Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Proteus_MST]

Income taxes are taxes on profit. Churches don't make profits.

...

This is the interesting question with regards to the catholic church ... what happens with all the money they receive.
After all, the catholic church also has its own state, who owns banks and other things

So how much of the earned money of the bishoprics goes into financing that state?

[Giancarlo]

Then you have no issues with "things being forced down your throat" because they are laws.



Nothing, but I have a beef with the argument that marriage is a secular institution.



My two best friends are atheists and all of them had ceremonies, just didn't have a priest officiating.

You are totally lying once again. Marriage is definitely a secular institution and I don't care what you have a beef with. You have a beef with a lot of things... nobody gives a **** really.

You are forcing your religion down the throats of others and forcing us to pay for religion (I absolutely agree with that point).

And I don't care about your bestfriends. I hate that stupid line of argument... "well my friends are..." nobody gives a ****!

[Giancarlo]

You really think Melissa is the only example of this, when earlier in the thread you thought I was referring to the Colorado baker?

There has also been a 135k fine (funny that number keeps coming up) against a Washington florist.

Given that this isn't an isolated incident, and that all three of them have one element in common, logic would suggest that the actual issue is the refusal to bake a cake for the homosexual wedding. All three plaintiffs are Christian, and all three plaintiffs are opposed to homosexual marriage.

The fine was related to their conduct in exposing private information that led to death threats against the same sex couples.

The fine had nothing to do with them being Christian. The fine had everything to do with the fact that they have to FOLLOW THE LAW. IF they posted a sign saying "whites only", the same thing applies and they would face heavy penalties. And baking a cake isn't endorsing a marriage. It's baking a cake. I wonder how many cakes the bakers made for atheist couples. Probably a couple.

[Giancarlo]

Yes, and that is part of the reason why non-profits are not taxed (on things other than income). If non-profits were taxed, the government would have a huge advantage over private for providing most every service. People prefer many things to be private (churches definitely, hospitals and schools and museums and so on often too) and so do not prefer that the government be given a huge advantage.

JM
(Yes I know that many europeans have government churches, I note that I don't prefer that and I think that many europeans do not either. And obviously those government churches get a huge advantage due to being a government church.)

People prefer things to be private? Yeah those who have millions. Private hospitals are arguably sometimes worse than public hospitals, but charge an arm and leg for the same service. Private schools are often brainwashing camps that offer inferior education (look at Ben for proof of that one). And private museums? Look up the Getty Center and stolen art work.

Churches should definitely be taxed, especially those conservative churches that try to push public policy and get their members to vote for a certain candidate. Isn't that illegal? Well, they do it all the time.

[Ming]

You really think Melissa is the only example of this, when earlier in the thread you thought I was referring to the Colorado baker?

The Colorado baker wasn't fined 135K

There has also been a 135k fine (funny that number keeps coming up) against a Washington florist.

BK lies yet again...

Washington: Florist Fined for Refusing Service
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSMARCH 27, 2015

A florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding has been fined $1,000. The ruling Friday by Judge Alexander Ekstrom of Benton County gives Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, 60 days to come up with the money. The shop refused to serve Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed when they sought to buy wedding flowers in 2013. The judge’s ruling also requires that everything Arlene’s Flowers sells to straight couples has to be available at the same price to same-sex couples. The judge had found in February that the refusal violated Washington’s anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. Ms. Stutzman said the marriage went against her beliefs as a Southern Baptist.

Given that this isn't an isolated incident, and that all three of them have one element in common, logic would suggest that the actual issue is the refusal to bake a cake for the homosexual wedding. All three plaintiffs are Christian, and all three plaintiffs are opposed to homosexual marriage.

Yep... all three broke the law and discriminated against gays, and got arrested and convicted of breaking the law. One was fined $1,000 (and not 130+ as you claim) and the one that was fined heavily was fined for being vicious by posting the gay couples personal information on line so that they could be harassed... and NOT for their refusal to bake a cake.

So try again, and stop lying about some supposed $135K fine for not breaking a cake or supplying flowers.

[Dauphin]

The Colorado baker wasn't fined 135K



BK lies yet again...




Yep... all three broke the law and discriminated against gays, and got arrested and convicted of breaking the law. One was fined $1,000 (and not 130+ as you claim) and the one that was fined heavily was fined for being vicious by posting the gay couples personal information on line so that they could be harassed... and NOT for their refusal to bake a cake.

So try again, and stop lying about some supposed $135K fine for not breaking a cake or supplying flowers.

I have to be on BK's side here (on the narrow point of the basis of the $135k award). The order (see p108 and 109 of the link) clearly states the award had nothing to do with media attention associated with the case.

http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/Sweetcakes%20signed%20PO.pdf

Where does the idea that it does come from?

[Berzerker]

Which came first, The garden the serpent?

The Serpent... "Let us make man in our image". Which came first, the Serpent or man's fall from grace (human society)?

Human society came from God.

No... There was only one tree in the Garden capable of producing human society and God told Adam to avoid it. God prohibited partaking of the tree... It was the Serpent who was responsible for Adam and Eve obtaining the knowledge of good and evil.

No I don't.

You said human society is morally superior to nature - human society came from the tree and the Serpent

God creates nature, the Serpent creates human society - and you think the Serpent's creation is morally superior to God's.

[Berzerker]

Income taxes are taxes on profit. Churches don't make profits.

I didn't mention income taxes or profits

It was decided that most non-profits shouldn't pay property tax, by similar reasoning. All of those that argue that churches should pay taxes are arguing that churches are a special class that should pay taxes when other institutions that are similar in every way (or worse in the areas that people are complaining about here) but that are not 'religious' do not pay taxes.

Non-profits that acquire billions in "profit" should pay property taxes... Its outrageous poor people pay more in taxes so these uber-wealthy organizations pay less

Private that provides a public service. Just like museums and hospitals and schools so on (that are often private too).

Private schools shouldn't pay taxes either?

[Dauphin]

Which is outright dumb. Why bother?

I was mocking your notion that the government organizations should be taxed (or at least churches not be treated differently). Glad to see you think your own idea is outright dumb.

[Berzerker]

Who is being forced to pay for religion?

Everybody who pays taxes

This is actually an excellent question. In the united states, it would be the constitution - which provides for national defense. In other countries they also have provisions, so I would argue that no nation state can be maintained without some military presence for national defense. Ergo - that means that funds for national defense are a legitimate state expense.

You said forcing people to pay for abortion was wrong but its legitimate to force people to pay hired guns to kill others. Does that include pregnant women?

That wouldn't change the fact that they are forcing people to participate in the murder of children.

You said the needs of the state make killing people legitimate

We've been here before. Cutting people's taxes is not a subsidy.

You just quoted the definition: "A subsidy is a benefit usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction."

And we're not talking about cutting people's taxes, we're talking about raising taxes on people to eliminate taxes on your Church

This principle is false. Why not tax 100 percent?

How do you exempt a bunch of people from a tax without taxing someone else to cover the lost revenue? You'll have to explain your question, I dont see how its related to what I said.

There is a considerable difference. In cutting taxes, people keep their own money in their pocket. In direct funds you are taking other people's money and redistributing it (after taking a 50 percent cut, natch).

Subsidies dont have to be direct and you are taking peoples money and redistributing it to religion

We do.

Then you dont need my taxes

Why is the state dipping it's fingers in the tithe? We all know why.

You want a state that taxes Peter to pay Paul and now you're complaining about it? You didn't answer my question again.

Some sure, again the principle behind it is that the money should not be taxed so that more can be given. Personally I disagree with claiming charity.

Forcing people to support religion is a principle?

Sure. Solyndra was 535 million dollars.

Yes I know, subsidies for your Church but not that green religion

[kentonio]

Our school had a choice. We chose to go fully private. As a result, we got better students and have more freedom. It wasn't the Church that put this in place, but LBJ. There's a reason LBJ did that because he didn't want the churches preaching against him from the pulpit.

Be careful what you wish for?

You overstate how much anyone cares. if your school went private and pays tax then excellent, that's exactly how it should work. If the Catholic church want to show prejudice against citizens of certain sexual persuation or religious belief (or lack of it) however, they should also have to pay taxes like everyone else. Otherwise its just wanting to have your cake and eat it.

[kentonio]

Everyone can go in and take the services. Just like a University or Hospital or Museum.

If all they offer is a belief service for a small percentage of the population, then that isn't charity. I don't notice many public universities or hospital or museums only allowing people in if they agree to worship a certain belief system.

If you don't want to receive services, you can't be forced to take them. If their services isn't the sort you are interested, the same is true for many schools, universities, hospitals, museums, etc.

Everyone else shouldn't be forced to pay for them, when they're designed only for a few and provide no general public service. No, its not the same as schools, universities, hospitals and museums.

[Jon Miller]

If all they offer is a belief service for a small percentage of the population, then that isn't charity. I don't notice many public universities or hospital or museums only allowing people in if they agree to worship a certain belief system.

They do only allow people in who want to be there. The same for churches. Neither forces people to come in and receive of the services offered. Which is a good thing.

Everyone else shouldn't be forced to pay for them, when they're designed only for a few and provide no general public service. No, its not the same as schools, universities, hospitals and museums.

Far more people attend church than visit museums/etc. Even in England.

And on a given year, it is likely that there are more people in church than in university in the US.

But that, and your own valuation of it, shouldn't be the determination if a public service is being provided or not.

You would have some idiots from the US shut down every museum, most universities and so on.

You are the same, just from the other side.

Get some perspective.

And once more, we don't tax any non profits in the US because there is no profit and they are producing a service and so we give them a pass on the property tax too. To treat religion otherwise would be to say that religion is a special class that should be discriminated against. The definition of intolerance and religious discrimination. I understand that you europeans have state churches and that should end (I think), but we were talking about the US here, where the issue is tax.

JM

[kentonio]

They do only allow people in who want to be there. The same for churches. Neither forces people to come in and receive of the services offered. Which is a good thing.

Sure, they only allow people who want to get an education (oh no wait, actually they have to be there), or want to not die from the car that just hit them, or want access to cultural items that help educate and enrich the lives of all people regardless of race, gender, religion or sexuality.

But yes, other than being completely different in almost every conceivable way, they are clearly exactly the same..

Far more people attend church than visit museums/etc. Even in England.

By less of a margin than you probably think. We have tens of millions of people a year visiting UK museums, while church attendence dropped below 1m a week a while back. Then again the numbers are pretty much irrelevant unless they are 100% of the population. Why should athiests pay for you to have a church?

And on a given year, it is likely that there are more people in church than in university in the US.

But that, and your own valuation of it, shouldn't be the determination if a public service is being provided or not.

You would have some idiots from the US shut down every museum, most universities and so on.

You are the same, just from the other side.

Get some perspective.

Bull****, you're basically exactly the same whenever Christianity comes up, you jump on your little victim box and start whining about how nasty other people are for not wanting to pay for your freetime activities. If churches matter so much to you, why don't you Christians pay for them instead of expecting everyone else to?

And once more, we don't tax any non profits in the US because there is no profit and they are producing a service and so we give them a pass on the property tax too. To treat religion otherwise would be to say that religion is a special class that should be discriminated against. The definition of intolerance and religious discrimination. I understand that you europeans have state churches and that should end (I think), but we were talking about the US here, where the issue is tax.

JM

Utterly pathetic, you try and associate your cult with organizations that genuinely try to help people, and then insist that anyone who disagrees is a bigot. If a religion isn't paying taxes then thats a shortfall that other people have to make up. They are directly paying for you to have a building to talk to yourself in. What's especially rich (literally) is the heads of these churches who live lives of opulent luxury while claiming there is no profit involved. Because obviously Jesus wouldn't want them to go without a golden throne and a private jet.

[Giancarlo]

Church attendance has been declining in the US too. In some cases, sharply.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/

I still don't see why my tax dollars need to pay for churches (or to make up for the lack of revenue in that regard).

Sorry JM but you are indeed totally wrong.