It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time to allow Politics from the Pulpit openly as the Left does it anyway

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Sorry, I disagree with your summation that most churches are involved in anything resembling charity.

From my experience, most churches use anything that smacks of charity as a membership drive, or, as bait for compulsory attendance at sermonizing.

Again, not talking about revisions to the tax code here. What do you think?




posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I've always wanted people who have no more, better, or personal relation with God than I do telling me how God would view politics and how I should vote. Religion is and can be a beautiful thing, organized religion not so much. Let's do it.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Sorry, I disagree with your summation that most churches are involved in anything resembling charity.

From my experience, most churches use anything that smacks of charity as a membership drive, or, as bait for compulsory attendance at sermonizing.

Again, not talking about revisions to the tax code here. What do you think?


I know you aren't asking me but personally it sounds like you want to punish all religion/churches because of what looks like your own warped opinion and/or experience with them. It seems like you are having trouble staying on target and are trying to muddle the issue by trying to phrase your agenda as some type of benevolence. Very progressive of you.

It also looks like you weren't expecting someone to drill down into the actual verbiage of the tax code you posted, and you are now trying to regain some ground but are standing on loose sand, not a solid foundation.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Good for you! We all have our ideas about how to make things better, don't we?

I'm for the Constitution. The Constitution is clear on how church and State relate to each other in the United States.


Well, it says that the government shall not infringe on free expression. It doesn't really say much about taxation and controlling sermons. What are you referring to?


The rest of your stuff ... okay ... but it seems off-topic.


You asked. Don't complain if you open the door.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nope, I haven't said anything faintly resembling any of that garbage.

I keep saying the same things: let churches be equal to everyone and every other business entity in America and let them spew whatever nonsense they wish.

You don't like the way I phrase things, fine. While we're commenting on style, your garden-variety right wing harrangues honestly bore me to tears. You have none of Ketsuko's passion nor Beezzer's wit.

But stick to what I say, not what you think I think.

Unless you mean to lie outright ...


edit on 19Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:18:07 -050015p072015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nope, I haven't said anything faintly resembling any of that garbage.


I didn't say you said it. I said that's what it sounds like to me.


I keep saying the same things: let churches be equal to everyone and every other business entity in America and let them spew whatever nonsense they wish.


But they are a church. They are not a business entity. That is your disconnect. That is part of the warped view I'm interpreting from you.


You don't like the way I phase things, fine. While we're commenting on style, your garden-variety right wing harrangues honestly bore me to tears. You have none of Ketsuko's passion nor Beezzer's wit.


Now who is trying to put words in other people's mouth? When have I commented on your phrasing?



But stick to what I say, not what you think I think.
Unless you mean to lie outright ...


Wow, trying to make me angry with false accusations. Must have hit a nerve there.

You invited an opinion. I gave it. If that bugs you, don't ask people "What do you think?" anymore. And stop insinuating that people lie when you don't like the answer.
edit on 16-8-2015 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You'll have to have someone else explain the Constitution to you.

I don't have control of the topic of the thread; that's the OP.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Sorry, I got lost in your diatribe against the political Left ... are you in favor of the government controlling the pulpit, or not?
not at all. but the founders gave special protection to the churches because they know the American revolution started in the pulpit. it is the real reason for the establishment clause and eventually the tax exempt status. they had no intent to muzzle the church politically. in fact quite the opposite.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Your impressions of me are unimportant here.

A church is incorporated. A church is not a human individual. I'm referring to a church in the way I see it, substantiated by both those facts.

What is your disconnect?

Putting words in your mouth? You told me what you think of me I told you what I think of you. Don't like it; don't do it ... It's against T&C for a reason.

Are you mad, bro? LOL don't take it too seriously.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You'll have to have someone else explain the Constitution to you.

I don't have control of the topic of the thread; that's the OP.


Meaning you don't have a real argument on what you think is 'clear' in the Constitution, but will still try to make me think I'm ignorant on the matter. Very passive aggressive.

If you are arguing from a passage in the Constitution, by all means post it. You said it is clear. I asked what it is. If you don't post it, then I am left to believe that you are bluffing. I realize you may not care what I think, but then if you didn't care then why try to make me feel ignorant?

Your call.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Where and how did the Founders give special protection to churches again?

I can see you've been learning history from Glenn Beck. That wouldn't be my first choice.
edit on 19Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:37:16 -050015p072015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm not trying to make you think anything.

Wow.

I've made my argument multiple times here in this very thread; read that.
edit on 19Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:36:53 -050015p072015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
If a church was just another business entity, then they'd be forced to perform marriages for same-sex couples.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Nope the business they are in is religion which is protected in the First.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Your impressions of me are unimportant here.


I never said they were.


A church is incorporated. A church is not a human individual. I'm referring to a church in the way I see it, substantiated by both those facts.


The way you see it is not the same as 'the way it actually is.' Churches are incorporated to fall under the 501.3.c. If they don't do that, they get taxed.


What is your disconnect?

Putting words in your mouth? You told me what you think of me I told you what I think of you. Don't like it; don't do it ... It's against T&C for a reason.


Are you mad, bro? LOL don't take it too seriously.

Why are you making it about me, or insinuating my emotional state? Sounds like you are going off topic, 'bro.'

Stay on target. Why don't we explore the term 'substantial' from the actual tax law instead of try to get each other in trouble with the mods?
edit on 16-8-2015 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Are you unwilling to accept the notion that perhaps you are indeed ignorant on this matter? I've seen neither attacks nor passive aggression directed at you, so I'm not sure what it is you're going on about.

Pretty run of the mill for ATS lately tho, certain posters want ATS to be their personal echo chamber, and it's not. If you feel assaulted by differing opinions, I suggest a thorough application of thicker skin, but only under a medical doctor's supervision. The procedure is free under Obamacare.
edit on 8/16/2015 by Monger because: (no reason given)


(post by Simmderdown removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm not trying to make you think anything.

Wow.

I've made my argument multiple times here in this very thread; read that.


I never said you were trying to make me think anything. I've replied to your arguments, no need to read them again.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Monger
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Are you unwilling to accept the notion that perhaps you are indeed ignorant on this matter? I've seen neither attacks nor passive aggression directed at you, so I'm not sure what it is you're going on about.


I am always willing to reassess my stance on any matter. That requires someone to actually put something forward other than insults or avoiding the subject they started.


Pretty run of the mill for ATS lately tho, certain posters want ATS to be their personal echo chamber, and it's not. If you feel assaulted by differing opinions, I suggest a thorough application of thicker skin, but only under a medical doctor's supervision. The procedure is free under Obamacare.


So you insult and avoid the subject instead of actually putting something forward.

Did you actually have anything to contribute to the original topic?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join