QuakerOats;1256297 wrote:I do care about a modicom of class and dignity.

Not all do, and the beauty of freedom of speech is that people can say things that other think to be rude, classless, undignified, and even untrue.

You may not like what is said, and you are certainly free to not expose yourself to something you find so abhorrent. However, as it is permitted by both law and the "house rules," it's not going to be removed for offending subjective sensibilities, whether or not they are justified.

QuakerOats;1256297 wrote: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.

Perhaps, and the beauty is that the same freedom granted to those who say things you don't like is granted to you, so that you may respond as you do above.

QuakerOats;1256297 wrote: Beyond that, the title is absolutely and completely FALSE.

In a literal sense, certainly. The OP intended to draw a correlation, though, which would imply that at least one person thought a correlation could indeed be made. That might make him right or wrong, and again, you are free to express your view that it is untrue.

These very freedoms that people are killed for are the ones that allow this. To wish to deny others that freedom cheapens the very thing that others hold sacred enough to die for.

QuakerOats;1256297 wrote:But when did the truth ever matter to the Liberal Left?

The establishment Right can't throw stones for this one. Not speaking to you as an individual, and certainly not denying your claim. Just stating that the left-leaning establishment isn't the only entity with this kind of dirt on its hands.

QuakerOats;1256297 wrote:Apparently it is now ok to fraudulently spread untruths without an ounce of compunction.

They aren't being fraudulently spread. The OP drew what the poster thought to be a legitimate correlation. You disagree, and that's great, but it doesn't mean that those with whom you disagree are intentionally villainous or evil.

QuakerOats;1256297 wrote:If you and OC want to sanction that type of disgusting and completely FALSE innuendo then this place has completely denigrated itself.

Permitting something and sanctioning it are not synonymous. You know this, I'm sure.

QuakerOats;1256297 wrote:The debasing of the culture continues.

If it is so easily false and disgusting, attack it as though it were legitimate, and it will be relatively easy to show to be flawed. If you see a rat in the house, you don't cry about it being there. You kill it.

No, not paying taxes is not paying taxes. Receiving a subsidy is receiving a subsidy. Then, you have those who do both, which can be done because they aren't the same thing.

Company A earns $100 in profit. It pays 20% of it to taxes. End result: Company A keeps $80. Government receives $20.
Company B earns $100 in profit. It pays 0% of it to taxes. End result: Company B keeps $100. Government receives $0.
Company C earns $100 in profit. It pays 20% of it to taxes. It receives a subsidy of $20 from the government. End result: Company C keeps $100. Government receives $0.

Anyone saying a subsidy and a tax exempt status is delusional. There are only not in the same in name only, but the end result is the same and that's all the matters.

sleeper;1256306 wrote:My religion is to murder innocent babies via abortion. My religion forbids me from wearing a seat belt or hiring a black person since they are the mark of the devil.

Give me a break. :thumbdown:

As for your first and third example, they infringe on the right of others, which jmog specifically said was a limit to the practice of religion.

As for the second, I'm seriously okay with no seatbelts.

jmog;1256317 wrote:I would love to hear your argument as to how religious non-profits being tax exempt infringes on your 1st amendment right.

My religion is that religious non-profits should have to pay taxes like everyone else.

stlouiedipalma;1256316 wrote:I don't think sleeper is too far from the truth here. While our tax dollars don't go directly to supporting religion, the lack of tax dollars which are collected from religious orders puts a larger burden on those of us who do pay taxes.

If you really want to go down that road, then those that receive tax deductions for mortgage interest are infringing on the rights of those who rent.

Those that receive tax deduction for children are infringing on the rights of those that have no kids.

Those that receive tax deductions for charitable donations are infringing on the rights of those who refuse to donate to charities.

You have hit a slippery slope logical fallacy of which I'm sure there is some nice latin name for that O-Trap will fill in .

O-Trap;1256322 wrote:As for your first and third example, they infringe on the right of others, which jmog specifically said was a limit to the practice of religion.

As for the second, I'm seriously okay with no seatbelts.

Pretty inconsiderate and intolerant of you to tell me that I can't practice my religion because it conflicts with your own beliefs. Try reading the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

sleeper;1256323 wrote:My religion is that religious non-profits should have to pay taxes like everyone else.

In which case you are entitled to believe that, but the practice of it would infringe on the rights of religious non-profits. So, while you are allowed to believe that, you can not legally practice it.

Same as if your religion said you had to murder 1 person a week to go to its version of heaven. You are fully allowed to believe such religion, but not allowed to practice it.

sleeper;1256328 wrote:Pretty inconsiderate and intolerant of you to tell me that I can't practice my religion because it conflicts with your own beliefs. Try reading the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

He did not say you couldn't practice it because of his beliefs, he said you can't practice it because of the current rights, as established by US laws, being infringed upon.

Heretic;1256305 wrote:The fact you're incapable of speaking of the other major party in our political scene without hyperbolic terms like marxist and socialist and are incapable of looking at anything political with more depth than "US GOOD AND RIGHT...THEM EVIL AND WRONG" makes this post comically hypocritical.

"I can say whatever I want about them, but if they do the same to us....BAAAAWWWWWLLLLLLL!!!!!!!"

There are many, many Marxists, socialists, and communists within the democrat party. That is not some hyperbole, it is a fact. The US Communist PArty endorses democrat barack obama, and barack obama embraces many principles of those 3 groups in his policy agenda. So when many of us refer to those groups as being part of The Left, we are dealing in fact, even if some of you would rather not hear it, perhaps you are afraid of those terms, or whatever.

However, when someone equates ("=") honest, freedom loving Americans with the barbaric, freedom-hating Taliban, that is factually incorrect, dishonest, and fraudulent, along with being completely disgusting, distasteful, classless, and disgraceful.

If you cannot see the difference, then you have problems, not me. Get some help.

jmog;1256330 wrote:In which case you are entitled to believe that, but the practice of it would infringe on the rights of religious non-profits. So, while you are allowed to believe that, you can not legally practice it.

Same as if your religion said you had to murder 1 person a week to go to its version of heaven. You are fully allowed to believe such religion, but not allowed to practice it.

Religious non-profits are not people. They are soulless, conscienceless artifical entities. They exist at the permission of the government that allows their creation and has the ultimate right to control their actions.

jmog;1256333 wrote:He did not say you couldn't practice it because of his beliefs, he said you can't practice it because of the current rights, as established by US laws, being infringed upon.

You and I are part of the group that have the ultimate power to set laws and you have right to use freedom of expression to effect the laws.

sleeper;1256321 wrote:Company A earns $100 in profit. It pays 20% of it to taxes. End result: Company A keeps $80. Government receives $20.
Company B earns $100 in profit. It pays 0% of it to taxes. End result: Company B keeps $100. Government receives $0.
Company C earns $100 in profit. It pays 20% of it to taxes. It receives a subsidy of $20 from the government. End result: Company C keeps $100. Government receives $0.

Anyone saying a subsidy and a tax exempt status is delusional. There are only not in the same in name only, but the end result is the same and that's all the matters.

Do you not understand how non-profits are required to function? A non-profit is essentially not permitted to keep its profits. It is permitted to spend a small amount on growth and sustaining itself, but the rest has to be put toward the cause it was created to further, whereas a for-profit company is allowed to keep it and/or distribute it among its owners. Owners of non-profits are not permitted to do the same.

So, in your example, it would go more like this:

Company A (for-profit) earns $100 in profit. It pays 20% of it to taxes. End result: Company A keeps $80. Government receives $20.
Company B (non-profit) earns $100 in profit. It pays 0% of it to taxes. End result: Company B is forced to spend $100 on cause. Company B keeps $0. Government receives $0.
Company C (for-profit) earns $100 in profit. It pays 20% of it to taxes. It receives a subsidy of $20 from the government. End result: Company C keeps $100. Government receives $0.
Company D (non-profit) earns $100 in profit. It pays 0% of it in taxes. It receives a subsidy of $20. It is then forced by law to spend $120 on cause. Company D keeps $0. Government receives -$20.

Non-profits are "non-profits" for a reason.

LOL. False.

Non-profits are certainly allowed to keep "profit", but they call it "surplus". They cannot distribute that money to its owners, but they are certainly allowed to keep the money and conveniently raise wages and lavish retirement packages of their employees. I use to work for a non-profit. If you don't think fraud is rampant, then you have no idea how they are actually run.

Churches are frauds because the product the sell is a placebo. Drug companies would be sued for billions if a heart medicine didn't solve anything but gave its patients(at least the ones who survived) placebos that solved nothing. Churches need to be held accountable for peddling false beliefs and irrational behavior(see 9/11).

sleeper;1256323 wrote:My religion is that religious non-profits should have to pay taxes like everyone else.

You are free to believe that, as part of your religion. However, in that the exercise of your religious view would infringe on the constitutional rights of citizens to freely exercise their religion, it would be against an already-established law.

sleeper;1256328 wrote:Pretty inconsiderate and intolerant of you to tell me that I can't practice my religion because it conflicts with your own beliefs. Try reading the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

Nah, it's cool if your beliefs conflict with my own, whether they are of a religious nature or not. Your practice simply can't infringe on the rights of others.

jmog;1256333 wrote:He did not say you couldn't practice it because of his beliefs, he said you can't practice it because of the current rights, as established by US laws, being infringed upon.

This.

sleeper;1256340 wrote:Religious non-profits are not people.

No, but those who are members or recipients of them and their work are indeed people, and by taxing their existence, you do not permit the free exercise of religion that they represent.

sleeper;1256340 wrote:They are soulless, conscienceless artifical entities.

As for the organizations themselves, I can agree with this.

sleeper;1256340 wrote:They exist at the permission of the government that allows their creation and has the ultimate right to control their actions.

Businesses fit the same description. Does the government have the "ultimate right" to control their actions as well?

You are free to believe that, as part of your religion. However, in that the exercise of your religious view would infringe on the constitutional rights of citizens to freely exercise their religion, it would be against an already-established law.

\

Somethings gotta give. One of our rights has to be infringed on. I believe the US needs to address this and keep both of our religions in our own homes and nowhere else.

Nah, it's cool if your beliefs conflict with my own, whether they are of a religious nature or not. Your practice simply can't infringe on the rights of others.

That is infringing on my 1st amendment rights. Congress shall make no law...

No, but those who are members or recipients of them and their work are indeed people, and by taxing their existence, you do not permit the free exercise of religion that they represent.

So why do we tax businesses? That permits the free exercise of my beliefs that I should be able to purchase everything tax free and since I am a recipient of these services, by taxing the corporations existence, it is infringing on my 1st amendment rights. It sounds like the 1st amendment only applies to Christian based religious beliefs. Convenient. :thumbdown:

O-Trap;1256320 wrote: These very freedoms that people are killed for are the ones that allow this. To wish to deny others that freedom cheapens the very thing that others hold sacred enough to die for.

I am not surprised you want to take the discussion in this direction; it is your only hope. However, I am not debating one's right to express their 'trash', you know that! This has nothing to do with Amendment # 1. This is about incorporating a baseline of dignity and integrity from which we can all have discussion and debate without having to clog up cyberspace debunking comepletely false and totaly outrageous and disgusting statements.

At some point someone needs to call 'BullshI$', and throw it out.

Sadly, I had to call buIIshi$, and I was hoping we had a little class around here and someone would throw it out of the forum. Apparently we don't, so we hide behind the right of expression. What a cop out.

Businesses fit the same description. Does the government have the "ultimate right" to control their actions as well?

The government allows this artifical entity to be created, the government GIVES this artificial entity certain economic and political advantages. The government has the right and responsibility to ensure this artifical entity is not destructive in the needs of the people.

sleeper;1256348 wrote:LOL. False.

Non-profits are certainly allowed to keep "profit", but they call it "surplus".

The "surplus" to which you're referring is something I covered in the second sentence. Even the surplus able to be spent on internal costs of growth is limited in its permitted size, so as to prevent owners who are employed with the company from indirectly profiting individually. It is permitted to increase operating costs via salary increases and such, but that is limited and monitored, unlike for-profit companies who can distribute it virtually at will.

sleeper;1256348 wrote:They cannot distribute that money to its owners, but they are certainly allowed to keep the money and conveniently raise wages and lavish retirement packages of their employees.

If they choose to do so over a long period of time, that is indeed true. However, the option to do that is contingent on their ability to maintain growth, which is why a lot of the "surplus" is spent on growth instead of salary-padding, at least in small and medium sized non-profits.

sleeper;1256348 wrote:I use to work for a non-profit.

Oh, well then paint you an expert, since you used to work for one. My wife works for one. Maybe we should bring her into the discussion as another resident expert.

I used to do the marketing for dozens of religious non-profits. Some were crooked. Others are not. The crooked ones are often pretty constantly the subject of investigation, because believe it or not, it's not that easy to hide.

sleeper;1256348 wrote:If you don't think fraud is rampant, then you have no idea how they are actually run.

Fraud exists, just like in ANY sector, but to suggest that all are guilty of profiting illicitly because of your little anecdote about your former employer is sadly illogical.

sleeper;1256348 wrote: Churches are frauds because the product the sell is a placebo.

There is no product. There is no price, no admission, and nothing about a church requires anything to be for sale.

sleeper;1256348 wrote:Drug companies would be sued for billions if a heart medicine didn't solve anything but gave its patients(at least the ones who survived) placebos that solved nothing.

I agree, provided it was said to be heart medicine.

sleeper;1256348 wrote:Churches need to be held accountable for peddling false beliefs and irrational behavior(see 9/11).

Your knowledge of the way non-profit churches demonstrates false belief, and you seem to be trying to peddle it here. Should you be held accountable as well?

They're not peddling anything (actually, if you knew the Bible at all, you'd know the joke here) at all. A peddler looks to sell his wares to make money. Most 85-person churches know that there is no real money to be made, and yet they continue to exist without so much as a paid employee, often times.

Give it up sleeper. Tax exemption for churches is not going to go away. As long as they are operating in non profit status, They will continue operating as such.

In fact many churches support the community and help with the shortfalls of government programs. ( and are much more efficient)

I do have a problem with them using tax exempt money for political purposes. They should operate the same way the super pacs do

Devils Advocate;1256374 wrote:Give it up sleeper. Tax exemption for churches is not going to go away. As long as they are operating in non profit status, They will continue operating as such.

In fact many churches support the community and help with the shortfalls of government programs. ( and are much more efficient)

I do have a problem with them using tax exempt money for political purposes. They should operate the same way the super pacs do

I never give up and I never will. Did MLK give up because he was black? No.

There is no product. There is no price, no admission, and nothing about a church requires anything to be for sale.

The product is false beliefs and a blanket to cover any personal responsibility in the roller coaster that is life. The price is the sacrifice of your intellect; the admission is being mentally deficient; the sale is your voting power and your wallet given to a soulless, conscienceless artificial entity who exploits the poor and stupid.

sleeper;1256353 wrote:\

Somethings gotta give. One of our rights has to be infringed on. I believe the US needs to address this and keep both of our religions in our own homes and nowhere else.

Why? If I own a private piece of property that isn't legally my "home," and I wish to engage in it there, why shouldn't I? It is still my property.

sleeper;1256354 wrote:That is infringing on my 1st amendment rights. Congress shall make no law...

Congress made no law to infringe on your right. It made a law to protect its populace. If that law interferes with your religious need for oppression, then it's circumstantial, as the law was not created in order to impede your ability. Thus, Congress made no law to prohibit the exercise of your religion. Congress made a law without your religion in mind, as it should be.

sleeper;1256356 wrote:So why do we tax businesses?

Not a bad question. You'd have to ask the ones who began that practice.

sleeper;1256356 wrote:That permits the free exercise of my beliefs that I should be able to purchase everything tax free and since I am a recipient of these services, by taxing the corporations existence, it is infringing on my 1st amendment rights. It sounds like the 1st amendment only applies to Christian based religious beliefs. Convenient. :thumbdown:

Nope. Just "religious" in general. I believe the major religions all apply the same way. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians are all allowed to practice their beliefs, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others.

QuakerOats;1256357 wrote:I am not surprised you want to take the discussion in this direction; it is your only hope. However, I am not debating one's right to express their 'trash', you know that! This has nothing to do with Amendment # 1. This is about incorporating a baseline of dignity and integrity from which we can all have discussion and debate without having to clog up cyberspace debunking comepletely false and totaly outrageous and disgusting statements.

The "baseline of dignity" used to be that women didn't wear pants. The public square shouldn't just be a place to discuss whatever aligns with our sensibilities. Why shouldn't it be a place to challenge those sensibilities? I mean that question, as I'd genuinely like to hear your response. Why?

QuakerOats;1256357 wrote: At some point someone needs to call 'BullshI$', and throw it out.

Again, why? Why cannot every statement be forced to stand on its own? Why do we need discussional sacred cows?

And what if the "baseline of dignity" was violated at the implication of the word "bullshit?" You would obviously disagree with that baseline, correct? Others might not. Sensibilities and views of what is and isn't dignified are subjective, but I hope that we as adults can talk those out instead of saying "No _____ Allowed" just because someone gets offended by it.

QuakerOats;1256357 wrote:Sadly, I had to call buIIshi$, and I was hoping we had a little class around here and someone would throw it out of the forum. Apparently we don't, so we hide behind the right of expression. What a cop out.

Again "a little class" is subjective. I'm sure there is at least one person on here that would say the same about your use of "buIIshi$" and would want that removed from the forum, rules be damned.

But I'm not going to do that.

Right of expression is what lets you say what you think, just like everyone else. Someone else's baseline for dignity is different from your own, and to my knowledge, there is no objective way to determine the "correct" baseline for dignity.

sleeper;1256358 wrote:The government allows this artifical entity to be created, the government GIVES this artificial entity certain economic and political advantages. The government has the right and responsibility to ensure this artifical entity is not destructive in the needs of the people.

And when so many of the people will claim to you that it is not destructive, what then? The vast majority of churchgoers in many churches will tell you that it's nothing but an encouragement (or the churchese version: "blessing") to them and that their lives feel more enriched.

Suppose it really is the "opiate of the masses." That would seem benign at worst, at least in light of a free society.

sleeper;1256382 wrote:The product is false beliefs and a blanket to cover any personal responsibility in the roller coaster that is life. The price is the sacrifice of your intellect; the admission is being mentally deficient; the sale is your voting power and your wallet given to a soulless, conscienceless artificial entity who exploits the poor and stupid.

The product is comfort, peace, self-improvement, or any of the other things people are actually seeking when they show up. The price you mentioned cannot be taxed, and there are brilliant men who have apparently "sacrificed their intellects."

Voting power? Churches that do not violate their non-profit status do not support any politician or political ideology. I've been in both churches that have broken this and churches who haven't. Your wallet is yours, and that which you give is often used to raise money for families going through hardship, given to charities who help the community, or other humanitarian causes. Sound like exploiting to you?