Enabling churches for social welfare work

[flaja]

There's a HUGE-difference, between what you Believe....and, what's (actually) KNOWN!!!!

Is this like believing we can afford what the Democrats’ healthcare boondoggle will cost us when we know from 45 years of failed welfare policies that we can’t? You assume that your healthcare plan will work and you assume that we can pay for it without going bankrupt. But your assumptions are just as faith-based as anyone’s religion is.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Again hostility. You just cannot help yourself. You insist on attacking people just because of their religious faith.

Nope....just the convenience (with-which they use their faith) to avoid ALL Reality.

Hey....you can believe whatever you want...IN your house-of-worship. Just stay-the-HELL outta the statehouse!!!!!

The rest-of-use are a little too-preoccupied with The REAL World!!

Your rules-and-regs are somewhat counter-productive....and, totally-confusing to thinking-people.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Is this like believing we can afford what the Democrats’ healthcare boondoggle will cost us when we know from 45 years of failed welfare policies that we can’t?

Gee....ya' wanna change-subjects.....how surprising.

That's fairly-typical for those who have a brief-moment of Clarity....and, start realizing their (recent) blurred-vision is the direct-result of their ABSOLUTES slowly coming-down, around their ears.

Not to worry....Reality isn't all that scary....but, it's not as entertaining as your fairy-tales, either. I guess that's the price-you-pay, for the onset of Maturity.​

 

[top gun]

At what point in history did the need outpace churches’ ability to meet it? Churches had to trade their political rights for tax exempt status long before the Great Society welfare state came along.

And churches should have never been allowed to raise political funds or campaign for candidates in the first place. That's an obvious crossing the line of the separation of church & state.

As far as when they were outpaced. I'm sure they were not up to anything like today's standard even before this but The Great Depression is a good highlighted time when they simply could not keep up. And let's remember that there were ONLY 122 million people in the US in 1930. There are 305 million people and counting in the US in 2009.

Again, how are you calculating the need and how are you calculating churches’ ability to meet that need? If you measure churches’ ability in money, how much need could churches meet if they didn’t have to pay taxes and could use the same mechanisms that state governments use to raise money for social welfare programs, i.e., lotteries?

What are you talking about? Most church activies are tax exempt. See tax exempt status 501(c)(3). And in fact officially recognized preachers do not even have to pay Social Security taxes on their personal church income if they so choose.

Why? Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. Participating in politics is a constitutional right. So what is it about putting the 2 together that causes one to cancel out the other? There was once a time when churches could participate in politics and were still tax exempt. But then Senator Lyndon Johnson decided to add an amendment to a tax law that was going through the Senate so he could silence some church pastors in Texas that had been criticizing his politics.

That's how things work in America. When there is an abuse you legislate to stop that abuse. Obviously the change was Constitutional as it has been reviewed by the Supreme Court and been on the books now for decades.

Here's the basis. Separation of church and state looked at from just one perspective appears to only shield the church from state controls. However looking deeper this case was properly made. Anytime the state promotes a specific religion... that by very action the state is automatically discriminating against all other religions (and citizen holding no religious beliefs) violating their protection under separation of church & state.

Furthermore the same is true when a church formally fund raises and/or campaigns for candidates or in some cases issues. Church leaders do not necessarily speak for their entire congregation and in addition once one religious group is allowed to be out fund raising/campaigning for a candidate they are then being prefer by the state due to their tax exempt status over all those not doing the same.

In summation: It was absolutely the proper judicial decision.

Who in Hell are you to tell me what my church’s work can be? If a church requires its members to participate in politics, what right do you have to say those members cannot participate in politics? What right do you have to tell someone what their religion can be?

I'm the one explaining the separation clause to you and the one describing the law and the correct reasons for that law. See above...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_Organization

A political action committee is still tax exempt.

I in fact was the president of an officially registered PAC at one time. It was a PAC related to school system issues.

What you've neglected to say is that a PAC is only allowed to operate, raise funds etc. for that PAC's specific purpose. It is not a multi-functional instrument. Such would not be the case in regard to churches.

Which tells me that haven’t actually read what I have proposed since the amendment has provisions to guard against cults.

There is no "guarding" because one mans direct line to God is another mans cult. All you would be doing is picking and choosing who you wanted preferred. That would be discriminatory.

 

[flaja]

Gee....ya' wanna change-subjects.....how surprising.​

No. I was merely pointing out your double standard.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What you've neglected to say is that a PAC is only allowed to operate, raise funds etc. for that PAC's specific purpose. It is not a multi-functional instrument. Such would not be the case in regard to churches.

SLAMMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[flaja]

And churches should have never been allowed to raise political funds or campaign for candidates in the first place. That's an obvious crossing the line of the separation of church & state.

How and why? Why must someone give up their political rights in order to exercise their religious rights? If my religion tells me to be involved in politics, what right do you or your government have to tell me otherwise?

As far as when they were outpaced. I'm sure they were not up to anything like today's standard even before this but The Great Depression is a good highlighted time when they simply could not keep up.

Again how are you calculating this? How are you calculating how much social welfare need there is? What specific statistics are you using? The Great Depression was caused when an economic bubble that had been driven by greed, i.e., buying luxuries on credit, burst. Neither churches nor the government could effectively deal with such a situation due to its massive scale. Furthermore, the Great Depression was not as bad as it could have been because our churches still had a strong public influence at the time. During the 1930s the nation did not have the spiritual problems that have developed since you libs started driving churches out of public life over 50 years ago. We didn’t have a 50% illegitimacy rate or a 50% divorce rate. We had stable families that prevented things like juvenile delinquency, failing schools and drug addiction.

 

[top gun]

How and why? Why must someone give up their political rights in order to exercise their religious rights? If my religion tells me to be involved in politics, what right do you or your government have to tell me otherwise?

I've already answered this. Go back to my previous post for the lengthy breakdown. It violates the separation clause.

Your religion does not trump the rights of Americans that do not share your religious view. That's the beauty of America.

sidebar: Your "my religion my choice" argument is the EXACT same argument religious polygamists used to justify having sex with 13 year olds and making multiples of them their wives.

Again how are you calculating this? How are you calculating how much social welfare need there is? What specific statistics are you using? The Great Depression was caused when an economic bubble that had been driven by greed, i.e., buying luxuries on credit, burst. Neither churches nor the government could effectively deal with such a situation due to its massive scale. Furthermore, the Great Depression was not as bad as it could have been because our churches still had a strong public influence at the time. During the 1930s the nation did not have the spiritual problems that have developed since you libs started driving churches out of public life over 50 years ago. We didn’t have a 50% illegitimacy rate or a 50% divorce rate. We had stable families that prevented things like juvenile delinquency, failing schools and drug addiction.

In jest I say... are you like 12 years old?

I'm going to take a leap of faith here and presume you can work a calculator. Use Google: Add up all the money it takes to support all critically needed social safety net programs. Things like ADC, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, General Relief, Social Security Disability, National Mental Health, Drug & Alcohol programs just to name a few. And then try and tell me that churches could cover this expenditure.

You are not an insane person. You will see the numbers are insurmountable.

Like I said maybe 5% or less on a good day.

And no one is saying that churches don't try and help both during The Depression and now. The point is there are too many people and too great a need for that system to ever handle the load again. You do realize that in addition to that church affiliation itself as a whole in the US has been on the decline for some time now.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

sidebar: Your "my religion my choice" argument is the EXACT same argument religious polygamists used to justify having sex with 13 year olds and making multiples of them their wives.

Quite-obviously an issue of interpretation!!!!

*

 

[flaja]

I've already answered this. Go back to my previous post for the lengthy breakdown. It violates the separation clause.

There is no separation clause in the U.S. Constitution. Get over it.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

You cannot dictate that churches refrain from political activity without violating the free exercise clause.

 

[flaja]

No....you're exposing your (own) delusions & immaturity.

Reported. You insults are absolutely uncalled for. You are being purposely belligerent simply because I don’t agree with your politics.

 

[flaja]

In jest I say... are you like 12 years old?

I'm going to take a leap of faith here and presume you can work a calculator. Use Google: Add up all the money it takes to support all critically needed social safety net programs. Things like ADC, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, General Relief, Social Security Disability, National Mental Health, Drug & Alcohol programs just to name a few. And then try and tell me that churches could cover this expenditure.

So you are fool enough to believe that there is no waste in any government welfare program so that it actually takes all of the money the government spends to provide for social welfare?

And you are ignoring the funding options that are open to the government but not currently allowed for churches except under heavy government regulation- namely lotteries and games of chance (including BINGO) because the government doesn’t want any competition. If libs like you would get out of the way, there is no telling what churches could accomplish.

You are not an insane person. You will see the numbers are insurmountable.

Then what makes you believe the government can do it all?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Flaja Said: And you are ignoring the funding options that are open to the government but not currently allowed for churches except under heavy government regulation- namely lotteries and games of chance (including BINGO) because the government doesn’t want any competition. If libs like you would get out of the way, there is no telling what churches could accomplish.

Oh, ya BABY...let's open up that can of 'celestial worms' that would allow more of those 'RIGHT WINGED NUT JOB RELIGIOUS FANATICS' to prey upon the poor unsuspecting public...such as the stellar example of the Jim & Tammy Faye Baker and Incorporated scoundrels that bilked millions of people out of BILLIONS of money that a huge percentage was being syphoned off to allow GOOD RELIGIOUS CHRIST LIKE, Jim & Tammy to live like Arab Sheiks off of the donations that were pouring into their crooked scam...OH, YA BABY we need to allow more of that to happen

You need to get a CLUE about the real world

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Reported. You insults are absolutely uncalled for. You are being purposely belligerent simply because I don’t agree with your politics.

Insults???????

I've commented on your behavior....and, you consider that an insult??

Not to worry!!!

Christian-jihadists have (apparently) been activated!!!!​

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Insults???????​

I've commented on your behavior....and, you consider that an insult?? ​

Not to worry!!!​

Christian-jihadists have (apparently) been activated!!!!​

Kinda makes a person wonder...did the middle/centrist Muslims ever - EVER consider that those 'RIGHT WINGED NUT JOB MUSLIM EXTEMEISTS' would ever get to 'THIS POINT' that they've driven the MUSLIM faith into the ditch the way in which they have...hmmmm

Because I'm sensing come real/true/fair comparisons between the 'highly agitated extreme right winged nut jobs' that are alive and well and spewing their overly sensitive hysteria around these community forums of late