"Hurricane-Damaged Houses Of Worship Can Receive FEMA Aid." BOOOO!

[james bond]

I think if we follow that concept, assuming that He should of, the next questions would follow in this fashion:

Why didn't He protect the people in the fatal car accident;
Why didn't He protect the person slipped of the edge of a cliff;
Why didn't He protect the person who fell off the ladder;
Why didn't He protect the person who broke a bone falling of a tree;
Why didn't He protect the child who fell while he was on the bike.

The reason would be because then we would be robots who had no will.

I think you've said this a few times on RF, "The wages of sin is death."

Moreover, Jesus does not answer prayers such as winning the lotto or removing your arch enemy at work because he allows chance and randomness to happen.

 

[james bond]

I'm saying that it should be denied because:

1) They don't pay property tax

2) As religious institutions the government cannot be involved in any way with their establishment, and aiding them in their survival amounts to just that.​

So while I did say "If you want aid from FEMA start paying property tax," there's far more to it than just that. I focused on the property tax issue because I feel it's one of the more unjust perks our government has granted religions.

.

This is pretty small thinking. Religious organizations give back in spades to the community. To the contrary, what have atheists done for society lately? Not much. Thus, I'd like to see atheist churches and atheists going there on Sundays to sing feel good songs, respectfully ponder how to make the most of this life and give until they bleed. They can even attend Buddhist services if there is no atheist church.

 

[Skwim]

This is pretty small thinking. Religious organizations give back in spades to the community. To the contrary, what have atheists done for society lately? Not much. Thus, I'd like to see atheist churches and atheists going there on Sundays to sing feel good songs, respectfully ponder how to make the most of this life and give until they bleed. They can even attend Buddhist services if there is no atheist church.

Talk about small thinking,

.

 

[james bond]

Talk about small thinking,

.

You were griping about churches not paying taxes, but I was griping about your griping. Again, churches give back in spades. They give back more than they take in, but miraculously they keep on thriving because new contributions come in.

 

[Skwim]

You were griping about churches not paying taxes, but I was griping about your griping.

Free country. Go ahead and gripe.

Again, churches give back in spades.

Er, so do grocery stores, gas stations, plumbers, and lumber stores.

They give back more than they take in,

A matter of opinion.

.

 

[james bond]

Free country. Go ahead and gripe.


Er, so do grocery stores, gas stations, plumbers, and lumber stores.


A matter of opinion.

.

We can only wish that our church became a megachurch. Most do not become a megachurch. The matter is of a lot of dollars in order to build a church where 30 to 40 thousand can attend weekly, i.e. Lakewood or Saddleback. I would think you need to have about 2,000 attend weekly to be on your way to being a megachurch. Yet, there are critics who state, "The development of a megachurch culture has, however, produced a significant backlash, with critics often railing against theological superficiality, vapid worship music, and a seeker-sensitive, consumeristic ethos. Church growth strategies that emphasize upward movement in attendance figures over community cohesion and discipleship formation have also come in for criticism."

To those critics of megachurch culture, I can understand it. G. K. Chesterton said, "The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world....The reason is obvious. In a large community we can choose our companions. In a small community our companions are chosen for us."

In my opinion, RF is probably the latter.

 

[Kenny]

I think you've said this a few times on RF, "The wages of sin is death."

Probably

Moreover, Jesus does not answer prayers such as winning the lotto

True

he allows chance and randomness to happen.

Yes, nature does happen

.

or removing your arch enemy at work
.

In this portion, God has delegated that job to humankind through the authority given back to us on The Cross and through the Name of Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

We can only wish that our church became a megachurch. Most do not become a megachurch. The matter is of a lot of dollars in order to build a church where 30 to 40 thousand can attend weekly, i.e. Lakewood or Saddleback. I would think you need to have about 2,000 attend weekly to be on your way to being a megachurch. Yet, there are critics who state, "The development of a megachurch culture has, however, produced a significant backlash, with critics often railing against theological superficiality, vapid worship music, and a seeker-sensitive, consumeristic ethos. Church growth strategies that emphasize upward movement in attendance figures over community cohesion and discipleship formation have also come in for criticism."

To those critics of megachurch culture, I can understand it. G. K. Chesterton said, "The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world....The reason is obvious. In a large community we can choose our companions. In a small community our companions are chosen for us."

In my opinion, RF is probably the latter.

Great post.

I think there is a place for both with pros and cons on both sides.

Smaller churches do have community cohesion. Larger church have the capacity to accomplish larger tasks because the have the capacity to accomplish it.

I see it as just one body with many parts and all parts are important and necessary.

 

[Kenny]

A matter of opinion.

.

A statistical fact.

Churches benefits society and cities as a whole and do things faster and longer because of what is taught.

 

[HonestJoe]

They should be treated as the laws of our country have decreed.

That’s what happened, it was the entire point of the process being reported. You just disagree with the laws as they’ve been implemented.

Above all, the separation of church and state must be maintained. The government cannot be involved in the establishment of a religion or its equity.

I think you are taking an unconventionally extreme interpretation of the US constitution, inconsistent with long established legal precedent. You’re perfectly entitled to disagree with the outcome of course, but you can’t just unilaterally declare it unconstitutional.

You’re also evading the questions of practical outcome. The logical conclusion of your position would be that religious organisations couldn’t be subject to any government intervention, positive or negative. No taxes of any kind, no law enforcement (either for or against them), no state fire protection, no employment law, no safety regulations, this list could go on and on. Regardless of what you think the legal principle is, that is totally unrealistic. If it was what the law actually meant, the law would need to be changed (or quietly ignored, like so many other aspects of the constitution has been at various points in time).

 

[Akivah]

A statistical fact.

Churches benefits society and cities as a whole and do things faster and longer because of what is taught.

Being faster than government services is an easy claim. A turtle with three broken legs moves faster than the government.

 

[Skwim]

A statistical fact.

Bring on the statistics.

Churches benefits society and cities as a whole and do things faster and longer because of what is taught.

Exactly what is it they're doing faster and longer because of what they teach?

.

 

[Kenny]

Being faster than government services is an easy claim. A turtle with three broken legs moves faster than the government.

LOL... true... true...

 

[Skwim]

I think you are taking an unconventionally extreme interpretation of the US constitution, inconsistent with long established legal precedent. You’re perfectly entitled to disagree with the outcome of course, but you can’t just unilaterally declare it unconstitutional.

And I haven't.

You’re also evading the questions of practical outcome.

Pretty hard to evade a question that hasn't been brought up.

.

 

[dianaiad]

It does not. It says:

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.
​

Giving aid to a religion, which would necessarily come by way of congressional action (FEMA's funding and authority is controlled by Congress), amounts to assisting in its establishment.

.

And refusing to give aid to a non-profit organization BECAUSE IT IS RELIGIOUS is establishing a religion, of sorts. It's establishing 'no religions allowed,' which results in the default atheist position...or at least an 'anti-religion' position, and that has historically been a very bad idea indeed.

the government should, in fact, pretend that religion simply doesn't matter. That is, if a non-profit organization exists, it shouldn't matter what it is based upon for the purposes of getting aid.

I remember a court case several years ago in Utah. It seems that a school would open its classrooms, after school hours, to student clubs. The only requirements were that the clubs be formed and run by the students, and have one volunteer faculty advisor who kept tabs on the meeting times and makes sure nobody brought drugs and had orgies. Other than that, the school wasn't involved in any of them.

There were all sorts of clubs; LBTG clubs, language clubs (French, German, what have you), chess, debate...even a white supremacist group that met the day after a 'black power' group met. I understand that this was interesting for their advisors..

However, an atheist group sued the school when a 'Christian Bible Study" group wanted to meet. the school caved; because it was a religious group, it was denied permission to meet in the facility.

Luckily that case was kicked up into a higher court, where the judges said that as long as the club abided by all the rules, and as long as the school allowed OTHER controversial groups to meet, they could not deny this Bible study club the right to meet, because doing so was denying those student's freedom of speech and of religion. Big no-no.

As soon as you let religion in as part of the decision making, you ARE establishing a religion and interfering with the freedom of it...and don't kid yourself; right now the politically correct are having their way (and to me, 'politically correct' is NOT a compliment) but what if the tables turn and some religious group takes the new rules and turns them on their head...against non-believers?

Happens all the time.

 

[dianaiad]

I think you missed what I was actually talking about. Because this isn't about a kingdom hall not getting aid, it's expecting a kingdom hall to be a contributor to the society it's getting aid from.
Because:

They don't. Churches get to be charitable tax exempt even without a shred of doing charitable work. Unlike any other charitable group, which has to apply and maintain their charitable status in order to get the tax benefit.
For this reason, churches are in a position to leech the system. Which is why there are scams to get religions registered by scam artists.

I'm not saying other churches don't ever do charity, I participate in them. But they should be treated like every other not for profit, and apply for and maintain their status like everyone else.

There is a problem with that.

As soon as you make a religion apply for non-profit status, you put the government in charge of judging whether that religion is 'good enough' or 'proper' or not. That is about the most blatant violation of the First Amendment I can think of.

I know, it seems contradictory that religions should automatically receive non-profit/tax exempt status just by declaring themselves AS religions, but I can't see any other option. The government can, should, and DOES find and prosecute those who perpetuate tax fraud under this guise, as hard as that can be, but...

again, I just don't see another option.

 

[Skwim]

And refusing to give aid to a non-profit organization BECAUSE IT IS RELIGIOUS is establishing a religion, of sorts. It's establishing 'no religions allowed,' which results in the default atheist position...or at least an 'anti-religion' position, and that has historically been a very bad idea indeed.

I don't have time for such silliness.

Have a good day.

 

[dianaiad]

I don't have time for such silliness.

Have a good day.

Y'know, that reminds me VERY much of my son grabbing the ball and running off the playground because he was losing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

you put the government in charge of judging whether that religion is 'good enough' or 'proper' or not.

The government already does decide if it will recognize a group as a religion for tax purposes. (See the history of Scientology or Jediism)
If you really want all the same, then the church across the street must apply for and maintain that status just like the humane society one block over. The same standards should apply across the board, with no preferential treatment to churches. A far more overt breach of the first amendment is not expecting churches to be able to prove they're doing charity to maintain charitable tax breaks.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Where does the all non profits must be charity thing come from. Plenty of non profits are not charities. They are non profits.

I won't see your reply in my notifications unless you reply to me btw, unless that's what you were going for.
I never said all non profits are charities. I said, and I quote:

All charities are non profit. Not all non profits are charity. All churches are automatically considered charities ( 501c3 ).
No other non profit is automatically under that tax code and must file and maintain differently from churches.