Buuuuurn!!!ts1227;1163507 wrote:
It's called a joke you sourpuss.Skyhook79;1163873 wrote:Link to where it says if you say Jesus Christ with an attitude you automatically go to hell and rape is covered in Commandment #7 and #10 and probably #5.
What exactly was he right about?I Wear Pants;1164839 wrote:[video=youtube;CsM-D7t9XZY][/video]
Not really a fan of Maher's deliver in general but when you're right you're right.
Religions shouldn't count as charities and that the Mormon church is an absurd money grab.Skyhook79;1164886 wrote:What exactly was he right about?
Then neither should United Way,Red Cross,Unicef,Girl Scouts of America,Boy Scouts of America and those on this list if that is your criteria.I Wear Pants;1164982 wrote:Religions shouldn't count as charities and that the Mormon church is an absurd money grab.
The determination of a true "non-profit" may not be the only reason donations are tax deductible. Our government has engineered society for a very long time. The government induces certain activities with incentives and deters others with tax liabilities. Religion can be considered to be a funding activity that receives incentives for people to contribute to by virtue of the tax benefit in doing so. This has nothing to do with it being a non-profit.OSH;1165003 wrote:So, who determines if the building that non-profit uses is worthy of "non-profit status" then?
That's basically all Maher says.
lolSkyhook79;1164991 wrote:Then neither should United Way,Red Cross,Unicef,Girl Scouts of America,Boy Scouts of America and those on this list if that is your criteria.
http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html
Good to see you once again contribute nothing to the thread.DeyDurkie5;1165007 wrote:lol
I don't see it as being a statement that it's better than any other way to spend. The same incentive exists for other applications also. The Supreme Court may accept such a challenge to the concern but no one has yet brought it forth.I Wear Pants;1165063 wrote:By giving tax breaks to religion and for supporting religion the government is saying that religion is somehow better than any other way to spend your money or any other organization which is not the way our government should be.
The government should provide no deterrent nor any incentive to establishing,practicing, or otherwise participating in religion.
No, it doesn't. They give tax breaks to many non- "religious" entities in the private sector and in the charity/non-profit sector.I Wear Pants;1165063 wrote:By giving tax breaks to religion and for supporting religion the government is saying that religion is somehow better than any other way to spend your money or any other organization which is not the way our government should be.
The government should provide no deterrent nor any incentive to establishing,practicing, or otherwise participating in religion.
Why should religious organizations receive any benefit from the government? That is subsidizing religion by the state, which is unconstitutional.Skyhook79;1165133 wrote:No, it doesn't. They give tax breaks to many non- "religious" entities in the private sector and in the charity/non-profit sector.
There's nothing in the constitution about that though.Skyhook79;1165133 wrote:No, it doesn't. They give tax breaks to many non- "religious" entities in the private sector and in the charity/non-profit sector.
You need to re-read or read for the first time the First Amendment to the Constitution.sleeper;1165137 wrote:Why should religious organizations receive any benefit from the government? That is subsidizing religion by the state, which is unconstitutional.
Freedom of religion does not equal tax payer funding of religion.Skyhook79;1165145 wrote:You need to re-read or read for the first time the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Nice fail response.sleeper;1165149 wrote:Freedom of religion does not equal tax payer funding of religion.
By providing an incentive to donate to religion they are. And taxpayers are subsidizing religion because there's a lot of revenue that could go towards roads and shit which as far as I'm aware of churches and churchgoers use to get to and from church activities. There is a cost to society for religions, or any group/person, being tax exempt. The question is whether it's worth it, in the case of religion I'd think not.Con_Alma;1165151 wrote:The tax payers are not funding the religion.
