(10-09-2012 07:17 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 10:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 10:54 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Personally, I'm in favor of doing away with the tax-exempt status for Churches.. but then you have to do away with the "political speech limitations" that the govt. forces on Churches

That's the only thing they're threatening, to take away the tax-exempt status. They're not able to stop them from taking political stances but if they want to be run as a tax-exempt non-profit, they can't do so.

It seems like the 47% who don't pay federal taxes have tax exempt status and still have political speech. They get to vote and everything. Religious bigots like you make me sick. You and other far lefties have made attacking Christianity more than a passing hobby and have tried to legislate it out of existence. I hope every church attacks the left and it changes the turn out of the election. Then I sincerely hope the left tries to make removing their tax status part of their platform. That will destroy your dear Democrat party for generations.

Now you go back on ignore. You little punk bi7ch.

I don't at all see how one can rationally conflate a person not paying federal income tax, while paying other federal taxes, and paying the same tax rates that a millionaire would for the amount of money they make (a millionaires first few thousand dollars aren't taxed either, so your entire argument is sort of moot). That being said, I don't see how being a lifelong member of a church, a youth group counselor for 5 years, and spending thousands of hours doing community service through my church in dozens of states and multiple countries qualifies me as 'trying to legislate christianity out of existence'. But I do find the subsection of the population which has this non-existent victim complex to be fascinating, especially since it ignores the victim complex of those in racial or social groups which are statistically victimized. It's every white male complaining about reverse racism. Look at the pictures of Fortune 500 CEO's and tell me there exists a true pattern of reverse racism, and not just "BUT I CAN'T SAY N*GGER!"

As for me being a little punk b*tch, that's a claim that's never been made against me by anyone I know. It's sort of hard, seeing as how I'm not little, I'm far from a punk, and I'm too dumb to know when it's a good idea to b*tch out on things.

Quote: I see whats going on as the Church fighting back. I agree that if politicians stayed out of the church the church would stay out of politics. I don't see the church as the one who started this quarrel.

What do you mean by this? What politicians started this, and how?

And I would walk out of my church, despite it being a more 'liberal' church that would possibly support Obama, it has no place in a state sponsored religious context. And Old Dirty, it doesn't surprise me that you listen to Jerry Falwell. It saddens me, but doesn't surprise me.

(10-09-2012 08:18 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I think it's important to define what one views as "political" speech.

Militants like Kurciff think if a preacher does a sermon about how abortion is wrong, or gay marriage is wrong, he's engaging in political speech. That's in no way political speech.

I personally don't think pastors should endorse candidates from the pulpit. They should preach God's word and tend to the spiritual well being of their congregations. Let those lessons, if they are embraced, guide their voting decisions.

I can agree with that. Man, Hell is getting REALLY cold. Good thing, I hate hot weather.

I can agree with that sentiment as well, I think a responsible church would make the difference between the two fairly evident, and the examples used in this article were blatantly endorsing candidates to make a statement. They want to be sued and taken to the supreme court.

(10-09-2012 07:39 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I was reading Jim Tressel's book over the summer. It's called the Winner's Manual and it was published by a Christian Publisher. If any of you run a business it's a worthwhile read. He talks about the role of the church and how it's losing it's influence amongst the youth of America. I believe the church or some churches have become too political to attract people.

That's funny that they're losing influence while being less political. Your argument is sound, but not valid.

Churches lose appeal as they become so remote from the important things in the world. People recognize there is no need to an organization that doesn't have any concrete objectives. If it's all about " do what you feel is right," then why bother with the Church? The mainstream denominations that have become apolitical are the ones with huge losses in membership, and thus influence.

So...you're here to sing the praises of religious fundamentalism? Wow, that's a first.

(10-09-2012 10:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So...you're here to sing the praises of religious fundamentalism? Wow, that's a first.

So you're here to prove you're an ignorant buffon? I knew that from the beginning.

I'm in favor of taxing all individuals and organizations the same, regardless of career or mission.

(10-09-2012 10:12 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I can agree with that sentiment as well, I think a responsible church would make the difference between the two fairly evident, and the examples used in this article were blatantly endorsing candidates to make a statement. They want to be sued and taken to the supreme court.

Which is what they want to happen. It will help rev up the base if it is taken up BEFORE the election but will REALLY rev up the base for the 2016 election.

Read the thread, and for both liberals and conservatives on here, you cannot have one or the other. Both of one thing must happen, you have two options:

#1 - Allow the pressure on a particular faith's message to continue in the government and media, but maintain their tax-exempt status as a compromise, or...

#2 - Prohibit the oppressive nature being constructed by our government to bash religious ideas and proselytization, and remove their tax-exempt nature...

IMHO, neither option should happen because this is just power play after power play to control what is being said.

(10-09-2012 10:45 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I'm in favor of taxing all individuals and organizations the same, regardless of career or mission.

Even poor people? Why should the poors be allowed to vote or have free political speech if a church can't? Neither pays any federal taxes.

(10-09-2012 11:06 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Read the thread, and for both liberals and conservatives on here, you cannot have one or the other. Both of one thing must happen, you have two options:

#1 - Allow the pressure on a particular faith's message to continue in the government and media, but maintain their tax-exempt status as a compromise, or...

#2 - Prohibit the oppressive nature being constructed by our government to bash religious ideas and proselytization, and remove their tax-exempt nature...

IMHO, neither option should happen because this is just power play after power play to control what is being said.

Fo's version of #2 leads to the fewest problems IMO.

(10-09-2012 11:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 11:06 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Read the thread, and for both liberals and conservatives on here, you cannot have one or the other. Both of one thing must happen, you have two options:

#1 - Allow the pressure on a particular faith's message to continue in the government and media, but maintain their tax-exempt status as a compromise, or...

#2 - Prohibit the oppressive nature being constructed by our government to bash religious ideas and proselytization, and remove their tax-exempt nature...

IMHO, neither option should happen because this is just power play after power play to control what is being said.

Fo's version of #2 leads to the fewest problems IMO.

That is why HR25 is Fair. It really gives no one a reason to feel taken advantage of and it brings in a revenue stream from the black and grey markets that the IRS can not currently tap.

(10-09-2012 11:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 11:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 11:06 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Read the thread, and for both liberals and conservatives on here, you cannot have one or the other. Both of one thing must happen, you have two options:

#1 - Allow the pressure on a particular faith's message to continue in the government and media, but maintain their tax-exempt status as a compromise, or...

#2 - Prohibit the oppressive nature being constructed by our government to bash religious ideas and proselytization, and remove their tax-exempt nature...

IMHO, neither option should happen because this is just power play after power play to control what is being said.

Fo's version of #2 leads to the fewest problems IMO.

That is why HR25 is Fair. It really gives no one a reason to feel taken advantage of and it brings in a revenue stream from the black and grey markets that the IRS can not currently tap.

I really don't see anything the government is doing as oppressive, I mean these people said this stuff, they taped it, and they're still tax-exempt (currently). There were no stormtroopers breaking down their doors to prevent what they said, or even any real concerted coverage from the SUPER ULTRA LIBERAL MSM, they did it to make a statement and we'll see what happens from there. The claims of 'oppression' is pretty comical IMO.

And I know many people favor changing the tax code into a simpler, consumption based tax, and there are legitimate arguments in favor of that, I just want to know if you think that they should lose their tax-exempt status and if you'd push for that to occur? I don't want to conflate the two as one and the same.

The institution of Government and the Institution of Religion are equal in America. Government cannot tax Religion any more than Religion could tax Government. If you don't like it move somewhere else.

(10-09-2012 04:53 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The institution of Government and the Institution of Religion are equal in America. Government cannot tax Religion any more than Religion could tax Government. If you don't like it move somewhere else.

I would love for you to try and explain how you came to this conclusion.

(10-09-2012 07:39 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I was reading Jim Tressel's book over the summer. It's called the Winner's Manual and it was published by a Christian Publisher. If any of you run a business it's a worthwhile read. He talks about the role of the church and how it's losing it's influence amongst the youth of America. I believe the church or some churches have become too political to attract people. It's a split message and I think it's easy to point out the hypocrisy. I'll look up the survey he quotes in the book. It would be an excellent thread starter actually. Get politics out of the church!

Want to know why Churches are losing their influence..

(10-09-2012 03:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And I know many people favor changing the tax code into a simpler, consumption based tax, and there are legitimate arguments in favor of that, I just want to know if you think that they should lose their tax-exempt status and if you'd push for that to occur? I don't want to conflate the two as one and the same.

Fo's given you his answer. Mine is the same, because by rectifying the one issue, you solve the other. I'm very much in favor of simplifying systems that ultimately solve multiple problems.

But, since you're looking for the complicated answer, if we retain our current tax system, then no, they absolutely should not be taxed.

(10-09-2012 10:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So...you're here to sing the praises of religious fundamentalism? Wow, that's a first.

Knocking the "I'm ok, You're ok" milk toast version of the gospel that most churches give is not "fundamentalist". It's recognizing that if you turn church into nothing but a social club people go to so they can learn to be nice and feel good about themselves then why bother going?

And why would you bother? There are dozens of outlets for that.

The church culture in America has two heretical offshoots.

1) Is the health, wealth, prosperity gospel. Which sells people on the idea that if they live well and are nice people they will be blessed on *this* earth with less pain and more prosperity than most.

2) The other tells people that their goodness, and not the Gospel saves.

(10-09-2012 05:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:53 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The institution of Government and the Institution of Religion are equal in America. Government cannot tax Religion any more than Religion could tax Government. If you don't like it move somewhere else.

I would love for you to try and explain how you came to this conclusion.

cough... separation of church and state... cough..

(10-09-2012 06:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 05:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:53 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The institution of Government and the Institution of Religion are equal in America. Government cannot tax Religion any more than Religion could tax Government. If you don't like it move somewhere else.

I would love for you to try and explain how you came to this conclusion.

cough... separation of church and state... cough..

Looking past the fact that has no bearing on taxing a church as they tax anyone else, in fact it would imply the exact opposite (special treatment and all), please quote that phrase in the constitution.

Quote: But, since you're looking for the complicated answer, if we retain our current tax system, then no, they absolutely should not be taxed.

Even if they take hardline political stances and endorse specific candidates?