Church Taxation and Homosexuals

Wake · Dec 13, 2011

theplaydrive said:
I can't believe how much time you're spending talking about a question that is so incredibly simple to answer?

She already explained it to you when you made the same accusation on the first page and then you continued to make the accusation after her explanation. That is why I'm asking the question.

Here is first explanation when you said the same thing on the first page:

So again, since she already answered you and that answer wasn't good enough, I'm curious to know where in her OP she said or implied what you continue to say she did?

Why is she even talking about Christianity, taxation, and churches then? If this is just a history lesson then why not put this in the history subforum?

When you make a thread titled "Church Taxation and the Church", and the OP's message is vague, it makes you think the OP is referencing the old argument about taking away the church's tax-exempt status for being against homosexuality.

But yes, I get what you're doing. I get how you're nit-picking my posts. You're not the only one who knows how to do that, though. With all due respect, you should hope you never state what you think someone is stating/implying in their OP, because I'll be sure to do the same nit-picking thing you're doing to my posts.

ThePlayDrive · Dec 13, 2011

Wake said:
Why is she even talking about Christianity, taxation, and churches then? If this is just a history lesson then why not put this in the history subforum?

When you make a thread titled "Church Taxation and the Church", and the OP's message is vague, it makes you think the OP is referencing the old argument about taking away the church's tax-exempt status for being against homosexuality.

So the title made you think that. In her OP, she's clearly talking about the link between how the Church's disdain for homosexuality evolved along with its land acquisitions and tax structures.

But yes, I get what you're doing. I get how you're nit-picking my posts. You're not the only one who knows how to do that, though. With all due respect, you should hope you never state what you think someone is stating/implying in their OP, because I'll be sure to do the same nit-picking thing you're doing to me.

I haven't nitpicked your posts. I asked you a single question and you refused to answer it and then said you wanted the OP to explain to you after she already had explained it to you. How interesting.

Bob Blaylock · Dec 14, 2011

Temporal said:
Churches that become political should lose their tax free status. :shrug:

Wake said:
So what are you asking? You want to tax churches because their religion tells them homosexuality is wrong?

Ikari said:
Who gets to define "political"?

Wake said:
This OP, with all due respect, seems like a maneuver to tax certain churches which believe homosexuality is a sin. By calling it a "political" belief, you essentially ignore the religious aspect of it and the 6 or so scriptures discussing it.

It's more sinister than that. The ground is being laid here, to set up an authority on the part of government to dictate what beliefs a church may or may not promote; and to subject any church that doesn't stick to government-approved doctrines to taxation, and to further government interference that goes along therewith. It's a subtle attempt to make a gradual end-run around the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, ultimately to rendering this protection ineffective, just as has been effectively done to the Tenth Amendment.

Enola · Dec 14, 2011

Why does she have to explain anything? It's a topic that has to do with religion. Is religion nothing but conspiracies? No.

This is a discussion board, right?

American · Dec 14, 2011

The OP hasn't provided a single credible source to support the history. Ask for that first before proceeding further with discussion.

Thunder · Dec 14, 2011

Bob Blaylock said:
It's more sinister than that. The ground is being laid here, to set up an authority on the part of government to dictate what beliefs a church may or may not promote; and to subject any church that doesn't stick to government-approved doctrines to taxation, and to further government interference that goes along therewith. It's a subtle attempt to make a gradual end-run around the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, ultimately to rendering this protection ineffective, just as has been effectively done to the Tenth Amendment.

sounds like a Conspiracy Theory.

Temporal · Dec 14, 2011

Bob Blaylock said:
It's more sinister than that. The ground is being laid here, to set up an authority on the part of government to dictate what beliefs a church may or may not promote; and to subject any church that doesn't stick to government-approved doctrines to taxation, and to further government interference that goes along therewith. It's a subtle attempt to make a gradual end-run around the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, ultimately to rendering this protection ineffective, just as has been effectively done to the Tenth Amendment.

No, it's not that extreme.

If a pastor is openly telling people who to vote for and who not, that makes the church a political organization that is stepping outside of the religious boundary.

I support freedom of speech, but if churches want to become activists they should pay taxes like any other organization that makes money.

Thunder · Dec 14, 2011

Temporal said:
No, it's not that extreme.

If a pastor is openly telling people who to vote for and who not, that makes the church a political organization that is stepping outside of the religious boundary.

I support freedom of speech, but if churches want to become activists they should pay taxes like any other organization that makes money.

Churches are more than welcome to advocate for political candidates, political parties, and political agendas.

just give up your very undeserved tax-exempt status.

Ikari · Dec 14, 2011

Thunder said:
Churches are more than welcome to advocate for political candidates, political parties, and political agendas.

just give up your very undeserved tax-exempt status.

First off, aren't there rules that state that they can't tell their congregation how to vote?

Secondly, I would largely disagree with your plan here. I don't think you can use government funding to make churches act in certain ways. If they preach some political view or ideology, they should be free to do so. We shouldn't punish them for doing so.

With taxation of Churches, my take is that you have it or your don't. Either all churches get tax exemption and access to the same government monies for charity and blah blah blah, or none do. That's it.

Paleocon · Apr 28, 2014

flaxenmoon said:
Homosexuality was fairly common in early history (all the way though Constaintine), and even widely accepted in many early cultures and religions. And then came organized religion.

You have to remember that the organized religion back then, was political. They owned much of the land, and taxed the people on those lands. The more people, the more taxes. If men were having relations with their male concubines, they weren't making little taxpayers. And the landowners wanted lots and lots of future taxpayers.

So all of a sudden, homosexuality was bad. No more of that! But you could have all the wives you wanted. Lots of wives meant lots of little taxpayers.

But then there was a problem with that. All of a sudden there were tons of little mouths to feed which the land coudn't afford, so the guys had to have just one wife.

The same went for all kinds of rules found in the Bible. Those rules were there because the leaders were trying to make sure enough people stayed alive. They were trying to enforce some sense of law and order. They were trying to make sure that people feared not paying them.

Before then, various religions were just tribes of people, big or small. It was when the church got smart, and started making land grabs, that the rest went into effect.

I believe this belongs in the conspiracy forum.

Church Taxation and Homosexuals

Wake

ThePlayDrive

Bob Blaylock

Electrician

Enola

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Thunder

Temporal

Thunder

Ikari

Paleocon