Tax the church

[bpwallace49]

Buggering altar boys is not very charitable IMO.

 

 

They are just doing "charitable work in the community"

[SEC=UGA]

Buggering altar boys is not very charitable IMO.

 

 

What if they're so ugly where no one else wants to bugger them?

[detlef]

What if they're so ugly where no one else wants to bugger them?

 

Ah yes, the charity bugger. Come on, show of hands, who among us hasn't?

[detlef]

Amen and tax free!

 

I got yer back, Pastor!

[SEC=UGA]

I got yer back, Pastor!

 

 

Why do they always find the biggest idiot possible and put them on the TV?

[detlef]

Why do they always find the biggest idiot possible and put them on the TV?

 

Is it possible to find someone to defend that sermon who isn't an idiot?

[whomper]

Why do they always find the biggest idiot possible and put them on the TV?

 

 

So even bigger idiots can link to them and pretend they represent the majority opinion of the church

[detlef]

So even bigger idiots can link to them and pretend they represent the majority opinion of the church

 

Who is implying they represent the majority opinion of the church?

[whomper]

Who is implying they represent the majority opinion of the church?

 

 

This link is a small example of what opportunists latch on to in order to portrait Church goers as fanatic idiots. Its the same as when a picture is posted of a tea partier holding a sign with bad spelling or an occupy wall streeter is portraited as a slacker. Like I said in the thread about the NC vote, a lot of people of certain groups get covered in the schrapnel of fanatic idiots within the group .

[whomper]

Just to be clear. I know Bush was not posting that to show it represents the opinions of the majority of the Church. My point is directed at society in general. I also am not playing the pity card for the Church. The Church certainly does do harm in some aspects when it strong arms its opinions.

[detlef]

Given the topic of taxing the church, I do think it is quite relevant to mention that, in the name of the 1st amendment, we're not only allowing this guy to do his thing (which we certainly should) but basically subsidizing it financially by making up the difference of the taxes he doesn't have to pay on, not only his church, but quite possibly his home, the car he drives back and forth, and lord knows what else.

 

All so he can talk about pitting gays in concentration camps.

[whomper]

Given the topic of taxing the church, I do think it is quite relevant to mention that, in the name of the 1st amendment, we're not only allowing this guy to do his thing (which we certainly should) but basically subsidizing it financially by making up the difference of the taxes he doesn't have to pay on, not only his church, but quite possibly his home, the car he drives back and forth, and lord knows what else.

 

All so he can talk about pitting gays in concentration camps.

 

 

Taxation isnt based on the message . If it was, I would love to see how that would be regulated and jive with freedom of speech

[detlef]

Taxation isnt based on the message . If it was, I would love to see how that would be regulated and jive with freedom of speech

 

Apparently it is. That is seemingly why people took offense to me implying that my restaurant or a golf course could be a church. If we need to keep our hands off, then why not keep our hands off? How can someone say, "Don't be stupid, you can't make a golf course a church" if taxation isn't based on the message?

 

Someone is apparently in charge of saying, "yep, you get to be a church and not pay taxes." So that line has been crossed.

 

Taken another way, are you implying that the only thing that you really need to do in order to get the tax break is convince someone that you truly believe in a higher power of very specific definition? I mean, that's the difference between dude with the electric fence and the "pastor" of the church of the holy sand wedge.

Edited May 24, 2012 by detlef

[SEC=UGA]

All so he can talk about pitting gays in concentration camps.

 

 

Think about it, though.... It would be the most FABULOUS looking concentration camp, EVER!!!! They would decorate that place up to the hilt.

[detlef]

Think about it, though.... It would be the most FABULOUS looking concentration camp, EVER!!!! They would decorate that place up to the hilt.

 

He only mentioned flying over and dropping food, he said nothing about glitter and silk.

[SEC=UGA]

He only mentioned flying over and dropping food, he said nothing about glitter and silk.

 

 

They'd find some way to improvise. Seriously, there would be plenty of creative and artistic types to pull off whatever they wanted.

[whomper]

Apparently it is. That is seemingly why people took offense to me implying that my restaurant or a golf course could be a church. If we need to keep our hands off, then why not keep our hands off? How can someone say, "Don't be stupid, you can't make a golf course a church" if taxation isn't based on the message?

 

Someone is apparently in charge of saying, "yep, you get to be a church and not pay taxes." So that line has been crossed.

 

Taken another way, are you implying that the only thing that you really need to do in order to get the tax break is convince someone that you truly believe in a higher power of very specific definition? I mean, that's the difference between dude with the electric fence and the "pastor" of the church of the holy sand wedge.

 

 

Im sure there are other qualifications, recognition and documentation that needs to be met aside from just saying "hey I am a church"

[detlef]

Im sure there are other qualifications, recognition and documentation that needs to be met aside from just saying "hey I am a church"

 

Of course there is, but do you really want to make it about documentation? I mean, we're talking big picture here. If the tax status of the church is important enough that you'll tie it to freedom of speach and religion, then surely it doesn't just come down to filling out a few forms, does it?

 

I think you're dodging the issue here. That issue being, if taxation can be equated with curbing freedom of religion, then how is the government deciding who does and doesn't qualify in getting that tax status not the same?

 

Basically, when people take issue with my notion of a golf course church, they don't feel the message of my church is worthy of being a church. That, "keep your head down and don't grip too tightly", while actually great metaphors for life in general, are not worthy of being considered the primary teachings of a church and, thus not worthy of being tax free. On the other hand, because this dude calls himself a Baptist, he gets that status regardless of what he says. Because we not only need to protect his right to believe and say what he wants, but, for some reason, we need to financially subisidize it as well.

 

ETA: How 'bout this: Say you were the IRS agent in charge of deciding who is and isn't a church. What would your criteria be? What would it take for a guy who wanted to form "Chruch of the Holy Sand Wedge" to convince you that he should qualify?

Edited May 24, 2012 by detlef

[whomper]

Of course there is, but do you really want to make it about documentation? I mean, we're talking big picture here. If the tax status of the church is important enough that you'll tie it to freedom of speach and religion, then surely it doesn't just come down to filling out a few forms, does it?

 

I think you're dodging the issue here. That issue being, if taxation can be equated with curbing freedom of religion, then how is the government deciding who does and doesn't qualify in getting that tax status not the same?

 

Basically, when people take issue with my notion of a golf course church, they don't feel the message of my church is worthy of being a church. That, "keep your head down and don't grip too tightly", while actually great metaphors for life in general, are not worthy of being considered the primary teachings of a church and, thus not worthy of being tax free. On the other hand, because this dude calls himself a Baptist, he gets that status regardless of what he says. Because we not only need to protect his right to believe and say what he wants, but, for some reason, we need to financially subisidize it as well.

 

ETA: How 'bout this: Say you were the IRS agent in charge of deciding who is and isn't a church. What would your criteria be? What would it take for a guy who wanted to form "Chruch of the Holy Sand Wedge" to convince you that he should qualify?

 

 

I dont have the time or energy to dissect this at the moment. I will say this though "Holy in one" is a better name for your golf church

[SEC=UGA]

Im sure there are other qualifications, recognition and documentation that needs to be met aside from just saying "hey I am a church"

 

 

I don't know about all that. There was a report a couple weeks ago about a couple here in ATL that have been a church or some other tax exempt organization fo a long time and finally got caught.

[stevegrab]

I got yer back, Pastor!

 

 

"Ok, I'll just make it simple, I agree with him" Well its better to admit you're a bigot than to try and say that isn't what he said, or isn't what he meant, or some other BS.

[Square]

I dont have the time or energy to dissect this at the moment.

I'm sure if you put together a few paragraphs clearly stating your point and providing a logical thought out argument for your side, detlef will openly consider an opposing point of view instead of just typing the same thing over and over again in a slightly different way.

[westvirginia]

I'm sure if you put together a few paragraphs clearly stating your point and providing a logical thought out argument for your side, detlef will openly consider an opposing point of view instead of just typing the same thing over and over again in a slightly different way.

 

 

[detlef]

I'm sure if you put together a few paragraphs clearly stating your point and providing a logical thought out argument for your side, detlef will openly consider an opposing point of view instead of just typing the same thing over and over again in a slightly different way.

 

I promise.

[SEC=UGA]

A non-profit organization who receives federal funding is now picking sides in political debate. This is as bad as what the church is doing.

 

(CBS News) The political arm of Planned Parenthood on Wednesday announced a new $1.4 million ad campaign against Mitt Romney, the most ambitious foray into presidential politics for the women's health care organization.

Rolled out simultaneously with Planned Parenthood Action Fund's endorsement of President Obama's re-election bid, the new ad campaign hits the presumptive Republican nominee for his views on women's health issues, calling them "out of touch" and "harmful."

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said her organization "couldn't be prouder" to issue its endorsement -- the group's third for any presidential candidate -- of Mr. Obama.

"The contrast with Mitt Romney couldn't be starker," she said in a prepared statement. "Planned Parenthood Action Fund is committed to ensuring that voters know how wrong Mitt Romney is for women - in his own words."

The first ad of the campaign, called "Out of Touch," shows clips of Romney saying he wants to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood and would like the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. "He's saying he'll deny women the right to make their own medical decisions," a female narrator says. (In full context, Romney was saying he'd like to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood, not the organization itself.)

The ad will run on broadcast and cable through June 19 in three key swing markets -- West Palm Beach, Des Moines, and Northern Virginia.

The Action Fund, which is the political advocacy arm of Planned Parenthood, says its research shows women dislike Romney's positions on women's health issues once they learn about them. Conservative efforts to roll back support for Planned Parenthood and abortion rights has helped galvanize the group's supporters, growing its network by 1.5 million in the past year.

Democrats earlier in the year accused Republicans of waging a "war on women" and seemed to gain a strong electoral advantage among women voters. The Romney campaign has responded by charging that Mr. Obama's economic policies have been especially harmful to women.

A CBS News poll from earlier this month showed that nationally, Romney has erased Mr. Obama's lead among women. However, a recent NBC/ Marist poll shows Mr. Obama with an advantage among women voters in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia.