Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Churches, or any other property shouldn't be vandalized for political reasons.
But, churches should be taxed when they decide to enter the political arena.
If ya wanna play ya gotta pay!
Like I said, I don't condone the attacks. But if they want to enter the arena, like you said, they should be ready to deal with the consequences. Again, those consequences shouldn't include attacks but they aren't exactly shocking or surprising. These churches that make tons of money and aren't accountable for a cent probably should be taxed, if at a lower rate than everyone else, if they get involved in politics (even through shell groups like the Knights of Columbus).
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,027,552 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangodoodles
Like I said, I don't condone the attacks. But if they want to enter the arena, like you said, they should be ready to deal with the consequences. Again, those consequences shouldn't include attacks but they aren't exactly shocking or surprising. These churches that make tons of money and aren't accountable for a cent probably should be taxed, if at a lower rate than everyone else, if they get involved in politics (even through shell groups like the Knights of Columbus).
Most churches do not turn a profit and much of the tithes go towards overhead and missionary work.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangodoodles
Like I said, I don't condone the attacks. But if they want to enter the arena, like you said, they should be ready to deal with the consequences. Again, those consequences shouldn't include attacks but they aren't exactly shocking or surprising. These churches that make tons of money and aren't accountable for a cent probably should be taxed, if at a lower rate than everyone else, if they get involved in politics (even through shell groups like the Knights of Columbus).
I agree, the vandalism should be investigated/prosecuted.
But.........................
Why a lower rate? If they choose to enter the political arena they should be taxed like the profit-making corporations they are. I'd like to see a much more stringent policing of church/state separation than the we currently have.
Neither African-Americans nor any other ethnicity were disproportionately in support of Proposition 8, which changed California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, according to a study of election results and post-vote surveys released Tuesday. Rather, whether someone voted yes or no on the ballot measure was influenced mostly by the person's age, religiosity, party affiliation and general political ideology, the study's authors say.
Although support for Prop. 8 in the African-American community had been pegged as high as 70 percent by one previous postelection survey, this study — which not only reviewed pre- and postelection polls, but also crunched precinct-level election results and census data from Alameda, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego counties, in which two-thirds of the state's African-Americans reside — found the number was between 57 percent and 59 percent.
And that number is more about religiosity than race, study co-author and New York University assistant professor of politics Patrick Egan said. While higher than the level of support among white and Asian-American voters, it's due to the higher rates of African-American church attendance: Fifty-seven percent of African-Americans attend church at least once a week, compared with 42 percent of whites and 40 percent of Asian-Americans, he said.
The study found that more than 70 percent of voters who were Republican, identified themselves
as conservative, or who attended religious services at least once a week supported Prop. 8. Conversely, 70 percent or more of voters who were Democrat, identified themselves as liberal, or who rarely attended religious services opposed the measure. More than two-thirds of voters 65 and older supported Prop. 8, while majorities younger than 65 opposed it.
Even personal relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people paled in comparison to these factors, said study co-author Kenneth Sherrill, a political-science professor at Hunter College in New York City. Although two-thirds of California conservatives said they know or are related to LGBT people, four of five conservatives supported Prop. 8.
"At least in terms of marriage equality, opposition to our rights isn't personal, it's ideological and partisan," Sherrill told reporters on a conference call Tuesday, adding that while Democrats, Asian-Americans and people younger than 30 have moved significantly toward supporting same-sex marriage since the issue was on the ballot in 2000, there remains "hard-core, seemingly implacable opposition among Republicans and conservatives."
The study was commissioned by the San Francisco-based Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private family foundation established by the former president, CEO and chairman of Levi Strauss & Co. and his wife.
Jaime Grant, director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, called it "a wake-up call to the LGBT community on a couple of fronts" — first and foremost, that same-sex marriage supporters must do more outreach to the faith-based community, probably via LGBT people already active within faiths. Organizing within mainstream religious denominations will be crucial in order to make serious inroads, she said.
The Rev. Mark Wilson, of Oakland, former pastor of Berkeley's McGee Avenue Baptist Church and now outreach coordinator for the African-American activist group And Marriage for All, agreed it's time to "redouble our work with people of faith."
That means convincing people that supporting marriage equality is not at odds with their religious framework, and that to do otherwise conflicts with their faiths' concepts of freedom and justice, he said. It would mean building long-term relationships between African-American churches and the LGBT community, he added.
Overall, "support for marriage equality in California has increased by about 1 percent per year since 2000," Sherrill said the study found.
Voters in 2000 approved Proposition 22, which added another statutory ban on same-sex marriage; Prop. 8 was a constitutional ban, pursued by proponents after the California Supreme Court ruled the statutory bans unconstitutional.
Sherrill noted that the growth in support since has come even as Republicans and conservatives haven't moved at all on the issue, indicating a shrinking Republican and conservative populace during these years.
Download the Egan-Sherrill study at www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,027,552 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
I agree, the vandalism should be investigated/prosecuted.
But.........................
Why a lower rate? If they choose to enter the political arena they should be taxed like the profit-making corporations they are. I'd like to see a much more stringent policing of church/state separation than the we currently have.
And I'd like to see more policing over the misuse of union funds towards political activity. Unions bring in MUCH more profits than any church could ever dream of and do such a poor representation of their members. Why should THEY be tax-exempt and churches can not express themselves politically which is a violation of churches 1st amendment rights.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73
And I'd like to see more policing over the misuse of union funds towards political activity. Unions bring in MUCH more profits than any church could ever dream of and do such a poor representation of their members. Why should THEY be tax-exempt and churches can not express themselves politically which is a violation of churches 1st amendment rights.
I wasn't aware unions are tax exempt, IF indeed they are.
WHY should churches be tax exempt?
And looking at some of the facilities churches have built along with the private jets and other amenities some have I find it near impossible to believe they're all staffed by poor, suffering, missionaries.
Most churches do not turn a profit and much of the tithes go towards overhead and missionary work.
There needs to be oversight so that instead of giving that money to the poor and needy, they aren't "donating" it to certain shell, political organizations who then use the money for a political agenda. Super churches can turn a profit. The Salvation Army, not exactly a church but not taxed either, is a BILLION dollar corporation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
I agree, the vandalism should be investigated/prosecuted.
But.........................
Why a lower rate? If they choose to enter the political arena they should be taxed like the profit-making corporations they are. I'd like to see a much more stringent policing of church/state separation than the we currently have.
I think they should be taxed at a lower rate with some sort of oversight because they do often donate to good causes like hunger and homelessness but they need oversight to prevent them from donating to shell political organizations. They'd still be taxed, but at a lower rate to ensure that they had enough to maintain the church and donate to charity.
Like I said, I don't condone the attacks. But if they want to enter the arena, like you said, they should be ready to deal with the consequences. Again, those consequences shouldn't include attacks but they aren't exactly shocking or surprising. These churches that make tons of money and aren't accountable for a cent probably should be taxed, if at a lower rate than everyone else, if they get involved in politics (even through shell groups like the Knights of Columbus).
It's interesting - and ironic - that you keep saying you don't condone the attacks on the church, but then you keep saying that you can see why it happened, and that the church had it coming, that it wasn't a hate crime, and that churches should be taxed.
Maybe people aren't as stupid as you assume they are.
That said, I think all the church-haters here on CD would be VERY surprised to know that "taxing churches" isn't going to do much. A church would have to pay a couple thousand dollars per year in property tax, but that's all. Every church, with a treasurer that has a whit of intelligence, will "zero out" all their income at the end of every year. So your wish to tax these churches out of existence is asinine.
In addition, if you're going to tax churches, you better have the integrity to demand that ALL "non-profit" corporations be taxed - including schools, college, etc.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filet Mignon
That said, I think all the church-haters here on CD would be VERY surprised to know that "taxing churches" isn't going to do much. A church would have to pay a couple thousand dollars per year in property tax, but that's all. Every church, with a treasurer that has a whit of intelligence, will "zero out" all their income at the end of every year. So your wish to tax these churches out of existence is asinine.
So you've just described a typical, for-profit corporation.
And claiming no-profit is hardly the same as making no-profit.
Turns out it was the church influence and old geezer republicans that just won't die off that decided this vote.
[URL="http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_11387244?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com"]Race not deciding factor in Prop. 8 vote - Inside Bay Area[/URL]
Neither African-Americans nor any other ethnicity were disproportionately in support of Proposition 8, which changed California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, according to a study of election results and post-vote surveys released Tuesday.
Quote:
The study was commissioned by the San Francisco-based Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund.
That study is biased. Nothing like having a conclusion decided beforehand and then trying to fit the data to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
