Can You Believe This?

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by jonb+May 9 2005, 02:29 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jonb &#064; May 9 2005, 02:29 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Freddie53@May 9 2005, 06:22 AM
gambling amendment

[post=309458]Quoted post[/post]​

Churches against gambling? Hypocrisy? Bingo.

[post=309532]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
i only gave that as a reference. I am not against bingo and am not against horse racing. I have problems with some casinos if they are corupt and the decks are stacked from the inside. I don&#39;t like organzied mafia involved. But all of life is a gamble. Buy stocks? it is a gamble

Some churches are against gambling and that includes bingo and raffles.

My point I think was missed. To keep IRS status as a religious organziation and contributions being counted as a duduction, the church must not get invovled in personal politics as in who to vote for. They may legally get in issues like gambling, or abortion.

What this preacher did was violate the IRS code. And all his members contributions should no longer be counted as deductions if idemizing rather than takikng the standard deduction.

 

[jonb]

Well, you&#39;d be right about how they can&#39;t tell you who to vote for. I mean, it&#39;s pretty hard not to have an opinion on abortion and call your organization a religious organization. But once you say who to vote for, you&#39;re officially a political party. And when you excommunicate people who don&#39;t vote for that person, you&#39;re acting like Stalin.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by Freddie53@May 9 2005, 07:22 AM

According the IRS rules, a church that endorses political candidates ceases to be considered a tax exempt organization and is considered a political organization. Churches may even from the pulpit endorse and/or oppose issues like a gambling amendment or anti-gay amendment, but not specific parties or canditates. To do that makes the "church" a political party according to IRS and all gifts no longer count as charitable giving.

[post=309458]Quoted post[/post]​

A church that is not tax-exempt is still a church, right? Just because it technically isn&#39;t considered some kind of charitable organization, doesn&#39;t mean they couldn&#39;t go about their business as a church.

And I say this as someone who thinks all religious organizations should be taxed.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by aloofman+May 10 2005, 01:39 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aloofman &#064; May 10 2005, 01:39 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Freddie53@May 9 2005, 07:22 AM

[post=309458]Quoted post[/post]​

A church that is not tax-exempt is still a church, right? Just because it technically isn&#39;t considered some kind of charitable organization, doesn&#39;t mean they couldn&#39;t go about their business as a church.

And I say this as someone who thinks all religious organizations should be taxed.

[post=309685]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
And there are people in the church who would agree with you on the grounds that the government gets to decide who is tax exempt and who is not.

Religious organizations aren&#39;t taxed because they come under the nonprofit status of IRS rules. For profit hospitals are taxed. Non-profit hospitals are not taxed. Non profit organizations now have to pay taxes on businesses they own that make a profit as I understand it. IF a church owns a religious bookstore to sell religious items to their members, any profit is taxable. If a church owns the house next door and leases it out, the church is supposed to pay taxes on the profit.

Of course, churches aren&#39;t going to make a profit on their religious stores. They will set the prices so they "break even" at least on the books they break even.

The other issue of taxes is real estate taxes. This will vary from state to state. Again the land is not taxed if it is used as nonprofit organization, but if it is used for other purpose it is taxed in my state. But each state is different.

I would hate to tax a historic church in downtown city for the value of the land. The tax would come to more than the entire budget of some of those downtown churches that are smaller now because most of the membership has moved out to the suberbs.

MY OPINION: All charitable non profit organzations have to be treated the same. To do otherwise is to violate the Constitution. The federal government can&#39;t favor or disfavor a religion. To give tax status to all charitable organziations except religious ones would be unconstitutional. But, only giving tax exempt status to churches, but not other non profit charitable organizations would also be unconstitutional.

 

[steve319]

An interesting tangent. Another example of NC&#39;s rediscovered "moral" boldness in action here.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by steve319@May 10 2005, 09:50 AM
An interesting tangent. Another example of NC&#39;s rediscovered "moral" boldness in action here.

[post=309735]Quoted post[/post]​

Yes, I believe it. Unfortunately. The law should be unconsitutional. Government entities should not consider sexaul relationships at all unless they directly affect the job descriptions. I suppose the FBI and CIA have to consider a lot of things county clerks don&#39;t have to consider.

True, a private person hiring a person to be his or her private secretary is free to set the job descriptions. IF a lot of traveling is done, they may want a person of the same gender to save on motel bills if the secretary travels with their boss. And there has to be compatibility for two people to work together.


But government jobs, no descrimination period.

 

[jonb]

And if it weren&#39;t for the site it was on, I&#39;d almost believe it.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by jonb@May 10 2005, 12:02 PM
And if it weren&#39;t for the site it was on, I&#39;d almost believe it.

[post=309787]Quoted post[/post]​

I read this story in the newspapers when it happened. I&#39;m sure there is more to the story then what is printed. That boss found that law and used it to his advantage.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@May 9 2005, 08:14 PM
For me, there is something uplifting about being part of a faith community and knowing that I&#39;m saying and singing the same words together with a group of people who share my beliefs. They might not have the same political views, but they are my spiritual brothers. There is strength in numbers, and comfort as well. And the ceremony of the Mass gives me a feeling of belonging. I am one of the Initiated.

huh. weird. I can&#39;t, personally, see how acknowledging and accepting one&#39;s desire for human confirmation could ever be a GOOD thing, but apparently a lot of you seem to feel that it is.

The Vatican City is an independent nation. Where government is involved, there is politics.

... not least the government of virtually every nation in south america.

The Holy See has a right to voice the official Catholic stand on moral views of a political debate, but then it is left to the individual&#39;s conscience to decide what is right for him.

yes, but you&#39;re missing the point that the VAST MAJORITY of individuals do not possess the intelligence or willpower to make such decisions - they simply do as they&#39;re told or, if there is no direct order, follow the herd. organized religion exists because its architects appreciate and exploit that. YOU may very well have the higher mental faculties necessary to decide what is right for you, but don&#39;t make the mistake of assuming that every human creature on the planet is similarly endowed (ha ha), because I can tell you for free that at least 95% of them aren&#39;t. humans are dumb, panicky herd-animals that will run in any direction you like if you know where to prod them. politicians and religious leaders throughout history have based their careers upon that fact. modern governments base their EXISTENCE upon it.

The single biggest topic usually brought up as &#39;proof&#39; that Catholicism is bad is the sexual molestation by priests.

I don&#39;t think catholicism is any WORSE than any other organized religion, and it&#39;s not as obnoxious as some. the fact that the nature and structure of the institutions of priesthood have traditionally provided a "refuge" or "breeding-ground" (depending on your view of the disorder) for pedophiles is not something one can attribute to catholicism AS A RELIGION; it results from a combination of largely coincident factors that certain people have found easy to exploit. as it happens, pedophilia is only the latest in a long line of sexual and social "closet deviance" accusations that have been levelled against clergy in EVERY major sect in western society ever since the authority of the churches began to decline. the sexually-dissolute priest was a popular figure even in medieval satire.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@May 10 2005, 09:37 AM
... not least the government of virtually every nation in south america.

[post=309803]Quoted post[/post]​

Yeah, but the Catholic Church&#39;s influence on Peru could&#39;ve been a bit more. There are, after all, worse things than theocracy. Forced sterilization being one of them.

Also, the same can be said about the U.S., except the U.S. encourages forced sterilization and mass slaughter.

As for pedophilia, you&#39;re right that it&#39;s not just the Catholics. What irks me is that these churches seem to send out the worst offenders on mission work. In North America at least, there was a time when Indian children couldn&#39;t even see their parents and instead had to live in the school 24/7/365. Actually, pedophilia isn&#39;t even on the top of my list for these schools; I&#39;d be more concerned about the fact that in some schools, as much as a third of the students didn&#39;t live to see graduation.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by jonb@May 10 2005, 01:02 PM
And if it weren&#39;t for the site it was on, I&#39;d almost believe it.

[post=309787]Quoted post[/post]​

Ok... ...here&#39;s the second article that Google finds about it...BAM&#33;