Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 18:56:37 GMT 10
Atheists have the best values. They don't believe in fairytales. Yes they do - they believe frogs turn into Princes not with a wand but x trillion advantageous genetic accidental mutations. They also believe that the same type of undirected processes turn amoebas into walking talking debating bipeds.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 5, 2012 19:18:00 GMT 10
Atheists have the best values. They don't believe in fairytales. Yes they do - they believe frogs turn into Princes not with a wand but x trillion advantageous genetic accidental mutations. They also believe that the same type of undirected processes turn amoebas into walking talking debating bipeds. So you're trying to turn the "fairytale" metaphor back against slarti ... how? By portraying the Darwinist principles of natural selection as a "fairytale"? Newsflash skippy, even the mainstream Christian churches - as distinct from your fundy biblical literalist outfits with their old testament sky god-who-smites - now acknowledge that Charles Darwin might have had a point and that perhaps their original response to Darwin needs a spot of re-evaluation. I don't think the Book of genesis is a fairytale and neither do I regard God as an "imaginary friend". These are paleo-atheist attitudes and I don't share them. But then neither does that mean that I endorse your fundy paleo-Christian outlooks either.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 11, 2012 8:55:48 GMT 10
But as for the question of churches endorsing or expressing a view on electoral politics ... sure! Why not? It is a free country after all. Cast your mind back to the election campaign of 2008 in which Obama thrashed the Republicans to win the Presidency. Remember that black pastor who said "God damn America!" and the blowback on Obama over that? I remember people at the time said that the guy was unpatriotic and pointed to the fact that Obama had been a member of his congregation. But nobody said at the time that he had no right, as a pastor, to express a political opinion. And I doubt very much that KTJ would have called HIM irrelevant ... I've had to revise my opinion in light of an article I read about Michele Bachmann being presented before the elections by a pastor to a Lutheran congregation as a political candidate in her home state of Minnesota atheism.about.com/b/2006/10/30/michele-bachmann-fool-for-christ-god-told-me-to-run-for-congress.htm . The point here is not so much Bachmann's wacky Tea Party drivel that she spruiked to the congregation about how God visited her and told her it was his divine will that she run for Congress, and that she fasted for three days between visitations. You can have a laugh at that sort of stuff. I'm sure Jon Stewart would have loved it and Steve Colbert would have lampooned her savagely and gleefully. What a shame we don't get to watch them here or even to download them on our computers. The point is the introduction by the pastor as he prersented her to the congregation: I have somebody special I want to introduce you to tonight. State Senator Michele Bachmann is with us and I’m going to ask her to come in in just a moment, and of course many of you know Michele, know of her pursuit of the United States Senate seat vacated by Mark Kennedy or Congressional seat vacated by Mark Kennedy’s run for a United States Senate seat. Keeping all this straight gets to be challenging. But ya know we can’t publicly endorse as a church and would not for any candidate but I can tell you personally that I’m going to vote for Michele Bachmann, because I’ve come to know her, what she stands for, and I want her to share her testimony with you tonight. Would you give her a warm welcome as she comes to share? Thank you Michele. Huh??? WTF??? On the one hand he says Ya [sic] know we can't publicly endorse as a churchWhy is that? It's because under the law as it stands in the US the tax-free status of a church is conditional on them not endorsing any candidate or political party. So this is where the on-the-other-hand part becomes interesting because in the same breath the pastor tells the congregation: I can tell you personally that I’m going to vote for Michele Bachmann, because I’ve come to know her, what she stands for, and I want her to share her testimony with you tonight.If this were Australia (and I think Australian churches have tax-free status too - Fat??) I would imagine the ATO would be all over that statement. And certainly the American IRS should be all over it. I know the thread question is about churches endorsing presidential candidates and Bachmann wasn't a presidential candidate. She ran for Congress and was re-elected. But it's an interesting legal point. In Australia somebody would be making these sorts of points about a political candidate who used churches in this way. Certainly it would come before the ATO and if the ATO made a determination (which survived the inevitable case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) that the tax laws had been breached by the church, it would probably end up before the Court of Disputed Returns with the plaintiffs arguing that her election be declared invalid. The Bachmann case certainly sheds a new light on the thread question and the crunch point is the tax-free status of churches on condition that they refrain from endorsing political candidates or political parties.
|
|
|
Post by fat on Nov 11, 2012 12:37:08 GMT 10
and I think Australian churches have tax-free status too - Fat??
Yes and no. As a not-for-profit charity they do but not as a business.
I am not totally involved with finances but here is an example.
A church usually doesn't have to pay council rates but many make an ex-gratia payment because they feel they should. Due to a lack of income many churches are now without a minister and so the manse is often let. As soon as this happens it becomes a commercial premises even if all income is directed to be given to charity work and so Council rates are due and are paid. Should a minister return and reside there then rates are again waived.
Churches have a Tax free status not because of their churchiness but because of their charity work. Government could not afford to make up the shortfall if all churches stopped community work even if they taxed all church profits because the church workforce is in the main a huge number of unpaid volunteers.
Paid church workers (like ministers) are taxed at the normal rate in case you are wondering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2012 13:19:56 GMT 10
Pim
Your ability to lie and distort other peoples' position is simply staggering. You truly are king of the the strawman fallacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2012 20:16:49 GMT 10
Pim Your ability to lie and distort other peoples' position is simply staggering. You truly are king of the the strawman fallacy. Jeeeezus H Faaaaarking Christ.....talk about the Pot calling the Kettle BLACK!
|
|