Burn-E Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 An economist would say you're wrong on that last point Mike. Would you cut tax deductions for all donations to any tax exempt non profit organization? Because that's the fair question here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 We're talking about 501c3 organizations: The exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 ""Separation of church and state""" is ok when it works for only approved churc/religions? Church's do plenty of great things, no argument. I'm very pleased how anybody can get food stuffs from the bishops pantry. Not sure if my church hands out to just anybody. The simple point is Seperation. So I have people infusing their religious beliefs in my laws/policy I have my tax money supporting churches People are getting tax credits for donating I'd rather get a lower tax rate and donate more if I want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Hhhmmm. I might need to start busting churches balls big time For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. ------------------ Hey chuck. I found a way to pay no taxes CHURCH OF VOLVOSPEED Churches Need Not Apply In order to be considered for tax-exempt status by the IRS an organization must fill out and submit IRS Form 1023 and 1024. However, note what the IRS says regarding churches and church ministries, in Publication 557: Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include: Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a men’s or women’s organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group. These organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501©(3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Actually churches can lobby on issues so long as it is not a substantial part of their activity, they just can't do so on behalf of candidates. "Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status." You still haven't answered my question Mike. Is it just churches you're after or all 501( c)3 organizations. If you just attack the churches then you're being discriminatory. And arguably unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 It certainly isn't. You have to do a heck of a lot of picking and choosing in "holy books" to get to something approaching a moral yard stick. Not to mention everybody's interpretation tends to differ. Basic morality is something all of us (minus a few psychopaths) have, and the rules of morality are anything but static unlike religion. With zero laws or consequences, most people would run a muck don't kid yourself. Id eat my neighbors for lunch and make a coat out of Longbeach if I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) Funny, but the morality on which this country was based comes directly from a sense of general Christianity that provide a moral guide to every citizen. You read this directly in the writings of the Federalist Papers where the call out is that a moral guide exists and it is inculcated through a faithful attitude. You could get the exact same result without Christianity or any religion for that matter. There is no evidence that supports the conclusion that you need religion as a moral compass. There is certainly no evidence that the religious are more "moral" by current standards either. If it were true, countries filled to the brim with atheists would be running amok raping and pillaging. The opposite is true, you don't want to compare stats there really. Not to mention there are quite a few countries with entirely different (or no) religious roots that ended up with exactly the same kind of law and order you have. It's breathtakingly simple, the basis of morality is: don't do onto others what you don't want being done to yourself. No spirits in the sky required. It makes evolutionary sense, and its origins are supported by the fact that our "morality" is pretty much limited to our own group. It suffices for another person or group to be branded as an enemy for most of our morals to go out the window. We care less and less about the well-being of life forms the further they are away from ourselves. Friends and family first, ethnic group first, country first, species first...etc. It's a descending ladder of caring. You can go over the 10 commandments and those who are not useless (all those overlapping ones about God's apparent insecurity) are entirely common sense. Nobody thought stealing, murdering or raping your brother's mate was all right pre-christianity, I'm happy to report. They should be taught in homes Totally, but religion is optional here. You can teach kids to be moral perfectly well without involving any threat of punishment in an after-life. In fact kids figure out pretty quickly on their own what they are supposed to do and what not. Your reading on this Jan tries to post reactively extract that reality from the truth that history defines. Nonsense, you have to arbitrarily cut history short if you want to claim that morality comes from religion. Stealing and murdering was bad way before they came up with the 10 commandments story. Heck you can even observe individuals being punished for misbehaving in the group in the animal world, well beyond the apes. (solitary animals are sort the opposite, of course, makes sense) Like I said before, America is inherently different from the Netherlands and most of Europe specifically because we don't see that issue the same way you do. Religion came first. These philosophical principles you call modernity are simply dark shadows on a cave wall built as interpretations of Man lacking enlightenment and trying to figure things out for himself. BS. Your reality is based on how you'd like it to be rather than how it actually is, precisely as outlined in that article I linked to. You actually provided good evidence in this threat to support this as well, post #485. When something isn't looking the way you'd like...you assume it's wrong. And vice versa. Your assertion that religion came first is unsupported. With zero laws or consequences, most people would run a muck don't kid yourself. Id eat my neighbors for lunch and make a coat out of Longbeach if I could. The consequences being imprisoned or fried on an electric chair, not the threat of divine punishment after you're dead. In fact you wouldn't need a legal system if the ethics from religion is all it takes. Your jails are full of Christians (and empty of atheists) anyway, how does that work? Edited November 10, 2012 by JCviggen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 You still haven't answered my question Mike. Is it just churches you're after or all 501( c)3 organizations. I'll kind of answer it this way: If you are walking through the woods and get bit by a long animal with scales. Are you mad at the head? The body? The poison? Yourself? Churches are fine, keep your mind clear, and check your religion at the door. You were elected by the people, to represent the people. Not mix your personal beliefs into policy. It's obvious by the kooks who said crazy stuff recently. They were all voted out. I don't believe their constuates knew how extreme they were and wanted to write policy around it. Look at the 35 policy's floated by akin/Ryan So no. I'm not after churches, we still attend, my kids are in CCD. My youngest is about to go for first communion this year. Keep it out policy and my bedroom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 The consequences being imprisoned or fried on an electric chair, not the threat of divine punishment after you're dead. In fact you wouldn't need a legal system if the ethics from religion is all it takes. Your jails are full of Christians (and empty of atheists) anyway, how does that work? But the laws are based on religion, or ethics, or what you refer to as morals. As I said, religion is probably a poor choice of words by the party. If you substitute the worth with religion with ethics in all of their speeches they would probably be palatable to more people. As for why I don't run a muck, it has nothing to do with anything as pre-conventional as religion or laws but I know I am an outlier in this equation. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) But the laws are based on religion, or ethics, or what you refer to as morals. Oh I agree, I merely object to religion claiming to be the source of morality. Religion basically took "unwritten rules" that were already in place (they're hard wired in most people) repeated them and added a few that only apply to the religion itself. I guess you'd have to describe religion as a delivery method, a popular one at that but not the only one. In any case, worldly laws change (frequently) even though religious texts are static. So there's an obvious disconnect. Edited November 10, 2012 by JCviggen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 I'm going to predict we have a statement by the news media tonight where they misproject a particular set of States and this election resolves differently. This will be be closer to 2000 than they want to admit. BS. Your reality is based on how you'd like it to be rather than how it actually is, precisely as outlined in that article I linked to. You actually provided good evidence in this threat to support this as well, post #485. When something isn't looking the way you'd like...you assume it's wrong. And vice versa. Your assertion that religion came first is unsupported. I made a prediction based on the polls that was a read on the quality of the statistical analyses being performed and considering whether they had fully considered all variables. There was nothing about religion involved in that statement. Not sure where you're going with that point but conflating it to a religious belief is a flawed reading of what I've written. People are fallible, we all make mistakes, especially when trying to model complex behaviors and attitudes mathematically. It turns out the polls were right and I was wrong. That happens some times. Nonsense, you have to arbitrarily cut history short if you want to claim that morality comes from religion. Stealing and murdering was bad way before they came up with the 10 commandments story. Heck you can even observe individuals being punished for misbehaving in the group in the animal world, well beyond the apes. (solitary animals are sort the opposite, of course, makes sense) Jan, I don't expect you to agree with me and I'm hardly concerned that you don't. I've entertained this particular conversation a thousand times over in the streets, cafes, schools, and homes of countless acquaintances in France and Belgium. I know almost exactly where you stand. You see religion as a crutch that man created to answer scary questions, give order to the world, and assert control over others. Frankly, given the behavior of many religious leaders historically and the impact it had on the European continent I'm not surprised you would see it that way. I know God came first and all laws and the diverse world faiths evolved from those He first gave to man. You may believe that is a delusional perspective but like I said, I don't expect you to find that argument persuasive. Absolute truth exists and it is up to man to recognize it or deny it. But my point on why Americans and Europeans see things differently is accurate and historically correct. How extensively have you studied US history, especially at the time of the colonial founding in the 17th and 18th centuries? How deeply have you read the original pamphlets and journals of the founders of the colonies and later the various activists / rebels who spread the message of a free United States? Or the writings of those who created and advocated for this government? Throughout their writing it is hard to miss a very clear trend recognizing that morality has its basis in the culture that is inculcated through faith. This sense of "general Christianity" as many scholars have described it is the foundation on which those who advocated for the Constitution recognized the Republic would function. How many of the settlers in the various colonies came and established communities specifically to escape religious persecution in England and Europe? So to say that our laws and our American approach to democracy is anything but based on religious beliefs is to not just cut history short but completely obliterate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 I made a prediction based on the polls that was a read on the quality of the statistical analyses being performed and considering whether they had fully considered all variables. There was nothing about religion involved in that statement. Not sure where you're going with that point but conflating it to a religious belief is a flawed reading of what I've written. People are fallible, we all make mistakes, especially when trying to model complex behaviors and attitudes mathematically. It turns out the polls were right and I was wrong. That happens some You must have been using the same ones as Rove Old Nate nailed this one also I don't believe he is getting his do on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Considering I've been reading Nate since 2008 I'm not surprised that he got it right. But if you've listened to his interviews and read him for as long as I have you can find reasons to believe he might have been wrong. I bet against Nate because I thought there were other variables in play that the polls weren't catching. I was looking at it VERY differently from Rove - he was delusional. Even Nate admitted in his post election interviews that he was REALLY nervous about this election and the results and barely slept the night before. He was ready to hang up his spurs and call it a day for election forecasting if this went wrong on him. And trust me, the people who matter are paying attention to what Nate Silver accomplished this time around. It doesn't matter what the general public thinks. It matters what the insider players perceive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Yeah He is fairly reliant on local polling by others ( and his own) so his ""massaging"" could be off before he even gets it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted November 12, 2012 Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 Well, I voted for Hank in the senate, if you all must know. Now you know where my loyalties lie right meow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts