IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Sermons And Homilies

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

So, you like big money in politics? You want people to buy the election when they are backing an agenda you agree with?

No. And NO.

I have repeatedly stated that lobbying should be abolished, and that campaigns should not be soliciting funds.
In my opinion, a candidate should get 15 minutes of "Public Service Announcement-style" airtime for a set period. That's it. Three months, MAYBE, but no "fund-raising". You state your case and then sit down.

I honestly think you only respond to my posts to attack me. You won't trip me up, ketsuko. I know my mind. You don't pay attention to what I say - you seek ways to misconstrue it. Just like a politician.

Therefore, I will no longer respond to you in any way.

That said: the system is the way it is for now. That is the only measure I have to look at and the only one offered at this point to determine whether Brownback is "ahead" or not. He is not. And the results of his policies have been proven: damaging to the people of Kansas.
Period.

like obamas, only nation wide!
2 more years!!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

One issue I see is that "political activism" can be very subjective. A sermon against abortion, for example, would be very much a religious sermon to the people there . . .

I agree with everything you said, except: religion should have no political power over personal choice.

Would Planned Parenthood have need to politically fight against religious belief if that belief didn't infringe in the first place.

The American Atheist focus is separation of church and state. Not anti theism.

so it's ok to put gov spies in churches so gov things can't be discussed in church?

that's some separation! ya think?!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

One issue I see is that "political activism" can be very subjective. A sermon against abortion, for example, would be very much a religious sermon to the people there . . .

I agree with everything you said, except: religion should have no political power over personal choice.

Would Planned Parenthood have need to politically fight against religious belief if that belief didn't infringe in the first place.

The American Atheist focus is separation of church and state. Not anti theism.

Doesn't matter why they do what they do nor what their focus is, they are politically active non-profits, one of which uses taxpayer dollars to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. Why should one non-profit lose it's tax exempt status and another does not for doing the same thing--political activism?

Because religion is a belief.

Planned Parenthood is not trying to restrict personal choices via a forced ideology.

And didn't someone post that it is stated that in the tax deduction requirements churches can't be political, or something like that.

Sorry, I'm on Xbox kid duty. Only a quickie post to keep my brain fom being eaten by Pacman

yeah, LBJ did.

it was never challenged but will be.

it's unconstitutional to restrict free speech, by the government.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

One issue I see is that "political activism" can be very subjective. A sermon against abortion, for example, would be very much a religious sermon to the people there . . .

I agree with everything you said, except: religion should have no political power over personal choice.

Would Planned Parenthood have need to politically fight against religious belief if that belief didn't infringe in the first place.

The American Atheist focus is separation of church and state. Not anti theism.

Doesn't matter why they do what they do nor what their focus is, they are politically active non-profits, one of which uses taxpayer dollars to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. Why should one non-profit lose it's tax exempt status and another does not for doing the same thing--political activism?

Because religion is a belief.

Planned Parenthood is not trying to restrict personal choices via a forced ideology.

And didn't someone post that it is stated that in the tax deduction requirements churches can't be political, or something like that.

Sorry, I'm on Xbox kid duty. Only a quickie post to keep my brain fom being eaten by Pacman

But they are still a politically active non-profit and still use taxpayer dollars to do it to boot. Is it that non-profits being politically active when they shouldn't that bother you or just Christians?

Planned Parenthood is politically active for what reason?

Why should there even be opposition to Planned Parenthood?

How is it anyone's business except those seeking help and info.

You are seriously comparing them to forcing a faith belief ideology?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

One issue I see is that "political activism" can be very subjective. A sermon against abortion, for example, would be very much a religious sermon to the people there . . .

I agree with everything you said, except: religion should have no political power over personal choice.

Would Planned Parenthood have need to politically fight against religious belief if that belief didn't infringe in the first place.

The American Atheist focus is separation of church and state. Not anti theism.

Doesn't matter why they do what they do nor what their focus is, they are politically active non-profits, one of which uses taxpayer dollars to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. Why should one non-profit lose it's tax exempt status and another does not for doing the same thing--political activism?

Because religion is a belief.

Planned Parenthood is not trying to restrict personal choices via a forced ideology.

And didn't someone post that it is stated that in the tax deduction requirements churches can't be political, or something like that.

Sorry, I'm on Xbox kid duty. Only a quickie post to keep my brain fom being eaten by Pacman

But they are still a politically active non-profit and still use taxpayer dollars to do it to boot. Is it that non-profits being politically active when they shouldn't that bother you or just Christians?

Planned Parenthood is politically active for what reason?

Why should there even be opposition to Planned Parenthood?

How is it anyone's business except those seeking help and info.

You are seriously comparing them to forcing a faith belief ideology?

yes, they are everywhere spreading their social ideology. schools and tv and ads everywhere.

they are politically active to keep their tax status.

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

One issue I see is that "political activism" can be very subjective. A sermon against abortion, for example, would be very much a religious sermon to the people there . . .

I agree with everything you said, except: religion should have no political power over personal choice.

Would Planned Parenthood have need to politically fight against religious belief if that belief didn't infringe in the first place.

The American Atheist focus is separation of church and state. Not anti theism.

Doesn't matter why they do what they do nor what their focus is, they are politically active non-profits, one of which uses taxpayer dollars to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. Why should one non-profit lose it's tax exempt status and another does not for doing the same thing--political activism?

Because religion is a belief.

Planned Parenthood is not trying to restrict personal choices via a forced ideology.

And didn't someone post that it is stated that in the tax deduction requirements churches can't be political, or something like that.

Sorry, I'm on Xbox kid duty. Only a quickie post to keep my brain fom being eaten by Pacman

But they are still a politically active non-profit and still use taxpayer dollars to do it to boot. Is it that non-profits being politically active when they shouldn't that bother you or just Christians?

Planned Parenthood is politically active for what reason?

Why should there even be opposition to Planned Parenthood?

How is it anyone's business except those seeking help and info.

You are seriously comparing them to forcing a faith belief ideology?

yes, they are everywhere spreading their social ideology. schools and tv and ads everywhere.

they are politically active to keep their tax status.

What social ideology?

a reply to: tsingtao

So your response to those points I made was to threaten the people charged with keeping religions from breaking the law? That doesn't sound very Christian...

So I guess you think that churches are entitled to break the law in regards to them not being allowed to be politically active organizations while having tax-exempt status? Because apparently you are threatening revenge if this activity is clamped down on. And Christians wonder why people don't like their religion. Lol.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

One issue I see is that "political activism" can be very subjective. A sermon against abortion, for example, would be very much a religious sermon to the people there . . .

I agree with everything you said, except: religion should have no political power over personal choice.

Would Planned Parenthood have need to politically fight against religious belief if that belief didn't infringe in the first place.

The American Atheist focus is separation of church and state. Not anti theism.

Doesn't matter why they do what they do nor what their focus is, they are politically active non-profits, one of which uses taxpayer dollars to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. Why should one non-profit lose it's tax exempt status and another does not for doing the same thing--political activism?

Because religion is a belief.

Planned Parenthood is not trying to restrict personal choices via a forced ideology.

And didn't someone post that it is stated that in the tax deduction requirements churches can't be political, or something like that.

Sorry, I'm on Xbox kid duty. Only a quickie post to keep my brain fom being eaten by Pacman

But they are still a politically active non-profit and still use taxpayer dollars to do it to boot. Is it that non-profits being politically active when they shouldn't that bother you or just Christians?

Planned Parenthood is politically active for what reason?

Why should there even be opposition to Planned Parenthood?

How is it anyone's business except those seeking help and info.

You are seriously comparing them to forcing a faith belief ideology?

Planned parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger for purposes of eugenics--to keep the populations of undesirables down.

It is everybody's business if they are using tax dollars, yes? I wouldn't really care what they did if they were not using my money it would be none of my business.

The point is, not that they have faith or not--that is irrelevant--the point is that they are politically active and a non-profit. If we are going to remove tax exemption from one sort of non-profit due to political activity, we should remove it from all non-profits who engage in political activity. Or is it really the faith based non-profits you want to restrict? Singling out non-profits only because of religion and leaving others alone would be unjust and unconstitutional.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

One issue I see is that "political activism" can be very subjective. A sermon against abortion, for example, would be very much a religious sermon to the people there . . .

I agree with everything you said, except: religion should have no political power over personal choice.

Would Planned Parenthood have need to politically fight against religious belief if that belief didn't infringe in the first place.

The American Atheist focus is separation of church and state. Not anti theism.

Doesn't matter why they do what they do nor what their focus is, they are politically active non-profits, one of which uses taxpayer dollars to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. Why should one non-profit lose it's tax exempt status and another does not for doing the same thing--political activism?

Because religion is a belief.

Planned Parenthood is not trying to restrict personal choices via a forced ideology.

And didn't someone post that it is stated that in the tax deduction requirements churches can't be political, or something like that.

Sorry, I'm on Xbox kid duty. Only a quickie post to keep my brain fom being eaten by Pacman

But they are still a politically active non-profit and still use taxpayer dollars to do it to boot. Is it that non-profits being politically active when they shouldn't that bother you or just Christians?

Planned Parenthood is politically active for what reason?

Why should there even be opposition to Planned Parenthood?

How is it anyone's business except those seeking help and info.

You are seriously comparing them to forcing a faith belief ideology?

Planned parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger for purposes of eugenics--to keep the populations of undesirables down.

It is everybody's business if they are using tax dollars, yes? I wouldn't really care what they did if they were not using my money it would be none of my business.

The point is, not that they have faith or not--that is irrelevant--the point is that they are politically active and a non-profit. If we are going to remove tax exemption from one sort of non-profit due to political activity, we should remove it from all non-profits who engage in political activity. Or is it really the faith based non-profits you want to restrict? Singling out non-profits only because of religion and leaving others alone would be unjust and unconstitutional.

Do you think I don't know the history of Planned Parenthood? It's history really has nothing to do with today.

I consider all areas of reproduction an every citizen issue. There is a real vital society need for what Planned Parenthood does.

I really don't see your argument of religion vs Planned Parenthood. If anything it is political religion that forces Planned Parenthood to be political.

So, yes I support Planned Parenthood as non-profit tax exemption because what they do is vital to all of society.

Religion is a faith based ideology. It has no business trying to run this government or politically interfere with reproduction.

I do follow American Atheist. I know they use law and the court system to fight for absolute separation of church and state.

a reply to: tsingtao
Sorry - didn't realize you'd replied til later

the guy from mozilla/firefox or whatever, who gave 1000 bucks 6 yrs ago to some group in cali.

now you put one up.

Found all this immediately - much more out there, but - as you can see - there's plenty to choose from

But, we really should stay on topic. This thread is about how the IRS made a very special promise to a group it no doubt loves and holds dear...(the IRS being so well known for it's warm fuzzies and special bonds) the very small percentage of Americans that call themselves atheists. That promise was to hold church goers feet to the fire - and otherwise harass and hurt them - because the IRS hates the church - and would never ever let them get away with anything

Or something

Meet the People Fired for Being LGBT in 2013

These 11 people represent only those who went public about their termination for being LGBT in the past year.

Teacher Fired for Being Gay Gets an Apology 42 Years Later

5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay, And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal

Lubbock man says he was fired for being gay; law says it's OK

Fired for Being Gay

KC Woman Sues Catholic Church, Says She Was Fired For Being Gay

Utah Man Fired For Blog About Homophones, Which Apparently Promote The Gay Agenda

Small South Carolina town rallies for fired gay police chief

Like I said - lots more out there - more than I have time to post here and now

Your turn :-)

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

One issue I see is that "political activism" can be very subjective. A sermon against abortion, for example, would be very much a religious sermon to the people there . . .

I agree with everything you said, except: religion should have no political power over personal choice.

Would Planned Parenthood have need to politically fight against religious belief if that belief didn't infringe in the first place.

The American Atheist focus is separation of church and state. Not anti theism.

Doesn't matter why they do what they do nor what their focus is, they are politically active non-profits, one of which uses taxpayer dollars to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. Why should one non-profit lose it's tax exempt status and another does not for doing the same thing--political activism?

Because religion is a belief.

Planned Parenthood is not trying to restrict personal choices via a forced ideology.

And didn't someone post that it is stated that in the tax deduction requirements churches can't be political, or something like that.

Sorry, I'm on Xbox kid duty. Only a quickie post to keep my brain fom being eaten by Pacman

But they are still a politically active non-profit and still use taxpayer dollars to do it to boot. Is it that non-profits being politically active when they shouldn't that bother you or just Christians?

Planned Parenthood is politically active for what reason?

Why should there even be opposition to Planned Parenthood?

How is it anyone's business except those seeking help and info.

You are seriously comparing them to forcing a faith belief ideology?

Planned parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger for purposes of eugenics--to keep the populations of undesirables down.

It is everybody's business if they are using tax dollars, yes? I wouldn't really care what they did if they were not using my money it would be none of my business.

The point is, not that they have faith or not--that is irrelevant--the point is that they are politically active and a non-profit. If we are going to remove tax exemption from one sort of non-profit due to political activity, we should remove it from all non-profits who engage in political activity. Or is it really the faith based non-profits you want to restrict? Singling out non-profits only because of religion and leaving others alone would be unjust and unconstitutional.

Do you think I don't know the history of Planned Parenthood? It's history really has nothing to do with today.

I consider all areas of reproduction an every citizen issue. There is a real vital society need for what Planned Parenthood does.

I really don't see your argument of religion vs Planned Parenthood. If anything it is political religion that forces Planned Parenthood to be political.

So, yes I support Planned Parenthood as non-profit tax exemption because what they do is vital to all of society.

Religion is a faith based ideology. It has no business trying to run this government or politically interfere with reproduction.

I do follow American Atheist. I know they use law and the court system to fight for absolute separation of church and state.

So what you are saying is that you don't mind if a non-profit is tax exempt and political as long as they are not religious. Don't you see that as failing an equal protection under the law test? That we should enforce the laws unequally as long as we like what the group is doing? I would hope you can see what a dangerous precedent that gives us.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

KC Woman Sues Catholic Church, Says She Was Fired For Being Gay

I can assure you that she was not fired for "being gay", but rather for violating the terms of conduct that she agreed to when she was hired. Those terms of conduct include agreeing to live in accordance with church teaching, which is opposed to "gay marriage," so when she married her partner (and publicized the fact,) she broke her employment contract. The church has also fired single women for getting pregnant and single men for co-habitating, under the exact same rule -- live by the terms of conduct you agreed to, or go work somewhere that doesn't have rules of expected behaviour.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I would hope you can see what a dangerous precedent that gives us.

I am hoping that more will catch on to the reality of the situation rather than cheering when it happens to a group they disagree with, then turn around and complain when it happens to a group they support.

It allows organizations like the IRS to gain more and more control, as there are inevitably groups that support whatever decision is made due to personal agendas. Those personal agendas are manipulated to allow organizations to do as they please in stripping away liberties and equalities.

Then people become irate when it happens to a group they support, while the groups that were previously targetted cheer it on as their adversaries "get a taste of their own medicine." I wish I could say I am surprised at how shortsighted and childish it all is, but I'm not. It is a very, very easily manipulated cycle. One that we could break if people actually had equality in mind, but more people want to be a protected class than equal.

a reply to: adjensen

I can assure you that she was not fired for "being gay", but rather for violating the terms of conduct that she agreed to when she was hired.

Then they should have not hired her from the get go - wouldn't you agree?

From that same link/story:

According to Simon, the problem is that the diocese knew about her marriage to the Rev. Donna Simon of St. Mark Hope and Peace Lutheran Church before she was hired for the position last year. She said her wife even visited the office and attended a fundraiser for the food pantry. Then they later fired her and cited her 2012 wedding ceremony in Iowa as the cause. For her, the lawsuit is deeper than just going back to work and being paid for lost wages.

Emphasis mine

"I trusted the diocese on the promise they made to me, and the assurance that they made to me was broken: that my marriage would not affect my employment," Simon told the Guardian. "I'm deeply saddened that they did not follow through with that and chose to let me go."

"The reason for your involuntary separation of employment was based upon on irreconcilable conflict between the laws, discipline, and teaching of the Catholic Church and your relationship – formalized by an act of marriage in Iowa – to a person of the same sex," the Diocese of Kansas City-St Joseph said in its letter of dismissal.

New story - guess we'll see

In any of these claims we can all obviously agree that until it gets through the courts it's mostly a we said/they said story

My point - in replying to tsingtao was that - it happens, and happens all too frequently

And anyway - none of this is really the point of this thread :-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Then they should have not hired her from the get go - wouldn't you agree?

Probably, but, again, my point is that she wasn't fired for "being gay."

a reply to: adjensen

Probably, but, again, my point is that she wasn't fired for "being gay."

No - she was fired for living a gay lifestyle

Or - working while gay

:-)

Honestly - it never gets old - does it?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

No - she was fired for living a gay lifestyle

No -- she was fired for violating the terms of conduct that she agreed to, which would include something along the lines of "non-married persons must remain celibate." As "gay marriage" is not recognized by the church, she was not married, and per the publicity she received due to her gay marriage, she admitted that she was not celibate. She forced the church to fire her, she will lose her lawsuit and her claiming that she was "fired for being gay" is disingenuous.

Under the Catholic church teaching, we are all beloved children of God, and having same sex attraction is not sinful. Acting on same sex attraction is sinful, though, just as it would be if I, who is not married, were to be sexually active in a heterosexual relationship.

originally posted by: adjensen
Why do you think that PACs are taxed?

I don't. I said, "tax-exempt PAC"

a reply to: adjensen

No -- she was fired for violating the terms of conduct that she agreed to, which would include something along the lines of "non-married persons must remain celibate."

Except that they had an understanding - you assume too much

About a year later, Simon saw an opening at St Francis Xavier for what she still calls her "dream job". Well-aware of the tricky relationship some churches have with gay employees, Simon said she asked before applying if they would consider her for the position. She said she was encouraged to apply, and that she was honest and open about her sexual orientation throughout the hiring process.

If you don't want to read the information as it's presented - I can't help you any more than this

Don't think I don't understand your point - you don't need to repeat it

Sorry - she was fired for being gay - it's not complicated

The thing I think is interesting is that the church isn't always communicating with itself anymore. There seems to be different views within the church and some differing opinions on how they want to approach all this - a sign that things are changing and there's going to be even more confusion in the future

I actually look at this case as a good sign - even if she loses

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Here's what you said:

It's keeping churches honest and not having them turn into a political tax-exempt PAC. If churches are going to be political entities, they should be taxed.

PACs are tax exempt, so how does turning a church into a PAC make them taxable? Your implication there is that PACs are not tax exempt, but a church that is political is, in effect, a tax-exempt PAC, which you apparently object to.