SENSITIVE SUBJECTS AND COLOUR RATINGS.

[Em Ken]

This is as simple as.

Red= Strongly Disagree
Orange= Just Disagree
Yellow= More Disagree than Agree
Green= Neutral on the subject
Light Blue= More Agree than Disagree
Blue= Just Agree
Purple= Strongly Agree

Someone will comment on a subject, lets take Euthanasia for example, and others will reply with a colour that corresponds to their view.
Oh, added to that, a comment or reason for the colour is always nice.

RIGHT.
YOU HEARD THAT.
WELL, YOU BETTER GET STARTED NOW!
CHOP, CHOP.

And, to be completely unimaginative, why don't we with Euthanasia.

[Matt]

Churches are considered public charities, but beside that...

Let's look at the actual tax laws:

In order for a public charity to be exempt from taxes it must meet at least one exempt purpose:

"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
-Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3), last reviewed and updated on January 05, 2009

However, to be exempt it must not only be for one of those purposes, but it must be organized and operated EXCLUSIVELY for one of those purposes. None of the earnings may go to any private shareholder or individual. These public charities may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of it's activities nor take place in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

Churches that do not contribute towards political campaigns, nor take part in taking action against/for legislation fit this criteria. If people are profiting from a church, then there church is not under tax exemption status. If they said that it is a sin to vote for Obama, they are not under tax exemption status. Churches must meet the criteria of tax exemption in order to get tax exemption, and the majority of them do that. They're not getting away with the best of both worlds, they are following tax laws. The fact that you, and seemingly everyone else that answered red, have an extreme prejudice against religion and religious organizations does not mean shit when it comes to the law.

[Sychophant]

what Matt said: BRIGHT PURPLE

[Matt]

"I understand that it is law that they are tax exempt, but my argument is that organizations that perform charity or a good for the public (schools, police departments, etc.,) should, and are tax exempt."

Many churches shelter the homeless. Many churches have food drives for people in countries of famines. Many churches have breadlines and soup kitchens. Many churches teach religion to people for free (while that may not be a community service in your eyes, it is a community service to a large amount of people that do have faith in something). Churches do promote the furthering of religion which, again, you may not find a worthy cause but the majority of the United States does. So yes, they do perform charities for the public good.

"I believe a public charity should do good for the world, and I believe churches do nothing of the sort."

Well it's a shame that the majority of the United States, and world for that matter, do not agree with you.

"I don't remember the name of the church that did tremendous work to get Proposition 8 passed, nor do I know whether or not they are tax exempt, but I'm going to take a wild guess that they are."

Why, so you have an excuse for your prejudice against this law?

"If that isn't contributing toward a political campaign, I'd like to see the one example that is."

Can you show that they were tax exempt through that? I'm more than willing to bet that you can't, which in turn makes your example petty and useless.

"The simple fact of the matter is that ALL churches that teach religion contribute toward a political campaign. They give society their definition of right and wrong, and that effects how people vote in elections."

They teach their idea of morality and it is up to the people listening to believe it or not believe it. Teaching what you believe the Bible to say is not the same thing as saying "voting for Miller is voting for Satan" or "Voting for Obama is a sin".

"Church does not deserve tax exemption for the same reason a KKK recruiting center doesn't."

I wasn't aware that the church was for the hanging of black people... nor homosexuals, since I know that's where your hate is derived from. In fact, there are Cardinals, even in the Catholic church, that are saying that the view of homosexuality is outdated, because at the time of the Romans they believed that it actually was a choice instead of decided from other factors.

[Matt]

Fair enough about majority opinion.

"As for the rest of that paragraph that I didn't quote, I believe the bad outweighs the good."

What is the bad that outweighs the good again?

"No, but because I highly doubt that the church in question is going to lose their tax exemption rights. It's a church, and as you've stated many times before, the majority are biased in favor of the church."

The majority doesn't decide whether or not the church pays taxes or not. An organization that is for the separation of church and state does. This organization has made very many churches pay taxes for the things they've said in their congregation and many churches have actually been upset about it saying that they don't have any right to tax them for saying a certain legislation is against God's teachings. Guess what? They paid the taxes.

"I can't, as I'm sure you can't prove that they weren't. I can't prove god exists, and you can't prove that it does, but one side is sure to be right, and one side is more logically probable."

Yes, one is more logically probably, and that is that the government is going to try and get all of the money in taxes that it can, especially in our current economic situation. If you can't even come up with the name of the church, how can you even expect me to try and find out if they were exempt from last years taxes?

"It may not mean the same thing, but one thing leads to another. If the church taught you that homosexuality was a sin, and a gay person ran for president, would you expect the members of that church to vote for the person?"

If it isn't the same thing don't act like it is. The church congregation aren't sponges that soak up everything said. Many times people disagree with the sermon. Many times people leave churches because of teachings that they don't agree with. Just because some churches teach things that you don't agree with does not mean that they are going against the law in doing so.

"I care for the rights of all people, I simply use the argument for homosexuality more often because it is the one that needs the most fighting for, and because it is closer to my heart for obvious reasons. If I could marry legally, and black people couldn't, I would spend more time fighting for their rights than for my own, so don't call me subjective."

Oh, so it is the church's view on black people that makes you hate the church?

"Since you are so hung up on majority, allow me to use it for my side."

Okay, now answer the point without a majority opinion since I think we are both in agreement that I shouldn't have brought that up in the first place.

[Matt]

@ Karl

"The whole indoctrinating of children into a cult thing."

You mean like raising your children in a home where nobody believes in god and that you shouldn't eat after a certain time at night? Point is, everyone indoctrinates their children into believing some things. That's just how children are raised. Is it wrong to raise your kids by teaching them that everyone is equal and should be treated fairly? (I'm going to go ahead and guess your answer so we can speed this up :P) Why not? You're indoctrinating them into your belief system.

"I just go by what I observe, and it is possible that things can be missed, so they could, or they could not have been tax exempt due to their actions."

Fair enough.

"Not all of the church congregation are sponges, but children are. If you give a child a church to give them moral teachings, that is the morality they will learn, and they won't have a chance to disagree with it, because they never learned anything different. And if you teach something to people who believe you as the divine truth, odds are they will continue to believe you."

I guess I went against the odds then, eh? I was born into a very devout southern baptist family and now I'm the teapot agnostic talking to you. There are quite a number of pastor's kids that grow up to be atheists as well. It's not all 7th Heavenish.

"They aren't going against the law, but that doesn't mean they aren't influencing the public."

Everything has the power to influence the public. A butterfly has the power to influence the public. Influencing and telling the congregation to do something because otherwise you're going against god are two completely different things. You can't treat them as if they were one and the same.

"Many religious groups hate minorities other than gay people. the Mormon holy text says that black skin is the result of sin. I hate the church for many reasons, but I hated them far before I was even aware of my sexuality. What I hate the church for is that it teaches bullshit to people. Everything else is just a bonus."

Hah, wow, really? I didn't know that. The Mormon thing.

You hate it because it teaches bullshit to people? Care to be a bit more specific? From where I'm standing neither side on the god exist or god does not exist camp site has proven their claim. If you're speaking of literal creationists, well, that's a whole different breed.

"Using majority makes sense for my side. I stated that the majority of churches teach against homosexuality, and the majority trust their opinion more, therefore their voices are heard far more. I have a much higher level of respect for the Cardinals you mention than for others, but the fact that they are so few in number means a lot."

The majority of churches don't teach against homosexuality though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_posit...

Even the majority of churches that DO teach against homosexuality see it as no different than what they see everyone else being guilty of, and that's sin.

Anyway, it's bed time for me. You have a good night buddy.

[YAY Karolina]

Religious groups do get involved in politics though. Though they're not supposed to sponsor candidates, they do participate in other ways. There are plenty of churches that fight against gay rights, which is a major political issue nowadays, and my church is part of a campaign to get Obama to make abortion illegal.

I don't think churches should be taxed any less or more than other groups. That's the ideal way to separate church and state. You don't give religion any privileges, and you don't punish it.

[Matt]

"Religious groups do get involved in politics though."

Not all religious groups. The ones that do should be taxed, and that is also according to the law.

[XOX]

Well said. I would second that.

[XOX]

Red. Religious organization should be treated like any other organization.

[YAY Karolina]

Red. I disagree with the person below that says they should be taxed more. But they certainly shouldn't be taxed less.

[Her-mee-own]

euthanasia- purply blue
Tax exemption for religious organizations- red

my topic- the fact that alcoholics get so many benefits and don't even try to get a job - i'm red

[Madi]

yellow


Anarchy - (green)