WWJD?

[Sloth]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
From page one of that document
Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business.

Can someone please justify why they should hold a unique status and why they should receive favourable treatment?[/quote]

So we can’t be bullied by government taxation and regulatory bodies in order to push us into a line of thought the government favors (that pesky wall you guys love). Because of the services–tangible and intangible–churches and their affiliate bodies provide locally, nationally, and internationally.

[dmaddox]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
From page one of that document
Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business.

Can someone please justify why they should hold a unique status and why they should receive favourable treatment?[/quote]

This is what our founding fathers wanted. Churches have been a part of American History from the begining, but only until say about the 1960’s. In England and the old Roman Empire the Church and State were one in the same. In England, please tell me if I am wrong, but isnt the King/Queen the head of both the Church of England and the state? I know their power is some what diminished by Parliment, but wasnt this what was true during the American Revolution?

[doc_man_101]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This is what our founding fathers wanted. Churches have been a part of American History from the begining, but only until say about the 1960’s. In England and the old Roman Empire the Church and State were one in the same. In England, please tell me if I am wrong, but isnt the King/Queen the head of both the Church of England and the state? I know their power is some what diminished by Parliment, but wasnt this what was true during the American Revolution?[/quote]

The Queen is “Supreme Governor” of the Church of England (the Archbishop will point out that Christ is the head ), and also the head of state. Both are largely ceremonial roles, but from them flows a considerable entanglement (the Prime Minister has to approve the appointment of Bishops…). It’s a total constitutional mess, and I can see why your Founding Fathers wouldn’t want to emulate it.

[doc_man_101]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:

Not sure that I would put too much weight on that survey, it was conducted by a church group and sponsored by a church run bank so it is hardly impartial it is also based solely on what people claim to donate.

So you don’t like its conclusions. Go do your own research then. There are tons of stats out there that say religious people give more. Maybe that’s cause and effect; maybe it’s the other way around. Anyhow, they’re using their right of free association to get together with whoever they choose, and give money to the causes they care about, under the control of people they apparently trust, on terms they’re happy with.

Sure, tax it like a business if you like. I’ll find stealthier ways to give away my money. LOL most of the tax system is set up to try to track down illicit income. It would be pretty funny to try to turn it around and try to tax unregistered giving instead.

There is also plenty of research out there that shows that secular countries donate more to charity than religious. It is not the conclusion of the study I took issue with but the methodology. The methodology is flawed so the conclusion is meaningless.[/quote]

What? Secular countries? Religious countries? Do you have a definition there, because I have not a clue what you mean.

Your only objection to the methodology was that the study was undertaken by sympathizers (and I’m not even sure that is true). If we rejected all studies on that basis, we’d have few statistics left. Given that the bulk of the Christian giving claimed was given through churches, it would be easy enough to cross-check the figures against the accounts filed by the relevant charities: are you trying to suggest that doing this would not substantiate the claims?

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:

Not sure that I would put too much weight on that survey, it was conducted by a church group and sponsored by a church run bank so it is hardly impartial it is also based solely on what people claim to donate.

So you don’t like its conclusions. Go do your own research then. There are tons of stats out there that say religious people give more. Maybe that’s cause and effect; maybe it’s the other way around. Anyhow, they’re using their right of free association to get together with whoever they choose, and give money to the causes they care about, under the control of people they apparently trust, on terms they’re happy with.

Sure, tax it like a business if you like. I’ll find stealthier ways to give away my money. LOL most of the tax system is set up to try to track down illicit income. It would be pretty funny to try to turn it around and try to tax unregistered giving instead.

There is also plenty of research out there that shows that secular countries donate more to charity than religious. It is not the conclusion of the study I took issue with but the methodology. The methodology is flawed so the conclusion is meaningless.

What? Secular countries? Religious countries? Do you have a definition there, because I have not a clue what you mean.

Your only objection to the methodology was that the study was undertaken by sympathizers (and I’m not even sure that is true). If we rejected all studies on that basis, we’d have few statistics left. Given that the bulk of the Christian giving claimed was given through churches, it would be easy enough to cross-check the figures against the accounts filed by the relevant charities: are you trying to suggest that doing this would not substantiate the claims?
[/quote]

Countries where the majority of the population doesn’t subrscibe to a religion are secular countries.

And for you to claim that a Church bank paying for a Church group to put together a study showing how beneficial the Church is doesn’t imply bias is a bit rich. It is the same reason that people found the studies into the risk of smoking paid for by Tobacco companies to be a bit fishy.

And your final point adds further weight to my argument. If that would be so easy to do, why wasn’t it done?

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
From page one of that document
Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business.

Can someone please justify why they should hold a unique status and why they should receive favourable treatment?

This is what our founding fathers wanted. Churches have been a part of American History from the begining, but only until say about the 1960’s. In England and the old Roman Empire the Church and State were one in the same. In England, please tell me if I am wrong, but isnt the King/Queen the head of both the Church of England and the state? I know their power is some what diminished by Parliment, but wasnt this what was true during the American Revolution?[/quote]

Where do you get that from? The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the Church wasn’t meddling in the running of the country to avoid the situation you had in Italy and England at the time (and still do to some extent)

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
From page one of that document
Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business.

Can someone please justify why they should hold a unique status and why they should receive favourable treatment?

So we can’t be bullied by government taxation and regulatory bodies in order to push us into a line of thought the government favors (that pesky wall you guys love). Because of the services–tangible and intangible–churches and their affiliate bodies provide locally, nationally, and internationally. [/quote]

Plenty of secular organisations provide those same benefits, what is so special about religion?

[Sloth]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
From page one of that document
Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business.

Can someone please justify why they should hold a unique status and why they should receive favourable treatment?

So we can’t be bullied by government taxation and regulatory bodies in order to push us into a line of thought the government favors (that pesky wall you guys love). Because of the services–tangible and intangible–churches and their affiliate bodies provide locally, nationally, and internationally.

Plenty of secular organisations provide those same benefits, what is so special about religion?[/quote]

Secular organizations aren’t atheistic organizations. Religious people, motivated by their religion, also participate through them. And, from within secular countries. So, even when pointing out the existence of secular organizations (or countries), it doesn’t negate religiously motivated activity. And we’re not even talking about the soft control government would have over religion.

Look, it was a bad idea. No big deal. We all have one from time to time.

[Sloth]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Countries where the majority of the population doesn’t subrscibe to a religion are secular countries.

[/quote]

Wait, hold up. I’ve never seen demographics used to label a country as secular. In fact, I’ve always seen ‘secular country’ used even for majority religious nations. Referring to the form of governance. State secularism is in fact often a compromise between diverse relgions (even non-religion) within a state. Again, I’ve never seen it defined the way you have.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Countries where the majority of the population doesn’t subrscibe to a religion are secular countries.

Wait, hold up. I’ve never seen demographics used to label a country as secular. In fact, I’ve always seen ‘secular country’ used even for majority religious nations. Referring to the form of governance. State secularism is in fact often a compromise between diverse relgions (even non-religion) within a state. Again, I’ve never seen it defined the way you have.
[/quote]

I would actually have to check the research I was referring to for their definition then. Time to do some googling.

[Uncle_Gabby]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Where do you get that from? The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the Church wasn’t meddling in the running of the country to avoid the situation you had in Italy and England at the time (and still do to some extent)

[/quote]
Actually, in England the state was running the church. Had been since Henry the VIII. The founding fathers’ purpose was as much to protect religion as to protect the state.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where do you get that from? The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the Church wasn’t meddling in the running of the country to avoid the situation you had in Italy and England at the time (and still do to some extent)

Actually, in England the state was running the church. Had been since Henry the VIII. The founding fathers’ purpose was as much to protect religion as to protect the state.
[/quote]

I don’t buy that. Henry the VIII split from the Catholic Church because he wanted to control the country instead of having it controlled by Rome. He was technically God’s representitive on Earth for England in fact when Charles I was executed there were many that feared the world would end.

To claim that the founding fathers, serveral of them Deist or Atheist were trying to protect the Church is clear revisionism.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
From page one of that document
Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business.

Can someone please justify why they should hold a unique status and why they should receive favourable treatment?

So we can’t be bullied by government taxation and regulatory bodies in order to push us into a line of thought the government favors (that pesky wall you guys love). Because of the services–tangible and intangible–churches and their affiliate bodies provide locally, nationally, and internationally.

Plenty of secular organisations provide those same benefits, what is so special about religion?

Secular organizations aren’t atheistic organizations. Religious people, motivated by their religion, also participate through them. And, from within secular countries. So, even when pointing out the existence of secular organizations (or countries), it doesn’t negate religiously motivated activity. And we’re not even talking about the soft control government would have over religion.

Look, it was a bad idea. No big deal. We all have one from time to time.[/quote]

Which does nothing to argue why religious institutions deserve special treatment.

[Uncle_Gabby]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where do you get that from? The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the Church wasn’t meddling in the running of the country to avoid the situation you had in Italy and England at the time (and still do to some extent)

Actually, in England the state was running the church. Had been since Henry the VIII. The founding fathers’ purpose was as much to protect religion as to protect the state.

I don’t buy that. Henry the VIII split from the Catholic Church because he wanted to control the country instead of having it controlled by Rome. He was technically God’s representitive on Earth for England in fact when Charles I was executed there were many that feared the world would end.
[/quote]
You don’t buy reality? Then you go on to say that Henry the VIII wanted to control the country? Control what exactly? Oh yeah, the country’s fucking religion. If the head of state is God’s representative on earth, that does give the state power over religion, doesn’t it?

[quote]
To claim that the founding fathers, serveral of them Deist or Atheist were trying to protect the Church is clear revisionism.[/quote]

Some were deists, others may have been atheists though the evidence is thin. Apparently you have latched on to this factoid to repaint the entire history of the United States. Talk about revisionism.

You obviously don’t know anything about our history if you don’t know that the puritans founded settlements in New England, and the Catholics in Maryland and other states to escape religious persecution in england. Religious persecution being the state persecuting churches, not the other way around. You should educate yourself at least a little before you participate in these kinds of discussions, unless your only purpose is to troll, which I strongly suspect is true.

By the way, which founding father was an atheist?

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where do you get that from? The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the Church wasn’t meddling in the running of the country to avoid the situation you had in Italy and England at the time (and still do to some extent)

Actually, in England the state was running the church. Had been since Henry the VIII. The founding fathers’ purpose was as much to protect religion as to protect the state.

I don’t buy that. Henry the VIII split from the Catholic Church because he wanted to control the country instead of having it controlled by Rome. He was technically God’s Representative on Earth for England in fact when Charles I was executed there were many that feared the world would end.

You don’t buy reality? Then you go on to say that Henry the VIII wanted to control the country? Control what exactly? Oh yeah, the country’s fucking religion. If the head of state is God’s representative on earth, that does give the state power over religion, doesn’t it?

To claim that the founding fathers, several of them Deist or Atheist were trying to protect the Church is clear revisionism.

Some were deists, others may have been atheists though the evidence is thin. Apparently you have latched on to this factoid to repaint the entire history of the United States. Talk about revisionism.

You obviously don’t know anything about our history if you don’t know that the puritans founded settlements in New England, and the Catholics in Maryland and other states to escape religious persecution in england. Religious persecution being the state persecuting churches, not the other way around. You should educate yourself at least a little before you participate in these kinds of discussions, unless your only purpose is to troll, which I strongly suspect is true.

By the way, which founding father was an atheist?
[/quote]

You are evidently missing the subtlety of the situation in England. Henry VIII’s religious advisor’s felt that the Roman Catholic Church had moved too far away from the true message and his political advisor’s were fed up with the power of Rome.

The founding Father’s obviously were not all motivated by the same things but the binding driver was separation politically from England, it was not religious.

I probably shouldn’t have used the word atheist as none of the founding father’s to my knowledge used it themselves however a large number were clearly not supporters of organised religion.

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
– James Madison

[Stronghold]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where do you get that from? The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the Church wasn’t meddling in the running of the country to avoid the situation you had in Italy and England at the time (and still do to some extent)

Actually, in England the state was running the church. Had been since Henry the VIII. The founding fathers’ purpose was as much to protect religion as to protect the state.

I don’t buy that. Henry the VIII split from the Catholic Church because he wanted to control the country instead of having it controlled by Rome. He was technically God’s Representative on Earth for England in fact when Charles I was executed there were many that feared the world would end.

You don’t buy reality? Then you go on to say that Henry the VIII wanted to control the country? Control what exactly? Oh yeah, the country’s fucking religion. If the head of state is God’s representative on earth, that does give the state power over religion, doesn’t it?

To claim that the founding fathers, several of them Deist or Atheist were trying to protect the Church is clear revisionism.

Some were deists, others may have been atheists though the evidence is thin. Apparently you have latched on to this factoid to repaint the entire history of the United States. Talk about revisionism.

You obviously don’t know anything about our history if you don’t know that the puritans founded settlements in New England, and the Catholics in Maryland and other states to escape religious persecution in england. Religious persecution being the state persecuting churches, not the other way around. You should educate yourself at least a little before you participate in these kinds of discussions, unless your only purpose is to troll, which I strongly suspect is true.

By the way, which founding father was an atheist?

You are evidently missing the subtlety of the situation in England. Henry VIII’s religious advisor’s felt that the Roman Catholic Church had moved too far away from the true message and his political advisor’s were fed up with the power of Rome.

The founding Father’s obviously were not all motivated by the same things but the binding driver was separation politically from England, it was not religious.

I probably shouldn’t have used the word atheist as none of the founding father’s to my knowledge used it themselves however a large number were clearly not supporters of organised religion.

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
– James Madison[/quote]

You’re really reaching hard here. Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church because they wouldn’t annul his marriage. Stop revising history to fit in with the rest of your inane ramblings.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where do you get that from? The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the Church wasn’t meddling in the running of the country to avoid the situation you had in Italy and England at the time (and still do to some extent)

Actually, in England the state was running the church. Had been since Henry the VIII. The founding fathers’ purpose was as much to protect religion as to protect the state.

I don’t buy that. Henry the VIII split from the Catholic Church because he wanted to control the country instead of having it controlled by Rome. He was technically God’s Representative on Earth for England in fact when Charles I was executed there were many that feared the world would end.

You don’t buy reality? Then you go on to say that Henry the VIII wanted to control the country? Control what exactly? Oh yeah, the country’s fucking religion. If the head of state is God’s representative on earth, that does give the state power over religion, doesn’t it?

To claim that the founding fathers, several of them Deist or Atheist were trying to protect the Church is clear revisionism.

Some were deists, others may have been atheists though the evidence is thin. Apparently you have latched on to this factoid to repaint the entire history of the United States. Talk about revisionism.

You obviously don’t know anything about our history if you don’t know that the puritans founded settlements in New England, and the Catholics in Maryland and other states to escape religious persecution in england. Religious persecution being the state persecuting churches, not the other way around. You should educate yourself at least a little before you participate in these kinds of discussions, unless your only purpose is to troll, which I strongly suspect is true.

By the way, which founding father was an atheist?

You are evidently missing the subtlety of the situation in England. Henry VIII’s religious advisor’s felt that the Roman Catholic Church had moved too far away from the true message and his political advisor’s were fed up with the power of Rome.

The founding Father’s obviously were not all motivated by the same things but the binding driver was separation politically from England, it was not religious.

I probably shouldn’t have used the word atheist as none of the founding father’s to my knowledge used it themselves however a large number were clearly not supporters of organised religion.

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
– James Madison

You’re really reaching hard here. Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church because they wouldn’t annul his marriage. Stop revising history to fit in with the rest of your inane ramblings.[/quote]

There was a huge amount more to it than that. The annulment of marriage was just the focal point.

If you had studied British history in any depth you would know that.

[Sloth]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Which does nothing to argue why religious institutions deserve special treatment.[/quote]

That’s been answered multiple times.

Anyways, I’d say you’ve asked the wrong question from the start. You see, it isn’t the church which has become more intrusive, more confiscatory, but the government. You should be asking why businesses are now subjected to the level of taxation and regulation they presently shoulder.

Your question reminds me of a spectator, who upon witnessing a bully slapping around the same group of kids day in and day out, points out a kid who has gone by relatively unscathed. “Why’s that one not getting tuned up? Get him!”

Now, I’ve got to get back to celebrating our nation’s faith based holiday today. And, get some more pumpkin pie!

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Which does nothing to argue why religious institutions deserve special treatment.

That’s been answered multiple times.

Anyways, I’d say you’ve asked the wrong question from the start. You see, it isn’t the church which has become more intrusive, more confiscatory, but the government. You should be asking why businesses are now subjected to the level of taxation and regulation they presently shoulder.

Your question reminds me of a spectator, who upon witnessing a bully slapping around the same group of kids day in and day out, points out a kid who has gone by relatively unscathed. “Why’s that one not getting tuned up? Get him!”

Now, I’ve got to get back to celebrating our nation’s faith based holiday today. And, get some more pumpkin pie![/quote]

Now that is a very valid point.