(10-18-2012 09:08 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 04:09 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I don't, either, and left a church because of it.

Yeah...I was seriously considering getting up and walking out on the 7th if my Pastor went there.

Thankfully, he didn't.

Some people go to church to feel good or drum up business.

Others go to hear the Word of God, just not Smaug or Tom b/c it interferes with thier agendas.

What in creation are you babbling about now?

(10-18-2012 09:14 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 08:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 07:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 03:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  PP isn't a religion.

So we treat a private religious groups with less assembly and speech rights than we do a private secular group?

Oh yea no danger in that.

Churches are not required to file 990 tax returns. PP is. If you want all churches to have to start filing tax returns and disclosing their major donors, etc., then be my guest, talk about politics all you want from the pulpit...just be prepared to see your donations and memberships go buh-bye.

Man your obtuse on this... I am saying that the regulations differentiating the two is unjust.

as it stands someone could run for office under the platform "Ban Churches from having parking lots" and the church could say *nothing*

Wow, that's the only example you could come up with?

Churches are different. Period. Again, THEY DON'T DISCLOSE THEIR MAJOR DONORS.

I'm sure you aren't a fan of slippery slopes, yes? You honestly can't see how some rich guy could start a church, bring in tons of tax free money and use it to influence public policy without any transparency? You really want that allowed?

(10-18-2012 09:08 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 04:09 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I don't, either, and left a church because of it.

Yeah...I was seriously considering getting up and walking out on the 7th if my Pastor went there.

Thankfully, he didn't.

Some people go to church to feel good or drum up business.

Others go to hear the Word of God, just not Smaug or Tom b/c it interferes with thier agendas.

If by "my agenda" you mean I don't go to church to hear someone on the pulpit bloviate about HIS agenda, then you are correct.

(10-18-2012 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:14 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 08:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 07:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 03:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  PP isn't a religion.

So we treat a private religious groups with less assembly and speech rights than we do a private secular group?

Oh yea no danger in that.

Churches are not required to file 990 tax returns. PP is. If you want all churches to have to start filing tax returns and disclosing their major donors, etc., then be my guest, talk about politics all you want from the pulpit...just be prepared to see your donations and memberships go buh-bye.

Man your obtuse on this... I am saying that the regulations differentiating the two is unjust.

as it stands someone could run for office under the platform "Ban Churches from having parking lots" and the church could say *nothing*

Wow, that's the only example you could come up with?

I looked for a nice, non inflamitory hypothetical..

But ok how about Abortion, the state forcing Churches and their School/Hospitals to provide birth control to employees, states forcing Churches to use their property to faculitiate a gay wedding?

Can I continue?

These are things that directly impact *THE CHURCH* yet the church is supposed to stay silent on it when wone candidate is against it and the other is for it..

Sorry, that doesn't work either. When a church hires employees and provides benefits they fall into a different category in my book. That part of the church is techincally a business so then they have to play by the rules of other businesses and that needs separated from their religious activities because they don't hire employees of one religion.

But I was mainly balking at the implication that all non-profits are the same and need treated the same as far as their allowed activities, when clearly by IRS law, they aren't.

(10-18-2012 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 09:14 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 08:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 07:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 03:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  PP isn't a religion.

So we treat a private religious groups with less assembly and speech rights than we do a private secular group?

Oh yea no danger in that.

Churches are not required to file 990 tax returns. PP is. If you want all churches to have to start filing tax returns and disclosing their major donors, etc., then be my guest, talk about politics all you want from the pulpit...just be prepared to see your donations and memberships go buh-bye.

Man your obtuse on this... I am saying that the regulations differentiating the two is unjust.

as it stands someone could run for office under the platform "Ban Churches from having parking lots" and the church could say *nothing*

Wow, that's the only example you could come up with?

Churches are different. Period. Again, THEY DON'T DISCLOSE THEIR MAJOR DONORS.

I'm sure you aren't a fan of slippery slopes, yes? You honestly can't see how some rich guy could start a church, bring in tons of tax free money and use it to influence public policy without any transparency? You really want that allowed?

This is a compelling argument in my opinion. Disclosure of funding is a major issue in regards to political activities.

(10-18-2012 12:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry, that doesn't work either. When a church hires employees and provides benefits they fall into a different category in my book. That part of the church is techincally a business so then they have to play by the rules of other businesses and that needs separated from their religious activities because they don't hire employees of one religion.

But I was mainly balking at the implication that all non-profits are the same and need treated the same as far as their allowed activities, when clearly by IRS law, they aren't.

I think BIE has a point here Tom. Lately the Church has been under attack by the left and this administration. You agreeing with what they're doing doesn't make it constitutional.

When politicians attack our beliefs and legislate away our religious freedom churches can and should fight back.

His question is basically this. If a politician tries to impose legislation changing the tax status of the church do you really expect the church to remain silent? I don't.

Obama has done nothing to churches so STFU.

Um...contraception and the Catholic Church?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

That has NOTHING to do with their activities as a church. It has everything to do with the employer-employee relationship which is the governments area, not the churches.

The Constitution disagrees with you. So does Jesus.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

As usual, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

(10-19-2012 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  As usual, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Actually, Tom you're in the dark here

Court decision after court decision has said employees of churches and religious organizations are held to a different standard

Everything from work bias laws to the reasons you can fire someone.

For the entire history of this nation Churches and their charities have been held apart in terms of their right to manage employees.