PDA

View Full Version : Christofacists at it again



Pages : [1] 2

LadyT
08-21-2006, 08:50 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/menonly.sundayschool.ap/index.html

"WATERTOWN, New York (AP) -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church."

my favorite part is this:

" "I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday."

Nice way to try and save your job.

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 08:58 AM
Oh well joining and attending a church was that womans choice and now she is being paid for her stupidity.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 09:02 AM
I wonder how far they are going to take the literal interpretations of the bible. Are they going to arbitrarily stop at sexism or are they going to go for some of the good stuff in the old testament?

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 09:07 AM
I dunno, I view churches as clubs, join if you want to, but be prepared to go by the clubs rules if you want to stay in there.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 09:09 AM
This is why following a religious text is stupid. It does say that in the bible and if you are going to be a true Christian you should follow it. However upon reading such stupidity you should realize that texts like the bible have no place in the modern world and should be discarded completely.

klaatu
08-21-2006, 09:09 AM
I wonder how far they are going to take the literal interpretations of the bible. Are they going to arbitrarily stop at sexism or are they going to go for some of the good stuff in the old testament?

Do the Muslims bother you as well...? Or is it just the Christiphobe in you? ;)

Seriously Lady T... the overall Christian Chruch...despite these small little pockets of Orthodoxy ... are in the year 2006 when it comes to the Womens role ...

If any religion should bother you as far as Womens rights ... you should fear the fastest growing religion in the World and the USA... Islam... are you ready to walk how many steps behind your husband with your face covered..?

klaatu
08-21-2006, 09:11 AM
This is why following a religious text is stupid. It does say that in the bible and if you are going to be a true Christian you should follow it. However upon reading such stupidity you should realize that texts like the bible have no place in the modern world and should be discarded completely.


Yeah ..lets censor all History.... burn all Bibles! What the fuck did you just say?

toby
08-21-2006, 09:13 AM
Funny how much publicity what a small church gets when libs attack. LOL

toby
08-21-2006, 09:14 AM
CNN reports ..........a sunday school teacher fired in NY! Shocking news! Stop the presses.

AnyOldIron
08-21-2006, 09:14 AM
Yeah ..lets censor all History.... burn all Bibles! What the fuck did you just say?

Who said anything about burning or censoring?

That the modern world is so enthralled with a book that is essentially a mythology akin to Ovid's Metamorposes, to the stage that they live by it's word, is shocking.

That it is encouraged is wrong, that it is force-fed to children is, IMO, a mild form of child abuse.

toby
08-21-2006, 09:16 AM
And the last word from CNN.......>>In a statement, the board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.

Cypress
08-21-2006, 09:17 AM
Do the Muslims bother you as well...? Or is it just the Christiphobe in you? ;)

Seriously Lady T... the overall Christian Chruch...despite these small little pockets of Orthodoxy ... are in the year 2006 when it comes to the Womens role ...

If any religion should bother you as far as Womens rights ... you should fear the fastest growing religion in the World and the USA... Islam... are you ready to walk how many steps behind your husband with your face covered..?

Hell yeah, the fundamentalist muslims in the middle east are horribly oppressive to women.

I'm convinced that virtually every problem in the middle east could be solved, if women were empowered in the arab countries. There is a direct correlation between the "success" of a civilized society, and the empowerment of women in those societies. Every country were women have equal rights as men, are largely successful, educated, and relatively peaceful.

I think the excuses that are trotted out to explain mideast violence (poverty, lack of education, militarism) are simply symptons of the underlying problem: lack of women's rights.

We know from history, that when women in a country are empowered, the governments have to respond to women's agenda: women are much more concerned with the social welfare, education, healthcare, and peaceful solutions to problems. they are much less inclined to be militaristic. A male-dominated society runs on way too much testosterone.

AnyOldIron
08-21-2006, 09:17 AM
Do the Muslims bother you as well...? Or is it just the Christiphobe in you?

All religions are equally the same. Human Attribution Syndrome. A rejection of the Apollonian in favour of the Dionysian. Rejection of reason in the face of the ambigious 'spiritual'....

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 09:20 AM
Agreed on the child abuse thing Anyold. I had not choice but to attend till I was 16. At that time I rubbed my parents nose in several scriptures and they let me diecide for myself. Having extreme stage fright I was continually traumatized when forced to get up in plays and such.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 09:20 AM
Yeah ..lets censor all History.... burn all Bibles! What the fuck did you just say?

Yes thats what I'm calling for censorship and book burning. Nice attempt at strawman but come on you're smarter than that.

The belief that the religious texts of those religions that use texts are that they are the word of God. Thus all of that which is written in the bible, quran or torah etc. are the voice of God. Thus if god says something you must do it or it must be true. The Bible does instruct that women are to never have a superior position as far as leadership goes over men. If you are to be a true Christian you must follow that teaching religiously. You are not allowed to pick and choose and consider modern context. You are not an arbiter of God's will. It is in the book believe it and do it without question.

However what one should do is question and ask the very important question, "Does this really come from god or a man who is influenced by current customs and traditions. A look at history as well as the nature of man should lead you to conclude that latter and to realize that religious texts are corruptable and most likely corrupted or even totally penned out of the mind of a man without any divine influence.

One should see that the path to God is in direct communinon and observation. Religious texts are as valuable as hearsay.

klaatu
08-21-2006, 09:49 AM
The Scriptures are fascinating ... History is written in these Books.... they are as important a read as the hieroglyphics on the walls of Ancient Egypt..and remembr this...hieroglyphics are interpreted by man as well when it comes to outlining societal history... no one ever seems to question the outcomes.
IHG.. I know you didnt advocate book burning .. but you pretty much said they should be discarded. What you really mean is you hope for a day whnm Religion is discarded.

Ancient Scriptures are phenominal reading ...

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 09:55 AM
The Scriptures are fascinating ... History is written in these Books.... they are as important a read as the hieroglyphics on the walls of Ancient Egypt..and remembr this...hieroglyphics are interpreted by man as well when it comes to outlining societal history... no one ever seems to question the outcomes.
IHG.. I know you didnt advocate book burning .. but you pretty much said they should be discarded. What you really mean is you hope for a day whnm Religion is discarded.

Nope. I said to discard its use as the sole guideline toward how to live your life. I also said to discard the interpretation that it is the literal word of god. yes the Bible is a valuable historical text as well as a book of parables and moral philsophy. However one should not operate under the idea that it is infallible or the word of god himself. An analysis of the texts would easily lead to the conclusion it isn't.

The bible should be read like the writing of confucious or Plato's Republic. Interesting reading worthy of incoroporation into your own life. It should not be held dogmatically.

This is the folly of this man in the article. However I have more respect for that man than those who decry that passage and yet hold onto the idea that the bible is the word of god.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 09:57 AM
Looking at my earlier post I did say discarded completely. I was wrong to say that because it implied I meant that in all respects. Obviously the bible is an important literary work and cultrual artifact. I never denied that I just meant when I said discarded it was in reference to the way in which that man used it and many like him.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 09:58 AM
Do the Muslims bother you as well...? Or is it just the Christiphobe in you? ;)

Seriously Lady T... the overall Christian Chruch...despite these small little pockets of Orthodoxy ... are in the year 2006 when it comes to the Womens role ...

If any religion should bother you as far as Womens rights ... you should fear the fastest growing religion in the World and the USA... Islam... are you ready to walk how many steps behind your husband with your face covered..?

This is why I'm not a muslim nor will I ever emigrate to a country that has islam as the rule of law. However, as someone who is a Christian, I'm particularly bothered when I see stuff like this in the news. And just so you know, in my personal life I do challenge muslims on a lot of their beliefs. Just because I haven't started a thread on it doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the injustices and hypocrisies.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 10:09 AM
The difference with how harsh Islam appears when compared to Christianity is because of culture and not religion itself. If you were to read the bible and the quran and implement the life style each called for strictly you would find them equally restricting.

The difference is that in the west Christians have abandoned most of the more difficult edicts and are more lax with what is commanded in the bible. I have observed the same of Muslims who immigrate here as they become more lax with their religion as well. I am willing to bet that Christians living in the middle east are much more strict with their religion than European or American Christians.

toby
08-21-2006, 10:14 AM
Typical lib arguement. why is it news that a sunday school teacher for a small church in a small town worthy of international news coverage? And then to call them facist?

LadyT
08-21-2006, 10:14 AM
I am willing to bet that Christians living in the middle east are much more strict with their religion than European or American Christians.

When I've talked to middle easterners about the islam black america practices, they usually say, "its different"

LadyT
08-21-2006, 10:20 AM
And then to call them facist?

Fair point. I used christo-facist as a hyperbole in this case. Obviously there are no governmental implications for this unless you can prove that his beliefs in the church translate to how he votes on the council. Which I'm sure you could if you looked hard enough. He is, after all, a sexist pig.
:gpow:

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 10:26 AM
When I've talked to middle easterners about the islam black america practices, they usually say, "its different"

Well if they are talking about NOI or even the 5 percenters most Muslims don't even consider the Islamic and consider it a cult.

toby
08-21-2006, 10:28 AM
Maybe so LadyT, but I am somewhat skeptic of this article considering the last sentence in it. My guess is tha some important info is being left out.

toby
08-21-2006, 10:30 AM
But he is in an elected postion and can be voted out if the voters don't like what he says or does.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 10:46 AM
When I've talked to middle easterners about the islam black america practices, they usually say, "its different"

Well if they are talking about NOI or even the 5 percenters most Muslims don't even consider the Islamic and consider it a cult.


NOI. From the few 5 %ers I've run into, I'd consider it something of a cult. But that's just my 2 cents.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 10:49 AM
Maybe so LadyT, but I am somewhat skeptic of this article considering the last sentence in it. My guess is tha some important info is being left out.

Well, the preacher himself stated that they were going to adopt a literal interpretation and that women inside the church shouldn't teach men. Given that, I think you're skeptism isn't warranted outside the scope of skeptism on news articles in general.

toby
08-21-2006, 11:24 AM
Being this was reported on an international news source, a story about a sunday school teacher in a small church in a small town and the story itself said other things may be involved in her dismissal........yes I am skeptical.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 11:38 AM
Being this was reported on an international news source, a story about a sunday school teacher in a small church in a small town and the story itself said other things may be involved in her dismissal........yes I am skeptical.

Umm, CNN has a US section and even local news sections. Are you telling me you don't pay attention to news agencies that have international departments as well as domestic?

leaningright
08-21-2006, 11:53 AM
"going to adopt a literal interpretation and that women inside the church shouldn't teach men."

This is precisely the position we adopt. It comes straight from the Bible.

I Tim. 2:12 - "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Thus we have no women teachers except for in the little children's classes. It's what the Bible says, therefore I see nothing wrong with it.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 11:56 AM
Well at least Leaning is living by what is says and not being hypocritical.

That said I think it is a rediculous position and highlights what is wrong with Christianity.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:01 PM
Thus we have no women teachers except for in the little children's classes. It's what the Bible says, therefore I see nothing wrong with it.


Then I'd say you were a bonafied, "Holyroller". That's absolutely ridiculous. It implies that women have little (at least compared to men) value to add in terms fo the teachings of Christ. Not to mention it implies intellectual inferiority to men. This is why I abhor fundamentalism in EVERY religion. I guess women can't handle teaching beyond pre-school. That would just horrendous.

Am I expected to believe that you fundies don't carry over those beliefs into the work place?

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:03 PM
Hey its what his holy book says. As long as you hold the belief that it is the word of god you have to obey it. But then thats why I don't think the bible should be viewed as divine word.

leaningright
08-21-2006, 12:05 PM
Am I expected to believe that you fundies don't carry over those beliefs into the work place?

Of course you are. I have worked for women bosses, sat through many classes and presentations by women. No problem. I will even cast my vote for a woman over a man in the local election here tomorrow. To me there is the religious side in which I do my best to follow the Bible and there is the secular side, in which I do my best to follow the Bible as it pertains to that...ie. obeying the laws of the land, rendering unto Caesar, so to speak, etc.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:07 PM
Of course you are. I have worked for women bosses, sat through many classes and presentations by women. No problem. I will even cast my vote for a woman over a man in the local election here tomorrow. To me there is the religious side in which I do my best to follow the Bible and there is the secular side, in which I do my best to follow the Bible as it pertains to that...ie. obeying the laws of the land, rendering unto Caesar, so to speak, etc.
Reply With Quote

You are violating that biblical edict. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. This says a woman may not have authorirty over a man. Thus you may not vote for a woman as it would place a woman in authority over a man. If you believe in this passage you must follow it.

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:14 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/menonly.sundayschool.ap/index.html

"WATERTOWN, New York (AP) -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church."

my favorite part is this:

" "I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday."

Nice way to try and save your job.

Why does this concern you?

Besides, Muslims are MUCH more strict about the roles of men and women, yet I do not see you posting a thread entitled, "Islamofascism."

And what, pray tell, does this have to do with politics?

leaningright
08-21-2006, 12:14 PM
"This says a woman may not have authorirty over a man. Thus you may not vote for a woman as it would place a woman in authority over a man. If you believe in this passage you must follow it."

Ahh, but in what context? Paul is writing to Timothy about things pertaining to the church - the religious side I spoke of.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:16 PM
And what, pray tell, does this have to do with politics?

The social makeup affects politics and vice versa

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:17 PM
"going to adopt a literal interpretation and that women inside the church shouldn't teach men."

This is precisely the position we adopt. It comes straight from the Bible.

I Tim. 2:12 - "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Thus we have no women teachers except for in the little children's classes. It's what the Bible says, therefore I see nothing wrong with it.

Amen. The Bible says what it says. :)

And for those who think we believe men are better than women, think again. We believe women are equal to men; we simply believe God has different roles for women. It is OK for women to teach other women, or to teach children; but only men are permitted to teach the congregation.

Feminism goes against nature.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:19 PM
Of course you are. I have worked for women bosses, sat through many classes and presentations by women. No problem. I will even cast my vote for a woman over a man in the local election here tomorrow. To me there is the religious side in which I do my best to follow the Bible and there is the secular side, in which I do my best to follow the Bible as it pertains to that...ie. obeying the laws of the land, rendering unto Caesar, so to speak, etc.


well, then, looks like its hell for you! Bring a bathing suit.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:19 PM
Ahh, but in what context? Paul is writing to Timothy about things pertaining to the church - the religious side I spoke of.

Ah but what is the reasoning for this. Women are subservient and even inferior to man as they came from Adam. Thus Adam shall always be first and his sons. This concept applies to all facets of life outside the church and are applicable in the family, politics and business. In fact the bible does not encourage equality of gender but rather that in all social context women obey are are to be subservient to men.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:20 PM
Feminism goes against nature. How so?

Cypress
08-21-2006, 12:20 PM
Of course you are. I have worked for women bosses, sat through many classes and presentations by women. No problem. I will even cast my vote for a woman over a man in the local election here tomorrow. To me there is the religious side in which I do my best to follow the Bible and there is the secular side, in which I do my best to follow the Bible as it pertains to that...ie. obeying the laws of the land, rendering unto Caesar, so to speak, etc.
Reply With Quote

You are violating that biblical edict. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. This says a woman may not have authorirty over a man. Thus you may not vote for a woman as it would place a woman in authority over a man. If you believe in this passage you must follow it.


Oops.

I get the feeling that ALL people pick and choose which parts of the bible they acutally want to apply to their lives.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:21 PM
Why does this concern you?


because I take institutionalized sexism and racism personally. That's one more door that's closed off to me or my potential daughter and grand-daughters.

OrnotBitwise
08-21-2006, 12:21 PM
"going to adopt a literal interpretation and that women inside the church shouldn't teach men."

This is precisely the position we adopt. It comes straight from the Bible.

I Tim. 2:12 - "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Thus we have no women teachers except for in the little children's classes. It's what the Bible says, therefore I see nothing wrong with it.
And this is exactly what I have against Christianity: the willingness to shut off the brain if someone tells you to, based on biblical text. To be sure, Islam suffers from the same defect.

The edict is clearly stupid. Doesn't it make more sense to believe that someone back in history just inserted some stupidity into the book because he was, well, a bigot?

Cypress
08-21-2006, 12:22 PM
well, then, looks like its hell for you! Bring a bathing suit.


Quick! Convert to either islam or judaism! Those religions don't believe in eternal damnation. In islam and judaism at worst, you'll be in hell for a short while, recieve your punishment, and then afterwards will join the rest of us in heaven!

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:23 PM
Social stratification by gender roles in society made sense 2000 years ago. It has lost its applicability in a technologically advanced liberal democracy.

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:23 PM
And this is exactly what I have against Christianity: the willingness to shut off the brain if someone tells you to, based on biblical text. To be sure, Islam suffers from the same defect.

The edict is clearly stupid. Doesn't it make more sense to believe that someone back in history just inserted some stupidity into the book because he was, well, a bigot?

As born-again Christians, we've been given the revelation that the Bible is the word of God, and we should trust whatever it says. ALL scripture is useful for teaching, correcting, edification, etc.

leaningright
08-21-2006, 12:26 PM
"This says a woman may not have authorirty over a man. Thus you may not vote for a woman as it would place a woman in authority over a man. If you believe in this passage you must follow it."

Again, I must take the "whole counsel of God" on this matter. I see women in the Bible holding positions of authority (Deborah) and teaching women(Lydia), children (Timothy by his mother and grandmother) and even men who are not Christians (Aquilla and Priscilla). We must make a distinction between the roles and what the Bible speaks of. It does not make women inferior to men, it makes them equal (joint heirs, never possible under Judaism) but has differing roles for them to fill.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:27 PM
Thats fine for you Brent. But many of us question all authority especially when faced with information to the contrary.

klaatu
08-21-2006, 12:29 PM
Oops.

I get the feeling that ALL people pick and choose which parts of the bible they acutally want to apply to their lives.


Just like Kerry when he did that photo op during the 2004 elections ..you know the one.. where he was going to the alter for Holy Communion...

Do you think he truly believes in his Catholicism ...or do you think he uses it when it is for his benefit... just wondering about the guy you voted for ....

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:30 PM
Quick! Convert to either islam or judaism! Those religions don't believe in eternal damnation. In islam and judaism at worst, you'll be in hell for a short while, recieve your punishment, and then afterwards will join the rest of us in heaven!

South park has warped my mind immensely. LMAO every time I think of "hell" I think of that episode where hell was basically a shore side condo community and the devil was lovers with Saddam.

robdastud
08-21-2006, 12:30 PM
Do the Muslims bother you as well...? Or is it just the Christiphobe in you? ;)

Seriously Lady T... the overall Christian Chruch...despite these small little pockets of Orthodoxy ... are in the year 2006 when it comes to the Womens role ...

If any religion should bother you as far as Womens rights ... you should fear the fastest growing religion in the World and the USA... Islam... are you ready to walk how many steps behind your husband with your face covered..?


i can't speak for Lady T, but i can't stand muslims either, lts like shave your fucking face... they let it grow and get all nappy... then i mean all the bowing and shit ont he ground your going to hurt your back.

OrnotBitwise
08-21-2006, 12:30 PM
As born-again Christians, we've been given the revelation that the Bible is the word of God, and we should trust whatever it says. ALL scripture is useful for teaching, correcting, edification, etc.
It is not necessary, however. Many Christians -- most Christians, at least in the developed world -- do not insist on the idea that every single word of the bible is literally the Word of God. Most Christians are content to look for the divine inspiration behind the words.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Again, I must take the "whole counsel of God" on this matter. I see women in the Bible holding positions of authority (Deborah) and teaching women(Lydia), children (Timothy by his mother and grandmother) and even men who are not Christians (Aquilla and Priscilla). We must make a distinction between the roles and what the Bible speaks of. It does not make women inferior to men, it makes them equal (joint heirs, never possible under Judaism) but has differing roles for them to fill.

I understand the idea of separate but equal. However I tend to not view this as tenable as things that are different are seldomly quantifiable as equal. As for evidence of things contradicting that passage such as Deborah the bible is filled with such things that contradict other ideas espoused.

What is the rationale of not allowing a woman to have authority over men in the church. How is this rationale not applicable to other social interactions.

robdastud
08-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Just like Kerry when he did that photo op during the 2004 elections ..you know the one.. where he was going to the alter for Holy Communion...

Do you think he truly believes in his Catholicism ...or do you think he uses it when it is for his benefit... just wondering about the guy you voted for ....

as opposed to voting for a guy who bombs countries that never attacked us.... i see where your 'values' are klaatu.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:32 PM
Just like Kerry when he did that photo op during the 2004 elections ..you know the one.. where he was going to the alter for Holy Communion...

Do you think he truly believes in his Catholicism ...or do you think he uses it when it is for his benefit... just wondering about the guy you voted for ....

Sure he did but that doesn't distinguish him from Bush so its a wash at least.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:32 PM
Do you think he truly believes in his Catholicism ...or do you think he uses it when it is for his benefit... just wondering about the guy you voted for ....

Pfft.....heck no. Everyone knows he's a satanist who likes to sacrifice children to the God Thorungoes

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:33 PM
Thats fine for you Brent. But many of us question all authority especially when faced with information to the contrary.

But why should you care? Nobody is forcing you to attend church, IH8, or to follow our teachings. What we believe in regards to gender roles does not affect you.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:33 PM
South park has warped my mind immensely. LMAO every time I think of "hell" I think of that episode where hell was basically a shore side condo community and the devil was lovers with Saddam.

I like in the movie how Hitler and Gandhi are both in hell. Gandhi belongs in hell you know, he wasn't a Christian.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:35 PM
i can't speak for Lady T, but i can't stand ... they let it grow and get all nappy... then i mean all the bowing and .....

I literally almost pissed my pants!

Welcome back ot the states RD!

leaningright
08-21-2006, 12:35 PM
Pfft.....heck no. Everyone knows he's a satanist who likes to sacrifice children to the God Thorungoes

Really?!! I had no idea. :)

Seriously, on this thought, it does chap my hide to see the politicians use religion for political profit. They've been doing it for years and it is about to catch up with them.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:36 PM
But why should you care? Nobody is forcing you to attend church, IH8, or to follow our teachings. What we believe in regards to gender roles does not affect you.

Sure it does Brent. Every person affects every other person. Brent you always talk about how you would like society to be. I don't doubt that if you could shape it the way you wanted you would refuse. You certainly have the potential to affect my life and that is why your opinion matters. No man is an island.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:37 PM
South park has warped my mind immensely. LMAO every time I think of "hell" I think of that episode where hell was basically a shore side condo community and the devil was lovers with Saddam.

I like in the movie how Hitler and Gandhi are both in hell. Gandhi belongs in hell you know, he wasn't a Christian.

did you see team america? The AIDS song in "Lease" was hilarious. Me and my boyfriend will sing that classic every now and then......

"My mother......my brother....my sister........AIDS AIDS AIDS....."

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:40 PM
Really?!! I had no idea. :)

Seriously, on this thought, it does chap my hide to see the politicians use religion for political profit. They've been doing it for years and it is about to catch up with them.


Well, it really chaps my hide when I see that Christians in America view women as inferior in the church. And please spare me the "women just have different roles". Absolutly chauvinistic. Do you accept the same amount of money in donations from women?

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:43 PM
But why should you care? Nobody is forcing you to attend church, IH8, or to follow our teachings. What we believe in regards to gender roles does not affect you.

Sure it does Brent. Every person affects every other person. Brent you always talk about how you would like society to be. I don't doubt that if you could shape it the way you wanted you would refuse. You certainly have the potential to affect my life and that is why your opinion matters. No man is an island.

I meant it does not affect you negatively -- meaning, it does not harm you.

Of course I beleive what a person does can affect others. But how a church or marriage is structured, so long as it isn't hateful or abusive, does no harm to you or anyone else.

This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. The very fact that LadyT is posting it here makes me suspicious of her intentions. Perhaps she believes the government should force their notion of "equality" on churches.

OrnotBitwise
08-21-2006, 12:45 PM
Well, it really chaps my hide when I see that Christians in America view women as inferior in the church. And please spare me the "women just have different roles". Absolutly chauvinistic. Do you accept the same amount of money in donations from women?I agree with IH8: "separate but equal" simply doesn't work. Each individual should be able to choose whatever career she chooses, so long as she's qualified for it.

And again, it's not necessary. There are plenty of Christians who don't buy into that, just as there are plenty of Muslims who don't believe women should be forced to wear tents whenever they go out.

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:46 PM
And please spare me the "women just have different roles". Absolutly chauvinistic.

My suggestion, then, is to abstain from giving birth until science allows men to carry the infant for 4 1/2 months (half) of the term.

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:47 PM
I agree with IH8: "separate but equal" simply doesn't work.

Then you better not get your wife pregnant.

leaningright
08-21-2006, 12:47 PM
Well, it really chaps my hide when I see that Christians in America view women as inferior in the church. And please spare me the "women just have different roles". Absolutly chauvinistic. Do you accept the same amount of money in donations from women?

Money has nothing to do with it. We give "as we purpose in our hearts" and "as we have been prospered." Not a 10% tithe, that's OT teaching. Just like we go to the New Testament to assertain that directive, the women who are a part of our assembly know their roles as described by the Bible (NT) and they accept and respect that. It is your perrogative not to be a part of a group that espouses these beliefs.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:49 PM
I meant it does not affect you negatively -- meaning, it does not harm you.

Of course I beleive what a person does can affect others. But how a church or marriage is structured, so long as it isn't hateful or abusive, does no harm to you or anyone else.

This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. The very fact that LadyT is posting it here makes me suspicious of her intentions. Perhaps she believes the government should force their notion of "equality" on churches.


Actually I didn't think of kind of gov't intervention until you posted this thread, but I'm wondering if sexism should be yet another reason for a church to lose its tax exempt status. Should we allow outrightly sexist organizations to go about their business tax free while conducting themselves in such a slimy manner?

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:49 PM
did you see team america? The AIDS song in "Lease" was hilarious. Me and my boyfriend will sing that classic every now and then......

"My mother......my brother....my sister........AIDS AIDS AIDS....."

Great Movie.

OrnotBitwise
08-21-2006, 12:50 PM
Then you better not get your wife pregnant.
Nonsense. There is an enormous difference between a role ordained by biology and sex, on the one hand, and a role imposed or denied by society on the basis of gender. Gender and sex are not completely synonymous.

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:50 PM
Actually I didn't think of kind of gov't intervention until you posted this thread, but I'm wondering if sexism should be yet another reason for a church to lose its tax exempt status. Should we allow outrightly sexist organizations to go about their business tax free while conducting themselves in such a slimy manner?

And yet, you accuse conservatives of trying to force our values on others.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:52 PM
My suggestion, then, is to abstain from giving birth until science allows men to carry the infant for 4 1/2 months (half) of the term.

I like how you intentionally left out the fact that I was talking about "roles in the church".

Nice way to take a person's quote out of context.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:52 PM
Of course I beleive what a person does can affect others. But how a church or marriage is structured, so long as it isn't hateful or abusive, does no harm to you or anyone else.

This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. The very fact that LadyT is posting it here makes me suspicious of her intentions. Perhaps she believes the government should force their notion of "equality" on churches.

Brent I know from what you have said specifically that your view on the roles of men and women go outside just church hierarchy and you apply biblical teaching as far as that goes universally. I will say that at least you are consistent in that respect.

How you feel about these things and the reasoning behind them do affect everyone and the idea that women are not qualified to be leaders is a bad idea for society as a whole.

leaningright
08-21-2006, 12:54 PM
Nonsense. There is an enormous difference between a role ordained by biology and sex, on the one hand, and a role imposed or denied by society on the basis of gender. Gender and sex are not completely synonymous.


I would say the role of women in childbirth was ordained by God:

Gen. 3:16 - "To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

LadyT
08-21-2006, 12:54 PM
And yet, you accuse conservatives of trying to force our values on others.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


There would be NO FORCING of any kind in such an example, merely the revoking of a priveledge, I very hefty priveledge I might add. The church could still do what it wants.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:55 PM
My suggestion, then, is to abstain from giving birth until science allows men to carry the infant for 4 1/2 months (half) of the term.

How does the fact that women are responsible for giving birth give cause for calling for gender social stratification in areas other than child rearing.

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:56 PM
Of course I beleive what a person does can affect others. But how a church or marriage is structured, so long as it isn't hateful or abusive, does no harm to you or anyone else.

This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. The very fact that LadyT is posting it here makes me suspicious of her intentions. Perhaps she believes the government should force their notion of "equality" on churches.

Brent I know from what you have said specifically that your view on the roles of men and women go outside just church hierarchy and you apply biblical teaching as far as that goes universally. I will say that at least you are consistent in that respect.

True enough. I do believe, for example, the government should encourage (but not force) mothers to stay at home and raise children, and even provide incentives if necessary.


How you feel about these things and the reasoning behind them do affect everyone and the idea that women are not qualified to be leaders is a bad idea for society as a whole.

So what is your solution to the so-called "problem"?

Force them to stop? Shut down their churches?

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:57 PM
My suggestion, then, is to abstain from giving birth until science allows men to carry the infant for 4 1/2 months (half) of the term.

How does the fact that women are responsible for giving birth give cause for calling for gender social stratification in areas other than child rearing.

I don't see a question mark, so I'll have to assume you're making a statement, not asking a question.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 12:59 PM
So what is your solution to the so-called "problem"?

Force them to stop? Shut down their churches?

Nope use our voice of persuasion to try to convince them they are wrong and to at least not aid them in the pursuit of such a wrong headed thing. I certainly would not make a donation to such a church.

Even if such an act only merited a wag of the finger it bears mentioning.

Brent
08-21-2006, 12:59 PM
There would be NO FORCING of any kind in such an example, merely the revoking of a priveledge, I very hefty priveledge I might add. The church could still do what it wants.

It is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate churches into following your twisted feminist ideals. It is social engineering of religious institutions, and I find it immoral and disgusting. Stop lying and speak freely -- you're not fooling anyone.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 01:00 PM
So what is your solution to the so-called "problem"?

Force them to stop? Shut down their churches?

I see the beginning of a strawman!

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 01:03 PM
I don't see a question mark, so I'll have to assume you're making a statement, not asking a question.

I am asking a question. What is your opinion on this?

LadyT
08-21-2006, 01:07 PM
It is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate churches into following your twisted feminist ideals. It is social engineering of religious institutions, and I find it immoral and disgusting. Stop lying and speak freely -- you're not fooling anyone.


MY twisted ideals? yes, its just insane and morally disgusting to think that a woman would be capable of teaching someone about Christ and the bible beyond the age of 4. That's just soooooooooo disgusting. /sarcasm off

And lets be clear: I've never advocated shutting down any church whatsoever. Being tax exempt isn't a right, its a priveledge the public affords certain organizations. If said organization's morals are such that they create an underclass of female citizens, why should that organizaiton still have the right to such a priveledge? I don't think they should.

Care4all
08-21-2006, 01:12 PM
MY twisted ideals? yes, its just insane and morally disgusting to think that a woman would be capable of teaching someone about Christ and the bible beyond the age of 4. That's just soooooooooo disgusting. /sarcasm off

And lets be clear: I've never advocated shutting down any church whatsoever. Being tax exempt isn't a right, its a priveledge the public affords certain organizations. If said organization's morals are such that they create an underclass of female citizens, why should that organizaiton still have the right to such a priveledge? I don't think they should.
fyi
they don't get a tax write off because they are a church tiana, they get a tax write off because they are a nonprofit or not for profit organization and not a business for profit.

the word church is not writen anywhere in the tax law affecting them...is my understanding of it?

Brent
08-21-2006, 01:13 PM
I don't see a question mark, so I'll have to assume you're making a statement, not asking a question.

I am asking a question. What is your opinion on this?

I am saying, since you oppose separate roles, that pregnancy should be avoided until men can assist in carrying the child to term. This would be the feminist thing to do.

Brent
08-21-2006, 01:14 PM
fyi
they don't get a tax write off because they are a church tiana, they get a tax write off because they are a nonprofit or not for profit organization and not a business for profit.

the word church is not writen anywhere in the tax law affecting them...is my understanding of it?

Good point, Care. I think you're correct. My church files as a non-profit organization, not as a "church." There is no category for "church" as far as I know.

Care4all
08-21-2006, 01:15 PM
I am saying, since you oppose separate roles, that pregnancy should be avoided until men can assist in carrying the child to term. This would be the feminist thing to do. (Oh, nevermind...feminists don't have babies anyway -- they just kill them)
you are being an asshole....fyi.

Brent
08-21-2006, 01:18 PM
[/B]
you are being an asshole....fyi.

You're right. I apologize :)

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 01:25 PM
I am saying, since you oppose separate roles, that pregnancy should be avoided until men can assist in carrying the child to term. This would be the feminist thing to do.

I didn't say I oppose separate roles. I oppose mandated separate roles. If a woman chooses such a lifestyle I am all for it. But people have to be able to make that choice. With choice comes great responsibility but that is the price we pay. It would be naive to say the feminist movement didn't come without some detrimental side effects but ultimately people must have a choice about the role they wish to play in our society. No one has the right to map out your life for you.

Women obviously can choose whether to have children or not (even outside of the abortion issue) so they can choose whether to be a mother or not. A father doesn't have the ability to be mother. This doesn't mean he is not socially equal to the woman anymore than a dwarf is not socially equal because they cannot slam dunk a basketball. Inability to bear children is a physical limitation. It is the primary physical difference between men and women. Outside of that their is a vast variety between men and women.

OrnotBitwise
08-21-2006, 01:26 PM
I am saying, since you oppose separate roles, that pregnancy should be avoided until men can assist in carrying the child to term. This would be the feminist thing to do.
No, it wouldn't. All you've done is to demonstrate that you know nothing about feminism.

Pregnancy is not a "role" of the sort under discussion. It's a biological function. How one raises children is a role, or it involves several roles, rather. In fact, a large part of what feminism is all about is the disentangling of roles from biology.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 01:26 PM
Good point, Care. I think you're correct. My church files as a non-profit organization, not as a "church." There is no category for "church" as far as I know.

Such a thing is illegal anyway it would violate the establishment cause. You can't make laws talking about churches.

Brent
08-21-2006, 01:28 PM
Good point, Care. I think you're correct. My church files as a non-profit organization, not as a "church." There is no category for "church" as far as I know.

Such a thing is illegal anyway it would violate the establishment cause. You can't make laws talking about churches.

So when James Madison signed a law which waived duties on the import of Bibles, specifically for the Philadelphia Bible Society, was he violating the establishment clause of the Constitution?

What about the chaplain who was paid from treasury funds and held services in the capitol building, again under James Madison, Father of the Constitution?

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 01:29 PM
Ornot is correct that pregnancy is not a role. Pregnancy does not automatically pertain to certain activities. In fact in today's society pregnant women's activity may not differ greatly from their activity when they are not pregnant. It also does not presuppose any activity after the pregnancy is over.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 01:33 PM
fyi
they don't get a tax write off because they are a church tiana, they get a tax write off because they are a nonprofit or not for profit organization and not a business for profit.

the word church is not writen anywhere in the tax law affecting them...is my understanding of it?

I don't see how that has any relevance to the point at hand. I would move to apply the same rules to other non-profits as well. While churches aren't specifically mentioned in the IRC code as mentioned in this pamphlet, but they do recognize that certain non-profits are churches.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

What I did find interesting was this little tid bit of the IRC Section 501c3 which states that,

"the organization's purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy"

I'd think firing someone after 54 years for being a woman qualifies as gender discrimination.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 01:34 PM
So when James Madison signed a law which waived duties on the import of Bibles, specifically for the Philadelphia Bible Society, was he violating the establishment clause of the Constitution?

What about the chaplain who was paid from treasury funds and held services in the capitol building, again under James Madison, Father of the Constitution?

If we take a strict constructionist view of the constitution then yes. However strict constructionism isn't always black or white because the interpretation of words changes over time. It is currently recognized that the establishment clause prevents any law addressing that which is established by religion. This would include churches, bibles and chaplains.

Also the founders sometimes failed to follow their own constitution. The sedition act is a good example. Also despite what you may think Madison signing of the law does not automatically mean he constitutionally agreed with it since we have no writings of his pertaining to that bill like we do with the public works projects veto.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 01:38 PM
'd think firing someone after 54 years for being a woman qualifies as gender discrimination.

I think gender discrimination is only illegal with schools and businesses.

Care4all
08-21-2006, 01:44 PM
Tiana, do Sunday School teachers get paid? They were all volunteers teaching Sunday school when I was young??

Thus, your point is moot.

And if she was a paid employee of some sort, I totally agree with you! It is discrimination!

not because they can't have rules like this in their church, because they can have rules like this in their own church because OUR CONSTITUTION says that Congress can make no law regarding an established church....but because she was in this position for years of teaching this Sunday School class and was picked by them to do this job, I presume, and now, changing the rules midstream seem unfair.

And I do not in any way agree with this minister's interpretation of the Bible that would prevent a woman from teaching Sunday school or Catechism....

LadyT
08-21-2006, 01:45 PM
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Eq-Inc/Gender-Discrimination.html

this site does say businesses, IH8. But if that is the case, then we should definitely amend our tax code to disqualify organizations that are outrightly sexist from recieving such hefty tax benefits.

LadyT
08-21-2006, 01:50 PM
Tiana, do Sunday School teachers get paid? They were all volunteers teaching Sunday school when I was young??

Thus, your point is moot.

And if she was a paid employee of some sort, I totally agree with you! It is discrimination!
....

So because there may or may not be any monetary exchange for her services, its not sexist? That doesn't make sense. She lost her job (volunteer job) because she has a vag ina. Period. That's not fair.

I'm not saying we should dictate what they can or can't do within their churches that willingly go to. I'm questioning whether or not its fair to allow them to enjoy the benefits of a tax exempt status when they engage this type of behavior. I don't think it is.

Brent
08-21-2006, 01:51 PM
Hmm. Well then, I think you would agree NOW (National Organization for Women) should lose their tax-exempt status. Why should an organization which does not accept male members be receiving tax-exempt status (by your logic)?

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 01:57 PM
Hmm. Well then, I think you would agree NOW (National Organization for Women) should lose their tax-exempt status. Why should an organization which does not accept male members be receiving tax-exempt status (by your logic)?

I don't think NOW prohibits male members anymore than the NAACP prohibits non-black members.

OrnotBitwise
08-21-2006, 01:57 PM
Hmm. Well then, I think you would agree NOW (National Organization for Women) should lose their tax-exempt status. Why should an organization which does not accept male members be receiving tax-exempt status (by your logic)?
Oh, I have good news for you, Brent. NOW does indeed accept male members -- no juvenile tittering, please.

Yes, you can, Brent. Go ahead and join today:

https://www.now.org/member.html

LadyT
08-21-2006, 01:58 PM
Hmm. Well then, I think you would agree NOW (National Organization for Women) should lose their tax-exempt status. Why should an organization which does not accept male members be receiving tax-exempt status (by your logic)?

first off, I don't know if Now has a tax exempt status. Do you have a link confirming this?

Secondly, men can work at NOW. Can you provide evidence otherwise?

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 01:59 PM
I just went to NOW's website. I clicked on their join link with the info to fill out nothing indicated you had to be a woman.

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 02:00 PM
Beat me to it Ornot.

Cypress
08-21-2006, 02:01 PM
I just went to NOW's website. I clicked on their join link with the info to fill out nothing indicated you had to be a woman.


Ooops......

LadyT
08-21-2006, 02:06 PM
Ooops......

bump........

Care4all
08-21-2006, 03:09 PM
So because there may or may not be any monetary exchange for her services, its not sexist? That doesn't make sense. She lost her job (volunteer job) because she has a vag ina. Period. That's not fair.

I'm not saying we should dictate what they can or can't do within their churches that willingly go to. I'm questioning whether or not its fair to allow them to enjoy the benefits of a tax exempt status when they engage this type of behavior. I don't think it is.

It is not against the Law Tiana.....

It is not discrimination, a church can also choose not to have a gay man teaching sunday school if they wish....or an out of wedlock mother teaching Sunday school.....they can do anything they want and so can most small employers....

even affirmative action does not apply to any private entity, (that does not receive government money).....

it's a sad state of affairs, but I believe this is the case....

Care4all
08-21-2006, 03:11 PM
The person chooses their membership to a church, if they do not like their doctrine then they can change chirches, which I most CERTAINLY would do, if I were this woman and find a church that better suits her...

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 03:16 PM
Agreed Care. Churches are many and varied. But everyone of them has the correct way figured out ;)

IHateGovernment
08-21-2006, 03:16 PM
It shouldn't be against the law. However I would encourage the congregation to rise up and demand the teacher be reinstated.

tianabautre
08-21-2006, 06:16 PM
"It is not against the Law Tiana.....

It is not discrimination, a church can also choose not to have a gay man teaching sunday school if they wish....or an out of wedlock mother teaching Sunday school.....they can do anything they want and so can most small employers..."


I've never stated that their blatent discrimination should be outlawed. As a matter of fact I've explicitely stated they can do whatever ever they want. What I have and still question is their ability to claim a tax-exempt status, that does not equate to trying to legislate what the church can and can't do beyond deductions on IRS forms.

Care4all
08-21-2006, 06:52 PM
"It is not against the Law Tiana.....

It is not discrimination, a church can also choose not to have a gay man teaching sunday school if they wish....or an out of wedlock mother teaching Sunday school.....they can do anything they want and so can most small employers..."


I've never stated that their blatent discrimination should be outlawed. As a matter of fact I've explicitely stated they can do whatever ever they want. What I have and still question is their ability to claim a tax-exempt status, that does not equate to trying to legislate what the church can and can't do beyond deductions on IRS forms.

how's that? you specifically want irs legislation changed to make Churches a separate and different status than the other non profits based on how they treat their own members, who freely have joined their church?

and that's lunacy tiana....and unconstitutional! if you change the law to legally punish churches by changing their nonprofit status for having a church doctrine and policy that you feel is discriminatory, then you or congress is making law regarding churches....thus unconstitutional...

the only way around this... is if you change the current law for ALL nonprofits or not for profits to limit their choice of memberships, and i seriously doubt congress would really be able to do that, or threaten to take their tax exempt status away if they didn't!!!

in addition to this....if they do not make a profit, what is there to tax?

;)
care

tianabautre
08-21-2006, 07:07 PM
how's that? you specifically want irs legislation changed to make Churches a separate and different status than the other non profits based on how they treat their own members, who freely have joined their church?

and that's lunacy tiana....and unconstitutional! if you change the law to legally punish churches by changing their nonprofit status for having a church doctrine and policy that you feel is discriminatory, then you or congress is making law regarding churches....thus unconstitutional...

the only way around this... is if you change the current law for ALL nonprofits or not for profits to limit their choice of memberships, and i seriously doubt congress would really be able to do that, or threaten to take their tax exempt status away if they didn't!!!

in addition to this....if they do not make a profit, what is there to tax?

;)
care

No! I specifically stated that if any non-profit exhibited out rightly sexist behaviour they should have their tax exempt status yanked. Period.





I don't see how that has any relevance to the point at hand. I would move to apply the same rules to other non-profits as well. While churches aren't specifically mentioned in the IRC code as mentioned in this pamphlet, but they do recognize that certain non-profits are churches.

Damocles
08-21-2006, 07:10 PM
So NOW, who doesn't allow men, should have their non-profit status revoked?

Care4all
08-21-2006, 07:21 PM
No! I specifically stated that if any non-profit exhibited out rightly sexist behaviour they should have their tax exempt status yanked. Period.but why would YOU REALLY want the government to do that? control the membership of private non profits and change the doctrine of an established church?

that is just tooooo controlling for me and is also against the first amendment, and gives way too much power to our gvt, power i never would be comfortable giving them....

in this case tiana....''...it's deeper than pastry''....giving credit to dixie for the line....

it's not as easy as you think, and truely, i don't understand your goal or the purpose of your goal ??


they don't make a profit tiana, there is not any profitable income to tax?

Brent
08-22-2006, 12:18 AM
NOW is tax-exempt:

Contributions to NOW are not tax deductible because of our grassroots lobbying work. NOW is a non-profit, tax-exempt membership organization working politically and legislatively to advance women's rights.

https://www.now.org/member.html

NOW stands for National Organization FOR WOMEN. See, even the title reeks of "sexism" (according to LadyT logic), so I think LadyT will agree NOW should lose their tax-exempt status. No?

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:35 AM
I would say the role of women in childbirth was ordained by God:

Gen. 3:16 - "To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

If he shall rule over her, she is not his equal. They are not separate but equal as you claim they are, she is his inferior. (though I do agree with IHG point that separate but equal is not equal anyway). Still, this is blatant.

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:39 AM
It is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate churches into following your twisted feminist ideals. It is social engineering of religious institutions, and I find it immoral and disgusting. Stop lying and speak freely -- you're not fooling anyone.

They're tax exempt, and yet they preach from a bully pulpit, and very often endorse political candidates both implicitly and explitly. They are attempting to create a society wherein a woman is a second class citizen, subservient to pimple faced virgins such as yourself. Much like the Taliban, the only way most of you can get laid is by instituting a society like this, whether it be a small one, in your church, or better yet, a larger one, with more choices of compliant women, in society at large.

And all the while they are stealing tax dollars, so why don't you Brent, shove it up your ass sideways ok?

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:43 AM
Good point, Care. I think you're correct. My church files as a non-profit organization, not as a "church." There is no category for "church" as far as I know.

No prick. If they intervene politically or are involved in lobbying, they are at risk of losing their tax exempt status. You do not gain tax exempt status simply by being a non-profit. There are rules.

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:44 AM
I don't see how that has any relevance to the point at hand. I would move to apply the same rules to other non-profits as well. While churches aren't specifically mentioned in the IRC code as mentioned in this pamphlet, but they do recognize that certain non-profits are churches.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

What I did find interesting was this little tid bit of the IRC Section 501c3 which states that,

"the organization's purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy"

I'd think firing someone after 54 years for being a woman qualifies as gender discrimination.

Yes. And that is a good point.

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:45 AM
Tiana, do Sunday School teachers get paid? They were all volunteers teaching Sunday school when I was young??

Thus, your point is moot.

And if she was a paid employee of some sort, I totally agree with you! It is discrimination!

not because they can't have rules like this in their church, because they can have rules like this in their own church because OUR CONSTITUTION says that Congress can make no law regarding an established church....but because she was in this position for years of teaching this Sunday School class and was picked by them to do this job, I presume, and now, changing the rules midstream seem unfair.

And I do not in any way agree with this minister's interpretation of the Bible that would prevent a woman from teaching Sunday school or Catechism....


Discrimination is not dependent on whether or not one is paid, if it were, we would still have black and white parts of buses, and clubs that didn't allow Jews. Discrimination is discrimination.

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:48 AM
Hmm. Well then, I think you would agree NOW (National Organization for Women) should lose their tax-exempt status. Why should an organization which does not accept male members be receiving tax-exempt status (by your logic)?

Fool. Who told you NOW doesn't accept male members? You believe anything an older, male authority figure tells you, don't you?

Sad.

How very frightened you must be.

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:49 AM
It is not against the Law Tiana.....

It is not discrimination, a church can also choose not to have a gay man teaching sunday school if they wish....or an out of wedlock mother teaching Sunday school.....they can do anything they want and so can most small employers....

even affirmative action does not apply to any private entity, (that does not receive government money).....

it's a sad state of affairs, but I believe this is the case....

She's not claiming that it is though, if I read her right. She's stating the fact that it is discrimination, and it is. And questioning whether they deserve the tax exempt status, which as we know, is something that can be taken away, and does have to be earned.

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:51 AM
So NOW, who doesn't allow men, should have their non-profit status revoked?


What was this? A rumor going around the he-man's women hater club?

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:53 AM
but why would YOU REALLY want the government to do that? control the membership of private non profits and change the doctrine of an established church?

that is just tooooo controlling for me and is also against the first amendment, and gives way too much power to our gvt, power i never would be comfortable giving them....

in this case tiana....''...it's deeper than pastry''....giving credit to dixie for the line....

it's not as easy as you think, and truely, i don't understand your goal or the purpose of your goal ??


they don't make a profit tiana, there is not any profitable income to tax?

It's not controling them, because if they don't like it, they can opt out of the tax exempt status. The same logic I have seen used on this thread regarding churches. If you dont like them don't join. So if it's good for the goose...

Also Care, I cannot believe you actually believe these churches are non-profit. The best career move one can make these days is to open a mega-church. Come on now.

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:55 AM
NOW is tax-exempt:

Contributions to NOW are not tax deductible because of our grassroots lobbying work. NOW is a non-profit, tax-exempt membership organization working politically and legislatively to advance women's rights.

https://www.now.org/member.html

NOW stands for National Organization FOR WOMEN. See, even the title reeks of "sexism" (according to LadyT logic), so I think LadyT will agree NOW should lose their tax-exempt status. No?

Hey pimple face...you originally made the claim that men WERE NOT ALLOWED. So instead of changing your story and hoping no one will notice, tell Tiana you were wrong.

Once she decides to accept your groveling apology, we can go from there.

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 05:15 AM
Care, if they don't make any profits, why do they need tax-exempt status? Why, when the IRS started sending letters to more liberal congregations, warning them that they could lose their tax-exempt status, did they get up in arms? Even more interesting, why did the far larger number of rightie churches strongly support them? Apparently they figured out something the bush adminstration had not; eventually, a dem would take office and if liberal congregations had been stripped of their tax exempt status, well...get ready righties.

So, this was something that united both the liberals and the right. If they make no profits, why? Why didn't they just read the letter, shrug and laugh. Joke about it even! Sit around after a long day of tithe collections and say "Boy, I'd hate to be the IRS thinking they had this pittance spent already".

Care4all
08-22-2006, 06:34 AM
She's not claiming that it is though, if I read her right. She's stating the fact that it is discrimination, and it is. And questioning whether they deserve the tax exempt status, which as we know, is something that can be taken away, and does have to be earned.

Tax exempt status is not given to churches because they are a church, it is given to them because they are a non profit organization, JUST AS A KAZILLION other non profit organization.....

if you want to change the criteria for non profits, then you must change the criteria for EVERY SINGLE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION OUT THERE....you can not revoke the Church's nonprofit status willy nilly....or at your beckon call, without effecting all other nonprofits out there.....

And yes, there are ministers that form churches just to rip their parrishioners off and take their donations to the church for themselves....but that is a crime, in and of itself.....

That's all I am saying Darla.....

As far as campaigning from the pulpit for a candidate by the minister of the church....that is against the LAW and should not happen.... even though it did happen with the Bushites quite a bit....which should have been stopped....because it is against the rules of being a NONPROFIT organization.

That should be addressed on a one on one basis.....

Yes, Churches are non profit, just like the March of Dimes or the Salvation Army, or the Catholic Charities, the NRA, NOW, you name it nonprofit, etc....

care

LadyT
08-22-2006, 06:35 AM
but why would YOU REALLY want the government to do that? control the membership of private non profits and change the doctrine of an established church?

that is just tooooo controlling for me and is also against the first amendment, and gives way too much power to our gvt, power i never would be comfortable giving them....

in this case tiana....''...it's deeper than pastry''....giving credit to dixie for the line....

it's not as easy as you think, and truely, i don't understand your goal or the purpose of your goal ??


they don't make a profit tiana, there is not any profitable income to tax?

The goal is simple: If you are a non-profit who's organization is has institutional sexism, racism or bigotry, you should not be able to qualify for a tax-exempt status. It is as simple as that. They can continue to be sexist and racist pigs all they want, however they shouldn't be afforded the luxury of being tax exempt though. If they are so "principled" then the monetary savings they'd enjoy wouldn't matter, now would it?

LadyT
08-22-2006, 06:39 AM
Tax exempt status is not given to churches because they are a church, it is given to them because they are a non profit organization, JUST AS A KAZILLION other non profit organization.....

if you want to change the criteria for non profits, then you must change the criteria for EVERY SINGLE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION OUT THERE....you can not revoke the Church's nonprofit status willy nilly....or at your beckon call, without effecting all other nonprofits out there.....

For the umpteenth time............ANY non profit that practices institutionalized racism, sexism, or bigotry should have its status removed.


Yes, Churches are non profit, just like the March of Dimes or the Salvation Army, or the Catholic Charities, the NRA, NOW, you name it nonprofit, etc....

care

And if the NRA decides it won't accept Abhorigines people they should have their status yanked as well.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 06:43 AM
The goal is simple: If you are a non-profit who's organization is has institutional sexism, racism or bigotry, you should not be able to qualify for a tax-exempt status. It is as simple as that. They can continue to be sexist and racist pigs all they want, however they shouldn't be afforded the luxury of being tax exempt though. If they are so "principled" then the monetary savings they'd enjoy wouldn't matter, now would it?

What do you tax them on? Fill out the Irs form for me, so I can understand?


If any business takes it's money and donates it or uses it for charity purposes, that money that this business made as profit is tax exempt...

So, if churches collect money and use the money to help the poor, then those donations are tax exempt.....

how would you rewrite the law? I guess, I really don't understand?

you can't tell churches who to hire for a task or position in their church...they have Church Doctrine of their own to follow....for example there are no WOMEN PRIESTS in the Catholic Church....

you want to dictate, INDIRECTLY, a church's doctrine....THAT is against our constitution...

LadyT
08-22-2006, 06:58 AM
you can't tell churches who to hire for a task or position in their church...they have Church Doctrine of their own to follow....for example there are no WOMEN PRIESTS in the Catholic Church....

you want to dictate, INDIRECTLY, a church's doctrine....THAT is against our constitution...

Tax-Exempt status isn't a right. Its a priveledge that is afforded to certain organizations that meet the criteria. No one would be dictating what they could and couldn't do, changing someone's tax status isn't changing the churches doctrine directly or indirectly. If you pull someone's TE status for endorsing a candidate, is that manipulating the churches doctrine? No. You're taking away a priveledge that they abused. They can continue to slowly drag their knuckles into the 21st century if they want to - no one would be stopping them.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 07:18 AM
Tax-Exempt status isn't a right. Its a priveledge that is afforded to certain organizations that meet the criteria. No one would be dictating what they could and couldn't do, changing someone's tax status isn't changing the churches doctrine directly or indirectly. If you pull someone's TE status for endorsing a candidate, is that manipulating the churches doctrine? No. You're taking away a priveledge that they abused. They can continue to slowly drag their knuckles into the 21st century if they want to - no one would be stopping them.

So, unless a church changes their Doctrine to allow women priests or Gay Pastors, you want to pull their exempt status?

that is against the law.... you don't control who a private entity hires, but now you want to do it to not for profits?

I disagree with you...you are most CERTAINLY trying to change Church doctrine via our government, for what YOU THINK their Doctrine should include...ie. Female Priests....or else you are cutting them off...

So, once all of these churches are NOT tax exempt status, you also make all Donations to the Church taxable, and all the donations I give to the Catholic or Jewish Charities will no longer be tax deductible....and that's BS!!!!!!!

This all began by you posting an article about a church's female VOLUNTEER Sunday School teacher that was supposedly being dismissed because the Church changed their Doctrine......

What business is this of yours in the first place? It's not any of your business or my business Tiana.... it is the business of the Church itself and its VOLUNTARY members.... if they think it is unfair to this Sunday School teacher and she brings it before the congregation, then they get to decide....that is how it works and should work....

If this voluntary sunday school teacher is kept from teaching sunday school with this Church membership then she can change her church to find a church that accepts women.... If a woman wants to be a Pastor and the Catholic Church's doctrine does not allow such then she has to go to another Church that accepts women priests or pastors....there are some out there for her to pursue her calling...

Our Churches in this country take care of the needy more than any charties in the world....by taking away tax exempt status would drastically cut these charties...........DRASTICALLY CUT the help for the needy and poor and sick.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 07:23 AM
Talking about a candidate is not changing Church Doctrine Tiana.....that is a rule that does not involve any kind of Doctrine at all....


Telling a church that they MUST HIRE GAY MINISTERS OR FEMALE PRIESTS, OR ELSE you are going to take away their tax exempt status is MOST CERTAINLY the government trying to dictate to churches who they can have as members running their organization.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 07:40 AM
So, unless a church changes their Doctrine to allow women priests or Gay Pastors, you want to pull their exempt status?

that is against the law.... you don't control who a private entity hires, but now you want to do it to not for profits?

Most private entity hires I know of aren't TE. If they are (lets say a local gov't agency), they are equal opportunity employers and its against company policy to discriminate on someone based on their gender.


I disagree with you...you are most CERTAINLY trying to change Church doctrine via our government, for what YOU THINK their Doctrine should include...ie. Female Priests....or else you are cutting them off...

Again, TE status isn't a right. Its a priveledge that the IRS affords certain organizations that meet certain criteria. If you don't meet it, then you can't get that priveledge, its that simple. Otherwise, they can pony up the dough like everyone else.




So, once all of these churches are NOT tax exempt status, you also make all Donations to the Church taxable, and all the donations I give to the Catholic or Jewish Charities will no longer be tax deductible....and that's BS!!!!!!!

Well, I for one don't give to charities for the tax deduction. Its a nice added benefit - a bonus if you will, but its not a right. For those that want to give based on the ability to claim it as a deduction on their taxes, there would be other organizations that wouldn't violate my proposed addendum to IRC Section 501c3.


This all began by you posting an article about a church's female VOLUNTEER Sunday School teacher that was supposedly being dismissed because the Church changed their Doctrine......

"supposedly"? LOL, that's what the minister himself said. Electing to adopt a doctrine that is gender biased should disqualify you immediately from the TE status. If its one or two cases, fine, but if its systematic and institutionalized then they shouldn't be afforded that priveledge.



What business is this of yours in the first place? It's not any of your business or my business Tiana....

That's more money we as tax payers are going to have to foot the bill for. We've got a deficit that's not going anywhere. We all have to pay our fair share, if an organization is going to discriminate against women, its immoral for me and other women to have to come up with their share of the tax pool.



" it is the business of the Church itself and its VOLUNTARY members.... if they think it is unfair to this Sunday School teacher and she brings it before the congregation, then they get to decide....that is how it works and should work...."

I've never said I cared one way or the other what they do. I just care about their ability to claim a TE status. No one is stopping them from having witch trials or exorcisms. I really don't care about that. Its all about the TE exemption.


"If this voluntary sunday school teacher is kept from teaching sunday school with this Church membership then she can change her church to find a church that accepts women.... If a woman wants to be a Pastor and the Catholic Church's doctrine does not allow such then she has to go to another Church that accepts women priests or pastors....there are some out there for her to pursue her calling..."

Again, immaterial. I have said nothing that eludes ot the fact that they can't do what they want.


Our Churches in this country take care of the needy more than any charties in the world....by taking away tax exempt status would drastically cut these charties...........DRASTICALLY CUT the help for the needy and poor and sick.

I think that's a bit dramatic.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 07:44 AM
Sounds like Lady T is trying to figure out a way to screw Church's ...

Care is correct Lady T... what is your gig with trying to change the Doctrine of a Church? The reason why a Church is given Tax Exempt Status is for the Community Services they provide.

Even Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson ... what most people dont know about them is that they operate two of the largest world wide charities around. As crazy as you or I may conside them as individuals.. they do alot of good work through Charity. Why would you want to mess with that?

Religious Institutions work on both sides of the Political Spectrum ... in the end it all evens out.
Take Catholics ... despite the Church Doctrine leaning with a decidedly Conservative edge .. I'll bet the majority of Catholics vote Democratic. My home town is a perfect example ... blue collar and union to the core ... 'till this day the City Council has been ruled by Dems since I can remembr .. and the City has a huge Catholic constuency ...
look at Boston ... huge Catholic base.. yet decidedly Democrat....

robdastud
08-22-2006, 07:46 AM
Klaatu seems like he wants to give everything to churches.... churches are already tax exempt do you know that klaatu??

LadyT
08-22-2006, 07:49 AM
Sounds like Lady T is trying to figure out a way to screw Church's ...

Care is correct Lady T... what is your gig with trying to change the Doctrine of a Church? The reason why a Church is given Tax Exempt Status is for the Community Services they provide.
....

Again, they can still perform community services, they can have whatever doctrine they want. If they are outright discriminitory I don't think they should be afforded a TE status.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 07:51 AM
Klaatu seems like he wants to give everything to churches.... churches are already tax exempt do you know that klaatu??

quick summary:

I think churches that have institutionalized bigotry, racism or sexism should lose their TE status. Why should the rest of us have to foot the tax bill for that?

Jarod
08-22-2006, 07:54 AM
I think Churches that have institutionalized bigotry, racism, sexism or sexualityism should loose their following. But they wont because people are stupid!

klaatu
08-22-2006, 08:00 AM
Again, they can still perform community services, they can have whatever doctrine they want. If they are outright discriminitory I don't think they should be afforded a TE status.


Do you even read what you are replying to?

klaatu
08-22-2006, 08:03 AM
Sorry Lady T .. that was intended for Robdawg ...

klaatu
08-22-2006, 08:04 AM
Klaatu seems like he wants to give everything to churches.... churches are already tax exempt do you know that klaatu??

Now ... Do you even read what you are replying to?

klaatu
08-22-2006, 08:05 AM
:)

klaatu
08-22-2006, 08:10 AM
Again, they can still perform community services, they can have whatever doctrine they want. If they are outright discriminitory I don't think they should be afforded a TE status.

I'd like to see this put up as Referendum ... let the people decide .. how about that? I think that would be fair ...
If the people take your side .. we would lose a whole lot of Church's ...especially the small little independent ones ...

Care4all
08-22-2006, 08:23 AM
Again, they can still perform community services, they can have whatever doctrine they want. If they are outright discriminitory I don't think they should be afforded a TE status.


Again, they WON'T GET THE SAME in Donations if these Donations are not Tax exempt.... and if the Church is NOT tax exempt, then the donations to these churches will not be tax exempt...

Let's just say, I think you are being silly here Tiana....

And YOU are, thru tax policy, trying to change Church Doctrine....

Against our constitution....

No one is forced to be a member of a church...

and you still want our government to do the controlling, and that is simply outright wrong...you can NOT TELL CHURCHES who they choose to have as members or clergy, and this is precisely what you are trying to do via tax policy...

and it would ruin our country and abolish the constitution's strength...

we will just have to agree to disagree! :)

care

Jarod
08-22-2006, 08:28 AM
Why do people still attend such churches?

Why do people give them money?

If the people would stop funding such madness it would end!

Damocles
08-22-2006, 08:29 AM
quick summary:

I think churches that have institutionalized bigotry, racism or sexism should lose their TE status. Why should the rest of us have to foot the tax bill for that?
IF any get TE status, then all should. LadyT you cannot punish selectively for people excercising their rights to Assemble... They have a Right, outlined in the Constitution, that allows them to assemble with any group they see fit. Since they are private organizations attempting to judge them on whom they freely associate with while excercise that right and discriminate by taxing according to the excercise of that right would be unconstitutional.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 08:31 AM
Why do people still attend such churches?

Why do people give them money?

If the people would stop funding such madness it would end!


you have got to be crazy to say that Alex.... Churches are the biggest charties in the world, helping the needy sick and poor....

Why the heck would you want us to stop donating to the organizations that help the LEAST AMONG US?

(shakes head)

care

Care4all
08-22-2006, 08:33 AM
IF any get TE status, then all should. LadyT you cannot punish selectively for people excercising their rights to Assemble... They have a Right, outlined in the Constitution, that allows them to assemble with any group they see fit. Since they are private organizations attempting to judge them on whom they freely associate with while excercise that right and discriminate by taxing according to the excercise of that right would be unconstitutional.

thank you! for saying it clearer than me!

Jarod
08-22-2006, 08:37 AM
you have got to be crazy to say that Alex.... Churches are the biggest charties in the world, helping the needy sick and poor....

Why the heck would you want us to stop donating to the organizations that help the LEAST AMONG US?

(shakes head)

care



1) I did not say all churches, just the ones that are promoting such inequality and bigotry.

2) Cut the head off the church and there will be MUCH MUCH more money for the LEAST AMONG US. Have you seen the riches at the Vatican? Do you really belive the same percentage of you money given to the Catholic Church goes to charity as when you give to the Red Cross, the Salvation Army or even better directly to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen?

Care4all
08-22-2006, 08:41 AM
1) I did not say all churches, just the ones that are promoting such inequality and bigotry.

2) Cut the head off the church and there will be MUCH MUCH more money for the LEAST AMONG US. Have you seen the riches at the Vatican? Do you really belive the same percentage of you money given to the Catholic Church goes to charity as when you give to the Red Cross, the Salvation Army or even better directly to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen?

soooooooooooo, the Biggest Charity that there is in the world, the Catholic Charities, you want to change their tax status because they DO NOT HAVE WOMEN PRIESTS?

you are breaking the constitution to try to control private groups or churches in such a manner and why is it that YOU WANT TO DO THAT?

Why do you want to have our government control private groups or churches?

you are just wrong alex.....on this one.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 08:43 AM
I should get tax emempt status. I am not a profit making entity.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 08:44 AM
1) I did not say all churches, just the ones that are promoting such inequality and bigotry.

2) Cut the head off the church and there will be MUCH MUCH more money for the LEAST AMONG US. Have you seen the riches at the Vatican? Do you really belive the same percentage of you money given to the Catholic Church goes to charity as when you give to the Red Cross, the Salvation Army or even better directly to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen?

WHO RUNS the homeless shelter or soup kitchens alex....? hahahaha....

gees louise...they are run mostly by churches....same with the salvation army....

Damocles
08-22-2006, 08:45 AM
Definitely. They pay for advertising, churches rarely do. The advertizing dollar is probably the highest outcost other than giving that charities have. Churches have a pretty much set payment level, electricity, the Pastor's wage, etc all the rest goes to charity... Usually you get a higher dollar/gift amount from a church than a usual charity that has to pay for advertising (telemarketing and other expenses as well...)

Jarod
08-22-2006, 08:45 AM
soooooooooooo, the Biggest Charity that there is in the world, the Catholic Charities, you want to change their tax status because they DO NOT HAVE WOMEN PRIESTS?

you are breaking the constitution to try to control private groups or churches in such a manner and why is it that YOU WANT TO DO THAT?

Why do you want to have our government control private groups or churches?

you are just wrong alex.....on this one.


I never said ANYTHING about changing anyones tax exempt status...

Ill wait for my apology.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 08:45 AM
I should get tax emempt status. I am not a profit making entity.


me either ihg(at least until the closing on the sale of my house)....where's my tax exempt status? lol

Care4all
08-22-2006, 08:48 AM
I never said ANYTHING about changing anyones tax exempt status...

Ill wait for my apology.

yes YOU DID....you said they should be cut off if they have discriminating practices....

Is no women allowed to be priests discriminating policy to you? it is to Tiana...

so, no apology given, unless you can explain what you are saying more clearly...

Jarod
08-22-2006, 08:50 AM
WHO RUNS the homeless shelter or soup kitchens alex....? hahahaha....

gees louise...they are run mostly by churches....same with the salvation army....


I am not saying cut out all churches... But I belive if you can get past the Church tax, if you can get past paying for guilded thrones for the Pope and new vestments you can get more bang for your buck. If you can donate directly to Catholic Charities, go for it... But instead you are funding a church who spends a percentage of the money money fighting for a political ideal you dont nessarly belive in. If you give money directly to the Catholic Church a small percentage goes directly to the needy. How do you think the Vatican got so many riches?

Jarod
08-22-2006, 08:51 AM
yes YOU DID....you said they should be cut off if they have discriminating practices....

Is no women allowed to be priests discriminating policy to you? it is to Tiana...

so, no apology given, unless you can explain what you are saying more clearly...



Show me anywhere where I ever said anything about changing anyones tax exempt status. I said people should stop giving their money to discriminatory institutions and give that same money directly to a charity!

LadyT
08-22-2006, 08:53 AM
IF any get TE status, then all should. LadyT you cannot punish selectively for people excercising their rights to Assemble... They have a Right, outlined in the Constitution, that allows them to assemble with any group they see fit. Since they are private organizations attempting to judge them on whom they freely associate with while excercise that right and discriminate by taxing according to the excercise of that right would be unconstitutional.

No one is punishing them! I'm simply saying they shouldn't be afforded a PRIVELEDGE for supporting institutionalized bigotry.

Jarod
08-22-2006, 08:53 AM
Care you are being an idiot when you put words in someones mouth!

Care4all
08-22-2006, 08:57 AM
I am not saying cut out all churches... But I belive if you can get past the Church tax, if you can get past paying for guilded thrones for the Pope and new vestments you can get more bang for your buck. If you can donate directly to Catholic Charities, go for it... But instead you are funding a church who spends a percentage of the money money fighting for a political ideal you dont nessarly belive in. If you give money directly to the Catholic Church a small percentage goes directly to the needy. How do you think the Vatican got so many riches?

YOU are obviously not a member of the Catholic Church....there are two COLLECTIONS in every service, one goes to the Church and one goes to the poor, via their charities...

And once again, the majority of donations to a church goes directly to the needy, moreso than ANY OTHER CHARITIES OUT THERE.....

there are charitites out there that are not involved with Churches that only give 10 cents on the dollar donated to the poor...the rest they pay these high salaries to their workers at the top...

there is no such thing with Churches....

Why would you change that...?

Cypress
08-22-2006, 08:59 AM
IF any get TE status, then all should. LadyT you cannot punish selectively for people excercising their rights to Assemble... They have a Right, outlined in the Constitution, that allows them to assemble with any group they see fit. Since they are private organizations attempting to judge them on whom they freely associate with while excercise that right and discriminate by taxing according to the excercise of that right would be unconstitutional.

Spot on. I agree.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 09:02 AM
No one is punishing them! I'm simply saying they shouldn't be afforded a PRIVELEDGE for supporting institutionalized bigotry.


so answer this tiana...would you take tax exempt status AWAY from the Catholic Church as an example , solely because they refused to have female priests? yes or no?

would you be punishing them, by taking their tax exempt status away because no female priests is part of their church doctrine that has been there for 1500 years because you think their doctrine is discriminatory?

Jarod
08-22-2006, 09:03 AM
YOU are obviously not a member of the Catholic Church....there are two COLLECTIONS in every service, one goes to the Church and one goes to the poor, via their charities...

And once again, the majority of donations to a church goes directly to the needy, moreso than ANY OTHER CHARITIES OUT THERE.....

there are charitites out there that are not involved with Churches that only give 10 cents on the dollar donated to the poor...the rest they pay these high salaries to their workers at the top...

there is no such thing with Churches....

Why would you change that...?

I know what the Bishop's appeal is and I understand what they say about the money in the general donation going to charities, but ask for an accounting and see if they will give it to you... They will NOT! I wonder why? Now where is my apology for the Tax exempt comment?

Jarod
08-22-2006, 09:04 AM
Spot on. I agree.


I agree!

LadyT
08-22-2006, 09:05 AM
Damo/Care
So then do you disagree that a church shouldn't have its TE status revoked for endorsing a candidate vs. another? Afterall, you would be judging them on who they freely associate with and by your definitions' you're regulating the pulpit.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 09:06 AM
so answer this tiana...would you take tax exempt status AWAY from the Catholic Church as an example , solely because they refused to have female priests? yes or no?

would you be punishing them, by taking their tax exempt status away because no female priests is part of their church doctrine that has been there for 1500 years because you think their doctrine is discriminatory?

I'd have NO problems with that whatsoever.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:10 AM
Just to add my two cents I believe their should be no such thing as tax emempt status.

Charity begins at home right? The family is the most important charitable organization there is. Does the family get tax exempt status? Can I deduct from my taxes the money I spend to buy food for my child? No

Yet if I spent money to buy food for another child I could deduct that.

Also the amount of money I donate to charity doesn't exceed that which I get through a standard deduction so I don't even get a tax benefit for that which I give away.

Why must I pay taxes but not a church or any other charity. All entities should pay tax.

Now of course I support progressive consumption tax so basically anybody who spends any money in this country pays taxes.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 09:10 AM
Damo/Care
So then do you disagree that a church shouldn't have its TE status revoked for endorsing a candidate vs. another? Afterall, you would be judging them on who they freely associate with and by your definitions' you're regulating the pulpit.

I think the 503(C) (?) tax expemption regulations are intended to keep churches from becoming de facto operatives of a political party - but are not intended to regulate their personal thoughts, and the logistics of how they run their churches.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 09:12 AM
A candidate HAS NOTHING to do with Church doctrine and ALL NONPROFITS have a rule against preaching for a candidate from the pulpit or from their headquarters, I believe....? so this would be breaking the law for all nonprofits if they preached from the pulpit or from their nonprofit headquarters.... and yes they should be fined or their tax exempt status should be taken away....as it was for Pat robertson's 800 club or maybe it was the Christian coalition?

but that has nothing to do with this woman that was fired from her voluntary sunday school teaching position because her church has decided to follow more strictly their church doctrine....imo....this is a separate issue.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 09:13 AM
No one is punishing them! I'm simply saying they shouldn't be afforded a PRIVELEDGE for supporting institutionalized bigotry.
A priveledge taken from one group but given to another who stick with the government approved Assembly is a punishment. It is also unconstitutional. If it is extended to one group it must also be extended to the other...

To say, "I don't like who you are associating with so the government will treat your assembly different" is what is unconstitutional....

All or nothing, LadyT.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:13 AM
Just to stir the pot a little more. For those of you who are liberal minded but don't support revoking tes from churches why do you have a different standard with private business?

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:13 AM
I should get tax emempt status. I am not a profit making entity.

LOL, Yeah same here. But things will get better after the divorce reorganization one time charges are complete.

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:15 AM
Definitely. They pay for advertising, churches rarely do. The advertizing dollar is probably the highest outcost other than giving that charities have. Churches have a pretty much set payment level, electricity, the Pastor's wage, etc all the rest goes to charity... Usually you get a higher dollar/gift amount from a church than a usual charity that has to pay for advertising (telemarketing and other expenses as well...)

There are other forms of advertisement. Like a new bigger spiffier church.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 09:18 AM
Just to stir the pot a little more. For those of you who are liberal minded but don't support revoking tes from churches why do you have a different standard with private business?

Because society decided long ago, that non-profit organizations that provide social, civil, and charitable functions for the general welfare have a benefit for the community. And TES is one avenue to encourage that.

As soon as Exxon starts providing energy and oil, in a not-profit way to the american public, they can get a TE.

Otherwise, income and profits are subject to taxation.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 09:18 AM
LOL, Yeah same here. But things will get better after the divorce reorganization one time charges are complete.


you're doing it? getting the divorce? i thought you were going to bear the cross and stick it out with your miserable life?

well, whatever you chose....the best of luck!
And I am sorry....you have to go through this.... it ain't a pretty thing.... :(

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:21 AM
Because society decided long ago, that non-profit organizations that provide social, civil, and charitable functions for the general welfare have a benefit for the community. And TES is one avenue to encourage that.

As soon as Exxon starts providing energy and oil, in a not-profit way to the american public, they can get a TE.

Otherwise, income and profits are subject to taxation.

No no Cypress thats not what I meant. Why is it ok to coerce businesses in their hiring practices but not churches and charities.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 09:21 AM
There are other forms of advertisement. Like a new bigger spiffier church.
Almost always paid for by a separate drive. This assumption that there is some zero sum game is just an assumption.

1. A donation to a church-run charity pretty much 100% reaches the public.
2. A donation is different than tithes.
3. People tithe regardless of which charity they donate to.
4. Those who want the most money to actually reach the needy should donate to church charities because they do not spend their money on advertisement.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 09:21 AM
Care you are being an idiot when you put words in someones mouth!

No.. you are an idiot .. you got caught in a lie ..and now you are trying to play word games... it aint woking Alex... the name change hasnt done a thing for you ...

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:22 AM
btw I resigned my position of Chairman of the board of trustees at the neighborhood church last sunday. Free at last, I am free at last.
the wife mumbled something that led me to believe that she might want a divorce over the church thing. I sure hope so, it would make things smoother if she thought it was her idea before I spring it on her.
Perhaps she will con someone at church into supporting her lazy ass.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 09:22 AM
I think the 503(C) (?) tax expemption regulations are intended to keep churches from becoming de facto operatives of a political party - but are not intended to regulate their personal thoughts, and the logistics of how they run their churches.

The basis of your argument thus far has been the unconstitutionality that would be had in "regulating" what the church does and/or says. You've stated that by losing their TE status based on gender discrimination would be unconstitutional. Yet somehow you're okay with them losing their TE status with churches campaigning for a particular candidate or political party? If they hold rallies, vocally support a candidate/party, or encourage people to donate to a particular party, its okay for them to lose their TE status? I think you want to have your cake and eat it to.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:24 AM
Thats a good point Tiana.

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:25 AM
you're doing it? getting the divorce? i thought you were going to bear the cross and stick it out with your miserable life?

well, whatever you chose....the best of luck!
And I am sorry....you have to go through this.... it ain't a pretty thing.... :(
Yep life is too short to be miserable because of a spouse. And I don't figure on being repaid after I die like believers do.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 09:26 AM
btw I resigned my position of Chairman of the board of trustees at the neighborhood church last sunday. Free at last, I am free at last.
the wife mumbled something that led me to believe that she might want a divorce over the church thing. I sure hope so, it would make things smoother if she thought it was her idea before I spring it on her.
Perhaps she will con someone at church into supporting her lazy ass.

Yikes! Why do I get the feeling you're pretty happy about that?!

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:28 AM
Given how USC describes his marriage I'm sure he is delighted the way George Costanza was when Susan licked all those stamps.

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:29 AM
Yikes! Why do I get the feeling you're pretty happy about that?!
Cause I am ? :clink:

Cypress
08-22-2006, 09:31 AM
Because society decided long ago, that non-profit organizations that provide social, civil, and charitable functions for the general welfare have a benefit for the community. And TES is one avenue to encourage that.

As soon as Exxon starts providing energy and oil, in a not-profit way to the american public, they can get a TE.

Otherwise, income and profits are subject to taxation.

No no Cypress thats not what I meant. Why is it ok to coerce businesses in their hiring practices but not churches and charities.

Federal anti-discriminatory hiring practices, were enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Widespread discrimination in commerce was alleged to have a detrimental impact on intrastate labor, wages, and commerce.

Churches don't play a role in intrastate commerce.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:37 AM
Federal anti-discriminatory hiring practices, were enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Widespread discrimination in commerce was alleged to have a detrimental impact on intrastate labor, wages, and commerce.

Churches don't play a role in intrastate commerce.

Does it really though? If I open a one chain hot dog stand and only employ amply bosomed women is that insterstate commerce?

Beyond that I wasn't asking can the government do it I'm asking should they?

Why is it ok to regulate business association but not church association.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 09:40 AM
Federal anti-discriminatory hiring practices, were enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Widespread discrimination in commerce was alleged to have a detrimental impact on intrastate labor, wages, and commerce.

Churches don't play a role in intrastate commerce.

Does it really though? If I open a one chain hot dog stand and only employ amply bosomed women is that insterstate commerce?

Beyond that I wasn't asking can the government do it I'm asking should they?

Why is it ok to regulate business association but not church association.
Yes it is interstate commerce because you purchase products for your hotdog stand that are from other states. It is almost impossible to treat only with your state on this. What drinks are you going to sell if not soda that comes from another state? So on...

Churches do not fall under the Interstate commerce laws.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 09:42 AM
The basis of your argument thus far has been the unconstitutionality that would be had in "regulating" what the church does and/or says. You've stated that by losing their TE status based on gender discrimination would be unconstitutional. Yet somehow you're okay with them losing their TE status with churches campaigning for a particular candidate or political party? If they hold rallies, vocally support a candidate/party, or encourage people to donate to a particular party, its okay for them to lose their TE status? I think you want to have your cake and eat it to.

Maybe I gave the wrong impression. I'm not "Okay" with discrimination.

But, I'm only pointing out what the law and the constitution allow the federal government to do. This is just reality.

I might be wrong, but federal anti-disriminatory laws only can apply, under the constitutions Commerce Clause. The legislature cannot simply deem discrmination "immoral", and legistlate based on morality. In a nation of laws, there has to be a legal and constitutional way for legislating against discrimination.

As such, the Feds can only regulate discrimination as it applies to intrastate commerce. Typically, I think this means private "for profit" companies that have 25 (I think) or more employees.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:44 AM
Yes it is interstate commerce because you purchase products for your hotdog stand that are from other states. It is almost impossible to treat only with your state on this. What drinks are you going to sell if not soda that comes from another state? So on...

Churches do not fall under the Interstate commerce laws.

This is not necessarily so. Anti discrimination laws do not state that sales or purchases have to cross state lines to be subject to the legislation.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 09:45 AM
Federal anti-discriminatory hiring practices, were enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Widespread discrimination in commerce was alleged to have a detrimental impact on intrastate labor, wages, and commerce.

Churches don't play a role in intrastate commerce.

Does it really though? If I open a one chain hot dog stand and only employ amply bosomed women is that insterstate commerce?

Beyond that I wasn't asking can the government do it I'm asking should they?

Why is it ok to regulate business association but not church association.

Because a business is not a private membership group....nor are all the other nonprofits out there.....who are in business to make a profit, provide paying jobs to the public..... what does that have to do with assembling in a group?

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:45 AM
Churches also accept donations across state lines....

Damocles
08-22-2006, 09:46 AM
Donations are not commerce.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 09:47 AM
Maybe I gave the wrong impression. I'm not "Okay" with discrimination.

But, I'm only pointing out what the law and the constitution allow the federal government to do. This is just reality.

I might be wrong, but federal anti-disriminatory laws only can apply, under the constitutions Commerce Clause. The legislature cannot simply deem discrmination "immoral", and legistlate based on morality. In a nation of laws, there has to be a legal and constitutional way for legislating against discrimination.

As such, the Feds can only regulate discrimination as it applies to intrastate coomerce. Typically, I think this means private "for profit" companies that have 25 (I think) or more employees.

I actually think its 15 employees, but I could be lying. And as far as I know at this point, they can't really. I was proposing amending 501c3 to include discriminitory acts as well. I think its only fair that entities that enjoy that nice priveledge should have to adhere to the same standards of decency that the rest of do.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:47 AM
Yes it is interstate commerce because you purchase products for your hotdog stand that are from other states. It is almost impossible to treat only with your state on this. What drinks are you going to sell if not soda that comes from another state? So on...

Churches do not fall under the Interstate commerce laws.

Let me add as well that my estimation of the commerce clasue is ability to regulate interstate transactions not every business practice that is made because it engages in interstate transactions.

This gives the federal government almost omnipotent power to regulate commerce over the states since all commerce could in some way be classified as interstate commerce.

If we look at history as well as the writings of the time we can clearly see that regulation of interstate commerce meant interstate transactions not carte blanche to regulate businesses that engage in some form of interstate commerce.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 09:48 AM
Federal anti-discriminatory hiring practices, were enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Widespread discrimination in commerce was alleged to have a detrimental impact on intrastate labor, wages, and commerce.

Churches don't play a role in intrastate commerce.

Does it really though? If I open a one chain hot dog stand and only employ amply bosomed women is that insterstate commerce?

Beyond that I wasn't asking can the government do it I'm asking should they?

Why is it ok to regulate business association but not church association.


Well, first Federal anti-discrimination statues that are based on the Commerce clause, have well-defined criteria that make them consistent with "intrastate commerce".

Discrimination laws only apply to private, for-profit companies that have 25 or more employees. These are criteria that have been established, so that the laws remain constitutional. You can't legislate based simply on morality. Thats not the way it works. That would be a theocracy.

So, unless thats a huge hot dog stand, I don't think the Feds can regulate the hot dog vendor.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:49 AM
Because a business is not a private membership group....nor are all the other nonprofits out there.....who are in business to make a profit, provide paying jobs to the public..... what does that have to do with assembling in a group?

Business is just an exhange of money for goods or services. It doesn't follow the private/public paradigm any differently than a church does.

Many churches involve themselves in commerce anyway.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:52 AM
Well, first Federal anti-discrimination statues that are based on the Commerce clause, have well-defined criteria that make them consistent with "intrastate commerce

Its interstate not intrastate.

Discrimination laws only apply to private, for-profit companies that have 25 or more employees. These are criteria that have been established, so that the laws remain constitutional. You can't legislate based simply on morality. Thats not the way it works. That would be a theocracy.

Cypress I am asking your opinion as to why the difference is important not simply that the government has the ability to do this vs not having the ability.

Why do you think business should not be allowed to discriminate but chruches should?

Cypress
08-22-2006, 09:56 AM
Well, first Federal anti-discrimination statues that are based on the Commerce clause, have well-defined criteria that make them consistent with "intrastate commerce

Its interstate not intrastate.

Discrimination laws only apply to private, for-profit companies that have 25 or more employees. These are criteria that have been established, so that the laws remain constitutional. You can't legislate based simply on morality. Thats not the way it works. That would be a theocracy.

Cypress I am asking your opinion as to why the difference is important not simply that the government has the ability to do this vs not having the ability.

Why do you think business should not be allowed to discriminate but chruches should?

I'm not claming to be an expert.

But lawyers and judges with more legal experience than you and I combined, yhave determined for decades, that the Federal role in regulating discrimination based on the Constitution's commerce clause, only applies to mid to large sized private businesses.

To my knowledge, small non-profits, and mom-and-pop stores are exempt.

I'll defer to the legal experts on this.

On a personal note, I abhor discrimination in all its forms and practices. But, this is a legal argument, not a moral one.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 09:57 AM
Yes it is interstate commerce because you purchase products for your hotdog stand that are from other states. It is almost impossible to treat only with your state on this. What drinks are you going to sell if not soda that comes from another state? So on...

Churches do not fall under the Interstate commerce laws.

Let me add as well that my estimation of the commerce clasue is ability to regulate interstate transactions not every business practice that is made because it engages in interstate transactions.

This gives the federal government almost omnipotent power to regulate commerce over the states since all commerce could in some way be classified as interstate commerce.

If we look at history as well as the writings of the time we can clearly see that regulation of interstate commerce meant interstate transactions not carte blanche to regulate businesses that engage in some form of interstate commerce.
I agree, however that is not how it is applied by the SCOTUS. The Feds do have nearly unlimited power to regulate even the silliest of things. Farmers that are selling only within their own town are regulated because their sales effect interstate sales of that same product.... Look it up, it is real.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:01 AM
No Cypress I am not asking for your legal interpreation of the commerce clause. I am asking for your philosophical view.

Lets take the federal government out of the picture for simplicity. Obviously a state can regulate business as well.

A state has the power to both penalize a church for dismissing an employee because they are female and a business for dismissing an employee because she is female.

Now from what you have said I assume you are saying a state should not exercise its power to penalize the church. However it would seem you would say that the state should exercise its power to penalize the business.

If this is your stance how do you reconcile the difference.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:03 AM
I agree, however that is not how it is applied by the SCOTUS. The Feds do have nearly unlimited power to regulate even the silliest of things. Farmers that are selling only within their own town are regulated because their sales effect interstate sales of that same product.... Look it up, it is real.

I am aware of that but it can be plainly seen that this is an incorrect interpretation as are many current interpretations of the US constitution.

The courts are fallible in describing the constitution as has been shown multiple times in history.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 10:06 AM
I agree, however that is not how it is applied by the SCOTUS. The Feds do have nearly unlimited power to regulate even the silliest of things. Farmers that are selling only within their own town are regulated because their sales effect interstate sales of that same product.... Look it up, it is real.

I am aware of that but it can be plainly seen that this is an incorrect interpretation as are many current interpretations of the US constitution.

The courts are fallible in describing the constitution as has been shown multiple times in history.

If there's a Federal or State law that the church broke, they should be punished. I'm not educated enough on the state laws to say. I suspect the Federal anti-discrimnation laws, are limited by the Commerce clause.

Its irrelevant what I "think" the goverment should do. Its only relevant, what constitutional authorities they have to pass and enforce discrimination laws.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 10:10 AM
On a side note, its heartening for me to see libertarians and republicans recognize in this thread that bias and discrmination still exist in america, and that some of it at least, is beyond the constitutional powers of enforcement by the government -- thereby highlighting the need for continued commitments to affirmative action programs.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 10:10 AM
I agree, however that is not how it is applied by the SCOTUS. The Feds do have nearly unlimited power to regulate even the silliest of things. Farmers that are selling only within their own town are regulated because their sales effect interstate sales of that same product.... Look it up, it is real.

I am aware of that but it can be plainly seen that this is an incorrect interpretation as are many current interpretations of the US constitution.

The courts are fallible in describing the constitution as has been shown multiple times in history.
Since you want my personal interpretation...

I believe that exempting Churches from Taxation violates the separations clause. It requires that government define and specify what a valid belief is to make a "church" and is untenable at its inception.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:10 AM
Cypress I can see that you only want to debate issues as far as law interpretaion and not law creation.

It isn't irrelevant what you think. This is a debate site we are here to find out what others think.

You know its funny you are a conservative in this way in that it seems you believe legality is justification in of itself.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:11 AM
On a side note, its heartening for me to see libertarians and republicans recognize in this thread that bias and discrmination still exist in america, and that some of it at least, is beyond the constitutional powers of enforcement by the government -- thereby highlighting the need for continued commitments to affirmative action programs.

At least with those who are intelligent it isn't really a debate about if their is discrimination but more about what to do about it.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 10:14 AM
On a side note, its heartening for me to see libertarians and republicans recognize in this thread that bias and discrmination still exist in america, and that some of it at least, is beyond the constitutional powers of enforcement by the government -- thereby highlighting the need for continued commitments to affirmative action programs.

At least with those who are intelligent it isn't really a debate about if their is discrimination but more about what to do about it.
For me it is about what to do about it. I believe that laws that provide for legalized discrimition for the downtrodden simply add to the problem. That they are good to a certain point and thereafter are a cause of the continued action... There is only so far such a law can take you.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:15 AM
Since you want my personal interpretation...

I believe that exempting Churches from Taxation violates the separations clause. It requires that government define and specify what a valid belief is to make a "church" and it untenable at its inception.

On that I disagree. I think it is constitutional because it doesn't address churches but rather non-profit organizations.

I interpret the separation clause to apply to that which directly has to do with churches but not necessarily what doesn't indirectly refer to them.

Prohibition didn't violate the separation clause because it denied Catholic masses from being able to legally use wine. It would be a violation of the clause if it targeted wine used in mass. But making wine illegal in general doesn't violate separation clauses.

An even looser interpreation could be that it only violates separation clause if it only affects religion and its institution. Again invoking TES doesn't only affect churches.

Care4all
08-22-2006, 10:15 AM
Since you want my personal interpretation...

I believe that exempting Churches from Taxation violates the separations clause. It requires that government define and specify what a valid belief is to make a "church" and is untenable at its inception.

do they exempt churches from taxation because they are a "church" or just another non profit or not for profit?

so, how does it break the separation laws by exempting Churches along with all others that are tax exempt?

LadyT
08-22-2006, 10:19 AM
Since you want my personal interpretation...

I believe that exempting Churches from Taxation violates the separations clause. It requires that government define and specify what a valid belief is to make a "church" and is untenable at its inception.

Actually, the IRC code doesn't technically define church. "Non-Profits" is term that is used in deciphering whether or not an entitiy can or can't attain TE status. A lot of churches "by coincidence" meet that qualification along wiht a lot of other entities. Tax Exempt status has nothing to do with your religious beliefs or whether or not the gov't thinks they are valid.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 10:20 AM
do they exempt churches from taxation because they are a "church" or just another non profit or not for profit?

so, how does it break the separation laws by exempting Churches along with all others that are tax exempt?
I personally think they exempt churches from taxation because they are churches. Some "churches" don't meet their criteria for valid belief systems and are not exempted. This makes the Government a judge over the belief systems of the people who are gauranteed a right to believe as they will.

If all were not given this special consideration then I could see that. Plus, the Scientologists are not "non-profit" yet still receive the tax benefits of a church.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 10:20 AM
do they exempt churches from taxation because they are a "church" or just another non profit or not for profit?


you beat me to it

LadyT
08-22-2006, 10:26 AM
If all were not given this special consideration then I could see that. Plus, the Scientologists are not "non-profit" yet still receive the tax benefits of a church.



I wouldn't be suprised if had some kind of double entity thing there. They do have tons of $$$

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:27 AM
Damo does bring up a good point about becoming a church or religion gives you more credibility under the law then if you weren't. Churches are able to do things that non-religious organizations are not.

For instance if you are in prison you can make dietary demands based on your religion but no other reason.

There is a group of prisoners who formed the "church of the new song" (CONS) in order to demand that they be fed steak and lobster as part of their religious diet.

Jarod
08-22-2006, 10:27 AM
No.. you are an idiot .. you got caught in a lie ..and now you are trying to play word games... it aint woking Alex... the name change hasnt done a thing for you ...



Okay then show me, where did I say tax exempt status should be revoked for any church?

klaatu
08-22-2006, 10:30 AM
Yep life is too short to be miserable because of a spouse. And I don't figure on being repaid after I die like believers do.

Sorry to hear this USC ... I hope the best for you ... how long have you been married?

Cypress
08-22-2006, 10:45 AM
Cypress I can see that you only want to debate issues as far as law interpretaion and not law creation.

It isn't irrelevant what you think. This is a debate site we are here to find out what others think.

You know its funny you are a conservative in this way in that it seems you believe legality is justification in of itself.

There's nothing conservative or liberal about upholding the constitution.

I believe in the moral neccessity of anti-discrminations, based on the rule of law and the constitution.

Crafting an unconstitutional anti-discrmination law helps nobody. It would be struck down by the courts.

Since the current anti-discrimination laws were crafted adquately to withstand constitutional challenge, and have been upheld for decades by both democratic and republican judges, I think the current basis of the law is on sound footing. Now, how the law in enforced may be another matter. It may be that DOJ staff working on anti-discrmination statues are underfunded and overworked. I have no empirical evidence.

This isn't a theocracy. We can't just do what sounds "morally" right. We have to base our actions of the rule of law.

Give me a piece of legislation that say ALL discrimnation, anywhere, at anytime, by anybody should be illegal, and I'll be glad to take a look at it. But, I suspect it won't pass constitutional muster.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 10:45 AM
Damo does bring up a good point about becoming a church or religion gives you more credibility under the law then if you weren't. Churches are able to do things that non-religious organizations are not.

For instance if you are in prison you can make dietary demands based on your religion but no other reason.

There is a group of prisoners who formed the "church of the new song" (CONS) in order to demand that they be fed steak and lobster as part of their religious diet.

on a lighter note: from the brief description of the example you've given, I highly doubt the CONS would even take the necessary steps to applying with the IRS to even get reviewed for tax exempt status!

I still think the point is mute because you don't have to be a church to be a nonprofit. If they are an organization that meets regulary or does charitible works with their donations, or do anything operationally that qualifies them as a nonprofit then they can get the same TE status as any church.

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 10:46 AM
24 years. One of the things we agreed on going in was no religion. but she had gall bladder removal 7 years ago and got scared into religion. Quit her job 3 yrs before full retirement benefits and became a spendthrift costing us nearly 100K and forcing me to sell all my stock to avoid bankruptcy.
She has washed dishes 5 times so far this year, already toppling last years record :)

Jarod
08-22-2006, 10:48 AM
Klaatu, it appears you are the idiot... I never said such a thing. I dont agree with that statement and you have egg on your face for claiming so!

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:49 AM
This isn't a theocracy. We can't just do what sounds "morally" right. We have to base our actions of the rule of law.

Obviously though laws are not originated out of thin air. In a vacuum of laws there is a reason they are created outside of existing law and morality is at least a consideration. Now like you I believe morality should stay out of it. Philosophy on the other hand is an important consideration of law when there is a vacuum.

Cypress you might be very helpful in arguing a supreme court case but you wouldn't be too useful at a constitutional convention :p

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:51 AM
on a lighter note: from the brief description of the example you've given, I highly doubt the CONS would even take the necessary steps to applying with the IRS to even get reviewed for tax exempt status!

I still think the point is mute because you don't have to be a church to be a nonprofit. If they are an organization that meets regulary or does charitible works with their donations, or do anything operationally that qualifies them as a nonprofit then they can get the same TE status as any church.

Actually it was brought to court and took quite some time to resolve. You will be pleased to know they didn't prevail but it wasn't just an open and shut case either.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:53 AM
24 years. One of the things we agreed on going in was no religion. but she had gall bladder removal 7 years ago and got scared into religion. Quit her job 3 yrs before full retirement benefits and became a spendthrift costing us nearly 100K and forcing me to sell all my stock to avoid bankruptcy.
She has washed dishes 5 times so far this year, already toppling last years record

It sucks when people change.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 10:56 AM
This isn't a theocracy. We can't just do what sounds "morally" right. We have to base our actions of the rule of law.

Obviously though laws are not originated out of thin air. In a vacuum of laws there is a reason they are created outside of existing law and morality is at least a consideration. Now like you I believe morality should stay out of it. Philosophy on the other hand is an important consideration of law when there is a vacuum.

Cypress you might be very helpful in arguing a supreme court case but you wouldn't be too useful at a constitutional convention :p

LOL

Well, its entirely ineffective to try to promote and implement any political philosophy, without strong consideration of wheter it can pass legal muster. If it can't credibly pass legal muster, then its just mental masterbation.

Philosophically, I do believe the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate things like discrimination (as it pertaints to interstate commerce, and/or other constitional elements).

klaatu
08-22-2006, 10:56 AM
Klaatu, it appears you are the idiot... I never said such a thing. I dont agree with that statement and you have egg on your face for claiming so!

No egg on my face.. because that is exactley what you said ...and you tried to back track only to expose yourself as the lying fool that you are ...
So how high must ones boots be when in your company ...?

:pke:

Jarod
08-22-2006, 11:04 AM
No egg on my face.. because that is exactley what you said ...and you tried to back track only to expose yourself as the lying fool that you are ...
So how high must ones boots be when in your company ...?

:pke:


Okay, then I DARE you, I CHALLANGE you to post a quote where I said such a thing!!!


Otherwise all we see is egg !:pke:

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 11:06 AM
Philosophically, I do believe the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate things like discrimination (as it pertaints to interstate commerce, and/or other constitional elements).

Lets talk about this then. From historical analysis we can see that the Constitution is a limiting not empowering document. We also know why the power to regulate interstate trade was implemented. During the time of the articles of confederation there was no interstate trade policy and thus was chaotic as difference in policies between states led to fractious policies and a adversarial relationship between favored and non favored states.

Thus during the convention it was argued that it was at least important that the federal government regulate trade transactions between states so that they would be treated equally.

However a recurring theme in the arguments giving the fed any power was to limit it greatly.

The nature of todays interpretation of the commerce clause gives the fed omnipotent power to regulate trade. It is argued that all business is interstate commerce because it involves interstate tranactions at some point in the business model.

Thus the ability to regulate commerce is not limited in anyway. If this was what the drafters of the constitution wanted they would state Congress would have the power to regulate trade period. However they said interstate. However current interpretations are used to regulate intrastate transactions because they involve interstate transactions somewhere along the business model.

This is similar to my argument about the powers of government and enumeration. The founders tried to avoid giving government omnipotent power. Yet as it stands today power to regulate trade and institute any and all kind of governmenent service in omnipotent.

This is not what was envisioned and is unconstitutional.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 11:17 AM
Philosophically, I do believe the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate things like discrimination (as it pertaints to interstate commerce, and/or other constitional elements).

Lets talk about this then. From historical analysis we can see that the Constitution is a limiting not empowering document. We also know why the power to regulate interstate trade was implemented. During the time of the articles of confederation there was no interstate trade policy and thus was chaotic as difference in policies between states led to fractious policies and a adversarial relationship between favored and non favored states.

Thus during the convention it was argued that it was at least important that the federal government regulate trade transactions between states so that they would be treated equally.

However a recurring theme in the arguments giving the fed any power was to limit it greatly.

The nature of todays interpretation of the commerce clause gives the fed omnipotent power to regulate trade. It is argued that all business is interstate commerce because it involves interstate tranactions at some point in the business model.

Thus the ability to regulate commerce is not limited in anyway. If this was what the drafters of the constitution wanted they would state Congress would have the power to regulate trade period. However they said interstate. However current interpretations are used to regulate intrastate transactions because they involve interstate transactions somewhere along the business model.

This is similar to my argument about the powers of government and enumeration. The founders tried to avoid giving government omnipotent power. Yet as it stands today power to regulate trade and institute any and all kind of governmenent service in omnipotent.

This is not what was envisioned and is unconstitutional.

Damn, in the same thread I get slammed for indicating that the constitution DID limit the Feds ability to implement anti-discriminatory laws, and then I get slammed for saying the Feds went TOO FAR with it. ;)


short answer: this isn't 1789 anymore. Some of the problems we have today, didnt' exist in 1789. We have to apply the constitution faithfully, to the world on 2006. In 1789, they didn't "envision" water and air pollution problems.

But, by faithfully using the commerce clause, we can honor and uphold the constitution to address a problem of the modern world: air and water pollution. Which is clearly an interstate problem.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 11:44 AM
short answer: this isn't 1789 anymore. Some of the problems we have today, didnt' exist in 1789. We have to apply the constitution faithfully, to the world on 2006. In 1789, they didn't "envision" water and air pollution problems.

Thats doesn't mean you circumnavigate it. It means its time for an amendment. This is an idea that has been lost over the years. In the early 20th century it was understood the constitution had to be amended to give congress the ability to outlaw alcoholic beverages. Now it just does as it pleases claiming the living document excuse. The constitution is dynamic not because you can decide to change existing parts of it but because you can add new ones. This is what should be done in the case water or air pollution problems as you mentioned.

Interstate commerce is a good justification for interstate regulation of air and water pollution. I don't think it specifically grants that power. Pollution is a crime it isn't a transaction of trade. Now the constitution states that disputes between states can be arbitrated by the federal government and a state can sue another because of pollution but that doesn't grant the fed the ability to use prior restraint when it comes to pollution.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 11:47 AM
short answer: this isn't 1789 anymore. Some of the problems we have today, didnt' exist in 1789. We have to apply the constitution faithfully, to the world on 2006. In 1789, they didn't "envision" water and air pollution problems.

Be careful of using this argument btw. It is the same kind of argument those in the Bush admin use to say why the "pre 9/11" constituiton isn't equipped to deal with problems of terrorism and why some of those limitations should be ignored.

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 11:51 AM
Good point on Bush saying the constitution is outdated, dangerous ground there IhateG.

Jarod
08-22-2006, 11:53 AM
Okay, then I DARE you, I CHALLANGE you to post a quote where I said such a thing!!!


Otherwise all we see is egg !:pke:



Still seeing egg...

Anything Klaatu?

Cypress
08-22-2006, 11:54 AM
short answer: this isn't 1789 anymore. Some of the problems we have today, didnt' exist in 1789. We have to apply the constitution faithfully, to the world on 2006. In 1789, they didn't "envision" water and air pollution problems.

Thats doesn't mean you circumnavigate it. It means its time for an amendment. This is an idea that has been lost over the years. In the early 20th century it was understood the constitution had to be amended to give congress the ability to outlaw alcoholic beverages. Now it just does as it pleases claiming the living document excuse. The constitution is dynamic not because you can decide to change existing parts of it but because you can add new ones. This is what should be done in the case water or air pollution problems as you mentioned.

Interstate commerce is a good justification for interstate regulation of air and water pollution. I don't think it specifically grants that power. Pollution is a crime it isn't a transaction of trade. Now the constitution states that disputes between states can be arbitrated by the federal government and a state can sue another because of pollution but that doesn't grant the fed the ability to use prior restraint when it comes to pollution.


You might want to review the 18th century definition and meaning of the word "commerce". It was much broader. It didn't simply pertain to business and financial transactions. It pertained to a broader-scope of human-to-human interactions.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 11:57 AM
I am aware however mercury in water and smoke clouds wouldn't fall within it.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 12:00 PM
I am aware however mercury in water and smoke clouds wouldn't fall within it.


Right, given the 18th century definition of the word "commerce" (not limited to business and financial transactions) , pollution, navigation of waterways, food-packing, and employment and wage discrimination by large to mid-sized private companies have been all interpreted to fall under the commerce clause.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 12:04 PM
However these acts don't always constitute interstate commerce as is widely held. Take food packing. If a meat plant sells meat of a certain nature the Congress can make laws about whether such a thing can be shipped across state lines. However it can't rule about whether they can sell it within their state. Regardless of where the cows come from or if they get water from the next state.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 12:07 PM
However these acts don't always constitute interstate commerce as is widely held. Take food packing. If a meat plant sells meat of a certain nature the Congress can make laws about whether such a thing can be shipped across state lines. However it can't rule about whether they can sell it within their state. Regardless of where the cows come from or if they get water from the next state.


In Swift v. United States (1905), the Court ruled that the clause covered meatpackers; although their activity was geographically "local," they had an important effect on the "current of commerce" and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause. The Court's decision halted price fixing.

Stafford v. Wallace (1922) upheld a federal law regulating the Chicago meatpacking industry, because the industry was part of the interstate commerce of beef from ranchers to dinner tables. The stockyards "are but a throat through which the current [of commerce] flows," Justice Taft wrote, referring to the stockyards as "great national public utilities."


wikipedia

robdastud
08-22-2006, 12:08 PM
Now ... Do you even read what you are replying to?

sometimes no...lol i see 'church' and i get so excited!!! :clink:

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 12:18 PM
Cypress those rulings clear away any kind of limitation upon what the federal government as all commerce is inter-relational anyway. They knew this in the 18th century yet distinguished between intrastate and interstate commerce.

Those ruling lead to the conclusion there is no such thing as intrastate commerce. This is no surprise ever since the end of the civil war the federal government has justified taking more and more power of regulation from the states as the Republican party dominated the presidency and thus the judiciary for decades after the civil war.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 12:22 PM
Cypress those rulings clear away any kind of limitation upon what the federal government as all commerce is inter-relational anyway. They knew this in the 18th century yet distinguished between intrastate and interstate commerce.

Those ruling lead to the conclusion there is no such thing as intrastate commerce. This is no surprise ever since the end of the civil war the federal government has justified taking more and more power of regulation from the states as the Republican party dominated the presidency and thus the judiciary for decades after the civil war.

IHG, I spent twenty post on this thread pointing out that there are limitations on the commerce clause, to the consternation of some.

Now, are the limitations as broad as you like? No. But, the courts have worked this for decades, seeking a balance. And they have enunciated some limitations - I'm just posting the cases where the commerce clause was interpreted to include more than just financial transactions.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 12:25 PM
From what I see your view of the commerce clause is anything that can affect society constitutes interstate commerce. What kind of trade is not included in such a thing? I know of nothing that business can do that doesn't affect society.