Nothing about this is a protest. (NSFW Racial Expletives)

[turtlespeed 212]

13 minutes ago, jakee said:

Ummmmm..... you answered it too. Does that mean you don't recognise a rhetorical question when you write it?

No - I answered it just in case you were unable to recognize it.

Obviously, I was right to do so.

[Coreece 189]

  

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

6 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, who's idea of separation, Lenin's?  How high do people want to build that wall before they start kicking religious folks out of congress and arresting clergy

Why do American Christians spout this crap?

I'm perfectly fine with the current level of separation, and feel it's essential for the proper functioning of both church and state.

Often times my posts build upon what I said up-thread and may reference ideas put forth by others months ago in a completely different thread.

A while back a poster did suggest banning members of congress for proposing religious legislation such as anti-abortion laws.  When I pointed out to him that anti-abortion ideology isn't particularly a religious thing, he said something like "well, the majority of supporters are religious" so kick them out anyway.  I really don't think he understood the deeper implications of what he was actually saying.  And I think this might be a good place to remind everyone that tho I may have some unfavorable opinions on the subject, I'm not looking to enact restrictive laws against  protected classes, and neither is Ron.  Like he said, "your life, your choice" - and I think that often gets overlooked.

As for the "arresting clergy" thing, I just threw that in there given that people like phil were metaphorically calling for the heads of religious leaders during this crisis for their relatively irresponsible behavior - Which I can agree with to a certain extent, and for the most feel that phil was being sincere in that regard.  But again, we have to be careful, because in the past people also called for the heads of religious clergy, but due to sensitivities surrounding religious belief, they used whatever excuse they could to label them as "enemies of the state,"  when what they were really wanted was to silence their influence on the people and eliminate religion altogether.

But a more realistic concern I have is with regard to the ever-growing/progressive idea of taxing churches.  I certainly think that some church organizations should open up their books and be investigated for violations of their tax-exempt status and possible shady business dealings.  But if we're going to do that, it should be very selective and with reasonable cause.  My concern is that if we start taxing churches in general, it could very well have a detrimental effect on smaller churches that truly have a positive effect in their local community and various outreach programs.  I just don't want the innocent to end up paying for the sins of these megachurches that will continue to thrive regardless. 

And another thing, do you really want to tax churches when it could very well give them even more say in the government or even more political clout than they already have?

 

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

You are not even the least bit concerned about any other religions. You are not in favour of "religious freedom"

Ken, we already talked about how that is demonstrably false and you really should know better than that by now.  I've partook in a number of spiritual ideologies outside of Christianity prior to my conversion and they've all left an impression on me - without those experiences it's doubtful that I would've been receptive to the faith that I've come to embrace.   But ya, I believe all religions can lead to Christ in someway or another - sorry if you have a problem with that.

 

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

And that is why the push back you get here is so vigorous.

Or maybe you're just trying to match my energy and vigor, just like I'm trying to match your energy and vigor when it comes to causes that are close to your heart, or at least the vigor you display when attacking other forms of bigotry against various  protected classes.

And for the most part I agree.   But then I hear how some of you talk about religion or just ignore some blatantly bigoted stereotype - or even start defending it, and it's like "Oh, that's how it is?  Well to hell with that, I thought we were on the same page."

 

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

And for what it's worth, thanks for at least trying to have a normal conversation.

Same. But we're not out to get you.

I can buy that for the most part, for now.  I'm more concerned with allowing bigoted anti-religious sentiment and stereotyping to foster and what that may look like further down the line in future generations, especially as the level of animosity continues to grows between religion and secular humanity whether justifiable or not.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

No - I answered it just in case you were unable to recognize it.

Obviously, I was right to do so.

You don't recognise a rhetorical question when you read it or write it, I see.

[gowlerk 1,903]

28 minutes ago, Coreece said:

My concern is that if we start taxing churches in general, it could very well have a detrimental effect on smaller churches that truly have a positive effect in their local community and various outreach programs.  I just don't want the innocent to end up paying for the sins of these megachurches that will continue to thrive regardless. 

I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. But I would say that in the same way we have a progressive system of taxation for people a progressive system of taxing the business of religion could be worked out. But only in theory, the reality is that the level and depth of resistance to the idea would make it politically impossible.

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

No - I answered it just in case you were unable to recognize it.

Obviously, I was right to do so.

So you posted a rhetorical question, which he was foolish to answer.  So . . .  you answered it too?

[jakee 1,254]

26 minutes ago, billvon said:

So you posted a rhetorical question, which he was foolish to answer.  So . . .  you answered it too?

Of course - answering a question is obviously the clearest way to demonstrate that it is a question which is not supposed to be answered.

[yoink 321]

Edit: 

 

nope. Not getting sucked in.

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by yoink

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

4 minutes ago, yoink said:

Edit: 

 

nope. Not getting sucked in.

 

Hi Will,

Good for you.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,380]

45 minutes ago, yoink said:

Edit: 

nope. Not getting sucked in.

 

I should follow your example more often.  

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

So you posted a rhetorical question, which he was foolish to answer.  So . . .  you answered it too?

Not exactly - I answered it, preemptively clarifying for him assuming (Rightly so, apparently) he wouldn't be able to understand that it was rhetorical.

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. But I would say that in the same way we have a progressive system of taxation for people a progressive system of taxing the business of religion could be worked out. But only in theory, the reality is that the level and depth of resistance to the idea would make it politically impossible.

Churches are businesses.

They should be taxed accordingly.

I have never heard of any holy book claiming tax exemption, as being the word of the respective god.

 

I have heard of the good books calling for the shepherds and the flocks to follow the law of the land.

Edited August 3, 2020 by turtlespeed

[kallend 1,621]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Not exactly - I answered it, preemptively clarifying for him assuming (Rightly so, apparently) he wouldn't be able to understand that it was rhetorical.

The Weasel is strong in this one.

[Phil1111 908]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Churches are businesses.

They should be taxed accordingly.

I have never heard of any holy book claiming tax exemption, as being the word of the respective god.

 

I have heard of the good books calling for the shepherds and the flocks to follow the law of the land.

Everyone knows that churches,i.e. religion is big business.  They lobby government, run PAC's, corrupt the election process for their benefit. Kill their enemies, protect corrupt governments.

Some participate in killing their opponents and members of other religions.

How Putin Uses Russian Orthodoxy to Grow His Empire

Trump Wants to Make Churches the New Super PACs

Fraud Thriving In U.S. Churches,

"More than 10,600 religious organizations have taken at least $3bn in coronavirus financial aid from the US government, according to an analysis by the Guardian, raising concerns about the separation of church and state.

The list of recipients of federal Paycheck Protection Program payments includes churches, synagogues, temples and private religious schools. Among them are the ministries of wealthy televangelists accused of fraud"

"There is no restriction against churches – which do not pay taxes, don’t have to disclose their funding sources, and aren’t subject to all anti-discrimination laws – from receiving publicly funded forgivable PPP coronavirus relief loans.

“The American government at the federal level has never before subsidized houses of worship to pay for the salaries of their clergy,” Laser said. “At Americans United we believe that the first amendment clearly forbids this. The Small Business Administration of the Trump administration may have allowed it, but the constitution forbids it....

Several religious groups whose leaders are reportedly Trump evangelical advisers took between $2m and $5m each.”

Why shouldn't the US taxpayer pay for the fuel, pay the pilots, that a G-5 needs to fly evangelical televangelists around the US?

Edited August 3, 2020 by Phil1111

[JoeWeber 2,294]

8 hours ago, Coreece said:

  

I'm perfectly fine with the current level of separation, and feel it's essential for the proper functioning of both church and state.

Often times my posts build upon what I said up-thread and may reference ideas put forth by others months ago in a completely different thread.

A while back a poster did suggest banning members of congress for proposing religious legislation such as anti-abortion laws.  When I pointed out to him that anti-abortion ideology isn't particularly a religious thing, he said something like "well, the majority of supporters are religious" so kick them out anyway.  I really don't think he understood the deeper implications of what he was actually saying.  And I think this might be a good place to remind everyone that tho I may have some unfavorable opinions on the subject, I'm not looking to enact restrictive laws against  protected classes, and neither is Ron.  Like he said, "your life, your choice" - and I think that often gets overlooked.

As for the "arresting clergy" thing, I just threw that in there given that people like phil were metaphorically calling for the heads of religious leaders during this crisis for their relatively irresponsible behavior - Which I can agree with to a certain extent, and for the most feel that phil was being sincere in that regard.  But again, we have to be careful, because in the past people also called for the heads of religious clergy, but due to sensitivities surrounding religious belief, they used whatever excuse they could to label them as "enemies of the state,"  when what they were really wanted was to silence their influence on the people and eliminate religion altogether.

But a more realistic concern I have is with regard to the ever-growing/progressive idea of taxing churches.  I certainly think that some church organizations should open up their books and be investigated for violations of their tax-exempt status and possible shady business dealings.  But if we're going to do that, it should be very selective and with reasonable cause.  My concern is that if we start taxing churches in general, it could very well have a detrimental effect on smaller churches that truly have a positive effect in their local community and various outreach programs.  I just don't want the innocent to end up paying for the sins of these megachurches that will continue to thrive regardless. 

And another thing, do you really want to tax churches when it could very well give them even more say in the government or even more political clout than they already have?

 

Ken, we already talked about how that is demonstrably false and you really should know better than that by now.  I've partook in a number of spiritual ideologies outside of Christianity prior to my conversion and they've all left an impression on me - without those experiences it's doubtful that I would've been receptive to the faith that I've come to embrace.   But ya, I believe all religions can lead to Christ in someway or another - sorry if you have a problem with that.

 

Or maybe you're just trying to match my energy and vigor, just like I'm trying to match your energy and vigor when it comes to causes that are close to your heart, or at least the vigor you display when attacking other forms of bigotry against various  protected classes.

And for the most part I agree.   But then I hear how some of you talk about religion or just ignore some blatantly bigoted stereotype - or even start defending it, and it's like "Oh, that's how it is?  Well to hell with that, I thought we were on the same page."

 

I can buy that for the most part, for now.  I'm more concerned with allowing bigoted anti-religious sentiment and stereotyping to foster and what that may look like further down the line in future generations, especially as the level of animosity continues to grows between religion and secular humanity whether justifiable or not.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, are you training for the incoherent nationals or practicing for your first Russian novel?

[normiss 620]

21 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, are you training for the incoherent nationals or practicing for your first Russian novel?

Howard be thy name.

[jakee 1,254]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Not exactly - I answered it, preemptively clarifying for him assuming (Rightly so, apparently) he wouldn't be able to understand that it was rhetorical.

Why are you answering all the rhetorical questions in this thread?

[olofscience 420]

14 hours ago, Coreece said:

especially as the level of animosity continues to grows between religion and secular humanity whether justifiable or not.

This animosity growing as much as the youth gets worse and worse over time. Meaning, people complain about it all the time but it's the same as it ever was, if not actually better.

[nigel99 143]

22 minutes ago, olofscience said:

This animosity growing as much as the youth gets worse and worse over time. Meaning, people complain about it all the time but it's the same as it ever was, if not actually better.

The poor oppressed Christian line in the USA makes me laugh. You can’t even elect a president who doesn’t claim to hold Christian beliefs

[ryoder 1,381]

33 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

The poor oppressed Christian line in the USA makes me laugh. You can’t even elect a president who doesn’t claim to hold Christian beliefs

No kidding! My governor (Jared Polis) was the first openly-gay man elected to Congress, and then the first openly-gay man elected governor. What chance do you think he would have had if he would have been openly-atheist instead of gay?

[Phil1111 908]

1 hour ago, nigel99 said:

The poor oppressed Christian line in the USA makes me laugh. You can’t even elect a president who doesn’t claim to hold Christian beliefs

 

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

No kidding! My governor (Jared Polis) was the first openly-gay man elected to Congress, and then the first openly-gay man elected governor. What chance do you think he would have had if he would have been openly-atheist instead of gay?

Both right of course but you're missing the point. Its like a hockey game where a good clean hit is delivered but the coach with the player who gets hit calls it a cheap shot. He cries and moans and complains to the ref about how the opposing player should have got a game misconduct. Thats a red card for Brits.

It all about laying the groundwork for the next period. Evangelicals have owned the WH, stacked the courts, the Senate, etc. Now they want to ensure that their single vote still counts as three above the Blacks, Browns and naturally the heathens.

[turtlespeed 212]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

Why are you answering all the rhetorical questions in this thread?

Someone has to be of service to you, just in case you need help recognizing them.

[jakee 1,254]

52 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Someone has to be of service to you, just in case you need help recognizing them.

You recognise questions that shouldn't be answered by seeing that someone has tried answering them? Do you really think it works that way?

[turtlespeed 212]

25 minutes ago, jakee said:

You recognise questions that shouldn't be answered by seeing that someone has tried answering them? Do you really think it works that way?

I ensured you are getting the point by answering the rhetorical question, canceling your ability to deliberately misinterpret.

Even that didn't help, and you went right on with your deliberate misinterpretation.

I conclude that we must all band together and help you with that.

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by turtlespeed
fixed spelling

[jakee 1,254]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I ensured you are getting the point by answering the rhetorical question, canceling your ability to deliberately misinterpret.

How is it misinterpreting when someone when someone simply has a different opinion than you? Are you arrogant enough to think any opinion counter to yours must be a fundamental misunderstanding?

That's a rhetorical question by the way, and the answer is yes you are - so you shouldn't offer any other answer.

Quote

Even that didn't help, and you went right on with your deliberate misinterpretation.

How does demonstrating the the question can be answered supposed to help show that the question shouldn't be answered? The answer is of course it doesn't, that's absurd. And that's the only possible answer, because this question is also rhetorical.

 

By the way, what do you think it demonstrates that you've answered 5 rhetorical questions including your own in order to advance your claim that rhetorical questions should not be answered? I'd say it shows rank hypocrisy and a fundamental lack of self awareness. But of course if you think differently then you won't say so.

[Coreece 189]

4 hours ago, nigel99 said:

The poor oppressed Christian line in the USA makes me laugh.

Fine, but I think you're diluting the issue that varying levels of hate speech and stereotyping are still bigoted whether directed at a minority population or not.  A bigot spewing hate against Jews is still a bigot even if he's in Israel, same thing for hate spewed at Muslims whether here in the U.S or in Iran.  And it all contributes to a hateful mindset that progressive liberals supposedly stand against, so if they're to be taken seriously, then they need to attack it in all it's forms and not just because they need to garner votes to win an election.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Coreece