sleeper;1256499 wrote:I will act on them via the legal system.

Ah, so you will practice intolerance against religious people like most people do if they are intolerant of gay people. Gotcha. You want to be just like them, I take it?

sleeper;1256499 wrote:My main motivation in life is to create wealth and to destroy religion. The latter is unlikely without the former.

Ironic, given your railing against the greed and wealth among religious leaders.

Perhaps you should start your own religion and gain wealth that way.

sleeper;1256500 wrote:I'm merely using the aggregate. Always the aggregate O-trap, nothing more nothing less.

Except that calling the extreme the aggregate doesn't make it so. As such, you're not using the aggregate at all.

jmog;1256502 wrote:Am I the only one that finds it ironic for sleeper, of all people, to complain about religions being intolerant and then in the next post talks about destroying religion? His posts seem like the definition of intolerance.

It's because he's trolling. It's fun to argue with trolls, though.

It's like hitting baseballs off a tee. It doesn't really count as winning, but it's still fun.

The sky is not falling and your wishy washy responses are exactly to be expected of the liberal mindset. Acquiescing to outright lies, deceitful innuendo, and fraudulent commentary may be noble in your view, but such disgraceful (whoops, there's that bad word again) insinuations as this thread's topic deserve no time, nor space, otherwise tacit approval has been gained. What a shame, but is explains perfectly the cultural breakdown that has occurred led by the liberal infiltration into media, academia and law.

jmog;1256502 wrote:Am I the only one that finds it ironic for sleeper, of all people, to complain about religions being intolerant and then in the next post talks about destroying religion? His posts seem like the definition of intolerance.

Religion is fine with two caveats: #1: Religious institutions need to pay taxes like the rest of us. #2: No law should be made with religion in mind. Religion should only exist within a person's home of their place of cult like worship.

O-Trap;1256503 wrote:Ah, so you will practice intolerance against religious people like most people do if they are intolerant of gay people. Gotcha. You want to be just like them, I take it?

That is defending my legal rights to a secular US government and a secular country. This country shall favor no religion or lack of religion. Currently, it does with tax free institutions and sheltering pedophiles under the guise of the 1st amendment.

Except that calling the extreme the aggregate doesn't make it so. As such, you're not using the aggregate at all.

False. I am fair with the aggregate.

QuakerOats;1256505 wrote:The sky is not falling and your wishy washy responses are exactly to be expected of the liberal mindset.

You must be either grapenuts crazy or just throwing out pejoratives to call me "liberal."

Anyone who appreciates freedom can appreciate the freedoms that he may not exercise. I'm treating adults like adults. If you don't like that, tough.

Not sure how telling you to either reply, quit crying, or leave the thread is wishy washy. Perhaps you can actually defend that claim.

QuakerOats;1256505 wrote:Acquiescing to outright lies, deceitful innuendo, and fraudulent commentary may be noble in your view, but such disgraceful (whoops, there's that bad word again) insinuations as this thread's topic deserve no time, nor space, otherwise tacit approval has been gained.

The post SHOWS it not to be a lie, but at worst, an incorrect statement. The initial poster stated it sincerely. For you to throw a tantrum about his even saying it because it offends you is more the limp-wristed position in the discussion.

And I'm not being noble or otherwise. I'm just not crying when someone says something with which I disagree.

I certainly hope you're not somebody who has ever complained about things being "too PC." You'd be a hypocrite at this juncture.

QuakerOats;1256505 wrote:What a shame, but is explains perfectly the cultural breakdown that has occurred led by the liberal infiltration into media, academia and law.

There's that sky-falling mentality again. You claim to know it isn't, but in the next breath, you grieve the "cultural breakdown" based on the fact that someone drew a parallel you found offensive.

sleeper;1256509 wrote:That is defending my legal rights to a secular US government and a secular country.

Your right to a secular government, which we are to have, isn't infringed by the existence of religion within the constituency. Neither does a non-profit's paying taxes (though it's been established that this part is over your head).

sleeper;1256509 wrote:This country shall favor no religion or lack of religion. Currently, it does with tax free institutions and sheltering pedophiles under the guise of the 1st amendment.

No, it doesn't. You're reaching now.

Non-profit laws exist for both religious and non-religious organizations. If you wish to start an atheistic fellowship and make it non-profit, I'd fully support your plight to not pay taxes under the First Amendment.

As for the sheltering pedophiles, since when does the US government do that?

sleeper;1256509 wrote:False. I am fair with the aggregate.

Um, no. You are inaccurate. I can pull up statistics to show you, if you'd like, or do those matter?

O-Trap;1256513 wrote: Um, no. You are inaccurate. I can pull up statistics to show you, if you'd like, or do those matter?

One does not need nor require statistics when one has faith. I have faith O-trap and faith is the only "fact" I need.

Ugh, the Newsroom quote.
I thought the monologue was ok to a point, and then the last line I said, "What the hell?"
What a stupid comparison.
Yeah, that's right a U.S. political party is the same as the Taliban. :rolleyes:
Ugh, just what this country needs, more over the top rhetoric.

QuakerOats;1256505 wrote:The sky is not falling and your wishy washy responses are exactly to be expected of the liberal mindset. Acquiescing to outright lies, deceitful innuendo, and fraudulent commentary may be noble in your view, but such disgraceful (whoops, there's that bad word again) insinuations as this thread's topic deserve no time, nor space, otherwise tacit approval has been gained. What a shame, but is explains perfectly the cultural breakdown that has occurred led by the liberal infiltration into media, academia and law.

lol...So this is the high-class, respectful conversation you prefer to have? All you do is bash one side in this horribly hilarious "everything you do is wrong; everything we do is right" method that shows absolutely no sense of perspective...and now you're crying because someone dared to do that to your side. Hypocrisy...and not the cool kind like the Swedish metal group.

You have your opinion that liberal stuff is ruining the country; I have the opinion that divisive people like you (or isadore, your separated twin from the other side) who seem determined to steamroll an ideology shared to some degree by roughly half the country because well, you're "right" and they're "wrong", are the problem.

But hey, keep making over-the-top whiny comments about how someone talking bad about the Tea Partiers is part of our "cultural breakdown" because someone said something you didn't like even though you regularly make comments that anyone who isn't a "100% destroy the left" fan would (at the very least) roll their eyes and shake their head at. At least you're amusing me, so keep dancing!

sleeper;1256523 wrote:One does not need nor require statistics when one has faith. I have faith O-trap and faith is the only "fact" I need.

For your personal faith, that's fine. Just keep its hands of me and my rights, and we're good.

QuakerOats;1256505 wrote:The sky is not falling and your wishy washy responses are exactly to be expected of the liberal mindset. Acquiescing to outright lies, deceitful innuendo, and fraudulent commentary may be noble in your view, but such disgraceful (whoops, there's that bad word again) insinuations as this thread's topic deserve no time, nor space, otherwise tacit approval has been gained. What a shame, but is explains perfectly the cultural breakdown that has occurred led by the JEWISH infiltration into media, academia and law.

Quaker, I'm not calling you out but ... we heard this before with a minor change.

O-Trap;1256512 wrote:You must be either grapenuts crazy or just throwing out pejoratives to call me "liberal."

Anyone who appreciates freedom can appreciate the freedoms that he may not exercise. I'm treating adults like adults. If you don't like that, tough.

For the tenth time, I am not debating one's freedom to post trash - get it?

Not sure how telling you to either reply, quit crying, or leave the thread is wishy washy. Perhaps you can actually defend that claim.

I have replied, about ten times. You don't like the replies; I can't help that.

The post SHOWS it not to be a lie, but at worst, an incorrect statement. The initial poster stated it sincerely. For you to throw a tantrum about his even saying it because it offends you is more the limp-wristed position in the discussion.

The thread title is indeed a lie, a complete innaccuracy, and outrageous. It is indefensible.

And I'm not being noble or otherwise. I'm just not crying when someone says something with which I disagree.

No one is "crying"; rather someone is in sharp disagreement with allowing trashy lies to be to remain as thread titles.

I certainly hope you're not somebody who has ever complained about things being "too PC." You'd be a hypocrite at this juncture.

I cannot stand political correctness, which is exactly the path you have chosen, and why we are in complete disagreement. The thread title will not come down because someone is too limp-wristed to call it for what it is, and so they hide behind the first amendment to get out of having to make a call. The same type probably ran to the principal every time they lost at marbles on the playground.


There's that sky-falling mentality again. You claim to know it isn't, but in the next breath, you grieve the "cultural breakdown" based on the fact that someone drew a parallel you found offensive.

The sky isn't falling in my little world, which is exactly what you were implying. But indeed the cultural war is slowly being won by the radical left, and we can all see where that is getting us.

Bold above is mine. 'Oats

O-Trap;1256603 wrote:For your personal faith, that's fine. Just keep its hands of me and my rights, and we're good.

I am keeping my hands off your rights. I'm simply using my definition of freedom of religion and not using religion to circumvent laws and taxes.

It will happen in my lifetime. Churches will pay taxes and churches will go bankrupt, and you can take that to the bank.

sleeper;1256880 wrote:It will happen in my lifetime. Churches will pay taxes and churches will go bankrupt, and you can take that to the bank.

Would not surprise me under a continuing obama regime. Just as he said he would (and is doing) bankrupt the coal industry (which supplies over 80% of the electricity in Ohio and over half of it in the U.S. and for which we have at least a 500 year supply), I can easily envision him taxing churches in another power grab, and he would probably pick the winners and losers as far as religions go too; some would be bankrupted.

Change we can believe in ...

sleeper;1256880 wrote:It will happen in my lifetime. Churches will pay taxes and churches will go bankrupt, and you can take that to the bank.

Great, I will deposit it with my new IPAD

sleeper;1256880 wrote:I am keeping my hands off your rights. I'm simply using my definition of freedom of religion and not using religion to circumvent laws and taxes.

It will happen in my lifetime. Churches will pay taxes and churches will go bankrupt, and you can take that to the bank.

Churches already go bankrupt.

As for the place where I go to worship being forced to pay taxes, you wouldn't get any. We don't take offerings. However, it wouldn't surprise me. Enough other rights seem to be disregarded these days.

sleeper;1256880 wrote:I am keeping my hands off your rights. I'm simply using my definition of freedom of religion and not using religion to circumvent laws and taxes.

It will happen in my lifetime. Churches will pay taxes and churches will go bankrupt, and you can take that to the bank.

Do you realize the folley of this?

Corporations only get taxed on profits.

If a church takes in money and spends it all on distributions to charities, poor, salaries of staff, etc then in the end the church would still pay zero in taxes right?

Oh, and churches do pay taxes, they pay property taxes in states that have them. They have to pay into the same unemployment, SS, etc taxes that are involved with having any employees, etc.

They are exempt from sales taxes.

Having been on a churches financial board, these are facts, not my opinion.

jmog, as I recall, employees of churches do have the right to opt out of SS. Isn't that correct?

O-Trap;1257016 wrote:jmog, as I recall, employees of churches do have the right to opt out of SS. Isn't that correct?

From what I remember, those that are considered part of the pastor/ministor/etc roles then you can opt out of SS. Of course, if you opt out then you do not receive SS when you retire from the government.

The rest of the staff (secretaries, administrators, etc) can not opt out of SS.

I wish I had this option at my place of employment, would love to opt out of SS and take the few percent and put into my own 401k or IRAs.

O-Trap;1256928 wrote:Churches already go bankrupt.

As for the place where I go to worship being forced to pay taxes, you wouldn't get any. We don't take offerings. However, it wouldn't surprise me. Enough other rights seem to be disregarded these days.

You'll still have the right to attend church. It will just cost you what Scientology costs you and I'd personally love to hear how they are so radically different from the hapless believers.

sleeper;1257069 wrote:You'll still have the right to attend church. It will just cost you what Scientology costs you and I'd personally love to hear how they are so radically different from the hapless believers.

Costing me acts as a restriction of my free practice of religion.

I don't know much about Scientology, so I won't pretend to, but if they charge, the obligatory giving is likely a part of their religious practice, so paying is actually the exercise of the religion itself.

Since that is not a part of my own, it isn't, and shouldn't be governmentally mandated.

sleeper;1256487 wrote:Pretty sad that our society respects those who hide behind beliefs someone can make up themselves whenever they feel like.

QuakerOats;1256505 wrote:The sky is not falling and your wishy washy responses are exactly to be expected of the liberal mindset. Acquiescing to outright lies, deceitful innuendo, and fraudulent commentary may be noble in your view, but such disgraceful (whoops, there's that bad word again) insinuations as this thread's topic deserve no time, nor space, otherwise tacit approval has been gained. What a shame, but is explains perfectly the cultural breakdown that has occurred led by the liberal infiltration into media, academia and law.

Thank you for playing. You have proven my point

jmog;1256324 wrote: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 .

Nice try. You used the term "infringing on the rights" three times in your analogy. I never went there. I said that the lack of tax dollars which are collected from religious orders puts a larger burden on those of us who do pay taxes. That's quite a stretch, trying to equate a "larger burden" with "infringing on the rights". No slippery slope there, other than the one you invented.