God isn’t fixing this

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

I'm pretty sure, in Today's world, you don't get disappeared, or stoned to death, or beheaded for leaving the Christian church.

Guess again.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/us/new-york-church-assault-case/

[mirage62 0]

You know what's funny is the people who try to really relate religious people to being perfect then it becomes "basically they only follow the rules of the bible they want to". Then we hear about how non-religious people follow their on set of rules - are we suppose to believe that these rules are followed perfectly??

Other than Normiss not being able to beer on Sunday
Most of the people that really get spun up about religion come across as very liberal, live and let live - unless it's me and my belief in Christ. Then I'm ruining their life because of a belief system.

Rant over, Sorry

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[mistercwood 287]

I only give a shit when people try to legislate with those beliefs. If you want to go to church on Sunday and pray at night and follow your beliefs in a way that has zero impact on me - knock yourself out!

Sadly however there are some who get into politics who then use their beliefs to make laws that will impact on me. That's where I and others have an issue.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[mirage62 0]

Yeah I can understand that. I really don't care if you go to church or not.

Frankly I don't know how anybody can do much of ANYTHING that has zero impact on others. Not sure that your beliefs don't impact me in some negative way that I would perceive as negative.

In reality that's why we have elections. For example (I don't know your positions) You want to elect someone who absolutely will remove "In God we trust" I want to elect someone who will keep it. We have an election maybe you get what you want maybe I do.

The founding fathers were pretty damn clear about the separation of church and state, (I'm for that) they were also pretty clear about 2 amendments rights.

Laws that impact YOU negatively may be laws that I agree with AND the other way.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[wmw999 2,116]

I knew there was a reason I liked you...

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

You know what's funny is the people who try to really relate religious people to being perfect then it becomes "basically they only follow the rules of the bible they want to". Then we hear about how non-religious people follow their on set of rules - are we suppose to believe that these rules are followed perfectly??

Other than Normiss not being able to beer on Sunday Smile....I don't get why so many people care if I want to believe in the little man behind the curtain. You want to believe that there isn't a God, knock yourself out but why do you give a shit if I do?

Because (at least in this thread) they're not talking to you. They're talking to Ron and other people like him who want the whole world, or at least his whole country, to be run according to his beliefs.

Also, consider that you felt you needed a rant after hearing your religion being criticized by a tiny minority of people. Now imagine you are the tiny minority and your lack of religion is constantly criticised by the majority. Food for thought, I hope.

Quote

Most of the people that really get spun up about religion come across as very liberal, live and let live - unless it's me and my belief in Christ. Then I'm ruining their life because of a belief system.

Two reasons for that.

1) You live in a mostly Christian country. Therefore the people who mostly want to assert their religious beliefs over others are mostly Christians. Therefore complaints from people who don't want to abide by someone else's religious directives will mostly complain about Christians.

2) You are more sensitive to stuff that affects you and less sensitive to stuff that affects other people. Proportional to the number of adherents, the amount of criticism that other religions in the USA attract is way more overblown than the criticism that Christianity attracts.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

jakee

Now imagine you are the tiny minority and your lack of religion is constantly criticised by the majority.

I imagine myself as an atheist prick taking que from the likes of Dick Dawkins and historical militant atheism. Recognizing the hypocritical similarities to religious extremism, I decide to become peacefully agnostic minding my own fucking blissful ignorance.

jakee

You live in a mostly Christian country.

But it's clearly run as a secular society primarily devoid of christian principles - Ya, you may have some remnants that look and feel like Christianity, but the majority of people only believe in God simply because they can't help it - and that's about as far as their faith will ever go.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Bolas 5]

mirage62

In reality that's why we have elections. For example (I don't know your positions) You want to elect someone who absolutely will remove "In God we trust" I want to elect someone who will keep it. We have an election maybe you get what you want maybe I do.

The founding fathers were pretty damn clear about the separation of church and state, (I'm for that) they were also pretty clear about 2 amendments rights.

FYI, it wasn't added to paper money till the 50s:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

Around the same timeframe "under God" was added to the pledge:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22

If you're for the separation of church and state, how is having a religious statement on the currency or in the pledge a separation?

I'd like to think an election or elected official would first be concerned about the constitutionality of something before their personal opinions on the matter came into play, especially if based on religious belief structure.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Coreeece 2]

Bolas

If you're for the separation of church and state, how is having a religious statement on the currency or in the pledge a separation?

If you're for the separation for church and state, how is taxing Churches a separation?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Bolas 5]

Coreeece

***
If you're for the separation of church and state, how is having a religious statement on the currency or in the pledge a separation?

If you're for the separation for church and state, how is taxing Churches a separation?

You mean their tax exempt status they have now?

I'd be for abolishing that too and treating them just like any other entity. If they meet the existing requirements for a charity or nonprofit, great, if not, they should be taxed.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[rehmwa 2]

Coreeece

I imagine myself as an atheist prick taking que from the likes of Dick Dawkins and historical militant atheism. Recognizing the hypocritical similarities to religious extremism, I decide to become peacefully agnostic minding my own fucking blissful ignorance.

That's really a great post. I chuckled.

Bolas

You mean their tax exempt status they have now?

I'd be for abolishing that too and treating them just like any other entity. If they meet the existing requirements for a charity or nonprofit, great, if not, they should be taxed.

Absolutely, it's really very simple

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Coreeece 2]

Bolas

******
If you're for the separation of church and state, how is having a religious statement on the currency or in the pledge a separation?

If you're for the separation for church and state, how is taxing Churches a separation?

You mean their tax exempt status they have now?

Ya, how is taxing them a separation - especially when doing so would give them much more political power than they already have?

Bolas

I'd be for abolishing that too and treating them just like any other entity.

I know, that's why I asked the question.

Bolas

If they meet the existing requirements for a charity or nonprofit, great, if not, they should be taxed.

That sounds reasonable, but how do churches not meet those requirements?

For starters, many non profits and charities I know charge for their services, whereas churches do not - Take for example Plan Parenthood that even takes tax money and then pays their president $500K+ a year...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Bolas 5]

I'm not following. How would taxing them give them more political power?

My guess is most standard places of worship would most likely easily qualify as a nonprofit or charity.

The larger ones especially the "Mega churches" with their jets and huge houses for their leaders would be seen as for profit.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Coreeece 2]

Bolas

I'm not following. How would taxing them give them more political power?

From what I remember, churches can't lobby or have any political voice. There are religious non-profit orgs, but they have to pay taxes on donations used to lobby.

If you're gonna take money from someone, they have a right to voice how that money is spent. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. I don't want my church giving money to the government for the same reason I don't wanna be in bed with the mob - before you know it, your principles have eroded away and you're forced to do something you don't want to.

Bolas

My guess is most standard places of worship would most likely easily qualify as a nonprofit or charity.

Good.

Bolas

The larger ones especially the "Mega churches" with their jets and huge houses for their leaders would be seen as for profit.

How?

...and then how could non profits like planned parenthood still take money from tax payers and pay their leaders 500k+ a year. At least most of the mega church leaders write their own books and earn their own money to pay for their huge houses and big taxes.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jakee 1,254]

We get it, you see the world through crucifix shaped glasses.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

That's really a great post. I chuckled.

Of course you did. You've never been the balanced, central voice you think you are.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

jakee

We get it, you see the world through crucifix shaped glasses.

...and you see America through a liquid crystal ball display.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[mirage62 0]

I don't know how to go link all the comments to one post but he's a few replies.

#1 I used the example of "In God we trust" I didn't say I support it. In fact it isn't the end of the world to me like it is others. Anybody that knows anything knows when it was added. Currency changes. It was added - it can be deleted.

#2 I don't know about the "tiny minority" being so criticized by Christians - or the majority but if they are the voting majority than while you are certainly willing to complain and work hard to convince voters that the other side is wrong - it's still a majority vote system.

#3 As far as Ron and others - if you read half my post I'm not far right as other people you mention. I'm very middle of the road. Your or others belief or lack of belief does not effect me in the least. I feel no need to convert you.

I believe you made a very good point. The minority in this case feels very, very put upon on any issue of confusion of religion and laws of the nation. Numerous times BUT NOT ALL THE TIME things change (12 commandments in Alabama being removed comes to mind) In a lot of countries that wouldn't have changed - given the majority of people being Christians here - but it DID change. A case where the minority was protected from the majority by our constitution.

So while I am a Christian (flawed) I supported that action because you can't have it both ways. Either you support the constitution or not.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

Quote

That's really a great post. I chuckled.

Of course you did. You've never been the balanced, central voice you think you are.

it's true, I chuckle at your stuff all the time


(I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, paying your own way, minimal government interference, social privacy and social freedoms. - I'm not balanced or central to the two philosophies in my country at all - I'm way off to the side or even completely polar to what they offer - from my view, they are the same party based on two things - a LOT of social busy bodies, and power brokers that want to run and own everything. The only difference is how they rationalize their crookedness

as for what I chuckled at in Coreece's post - yes, the inability of the 'militant atheist' to not recognize the hypocrisy of his actions/attitudes is a wry humor. as for a normal atheist? those guys are cool. My agnosticism is like my politics, I think the 'true believers' of faith or anti-faith are a bit silly in their self righteous nonsense and they waste a lot of energy patting themselves on their backs.

You've been a joy to write with lately, I hope you're not just going to return to your regular level of anger and antagonism.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bolas 5]

Coreeece

***I'm not following. How would taxing them give them more political power?

From what I remember, churches can't lobby or have any political voice. There are religious non-profit orgs, but they have to pay taxes on donations used to lobby.


You just showed how they get around that.

Quote

If you're gonna take money from someone, they have a right to voice how that money is spent. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. I don't want my church giving money to the government for the same reason I don't wanna be in bed with the mob - before you know it, your principles have eroded away and you're forced to do something you don't want to.

You view religion like organize crime? Are you sure you're not a "militant atheist?"

Quote

Bolas

My guess is most standard places of worship would most likely easily qualify as a nonprofit or charity.

Good.

Bolas

The larger ones especially the "Mega churches" with their jets and huge houses for their leaders would be seen as for profit.

How?

...and then how could non profits like planned parenthood still take money from tax payers and pay their leaders 500k+ a year. At least most of the mega church leaders write their own books and earn their own money to pay for their huge houses and big taxes.

Lots of large charities and nonprofits take taxpayer money pay their CEO and board well, but also nowhere near what they could get at a large for profit corporation, which many also take taxpayer money in various forms.

If the majority of a person's income is writing books, why does the subject of those books matter in determining their tax-exempt status?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

mirage62

...#2 I don't know about the "tiny minority" being so criticized by Christians - or the majority but if they are the voting majority than while you are certainly willing to complain and work hard to convince voters that the other side is wrong - it's still a majority vote system...


...In a lot of countries that wouldn't have changed - given the majority of people being Christians here - but it DID change. A case where the minority was protected from the majority by our constitution.

So while I am a Christian (flawed) I supported that action because you can't have it both ways. Either you support the constitution or not.

Which is it?

A "majority rules" country or one where the constitution protects the minority from the "tyranny of the majority"?

Civil rights (back in the 60s), gay rights (this past year), even gun rights and women's reproductive rights (abortion rights).

All of those are good examples where the majority cannot strip the minority of their rights.

Even though the majority tries pretty hard.

And often the oppressed minority has to go to court to get those rights established after the tyranny of the majority has taken them away. Of course, the majority then complains about "legislation from the bench" and that "democracy has been subverted" (or thwarted or lots of other things).
Gay marriage this year is a pretty good example of this. And many (most?) of those opposed to it did so on religious grounds.

I honestly don't care if someone believes or not. Or what that may be. But when they try to force those beliefs on others, I have an issue.

That can be as simple as prohibiting alcohol sales on Sunday (or even automobile sales, as Wisconsin does)

Or it can be as encompassing as prohibiting two consenting adults from exercising the same rights granted to others, as in the gay marriage issue.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

#2 I don't know about the "tiny minority" being so criticized by Christians - or the majority but if they are the voting majority than while you are certainly willing to complain and work hard to convince voters that the other side is wrong - it's still a majority vote system.

Voting? You were bitching about "people that really get spun up about religion come across as very liberal, live and let live - unless it's me and my belief in Christ".

I don't see what that had to do with voting. But if you think laws are being voted for and passed that infringe your beliefs then hey, your reply to me applies equally to you. Get more votes or get over it.

(It actually doesn't apply to either of us because it's a fundamental misconception of how your government works, but whatever)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

Bolas

******I'm not following. How would taxing them give them more political power?

From what I remember, churches can't lobby or have any political voice. There are religious non-profit orgs, but they have to pay taxes on donations used to lobby.


You just showed how they get around that.

I would imagine that the majority of religious lobbyists aren't a subset of any one particular church. In any event, the point is that if you decide to tax Churches they won't have to "get around" anything.

Bolas

Quote

If you're gonna take money from someone, they have a right to voice how that money is spent. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. I don't want my church giving money to the government for the same reason I don't wanna be in bed with the mob - before you know it, your principles have eroded away and you're forced to do something you don't want to.

You view religion like organize crime?

Well, when mixed with politics, perhaps.

I'm not a fan of religion in politics, nor politics in my religion. I'm surprised that you'd want to go down a road that leads into more of that.

Bolas

If the majority of a person's income is writing books, why does the subject of those books matter in determining their tax-exempt status?

I'm not sure I follow. The leaders of mega churches that author books still pay income tax.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

as for what I chuckled at in Coreece's post - yes, the inability of the 'militant atheist' to not recognize the hypocrisy of his actions/attitudes is a wry humor.

Is that enough to make it a great post though? Sure it works as a potted comedic rant but in terms of making a point the logic just isn't there.

1) I imagine myself as an atheist prick. This is in response to an invitation to try and see things from the perspective of the other side. That invitation is clearly rejected. That's not something you're supposed to like.

2 taking que from the likes of Dick Dawkins and historical militant atheism. Yes, Dawkins has, unfortunately, descended into a kind of caricature of himself. But histoical militant atheism? From Coreece's recent posts I'm going to assume this means actual militant anti-religious activities such as those from the Soviet Union and the Khmer Rouge. But hang on - who in the modern debate is taking their cue from those people? Where are the militant atheists? These days anyone who so much as opens their mouth in favour of a secular society is branded a militant atheist but that doesn't mean you can say 'and therefore Stalin', does it?

3) I decide to become peacefully agnostic minding my own... As a Christian Coreece isn't minding his own any more than anyone else here does if he feels he's being criticised or infringed upon, so why would he if he wasn't Christian? Unless he's arguing than becoming an atheist would lead to an improvement of his character, which I'm pretty sure wasn't the point

4) fucking blissful ignorance Although I know he didn't mean it that way, there's plenty of times you'd jump in if someone said the other side was fucking ignorant.

Quote

You've been a joy to write with lately, I hope you're not just going to return to your regular level of anger and antagonism.)

Hiking and jump in the mountains every day this summer probably had a positive effect on my psyche. I'm back working for the winter season though so we'll see how it goes

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

I'm not a fan of religion in politics, nor politics in my religion. I'm surprised that you'd want to go down a road that leads into more of that.

How would removing the current special and "protected class" status of religion in the US lead to more religion in politics? All I'm saying is treat them like every other organization or group: have them open their books and tax them according to their income. No special rules or exemptions. Ex: the ACA religious org/business exemptions.

As for politics in religion, that's up to the various groups as to how active they choose to be. I don't have an issue with a particular religion following candidate encouraging those in their religion and others to vote for them as long as if elected, puts the Constitution first before whatever their religion decrees and avoid clear conflicts of interest such as a Christian scientist chairing a science committee:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith#Committee_assignments

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.