Tax Exemption for Political Churches.

Thank you Trippy i was beginning to think i was all alone on this one...
 
I hope that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any other church that does the same does get it taken away. At my church the only thing our preacher said about elections was that people should vote for whom they feel should lead the country.
 
Arctyrael said:
Any church that attempts to influence politics, as stated in the IRS tax code, should be subject to penalty if they violate the terms of their tax exempt status.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. They're supposed to be seperate.
 
I think it's kinda funny the Mormons argued that allowing gay couples to marry would eventually lead to churches losing their tax-exempt status, and now they're facing an effort to make that happen because the ban went through.

I seriously doubt they'll lose their status anyway, but it'll be entertaining watching them sweat awhile under the protests. It'll give Rush Limbaugh and his ilk something to talk about, complaining that you don't dare cross "the gays" or they'll make your life a living hell.
 
I'm with Arc's assessment more than Trippy's.

Likewise, I found Halifirien's view on it comical, but entirely true in a very sad, sad way.

What will *really* be hilarious is if we see Pat Robertson's lovely musings on it, and whether he thinks that LDS should lose its tax-exempt status (granted, Pat Robertson's about as influential as whaleshit, aside from his own mind).
 
well... my opinion is that all the money the church collects is SUPPOSED to be being donated to charity or ed to help the poor anyway.The whole 10% tithe is specifically for feeding the poor/less fortunate. Technically you aren't even supposed to harvest every last thing in your crop when farming so that those whom cant afford to eat can grab a meal or two. I'm going to guess that this is a factor in the reasoning behind churches being tax free in the first place(All money is supposed to be for a charity so why tax money being used to better the area?).
I personally say force em to pay what they owe.
A church isn't supposed to even HAVE the cash to flaunt around for this kind of activity.(yeah they've been doing it wrong for hundreds/thousands of years but it doesn't make it any better that churches are doing this nowadays too.)
 
Trippyhippy said:
I think you should tax all of them. Religion is a business just like anything else.
Click to expand...

I see your point. I do. I think I've been unerringly clear that I am all but atheist -- agnostic tendencies through and through. My problem is your use of a stereotype in favor of a generalization. I could be arguing semantics. You will have to decide.

This is my point though:
The one thing that continues to polarize all debates is a lack of consideration which I consider necessary to a tactfully placed argument.

When I read "religion/church" -- I see business much like you Trippy. I differ from you, and presumably Halifirien? in that I see it as wrong to dictate my perspective, "my opinion is shared by all." Religion can be viewed as a very personal experience to an individual.

These two perspectives are mutually exclusive. I'll clarify.

Religious Organization: The outward public interests of the church. "The business"
Religious Sentiment: The personal bonds to a religion of an individual. "The personal relationship"

Unless you specify what you mean and consider the personal attachments, you won't make any points to the people you're trying to reach. At best, they'll ignore you -- at worst you'll entrench their opinions.

If you disagree with the organization, then argue against the external forces the organization represents. If you disagree with the Sentiment, then tactless assails will make things worse.

And finally, to bring it all the way back to the beginning -- I don't think all religious people harbor harmful sentiments. Look at Stine -- she's knowledgeable and faithful. Your statement is most likely poorly received.
(You should care only so far as to the degree in which you feel your message is received. I don't care if you give a damn whether you disagree with the personal sentiments.)


If you wish to assail the church as the business, as the organization, then point out that you disagree with the politics behind the church. I think overall some individuals get a good message from religion -- "Golden rule style" messages. I'd rather be highly accepting of these people, than to piss on them just the same as I'd piss on anyone I could group under the name of one religion.

My argument is not wholly sound, but I think it has merit. More emphasis should be placed on the fault points instead of application to the entire mass <-- lolPun.
 
Last edited:
Arctyrael said:
I see your point. I do. I think I've been unerringly clear that I am all but atheist -- agnostic tendencies through and through. My problem is your use of a stereotype in favor of a generalization. I could be arguing semantics. You will have to decide.

This is my point though:
The one thing that continues to polarize all debates is a lack of consideration which I consider necessary to a tactfully placed argument.

When I read "religion/church" -- I see business much like you Trippy. I differ from you, and presumably Halifirien? in that I see it as wrong to dictate my perspective, "my opinion is shared by all." Religion can be viewed as a very personal experience to an individual.

These two perspectives are mutually exclusive. I'll clarify.

Religious Organization: The outward public interests of the church. "The business"
Religious Sentiment: The personal bonds to a religion of an individual. "The personal relationship"

Unless you specify what you mean and consider the personal attachments, you won't make any points to the people you're trying to reach. At best, they'll ignore you -- at worst you'll entrench their opinions.

If you disagree with the organization, then argue against the external forces the organization represents. If you disagree with the Sentiment, then tactless assails will make things worse.

And finally, to bring it all the way back to the beginning -- I don't think all religious people harbor harmful sentiments. Look at Stine -- she's knowledgeable and faithful. Your statement is most likely poorly received.
(You should care only so far as to the degree in which you feel your message is received. I don't care if you give a damn whether you disagree with the personal sentiments.)


If you wish to assail the church as the business, as the organization, then point out that you disagree with the politics behind the church. I think overall some individuals get a good message from religion -- "Golden rule style" messages. I'd rather be highly accepting of these people, than to piss on them just the same as I'd piss on anyone I could group under the name of one religion.

My argument is not wholly sound, but I think it has merit. More emphasis should be placed on the fault points instead of application to the entire mass <-- lolPun.
Click to expand...

And I see your point. I agree with you, too. Though I know the error is mine, I continue, tactless as I may be, because I got tired of showing up to a gun fight with flowers.

I have decided it is pointless to try and reason with the unreasonable, however I still find it entertaining to watch them squirm at the sound of my words. I'm a bad guy, I know. But I think I really just don't care anymore.
 
Trippyhippy said:
I have decided it is pointless to try and reason with the unreasonable, however I still find it entertaining to watch them squirm at the sound of my words. I'm a bad guy, I know. But I think I really just don't care anymore.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, nobody squirms at those words. They do exactly what Arctyrael said they do - either they ignore you wholly, or you entrench their (often hostile) beliefs.

Hardly anything said by any member of QCDN makes me uncomfortable; but that's just me speaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top