by not contributing, as opposed to adopting their methods.
YOU ARE RIDICULOUS. are you blind yourself...can you read my posts... they are vioolent?? im talking about crippling a religion that promotes and instigates war in their god's name... HOW CAN YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS???
let me see a smart ass, unintelligent reply to this... but before you do im sure your post will, go off on a tangent and talk about nothing i just wrote...just more unenlightened philosophical bullshit... im done here.. im trying to explain why to tax the church and how... and you still won't leave it alone... lol ..
YOU ARE RIDICULOUS. are you blind yourself...can you read my posts...
I can read your posts.
Can you:
they are vioolent?? im talking about crippling a religion that promotes and instigates war in their god's name... HOW CAN YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS???
Because I'm non-violent, of course. I don't believe in crippling people via violent taxation, or any other means of violence.
WHERE IS YOUR INPUT!?!?!?!?!?
My input, again, is this:
"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?"
"Rather than worrying about religious and governmental leaders, you should try worrying about the conditions and mindsets that lend individuals into signing up with these groups. A thinking population has no interest in the business of faith and the faulty logic that comes with it. Take solace in the fact that the world is headed in a direction away from these ideologies, albeit slowly. You will be best served by not contributing, as opposed to adopting their methods."
but see... this violates constitution. it infringes on the religious significance of tithes. although, yes, many pastors misuse the money to their own advantage... i.e. jim baker and such. and if it leads to that point i have no problem that the gov't should take over.
at any rate, i don't think it'll happen anytime soon or maybe ever.
why would you want it to happen anyways? why is it so important that churches pay taxes? if that were to happen then by all means... take away the separation of church and state laws.
infringes on the religious significance of tithes? do you even know what tithing is? that is money being forced to go TO the church, FROM citizens. not the other way round. taxing a church does not break down any separation between church and state (though it is funny how suddnely this rule is your best friend but when it comes to teaching evolution or birth control there was never any wall), it simply treats churches like any other profitable business enterprise.
that is money being forced to go TO the church, FROM citizens.
There's no force to a tithe, BTW. At least not here in US.
On the plus side, good call on the hypocrisy of those who suddenly find the sep. of church and state to be a good thing, where in the past it was an irrelevancy. There's lots of that (in both directions) going on in this thread, I suspect.
There's no force to a tithe, BTW. At least not here in US.
On the plus side, good call on the hypocrisy of those who suddenly find the sep. of church and state to be a good thing, where in the past it was an irrelevancy. There's lots of that (in both directions) going on in this thread, I suspect.
i think tithing was forced in the middle ages. but in any case, i was only pointing out that tithing is an utterly irrelevant point in this discussion becos nobody is talking about giving money to the church. if anything, tax exemption does that by forcing society to underwrite church activities. but taxing churches is the exact OPPOSITE of a tithe.
Probably. That was when "tithe" and "tax" were still synonymous, since the church was the major taxing body before the government got into the mix.
i was only pointing out that tithing is an utterly irrelevant point in this discussion becos nobody is talking about giving money to the church. if anything, tax exemption does that by forcing society to underwrite church activities.
It certainly wouldn't be anything unique. You're correct in that. Furthermore, most individual contributions wouldn't even be taxed as church income since most churches operate at a net loss or breakeven point. Tithes would likely become tax-deductible which would result in a net tax gain for individuals.
Again, people need to realize that the only noticeable increase in tax revenue that would come from taxing churches would be on the local level via property tax. The handful of big churches that operate with significant profits would make little impact on overall income/corporate tax revenues.
Now, to your last point. Society is not "forced" to underwrite church activities due to a lack of taxation on churches. That's very specious logic and is akin to suggesting that you're "forced" to pay $50,000 for a BMW since demand for BMWs isn't universal. Society is the one who has instituted these programs and services that they pay for. A church exemption does not "force" you to cover the church -- nothing forces you to have those programs and services in the first place.
Because I'm non-violent, of course. I don't believe in crippling people via violent taxation, or any other means of violence.
My input, again, is this:
"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?"
"Rather than worrying about religious and governmental leaders, you should try worrying about the conditions and mindsets that lend individuals into signing up with these groups. A thinking population has no interest in the business of faith and the faulty logic that comes with it. Take solace in the fact that the world is headed in a direction away from these ideologies, albeit slowly. You will be best served by not contributing, as opposed to adopting their methods."
i like your INPUT on the last paragraph and i see you are saying and i understand.. maybe instead of going to the source of the problem, stop people from joining them..and you hint that religion is phasing out slowly but surely... the reason i mention taxing the shit out of a church that displays anger and violence to other religions in the name of their god is because ive always been against unnecessary war and killing. I dont think the answer is to continue to leave this idea alone...the proof is out there that religions are the problem... can you agree to that? I think leaving them alone is the worst thing to do..and now that we are in Iraq...its just another example... these ideas have to end. and i think by making htese organizations pay taxes and surrender their royalties (that have been given to them) its a step in the right direction
Comments
having volunteered in a domestic abuse shelter they will tell men where they can go to seek safety even if that particular shelter can not take in men. they also do this to women when the local shelter is full. where I vounteered men couldn't work directly inside of the shelter with the abused women (oh jeez, i wonder why? :rolleyes: ) but they could voluteer with the shelter and their clients in other areas such as transportation, helping them find permanant housing or other outside services etc.
no one needs filet mignon. and that would be a waste of their limited resources. and since food banks rarely if ever give out meat or anything with animal products vegans shouldn't have much of a problem getting food if they need it
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
so telling these men exactly where they can go to receive services isn't enough? they should be allowed in with women and kids. the d.v. shelters in most communities will even have the intake person take the man to a shelter that DOES cater to men even if that means having to travel a distance. and if there's not any room in the shelter that they're taken to they will be given a hotel voucher for a place where they're not likely to be found.
how is it that if a women is homeless that shelters that only cater to men can turn her away?
do you not see that each and every shelter cannot possibly be helpful if they don't follow some guidlines to be able to help those most in need of the services that they provide?
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
oh and your pharmacist does not have to dispense the morning after pill to anyone that seeks it. however they do have to tell you where you can go to get it.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
sorry but i don't understand what you mean here. i am holding everyone to the same standard. i can understand why a catholic church will not start talking about god as an evil person so that the people who think that would be ok in the church.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Perhaps not. Keep in mind, however, that no religious person would suggest that they are "in an organization that promotes separation of people and blind ignorance to their surroundings".
Not really. What you promote is a one-way acceptance of some by others and, in the process, an intolerance of those others. This is no different than the "acceptance" of most religions. It is simply intolerance in sheep's clothing. There is much anger and hate in your posts in this thread. Neither is the path to acceptance.
Definitely a fair point.
Hehe...you are giving ideas on those things. These ideas appear to be hypocritical and violent, in my opinion.
I'm giving you ideas about why you should leave them alone. If you wish to levy taxes on churches and you're willing to pay equal taxes yourself, then you're being logically consistent. However, if you're looking to use taxation as a means to "cripple" or "destroy" these groups and the people associated with them and would never tolerate a similar destruction or crippling of yourself, then you are nothing more than a violent and intolerant individual.
You identified religion as a source of warmaking and suggested that we "round these motherfuckers up". That implies religious people as subjects of your cattle drive.
Rather than worrying about religious and governmental leaders, you should try worrying about the conditions and mindsets that lend individuals into signing up with these groups. A thinking population has no interest in the business of faith and the faulty logic that comes with it. Take solace in the fact that the world is headed in a direction away from these ideologies, albeit slowly. You will be best served by not contributing, as opposed to adopting their methods.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
hehe!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
have in mind.... these church members are taxpayers already. it would suck for them to pay taxes twice.
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
In which he pays income tax.
A besides the point, churches income is mainly from tithes which is a post tax donation. I'm not a big fan of taxing a dollar twice.
Me either, but surely you can see that a lot of churches benefit financially from not being taxed and it's not always their charitable efforts that benefit from the tax exemptions?
I see no reason for them not to have to contribute financially to the society that they spend a great deal of time influencing.
There are plenty of clubs and organizations that I participate in that are taxed, which I contribute to the finances of, and I have already paid income tax on. If it's good enough for them to have to pay tax on money that I have already been taxed on it's good enough for churches to do the same.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well said. If you are donating money to clubs and organizations that are getting taxed, they need to find a new accountant.
It really isn't a black and white issue. It would be hard for the government to mandate some sort of service requirement for churches and other groups. But seeing as a churches main function is not making money, as long as they stick out of politics I'm fine with that. And that goes for the NAACP as well, they are notorious about sicking their nose where it shouldn't be... got investigated a few years back. And there are hundreds of groups on both sides of the fence that do the same thing. The purpose of giving these groups a tax free benefit is so they can benefit society, not campaign to further their agendas.
I agree.
I'm all for there being tax breaks for churches OR any organization that is doing charitable work that the government or big business isn't funding.
I guess I just draw the line when it appears that financially the organization is benefitting by using the tax breaks for their own gain. Smaller churches and organizations that do good work helping the community should get tax breaks, but I think once you start getting such a free pass from the taxation department that you're able to build a megaplex to worship in and no one can really see what you are contributing to society as a whole, then I don't see why they can't be taxed. And I'm no financial whiz by any stretch, tax time is my LEAST favorite time of year, HOWEVER if the government has worked out ways to wring every little last drop out of me as often as possible I don't see any reason why it should be difficult for them to set up a fair and equitable tax for churches. One that doesn't interfere with those organizations that are doing the right thing.
Sorry, I got no clue who the NAACP are.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
at any rate, i don't think it'll happen anytime soon or maybe ever.
why would you want it to happen anyways? why is it so important that churches pay taxes? if that were to happen then by all means... take away the separation of church and state laws.
I take no issue with churches being tax exempt where they are providing services for the community and doing charitable work that benefits the community. When, by them not paying tax they are able to build great edifices, intefere or use their money to participate in the political process, or any other situation where by not paying tax they are able to "profit" by being a church, then I think they should pay tax. And as I've said earlier this also applies to some charitable organizations as far as I'm concerned.
And I know nothing of your constitution or tithes dead. Here in Australia there are LARGE churches who are profiting simply by being churches. It's all back there in the thread.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Martin Luther King was a minister, would you have perfered him not to participate in politics. In canada, there are many churches who were fighting for same sex marriage (which i agree with)
i think the biggest issue is that all we hear about from some churches is their fight against abortion, gay rights. that is the media who is more focus are selling "news"papers, "news" broadcast.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
I'd rather the churches have the money than the government...
I'd rather any of us have the money than the government.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
the problem is that if you want teh church to fight injustices (like martin luther king) than you have to allow people who you don't agree with do the same things.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
YOU ARE RIDICULOUS. are you blind yourself...can you read my posts... they are vioolent?? im talking about crippling a religion that promotes and instigates war in their god's name... HOW CAN YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS???
let me see a smart ass, unintelligent reply to this... but before you do im sure your post will, go off on a tangent and talk about nothing i just wrote...just more unenlightened philosophical bullshit... im done here.. im trying to explain why to tax the church and how... and you still won't leave it alone... lol ..
WHERE IS YOUR INPUT!?!?!?!?!?
I can read your posts.
Can you:
Because I'm non-violent, of course. I don't believe in crippling people via violent taxation, or any other means of violence.
My input, again, is this:
"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?"
"Rather than worrying about religious and governmental leaders, you should try worrying about the conditions and mindsets that lend individuals into signing up with these groups. A thinking population has no interest in the business of faith and the faulty logic that comes with it. Take solace in the fact that the world is headed in a direction away from these ideologies, albeit slowly. You will be best served by not contributing, as opposed to adopting their methods."
infringes on the religious significance of tithes? do you even know what tithing is? that is money being forced to go TO the church, FROM citizens. not the other way round. taxing a church does not break down any separation between church and state (though it is funny how suddnely this rule is your best friend but when it comes to teaching evolution or birth control there was never any wall), it simply treats churches like any other profitable business enterprise.
There's no force to a tithe, BTW. At least not here in US.
On the plus side, good call on the hypocrisy of those who suddenly find the sep. of church and state to be a good thing, where in the past it was an irrelevancy. There's lots of that (in both directions) going on in this thread, I suspect.
i think tithing was forced in the middle ages. but in any case, i was only pointing out that tithing is an utterly irrelevant point in this discussion becos nobody is talking about giving money to the church. if anything, tax exemption does that by forcing society to underwrite church activities. but taxing churches is the exact OPPOSITE of a tithe.
Probably. That was when "tithe" and "tax" were still synonymous, since the church was the major taxing body before the government got into the mix.
It certainly wouldn't be anything unique. You're correct in that. Furthermore, most individual contributions wouldn't even be taxed as church income since most churches operate at a net loss or breakeven point. Tithes would likely become tax-deductible which would result in a net tax gain for individuals.
Again, people need to realize that the only noticeable increase in tax revenue that would come from taxing churches would be on the local level via property tax. The handful of big churches that operate with significant profits would make little impact on overall income/corporate tax revenues.
Now, to your last point. Society is not "forced" to underwrite church activities due to a lack of taxation on churches. That's very specious logic and is akin to suggesting that you're "forced" to pay $50,000 for a BMW since demand for BMWs isn't universal. Society is the one who has instituted these programs and services that they pay for. A church exemption does not "force" you to cover the church -- nothing forces you to have those programs and services in the first place.
i like your INPUT on the last paragraph and i see you are saying and i understand.. maybe instead of going to the source of the problem, stop people from joining them..and you hint that religion is phasing out slowly but surely... the reason i mention taxing the shit out of a church that displays anger and violence to other religions in the name of their god is because ive always been against unnecessary war and killing. I dont think the answer is to continue to leave this idea alone...the proof is out there that religions are the problem... can you agree to that? I think leaving them alone is the worst thing to do..and now that we are in Iraq...its just another example... these ideas have to end. and i think by making htese organizations pay taxes and surrender their royalties (that have been given to them) its a step in the right direction