we need to re-think the Inviolability of religious and philosophical institutions

[blackascoal]

I do resent my 15 years of forced indoctrination into Christianity.
But I also realize I did develop a few good morals because of it.
golden rule principle mainly.

Everyone does not need religion to develop good morals and accept the principle of the golden rule.

Christians divorce more than anybody, including aethiests.

 

[Good Luck]

Back on topic, though:

I will agree that should it be shown (and probably will) that law enforcement did not act sooner against the FLDS because of fears of first amendment conflicts, then something needs to be done to better define the relationship between religion and secular authority which allows action to be taken when a religious sect starts doing things like sexual abuse of children.

But in doing so, we need to tread EXTREMELY carefully. In spite of the first amendment, our history is full of examples of religious sects being legally persecuted for daring to operate outside the accepted norms of the time. We cannot afford to repeat such instances. Allow even a scosh too much secular authority over religion and somewhere someone will take the opportunity provided to abuse the authority and use it against whatever religion they find most objectionable.

As for the taxation issue, what would be accomplished by removing tax exempt status from churches? First it would increase the expenses of a church, by adding expenses like property taxes and revenue taxes. Second, withdrawing tax deductions for church offerings would reduce the amount of offerings. Something that "tax it!!" liberals seem to forget is much of the population do not have a significant amount of excess income - if any. If they pay taxes, it's that much less that can go elsewhere, including churches. So you have the dual penalty on churches of increased expenses and reduced revenues. The result of that would be devastating for small, poor churches who are barely able to meet expenses. Churches which are better off would have to cut back on their assistance programs.

And what GOOD would come from getting taxes from churches? Increased government revenues to spend on their own screwed up, wasteful programs, pay raises to congress critters, government sponsored research into the flow rates of ketchup? Sorry, but damned few people would argue the government would make better use of the money than the churches do.

Yes their are charismatic sects in which the leaders become rich by abusing the tax exemptions granted to religion. But the vast majority of churches do NOT abuse that relationship. Of all the religious leaders in this country, there are darned few that are above middle class economically. In fact I'd bet the majority would fit into the lower-middle or even low class sector of the economy. Do you really want to punish all for the transgressions of and extreme few?

 

[Good Luck]

Jesus was a Judean and Gallilean, but never called himself a jew. The spiritual leaders of the jews were Pharisees, who were Edomite Herodians .. and Jesus condemed the Pharisees. He called them "serpents, the offspring of vipers" (Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33).

Being jewish is to accept the jewish faith, period.

Was Sammy Davis Jr. a jew?

Judaism is the religion, which anyone can convert to and accept.

Being Jewish is being part of a sector of humanity that is genetically related, with Abraham being the father of the Jewish race as promised by God. Just because we commonly use the term "Jewish" to denote the religion does not make that designation accurate, any more than calling all facial tissue "kleenex" is accurate.

 

[uscitizen]

Everyone does not need religion to develop good morals and accept the principle of the golden rule.

Christians divorce more than anybody, including aethiests.

yeah probably because they tend to have unrealistic niave expectations of humans.
My indoctrination caused me several problems in the real world.

 

[blackascoal]

Back on topic, though:

I will agree that should it be shown (and probably will) that law enforcement did not act sooner against the FLDS because of fears of first amendment conflicts, then something needs to be done to better define the relationship between religion and secular authority which allows action to be taken when a religious sect starts doing things like sexual abuse of children.

But in doing so, we need to tread EXTREMELY carefully. In spite of the first amendment, our history is full of examples of religious sects being legally persecuted for daring to operate outside the accepted norms of the time. We cannot afford to repeat such instances. Allow even a scosh too much secualr authority over religion and somewhere someone will take the opportunity provided to abuse the authority and use it against whatever religion they find most objectionable.

As for the taxation issue, what would be accomplished by removing tax exempt status from churches? First it would increase the expenses of a church, by adding expenses like property taxes and revenue taxes. Second, withdrawing tax deductions for church offerings would reduce the amount of offerings. Something that "tax it!!" liberals seem to forget is much of the population do not have a significant amount of excess income - if any. If they pay taxes, it's that much less that can go elsewhere, including churches. So you have the dual penalty on churches of increased expenses and reduced revenues. The result of that would be devastating for small, poor churches who are barely able to meet expenses. Churches which are better off would have to cut back on their assistance programs.

And what GOOD would come from getting taxes from churches? Increased government revenues to spend on their own screwed up, wasteful programs, pay raises to congress critters, government sponsored research into the flow rates of ketchup? Sotty, but damned few people would argue the government would make better use of the money than the churches do.

Yes their are charismatic sects in which the leaders become rich by abusing the tax exemptions granted to religion. But the vast majority of churches do NOT abuse that relationship. Of all the religious leaders in this country, there are darned few that are above middle class economically. In fact I'd bet the majority would fit into the lower-middle or even low class sector of the economy. Do you really want to punish all for the transgressions of and extreme few?

Most Americans are law-abiding, but that does not challenge the truth that we need the police.

I'd also disagree with you on your characterization of the church and its many of its leaders. Quite a few live above the means of their flock and above lower income status.

What religion is being persecuted today?

Wicans maybe?

There is no religious persecution in America today, but our society is frought with religious abuses that adversely impact the lives of many, including children.

What good will taxing religious institutions do, some of which exist to nake money? It will benefit the government in performing the function of government, which includes helping needy Americans which it does far better than the church.

It has always been interesting and telling how many of the so-called religious get all twisted about taxes and money.

The cloak of invisibility has to be removed from religious institutions.

 

[uscitizen]

Back on topic, though:

I will agree that should it be shown (and probably will) that law enforcement did not act sooner against the FLDS because of fears of first amendment conflicts, then something needs to be done to better define the relationship between religion and secular authority which allows action to be taken when a religious sect starts doing things like sexual abuse of children.

But in doing so, we need to tread EXTREMELY carefully. In spite of the first amendment, our history is full of examples of religious sects being legally persecuted for daring to operate outside the accepted norms of the time. We cannot afford to repeat such instances. Allow even a scosh too much secular authority over religion and somewhere someone will take the opportunity provided to abuse the authority and use it against whatever religion they find most objectionable.

As for the taxation issue, what would be accomplished by removing tax exempt status from churches? First it would increase the expenses of a church, by adding expenses like property taxes and revenue taxes. Second, withdrawing tax deductions for church offerings would reduce the amount of offerings. Something that "tax it!!" liberals seem to forget is much of the population do not have a significant amount of excess income - if any. If they pay taxes, it's that much less that can go elsewhere, including churches. So you have the dual penalty on churches of increased expenses and reduced revenues. The result of that would be devastating for small, poor churches who are barely able to meet expenses. Churches which are better off would have to cut back on their assistance programs.

And what GOOD would come from getting taxes from churches? Increased government revenues to spend on their own screwed up, wasteful programs, pay raises to congress critters, government sponsored research into the flow rates of ketchup? Sorry, but damned few people would argue the government would make better use of the money than the churches do.

Yes their are charismatic sects in which the leaders become rich by abusing the tax exemptions granted to religion. But the vast majority of churches do NOT abuse that relationship. Of all the religious leaders in this country, there are darned few that are above middle class economically. In fact I'd bet the majority would fit into the lower-middle or even low class sector of the economy. Do you really want to punish all for the transgressions of and extreme few?

taxing churches that did not meet the minimum charitable works percentage would remove the externalization of the costs of religion off the backs of the rest of us.

 

[Battleborne]

Nope.................

Back on topic, though:

I will agree that should it be shown (and probably will) that law enforcement did not act sooner against the FLDS because of fears of first amendment conflicts, then something needs to be done to better define the relationship between religion and secular authority which allows action to be taken when a religious sect starts doing things like sexual abuse of children.

But in doing so, we need to tread EXTREMELY carefully. In spite of the first amendment, our history is full of examples of religious sects being legally persecuted for daring to operate outside the accepted norms of the time. We cannot afford to repeat such instances. Allow even a scosh too much secualr authority over religion and somewhere someone will take the opportunity provided to abuse the authority and use it against whatever religion they find most objectionable.

As for the taxation issue, what would be accomplished by removing tax exempt status from churches? First it would increase the expenses of a church, by adding expenses like property taxes and revenue taxes. Second, withdrawing tax deductions for church offerings would reduce the amount of offerings. Something that "tax it!!" liberals seem to forget is much of the population do not have a significant amount of excess income - if any. If they pay taxes, it's that much less that can go elsewhere, including churches. So you have the dual penalty on churches of increased expenses and reduced revenues. The result of that would be devastating for small, poor churches who are barely able to meet expenses. Churches which are better off would have to cut back on their assistance programs.

And what GOOD would come from getting taxes from churches? Increased government revenues to spend on their own screwed up, wasteful programs, pay raises to congress critters, government sponsored research into the flow rates of ketchup? Sotty, but damned few people would argue the government would make better use of the money than the churches do.

Yes their are charismatic sects in which the leaders become rich by abusing the tax exemptions granted to religion. But the vast majority of churches do NOT abuse that relationship. Of all the religious leaders in this country, there are darned few that are above middle class economically. In fact I'd bet the majority would fit into the lower-middle or even low class sector of the economy. Do you really want to punish all for the transgressions of and extreme few?

It's called investigation...there are many inside operatives within these cults LE must dot the I's and cross the T's ,all evidence must meet required court standards....don't want to lose a case because of tainted evidence...it takes time to prepare a good case that defense cannot tear apart...sure they could do another waco and see what happened...a disastor!

 

[blackascoal]

Judaism is the religion, which anyone can convert to and accept.

Being Jewish is being part of a sector of humanity that is genetically related, with Abraham being the father of the Jewish race as promised by God. Just because we commonly use the term "Jewish" to denote the religion does not make that designation accurate, any more than calling all facial tissue "kleenex" is accurate.

Most who call themselves jewish today and even most Israelis have no ethnic or racial connection to Abraham.

Being jewish is a label that has no other definition that one who accepts the jewish faith, no differently than being muslim or christian.

 

[blackascoal]

Authorities on Thursday wrapped up nearly a week at the YFZ (Yearning For Zion) Ranch, where they say a 16-year-old girl had called social workers and timidly recounted being beaten, choked and sexually assaulted by the 49-year-old man who had fathered her child after their "spiritual marriage" last year.

Two people were arrested and 416 children were taken into state custody at the ranch -- which is run by founder Warren Steed Jeffs' Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At the ranch, authorities say, men routinely took multiple wives, and girls as young as 13 were forced into sexual relationships with adult men.

Authorities say the most tense moment of the raid came Sunday night, when they went to search the group's temple. As in mainstream Mormon worship, the group considers its temple sacrosanct, and custom forbids any nonbeliever from entering.

Texas Rangers and other law enforcement officials believed the church may have used that custom to hide children inside the building.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/10/polygamist.ranch/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

The cloak of invisibility.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Most who call themselves jewish today and even most Israelis have no ethnic or racial connection to Abraham.

Being jewish is a label that has no other definition that one who accepts the jewish faith, no differently than being muslim or christian.

Except being jewish is more like what we would commonly call an Ethnic group. Like blacks, or wasps, etc. And many jews are atheists who maintain ties to jewishness and the Jewish identity specifically because of it's ethnic meaning. Let's not forget that important sociological component.
One of the perks must be the ability to get brainwashed noahide christian zombies to engage in preemptive wars of territorial conquest on your behalf.

I mean, if ya can get away with ....

DO what thou wilt.

 

[blackascoal]

Except being jewish is more like what we would commonly call an Ethnic group. Like blacks, or wasps, etc. And many jews are atheists who maintain ties to jewishness and the Jewish identity specifically because of it's ethnic meaning. Let's not forget that important sociological component.
One of the perks must be the ability to get brainwashed noahide christian zombies to engage in preemptive wars of territorial conquest on your behalf.

I mean, if ya can get away with ....

DO what thou wilt.

It is a made-up identification, like WASPS, and like jews, you can't be born a WASP regardless of who your mother was.

Don't get it twisted .. I have nothing against jews.

 

[Damocles]

I don't disagree that it may indeed be what they believe, but religion is not based on facts. Just because they believe it doesn't mean it has to make the slightest bit of sense.

You can be born American and white, but not christian .. and just because your mother is a christian, doesn't make you one.

Don't I know it.

 

[blackascoal]

Don't I know it.

 

[Kamala Trump]

It is a made-up identification, like WASPS, and like jews, you can't be born a WASP regardless of who your mother was.

Don't get it twisted .. I have nothing against jews.

But jewishness is different. Jewish law teaches that if your mother is a jew, you are a jew. Christianity has no such corollary.

You'd still be of WASPY descent.

You cannot considers jews and jewishness rationally, and in a way, that is an insult.

 

[blackascoal]

But jewishness is different. Jewish law teaches that if your mother is a jew, you are a jew. Christianity has no such corollary.

You'd still be of WASPY descent.

You cannot considers jews and jewishness rationally, and in a way, that is an insult.

I'm not a jew, thus I can use normal and scientific definitions and classifications to properly identify people, regardless of what their doctrination may or may not say.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Further proof of why Wiki cannot be trusted.

There is no race called Jews, it is a religion, period.

Another misnomer is "anti-semitism" meaning anti-jewish, or anti-Isareli. Arabs are every bit as "semitic" as Israelis and jews.

No. You live a fantasy world. Most people consider jews an ethnic group. Period. Including jews. Being a jew IMPLIES being also of the religion of judaism, whether or not you feel that is accurate.

 

[uscitizen]

You know how the word ass u me works don't ya AH ?

 

[Kamala Trump]

Oh and bac, since I have you here. WHich source of information CAN be trusted? The corporate funded media? Textbook manufacturers in all their fascist horror?

 

[uscitizen]

Trust me and only me AH.

Bwahahahaha....

 

[Kamala Trump]

Wikipedia has it wrong, just like the geneticists who were talking about the jew gene.