Mega-churches VS the IRS

[Duelist925]

Could the same arguemnet be made about public (or private) school systems? They don't pay property taxes either.

They provide a necessary public service that practically everyone uses, and furthermore, public schools are tax funded--it'd be silly to tax them.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm in two minds about this - I'd like to see criminals harried by the coppers, but I'm also amused by the whole idea of the attending policeman saying that it must have been god's will before walking off.

Yeah, let 'em die.

'Cause it'd be funny.

[wolfie]

I seem to have missed the part in the Bible that states, "Thou shalt vote Republican, and advertise for their campaigns."

Keep the politics out of religion, keep the religion out of politics. Pastors using their pulpit to advocate political issues or politicians is little more than using the influence of their station to push a personal agenda.

Exactly - the separation of Church and State goes both ways. Either it's legitimate for BOTH the President to tell you which god to worship AND for the preacher to tell you who to vote for, or it's NOT legitimate for EITHER to do so.

[Rapscallion]

Yeah, let 'em die.

'Cause it'd be funny.

Wasn't necessarily death - something like robbery could be god's will, of course.

I've been thinking about this and it would be hard to restrict it to the real arseholes of the pulpit world, but it would be good to do. People such as Westboro, for example.

"So, a gang of bikers broke in, sprated graffiti everywhere, crapped in the pews, and tore the place apart? Must have been god's displeasure for you not campaigning against gays enough."

Rapscallion

[Jason]

You do know "seperation of church and state" doesn't exist in the US constitution.

[Andara Bledin]

You do know "seperation of church and state" doesn't exist in the US constitution.

I'm not really sure what point you're attempting to make here.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

You do know "seperation of church and state" doesn't exist in the US constitution.

The phrase, no. The concept, yes.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't know if I'm necromancing I can't tell in this phone. But since I have been thinking about this anyway... one thing that bothers me is of you start taxing churches then the Mega churches which make millions will... Make slightly less. The churches already struggling, which don't get rich by appealing to fear, may have to close. The ones that AR causing problems are in general the ones that aren't going to get hit as hard.

And I still find "don't solve crimes because ha ha stupid Christians" to be a disgusting sentiment.

Now that I can actually see the time stamps, I do apologize for the necromancy.

[Rapscallion]

Now that I can actually see the time stamps, I do apologize for the necromancy.

If it was a worry, I'd install the lock old threads mod. New evidence can come to light to bring a new slant on a discussion, so I don't really have a problem.

As to finding it disgusting the whole 'silly christians, no help for you!' thing, that depends for me on the christian - or theist of any sort. If we're talking about someone who's got a personal faith and doesn't inflict it on others, whilst I might disagree with their position, I don't really have a problem with them. I'd be disturbed if someone refused general public services because they thought the sky was green or that pixies lived at the bottom of the garden.

If someone said that another person should act in a certain way because of the first person's beliefs, or should be denied some service because of those same beliefs, then I would think in those cases there are grounds for saying that accepting public services that they want or do deny to others is hypocrisy.

For me, it's like that meme that does the rounds every so often showing an orthodox jew with the caption, "Does not eat bacon, doesn't stop you eating bacon." I can respect that sort of position where someone's only inconveniencing themselves with their rules.

The sticking point comes when you have to decide whether a religion or religious person is interfering in politics or not. Religions by their nature tell people what to do. I'll admit that part of my comment above is driven by ire at the pick and mix christians who try to control others and deny them the rights that are generally accepted for others.

I don't say that every idea coming from a religious person is automatically a bad one, but I'd like a decent reason to accept a position that would affect others.

It's the reason that's the important bit. I wouldn't deny a concept coming from a religious politician to improve the social security system if it helped people. If they said that it had to happen because Jesus, then I'd have a fair bit of trouble accepting anything else they came up with as it might be based on similar principles that I don't find acceptable. Jesus wasn't overly fond of fig trees, if you believe the bible. Should a politician ban fig trees for that reason? Should that be considered an acceptable reason for deciding on things that affect others? Where do we draw the line and who decides that?

In the UK we don't have so much of an issue as religious belief has waned here over the centuries. In the US, it's pretty much a requirement for high office to admit to faith of some sort, and religious groups have had significant impact on others.

Unless I hear a better argument, if a faith is campaigning for things that affect others based on their religion, I'd be up for them paying taxes. If it only affects them (whether that being wearing purple headbands, or not reproducing), then that's their problem.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Hmm, anyone else think that the thread title would make a great monster movie?

Rapscallion

[fireheart17]

They provide a necessary public service that practically everyone uses, and furthermore, public schools are tax funded--it'd be silly to tax them.

Over here, there's a common argument that private schools need to stop double-dipping in funding (that is, they get way too much funding per child). Taxed yes, funded minimally.
Unfortunately, this is a requirement of the state/country to ensure that every kid is actually learning the same thing more or less, and also to allow governments to track student progress. At the same time, it also flies in the face of the part in the Australian constitution that states that states shall not fund religion.

There are very few private schools in Aussieland that are not religious ones. The ones that aren't tend to either:

-Be for a specific group of students (at-risk kids, Aboriginal children, bilingual school, special school)
-Montessori.
-Steiner/Waldorf. (Some public schools will run streams in either program, when this happens, the schools are required to allow ALL students to receive the same opportunities if they wish ie they can't forbid students from learning a stringed instrument while the Steiner kids are required to do so)
-Run some other alternate program that I can't list here. (usually "progressive" education groups)
-Run a program that is NOT religious, but shows some elements of it. (For instance, there's one school where meditation is actively encouraged and is part of their day)

[Stitchwitch]

-Steiner/Waldorf.

I read this as Statler/Waldorf and was wondering if they teach kids to sit in a balcony and heckle people.

[SongsOfDragons]

I read this as Statler/Waldorf and was wondering if they teach kids to sit in a balcony and heckle people.

That would be awesome. Awesome and evil at the same time. It would make for great comedians, news readers, weather reporters...

DOHOHOHOHO!!! XD

Hmm, anyone else think that the thread title would make a great monster movie?

Rapscallion

A huge Transformer-Family Guy House Puppet-esque cathedral icks itself up and goes on a rampage, to be defeated by red tape?

WHERE CAN I BOOK TICKETS.

[Kristev]

I could see that. A couple of well-educated, knowledgable people sitting up there while Fox 'News' is taping, constantly heckling the idiocy and fact-free nonsense could be very useful.

[fireheart17]

I read this as Statler/Waldorf and was wondering if they teach kids to sit in a balcony and heckle people.

Not quite. Rudolf Steiner founded the movement and sometimes the schools are called Waldorf schools because Steiner first started his movement in the Waldorf cigarette factory.

The Steiner/Waldorf system does branch into the artsy-fartsy-new-age-hippy kind of territory, but it does have some benefits to it.

Montessori is more self-directed, go-at-your-own pace, encouraging independence type thing. The difference is that unlike Steiner, Montessori doesn't have a set curriculum per se and as long as the topic fits into the curriculum, it will be covered.

ETA: to elaborate on my earlier post, quite a few schools are run on Montessori principles, but cannot call themselves truly Montessori for one reason or another. These sometimes are known as "progressive" schools.