IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Sermons And Homilies

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Logarock

I wonder if it comes close to the number of people fired for speaking up for gay rights - and speaking out against discrimination

You have real numbers - or are we dancing hypothetically?

Are you not familiar with several high profiles cases of late?

Don't know if the numbers will match but it just sounds hollow talking about every bodies freedom in an ever changing and progressive society when you cant even, not gay bash mind you, but simply voice your opinion about believing in marriage being between a man or a woman without getting publically ostracized. That's just new boss same as the old boss, not really leaving behind a world full of stereotypical hurdles and cultural strictures that include punishment, but establishing new ones.

a reply to: Annee

:-)

I know Annee... and also this:

On June 7, 2013, the United States government filed a motion to dismiss our lawsuit. In their filing, the Government, among other things, challenged American Atheists' standing to bring such a suit, alleging that we had suffered no real harm from their preferential treatment of religious groups in tax filings.

For more on the other side of the story:
IRS agrees to monitor churches for electioneering

The suit alleged the IRS routinely ignored complaints by the FFRF and others about churches promoting political candidates, issues or proposed legislation. As part of their tax-exempt status, churches and other religious groups are prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity.

There's always two sides (and two versions) of the preferential treatment story

a reply to: Logarock

Funny that - and I must agree

Why - it must be just as uncomfortable a feeling as being fired for being gay

Or - being denied basic human rights - because you're gay

:-)

Whatever and whoever your examples might be - they should scream bloody murder - hopefully and eventually in front of a judge. No system is perfect - and our right to free speech needs to be defended at all cost and at every turn

I think we both agree on that

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I wish the Bible would say something about doing unto others as you would have others do unto you

How cool would that be?

:-)

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: St Udio

While completely reasonable, most atheists are solely focused on Christianity.

How many times must it be stated? In the USA Christianity is the predominate religious belief.

At least one more time it seems.

I haven't heard of the "Muslim Right", at least not yet. But, it is amusing watching Christians get their panties in a bunch with the growing Muslim faith in America.

Atheists do not focus on Christians. They focus mainly on the infringement of religion in government. Guess who the main culprits are. Go ahead, guess.

Well then they atheists should be seriously concerned about keeping a watch Muslims then.

That has nothing to do with your original claim/post.

Atheist's main political focus is separation of church and state. They do not target any specific religion.

Yes but in the language of the issue "church" refers to christians. The body of believers in Jesus Christ with their sundry groups. More specifically was the example of the Anglican Church. At any rate the constitution says "religion" anyway so its about any religion.

Atheists didn't even invent the idea of separation. The use the language but don't seem to give much concern to anything else in the discussion. And christians don't like to admit that James Madison has fits when the early congress voted to pay the congressional minister out of the government coffers. He thought if they wanted a minister on hand they should pay the man living out of pocket. He also withstood early attempts in Virginia by clergy to get laws passed to pay their living from tax money witch is the way it had been done before the revolution. The state supported the Anglican Church with taxes and other denominations were persecuted in one way or another by way of the government and the Anglicans working together with intertwined tools of power.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I can't imagine why American Atheists claim the US government is guilty of Christian privilege.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I can't imagine why American Atheists claim the US government is guilty of Christian privilege.

What does that mean? just asking.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
If you think churches should not have tax-exempt status (as I do), then I don't understand why you disagree with this. This isn't PC thought police. 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. If they're not, they should not "preach" politics.

I believe there's going to be more of this kind of thing, as religion encroaches more and more into government.

Do you ever make a post WITHOUT using the word "progressive" in a derogatory manner?

I couldn't agree more. I am political centrist, and often refer to myself as a Libertarian in many ways. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. A church has no business spending it's sermon time on political issues.

Granted, there are so many things wrong with our current iteration of society, churches using church/sermon time on political issues is definitely on the smaller end. Yet, it doesn't change the fact they shouldn't hold tax-exempt status if they decide to spend church hours on political issues.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I can't imagine why American Atheists claim the US government is guilty of Christian privilege.

What does that mean? just asking.

Read the post it's in response to.

This is exactly what tyrants want. Getting opposing groups to legitimize the tyrant by using the tyrant as a weapon. The tax is the problem in the first place and these are some dumb as hell atheists. Rather than demand equal freedom they demand equal chains. Robots.

a reply to: tsingtao

"why else would they try to include freedom FROM religion everywhere."

Perhaps you believe that the establishment clause of the First Amendment
offers no protection of the rights of non-believers.
What if I were to suggest that our national motto should be changed to "In Truth We Trust"?
Relax. I propose no such suggestion.
My money is legal tender whether it is sanctified by God or not.

Can you imagine a Godless atheist that embraces virtue?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: tsingtao

because they think the state will be damaged by believers and they want to protect it at all costs.

And 'the state' WILL be damaged - they are CORRECT.
Kansas is the perfect example of a failed "Christian Evangelical Theocratic State":
What Happened When an Extremist, Christian Fundamentalist Got to Run a Whole State

He became leader of a House group called the New Federalists which devoted itself to the dismantling of the government one brick at a time. Fortunately, they were unable to pass their ambitious agenda so they instead became the far-right's hitmen, pioneering the use of hard-core obstructionist tactics to paralyze the government. They were the faction agitating the hardest for a government shutdown in 1995, pushing Gingrich to his most obstreperous limits (and setting the stage for his precipitous fall from grace). Joe Scarborough famously quoted Brownback telling him not to be disillusioned by the PR disaster that ensued, saying "Rome wasn't burnt in a day."

His far-right fiscal bona fides solidly demonstrated, Brownback turned his attention to social issues when he ran for the Senate in 1996 at the height of the religious right's growing clout in the GOP. He spent the next 12 years as a hardcore fiscal conservative but more importantly, as a far-right Christian crusader, sometimes fashioning himself as a "Wilberforce" conservative (after the British anti-slavery activist) comparing abolition of slavery to his determination to ban abortion. He's been closely associated for years with the secretive Christian fellowship group known as the Family.

C STREET:

The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy

C Street - where piety, politics, and corruption meet

Jeff Sharlet is the only journalist to have reported from inside the C Street House, the Fellowship residence known simply by its Washington, DC address. The house has lately been the scene of notorious political scandal, but more crucially it is home to efforts to transform the very fabric of American democracy. And now, after laying bare its tenants' past in The Family, Sharlet reports from deep within fundamentalism in today's world, revealing that the previous efforts of religious fundamentalists in America pale in comparison with their long-term ambitions.

Any questions? Tried, proven to fail. (They got their way - see Sam Brownback, above)

Colorado on the other hand: doing very well. And *gasp* RIGHT NEXT DOOR! (To the left - see a map).

wow! sounds really bad when it's laid out like that!

all i see is an anti-abortion stance.
big deal.
the atheists can't talk theology so they politicize it.

what's the difference to what obama is doing now? correct, that was 1 state, obama is doing it to the whole country.
colorado vs kansas?
how bout SF vs mayberry.

originally posted by: WCmutant

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
If you think churches should not have tax-exempt status (as I do), then I don't understand why you disagree with this. This isn't PC thought police. 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. If they're not, they should not "preach" politics.

I believe there's going to be more of this kind of thing, as religion encroaches more and more into government.

Do you ever make a post WITHOUT using the word "progressive" in a derogatory manner?

Granted, there are so many things wrong with our current iteration of society, churches using church/sermon time on political issues is definitely on the smaller end. Yet, it doesn't change the fact they shouldn't hold tax-exempt status if they decide to spend church hours on political issues.

We wouldn't have had the civil rights era with out churches being so involved. The Rev. Martin Luther King did most of his talking from the pulpit and some of his more famous speeches are made from the pulpit. The racists in the south were not vandalizing and bombing church's for any other reason.

Not to mention the american revolution. The very large part of church pulpits became platforms of revolutionary speech.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Logarock

I wonder if it comes close to the number of people fired for speaking up for gay rights - and speaking out against discrimination

You have real numbers - or are we dancing hypothetically?

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

now you put one up.

originally posted by: WCmutant

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
If you think churches should not have tax-exempt status (as I do), then I don't understand why you disagree with this. This isn't PC thought police. 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. If they're not, they should not "preach" politics.

I believe there's going to be more of this kind of thing, as religion encroaches more and more into government.

Do you ever make a post WITHOUT using the word "progressive" in a derogatory manner?

I couldn't agree more. I am political centrist, and often refer to myself as a Libertarian in many ways. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. A church has no business spending it's sermon time on political issues.

Granted, there are so many things wrong with our current iteration of society, churches using church/sermon time on political issues is definitely on the smaller end. Yet, it doesn't change the fact they shouldn't hold tax-exempt status if they decide to spend church hours on political issues.

start with rev wright.

but these people think the churches have nothing better to do but talk politics.

maybe that's what they would do but churches don't, there are too many different political beliefs in any church.

the focus is God, not obama. sheesh.

paranoia if i ever saw it.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: tsingtao

"why else would they try to include freedom FROM religion everywhere."

Perhaps you believe that the establishment clause of the First Amendment
offers no protection of the rights of non-believers.
What if I were to suggest that our national motto should be changed to "In Truth We Trust"?
Relax. I propose no such suggestion.
My money is legal tender whether it is sanctified by God or not.

Can you imagine a Godless atheist that embraces virtue?

what "protections" do you need that is not already covered?

are you/they adding protections for ALL or trying to take some away for a particular group?

God holds the ultimate truth, unless you mean truth like in "what are going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

a reply to: tsingtao

what "protections" do you need that is not already covered?
are you/they adding protections for ALL or trying to take some away for a particular group?
God holds the ultimate truth, unless you mean truth like in "what are going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

If I were to claim that God does not hold the ultimate truth, would you claim that my eyes are lying?

Yeah, it does seem a bit orwellian, but not really considering that it's just for tax exempt status. Kind of hard to take sides on this one. Honestly, A better solution would just to get rid of tax exempt status for Religious Institutions altogether like Beezer said. I imagine some will probably cry "religious liberty" over it though.

I'm an Atheist, where do I sign up?

Is this anything like the $7K/Month to house an illegal 12 year old? Because that's been working out great for me so far!