What are your thoughts on Chruch's refusing to wed gays?

[BenTheBeliever]

And what if we don't hunger, are we then wrong ??.

I think you are hungry. That is why you are on the defense against me right now.

 

[psychoslice]

You keeps talking about you hope I don't push my ideas down others but you seem to be doing the same thing you are hoping I am not doing. Just cause I believe Christmas the only way does not make me a fundie and it does not mean I am forcing my ideas down anyone throat. In fact I think I have been very respectful and nice to you during this whole talk even though you attack my walk with Christ by assuming I believe cause I have had a hard life. Maybe before you point your fingers anymore at me you need to look at your own self in the mirror right now and see you are doing the same thing to me that you seem to think I could be doing.

But your whole ideology is wrong, your just making up stories that suite you, and make you feel good.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

But your whole ideology is wrong, your just making up stories that suite you, and make you feel good.

You seem to be someone who is really full of themselves. I have been respectful and nice towards you yet you can't help yourself with the attacks on me cause I am a Christian. And the funny thing is I have not attack you one but for being a non Christian. It is cool if you attack me though. I still love God and respect you as a human even if you can't respect me as a Christian

 

[psychoslice]

You seem to be someone who is really full of themselves. I have been respectful and nice towards you yet you can't help yourself with the attacks on me cause I am a Christian. And the funny thing is I have not attack you one but for being a non Christian. It is cool if you attack me though. I still love God and respect you as a human even if you can't respect me as a Christian

But it doesn't how much we treat each other, truth is truth, and I believe that your so called truth is not truth, its only your truth that makes you feel good, and nothing more.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

But it doesn't how much we treat each other, truth is truth, and I believe that your so called truth is not truth, its only your truth that makes you feel good, and nothing more.

And that is OK with me if you believe like that. Free will.

 

[psychoslice]

And that is OK with me if you believe like that. Free will.

Thank you, I do believe you are addicted to your belief system, that you call your truth.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

Thank you, I do believe you are addicted to your belief system, that you call your truth.

Yes I am addicted to Jesus. Not ashamed to say that [emoji1]

 

[psychoslice]

Yes I am addicted to Jesus. Not ashamed to say that [emoji1]

Ok then, you have admitted to being addicted, that's all I wanted to hear.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

Ok then, you have admitted to being addicted, that's all I wanted to hear.

Glad I can help then [emoji6]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

yeah, but "value" is different from "owed money."

Not different enough not to create a relationship between church and state. An in-kind subsidy is still a subsidy.

And the tax credits given to church donors, which you glossed over, are real money. If you donate to a church, the government reimburses you for part of it.

 

[sojourner]

Who really gives a stuff about churches, what good have they ever none, all they are god at is stuffing up everyone's life.

Yes but that's your story, don't take away others stories

 

[sojourner]

Not different enough not to create a relationship between church and state. An in-kind subsidy is still a subsidy.

And the tax credits given to church donors, which you glossed over, are real money. If you donate to a church, the government reimburses you for part of it.

Well... churches are, by law, 501c3 institutions. People also get tax deductions for donating to other 501c3 institutions, why should churches be singled out as "special?" it seems as though that action would compromise the Separation clause. Also: people don't have to be members of the church to donate to it. I know of several people who've donated to churches of which they were not members. So, the "subsidy" really has nothing to do with the church, so much as it does the donors.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well... churches are, by law, 501c3 institutions. People also get tax deductions for donating to other 501c3 institutions, why should churches be singled out as "special?" it seems as though that action would compromise the Separation clause.

Heh... if I suggest that section 501c3 of the Tax Code should be changed so that churches don't qualify (unless the meet the requirements of some other category), are you going to start shouting "exegesis!"?

Under current US law (and Canadian law), there's a similar relationship between government and churches as there is between government and legitimate charities. As someone who says he wants no relationship between church and state at all, isn't it hypocritical for you to support this arrangement?

Also: people don't have to be members of the church to donate to it. I know of several people who've donated to churches of which they were not members. So, the "subsidy" really has nothing to do with the church, so much as it does the donors.

Yes: any donation to the church is subsidized. It's about the organization, not the individual; Christians (or anyone else) only get their donation subsidized when they give it to an organization the government chooses to support, like charities, political parties, and churches.

If you give a church money, the government will give you part of the money back. The government makes it cheaper to donate to churches in order to encourage donations to churches. The government action helps the church; the state is in a supportive relationship with the church.

 

[sojourner]

Heh... if I suggest that section 501c3 of the Tax Code should be changed so that churches don't qualify (unless the meet the requirements of some other category), are you going to start shouting "exegesis!"?

Why should it be changed, except in cases where the institution clearly violates the stipulations?
Churches are not tax exempt in those countries where there is no separation of church and state. But here, they are -- and for good reason.

Under current US law (and Canadian law), there's a similar relationship between government and churches as there is between government and legitimate charities. As someone who says he wants no relationship between church and state at all, isn't it hypocritical for you to support this arrangement?

I didn't say there was no relationship. I said that there was a separation clause. Even the fact that there is such a clause forms some kind of relationship. This is a red herring.

Yes: any donation to the church is subsidized. It's about the organization, not the individual; Christians (or anyone else) only get their donation subsidized when they give it to an organization the government chooses to support, like charities, political parties, and churches.

If you give a church money, the government will give you part of the money back. The government makes it cheaper to donate to churches in order to encourage donations to churches. The government action helps the church; the state is in a supportive relationship with the church.

"Supportive relationship," as you suggest, doesn't imply "legislative relationship." The constitution specifies freedom of religion -- not freedom from religion. Your post is jacked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why should it be changed, except in cases where the institution clearly violates the stipulations?
Churches are not tax exempt in those countries where there is no separation of church and state. But here, they are -- and for good reason.

What reason? I see two:

- historical anachronism. Legitimate charitable activities that used to be done by churchesare often now done by government or secular charities. Also, even religious charitable work is now generally being done through organizations that are legally separate entities from the places of worship themselves (e.g. World Vision, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the United Jewish Appeal).
- Currying favour from religious voters. Nobody likes a tax increase, even if it makes things fairer.

BTW: there are plenty of countries without separation of church and state that have tax exemptions for churches. I live in one of them.

... and despite all the American jingoism around the issue, I would say that the US does not have full separation of church and state.

I didn't say there was no relationship. I said that there was a separation clause. Even the fact that there is such a clause forms some kind of relationship. This is a red herring.

Baloney. You said "the exemption from taxes fully divorces the church from the state. if no money exchanges hands, there is no relationship that is binding."

"Supportive relationship," as you suggest, doesn't imply "legislative relationship." The constitution specifies freedom of religion -- not freedom from religion. Your post is jacked.

You put "legislative relationship" in quote as if it was something I said.

- I'm not an American and I don't live in the United States. While your constitution affects a lot of people, it isn't the be-all and end-all of secularism.

- Not wanting to subsidize religion isn't "freedom from religion". You have a voice just like anyone else, but don't expect me to help fund your pulpit.

If your church doesn't want to pay taxes, let it qualify for not-for-profit status the same way my car club does by meeting the same criteria (or whatever those criteria would be in your country/state). If you can't meet them, then you can get taxed like a business.

... or you could just stay an anonymous (in the eyes of the law) collection of individuals. That works, too.

 

[sojourner]

What reason? I see two:

- historical anachronism. Legitimate charitable activities that used to be done by churchesare often now done by government or secular charities. Also, even religious charitable work is now generally being done through organizations that are legally separate entities from the places of worship themselves (e.g. World Vision, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the United Jewish Appeal).
- Currying favour from religious voters. Nobody likes a tax increase, even if it makes things fairer.

BTW: there are plenty of countries without separation of church and state that have tax exemptions for churches. I live in one of them.

... and despite all the American jingoism around the issue, I would say that the US does not have full separation of church and state.

Here's the exact wording: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." "Establishment" and "prohibiting free exercise" includes forcing a church to support the government through mandated taxation of their monies.

Baloney. You said "the exemption from taxes fully divorces the church from the state. if no money exchanges hands, there is no relationship that is binding."

Right. IOW, in a divorce, there is no relationship that is binding (even though there is a relationship). The church is not bound to support the government with its funds.
Where's the "baloney?"

You put "legislative relationship" in quote as if it was something I said.

No I didn't. You're misreading my intent. Intentionally?

I'm not an American and I don't live in the United States. While your constitution affects a lot of people, it isn't the be-all and end-all of secularism.

I didn't say it was. And BTW: since, as you say, you don't "live in this country," why do think you have a dog in this fight? In fact, the constitution isn't meant to be the last word in secularism. It's intended to keep church and state at arm's length. It's intended to not favor one religion over another -- not to totally remove religion from the public sphere.

Not wanting to subsidize religion isn't "freedom from religion". You have a voice just like anyone else, but don't expect me to help fund your pulpit.

Hah! The government doesn't fund churches -- nor does the church fund the government. Since you don't live here, you don't pay taxes, so your snarky and uncalled for comment is not germane to the argument. You patently don't "help fund my pulpit." And it's not the "not wanting to subsidize religion." This is nothing more than a straw man, and another red herring. The government doesn't mandate funds from the church in order to not become embroiled in church affairs. As the saying goes, "Possession is 9/10 of the law." That means that 9/10 of the law is devoted to "who owns what." Money is a huge consideration in "who owns what." Therefore, the government remains clear of any suspicion of "ownership."

If your church doesn't want to pay taxes, let it qualify for not-for-profit status the same way my car club does by meeting the same criteria (or whatever those criteria would be in your country/state). If you can't meet them, then you can get taxed like a business.

It does qualify under the law. The tax codes exempt charitable, religious and educational institutions from assessment, so churches don't get some kind of special treatment, as you intimate that they do. They're treated the same as secular charities and schools. why should a church have to "qualify" for something it is granted under law?

or you could just stay an anonymous (in the eyes of the law) collection of individuals. That works, too.

Huh. Even "anonymous individuals" are taxed. You're simply pi$$ing in the wind here, making it obvious to anyone with a brain stem that you're not nearly so well-versed in American policy as you would like everyone here to believe. I think all you really care about (being an atheist) is to try to diss the church for doing something you hint at as being "illegal" in the eyes of constitutional law -- which it clearly is not, or to label it as "unworthy" in some way (which it also, clearly, is not, under the law).

I think that about puts the cap on your little song and dance, don't you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's the exact wording: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." "Establishment" and "prohibiting free exercise" includes forcing a church to support the government through mandated taxation of their monies.

Right. IOW, in a divorce, there is no relationship that is binding (even though there is a relationship). The church is not bound to support the government with its funds.
Where's the "baloney?"

No I didn't. You're misreading my intent. Intentionally?

I didn't say it was. And BTW: since, as you say, you don't "live in this country," why do think you have a dog in this fight? In fact, the constitution isn't meant to be the last word in secularism. It's intended to keep church and state at arm's length. It's intended to not favor one religion over another -- not to totally remove religion from the public sphere.

Hah! The government doesn't fund churches -- nor does the church fund the government. Since you don't live here, you don't pay taxes, so your snarky and uncalled for comment is not germane to the argument. You patently don't "help fund my pulpit." And it's not the "not wanting to subsidize religion." This is nothing more than a straw man, and another red herring. The government doesn't mandate funds from the church in order to not become embroiled in church affairs. As the saying goes, "Possession is 9/10 of the law." That means that 9/10 of the law is devoted to "who owns what." Money is a huge consideration in "who owns what." Therefore, the government remains clear of any suspicion of "ownership."

It does qualify under the law. The tax codes exempt charitable, religious and educational institutions from assessment, so churches don't get some kind of special treatment, as you intimate that they do. They're treated the same as secular charities and schools. why should a church have to "qualify" for something it is granted under law?

Huh. Even "anonymous individuals" are taxed. You're simply pi$$ing in the wind here, making it obvious to anyone with a brain stem that you're not nearly so well-versed in American policy as you would like everyone here to believe. I think all you really care about (being an atheist) is to try to diss the church for doing something you hint at as being "illegal" in the eyes of constitutional law -- which it clearly is not, or to label it as "unworthy" in some way (which it also, clearly, is not, under the law).

I think that about puts the cap on your little song and dance, don't you?

You've completely missed the point.

I always find it interesting when, in a discussion of how the law ought to be, someone ends up defending their position based on what the law says now.

- "Is ____ ethical?"
- "____ is legal."
- "But is it ethical?"

 

[sojourner]

You've completely missed the point.

I always find it interesting when, in a discussion of how the law ought to be, someone ends up defending their position based on what the law says now.

- "Is ____ ethical?"
- "____ is legal."
- "But is it ethical?"

I haven't completely missed the point. I think it FAR more likely that you completely misapprehend the separation issue.
I always find it interesting when, in a discussion of US law and policy, foreign laypersons seem to think they 1) know more than knowledgable citizens in the profession and 2) have a better moral compass than "We the People."

The First Amendment has been in place for 224 years. The official tax exemption has been in place for 121 years, although churches have never been taxed in the US. This has been looked at time and time again. In this case, I'd say that law and ethics are in line with each other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I haven't completely missed the point. I think it FAR more likely that you completely misapprehend the separation issue.

I always find it interesting when, in a discussion of US law and policy, foreign laypersons seem to think they 1) know more than knowledgable citizens in the profession

I've found that my knowledge of US law is better than that of many Americans I talk to. And "knowledgeable citizens in the profession" are often the ones who most gain from a slanted interpretation.

and 2) have a better moral compass than "We the People."

"We the People" provided a mechanism to amend laws. Given enough political will, any American law can be changed.

Edit: but yes: if you can keep enough of the American people convinced that it's a good idea for you, your church, and your church's donors to suckle at the public teat, it will probably keep being legal for you to do it. Ethically questionable, but legal.

The First Amendment has been in place for 224 years. The official tax exemption has been in place for 121 years, although churches have never been taxed in the US.

That's not true. Churches that run afoul of the IRS' rules (e.g. on political involvement) have lost their tax-free status occasionally. It's happened far less than the law allows, but it does happen from time to time.

This has been looked at time and time again. In this case, I'd say that law and ethics are in line with each other.

... and just happen to be in line with your financial interests? Convenient.

The metaphorical jury's still out on religious privileges and subsidies. For instance, FFRF's 2013 challenge to the parsonage exemption was initially successful; it was only struck down on appeal over an issue of standing. The appeals court didn't rule that the parsonage exemption is constitutional; only that the question will have to wait for the right party to bring it forward.

 

[sojourner]

I've found that my knowledge of US law is better than that of many Americans I talk to. And "knowledgeable citizens in the profession" are often the ones who most gain from a slanted interpretation.

Poisoning the well is never a good tactic. Incidentally, if one's argument is adequate, there should be no need to engage in cheap shots such as this.

"We the People" provided a mechanism to amend laws. Given enough political will, any American law can be changed.

And even with that safeguard in place, I find it significant that, after 200+ years, no one has raised a serious question with regard to this, subject. Apparently, you -- a non-citizen -- are the only one making an issue out of it.

Edit: but yes: if you can keep enough of the American people convinced that it's a good idea for you, your church, and your church's donors to suckle at the public teat, it will probably keep being legal for you to do it. Ethically questionable, but legal.

"Suckle at the public teat?" This is another case of poisoning the well. And, I think, specifically designed to be provocative. It won't work.

That's not true. Churches that run afoul of the IRS' rules (e.g. on political involvement) have lost their tax-free status occasionally. It's happened far less than the law allows, but it does happen from time to time.

<sigh> You know what I meant. No church was ever taxed before it became official.

... and just happen to be in line with your financial interests? Convenient.

My financial interests? Heck, I pay taxes at double the rate of American workers. And I didn't get a housing deduction last year, so I don't know what "interests" you're talking about.


But thanks for the ad hominem attack. it certainly shows you to be aggressive and mean-spirited. Which is uncalled for in this situation.