mella;1255886 wrote:I can be whatever you want me to be. I am so sick and tired of the right and the left (American versions). Neither party represents me and each party is full of loud mouth radicals.

O-Trap;1256177 wrote:Hasty generalization fallacy.

O-Trap;1256176 wrote:Actually, the average "Christian" church in the United States has a mere 85 members, and the average pastor holds a full-time job outside his responsibilities at the church.

One might think their first action might be to ask for it, at least prior to charging it. That would be the most logical progression. However, in the churches where they are on the cusp of not being able to continue, you'll still hear most of them not asking for anything. People typically give because they enjoy it. Not a single church to which I've ever been would even so much as look down on you if you openly didn't give a dime.



Actually, most of the "churches" don't receive federal funding. Their subsidiary religious organizations do. Why that's relevant is that the part of their collective entity that serves as "church" in the traditional sense, is already pretty much funded by unrequired, and usually unrequested, donations. It's really no different than a bunch of people in a community pooling their resources to buy a building and pay one of their own enough that he can maintain the building and plan activities for their meetings.

So, if we were to remove the religiosity of the content, does your opinion change?

putting them rightfully in the same line as Scientology in that they are both cults and they both exploit the poor and stupid for money and influence.

gut;1256264 wrote:The govt not taking your earned money (taxes) is not the same as the govt giving you money you didn't earn (subsidies).

sleeper;1256259 wrote:Not paying taxes is the same as receiving a subsidy. It's clever accounting at best and fraud at worst.

sleeper;1256259 wrote: It's called a marketing cost when said person attends but doesn't pay.

sleeper;1256259 wrote:I don't pay anything to use these forums, but the allure that I may donate or at least that my page views generate some revenue are the costs of using said forum.

sleeper;1256259 wrote:If you don't pay, you being deluded in the faith may prompt you to donate in the future for a borderline at best fraudulent placebo effect.

sleeper;1256259 wrote:You couldn't pay me any amount of money to subject myself to fairy tales that mask the reality of life.

sleeper;1256256 wrote:I wouldn't call something as concrete as gravity a hasty generalization just because planes can defy gravity.

sleeper;1256269 wrote:Churches are not charities. At least no more than Exxon Mobil who donates a few million a year to help kids study math and science; or who has their employees clean up a river a couple times a year. Churches are fraud, nothing more, nothing less.

sleeper;1255944 wrote:Although I agree about the circumcision stuff, your interpretation of the 1st amendment is negligent at best. Religion is unregulated. It's a cop out for people to avoid rules and laws since you can just claim they are against your beliefs. I might start a religion that focuses on smoking weed and if a cop arrests me I will claim the 1st amendment.

Get real.

I Wear Pants;1255946 wrote:The counter to that argument is that physical mutilation isn't/shouldn't be protected.

Off course I don't really give a **** and for the most part being contrarian but any and all reason for circumcision being allowed needs to be based on health and science issues. If the only reasons for cutting a baby's **** were religious then we should not allow that.

jmog;1256293 wrote:So, if circumcision posed no health benefits, but is also had no health complications then you would be ok with banning it because the only reason people do it would be for religious reasons?

O-Trap;1256238 wrote:Quaker, it breaks no rules, and frankly, I think it's healthy to engage in discussion over controversial things. I believe our founders did as well, a la the free speech protection, which as a certain politician recently pointed out, was not put into place so we could talk about the weather.

sleeper;1256122 wrote:Selectively edit? You mean like granting religious institutions non-profit status, which is the same as government subsidizing religion? My tax dollars are being forced to support religion. It's a joke.

jmog;1256284 wrote:Planes don't defy gravity, that is scientifically incorrect.

Gravity is still pulling down on a plane just as hard as anything else its size.

QuakerOats;1256297 wrote:I didn't say it broke "the rules". I could care less about "the rules", and most rules for that matter. I do care about a modicom of class and dignity. To equate, as this thread title does, freedom loving Americans with butcherous barbarians who, to this day, chop the heads off of other freedom loving peoples for no other reason than because they believe in a some small amount of freedom, is the heighth of disrespect, improporiety, and apparently just plain stupidity.

Beyond that, the title is absolutely and completely FALSE. But when did the truth ever matter to the Liberal Left? Apparently it is now ok to fraudulently spread untruths without an ounce of compunction.

If you and OC want to sanction that type of disgusting and completely FALSE innuendo then this place has completely denigrated itself. The debasing of the culture continues.

jmog;1256291 wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Sorry, but the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part sides with me, not you.

Until my free exercise of religion infringes on someone elses rights (like I can't create a religion that says I have to murder people) then the government can not prohibit me from doing it.

For Jews and Muslims, circumcision is part of excercising their religion.

QuakerOats;1256297 wrote:I didn't say it broke "the rules". I could care less about "the rules", and most rules for that matter. I do care about a modicom of class and dignity. To equate, as this thread title does, freedom loving Americans with butcherous barbarians who, to this day, chop the heads off of other freedom loving peoples for no other reason than because they believe in a some small amount of freedom, is the heighth of disrespect, improporiety, and apparently just plain stupidity.

Beyond that, the title is absolutely and completely FALSE. But when did the truth ever matter to the Liberal Left? Apparently it is now ok to fraudulently spread untruths without an ounce of compunction.

If you and OC want to sanction that type of disgusting and completely FALSE innuendo then this place has completely denigrated itself. The debasing of the culture continues.

jmog;1256299 wrote:So anything in the US that is non-profit is government subsidized? You can't be serious sleeper.

The Susan Komen foundation for breast cancer research is subsidized by the government?

So in your mind there should be zero non-profit organizations in the US, that all non-profits need to start paying taxes on all donation money they receive?

Your tax dollars are not going to support religion, that is not only factually incorrect but funny to begin with.

sleeper;1256121 wrote:They didn't try hard enough. Whenever I retire, I will spend every dollar in my bank account on getting religious institutions to pay taxes. Without tax free operations, they will be forced to charge money to maintain operations and then people will finally start seeing the true side of religion; money making scam on the poor and stupid.

sleeper;1256303 wrote:Technicalities jmog, technicalities.

O-Trap;1256286 wrote:They're no closer to Exxon Mobil than St. Jude or SmileTrain. They don't grow as a company. They don't have investors. They don't have quotas. They have no quarterly numbers. There is no pressure to earn an ROI.

The extent that they are like Exxon Mobil is that they have employees who receive paychecks. That's pretty much where it ends.

jmog;1256313 wrote:I apologize for using science and logic to prove you wrong once again

jmog;1256299 wrote:So anything in the US that is non-profit is government subsidized? You can't be serious sleeper.

The Susan Komen foundation for breast cancer research is subsidized by the government?

So in your mind there should be zero non-profit organizations in the US, that all non-profits need to start paying taxes on all donation money they receive?

Your tax dollars are not going to support religion, that is not only factually incorrect but funny to begin with.

sleeper;1256308 wrote:I didn't say we should do away with non-profits, but non-profits that receive government assistance via tax breaks that support religion should be abolished. This is infringing on my 1st amendment rights of freedom of religion.