| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2012 06:04:42 PM · #551 |
You guys DO realize it would take a constitutional amendment to start taxing the churches? Anyway, read this discussion, a pro-and-con debate...
//www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-oew-lynn-stanley23-2008sep23,0,2226105.story
R.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2012 06:10:52 PM · #552 |
I am quite aware of that as it relates to the USA and will definitely read the link you provided.
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/02/2012 06:19:49 PM · #553 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
Why stop there? Why not have them only practice on a desert island? ;)
On a more serious note, Robert's link made me think of something in a way I had not previously done. The "wall of separation" between church and state is, in modern times, viewed as being there to protect the state from the church (at least it's viewed that way on DPC). However, the wall works both ways; it should protect the church from the state.
Message edited by author 2012-03-02 18:25:48. |
|
|
|
03/02/2012 06:22:00 PM · #554 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
I'm not sure, myself, that this follows logically. Look at it this way: the constitution protects individuals in many ways, and it does not require them to abstain from self-government because of it. The First Amendment exists to ensure that the government will not attempt to regulate religion in any way, and the power to tax is literally a life-and-death power over institutions. But nowhere in that amendment does it proscribe churches from participating in our democracy.
I'm well aware that it's becoming fashionable to dismiss the necessity of churches at all, and basically to attempt to secularize them as much as possible, but I don't think this is a good thing, at all. As the linked article suggested, this is a camel-in-the-tent scenario, and I think it's every bit as dangerous to our constitutional rights as the abhorrent current institution of "Homeland Security", which serves no viable function other than to get our citizens used to being under the government's thumb in the most arbitrary imaginable ways.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2012 06:23:01 PM · #555 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
Why stop there? Why not have them only practice on a desert island? ;) |
Your call Doc...not mine.
Seriously, what is the issue you have with this. Could it be that you also are keenly aware that the church does as a matter of fact try to influence political decisions.
I am curious.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/02/2012 06:26:22 PM · #556 |
On a more serious note, Robert's link made me think of something in a way I had not previously done. The "wall of separation" between church and state is, in modern times, viewed as being there to protect the state from the church (at least it's viewed that way on DPC). However, the wall works both ways; it should protect the church from the state.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2012 06:30:46 PM · #557 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
Why stop there? Why not have them only practice on a desert island? ;) |
Your call Doc...not mine.
Seriously, what is the issue you have with this. Could it be that you also are keenly aware that the church does as a matter of fact try to influence political decisions.
I am curious.
Ray |
The issue is too many times those who seek to destroy religion will say, "I'm fine with people practicing religion as long as it doesn't affect me or others." In essense they want a religion emasculated from any power to affect society. My issue is that my faith directs my entire life. I cannot divorce it from my decisions in the political realm any more than I could cut off my head. The same might go for someone running for office. How can we demand they exclude their faith from their decision making? It is nonsensical to me and that's why I react whenever I see the suggestion. |
|
|
|
03/02/2012 06:31:57 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On a more serious note, Robert's link made me think of something in a way I had not previously done. The "wall of separation" between church and state is, in modern times, viewed as being there to protect the state from the church (at least it's viewed that way on DPC). However, the wall works both ways; it should protect the church from the state. |
In point of fact, that's why it exists! America was founded by folks fleeing from the tyranny of state-mandated religions. The founding fathers were well aware of the evil that had been done, down the ages, by these hypocritical institutions.
The shoe IS somewhat on the other foot now, of course, to the extent to which it appears that radical conservatives are attempting to institute Christianity as the state-sponsored religion, so this pendulum is swinging wildly, and I'm just as scared of the one as the other, but...
"Taxing the Churches" isn't the answer. They DO already pay taxes on real estate holdings that are not central to their charitable purposes, for example. Close up some loopholes, maybe, but who's gonna draw the line?
R.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2012 12:06:14 AM · #559 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Religion has no business being in on anyone's health care decisions. The next thing you know all business's will be claiming to be Scientologists so that they don't have to provide any health care at all. Maybe that's why it would be a good idea for government sponsored health care. |
No, Government has no business being in religion.
If you have a problem with Catholics or Scientologists, don't work for them. It's that easy. Do you work for a catholic? Does your health coverage cover everything you need? If not, get a new job. |
You're ability to live in a bubble and totally disregard the realities of the world astound me. You do realize we are in a housing crisis, recession, employment crisis, etc.
My friend has a BA in psychology and 3 years managerial experience and the best she found after months of searching was a job with a grocery store. This grocery store is Christian owned. They probably don't even provide health insurance but for the sake of argument, if they did, she should just "get a new job" if she doesn't like them cherry-picking what gets covered?
Reality is a funny thing. Join us. |
Exactly, this is the real world. Maybe, if you can't find a job that provides your health needs, you have bigger problems than having sex.
Abortion and birth control is no a natural born right; you can't survive without it.
...that's what i get for editing...
Abortion and birth control is not a natural born right; you can survive without it. |
Your argument of "natural born rights" holds no water here. Employers are legally required to do a lot of things that aren't natural born rights.
You have some serious issues with sex. Sex doesn't stop because you have "bigger problems." Sex isn't a PROBLEM. If I'm looking for a job I don't go home and go "sorry honey, no sex tonight I have bigger problems." Sex is a healthy way to connect and show love and affection. Some people want to do that WITHOUT having to make a baby. There are a variety of different ways to do that, birth control is one of the most reliable. Use it or not. THAT is your religious freedom. You don't get to choose for others. You have a company in the public sector, you follow the rules of the public sector, just like anybody else.
Why is this even an issue? |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 09:52:43 AM · #560 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
Why stop there? Why not have them only practice on a desert island? ;) |
Your call Doc...not mine.
Seriously, what is the issue you have with this. Could it be that you also are keenly aware that the church does as a matter of fact try to influence political decisions.
I am curious.
Ray |
The issue is too many times those who seek to destroy religion will say, "I'm fine with people practicing religion as long as it doesn't affect me or others." In essense they want a religion emasculated from any power to affect society. My issue is that my faith directs my entire life. I cannot divorce it from my decisions in the political realm any more than I could cut off my head. The same might go for someone running for office. How can we demand they exclude their faith from their decision making? It is nonsensical to me and that's why I react whenever I see the suggestion. |
Let me put it more succinctly then... I have no objection to you practicing your faith any way you choose, nor am I even remotely suggesting that the state should intervene in those aspects of life that lie exclusively within the domain of the church.
It's the rest of it that gets my goat. Practice what you want inside your government subsidized enclaves, but limit activities to strictly religious dogma.
When the church does get involved with issues such as birth control, they are in fact encroaching on the rights of those they represent. If the believers do in fact follow the rules of the Pope then surely the cost to the church would be zero... end of discussion right?
Ray |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 10:01:05 AM · #561 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Having said that, if the church indeed did not involve itself with the political realm at any level, I might be more inclined to cut it a lot more slack.
Ray |
Why stop there? Why not have them only practice on a desert island? ;) |
Your call Doc...not mine.
Seriously, what is the issue you have with this. Could it be that you also are keenly aware that the church does as a matter of fact try to influence political decisions.
I am curious.
Ray |
The issue is too many times those who seek to destroy religion will say, "I'm fine with people practicing religion as long as it doesn't affect me or others." In essense they want a religion emasculated from any power to affect society. My issue is that my faith directs my entire life. I cannot divorce it from my decisions in the political realm any more than I could cut off my head. The same might go for someone running for office. How can we demand they exclude their faith from their decision making? It is nonsensical to me and that's why I react whenever I see the suggestion. |
Pretty much what I feel. Perhaps I am of the view that I earnestly believe that what you believe in should in no way affect the whole of society. Make all the decisions you want as they relate to your world, but do not begin to suppose that your faith should have any bearing whatsoever on how I lead my life.
As for this matter being nonsensical, it is so to you, only because of your beliefs... to others it makes perfect sense.
I most certainly hold you in high esteem and commend you for fighting for what you believe to be true but do not share your views and perceptions of what should be.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 10:19:33 AM · #562 |
A very interesting article  Bear_Musicand I found this comment particularly enlightening:
..."The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
I shall assume that the Supreme Court truly does NOT care about the rest of us since the tax man shown none of us any mercy.
I also found this comment interesting and would greatly appreciate being informed as to whether this is indeed true or not since it does make a monumental difference:\
..."The Constitution does not mandate it; and indeed, even the decision you cite -- the Walz case -- doesn't say that tax exemptions are required by the 1st Amendment..."
Ray |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 11:21:11 AM · #563 |
I know he's doing it on purpose to get attention and to purposely be a giant a-hole... but seriously Rush needs to fall off the face of the Earth. It drives me mad that nut jobs like this guy get their own show and so much attention. I know I'm feeding the troll here but it just goes to show how little we seem to care about content and how inflated entertainment value has become. Unless the people that listen to him actually think he has content...
Does anyone take him seriously and actually like this guy?
Rush insulting a woman for speaking out.
Go about 5 minutes in.
Message edited by author 2012-03-03 11:25:46. |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 11:29:55 AM · #564 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
You have some serious issues with sex. Sex doesn't stop because you have "bigger problems." Sex isn't a PROBLEM. If I'm looking for a job I don't go home and go "sorry honey, no sex tonight I have bigger problems." Sex is a healthy way to connect and show love and affection. Some people want to do that WITHOUT having to make a baby. There are a variety of different ways to do that, birth control is one of the most reliable. Use it or not. THAT is your religious freedom. You don't get to choose for others. You have a company in the public sector, you follow the rules of the public sector, just like anybody else.
Why is this even an issue? |
+1000 |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 11:38:46 AM · #565 |
Originally posted by Ray:
Pretty much what I feel. Perhaps I am of the view that I earnestly believe that what you believe in should in no way affect the whole of society.
Ray |
You do understand the self-defeating nature of this statement, right? |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 11:57:59 AM · #566 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The issue is too many times those who seek to destroy religion will say, "I'm fine with people practicing religion as long as it doesn't affect me or others." In essense they want a religion emasculated from any power to affect society. My issue is that my faith directs my entire life. I cannot divorce it from my decisions in the political realm any more than I could cut off my head. The same might go for someone running for office. How can we demand they exclude their faith from their decision making? It is nonsensical to me and that's why I react whenever I see the suggestion. |
Pretty much what I feel. Perhaps I am of the view that I earnestly believe that what you believe in should in no way affect the whole of society. Make all the decisions you want as they relate to your world, but do not begin to suppose that your faith should have any bearing whatsoever on how I lead my life. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You do understand the self-defeating nature of this statement, right? |
Sure, it defeats the intentions of folks like yourself who believe their way is the only way and must be imposed on others as the will of the gods. It's what distinguishes the US from the Taliban and is precisely what our system of government was designed to prevent. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." -Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 12:21:10 PM · #567 |
Just heard something on a reliable podcast about the birth-control pill (and Doc can confirm if it's wrong). The birth control pill is a class 1 carcinogen like cigarettes.
If I believe in not smoking, can the government force me to pay for my employee's cigarettes? |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 01:19:54 PM · #568 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Just heard something on a reliable podcast about the birth-control pill (and Doc can confirm if it's wrong). The birth control pill is a class 1 carcinogen like cigarettes. |
I just heard something on a reliable podcast about the Loch Ness Monster preferring Perrier over standard lake water. Woohoo.
Studies of combined hormonal pills have shown slight risk increases for certain types of cancer (although study biases have not yet been ruled out) along with major reductions in endometrial and ovarian cancers (cutting the risk in half). But hey, as long as we're expressing concern over potential health dangers, note that religious activity apparently increases the risk of obesity by 50%... and along with that the risk of diabetes, cancer and heart disease.
Message edited by author 2012-03-03 13:20:19. |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 02:18:05 PM · #569 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Just heard something on a reliable podcast about the birth-control pill (and Doc can confirm if it's wrong). The birth control pill is a class 1 carcinogen like cigarettes. |
A lot of things in life are bad for you, and most prescription drugs are generally monitored for side effects and problems.......get this......by the doctors who prescribe them!
You don't just go down to Wal-Mart and buy this stuff off a shelf. There is a process by which the pill is obtained. They're not handed out like candy.
Some young women are put on the pill to help control and regulate their menstrual cycles as they're developing, and some women never had menstrual cycle issues resolved by same.
But I'm guessing you don't approve of that, either.....never mind the young women who become anemic and drop in their tracks from their own menstrual cycle.
Message edited by author 2012-03-03 14:24:11.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2012 02:22:11 PM · #570 |
Originally posted by Ray:
Pretty much what I feel. Perhaps I am of the view that I earnestly believe that what you believe in should in no way affect the whole of society.
Ray |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You do understand the self-defeating nature of this statement, right? |
When it comes to you imposing your beliefs on me, or society, it's an absolute.
On no level should religion affect members of a free society who do not share the same religious beliefs.
Eat cows, don't eat cows, but don't tell me what to eat.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2012 03:48:51 PM · #571 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
On no level should religion affect members of a free society who do not share the same religious beliefs.
Eat cows, don't eat cows, but don't tell me what to eat. |
Forget religion for a second; what about MORALITY? Should I be imposing my *belief* that it's wrong for adults to have sex with children on you? Or more importantly, on your children?
Look, you guys are twisting this around to make it ABOUT religion because the people who are advocating a point of view you don't care for, in this thread, happen to BE religious. That's not right.
I agree 100% that in no way should a believer in Christ, or in Allah, or in whom/whatever, be allowed to force these beliefs upon his neighbors. But religions have moral codes, we've been over this before. And the codes are not ipso facto invalidated just because they come from a religion. If they WERE, then murder would be legal, eh?
No, moral codes, to the extent they're codified by a society, as in our laws, represent some level of agreement amongst us, collectively, as to which specific rules will abide by. So we either agree or don't agree, as individuals, and we either pass or do not pass laws, according to the support we can garner for our point of view, and whether our IMPETUS for our beliefs comes from a religion or from somewhere else (a parent? A neighbor? A philosopher? Who cares?) is pretty much irrelevant.
Note that I am NOT advocating theocracy, if "that's what the people want". Not at all. What I'm saying is that people of conscience can differ on whether or not, say, abortion is moral, and I don't think it's especially relevant where the individual beliefs spring from, just that they exist.
I'm tired of religion-bashing. And I'm not even especially religious. I haven't set foot in a church for other than secular reasons in decades. I'm just a very tolerant sort of guy with a fairly broad education and perspective.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2012 04:06:56 PM · #572 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Just heard something on a reliable podcast about the birth-control pill (and Doc can confirm if it's wrong). The birth control pill is a class 1 carcinogen like cigarettes.
If I believe in not smoking, can the government force me to pay for my employee's cigarettes? |
...I am with you on this one...NO they should not force you to pay for cigarettes.
However, having said that I would truly expect you to assist in the prevention of illness and have you pay for those products that would ween that person off of this diabolical product and save society oodles of money in the future.
Surely you can appreciate the validity of this manner of proceeding.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 04:12:21 PM · #573 |
you can't tax churches, my homeless friends would have no where to eat or sleep if the church didn't have all their money to buy food and build shelters. my neighbors wouldn't be able to eat if they didn't get food from the church up the street. my best friend is a minister i know how much her church does for people and she is almost in the red on the business end of it because of the charity they do. god knows i hate people pushing their ideas and beliefs on me but in all honesty if you were to tax the churches the only thing it will do is hurt people who can't take care of themselves.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2012 04:13:28 PM · #574 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I know he's doing it on purpose to get attention and to purposely be a giant a-hole... but seriously Rush needs to fall off the face of the Earth. It drives me mad that nut jobs like this guy get their own show and so much attention. I know I'm feeding the troll here but it just goes to show how little we seem to care about content and how inflated entertainment value has become. Unless the people that listen to him actually think he has content...
Does anyone take him seriously and actually like this guy?
Rush insulting a woman for speaking out.
Go about 5 minutes in. |
//leftaction.com/action/boycott-rush
Multiple advertisers are now pulling their ads. |
|
|
|
03/03/2012 04:21:00 PM · #575 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Forget religion for a second; what about MORALITY? Should I be imposing my *belief* that it's wrong for adults to have sex with children on you? Or more importantly, on your children?
Look, you guys are twisting this around to make it ABOUT religion because the people who are advocating a point of view you don't care for, in this thread, happen to BE religious. That's not right.
I agree 100% that in no way should a believer in Christ, or in Allah, or in whom/whatever, be allowed to force these beliefs upon his neighbors. But religions have moral codes, we've been over this before. And the codes are not ipso facto invalidated just because they come from a religion. If they WERE, then murder would be legal, eh?
No, moral codes, to the extent they're codified by a society, as in our laws, represent some level of agreement amongst us, collectively, as to which specific rules will abide by. So we either agree or don't agree, as individuals, and we either pass or do not pass laws, according to the support we can garner for our point of view, and whether our IMPETUS for our beliefs comes from a religion or from somewhere else (a parent? A neighbor? A philosopher? Who cares?) is pretty much irrelevant.
R. |
I fully agree with you my friend with the issue of morality and would hasten to point out that morality is not the exclusive domain of churches (whatever domination they might be)
Paying for a pill is strictly a financial issue... the matter of morality rests exclusively with the person(s) taking the pill... and therein lies the difference between what the good Doc is advocating and my personal point of view.
Ray
|
|
