Time: Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Actually I never seen a complicated device( like a one celled animal) make itself without outside guidance...so if you want to believe that primordial ooze had a vast intelligence then fine. I choose to believe it was just mud and some other force formed life from it. Your faith is mud worship, mine is creator worship. I can live with that....honestly boards with your dogmatic zeal between global warming and evolution , well... I would rather talk with a Jehovah Witness.

PkrBum wrote:I say we should do away with ALL redistribution, subsidy, and handouts... unless a person is verifiably disabled.

Sink or swim... then the charity of others might be appreciated through churches like it used to be. Frickin commies.

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:How bigoted, Boards.  Do away with Christianity?

Really.

And you're an educated man.  


Amazing the lack of total view - such blinders.

As humanity learns more about the natural world, we replace old theories with new theories that account for new information and empirical observation.   Being that the case, it is inevitable that religion will eventually be shed.  And that is a good thing.

But until then, shouldn't they at least pay taxes and contribute to society just like everyone else?

Your mind would be blown to know the contributions that are made in this world by Christians. Not people with any political agenda, not those that claim to be Christian but only worry about the politics of the world, true Christians.  Differences are made in communities, villages, schools...but that doesn't fit the agenda, does it???  Easier to lambaste the whole bunch and get rid of them, eh?

Any contributions made by religion are far outweighed by the damage that they have wrought on society.  Paying taxes won't fix that, but it's better than nothing.

boards of FL wrote:With the Supreme Court decision last week, religion's influence on society was weakened yet again.  That is essentially what happened there.  The reason why homosexuals could not marry prior to last week was religion.  The reason why they can today and moving forward is because religion was defeated.

TEO and SheWrites, you two both understand that, correct?  It's amazing that neither of you seem to be able to connect the dots and understand why this was ever an issue (gay marriage) to begin with.  

Religion's influence on American policy was weakened last week and we're all better off today because of it.[/quote


Really?  I could have sworn to the fact many states have gay marriage on the law books.  Could we not be patient and let the legal process of the STATES take their course?  

Nope, SCOTUS had to step in.  And now, according to Boards, this is the weakening of religions influence in America.

So we see the true colors...not of the rainbow...but of Christian bigotry.

I feel sorry for my homosexual friends being used this way.  And Boards opened it all up to us in this one post....

Wow...

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:How bigoted, Boards.  Do away with Christianity?

Really.

And you're an educated man.  


Amazing the lack of total view - such blinders.

As humanity learns more about the natural world, we replace old theories with new theories that account for new information and empirical observation.   Being that the case, it is inevitable that religion will eventually be shed.  And that is a good thing.

But until then, shouldn't they at least pay taxes and contribute to society just like everyone else?

Shewrites is correct, your attitude is one of a narrow-minded bigot. People who attend church pay taxes even if the church itself doesn't, most are small and not exactly rolling in money. It's kind of RACIST to ridicule all churches since some demographics rely on church for their basic needs in addition to their spiritual. Congregations in smaller churches tend to take care of their own, unlike your progressive utopia of the entitlement crowd.

Of course if you want to eliminate their tax status then don't stop there, eliminate the tax status of ALL nonprofits and watch as the people who are in the trenches actually doing what you claim to think important close up shop. You know, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, immigrant services, etc. Of course I'm sure you are a willing volunteer or do you just talk a poor game?

I find it interesting that a progressive would even care why people are religious, if it comforts them for whatever reason then one would think a true progressive should support that idea if not agree with it.

Religion perpetuates bigotry.  Pointing that out doesn't make me a bigot in any way.  

It is the year 2015 we are just now reaching a point where homosexuals are allowed to marry.  The reason it has taken us that long is because of religion.  That's really it.  And you're asking me why I should care about that so long as the people who subscribe to the religion are comfortable?

I can only laugh at your "RACIST" comment.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here's one but he's right there are many...

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t15321-question-for-climate-science-deniers-can-you-name-any-scientific-organization-that-denies-anthropogenic-global-warming

Seems like a fairly legit thread to me.  I asked for any example of any legitimate scientific organization that denies anthropogenic global warming.  No one was able to provide one.  That sort of backs up the case that the scientific community is making when they say that there is no controversy on this issue.  The scientific community has reached consensus.  The only people who continue to deny anthropgenic global warming are right-wing american politicians and network cable talking heads.  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

   David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
   Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
   Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
   Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
   Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
   Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
   Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
   Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
   Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
   Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
   Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
   Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
   Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
   Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

The question involves scientific organizations taking an official, documented position on the subject.  Not individual scientists, politicians, or energy executives.

See Boards run....individuals make up organizations  but...spin away and run boards run.....

SheWrites wrote:I think the thing that is really bothersome is how the progressives, Boards included since he started this post, is the appearance now there truly was an underlying fight with the right to homosexual marriage.

Personally, I don't care who marries who or who sins how or whether the country is legit now or going to hell in a handbasket.  I have no control over any of that.

What I  have control over is my belief system.  I think I've shared a few times that I keep it simple with Jesus.  Read the Sermon on the Mount and live from there.

But with the mindset of Boards, in his original post, he's on a mission now - now that SCOTUS has broken down the parameters of what marriage is - to destroy Christianity.  We aren't educated in scientific matters so we must be silenced...

He says "religion" but unless he comes back to talk about what religion he wishes to see decimated, I'm fearing it's Christianity.

Wow...so soon the truth just comes flying out from behind the curtain...

Homosexuals must feel used.  They were only fighting for their love for their partner to be accepted in marriage just as a straight couple.  But, according to Boards...it's much more than that...next step on the march to destroy religion is
...and then what...and then what....

Again, who's the bigot?  Where is the hatred?

Alway at the total extremes...

TEOTWAWKI wrote:....honestly boards with your dogmatic zeal between global warming and evolution , well... I would rather talk with a Jehovah Witness.

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:With the Supreme Court decision last week, religion's influence on society was weakened yet again.  That is essentially what happened there.  The reason why homosexuals could not marry prior to last week was religion.  The reason why they can today and moving forward is because religion was defeated.

TEO and SheWrites, you two both understand that, correct?  It's amazing that neither of you seem to be able to connect the dots and understand why this was ever an issue (gay marriage) to begin with.  

Religion's influence on American policy was weakened last week and we're all better off today because of it.

Really?  I could have sworn to the fact many states have gay marriage on the law books.  Could we not be patient and let the legal process of the STATES take their course?  

Nope, SCOTUS had to step in.  And now, according to Boards, this is the weakening of religions influence in America.

So we see the true colors...not of the rainbow...but of Christian bigotry.

I feel sorry for my homosexual friends being used this way.  And Boards opened it all up to us in this one post....

Wow...

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Actually I never seen a complicated device( like a one celled animal) make itself without outside guidance...so if you want to believe that primordial ooze had a vast intelligence then fine. I choose to believe it was just mud and some other force formed life from it. Your faith is mud worship, mine is creator worship. I can live with that....honestly boards with your dogmatic zeal between global warming and evolution , well... I would rather talk with a Jehovah Witness.

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:With the Supreme Court decision last week, religion's influence on society was weakened yet again.  That is essentially what happened there.  The reason why homosexuals could not marry prior to last week was religion.  The reason why they can today and moving forward is because religion was defeated.

TEO and SheWrites, you two both understand that, correct?  It's amazing that neither of you seem to be able to connect the dots and understand why this was ever an issue (gay marriage) to begin with.  

Religion's influence on American policy was weakened last week and we're all better off today because of it.

Really?  I could have sworn to the fact many states have gay marriage on the law books.  Could we not be patient and let the legal process of the STATES take their course?  

Nope, SCOTUS had to step in.  And now, according to Boards, this is the weakening of religions influence in America.

So we see the true colors...not of the rainbow...but of Christian bigotry.

I feel sorry for my homosexual friends being used this way.  And Boards opened it all up to us in this one post....

Wow...

Yes.  Many states already had legal gay marriage on the books.  Many states had outright bans on gay marriage on the books as well.  Some even went further and said that business owners could refuse service to gay couples on the grounds of religious freedom.   Being this the case, it seems that sitting around and waiting for states to get it right on their own wasn't an option.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court made their decision and now basic marriage rights have been expanded to the LGBT community.

And, here again, this is absolutely an example of a weakening of religion's influence on American policy.  The only reason that gay marriage was illegal is because religious people felt they were being harmed by others who choose to live a different lifestyle.  That's it.  This country oppressed gay people for hundreds of years in the name of religion.  As of last week, religion no longer has that power anymore.  You can choose to frame that differently if you have some sort of alternate reality worldview to affirm, but that is what happened last week.

Now here is what I am hoping you can help me understand here.  How do you get to the idea of "I feel sorry for my homosexual friends being used this way.  And Boards opened it all up to us in this one post...."?  What does that even mean?  Your homosexual friends were awarded an expanded set of rights as of last week.  That's great.  How do go from that to the idea that your friends were used?  And what is it - exactly - that you feel I have opened up?

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:With the Supreme Court decision last week, religion's influence on society was weakened yet again.  That is essentially what happened there.  The reason why homosexuals could not marry prior to last week was religion.  The reason why they can today and moving forward is because religion was defeated.

TEO and SheWrites, you two both understand that, correct?  It's amazing that neither of you seem to be able to connect the dots and understand why this was ever an issue (gay marriage) to begin with.  

Religion's influence on American policy was weakened last week and we're all better off today because of it.

Really?  I could have sworn to the fact many states have gay marriage on the law books.  Could we not be patient and let the legal process of the STATES take their course?  

Nope, SCOTUS had to step in.  And now, according to Boards, this is the weakening of religions influence in America.

So we see the true colors...not of the rainbow...but of Christian bigotry.

I feel sorry for my homosexual friends being used this way.  And Boards opened it all up to us in this one post....

Wow...

Yes.  Many states already had legal gay marriage on the books.  Many states had outright bans on gay marriage on the books as well.  Some even went further and said that business owners could refuse service to gay couples on the grounds of religious freedom.   Being this the case, it seems that sitting around and waiting for states to get it right on their own wasn't an option.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court made their decision and now basic marriage rights have been expanded to the LGBT community.

And, here again, this is absolutely an example of a weakening of religion's influence on American policy.  The only reason that gay marriage was illegal is because religious people felt they were being harmed by others who choose to live a different lifestyle.  That's it.  This country oppressed gay people for hundreds of years in the name of religion.  As of last week, religion no longer has that power anymore.  You can choose to frame that differently if you have some sort of alternate reality worldview to affirm, but that is what happened last week.

Now here is what I am hoping you can help me understand here.  How do you get to the idea of "I feel sorry for my homosexual friends being used this way.  And Boards opened it all up to us in this one post...."?  What does that even mean?  Your homosexual friends were awarded an expanded set of rights as of last week.  That's great.  How do go from that to the idea that your friends were used?  And what is it - exactly - that you feel I have opened up?

You explained perfectly the precedent set by SCOTUS.  Religion destroyed. You opened up the path of the precedent.

That precedent was played off the Homosexual community.  And maybe they feel the same as you.  But I know plenty of homosexuals who attend worship services.  I wonder if they feel used...a pawn in a bigger plan.  

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:With the Supreme Court decision last week, religion's influence on society was weakened yet again.  That is essentially what happened there.  The reason why homosexuals could not marry prior to last week was religion.  The reason why they can today and moving forward is because religion was defeated.

TEO and SheWrites, you two both understand that, correct?  It's amazing that neither of you seem to be able to connect the dots and understand why this was ever an issue (gay marriage) to begin with.  

Religion's influence on American policy was weakened last week and we're all better off today because of it.

Really?  I could have sworn to the fact many states have gay marriage on the law books.  Could we not be patient and let the legal process of the STATES take their course?  

Nope, SCOTUS had to step in.  And now, according to Boards, this is the weakening of religions influence in America.

So we see the true colors...not of the rainbow...but of Christian bigotry.

I feel sorry for my homosexual friends being used this way.  And Boards opened it all up to us in this one post....

Wow...

Yes.  Many states already had legal gay marriage on the books.  Many states had outright bans on gay marriage on the books as well.  Some even went further and said that business owners could refuse service to gay couples on the grounds of religious freedom.   Being this the case, it seems that sitting around and waiting for states to get it right on their own wasn't an option.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court made their decision and now basic marriage rights have been expanded to the LGBT community.

And, here again, this is absolutely an example of a weakening of religion's influence on American policy.  The only reason that gay marriage was illegal is because religious people felt they were being harmed by others who choose to live a different lifestyle.  That's it.  This country oppressed gay people for hundreds of years in the name of religion.  As of last week, religion no longer has that power anymore.  You can choose to frame that differently if you have some sort of alternate reality worldview to affirm, but that is what happened last week.

Now here is what I am hoping you can help me understand here.  How do you get to the idea of "I feel sorry for my homosexual friends being used this way.  And Boards opened it all up to us in this one post...."?  What does that even mean?  Your homosexual friends were awarded an expanded set of rights as of last week.  That's great.  How do go from that to the idea that your friends were used?  And what is it - exactly - that you feel I have opened up?

You explained perfectly the precedent set by SCOTUS.  Religion destroyed. You opened up the path of the precedent.

That precedent was played off the Homosexual community.  And maybe they feel the same as you.  But I know plenty of homosexuals who attend worship services.  I wonder if they feel used...a pawn in a bigger plan.  

The precedent that was set by the Supreme Court basically tells us that we can't oppress people or withhold rights from them unless we have a good reason to do so.  What on earth is wrong with that?  From now one, one needs a better reason than "This ancient book says that gay people are evil, so..." to withhold basic rights from them. That line of irrational reasoning doesn't fly anymore.  Now, we actually need good reasons to explain our policy.   That's great.  That is an example of an advancement in society.  We're all better off moving forward because of this.  And that does nothing in the way of explaining your comment where you paint the LGBT community as victims.  

I suspect there were people like you during the civil rights movement who made comments such as "I feel so sorry for black people!  It turns out that they were merely pawns in the war against racism!"  

Breathtaking inanity right there.

SheWrites wrote:Do I think government uses the oppressed for their own agenda?  YES

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:Do I think government uses the oppressed for their own agenda?  YES

You clearly have your eyes closed, ears covered, and you're repeatedly shouting "I can't hear you!  I can't hear you!" at this point so I'll just say for everyone else here that you have this completely wrong.  

Religion used the government to oppress others based upon religious doctrine.  Completely ignorant, completely barbaric, religious doctrine.  That ended last week.   If you want to feel sorry for someone, look no further than the religous.  Their brand of hatred and oppression is no longer enforced or legitimized by the US government.  

Great day for humanity.  Great day for Americans.  Terrible day for the religious.

2seaoat wrote:Religion has nothing to do with this Supreme Court Case.  Many denominations have openly accepted same sex marriages for years, as have many states, rather this case has to do with the affirmation that marriage is a fundamental right of every citizen and if government is to restrict that fundamental right it must go beyond a simple rational basis for a classification system which limits who can get married, but must show a compelling state reason why those individuals cannot be married.   There is absolutely nothing in this decision which harms religion or Christians.   Red herrings galore.

2seaoat wrote:Religion used the government to oppress others based upon religious doctrine.

This is equally asz backwards.   Citizens who followed religious tenets in a democracy voted for policy which becomes law.   We do not live in a theocracy where religion controls the government to oppress others.  It was not religion which used government to oppress slaves, yet slavery was justified by religious doctrine. It was citizens who followed those religious tenets who voted to oppress.

SheWrites wrote:Have a good day, Boards.

2seaoat wrote:If not, can you name any other reasoning behind gay marriage bans?


Yes, the godless Nazis after coming to power with a huge homosexual component in their early brown shirt brigades, turned on homosexuals not because of religion, but because they were a minority.   Throughout history minorities independent of religious beliefs have been persecuted.  A person who is not a homosexual may feel uncomfortable with the simple difference in a person's choices than some elaborate religious condemnation.  I think this is far more primal than superficial religious tenets.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Cool so it was a ruse to attack Christians....good luck with that...Christians in America won't roll over and die like your Christians that are being headed by ISIS

Just as ISIS will eventually be defeated, so will Christianity.  Last week was a terrible week for religious oppression and it's only going to get worse as the information age advances.

Perhaps it is time for the church to actually contribute something productive to society rather than ignorance and immorality.

Do away with church it's all that keeps some people from going Genghis Khan on your ass. Yes it's a bit of an opiate.

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:If not, can you name any other reasoning behind gay marriage bans?


Yes, the godless Nazis after coming to power with a huge homosexual component in their early brown shirt brigades, turned on homosexuals not because of religion, but because they were a minority.   Throughout history minorities independent of religious beliefs have been persecuted.  A person who is not a homosexual may feel uncomfortable with the simple difference in a person's choices than some elaborate religious condemnation.  I think this is far more primal than superficial religious tenets.

I should have included "...in American politics."  

2seaoat.  Please.  Let's be honest here.  Gay people couldn't get married because of the religious point of view.  You're arguing against an objective fact here.   Those who refuse to serve gay couples moving forward will do so on the basis of religion.   Here again, objective fact.  Prior to last weeks ruling, several states were scrambling to pass "Religious Freedom" laws aimed at oppressing the LGBT community.   There is absolutely no question as to the source of gay marriage bans in the US.