Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples (Page 1)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 
Previous Page | Next Page
Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples by Pyrthian
Started on: 12-01-2011 02:41 PM
Replies: 56
Last post by: Khw on 12-05-2011 09:24 PM
Pyrthian
Member
Posts: 29569
From: Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 02:41 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PyrthianSend a Private Message to PyrthianDirect Link to This Post
http://news.yahoo.com/kentu...uples-003419318.html
 
quote

TOMAHAWK, Ky (Reuters) - A vote to bar interracial couples from a small church in eastern Kentucky has triggered hand-wringing and embarrassment.

Nine members of Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church backed their former pastor, with six opposed, in Sunday's vote to bar interracial couples from church membership and worship activities. Funerals were excluded.

The vote was taken after most of the 40 people who attended Sunday services had left the church in Pike County, near the border with West Virginia. Many members left to avoid the vote.

Most members of the church "didn't want anything to do with this," said longtime church official Dean Harville, whose daughter and her black fiance had drawn pastor Melvin Thompson's ire.

At services earlier this year, Stella Harville, 24, who is working on her master's degree in optical engineering, sang "I Surrender All" with her fiance, Ticha Chikuni, 29, a Zimbabwe native, according to her father. Chikuni, an employee at Georgetown College in Kentucky, played the piano.

"There didn't appear to be any problem," Dean Harville said on Wednesday. "None whatsoever."

But Harville said Thompson told him the couple would not be allowed to sing at the church again. Thompson resigned in August but would not drop the issue.

Thompson told a local radio outlet, "I do not believe in interracial marriages, and I do not believe this (ban) will give our church a black eye at all."

He could not be reached for comment.

The move has drawn scrutiny from the hierarchy of the Freewill Baptist Church, Harville said.

"This kind of thing brands all of us so easily," said Randy Johnson, president of the Pike County Ministerial Association. "That's not who we are. From all the churches I've talked to so far, it's really not anger so much as it is shock."


IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
dsnover
Member
Posts: 1668
From: Cherryville, PA USA
Registered: Apr 2006


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 03:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dsnoverSend a Private Message to dsnoverDirect Link to This Post
The Bible isn't against interracial couples. "Foreign" wives refers to people of different FAITHs, which is being 'unequally yoked'.

That being said: It's a private church. They can do what they want on memberships and attendance, even if I don't agree with it (and it seems many members don't, although they didn't have the b@lls to vote against it either). If the government wants to get involved somehow, well, that would be an issue of the so-called 'separation of church and state', but that only seems to work one way these days anyway, at least for Christian denominations....
IP: Logged
Gtdhw
Member
Posts: 212
From: IN
Registered: Nov 2011


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 04:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for GtdhwSend a Private Message to GtdhwDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dsnover:

That being said: It's a private church. They can do what they want on memberships and attendance, even if I don't agree with it (and it seems many members don't, although they didn't have the b@lls to vote against it either). If the government wants to get involved somehow, well, that would be an issue of the so-called 'separation of church and state', but that only seems to work one way these days anyway, at least for Christian denominations....


I agree.

[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 43235
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 184
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 04:04 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Direct Link to This Post
Yep
IP: Logged
Pyrthian
Member
Posts: 29569
From: Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 04:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PyrthianSend a Private Message to PyrthianDirect Link to This Post
yes - it most certianly is their right

no doubt about that. but, I suppose it goes right along with my thinking that the LAST place you will ever find God is in a Church
IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 43235
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 184
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 04:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian:
I suppose it goes right along with my thinking that the LAST place you will ever find God is in a Church


This church maybe. That may even be to much generalizing. Probably the people who voted to ban.

Look though it made the news, its not run of the mill yet

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 12-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
madcurl
Member
Posts: 21401
From: In a Van down by the Kern River
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 314
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 04:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for madcurlSend a Private Message to madcurlDirect Link to This Post
Typical. So called Christian don't normally follow anything that is contained in the Bible. No scriptural passages to support anything. Only their personal views that are counted, but if the couple were being molested by the 1st cousin they'd over look that one. I'm sure Jesus Christ isn't very pleased that they are mocking him and the so-called christian name plate. The guy and gal should find a new faith.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs...riage-150009470.html
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 04:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by madcurl:

Typical. So called Christian don't normally follow anything that is contained in the Bible. No scriptural passages to support anything. Only their personal views that are counted, but if the couple were being molested by the 1st cousin they'd over look that one. I'm sure Jesus Christ isn't very pleased that they are mocking him and the so-called christian name plate. The guy and gal should find a new faith.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs...riage-150009470.html


Maybe they just need to find a new (Christian) church to belong to..?

IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-01-2011 05:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
The only problem i have with the 'its their place, their rules' argument ( which i normally do fully support ) is that they are in effect accepting public tax dollars since they are a tax exempt entity.

I feel that once you accept 'public funds' in any form the rules need to change and you are no longer truly a private entity.
IP: Logged
madcurl
Member
Posts: 21401
From: In a Van down by the Kern River
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 314
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 05:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for madcurlSend a Private Message to madcurlDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


Maybe they just need to find a new (Christian) church to belong to..?


Or move away from the back woods of Kentucky. Still, if one's faith isn't backed up by passages in the Bible what difference does it make if they find a new church. 99.99% of all so-called Christian can't back-up anything found in the Bible. The easiest way to defend themselves here was to use common examples found in the Bible to squash the nonsense here about interracial couples. Instead, these morons decided to take a vote over what's found in the Bible.
IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-01-2011 05:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by madcurl:

Typical. So called Christian don't normally follow anything that is contained in the Bible.


its all up for interpretation anyway. Each church interprets it differently.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
texasfiero
Member
Posts: 4674
From: Houston, TX USA
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 82
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 05:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for texasfieroSend a Private Message to texasfieroDirect Link to This Post
One instance in the Bible where a believer married inter-racially is in Numbers 12:1-9. Moses had married a wife of another nationality. Members of his family, Aron and Miriam, "spoke against" Moses for it.

Numbers 12:1-9
New King James Version (NKJV)

Dissension of Aaron and Miriam
 
quote
http://www.biblegateway.com...2%3A1-9&version=NKJV
1 Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2 So they said, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” And the LORD heard it. 3 (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth.)
4 Suddenly the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “Come out, you three, to the tabernacle of meeting!” So the three came out. 5 Then the LORD came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam. And they both went forward. 6 Then He said,

“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision;
I speak to him in a dream.

7 Not so with My servant Moses;
He is faithful in all My house.

8 I speak with him face to face,
Even plainly, and not in dark sayings;
And he sees the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant Moses?”
9 So the anger of the LORD was aroused against them, and He departed.


The Bible specifically prohibits marrying one from another faith (non-Christian) but it is clear from this passage that God had no problem with it.

I'd say the church is on thin ice and it is time to move on if the pastor doesn't recant.

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 12-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
1985FieroGT
Member
Posts: 3837
From: USA
Registered: Sep 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 296
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 05:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 1985FieroGTSend a Private Message to 1985FieroGTDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by madcurl:


Or move away from the back woods of Kentucky. Still, if one's faith isn't backed up by passages in the Bible what difference does it make if they find a new church. 99.99% of all so-called Christian can't back-up anything found in the Bible. The easiest way to defend themselves here was to use common examples found in the Bible to squash the nonsense here about interracial couples. Instead, these morons decided to take a vote over what's found in the Bible.


*Sigh*

I can backup most things I know from the Bible... are there some gray areas, yea... but it ultimately doesn't affect doctrine.

More useless agnostic brayings

To bray (verb)

"to utter a loud and harsh cry, as a donkey. "

www.dictionary.com
IP: Logged
Cheever3000
Member
Posts: 12400
From: The Man from Tallahassee
Registered: Aug 2001


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 178
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 05:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Cheever3000Send a Private Message to Cheever3000Direct Link to This Post
One of the few faults in the house I grew up in was a degree of racism. I was told interracial marriage was wrong, but when I finally read the entire Bible for myself, that was one of the things I conciously looked for. I found nothing against it. So from then on, I didn't think anything of it when I saw a "mixed" couple. Some of my best friends have checker-board skin.

But I have to agree that this church can do as they please regarding the matter. Even if they are wrong.

No church is perfect, mostly because we're all human. But they said in their own statement that they "serve the community". They don't serve it very well if they take this stand on interracial marriage.

[/.02]
IP: Logged
madcurl
Member
Posts: 21401
From: In a Van down by the Kern River
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 314
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 05:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for madcurlSend a Private Message to madcurlDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:


its all up for interpretation anyway. Each church interprets it differently.


Oh really, in this case did they "vote" or did they relay on their own interpretation? It appears these so-called Christians were so lazy that they bypassed interpretation all together, because that would require looking up scriptures. A vote is easier than looking towards the Bible. Once again a classic example of how America's so-called Bible belt who claim to be followers of Christ. What a mockery and what a joke.

If they have issues with interracial couples it makes you wonder what other "votes" they have if anything "black" is involved? What if they see a interracial couple at a dinner, do they serve them? Trust me on this one, there's more to it than a simple "interracial" couple issue here. Things like this go's deep, way deep and it has roots.
IP: Logged
Gtdhw
Member
Posts: 212
From: IN
Registered: Nov 2011


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 05:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for GtdhwSend a Private Message to GtdhwDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:

I feel that once you accept 'public funds' in any form the rules need to change and you are no longer truly a private entity.


Do you feel the same about anyone accepting "public funds"?
IP: Logged
Patrick's Dad
Member
Posts: 5154
From: Weymouth MA USA
Registered: Feb 2000


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 108
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 06:35 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Patrick's DadClick Here to visit Patrick's Dad's HomePageSend a Private Message to Patrick's DadDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:

The only problem i have with the 'its their place, their rules' argument ( which i normally do fully support ) is that they are in effect accepting public tax dollars since they are a tax exempt entity.

I feel that once you accept 'public funds' in any form the rules need to change and you are no longer truly a private entity.


I find this "argument" entirely baffling. When tax paying citizens give from what's left of their money to their church, this is somehow receiving "public money?" I would think that the little money that's in my pocket after the Feds and the Commonwealth take their "shares" is mine. The town makes it perfectly clear that the civic benefit of having the Church in the neighborhood more than makes up for the money it would comparably receive in property taxes and trash fees.

That sad, take a look just at the surface of the article. There were 56 members of this small church. 71% of the membership left over the issue, presumably to other churches. 40% of the remaining membership voted "Nay." That puts their staying put in jeopardy, as well. The resultant church will have nine members.

Unfortunately, churches have humans as governing members, and humans are susceptible to all kinds of temptation, including a lust for power. Admittedly, this is not the reason that people become Pastors or Deacons or Trustees, but the temptations are still there. I belonged to a church in the City of Presidents (Two presidents born there), in which the Board felt that, as literal "next of kin" of those who founded the church in 1904, they "owned" the church. Almost 40% of the membership left along with the Pastor, who moved south and, with his wife, started a ministry that helps women who went through the Rwandan genocide rebuild their lives and care for their families.

I've moved on from there (sadly, it was kind of like a divorce) to another small church (though larger than this one in KY) that is doing some great things. And, I've been elected Moderator, so I get to run meetings and I don't get to have an opinion....
IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-01-2011 06:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Gtdhw:


Do you feel the same about anyone accepting "public funds"?


yes
IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-01-2011 06:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post

User00013170

33617 posts
Member since May 2006
 
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:


I find this "argument" entirely baffling. When tax paying citizens give from what's left of their money to their church, this is somehow receiving "public money?"


You can give whatever you want. That is private money and not what i'm talking about.

I am talking about redistribution of tax dollars. Money I never got a choice in where it gos. It was taken and distributed without my consent. And while i have nothing against people getting together and forming a church, they should be held to the same standards and pay their own way as everyone else. NO tax breaks. As far as I'm concerned, getting a tax break is the same as accepting tax dollars.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
Cheever3000
Member
Posts: 12400
From: The Man from Tallahassee
Registered: Aug 2001


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 178
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Cheever3000Send a Private Message to Cheever3000Direct Link to This Post
All they gotta do is have a Hollywood movie made of the story, and bada-bing bada-boom, they can send their kids & grandkids to whatever kooky faith-based college or seminary they like, where they can then become pastors themselves and start their own church where they can all live happily ever after. (Yeah, I'm a Christian, but I don't have a good impression of most faith-based colleges, I'm sorry to say. But then, I don't have any better impressions of other institutions of higher learning, either.)
IP: Logged
Patrick's Dad
Member
Posts: 5154
From: Weymouth MA USA
Registered: Feb 2000


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 108
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Patrick's DadClick Here to visit Patrick's Dad's HomePageSend a Private Message to Patrick's DadDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:


You can give whatever you want. That is private money and not what i'm talking about.

I am talking about redistribution of tax dollars. Money I never got a choice in where it gos. It was taken and distributed without my consent. And while i have nothing against people getting together and forming a church, they should be held to the same standards and pay their own way as everyone else. NO tax breaks. As far as I'm concerned, getting a tax break is the same as accepting tax dollars.



But we've just established that they receive private funds. If they don't receive public dollars from the Fed, then the budget is made up of private donations. Plus, the Pastor and other employees' payrolls are taxed.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
blackrams
Member
Posts: 33121
From: Covington, TN, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 226
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:04 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsDirect Link to This Post

------------------
Ron
The key thing is to wake up breathing! All the rest can be fixed. (Except Stupid - You can't fix that)

IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:


But we've just established that they receive private funds. If they don't receive public dollars from the Fed, then the budget is made up of private donations. Plus, the Pastor and other employees' payrolls are taxed.


We don't/won't agree, but as i stated above, receiving *any* tax abatements ( i guess that is a better term than "breaks" ) or achieve 'non profit' tax status is the same as receiving public dollars to me and it changes the rules. And just to clarify i don't care if they are a church, or a manufacturing plant or a food pantry or the boyscouts... I'm not being biased here, and all should be treated the same. Also, i don't care if we are talking federal or state or local taxes. Its still public funds, just from different sized pools.

That they also receive private funds is totally irrelevant to me since they still accepted public funds.
IP: Logged
Gtdhw
Member
Posts: 212
From: IN
Registered: Nov 2011


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for GtdhwSend a Private Message to GtdhwDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:


yes


Then I can assume (if you will stay consistent in your posted beliefs) that if an individual is on government assistance (of any kind) they should lose their right to vote until they are off of it because "receiving public dollars changes the rules"?

[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:26 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Gtdhw:


Then I can assume (if you will stay consistent in your posted beliefs) that if an individual is on government assistance (of any kind) they should lose their right to vote until they are off of it?


No, i don't feel they should lose the right to vote. However, i do agree that there can be restrictions placed on them in return for the public funds that a 'private' citizen is not under. ( simple example: random drug tests. ).

While i don't have some 'magic list' of items, i think it should be restricted to how the public money is being spent. Other personal rights/liberties should be left alone. ( like your voting suggestion )

EDIT: A good example would be how items you can purchase at the grocery with food stamps is restricted. You can buy food to feed your family, but buying a pack of cigarettes is not allowed.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
Patrick's Dad
Member
Posts: 5154
From: Weymouth MA USA
Registered: Feb 2000


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 108
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Patrick's DadClick Here to visit Patrick's Dad's HomePageSend a Private Message to Patrick's DadDirect Link to This Post
So, moveon.org, Occupy Whatever and the ACLU, as well?

Just to be clear.
IP: Logged
Doni Hagan
Member
Posts: 8242
From:
Registered: Jun 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 127
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Doni HaganSend a Private Message to Doni HaganDirect Link to This Post
"11 a.m. Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America."
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:

So, moveon.org, Occupy Whatever and the ACLU, as well?

Just to be clear.


I did say all..

Oh, and i should include 'government contracts' too.. Its still receiving public funds, even if in those cases its for work done, not just charity.

But, if you don't accept any public funds, run your church/business/club however you want. I don't have a problem with it. I may not do business with you, and i might express my distaste for it, but its your shop, not mine.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
ray b
Member
Posts: 13990
From: miami
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 321
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ray bSend a Private Message to ray bDirect Link to This Post
they are all cults from the big international catholic cult to the snake handlers cults

and all cults should be taxed heavily
too bad there is no anti BS tax on them
that would be great the more silly ,absurd, or dangerous a cults beliefs the higher the taxes
like young earthers or anti-evo nuts or racists or snake handlers or the jim jones david k types
those cults should be taxed to the max
IP: Logged
Patrick's Dad
Member
Posts: 5154
From: Weymouth MA USA
Registered: Feb 2000


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 108
Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 07:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Patrick's DadClick Here to visit Patrick's Dad's HomePageSend a Private Message to Patrick's DadDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:


I did say all..



I've been through the Clinton administration. It might have depended on what "all" meant.

In my experience, Liberals mean "the stuff on the right" when they say all.

That said, the rules as we have them are written so that a Church is established as a private entity, and can't be compelled to accept anyone into membership that they don't want to. Democratic policy has already done considerable damage to the membership rolls of the particular organization of the O/T.
IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-01-2011 08:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:


I've been through the Clinton administration. It might have depended on what "all" meant.

In my experience, Liberals mean "the stuff on the right" when they say all.

That said, the rules as we have them are written so that a Church is established as a private entity, and can't be compelled to accept anyone into membership that they don't want to. Democratic policy has already done considerable damage to the membership rolls of the particular organization of the O/T.


Ultimately I don't lean in either direction and had no "agenda", and i truly meant everyone that accepts it. And the rules should be applied equally so as not to unfairly harm, or help, any particular entity depending on the prevailing political winds. Yes i know that rues can ( and will ) be abused, but that wouldn't be my intent to enact them.

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Gtdhw
Member
Posts: 212
From: IN
Registered: Nov 2011


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 08:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for GtdhwSend a Private Message to GtdhwDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:


No, i don't feel they should lose the right to vote. However, i do agree that there can be restrictions placed on them in return for the public funds that a 'private' citizen is not under. ( simple example: random drug tests. ).

While i don't have some 'magic list' of items, i think it should be restricted to how the public money is being spent. Other personal rights/liberties should be left alone. ( like your voting suggestion )

EDIT: A good example would be how items you can purchase at the grocery with food stamps is restricted. You can buy food to feed your family, but buying a pack of cigarettes is not allowed.



I agree with you on most of this. Here's the thing about the voting while on gov. assistance, it is no different than the politicians pandering votes from the rich with tax breaks (which is what most of the rage the days is about). One can promise tax breaks just like one can promise more assistance to get votes from that base. It is just as easy to pander to the poor for votes as it is to pander to the rich. See the problem here? Just like the rich, who are the poor going to vote for? The one candidate that promises them the most. The difference is that the rich live on and spend their own money. Money that they earned and they vote to keep as much of it as they can. The poor vote to take money from the taxpayers for their use. Money that they didn't earn and have no right to, so they can have more to live on without earning it. There is a conflict of interest here.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
Gtdhw
Member
Posts: 212
From: IN
Registered: Nov 2011


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post12-01-2011 08:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for GtdhwSend a Private Message to GtdhwDirect Link to This Post

Gtdhw

212 posts
Member since Nov 2011
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:


Ultimately I don't lean in either direction and had no "agenda", and i truly meant everyone that accepts it. And the rules should be applied equally so as not to unfairly harm, or help, any particular entity depending on the prevailing political winds. Yes i know that rues can ( and will ) be abused, but that wouldn't be my intent to enact them.



This goes against your stance on taxing the rich more, just because they're rich.

A national flat tax would go a long way to do what precisely you are explaining in this post and I can agree with you on this too.

[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-02-2011 12:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Gtdhw:
This goes against your stance on taxing the rich more, just because they're rich.

A national flat tax would go a long way to do what precisely you are explaining in this post and I can agree with you on this too.


I have never said to tax the rich more. I do not subscribe to class warfare.
IP: Logged
dsnover
Member
Posts: 1668
From: Cherryville, PA USA
Registered: Apr 2006


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post12-02-2011 12:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dsnoverSend a Private Message to dsnoverDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:

The only problem i have with the 'its their place, their rules' argument ( which i normally do fully support ) is that they are in effect accepting public tax dollars since they are a tax exempt entity.

I feel that once you accept 'public funds' in any form the rules need to change and you are no longer truly a private entity.


Tax Exempt is not the same as accepting public funds.

Churches cannot be taxed, for to do so is a violation of the so-called 'separation of church and state', and the free exercise of religion. You can't have it both ways.

There is a distinction between constitutionally separate “sovereigns.” For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient to that authority. This is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the tax and in the practical effect of supporting the sovereign party. So, in our constitutional structure, states may not tax each other, and they may not tax property of the federal government.

In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” The much misunderstood “separation between church and state” is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity. Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full. Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

The fact that the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches is one of the best reasons why churches are not taxed.
IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-02-2011 01:21 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dsnover:


Tax Exempt is not the same as accepting public funds.

Churches cannot be taxed, for to do so is a violation of the so-called 'separation of church and state', and the free exercise of religion. You can't have it both ways.



Apparently i failed, but i tried to make it clear several times above that this is my opinion about it and how i feel it should work. not that it does, or doesn't, work that way, but how i want it to.

Also, taxing a church like every other business would not violate the church and state separation concept. In reality, giving the church special treatment does violate it and is a smoke screen to allow the government to support religion.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-02-2011).]

IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 43235
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 184
Rate this member

Report this Post12-02-2011 01:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Direct Link to This Post

 
quote
Originally posted by dsnover:


Tax Exempt is not the same as accepting public funds.

Churches cannot be taxed, for to do so is a violation of the so-called 'separation of church and state', and the free exercise of religion. You can't have it both ways.

There is a distinction between constitutionally separate “sovereigns.” For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient to that authority. This is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the tax and in the practical effect of supporting the sovereign party. So, in our constitutional structure, states may not tax each other, and they may not tax property of the federal government.

In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” The much misunderstood “separation between church and state” is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity. Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full. Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

The fact that the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches is one of the best reasons why churches are not taxed.


Yep Yep

IP: Logged
htexans1
Member
Posts: 9115
From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 118
Rate this member

Report this Post12-02-2011 01:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for htexans1Send a Private Message to htexans1Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by ray b:

they are all cults from the big international catholic cult to the snake handlers cults

and all cults should be taxed heavily
too bad there is no anti BS tax on them
that would be great the more silly ,absurd, or dangerous a cults beliefs the higher the taxes
like young earthers or anti-evo nuts or racists or snake handlers or the jim jones david k types
those cults should be taxed to the max


I have heard of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith but never the Cult

Are they the sister Church to our friends at Westboro Baptist? lol
IP: Logged
ls3mach
Member
Posts: 11610
From:
Registered: Mar 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 222
Rate this member

Report this Post12-02-2011 01:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ls3machSend a Private Message to ls3machDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:

The only problem i have with the 'its their place, their rules' argument ( which i normally do fully support ) is that they are in effect accepting public tax dollars since they are a tax exempt entity.

I feel that once you accept 'public funds' in any form the rules need to change and you are no longer truly a private entity.


So what your saying is?!? Stop allowing churches to be tax exempt?

Nurb 2012!
IP: Logged
User00013170
Member
Posts: 33617
From:
Registered: May 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
User on Probation

Report this Post12-02-2011 01:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for User00013170Send a Private Message to User00013170Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by ls3mach:


So what your saying is?!? Stop allowing churches to be tax exempt?

Nurb 2012!


Stop allowing ANY business to be tax exempt ( and i consider a church a business ).
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 


All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock