Churches Paying Taxes

• sleeper

  

  wkfan;1585724 wrote:As I stated, those that are businesses should be treated as such. I do not view Westboro Baptist as a charity, although under the law they may be.....I just don't know enough about them to know for sure.
  
  However, I do not consider them to be a Church in the way that I view what a Church is.

  Convenient.
• jmog

  sleeper;1585725 wrote:When Greenpace collectively brings in billions of dollars a year and pays zero taxes on their profits; then you may have a point.

  Pro-environmental 501(c)(3) groups have brought in billions, spent millions on lobbying politicians about environmental reform, climate change, etc.
  
  So by your logic they should be taxed, right?
• wkfan

  sleeper;1585733 wrote:Convenient.

  Not convenient....just have the intellectual capacity to distinguish the difference between Westboro Baptist and a real Church.
  
  Just because it looks like a pig and calls itself a pig...doesn't mean it is a pig.
• jmog

  sleeper;1585728 wrote:You've only had sex with one woman. : thumbup:

  So you get caught up in your own logic, and using your own logic it is shown that you are politically in agreement with those wacky ignorant church attending idiots...and your only response is to move to what you believe is an ad hominem attack (by the way, normal people wouldn't consider that a bad thing, you know, avoiding diseases and unwanted pregnancies).
• dlazz

  jmog;1585732 wrote:Nice straw man fallacy...

  I'm not pleading the same case as sleeper.
  
  I'm for taxing everyone, regardless of the entities purpose. That includes charities.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1585735 wrote:Pro-environmental 501(c)(3) groups have brought in billions, spent millions on lobbying politicians about environmental reform, climate change, etc.
  
  So by your logic they should be taxed, right?

  I'll simplify it for you. If you are an organization that deals in science and logic, you don't have to pay taxes. If you are an organization that in any way shape or form believe that an invisible flying fairy god did all the work, you can just kill yourself and go join your god.
• sleeper

  

  wkfan;1585737 wrote:Not convenient....just have the intellectual capacity to distinguish the difference between Westboro Baptist and a real Church.
  
  Just because it looks like a pig and calls itself a pig...doesn't mean it is a pig.

  They both have similar evidence supporting their claims about life; which by the way is zero. There is no difference; they are both cults designed to prey on the poor and stupid.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1585738 wrote:So you get caught up in your own logic, and using your own logic it is shown that you are politically in agreement with those wacky ignorant church attending idiots...and your only response is to move to what you believe is an ad hominem attack (by the way, normal people wouldn't consider that a bad thing, you know, avoiding diseases and unwanted pregnancies).

  Not really. I stated that whoever the church supports would make my decision on political candidates easier. I think there are more important things in life than protesting butt sex between men. Please jmog, tell us how you really feel about the gays.
• jmog

  sleeper;1585745 wrote:Not really. I stated that whoever the church supports would make my decision on political candidates easier. I think there are more important things in life than protesting butt sex between men. Please jmog, tell us how you really feel about the gays.

  I have stated my views on homosexuality many times on here, can you please explain what that has to do with taxing churches?
• jmog

  sleeper;1585742 wrote:I'll simplify it for you. If you are an organization that deals in science and logic, you don't have to pay taxes. If you are an organization that in any way shape or form believe that an invisible flying fairy god did all the work, you can just kill yourself and go join your god.

  So then you are all for taxing Greenspeace and Sierra Club then since they are not using science and logic anymore than churches are?
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1585746 wrote:I have stated my views on homosexuality many times on here, can you please explain what that has to do with taxing churches?

  I was merely explaining the 'political candidates' comment that I made. The church having a say in politics would likely make my choice easier. Even Ron Paul who is a believer in god would still get my vote because he has better things to do than cry about gay butt sex between men.
• jmog

  sleeper;1585682 wrote:Yes. It would certainly make life easier to vote against any candidate that the church supports.

  See, you said vote AGAINST any candidate the church supports. I have stated that those same churches would typically be more libertarian or conservative, so that would mean you would start voting liberal would it not?
  
  You can't change your own words sleeper, you were caught...you either agree with those religious idiots politically, or you are a liberal, which one? .
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1585747 wrote:So then you are all for taxing Greenspeace and Sierra Club then since they are not using science and logic anymore than churches are?

  
  Must use at least .000000000000000001% of logic or reason and you can pay zero tax. Since religion uses 0% logic/reason, they should pay taxes.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1585749 wrote:See, you said vote AGAINST any candidate the church supports. I have stated that those same churches would typically be more libertarian or conservative, so that would mean you would start voting liberal would it not?
  
  You can't change your own words sleeper, you were caught...you either agree with those religious idiots politically, or you are a liberal, which one? .

  Neither. The world isn't black and white; there also also Mexicans and chinese people.
• jmog

  sleeper;1585751 wrote:Neither. The world isn't black and white; there also also Mexicans and chinese people.

  Ok, so there are 3 candidates to vote for (only 2 of which is realistic to win)...
  
  A democrat, a republican, and a libertarian (who would end up republican realistically like Paul).
  
  So, the churches are split 50/50 on the R and the L...you said you would vote AGAINST whoever the church supports...so you are now a liberal? Or do you agree with those idiots that go to church?
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1585753 wrote:Ok, so there are 3 candidates to vote for (only 2 of which is realistic to win)...
  
  A democrat, a republican, and a libertarian (who would end up republican realistically like Paul).
  
  So, the churches are split 50/50 on the R and the L...you said you would vote AGAINST whoever the church supports...so you are now a liberal? Or do you agree with those idiots that go to church?

  I would vote for the libertarian.
• jmog

  sleeper;1585755 wrote:I would vote for the libertarian.

  So you do agree politically with those church going religious idiots? Glad you could finally admit it.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1585758 wrote:So you do agree politically with those church going religious idiots? Glad you could finally admit it.

  If by agree politically you mean eliminate them completely, then yes.
• wkfan

  sleeper;1585743 wrote:They both have similar evidence supporting their claims about life; which by the way is zero. There is no difference; they are both cults designed to prey on the poor and stupid.

  They are hugely different....you are just unwilling to try to understand that. Your preference is to broadbrush them, because it takes less effort and critical thinking to be able to discern the difference.
• sleeper

  

  wkfan;1585762 wrote:They are hugely different....you are just unwilling to try to understand that. Your preference is to broadbrush them, because it takes less effort and critical thinking to be able to discern the difference.

  They both peddle a belief system that is unproven. There is no difference. Trying to paint them differently is just an attempt at legitimatizing your religion and disparage other's beliefs. Please provide evidence why your belief is more correct than their belief. Thanks.
• wkfan

  sleeper;1585777 wrote:They both peddle a belief system that is unproven. There is no difference. Trying to paint them differently is just an attempt at legitimatizing your religion and disparage other's beliefs. Please provide evidence why your belief is more correct than their belief. Thanks.

  Huge difference.....one is based in hate, the other in love.
  
  There is strength in numbers....millions upon millions for the followers of organized Christian and other faits vs. what, 12 members of Westboro?
• sleeper

  

  wkfan;1585780 wrote:Huge difference.....one is based in hate, the other in love.
  
  There is strength in numbers....millions upon millions for the followers of organized Christian and other faits vs. what, 12 members of Westboro?

  Christianity has killed far more people that the Westboro church ever will; if that's not hate I don't know what is. Nice try though.
• Devils Advocate

  

  wkfan;1585780 wrote:Huge difference.....one is based in hate, the other in love.
  
  There is strength in numbers....millions upon millions for the followers of organized Christian and other faits vs. what, 12 members of Westboro?

  I guess you don't get it.
  
  They are both wrong because of their base belief. here is the problem
  
  2+2=4 ~ logic and provable
  
  Westboro 2+2=4 Fagguts go to hell~ WRONG
  
  Most Christians~ 2+2= the holy trinity and God sent his only son....blah blah blah~ Wrong
  
  Both are wrong, you just don't like Westboro's answers.
• jmog

  Devils Advocate;1585785 wrote:I guess you don't get it.
  
  They are both wrong because of their base belief. here is the problem
  
  2+2=4 ~ logic and provable
  
  Westboro 2+2=4 Fagguts go to hell~ WRONG
  
  Most Christians~ 2+2= the holy trinity and God sent his only son....blah blah blah~ Wrong
  
  Both are wrong, you just don't like Westboro's answers.

  This might be the worst post you have ever put together, and I typically like yours. This is isadore/sleeper level logic.
• jmog

  I just find it funny that sleeper finally admitted he agrees, at least politically, with the same group of people he rails against the most.