Support Obama? No communion for you.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel3
  • Start date Start date
Ice Dancer said:
Oh, I see, I need to produce documentation about "security" but you on the other hand say they are "often a drain on resources" without documentation. Having been a real estate agent for a brief period of time I happen to KNOW that having a church in a neighborhood was seen as an asset, at least from a buyers perspective, urban areas may be different, but then in urban areas churches are often used during the week as soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless. You wish to bang a drum based on your own experience of ski trips and bus purchases to prove how corrupt churches are? They receive tax exempt status as a non profit organization because the majority of their resources are used to help others. Again, I have no problem with any organization that is breaking rules to be audited. What you seem to be saying is that they should not have any because they are a cost to society. You have not proven any cost that cannot be outweighed by a benefit they also provide. The problem seems to be that the benefit is just not one you personally find worthy.
Click to expand...
Nobody needs documentation to understand that when called the cops will show up to their location. This is disingenuous. Deliberately so.

You stated it was "proven" that they "supply security". Show me the proof or just simply state you are yakking away and pulling statements out of your behind. I even showed how spurious the comments were. Show me gang violence, and I'll bet I can find a church less than half a mile a way, if not within blocks.

Show me how it has been "proven", one study of a place without churches comparing to a place with churches... Well, in the US you aren't going to find a place without churches. Even in the sticks we can't hardly throw a rock without hitting a church.

And again, this misses the crux of my argument deliberately.

Your specific religion is one of the "endorsed", or you wouldn't be making this argument.
 
Damocles said:
Nobody needs documentation to understand that when called the cops will show up to their location. This is disingenuous. Deliberately so.

You stated it was "proven" that they "supply security". Show me the proof or just simply state you are yakking away and pulling statements out of your behind. I even showed how spurious the comments were. Show me gang violence, and I'll bet I can find a church less than half a mile a way, if not within blocks.

Show me how it has been "proven".

And again, this misses the crux of my argument deliberately.

Your specific religion is one of the "endorsed", or you wouldn't be making this argument.
Click to expand...

I see, so it is that you like to demand proof, but are unwilling to offer any yourself? Certainly there must be some stats you can pull off the web to show the cost of such an enormous burden that you claim exists to local law enforcement? In just a simple google I was able to find a link enumerates benefits. It was a study done specific to the benefits churches bring to communities. It includes a bibliography of cited contributors to the study. http://erlc.com/article/some-positive-benefits-churches-bring-to-communities Now, how about some crime stats to show these huge drains on resources?
 
Ice Dancer said:
I see, so it is that you like to demand proof, but are unwilling to offer any yourself? Certainly there must be some stats you can pull off the web to show the cost of such an enormous burden that you claim exists to local law enforcement? In just a simple google I was able to find a link enumerates benefits. It was a study done specific to the benefits churches bring to communities. It includes a bibliography of cited contributors to the study. http://erlc.com/article/some-positive-benefits-churches-bring-to-communities Now, how about some crime stats to show these huge drains on resources?
Click to expand...
Please, you wouldn't accept a opinion piece on Global Warming done by the "Global Warming Alarmists" website as evidence why should we take an opinion piece written by a site promoting religion as "proof". :rolleyes:

That is probably the saddest attempt I have seen. Again, show me one credible STUDY, not a sad opinion piece written by those who promote religion.

I gave direct and deliberate examples of the cost that individuals pay to support these places in their community. Please give one example of the "Security" that it has been "proven" they supply or again, just admit you pulled that crap right out of your butt. It isn't even mentioned in your opinion piece for gawds' sakes!

And lastly, this aims away from the center of my argument hoping that nobody will notice.

Why should "cults" not get the same benefits from the government? When did the first Amendment mean so little to those who would hire "strict constitutionalists" at every turn to make choices on the Supreme Court.

Why should the government endorse your religion over others?

I let myself get sidetracked for a while with this tactic, but I will continue to bring it right back to this every time. There is nothing special about your religion over a "cult" that should enable the government to endorse it as one of the "chosen" to get those benefits.
 
Who in their right mind demands proof that churches drain resources? They certainly benefit from tax dollars from a pool of tax dollars to which they do not contribute.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Who in their right mind demands proof that churches drain resources? They certainly benefit from tax dollars from a pool of tax dollars to which they do not contribute.
Click to expand...
Only people who can't supply evidence of their suggestion that they actually provide "security" and how it has been "proven".
 
Damocles said:
Please, you wouldn't accept a opinion piece on Global Warming done by the "Global Warming Alarmists" website as evidence why should we take an opinion piece written by a site promoting religion as "proof". :rolleyes:

That is probably the saddest attempt I have seen. Again, show me one credible STUDY, not a sad opinion piece written by those who promote religion.

I gave direct and deliberate examples of the cost that individuals pay to support these places in their community. Please give one example of the "Secuity" that it has been "proven" they supply or again, just admit you pulled that crap right out of your butt. It isn't even mentioned in your opinion piece for gawds' sakes!

And lastly, this aims away from the center of my argument hoping that nobody will notice.

Why should "cults" not get the same benefits from the government? When did the first Amendment mean so little to those who would hire "strict constitutionalists" at every turn to make choices on the Supreme Court.

Why should the government endorse your religion over others?

I let myself get sidetracked for a while with this tactic, but I will continue to bring it right back to this every time. There is nothing special about your religion over a "cult" that should enable the government to endorse it as one of the "chosen" to get those benefits.
Click to expand...

The argument with me was not over "cults" it was specific to tax exempt status VS benefit to a community. And, yes, I would expect you to read through a study done that is cited. However, I can certainly give more links to the numerous benefits churches bring to communities; would you like me to do so? Yet here we are in our 3rd back and forth and not one proof from you on the drain that must be significant enough to outweigh the benefit. Really, if this drain is that significant certainly you can find us some stats?
 
Mission statement of the ERLC:

"Our Vision
An American society that affirms and practices Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority.

Our Mission
To awaken, inform, energize, equip, and mobilize Christians to be the catalysts for the Biblically-based transformation of their families, churches, communities, and the nation."

Sounds unbiased to me.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The argument with me was not over "cults" it was specific to tax exempt status VS benefit to a community. And, yes, I would expect you to read through a study done that is cited. However, I can certainly give more links to the numerous benefits churches bring to communities; would you like me to do so? Yet here we are in our 3rd back and forth and not one proof from you on the drain that must be significant enough to outweigh the benefit. Really, if this drain is that significant certainly you can find us some stats?
Click to expand...
It wasn't a study. It was an opinion piece.

And even with your link you have yet to supply one piece of evidence that they give "security". It should be easy, you said it was "proven". Hence my request for a study.

Each time you state that you said it was "benefits" and attempt to skate away from your flat statement that they have been "proven" to provide "security" it makes it clear to all here that you flat out just made that crap up.

All that to argue against the cost of the cops. It isn't difficult to note the presence of police in the community providing security at no cost to the church (because they don't pay taxes) to notice that there is a cost there. Or to see firefighters on the news responding to a church who doesn't give one dime towards their salaries to note there is a cost there.

And again, what makes you think your religion is so special it should receive this particular benefit from society while others do not?
 
Damocles said:
It wasn't a study. It was an opinion piece.

And even with your link you have yet to supply one piece of evidence that they give "security". It should be easy, you said it was "proven". Hence my request for a study.

Each time you state that you said it was "benefits" and attempt to skate away from your flat statement that they have been "proven" to provide "security".

All that to argue against the cost of the cops.
Click to expand...

No, it was not. It was a cited study that used professionals within communities. It likewise cited already published studies. Your dismissal does not an argument make. Especially in light of the fact that you have provided no proof of the significant drain on resources you claim churches are to communities.

The amount of good churches do is easily googled, I know, because I have done so and await your request to begin posting information you could easily obtain from doing your own google. I am not arguing that police don't serve churches if the need should arise, but that that need comes no where close to being a drain that outweighs the benefit derived from churches. This is what you have failed to prove. Any stats yet?
 
Ice Dancer said:
No, it was not. It was a cited study that used professionals within communities. It likewise cited already published studies. Your dismissal does not an argument make. Especially in light of the fact that you have provided no proof of the significant drain on resources you claim churches are to communities.

The amount of good churches do is easily googled, I know, because I have done so and await your request to begin posting information you could easily obtain from doing your own google. I am not arguing that police don't serve churches if the need should arise, but that that need comes no where close to being a drain that outweighs the benefit derived from churches. This is what you have failed to prove. Any stats yet?
Click to expand...
It wasn't a study. It was an opinion article that cited the opinion of professionals in that area.

You stated that they have been "proven" to provide "security" and have yet to cite the proof. You attempt to dodge again and to change the target to the much easier and less direct "benefit". Please provide evidence of how it has been "proven" to provide "security" or admit you were just making crap up.
 
Let me make this clear.

You said that churches have been "proven" to provide "security". You said it in answer to my post about cops costing the community. Then you attempt to dodge your assertion by stating that they provide "benefit" and use an opinion piece as your evidence. One that doesn't even suggest that they are "proven" to do any such thing as provide security. I think it is far more likely that what you meant was "stability" but don't let me put words on the tips of your fingers that weren't there to begin with.

If you would like to know the economic cost of religion in general based in statistical analysis. Well you can go to this link below. Note that it is not based on the opinions of professionals in the area.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/Religion.htm


Now that you have some reading to do, let's get back to the topic of the post that started this hijack.


Is it constitutional for the government to promote specific chosen religions over others, including the choice not to believe by giving them such benefits as exemption from taxation while refusing it for others?

I ask this as a member of one of the big three, secure in the knowledge that my philosophy has this government's endorsement. It isn't out of "jealousy", "anger", "atheism" or even "atheistic", or anything else you should try to project onto me in the next post. I am really not anti-religious, in fact I support each person's beliefs and value religion personally. However such value doesn't mean that I cannot see the forest for the trees.

I believe that no religion should be given preference in such a way, that such preference amounts to endorsement whether direct or indirect, and since we cannot afford to simply give the exemption to all we should not give one to any.
 
Damocles said:
It wasn't a study. It was an opinion article that cited the opinion of professionals in that area.

Quit being so deliberately obtuse.

You stated that they have been "proven" to provide "security" and have yet to cite the proof. You attempt to dodge again.
Click to expand...

I am not and have not been obtuse. I provided a link to a study that is cited and that you insist on calling an opinion. You claim that there is a significant drain on community resources because of churches and yet you, the demander of proof, have provided zero proof for your opinion.

Here are some more links indicating that churches offer security to communities. Perhaps now you'll provide some proofs of your own.

http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2001/07/26/News/Study.Shows.Churches.Can.Help.Lower.Crime.Rates-2160593.shtml

http://www.uncp.edu/mpa/resources/papers/pdf/factoring_in_faith_the_correlation_between_african_amerian_church_and%20_crime_and_delinquency_prevention.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386471
 
Damocles said:
Let me make this clear.

You said that churches have been "proven" to provide "security". You said it in answer to my post about cops costing the community. Then you attempt to dodge your assertion by stating that they provide "benefit" and use an opinion piece as your evidence. One that doesn't even suggest that they are "proven" to do any such thing.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/Religion.htm

See the above link to read something that doesn't just cite the opinions of "professionals in that area"...

Now, let's get back to the topic. Is it constitutional for the government to promote specific chosen religions over others, including the choice not to believe?

I ask this as a member of one of the big three, secure in the knowledge that my philosophy has this government's endorsement that so many smaller religions do not.
Click to expand...

I claimed that the benefit that they provide outweighs any drain that you assert they are. I provided an article that was a cited study. You have provided nothing. I have also provided other links in my previous response that show direct correlaltions between lower crime rates and churches in communities. Again, you have provided no proofs for your claims.

I never entered into any discussion about specific religions, that must have been a converstaion you had with someone else. I entered this thread addressing tax exempt status and the benefit of churches in communities.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I claimed that the benefit that they provide outweighs any drain that you assert they are. I provided an article that was a cited study. You have provided nothing. I have also provided other links in my previous response that show direct correlaltions between lower crime rates and churches in communities. Again, you have provided no proofs for your claims.

I never entered into any discussion about specific religions, that must have been a converstaion you had with someone else. I entered this thread addressing tax exempt status and the benefit of churches in communities.
Click to expand...

Ice Dancer said:
No one is being deliberately obtuse and saying you'll type slowly is not the problem, unless of course it's preventing you from gathering your wits?

Churches have been proven to bring security to neighborhoods. Often the outreach and charity they provide communities give much bigger dividends than numerous other businesses ever could. The initial buying or building of the structure is likewise beneficial fiscally to a community. As to your own personal experience; well, that's yours, but it is not the norm nor is it a reason to lump them all into the same lot. This said, I have no problem with an audit of any organization abusing its tax privileges. The NEA and numerous other unions would be a great place to start.
Click to expand...

It is the bolded line that I asked you to provide the "proof" of. All the rest is subjective. And yes, you did assert that it has been "proven" that they "bring security". I'd like to see evidence of that.

What I believe is that it is the opinion of sociologists that they help create stability. But again, don't let me put words into your mouth.

If you would like to know the economic cost of religion in general based in statistical analysis. Well you can go to this link below. Note that it is not based on the opinions of professionals in the area.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/Religion.htm


Now that you have some reading to do, let's get back to the topic of the post that started this hijack.


Is it constitutional for the government to promote specific chosen religions over others, including the choice not to believe by giving them such benefits as exemption from taxation while refusing it for others?

I ask this as a member of one of the big three, secure in the knowledge that my philosophy has this government's endorsement. It isn't out of "jealousy", "anger", "atheism" or even "atheistic", or anything else you should try to project onto me in the next post. I am really not anti-religious, in fact I support each person's beliefs and value religion personally. However such value doesn't mean that I cannot see the forest for the trees.

I believe that no religion, or group of religions, should be given preference in such a way, that such preference amounts to endorsement whether direct or indirect, and since we cannot afford to simply give the exemption to all we should not give one to any. Even if they provide such subjective things as "benefit".
 
Damocles said:
It is the bolded line that I asked you to provide the "proof" of. All the rest is subjective. And yes, you did assert that it has been "proven" that they "bring security". I'd like to see evidence of that.

What I believe is that it is the opinion of sociologists that they help create stability. But again, don't let me put words into your mouth.

If you would like to know the economic cost of religion in general based in statistical analysis. Well you can go to this link below. Note that it is not based on the opinions of professionals in the area.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/Religion.htm


Now that you have some reading to do, let's get back to the topic of the post that started this hijack.


Is it constitutional for the government to promote specific chosen religions over others, including the choice not to believe by giving them such benefits as exemption from taxation while refusing it for others?

I ask this as a member of one of the big three, secure in the knowledge that my philosophy has this government's endorsement. It isn't out of "jealousy", "anger", "atheism" or even "atheistic", or anything else you should try to project onto me in the next post. I am really not anti-religious, in fact I support each person's beliefs and value religion personally. However such value doesn't mean that I cannot see the forest for the trees.

I believe that no religion, or group of religions, should be given preference in such a way, that such preference amounts to endorsement whether direct or indirect, and since we cannot afford to simply give the exemption to all we should not give one to any. Even if they provide such subjective things as "benefit".
Click to expand...


HAHAHA! Talk about being obtuse! The link you gave was to an uncited Humanists' projections without any basis other than a focus on 3rd world muslims. It certainly did not prove your claim that churches in america that recieve tax exempt status are a significant drain on community resources!

I did not enter this discussion for any other reason other than the one before us. Tax exempt status VS community benefit or drain. Now, how about proving your assertion that churches are a drain on communities.

The only one of us doing any kind of projecting has been you. You demand proofs then dismiss them in a rude manner. Again, here are the links I note you must have missed in my previous post.

Churches bring security:

http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian....-2160593.shtml

http://www.uncp.edu/mpa/resources/pa...prevention.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386471
 
Ice Dancer said:
HAHAHA! Talk about being obtuse! The link you gave was to an uncited Humanists' projections without any basis other than a focus on 3rd world muslims. It certainly did not prove your claim that churches in america that recieve tax exempt status are a significant drain on community resources!

I did not enter this discussion for any other reason other than the one before us. Tax exempt status VS community benefit or drain. Now, how about proving your assertion that churches are a drain on communities.

The only one of us doing any kind of projecting has been you. You demand proofs then dismiss them in a rude manner. Again, here are the links I note you must have missed in my previous post.

Churches bring security:

http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian....-2160593.shtml

http://www.uncp.edu/mpa/resources/pa...prevention.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386471
Click to expand...
It was a statistical analysis of economic cost to society as a whole, you clearly did not read the whole of it as it did not focus specifically on "third world muslims" although as they are part of society as a whole they were included. It was not an opinion piece based on the opinions of others.

Again, the only link that worked stated that it was being considered as "potential". And even speaks of the inappropriate methods used to "study" the supposed potential. It certainly didn't "prove" the assertion.

As well, this particular assertion does little to answer the question of whether it would be constitutional to provide religion with a government endorsement.

The attempt at "gotcha" has failed.
 
Damocles said:
It was a statistical analysis of economic cost to society as a whole, you clearly did not read the whole of it as it did not focus specifically on "third world muslims" although as they are part of society as a whole they were included. It was not an opinion piece based on the opinions of others.

Again, the only link that worked stated that it was being considered as "potential". And even speaks of the inappropriate methods used to "study" the supposed potential. It certainly didn't "prove" the assertion.

As well, this particular assertion does little to answer the question of whether it would be constitutional to provide religion with a government endorsement.

The attempt at "gotcha" has failed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Humanists' paper did focus on 3rd world Muslims. The tables provided had no basis in fact and in fact it was hard to derive where in the heck they even pulled their numbers from.

Funny, all 3 links work fine for me. However, do you still need more links to show that crime in areas where there are churches is lower? Translated in another way churches bring security. I have certainly done a better job at providing support for my assertions than you have for yours. No gottcha necessary beyond that.

I know you'd like for me to ignore the fact you have not been able to support your assertion about the significant drain that churches supposedly are in American communities, right? You'd now like me to move onto your implied constitutional disparity? A discussion I never attempted to have with you, but one that you are more confident in having?

OK, Damocles, I think that when an organization files for tax exempt status there are specific criteria that they have to meet. That this criteria with regards religious organizations was hammered out under Adams I believe? I beleive that Adams was mostly against it, because he feared that then the governemnt might be able to interfere in religious freedoms i.e. political discourse? He also felt strongly that relgious entities might abuse such financial benefit. Therefore, when Johnson revised the policy in the 60's I also believe that those considerations were once again brought to the discussion. As to who qualifies and who does not, I would again assume that within the application proccess an organization that qualifies, religious, or non religious is vetted.


More comfortable on this ground?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top