Honor

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man ... living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs YOUR money." - George Carlin
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
So I take it you're a big opponent to the separation of church and state, and you think the government and religion should be one in the same. Got it.

What? No? Well, that's what you're advocating.

There is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion (or anything else, for that matter) than to tax it. There is an old Arabian proverb that, even though they didn't know it at the time, was written about the US Federal Government. It states: "If the camel gets his nose in the tent, the rest of him will soon follow." Do you really want Congress legislating how and what people can worship? Do you? DO YOU?!?

Oh, sure, Congress is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion, but as the Supreme Court once noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy. Once the government gets its nose in the tent, the destruction of the free exercise of religion is soon to follow.

My views on God, and my views on religion and the free exercise thereof, and my views on whether the government should be involved with it, are three separate issues. I certainly can't wrap my head around the notion offered from someone who is, for lack of a better phrase, anti-religion, but wants the government intimately involved in religion.

There are three primary economic sectors of our society:
Public - government labors for essential services
Private - labors for profit
Civil - non-profit which labors for the social good

Non-profits are a critical portion of the economy. Schools, museums, churches, hospitals, homeless aid, disaster relief, all would all pretty much go out of business. The government would have to take over those roles. And they would. In a disaster, who would you rather come to your aid, the Red Cross or FEMA? When it comes to religion, would you rather choose for yourself what and how to exercise your beliefs, or would you prefer to let the government decide for you?

Ever since our founding, churches have been exempt from both state and federal taxes. Actually, tax exemptions go back a lot further than that, and it didn't have anything at all to do with small rural churches comprised of good honest people. The first recorded tax exemption for churches was during the Roman Empire, when Constantine, Emperor of Rome from 306-337, granted the Christian church a complete exemption from all forms of taxation in the year 312 A.D. He did it to create a separation of church and state. Constantine was a Christian and didn't like the way the government was involving itself in the church, so when he became Emperor he fixed that problem.

As for Joel Osteen's "enormous wealth," no, I'm not jealous of him at all.

 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
I'm not jealous. ..I'm disgusted...all in the name god..
TAX em I say..there no longer a religious organization. .it's flat out a business. ..tax tax tax.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Joel Osteen and his church doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form, therefore I'm neither jealous nor disgusted.

On that note, if you are so disgusted with God and all things religion, why would you want the government involved with it?
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
Why not...religion wants to government to regulate me ...flip the table...see if they like ..but of course that would be a problem...
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
So I take it you're a big opponent to the separation of church and state, and you think the government and religion should be one in the same. Got it.

What? No? Well, that's what you're advocating.

There is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion (or anything else, for that matter) than to tax it. There is an old Arabian proverb that, even though they didn't know it at the time, was written about the US Federal Government. It states: "If the camel gets his nose in the tent, the rest of him will soon follow." Do you really want Congress legislating how and what people can worship? Do you? DO YOU?!?

Oh, sure, Congress is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion, but as the Supreme Court once noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy. Once the government gets its nose in the tent, the destruction of the free exercise of religion is soon to follow.

My views on God, and my views on religion and the free exercise thereof, and my views on whether the government should be involved with it, are three separate issues. I certainly can't wrap my head around the notion offered from someone who is, for lack of a better phrase, anti-religion, but wants the government intimately involved in religion.

There are three primary economic sectors of our society:
Public - government labors for essential services
Private - labors for profit
Civil - non-profit which labors for the social good

Non-profits are a critical portion of the economy. Schools, museums, churches, hospitals, homeless aid, disaster relief, all would all pretty much go out of business. The government would have to take over those roles. And they would. In a disaster, who would you rather come to your aid, the Red Cross or FEMA? When it comes to religion, would you rather choose for yourself what and how to exercise your beliefs, or would you prefer to let the government decide for you?

Ever since our founding, churches have been exempt from both state and federal taxes. Actually, tax exemptions go back a lot further than that, and it didn't have anything at all to do with small rural churches comprised of good honest people. The first recorded tax exemption for churches was during the Roman Empire, when Constantine, Emperor of Rome from 306-337, granted the Christian church a complete exemption from all forms of taxation in the year 312 A.D. He did it to create a separation of church and state. Constantine was a Christian and didn't like the way the government was involving itself in the church, so when he became Emperor he fixed that problem.

As for Joel Osteen's "enormous wealth," no, I'm not jealous of him at all.


What's funny your advocating separation of church and state when benifts religion by not taxing them...but religion is always wanting to get involved in areas they shouldn't because of SOCS ..I E ..gay marriage..evolution being tough in school...school prayer........
IF they want to start getting into the regulation business...start paying taxes...maybe I will listen...Kinda of hypocritical. .but that's what religion is....
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Why not...religion wants to government to regulate me ...flip the table...see if they like ..but of course that would be a problem...
Uh, I just explained above "why not." I was looking for you to explain why you want the government involved.

This seems like a classic case of something that might feel good, but the unintended consequences are given no thought whatsoever. Once the government gets its nose in the tent, it's just a matter of time before they start calling the shots. The government for years promoted fuel efficient cars and alternative energy vehicles like electricity. Now that people are moving in that direction, the government is losing money because not enough revenue is being generated in gasoline taxes. Soooo, they want to tax miles driven instead of (or perhaps even in addition to) gallons bought. If the government starts taxing churches, then the government will have a vested interest in keeping those churches running and profitable. And based on historic precedent, it could even get to the point where in order to count on a consistent revenue, the government could start taxing everybody (that means you) and just fund the churches with tax money. It's happened over and over again in the last 2000 years, and it's going on right now in several Euopean countries (Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the list would surprise you) where church members pay a church tax, and either every citizen must be a church member, or they tax you the same whether you're a member or not.

It would seem that you simply want to punish religion and religious folks simply because you don't agree with their beliefs ("in the name of GOD") and you want to make their lives more difficult to make yourself feel better (which is the classic liberal feelgood). It seems you're fine with it as long as it remains on a small scale, with rural churches and good honest folks, but if someone comes up with a blockbuster platinum bestseller and becomes financially successful, you don't like them making that much money. So I'm sure you can see how it seems there's some jealousy involved here, since most liberal feelgoods that punish one segment of society have that very emotion at its base.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
Again not jealous in the least bit...
My problem with Joel and all of the other TV beggers. Is they use the ruse of religion and getting into heaven to line the pockets of the themselves and there cohorts. .they do real well because there in your living room...
I'm a firm believer anyway that organized religion is all sham anyway. .
So what there upto just adds to my dislike of the whole thing..
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
What's funny your advocating separation of church and state when benifts religion by not taxing them...but religion is always wanting to get involved in areas they shouldn't because of SOCS ..I E ..gay marriage..evolution being tough in school...school prayer........IF they want to start getting into the regulation business...start paying taxes...maybe I will listen...Kinda of hypocritical. .but that's what religion is....
You keep reinforcing my point. You want them punished in some way. The regulating business is the opinion business. People give their opinions on the way things should be done, and that's now regulation happens. That's precisely how the definition of "marriage" got changed to mean something completely different. Whether or not those who advocated the definition change paid taxes never came up.

The notion that you would start listening to religious folks if they paid taxes is not hypocritical at all, because it's not even remotely true. There is no way in Heaven or Earth that you will be able to convince me that you will believe in God if churches suddenly get taxed.

One thing you really need to do is be able to differentiate between religion and the ideas, wants and wishes of religious people. The Church, or Religion, isn't trying to legislate anything. But people have been co-opting religion for their own selfish reasons ever since religion was invented. Religious folks are certainly trying to legislate their beliefs onto others, but that's not the same as the religion itself. You don't see a church filing a lawsuit to get prayer in schools (because if they do then they lose their tax exempt status). You see religious people doing that, though. Everybody wants to force their beliefs onto others, and use legislation or the judiciary to do it if they have to, be they religious or gay or liberal or conservative. But if you start taxing churches, then you have the government directly involved in the whole process, which ironically makes legislating those religious beliefs a snap. If you tax churches, then the religion, not merely the wants and wishes of its adherents, but the teachings and commandments of the religion itself now has an actual voice in government. I can't believe in good conscious that that's the unintended consequence which you are advocating.

Religious wackos who think revelation and science are the same thing is a completely different issue.
 

Dynamite 1

Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Ya, the wic card that will let you buy soda but not soap. Toaster pastries not tooth paste !!!!!
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Ya, the wic card that will let you buy soda but not soap. Toaster pastries not tooth paste !!!!!

Because "cleanliness is next to Godliness", and they don't want to be seen as promoting it? ;)

The problem is that WIC was meant to combat hunger, so it's limited to food, and soda [pop!] and Pop tarts are food, technically.
The bigger problem is the definition of "profit" that allows many "not for profit" organizations to line the pockets of some people. It's not just the evangelical churches, either.
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
You see no problem his enormous wealth ??



His wealth is none of my business, because there must be 1000s of people sending him money/ buying his books or church folks sending the church money in the form of tithes or money for missions. Bottom line, none of us can control other people who send his church money or buy his books, it is out of our control and really none of my business who sends him money.

People cannot control other peoples spending habits.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You see no problem his enormous wealth ??

So you are also against Gates, Bloomberg, Buffet, Jordan, Manning, Soros, Clinton etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. a few hundred thousand times over for their enormous wealth?

How about Suze Orman, Ellen Degeneres, Anderson Cooper, Michael Kors, or David Geffen, all far wealthier than Osteen? Do you see problems with their even far far more enormous wealth?
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
So you are also against Gates, Bloomberg, Buffet, Jordan, Manning, Soros, Clinton etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. a few hundred thousand times over for their enormous wealth?

How about Suze Orman, Ellen Degeneres, Anderson Cooper, Michael Kors, or David Geffen, all far wealthier than Osteen? Do you see problems with their even far far more enormous wealth?

Really...No...there not doing it in the name of god...how much of that wealth was built on people handing over the hard earned money to his church thinking there doing something for god...since he requires 10% Pre tax earnings. ..that's the problem...
I am all for making money..the people that are listed above didn't make MILLIONS (tax free) in the name of religion. .


When you lay your head on a bed at night in a $10 MILLION house ..makes one question your true intentions...
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
steve-jobs-or-jesus-300x300.jpg
 
Top