There is supposed to be a separation, and ideally there should be. I don't want the politics mucking up my religion and vice versa. However, unless the pastor/priest was paid to tell people their opinion, they haven't really done anything illegal, just immoral, and you can't make the entire church not tax-exempt anymore because one guy did something immoral.
Actually, it isn't illegal but it's a violation of the IRS regulations. I'm not talking about something that could happen, but a real thing. It's an old document, but that gets to the heart of what I'm talking about.
Wait, where are you getting that I think that All Churches should lose their status? That's jumping to incorrect conclusions. I'm talking about a case by case basis. If a church abuses it, they get whalloped. Preferably by their own higher-ups prior to having to bring the IRS in.
There's a difference between Church (with a capital C, as in The Roman Catholic Church) and church (with a lowercase c, as in St. Joseph's church on 29th St. and Hades St.).
I'd say "church" or "religious" should have nothing to do with taxes.
If a "church" organizes as a non-profit organization, they should get the tax benefits all other non-profit organizations do, and be bound by those rules. If they organize/incorporate any other way, they should be bound by those rules instead.
Churches should not be treated any differently from any other corporation or group: there should be no mention of or deference to religious status in any part of the tax code.
There is supposed to be a separation, and ideally there should be. I don't want the politics mucking up my religion and vice versa. However, unless the pastor/priest was paid to tell people their opinion, they haven't really done anything illegal, just immoral, and you can't make the entire church not tax-exempt anymore because one guy did something immoral.
Actually, it isn't illegal but it's a violation of the IRS regulations. I'm not talking about something that could happen, but a real thing. It's an old document, but that gets to the heart of what I'm talking about.
Um... if something is a violation of IRS regulations, then it is illegal. Regulations are laws.
Not everything that is illegal is a crime. But if there is a law that forbids it, it is illegal.
I'm not arbitrarily picking on religion. It is fraud. Religion makes claims that cannot be demonstrably proven, but dictate both how people act and what they do with their resources. If you make claims about medicine that cannot empirically be proven, that is fraud. If you make claims about returns on investments that are not made in good faith, that is fraud. Churches make claims that result in death. They make claims that result in poverty. Look at the Harold Camping case.
Jason, not every church has that problem. Harold Camping is an extreme. There are plenty of churches that encourage their members to use modern medicine, study science, and be nice to other people. I grew up in one.
The crazies will always be crazy. They will find something to cling onto, no matter what.
Also, you can't prove their claims are false. That's the flip side of the coin. It's hard to prove someone is lying when you can't actually conclusively show what the truth is.
So, it seems someone has been fatally shot near Occupy Oakland. The wacko right wingers are comparing it to "peaceful Tea Party rallies," and fringe groups on the left are starting to spout conspiracy theories.
I'm not sure what to say, except that maybe some of those police could be taken off 'protest monitoring' detail and go do their fucking jobs.
Nuri: I don't have to prove their claims are false. They have to prove their claims are true. This is the burden of proof.
Please understand that I cannot prove a negative. Telling me I must prove god does not exist is an ad ignorantium fallacy -- possibly the most basic building block of all logical reasoning.
Also, it doesn't matter if churches do good things. It doesn't matter if you're Mother Theresa. If you make claims that X causes Y and then urge people to do X without proving X, and you take money from them, you have committed fraud, in my opinion.
I don't think this has been posted yet. It pissed me off, today:
Mostly since the poster may have genuinely appreciated that this individual worked hard to get some decent benefits.. but sweet jesus, do we really need to be able to go to that extent to simply get some good security nets set up? Do I really need to be prepared to die in order to know that I'll have job security?
That's why I'm upset over the way things are right now. It doesn't have to be this way, it really doesn't. And so many people out there aren't as fortunate as I am, being able to post on the internet at 9:35AM, while working. So many people are out there breaking their backs and not doing nearly as well as I am. I don't understand why this has to be.
I like how that guy is blocking his face and rank. However, you can see enough of his face for it to be obvious that he's most likely << 25 years old, so he probably doesn't understand how obnoxious and insensitive his little manifesto is.
I like how that guy is blocking his face and rank. However, you can see enough of his face for it to be obvious that he's most likely << 25 years old, so he probably doesn't understand how obnoxious and insensitive his little manifesto is.</p>
Yeah, so I can't really be that pissed at him. I'm more pissed at my friend, who posted this as a Veteran's day tribute.
Another note is that he seems to be missing the worst tragedy of it all, in that he is assuming that the way things are now is the way things have to be. Therefore, we all have to simply accept it and try our best to make it.
Of course, apparently today is Veteran's day and therefore I'm not allowed to criticize the picture until tomorrow. Whoops. (read: some veteran scolded me for pointing out the fallacy in the picture on Facebook)
Occupy Charleston recently got some flak for interrupting a Michele Bachmann speech. Read a very interesting (and confused) response from a rational man here.
Occupy Charleston recently got some flak for interrupting a Michele Bachmann speech. Read a very interesting (and confused) response from a rational man here.
Denying someone's right to speak an idea, any idea is never right, taking someone's freedom in any capacity for any amount of time is unacceptable, no matter who they are.
I'd say "church" or "religious" should have nothing to do with taxes.
If a "church" organizes as a non-profit organization, they should get the tax benefits all other non-profit organizations do, and be bound by those rules. If they organize/incorporate any other way, they should be bound by those rules instead.
Simply being non-profit does not, and should not, result in tax exemption.
However, the term "church" definitely shouldn't be in any tax code anywhere; religion alone quite clearly shouldn't qualify any organisation for tax exemption. On the other hand, it does make sense to give tax exemptions to charities.
If a religious organisation wants to do charitable work, that work should also be tax exempt, but at the same time the government definitely should not be subsidizing their proselytism. Hence the proper solution should be that the religious organisation should have two branches - the charitable branch and everything else, of which only the former should qualify for tax exemption.
Denying someone's right to speak an idea, any idea is never right, taking someone's freedom in any capacity for any amount of time is unacceptable, no matter who they are.
Occupy Charleston recently got some flak for interrupting a Michele Bachmann speech. Read a very interesting (and confused) response from a rational man here.
Denying someone's right to speak an idea, any idea is never right, taking someone's freedom in any capacity for any amount of time is unacceptable, no matter who they are.
Except, of course, when that speech endangers someone else, right?
Occupy Charleston recently got some flak for interrupting a Michele Bachmann speech. Read a very interesting (and confused) response from a rational man here.
Denying someone's right to speak an idea, any idea is never right, taking someone's freedom in any capacity for any amount of time is unacceptable, no matter who they are.
Unless you're a republican or tea-partier in August of 2009 during the health care initiative. Granted, interrupting Bachmann wasn't the best idea. The Mic Check would have been smarter had they done it right at the end of her speech. What fills me with unbridled fury is that some Neocon tea-bagging asshole whining little shits are going to blow this up while gleefully ignoring doing far worse two years ago.
Occupy Charleston recently got some flak for interrupting a Michele Bachmann speech. Read a very interesting (and confused) response from a rational man here.
Denying someone's right to speak an idea, any idea is never right, taking someone's freedom in any capacity for any amount of time is unacceptable, no matter who they are.
Unless you're a republican or tea-partier in August of 2009 during the health care initiative. Granted, interrupting Bachmann wasn't the best idea. The Mic Check would have been smarter had they done it right at the end of her speech. What fills me with unbridled fury is that some Neocon tea-bagging asshole whining little shits are going to blow this up while gleefully ignoring doing far worse two years ago.
Both events are shameful it doesn't matter what side you are on. Anyone so devoted to an idea that tries to destroy or remove any opposing voice is someone that does not completely believe in the point they hold. I may stand out from pretty much everyone else here but I constantly hope to hear a point that will change my mind, the same way I love to find out that some fact/formula/subject I thought I knew is wrong so that I can explore the subject in a new manner.
Comments
There's a difference between Church (with a capital C, as in The Roman Catholic Church) and church (with a lowercase c, as in St. Joseph's church on 29th St. and Hades St.).
If a "church" organizes as a non-profit organization, they should get the tax benefits all other non-profit organizations do, and be bound by those rules. If they organize/incorporate any other way, they should be bound by those rules instead.
Churches should not be treated any differently from any other corporation or group: there should be no mention of or deference to religious status in any part of the tax code.
Not everything that is illegal is a crime. But if there is a law that forbids it, it is illegal.
The crazies will always be crazy. They will find something to cling onto, no matter what.
Also, you can't prove their claims are false. That's the flip side of the coin. It's hard to prove someone is lying when you can't actually conclusively show what the truth is.
I'm not sure what to say, except that maybe some of those police could be taken off 'protest monitoring' detail and go do their fucking jobs.
Please understand that I cannot prove a negative. Telling me I must prove god does not exist is an ad ignorantium fallacy -- possibly the most basic building block of all logical reasoning.
Also, it doesn't matter if churches do good things. It doesn't matter if you're Mother Theresa. If you make claims that X causes Y and then urge people to do X without proving X, and you take money from them, you have committed fraud, in my opinion.
Mostly since the poster may have genuinely appreciated that this individual worked hard to get some decent benefits.. but sweet jesus, do we really need to be able to go to that extent to simply get some good security nets set up? Do I really need to be prepared to die in order to know that I'll have job security?
That's why I'm upset over the way things are right now. It doesn't have to be this way, it really doesn't. And so many people out there aren't as fortunate as I am, being able to post on the internet at 9:35AM, while working. So many people are out there breaking their backs and not doing nearly as well as I am. I don't understand why this has to be.
Another note is that he seems to be missing the worst tragedy of it all, in that he is assuming that the way things are now is the way things have to be. Therefore, we all have to simply accept it and try our best to make it.
However, the term "church" definitely shouldn't be in any tax code anywhere; religion alone quite clearly shouldn't qualify any organisation for tax exemption. On the other hand, it does make sense to give tax exemptions to charities.
If a religious organisation wants to do charitable work, that work should also be tax exempt, but at the same time the government definitely should not be subsidizing their proselytism. Hence the proper solution should be that the religious organisation should have two branches - the charitable branch and everything else, of which only the former should qualify for tax exemption.