Do you really think you are helping anyone?

[Kathryn]

Yes - and my point is that tax credits - i.e. dollars - are used to subsidize and encourage donations to religious groups.

Wow, there's more than one way to spin something. Another way to put this is "Charitable organizations, regardless of religious affiliation or the lack thereof, are offered a reduction or waiver of some forms of taxes."

Seems to me that to withhold a tax credit simply because a charitable organization is operated by a religious organization would be discrimination based on religious affiliation - which is against the law in the United States. As the law stands right now - ALL non profit, charitable organizations are offered some reductions or waivers of some taxes.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that religious groups, like many other groups, receive valuable government services at less than their actual cost. IOW, religious groups, like many other groups, are subsidized by the government.

So what's your application? Should trash collectors stop picking up the trash at non profit organizations? Should people driving to work at a non profit not be allowed to use a public highway? Should a police officer turn a blind eye to someone breaking into a non profit establishment?

But many government services aren't paid for by these means. For instance, the FAA does just as much to ensure that pastors are safe when they fly on church business as they do to ensure that a businessperson is, and just as much to ensure that planes don't fall out of the sky onto churches as they do to ensure that they don't fall onto the houses of taxpayers. The FAA isn't supported by property, sales, or payroll taxes.

Honestly, now this is getting a bit ridiculous. Should pastors be barred from commercial flights, even though they've paid full price for a ticket? Should we mark certain areas so that it's visible from the sky - and give planes permission to fly recklessly over property owned by non profits?

All the people who pay more taxes than the cost of the services they consume. We're subsidizing them, just like we subsidize churches.

Well, my tax dollars go toward a lot of stuff I wouldn't voluntarily support if given the choice, and because I'm in a pretty high tax bracket, I guess, using your reasoning, that I'm paying quite a bit more than my "fair share" regardless of whether or not I agree with the particular goals of every non profit organization.

I'd still rather do that than implement or support a system which discriminated against people or organizations based on religion.

But to back up for a minute, you do realize that to argue that churches are justified in receiving government subsidies, you have to concede your original point that churches aren't subsidized by the government at all, right

Well, in my defense - ever heard of the term "devil's advocate?"

Why would secularism necessarily imply that we can't get Christmas off?

However, I do see a certain appeal in another approach: no holidays at all. Mandate that everyone get an extra 11 vacation days (or whatever the current allocation of statutory holidays is for you folks) that people can use however they want. If one person wants to use a vacation day to spend it worshipping in church on a holiday, fine. If another wants to spend his day lounging on a beach, fine, too. Nobody would have to give anything up.

Well, good luck with that. I can tell you for certain that where I work, NO ONE would choose to work on Christmas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, there's more than one way to spin something.

Says the woman trying to spin something as nothing. Hmm.

Another way to put this is "Charitable organizations, regardless of religious affiliation or the lack thereof, are offered a reduction or waiver of some forms of taxes."

Yes. That's my point: religious organizations, like other non-profits, are subsidized through tax credits. Do you understand the difference between this and your claim that religious organizations are not subsidized at all?

So what's your application? Should trash collectors stop picking up the trash at non profit organizations? Should people driving to work at a non profit not be allowed to use a public highway? Should a police officer turn a blind eye to someone breaking into a non profit establishment?

No.

That's not what I'm saying. If you think it is, then go back and re-read my last post.

If you still think this, then go back and read it again until you understand the argument I'm making.

Honestly, now this is getting a bit ridiculous.

Yes, it is. I'm having a very hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt that your misrepresentation of what I'm saying is based on an honest miunderstanding and that you aren't trying to just throw this red herring in to distract from what we were actually talking about.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Penguin,you asked for the Talmud verses that many people believe to reference Jesus. Here are a couple of them both taken from Talmud Unmasked Part One

The following is narrated in the Tract Kallah, 1b:
"Once when the Elders were seated at the Gate, two young men passed by, one of whom had his covered, the other with his head bare. Rabbi Eliezer remarked that the one in his bare head was illegitimate, a mamzer. Rabbi Jehoschua said that he was conceived during menstruation, ben niddah. Rabbi Akibah, however, said that he was both. Whereupon the others asked Rabbi Akibah why he dared to contradict his colleagues. He answered that he could prove what he said. He went therefore to the boy's mother whom he saw sitting in the market place selling vegetables and said to her: "My daughter, if you will answer truthfully what I am going to ask you, I promise that you will be saved in the next life." She demanded that he would swear to keep his promise, and Rabbi Akibah did so - but with his lips only, for in his heart he invalidated his oath. Then he said: "Tell me, what kind of son is this of yours"? To which she replied: "The day I was married I was having menstruation, and because of this my husband left me. But an evil spirit came and slept with me and from this intercourse my son was born to me." Thus it was proved that this young man was not only illegitimate but also conceived during the menstruation of his mother. And when his questioners heard this they declared: "Great indeed was Rabbi Akibah when he corrected his Elders"! And they exclaimed: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who revealed his secret to Rabbi Akibah the son of Joseph"!

Another story of this kind is narrated in Sanhedrin, 67a:
"Of all who are guilty of death by the Law, he alone is caught by a ruse. How is it done? They light a candle in an inner room and place witnesses in an adjoining room outside where they can see him and hear his voice, but where they cannot be seen by him. Then the one whom he tried to seduce says to him "Please repeat here privately what you told me before." If the seducer repeats what he said, the others ask him " But how shall we leave our God who is in heaven and serve idols?" If the seducer repents, then all is well.But if he says "This is our duty and it is right for us to do so," then the witnesses outside, who have heard him, bring him before the judge and stone him to death. This is what they did to the son of Stadi in Lud, and they hanged him on the eve of the Passover. Forthis son of Stada was the son of Pandira. For Rabbi Chasda tells us that Pandira was the husband of Stada, his mother, and he lived during the time Paphus the son of Jehuda. But his mother was stada, Mary of Magdala (a ladies' hairdresser) who, as it is said in Pumbadita, deserted her husband."

 

[Poisonshady313]

Regarding tract kallah: The quotation by jungle does not exist. This is a complete fabrication, and even the reference numbers are fabricated.

Regardin sanhedrin 67a: According to a footnote in the Talmud, this passage refers to a Jewish revolutionary named Ben Stada or Ben Padira who came from Egypt, claimed to be a prophet, led his followers to Mount Zion, and was executed by the Romans, about 100 years after the time of Jesus. The footnote also says that Christians have long misunderstood this passage as a reference to Jesus and tried to censor it or condemn the Jews because of it. Note the legend put about by Celsus, the Greek philosopher, who argued with Justin martyr in the 2nd century, and who repeated a tale that Jesus was the son of a Roman centurion called Panthera.


So much for that.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Regarding tract kallah: The quotation by jungle does not exist. This is a complete fabrication, and even the reference numbers are fabricated.

Regardin sanhedrin 67a: According to a footnote in the Talmud, this passage refers to a Jewish revolutionary named Ben Stada or Ben Padira who came from Egypt, claimed to be a prophet, led his followers to Mount Zion, and was executed by the Romans, about 100 years after the time of Jesus. The footnote also says that Christians have long misunderstood this passage as a reference to Jesus and tried to censor it or condemn the Jews because of it. Note the legend put about by Celsus, the Greek philosopher, who argued with Justin martyr in the 2nd century, and who repeated a tale that Jesus was the son of a Roman centurion called Panthera.


So much for that.

Check the website I got it off of. Not surprisinly, you'll find different footnotes, among them you'll see they argue the timing coincided properly. It also lists several references to Jesus, though I'm not some Talmud scholar. It also accuses people of tampering with the text to erase Jesus' memory.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Check the website I got it off of. Not surprisinly, you'll find different footnotes on there. It also lists several references to Jesus, though I'm not some Talmud scholar. It also accuses people of tampering with the text to erase Jesus' memory.

Its nothing but smoke and mirrors, and you fell for it. Either the folks who run the website don't know any better, or they do and hope you don't.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Its nothing but smoke and mirrors, and you fell for it. Either the folks who run the website don't know any better, or they do and hope you don't.

Are you talking about 1b.18b? I noticed the website used almost identical language as you "The quotation does not exist in this volume. This is a complete fabrication, and even the reference numbers are fabricated."

 

[-Peacemaker-]

It's interesting, you do an internet search of "Kullah 1b" and you get a pretty similar translation coming up OVER AND OVER AGAIN. That usually means the issue isn't as clear cut as you made it seem.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I took a look at your site. Take a look at mine, regarding the falsifiers of the talmud. Falsifiers of the Talmud

 

[Poisonshady313]

It's interesting, you do an internet search of "Kullah 1b" and you get a pretty similar translation coming up OVER AND OVER AGAIN. That usually means the issue isn't as clear cut as you made it seem.

All from Christian websites peddling the same fabricated crap. Just because many people believe a lie doesn't make it not a lie.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Interestingly, your website mentioned a couple other verses involved in this debate:

"Jesus is blasphemed as a fool (Schabbath, 104b), a conjurer (Toldoth Jeshu), and idolater. (Sanhedrin 103a) and a seducer (Sanhedrin 107b)."


I looked at your website as well, thank you for looking at mine. I didn't know that the history of this debate is rooted in both accusations by Christians that Jews were attempting to cover up the existence of Jesus as well as smear his name. While Jews have long accused Christians of anti-Semitism.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I wonder if you believe that the protocols of the elders of zion is an actual Jewish plan for global domination. I wonder if you believe Jews would use the blood of Christian babies to bake matzah. The site you provided contains hateful misrepresentations about the Jews comparable to those widely believed yet wholly antisemetic libels.

I hope, for your sake, that you simply don't know better... That it looks convincing enough despite the fact that you're unaware that it's absolute nonsense.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Did you know that toldoth jeshu isn't even part of the Talmud? And neither is the Zohar?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I wonder if you believe that the protocols of the elders of zion is an actual Jewish plan for global domination. I wonder if you believe Jews would use the blood of Christian babies to bake matzah. The site you provided contains hateful misrepresentations about the Jews comparable to those widely believed yet wholly antisemetic libels.

I hope, for your sake, that you simply don't know better... That it looks convincing enough despite the fact that you're unaware that it's absolute nonsense.

I had heard in the past that some contoversial Jewish writings existed from way back, I think from the Talmud or some secret volumes or something like that, in which basically what amounted to hate speech against Christians existed.I didn't know any specific charges either. I never gave it much thought until now as I never had a reason to really look into ancient Jewish writings other than the OT. I had heard it was something Jews were trying to cover up. Who knows what to believe?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm glad I was here to help clear that up.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I just found this. It explains the Kallah.

"The complete Talmud contains 63 books in 524 chapters.
Added to these are four other shorts tracts, which have not been included
in the regular Talmud. They have been added by later writers and exponents.
These four are:
MASSEKHETH SOPHERIM - the Tract of Scribes. Treats of the mode of
writing the books of the law. Has 21 chapters.
EBHEL RABBETI - a large treatise on Mourning. Has 14 chapters.
KALLAH - the Bride. On the acquisition of the bride. Has one chapter.
MASSEKHETH DEREKH ERETS - the Conduct of Lide. Divided into
RABBAH - major parts, and ZUTA - the minor parts. Has 16 chapters. At the
end is added a special chapter - PEREK SCHALOM - on Peace."
* * *​

 

[Poisonshady313]

I just found this. It explains the Kallah.

"The complete Talmud contains 63 books in 524 chapters.
Added to these are four other shorts tracts, which have not been included
in the regular Talmud. They have been added by later writers and exponents.
These four are:
MASSEKHETH SOPHERIM - the Tract of Scribes. Treats of the mode of
writing the books of the law. Has 21 chapters.
EBHEL RABBETI - a large treatise on Mourning. Has 14 chapters.
KALLAH - the Bride. On the acquisition of the bride. Has one chapter.
MASSEKHETH DEREKH ERETS - the Conduct of Lide. Divided into
RABBAH - major parts, and ZUTA - the minor parts. Has 16 chapters. At the
end is added a special chapter - PEREK SCHALOM - on Peace."
* * *​

I never said there wasn't a tract called kallah. I said the passage your site alleges refers to jesus doesn't exist.

 

[Kathryn]

Says the woman trying to spin something as nothing. Hmm.

My point is that a case could be made for either position, and both cases would have elements of truth, as well as elements that the other side could take issue with.

Yes. That's my point: religious organizations, like other non-profits, are subsidized through tax credits. Do you understand the difference between this and your claim that religious organizations are not subsidized at all?

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that tax credits are equal to actually giving them money. I concede that the line is a bit ambiguous. But generally, I don't consider myself receiving money unless I actually RECEIVE money. It's kind of like getting something on sale. Sure I could have bought it the day before it went on sale and spent 20% more at Target on those beach towels, but would you really say that Target GAVE me 20 percent of the price?

Yesterday I bought a car. A manufacturer's rebate was applied, and I got the car for less than sticker price. In a sense I guess they "gave" me money - but I wouldn't have bought the car if the rebate hadn't been applied, and now I'm $24,000 in debt even with the rebate. So I don't really think the dealership GAVE me any money.

Now - if they could choose to take away that rebate simply because I am a RELIGIOUS buyer, that'd be discrimination based on religion.

If you still think this, then go back and read it again until you understand the argument I'm making.

No thanks. Honestly, my scores on reading comprehension have always been very strong. I'm not having a problem understanding you - I'm just calling it spin. Of course, I'm spinning too - that's that this topic usually comes down to. Like I've said several times - a case can be made for either side of the argument.

Yes, it is. I'm having a very hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt that your misrepresentation of what I'm saying is based on an honest miunderstanding and that you aren't trying to just throw this red herring in to distract from what we were actually talking about.

Well, that's not my style, nor is it my track record on this forum, but hey, do what you gotta do.

I was totally serious about my question regarding government infrastructure. You say that religious non profits are subsidized by the government. You have a problem with that. You brought up the fire department, the FAA, and other public services and pointed out that religious non profits don't pay as much for those services as the private sector. I asked what your application is. I still don't know what it is.

I'm always going to ask "So what's your application?' because that's the crux of the matter.

Are you saying that religious non profits should pay more in taxes than non religious non profits? Are you saying that all non profits should pay more in taxes? Are you saying that if non profits don't pay as much as businesses for profit, their public services should be reduced? What? If you don't have an APPLICATION to an issue, it's just flap. Or as the quote goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

So - what's your application?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that tax credits are equal to actually giving them money. I concede that the line is a bit ambiguous. But generally, I don't consider myself receiving money unless I actually RECEIVE money. It's kind of like getting something on sale. Sure I could have bought it the day before it went on sale and spent 20% more at Target on those beach towels, but would you really say that Target GAVE me 20 percent of the price?

In that circumstance, probably not. However, if Target sold you the towels at 20% below their cost, then yes, I think you could say that they had given you something. That's more analogous to a tax credit, IMO.

Also, from what I can glean from IRS sources, there are some forms of charitable contribution, including certain ones to religious organizations, that can exceed the normal limits on charitable contributions. In some circumstances, you can actually make certain kinds of charitable donations in excess of your adjusted gross income and still get get a credit from the government.

Now - if they could choose to take away that rebate simply because I am a RELIGIOUS buyer, that'd be discrimination based on religion.

As it would be if you got the rebate even though you didn't meet the normal requirements of the rebate program, solely because you're religious... which is like the situation where we automatically treat churches as "charities" without any consideration of what they do.

No thanks. Honestly, my scores on reading comprehension have always been very strong.

Ah - so the misrepresentation was deliberate. You knew full well what I was saying and chose to pretend I was saying something else. Nice.

I was totally serious about my question regarding government infrastructure. You say that religious non profits are subsidized by the government. You have a problem with that.

I do? Please... show me where I said this.

My entire point in this tangent has only been to point out that the treatment of religious organizations by the government in the US does not actually adhere to the principle of church-state separation. I haven't touched at all on whether that's a good thing or not.

You brought up the fire department, the FAA, and other public services and pointed out that religious non profits don't pay as much for those services as the private sector. I asked what your application is. I still don't know what it is.

My "application" is just to point out the massive public subsidy that religious organizations receive in many different ways, and the fact that this goes against your earlier claim that religious organizations aren't subsidized.

Look - I didn't want to get into a big church-state separation tangent with you. You made a factual claim that was wrong; I corrected you. That's all.

 

[ChristineES]

I think both sides have a point. Back in the early 80s, in high school, we were talking about graduation and baccalaureate. (not my class, the one before it, I think). They were going to have a priest or something. Two young ladies, who were graduating, said at lunch one day "If they get to have a priest, I want to bring in my Rabbi". I thought that had a point (I wasn't even a theist then) and I thought, "why can't they bring in some other religious leaders, as well as a priest?" My view of the "if everyone can't have theirs, there will be none" might be a bit extreme. Of course, there would have to be some kind of limit or prayers would go on for too long (I mean on the length of prayers). But it is something that the people graduating need to discuss.