Christofacists at it again

IHateGovernment said:
Of course I beleive what a person does can affect others. But how a church or marriage is structured, so long as it isn't hateful or abusive, does no harm to you or anyone else.

This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. The very fact that LadyT is posting it here makes me suspicious of her intentions. Perhaps she believes the government should force their notion of "equality" on churches.

Brent I know from what you have said specifically that your view on the roles of men and women go outside just church hierarchy and you apply biblical teaching as far as that goes universally. I will say that at least you are consistent in that respect.
Click to expand...

True enough. I do believe, for example, the government should encourage (but not force) mothers to stay at home and raise children, and even provide incentives if necessary.

How you feel about these things and the reasoning behind them do affect everyone and the idea that women are not qualified to be leaders is a bad idea for society as a whole.
Click to expand...

So what is your solution to the so-called "problem"?

Force them to stop? Shut down their churches?
 
IHateGovernment said:
My suggestion, then, is to abstain from giving birth until science allows men to carry the infant for 4 1/2 months (half) of the term.

How does the fact that women are responsible for giving birth give cause for calling for gender social stratification in areas other than child rearing.
Click to expand...

I don't see a question mark, so I'll have to assume you're making a statement, not asking a question.
 
So what is your solution to the so-called "problem"?

Force them to stop? Shut down their churches?

Nope use our voice of persuasion to try to convince them they are wrong and to at least not aid them in the pursuit of such a wrong headed thing. I certainly would not make a donation to such a church.

Even if such an act only merited a wag of the finger it bears mentioning.
 
LadyT said:
There would be NO FORCING of any kind in such an example, merely the revoking of a priveledge, I very hefty priveledge I might add. The church could still do what it wants.
Click to expand...

It is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate churches into following your twisted feminist ideals. It is social engineering of religious institutions, and I find it immoral and disgusting. Stop lying and speak freely -- you're not fooling anyone.
 
I don't see a question mark, so I'll have to assume you're making a statement, not asking a question.

I am asking a question. What is your opinion on this?
 
Brent said:
It is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate churches into following your twisted feminist ideals. It is social engineering of religious institutions, and I find it immoral and disgusting. Stop lying and speak freely -- you're not fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


MY twisted ideals? yes, its just insane and morally disgusting to think that a woman would be capable of teaching someone about Christ and the bible beyond the age of 4. That's just soooooooooo disgusting. /sarcasm off

And lets be clear: I've never advocated shutting down any church whatsoever. Being tax exempt isn't a right, its a priveledge the public affords certain organizations. If said organization's morals are such that they create an underclass of female citizens, why should that organizaiton still have the right to such a priveledge? I don't think they should.
 
LadyT said:
MY twisted ideals? yes, its just insane and morally disgusting to think that a woman would be capable of teaching someone about Christ and the bible beyond the age of 4. That's just soooooooooo disgusting. /sarcasm off

And lets be clear: I've never advocated shutting down any church whatsoever. Being tax exempt isn't a right, its a priveledge the public affords certain organizations. If said organization's morals are such that they create an underclass of female citizens, why should that organizaiton still have the right to such a priveledge? I don't think they should.
Click to expand...
fyi
they don't get a tax write off because they are a church tiana, they get a tax write off because they are a nonprofit or not for profit organization and not a business for profit.

the word church is not writen anywhere in the tax law affecting them...is my understanding of it?
 
IHateGovernment said:
I don't see a question mark, so I'll have to assume you're making a statement, not asking a question.

I am asking a question. What is your opinion on this?
Click to expand...

I am saying, since you oppose separate roles, that pregnancy should be avoided until men can assist in carrying the child to term. This would be the feminist thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Care4all said:
fyi
they don't get a tax write off because they are a church tiana, they get a tax write off because they are a nonprofit or not for profit organization and not a business for profit.

the word church is not writen anywhere in the tax law affecting them...is my understanding of it?
Click to expand...

Good point, Care. I think you're correct. My church files as a non-profit organization, not as a "church." There is no category for "church" as far as I know.
 
Brent said:
I am saying, since you oppose separate roles, that pregnancy should be avoided until men can assist in carrying the child to term. This would be the feminist thing to do. (Oh, nevermind...feminists don't have babies anyway -- they just kill them)
Click to expand...

you are being an asshole....fyi.
 
I am saying, since you oppose separate roles, that pregnancy should be avoided until men can assist in carrying the child to term. This would be the feminist thing to do.

I didn't say I oppose separate roles. I oppose mandated separate roles. If a woman chooses such a lifestyle I am all for it. But people have to be able to make that choice. With choice comes great responsibility but that is the price we pay. It would be naive to say the feminist movement didn't come without some detrimental side effects but ultimately people must have a choice about the role they wish to play in our society. No one has the right to map out your life for you.

Women obviously can choose whether to have children or not (even outside of the abortion issue) so they can choose whether to be a mother or not. A father doesn't have the ability to be mother. This doesn't mean he is not socially equal to the woman anymore than a dwarf is not socially equal because they cannot slam dunk a basketball. Inability to bear children is a physical limitation. It is the primary physical difference between men and women. Outside of that their is a vast variety between men and women.
 
Brent said:
I am saying, since you oppose separate roles, that pregnancy should be avoided until men can assist in carrying the child to term. This would be the feminist thing to do.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. All you've done is to demonstrate that you know nothing about feminism.

Pregnancy is not a "role" of the sort under discussion. It's a biological function. How one raises children is a role, or it involves several roles, rather. In fact, a large part of what feminism is all about is the disentangling of roles from biology.
 
Good point, Care. I think you're correct. My church files as a non-profit organization, not as a "church." There is no category for "church" as far as I know.

Such a thing is illegal anyway it would violate the establishment cause. You can't make laws talking about churches.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Good point, Care. I think you're correct. My church files as a non-profit organization, not as a "church." There is no category for "church" as far as I know.

Such a thing is illegal anyway it would violate the establishment cause. You can't make laws talking about churches.
Click to expand...

So when James Madison signed a law which waived duties on the import of Bibles, specifically for the Philadelphia Bible Society, was he violating the establishment clause of the Constitution?

What about the chaplain who was paid from treasury funds and held services in the capitol building, again under James Madison, Father of the Constitution?
 
Ornot is correct that pregnancy is not a role. Pregnancy does not automatically pertain to certain activities. In fact in today's society pregnant women's activity may not differ greatly from their activity when they are not pregnant. It also does not presuppose any activity after the pregnancy is over.
 
Care4all said:
fyi
they don't get a tax write off because they are a church tiana, they get a tax write off because they are a nonprofit or not for profit organization and not a business for profit.

the word church is not writen anywhere in the tax law affecting them...is my understanding of it?
Click to expand...

I don't see how that has any relevance to the point at hand. I would move to apply the same rules to other non-profits as well. While churches aren't specifically mentioned in the IRC code as mentioned in this pamphlet, but they do recognize that certain non-profits are churches.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

What I did find interesting was this little tid bit of the IRC Section 501c3 which states that,

"the organization's purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy"

I'd think firing someone after 54 years for being a woman qualifies as gender discrimination.
 
So when James Madison signed a law which waived duties on the import of Bibles, specifically for the Philadelphia Bible Society, was he violating the establishment clause of the Constitution?

What about the chaplain who was paid from treasury funds and held services in the capitol building, again under James Madison, Father of the Constitution?

If we take a strict constructionist view of the constitution then yes. However strict constructionism isn't always black or white because the interpretation of words changes over time. It is currently recognized that the establishment clause prevents any law addressing that which is established by religion. This would include churches, bibles and chaplains.

Also the founders sometimes failed to follow their own constitution. The sedition act is a good example. Also despite what you may think Madison signing of the law does not automatically mean he constitutionally agreed with it since we have no writings of his pertaining to that bill like we do with the public works projects veto.
 
'd think firing someone after 54 years for being a woman qualifies as gender discrimination.

I think gender discrimination is only illegal with schools and businesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top