(December 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm)Nope Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 9:26 pm)Heywood Wrote: I would bet that in most city halls....there is enough room to display all the religious symbols of the faiths practiced in that city. Maybe not in New York City....but certainly in Mayberry USA.

Several years ago, I was watching an O'Reilly episode in which he became arranged because some town allowed atheists to put up a display next to a Christian display.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having multiple symbols on public property but it is the right leaning Christians who would go crazy over it. They can't even handle a cashier saying Happy Holidays. How do you think that they would react to the sight of a Satanic statue next to their nativity scene?

I imagine they would then take the position that no religious icons be displayed at City Hall.

Churches get tax-exempt status because they perform charitable acts. All charitable organizations get tax-exemptions, religious or not. They still get taxed on things that have nothing to do with their mission.

(December 11, 2014 at 10:30 pm)Rob216 Wrote: Churches get tax-exempt status because they perform charitable acts. All charitable organizations get tax-exemptions, religious or not. They still get taxed on things that have nothing to do with their mission.

Only if you consider providing church services a charity.

"Rather, beneficiaries of an organization’s activities
must be recognized objects of charity (such as the poor or the
distressed) or the community at large (for example, through
the conduct of religious services or the promotion of religion). "

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

(December 11, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Nope Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Godschild Wrote: If larger churches do enough physical charity to be considered nonprofit, good for them. Now let them file the paperwork just like every other nonprofit. They shouldn't be above the rules

GC Wrote:Separation of church and state, don't you just hate it when something works for an entity you disagree with.

No, I do not hate it. Ideally, the government should be neutral so no, I wouldn't hate it if our constitution is applied equally to even organizations with which I disagree. You must have missed my statement that pastors and other religious leaders would be able to influence their congregations political views if they are taxed. I disagree with most religious leaders but I support their right to free speech.

Pastor do have to pay income tax, social security tax and whatever other taxes are deducted from a paycheck. Pastors can have political conversations with there congregation and do.

Quote:What does filing paperwork have to do with the fact that religious institutions are not above the law? The first amendment says that the government won't either favor one religion over the other and also, that it won't impede the practice of religion. There is no reason that filing paperwork would hurt the practice of religion.

Really, want impede the practice of religion, refusing prayer in school, taking the Ten Commandments out of schools, court, and all other government buildings is not impeding. I'm sure you don't see it that way but the churches do. No public prayer at school sporting events, for Christian worship doesn't stop at the church building's doors, it is a daily practical life.

GC Wrote:I did not ignore what you wrote, you just don't like my response.

Quote: I think that I have respectfully responded to your points but I wish that you didn't make it sound as if you were a little child saying the equivalent of, "I am rubber, you are glue."

I haven't done anything close to what atheist do to Christians, or do you not read all the childish stuff supposed adults say. I've not been disrespectful to you, actually I thought this conversation was going well. But if you do not think so then you need to bring up the specific thing/s said.

Quote: Christians are currently in the schools, courts and government services.

GC Wrote:That's the right of the individuals, has nothing to do with separation of church and state. All citizens have the right to be in any organization of government.

Quote:What? It sounds as if you are saying that religious organizations should have more rights then the individuals that belong to them.

Not sure how you got that out of what I said, I was actually pointing out that individuals have more rights. The church is actually the people that gather together to worship.

Quote: Name me one organization that the individual Christian can't say a prayer or read a bible while visiting. Guess what? There isn't one.

GC Wrote:Your right, as far as I know there are none but, again I say that is an individual's right as a citizen of this country. This has noting to do with the church and it's beliefs as an entity.

Quote:What is your definition of a church? Last that I checked, churches were made up of individuals. Individuals have rights.

A body of people that come together to worship God and practice the guidelines set forth in scriptures. Yes the individual has rights, but the church as an established religion has much less and, the ideas the individuals carry that are established by the church can't be used everywhere.

Quote:Christian students can pray during school and they can read their bibles. They can't disrupt the other students, of course, by forcing someone to pray with them.

GC Wrote:I do not know any case of students forcing other students to pray, I do know there has been many times students have been stopped by teachers from praying.

Quote:I was clarifying what the rights of students.

Violated by teachers who push their ideas on students, with out the right to do so I might add.

Quote:Teachers can not lead the students in prayers because that would be conceived as a government official favoring one religion over the other. That would not change. Let me repeat that in bold letters. THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE.

GC Wrote:Why if a Muslim teacher wanted to lead a prayer in school, the Muslim students could participate and the rest would be able to set quite and observe another culture, same for Hindus, Christians and so forth, no favorites there.

Quote:We can already share each others' culture in school without having anyone lead prayers in the classroom. If the teacher wishes to teach about other cultures she can let members of different religions talk about their faith or even read about their prayers without actually leading anyone in prayer.

I doubt a math teacher's going to allow that much time away from the subject he/she teaches, their job does hinge on the ability of their students at test time. In high school many students do not share the same classes and homeroom doesn't have that much time. However homeroom would be a good place for oral prayer, by each religion represented, on a rotating basis.

GC Wrote:All religions that are taxed would be able to display there religious symbols and creeds on public property, they would be able to carry out prayer in local government as part of their proceedings. School lead prayer at ball games, prayers to start the day of school and ect. I'm not calling for government to favor one religion over another, I've just been defending the Christian church because it's the one atheist always go after.

Quote:The reason that religious symbols aren't displayed on public property is because of the first amendment and doesn't have anything to do with taxes.

The reason churches don't pay taxes is because the constitution calls for separation of church and state.

GC

---

(December 11, 2014 at 8:32 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Godschild Wrote: All religions that are taxed would be able to display there religious symbols and creeds on public property ...

There is not enough room at city hall for every religious symbol and creed, so which ones should we ignore and which ones should we favor?

Quote:... they would be able to carry out prayer in local government as part of their proceedings. School lead prayer at ball games, prayers to start the day of school and ect.

Which prayers of which denominations? To favor every religion, there would no time for the football game, school etc.. So again, who do we favor and who do we ignore?

None, all that's represented can if they desire to participate.

GC

---

(December 11, 2014 at 8:42 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: If your religion needs government's assistance to survive, it must be some serious weaksauce.

The government subsidizes millionaire farmers all the time, and for what to protect there interests. We've survived a long time without it, I was pointing out a right that comes with paying taxes.

GC

(December 11, 2014 at 10:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 10:30 pm)Rob216 Wrote: Churches get tax-exempt status because they perform charitable acts. All charitable organizations get tax-exemptions, religious or not. They still get taxed on things that have nothing to do with their mission.

Only if you consider providing church services a charity.

"Rather, beneficiaries of an organization’s activities
must be recognized objects of charity (such as the poor or the
distressed) or the community at large (for example, through
the conduct of religious services or the promotion of religion). "

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

I don't think that they make homeless people pray before they give them a hot meal...

(December 11, 2014 at 9:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The first amendment doesn't say anything about separation of church and state. It merely prohibits Congress from: "impeding the free exercise of religion." I don't see how taxing religious clubs, i.e. churches in the same way other clubs are taxed impedes the free exercise of religion anymore than taxing Christians generally in the same way as other people are taxed impedes the free exercise of religion.

The first amendment also prohibits: "the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion." Spending public money on icons or placing then in publicly owned spaces is the establishment of religion.

We've argued whether the constitution calls for separation of church and state, did you participate in that. All the atheist here said the constitution called for the separation of church and state, seem you three are the only atheist here who believe the constitution doesn't call for that separation. You all should get together on your notes so you can argue alike on such profound doctrine.

GC

---

(December 11, 2014 at 10:00 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm)Nope Wrote: Several years ago, I was watching an O'Reilly episode in which he became arranged because some town allowed atheists to put up a display next to a Christian display.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having multiple symbols on public property but it is the right leaning Christians who would go crazy over it. They can't even handle a cashier saying Happy Holidays. How do you think that they would react to the sight of a Satanic statue next to their nativity scene?

I imagine they would then take the position that no religious icons be displayed at City Hall.

Not me, it would give the religions a platform on which to debate openly in the view of the public.

GC

(December 11, 2014 at 11:08 pm)Rob216 Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 10:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Only if you consider providing church services a charity.

"Rather, beneficiaries of an organization’s activities
must be recognized objects of charity (such as the poor or the
distressed) or the community at large (for example, through
the conduct of religious services or the promotion of religion). "

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

I don't think that they make homeless people pray before they give them a hot meal...

No, but the church services themselves and the promotion of religion are defined as charity by the IRS. That is the problem.

---

(December 11, 2014 at 11:16 pm)Godschild Wrote: We've argued whether the constitution calls for separation of church and state, did you participate in that. All the atheist here said the constitution called for the separation of church and state, seem you three are the only atheist here who believe the constitution doesn't call for that separation. You all should get together on your notes so you can argue alike on such profound doctrine.

When you can translate that into understandable English, I'll respond.

(December 11, 2014 at 11:16 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 10:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: I imagine they would then take the position that no religious icons be displayed at City Hall.

Not me, it would give the religions a platform on which to debate openly in the view of the public.

GC

The only reason you would see a Satan statue at a city hall is because certain atheists(not all or most) like to troll Judeo-Christians. The religions of the community would realize it is better not to give a venue to atheistic trolls rather than have the opportunity to have their icons displayed at city hall.

Good grief. I know you like things simple, G-C...(simpletons usually do) but you cannot look at the amendment

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -

and then pretend that there have not been more than 200 years of Court Decisions defining what it means. Our laws operate under precedent, not your fucking god.

Here. Learn some stuff.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html

(December 11, 2014 at 11:59 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(December 11, 2014 at 11:16 pm)Godschild Wrote: Not me, it would give the religions a platform on which to debate openly in the view of the public.

GC

The only reason you would see a Satan statue at a city hall is because certain atheists(not all or most) like to troll Judeo-Christians. The religions of the community would realize it is better not to give a venue to atheistic trolls rather than have the opportunity to have their icons displayed at city hall.

There is a Satanist Church; however, if you are saying that it would be easier for everyone if public spaces were kept free of either religious icons or atheist ones, I agree. It would be nice if each group could put up their particular symbols and no one would get offended but that isn't what would happen. The Baptists would get angry because the Catholics put up a Crucifix with Jesus on it. The Catholics would get angry at the Buddhist display. The Hindus wouldn't want the Muslims' display beside theirs. Someone would claim that other groups had more favorable status because of either the size of their display or the square footage of the space allotted to them. Ultimately, the fairest solution is to leave public space free of either religious or atheist symbols.