SD On Verge Of Banning All Abortion

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Religious fanaticals in action!
Passed in both houses and up to the governor now. Rape, incest it doesn't matter, if you perform an abortion you go to prison for 5 years.

-------------------------------------------------------
S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago

PIERRE, S.D. - The Legislature on Friday approved a ban on nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a direct legal assault on Roe v. Wade.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the
U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that Justices John Roberts and
Samuel Alito are on the bench.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, has pledged to sue over the measure, which would become law July 1. The clinic does about 800 abortions a year.

The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday. The Senate approved the measure 23-12 earlier this week.

Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

The governor said he believes it would be better to eliminate abortion in a series of steps, but some abortion opponents want a court challenge that could wipe out abortion in one fell swoop.

"I've indicated I'm pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives," Rounds said. "If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."

During debate on the measure, lawmakers were told that an anonymous donor has pledged to give the state $1 million to defend the abortion ban in court. The Legislature is setting up a special account to accept donations for the legal fight.

"I can tell you first-hand we've had people stopping in our office trying to drop off checks to promote the defense of this legislation already," Rounds said.

Opponents of the bill argued that abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a women's health.

If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.

"The idea the rapist could be in the child's life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice," Heeren-Graber said.
http://tinyurl.com/nwmlu

[Hotrod]

Its surely wont fly but if it does I guess the doctors in neighboring states will get more business.

[TheDave]

I think everyone saw this coming... I'm just shocked that they put this in place without exclusions for cases involving rape, incest and a threat to the women's health.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

South Dakota: Where Rapists Live Forever!
The great state of South Dakota. The home of Mount Rushmore, Deadwood, and... Mount Rushmore! And now, after the passage of new legislation this week, South Dakota can add something even more special to its license plates: The Home of Rapist Bastard Children!

That's right, rapists. If you want your twisted, evil chromosomes to live forever, South Dakota welcomes you with open arms.

Republican lawmakers in Pierre passed a law which prevents your victims from aborting your rapist children, even if your rapist child is just a clump of a dozen rapist cells.

Break out the celebratory cigars, Rapist Dad, because now you can sleep at night, comforted with the knowledge that any woman you assault and violate -- perhaps torture -- won't be allowed to abort the fruit of all your planning, stalking, and raping.

Whether your victim is a young girl or a pre-menopausal older woman, they're stuck with you. So while you relax in your rubber pants gazing up at the wall filled with the clandestinely attained photographs of your past and present victims, you'll be satisfied to know that there's a good chance several of them will be the Mommy to your bastard rapist baby.

Maybe the rapist child will have your eyes, or your embarrassingly sweaty palms. Maybe your child will have the gene that eventually triggered your decision to become a rapist. Then one day, should the stars align, you and your rapist offspring will reunite -- perhaps walking hand-in-hand down to the playground after dark to rape someone together as father and son. But don't expect greeting cards from your rapist children. South Dakota isn't quite ready for "Happy Father's Day... To My Dad Who Is A Rapist!" cards. Yet.

Even if you're arrested and convicted, or if you're crafty enough to get away with it, you can rest assured knowing that your victim will have a daily reminder of you for the rest of her life. It's like a walking, talking, breathing post card of your time together -- a cherubic face in the back seat saying to her on the way to therapy, "Hey Victim! Me again. Your rapist. I brutally raped you, thus ruining your life and now you get to sacrifice your remaining years raising my rapist child! A child who looks almost exactly like me -- the dude who raped you!"

So if you have a penchant for homespun frontier living; a natural urge to procreate; and are a rapist, then South Dakota could be your next home or vacation destination.
http://tinyurl.com/ohpux

[Antilles]

Religious fanaticals in action!
Passed in both houses and up to the governor now. Rape, incest it doesn't matter, if you perform an abortion you go to prison for 5 years.

-------------------------------------------------------
S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 40 minutes ago

PIERRE, S.D. - The Legislature on Friday approved a ban on nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a direct legal assault on Roe v. Wade.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the
U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that Justices John Roberts and
Samuel Alito are on the bench.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, has pledged to sue over the measure, which would become law July 1. The clinic does about 800 abortions a year.

The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday. The Senate approved the measure 23-12 earlier this week.

Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

The governor said he believes it would be better to eliminate abortion in a series of steps, but some abortion opponents want a court challenge that could wipe out abortion in one fell swoop.

"I've indicated I'm pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives," Rounds said. "If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."

During debate on the measure, lawmakers were told that an anonymous donor has pledged to give the state $1 million to defend the abortion ban in court. The Legislature is setting up a special account to accept donations for the legal fight.

"I can tell you first-hand we've had people stopping in our office trying to drop off checks to promote the defense of this legislation already," Rounds said.

Opponents of the bill argued that abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a women's health.

If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.

"The idea the rapist could be in the child's life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice," Heeren-Graber said.
http://tinyurl.com/nwmlu

Not to worry. 20 bucks says it gets overturned 5-4. Based on that little summary, the law is far too sweeping. No way Kennedy bites on that one. With the current make-up of the Court, pro-lifers would have much more success chipping away at the right to abortion with enhanced parental/spousal notice requirements, waiting periods, etc. until there is essentially nothing left.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not to worry. 20 bucks says it gets overturned 5-4. Based on that little summary, the law is far too sweeping. No way Kennedy bites on that one. With the current make-up of the Court, pro-lifers would have much more success chipping away at the right to abortion with enhanced parental/spousal notice requirements, waiting periods, etc. until there is essentially nothing left.

It'll be overturned at the state level but who knows after that.
I know one thing, I'm not going to go and spend any money there. Who knows how many other nutbag religious fanatical laws they have?

[Hogan11]

I think everyone saw this coming... I'm just shocked that they put this in place without exclusions for cases involving rape, incest and a threat to the women's health.

Most who follow the pro-life doctrine don't believe in "exceptions" for anything...a life is a life is a life and that's that. Most of those don't believe in contraception either, no matter what.

Be that as it may, it was well known that SD was going to do this after the W judges were confirmed to test the "New Court". It remains to be seen just how "moderate" the new judges really are.

So place your bets. Will the new judges be conservative activists or will they be the moderates they projected themselves to be during the confirmation hearings?

[TheDave]

Most who follow the pro-life doctrine don't believe in "exceptions" for anything...a life is a life is a life and that's that. Most of those don't believe in contraception either, no matter what.

Be that as it may, it was well known that SD was going to do this after the W judges were confirmed to test the "New Court". It remains to be seen just how "moderate" the new judges really are.

So place your bets. Will the new judges be conservative activists or will they be the moderates they projected themselves to be during the confirmation hearings?

As of now i tend to think the Pro-Life side has the votes. Still going to be close, but i would be suprised if they don't have the numbers.

[Garcia Bronco]

While I don't agree with the law...better not have sex in SD unless you're prepared for the ultimate result.

[Hogan11]

While I don't agree with the law...better not have sex in SD unless you're prepared for the ultimate result.

Or prepared to make a road trip to another state.

[TheDave]

While I don't agree with the law...better not have sex in SD unless you're prepared for the ultimate result.

Yep a 3 hour trip down to nebraska ;)


EDIT: Damnit hogan

[Hogan11]

Yep a 3 hour trip down to nebraska ;)


EDIT: Damnit hogan

Ha!

More like Minnesota.....that is the closest Blue state, is it not?

[enjolras]

I think everyone saw this coming... I'm just shocked that they put this in place without exclusions for cases involving rape, incest and a threat to the women's health.

The article says exclusions apply when the mothers life is in danger.

[Spider]

I cant think of 1 person that likes abortion , take my situation , my wife is PG with tripplets , we couldhave had a baby reduction , no one would have blamed us , sacrafice 1 so the other 2 have a 100% chance at life , We decided against this , it will cost us , 3- 8 weeks in Billingsin a hospitial , me driving back and forth from Casper to Billings , back to casper for work , seen gas prices ? If we would have had the baby reduction , my wife could deliever the babies right here in casper with no problems .....What about those people that dont have the resources to make the same decision me and my wife did ? this pregnancy wasnt planned , been married over 14 years , shít happens , as you all know I am a democrat as is my wife ,you pro life pricks dont taake in the big picture , you see your situation and thats it , you dont see the other side , dont even get me started on crack babies , so now some 16 yeargirl in South Dakota gets raped , she is stuck with this kid now , quit school , get job asawaitress , meanwhile , you christian fúcks say she should have made better choices .......... I knew I hated south Dakota ............

[Spider]

South Dakota might as well call itself North Cuba .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think everyone saw this coming... I'm just shocked that they put this in place without exclusions for cases involving rape, incest and a threat to the women's health.

You doggone ethical relativist, you! ;)

[footstepsfrom#27]

OK...I'm curious...has anyone on this thread read the Bill itself? I'm not talking about the news reports, but the actual proposed legislation?

I have, and there's a confusing difference of opinion on what it says, so here is the link to the full legislative session on this issue in full text citations on the entire process leading up to this current proposed legislation. www.findlaw.com if you're interested. This traces the entire SD abortion legislative action history on the current docket...not just the current legislation but also the exclusion of minors law and the prior studies, etc...

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2005/key105.htm

A few observations:

1) This bill is not a law...which should be obvious given the fact that Roe vs Wade currently provides FEDERAL LAW that establishes the woman's right to abortion. States do not have the right to create laws that do not comply with Federal Law, hence the State of South Dakota CAN NOT enact legislation that violates federal law.

2) Contrary to some of the published reports, this bill does allow apparently allow for the mother's life exception, though news reports look like they're in dissagreement on this...

3) The proposed Bills in both it's previous versions (House and Senate) SB 203 and HB 1266 contain the following statement at the top of the masthead beneath the Bills sponsors:

An Act to prohibit the performance of abortions, except to save the life of the mother, and to provide a penalty therefor and to provide for a delayed effective date.

Note the last 7 words..."to provide for a delayed effective date."

To find out when the "delayed effective date" is, Click on HB 1266, then click on "enrolled", which is the finalized version of the House Bill (no finalized version for the Senate Bill exists yet). You'll read this statement on page 1 of HB 1266:

Section 7. This Act is effective on the date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

South Dakota HB 1266 and SB 203 do not prohibit the practice of abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger. NOTE: the new bill HB 1215 removes the injury clause, which appears to be the only difference.

No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being unless it is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman, or if there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. The last clause is ommitted in the current version.

So basically, what you have here is an initial effort by South Dakota to test the waters of Roe vs Wade, but this question lies where it always has...in the hands of the US Supreme Court. South Dakota will not be implementing their own little fiefdom that defies US Federal law and ignores Roe vs Wade.

[footstepsfrom#27]

www.findlaw.com doesn't show the current bill, only the previous versions so here it is on another site: HB 1215, which contains the notable correction...there doesn't appear to be a clause for injury to the mother...only risk of death. This does not account for contradictory media reports that the proposed law does not allow for the life of the mother as an exception though...odd.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1215p.htm

The relevant difference between HB 1215 and the previous versions:

No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act.

Interesting timing of course given the courts change, but I think this bill appears to be to ambitious to survive a Supreme Court ruling. Remarks by the SD Governor appear to indicate they couldn't wait to challenge the law via a slower process so went instead for the whole ball of wax. I doubt the strict nature of this law, w/o the health of the mother or rape and incest included passes the high court. I might be wrong...but I think this bill is to ambitious to change Roe vs Wade.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Not to worry. 20 bucks says it gets overturned 5-4. Based on that little summary, the law is far too sweeping. No way Kennedy bites on that one. With the current make-up of the Court, pro-lifers would have much more success chipping away at the right to abortion with enhanced parental/spousal notice requirements, waiting periods, etc. until there is essentially nothing left.
I agree. They're over reaching IMO.

[footstepsfrom#27]

What about those people that dont have the resources to make the same decision me and my wife did ? this pregnancy wasnt planned , been married over 14 years , shít happens , as you all know I am a democrat as is my wife ,you pro life pricks dont taake in the big picture , you see your situation and thats it , you dont see the other side , dont even get me started on crack babies , so now some 16 yeargirl in South Dakota gets raped , she is stuck with this kid now , quit school , get job asawaitress , meanwhile , you christian fúcks say she should have made better choices .......... I knew I hated south Dakota ............

1) I'm raising three that are not mine and two that are. Believe me...they're costing HUGE $$$ in food, clothing, medical, school, etc...so maybe you can generalilze a little less on us "pro life pricks" OK? I met another pro life prick a few weeks ago who has 5 of his own, 2 of his wifes, and ELEVEN he adopted, all from Brazil...he said he makes 78K a year and I have no idea how he's doing that.

2) Don't see the whole situation? Hmmm...what I see is that somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 MILLION babies have been aborted in this country. I feel for any 16 year old girl who this happens to. I also know that there are a lot of people who can't have kids and would like to adopt. I think if you have the resources to adopt you should.

3) Us "Christian ****s" have indeed been saying that choices we make come with consequences. You disagree? It appears one of the reasons we're in the current situation is because that fact has been de-emphasized, not over emphasized. Check out the illigitimacy birth rate for African American children and you'll see it rises upward sharply dating from the Great Society of FDR with it's accompanying social programs and decreased emphasis on personal accountability.

[Spider]

1) I'm raising three that are not mine and two that are. Believe me...they're costing HUGE $$$ in food, clothing, medical, school, etc...so maybe you can generalilze a little less on us "pro life pricks" OK? I met another pro life prick a few weeks ago who has 5 of his own, 2 of his wifes, and ELEVEN he adopted, all from Brazil...he said he makes 78K a year and I have no idea how he's doing that. I have 6 ...........

2) Don't see the whole situation? Hmmm...what I see is that somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 MILLION babies have been aborted in this country. I feel for any 16 year old girl who this happens to. I also know that there are a lot of people who can't have kids and would like to adopt. I think if you have the resources to adopt you should. Lets try 45 million fetus , Now after the 1 st 45 days , then you can argue it is baby ......and adoption clinics are full right now .........

3) Us "Christian ****s" have indeed been saying that choices we make come with consequences. You disagree?Not if you are George Bush


It appears one of the reasons we're in the current situation is because that fact has been de-emphasized, not over emphasized. Check out the illigitimacy birth rate for African American children and you'll see it rises upward sharply dating from the Great Society of FDR with it's accompanying social programs and decreased emphasis on personal accountability.
Look there is no magic wand you can wave that will fix everything , and from the looks of it "God" is asleep at the wheel , Like I said no one likes abortion ...............Personal accoubtablity ? So some 16 year old girl gets raped , whats her personal accountablity level ? Some 12 year old girl victim of insest , gets pregnant , what Personal responcablity does she Carry ? ......
you christians have to realize shít happens ..........and god doesnt think it is important enough to step in and save these kids ..............LALA land would be agreat place to live if it was a real place

[baja]

The reason the Inca and mayan societies faded out and eventually disappeared was caused by infertility of the men and this was caused by demineralization of trace minerals of the soil due to planting crops in the same place year after year, this is taking place in America now and the infertility rates are on the rise. In the years to come abortion will be unheard of because every pregnancy will be news that will be rejoiced.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I have 6 ...........

Lets try 45 million fetus , Now after the 1 st 45 days , then you can argue it is baby ......and adoption clinics are full right now .........
Are you a genetic scientist or bio-researcher? Even they don't agree on when life begins so how do YOU know when it starts? I don't...and don't pretend to. But what IF YOU ARE WRONG? What if one day through some miracle of science we suddenly discover that life in fact DOES begin at conception? Why not err on the side of caution since we don't know for sure? We've taken about the same number of lives through abortion that World War II took from Europe. Second, there are TREMENDOUS numbers of abortions that take place after 45 days...good GOD...some want to do it right up to the moment before they're ready to pop out the womb! There are hospitals all over this country that perform abortions in one wing and have babies the same age hooked up to tubes in incubators in another wing that they're working to save. I've worked in 2 here in Dallas that do. You don't see a contradiction there? If you have a sonogram of your kids pop it in the DVD player and think on that for a while. So don't hand me this "fetus" stuff... YOU do not KNOW FOR SURE...EXACTLY WHEN LIFE BEGINS. In fact you don't have the foggiest idea...NOBODY DOES. There is absolutely no question that abortions are performed in this country on children that are live human beings capable of living outside the womb. Pardon me but I think that trumps your cost of gas running back and forth to Montana so excuse me if I dont' sound terribly sympathetic to the fact that you have decided to do what you should do anyway and take responsibility for the kid you made. Congradulations...Do you want a medal for valor?

Second, adoption clinics are full because you have to be Bill Gates married to Mary Poppins if you want to adopt. A friend of mine in Littleton spent 2 years trying to do so and even said he didn't care what race child he got, and got so much red tape they finally threw up their hands and spent 5K going to China to adopt a baby girl from an orphanage. Don't forget that the Christian Fvcks and Pro Life pricks also spend millions to sponsor homes for unwed mothers, adoption services and counseling, orphanages, etc...all over the planet. What do you do besides b**** about this? Finally...not all pro life people are Christians. Since when do you need a belief in God to have a problem with taking the life of a baby in the womb? Seems to me that simple human compassion is the only requirement.
Look there is no magic wand you can wave that will fix everything , and from the looks of it "God" is asleep at the wheel , Like I said no one likes abortion ...............Personal accoubtablity ? So some 16 year old girl gets raped , whats her personal accountablity level ? Some 12 year old girl victim of insest , gets pregnant , what Personal responcablity does she Carry ? ......
Personal responsibility is not a "magic wand" as you put it. And God's got nothing to do with it, which is why we've murdered 45 million children. That's one baby for every 6.7 living Americans, or one in 3.35 if you count only the half of the population that's female. Think about that...ONE ABORTED BABY FOR EVER THREE LIVING FEMALES! If that doesn't make you want to vomit NOTHING will.

You're ranting about rape and incest...but MOST pro life people I have met understand this. I understand it. I'm not in favor of forcing rape victims or incest victims to carry...I recognize the horror and the dichotomy of moral choice that this involves. This constant characterization of Christians as people who don't give a crap about rape and incest victims is nonsense. Who do you think volunteers time to sit with rape and incest victims? My wife IS a rape and incest victim and counsels young unwed mothers and girls who go through this so don't give me that garbage either. Yes, there are people in the pro life movement who feel that way. There are also people in the pro choice movement who think that parents should not even be told if their 14 year old daughter wants an abortion, that fathers have no rights at all and don't even need to be consulted, that abortion clinics should not have to even provide women with information related to the potential psychological harm or dmage to future fertililty that abortion can cause...so what's your point? Do you know that abortion is HUGE business that is EXTREMELY PROFITABLE...guess there's no conflict of interest there though is there. There are imbaciles on both sides. Suprise...suprise...the world's full of them.
you christians have to realize shít happens ..........and god doesnt think it is important enough to step in and save these kids ..............LALA land would be agreat place to live if it was a real place
Is that a fact? Sh*t happens? I'd never have known if you hadn't told me. My kid sister had an abortion at 16 and nobody knew for 20 years what it did to her...then she found out the hard way. It's the reason she had enormous problems both psychologically and in getting pregnant later...because nobody told her the consequences. And what's God got to do with this again? Explain that one...God told us to murder 45 million babies? Are you NUTS?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Most who follow the pro-life doctrine don't believe in "exceptions" for anything...a life is a life is a life and that's that. Most of those don't believe in contraception either, no matter what.
I don't know where you're getting that. The only Christians I know of who don't believe in any kind of exception are hard line Catholics, who also happen to be the only ones I know who don't believe in contraceptives. Perhaps you know otherwise of some who don't fit that mold...and I'm sure there are...but have you got some definitive information to proves your assertion?

I believe in using contraception. People who use the rythum method are called...PARENTS...LOL

[Spider]

I am not a scientest , but I have seen ultrasounds , cant convience me that the first 45 days is a baby , besides , you christians tell us , God Created everything , he is all powerfull , if this is the case , then he could stop abortion ......

[baja]

I am not a scientest , but I have seen ultrasounds , cant convience me that the first 45 days is a baby , besides , you christians tell us , God Created everything , he is all powerfull , if this is the case , then he could stop abortion ......

Nah! He gave us free will, look around to see what <b>we </b> have done with it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nah! He gave us free will, look around to see what <b>we </b> have done with it.

The concept of the omniscient and omnipotent Judeo-Christian God is incompatible with the concept of free will.

That is, if God is omnipotent, then, by definition, nothing, i.e., no action, can occur outside of his will.

If, furthermore, according to Judeo-Christian theology, God created everything that exists ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing, then no other agency or action can exist or occur without God's foreknowledge (given His omniscience) or without being preordained by Him.

If evil came into existence independent of God's will, the He isn't omnipotent (given His omnibenevolence.)

[TheDave]

The concept of the omniscient and omnipotent Judeo-Christian God is incompatible with the concept of free will.

That is, if God is omnipotent, then, by definition, nothing, i.e., no action, can occur outside of his will.

If, furthermore, according to Judeo-Christian theology, God created everything that exists ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing, then no other agency or action can exist or occur without God's foreknowledge (given His omniscience) or without being preordained by Him.

If evil came into existence independent of God's will, the He isn't omnipotent (given His omnibenevolence.)

Dude, that is internet Jihad... Now excuse me while i run and hide.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dude, that is internet Jihad... Now excuse me while i run and hide.

:giggle:

[Spider]

Dude, that is internet Jihad... Now excuse me while i run and hide.
Dont you remember that backlash over that Christian soldier thing ?......this one will get you toasted ;D

[baja]

There is no evil but we have a very real perception of evil within the dream we collectively call reality

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dont you remember that backlash over that Christian soldier thing ?......this one will get you toasted ;D

What do you mean, dude?

Everybody knows fundamentalist Xians are known for their rationality, objectivity, and civility when it comes to theological debates.

;) ;) ;)

[baja]

Within your own awareness who is it that observes those thoughts occurring in your mind?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There is no evil but we have a very real perception of evil within the dream we collectively call reality

I think Heraclitus called it right when he said "for God, all things are good; for man, some things are good and some things are evil" (or words to that effect.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Within your own awareness who is it that observes those thoughts occurring in your mind?

Bush's NSA. Yikes!

j/k

[baja]

I think Heraclitus called it right when he said "for God, all things are good; for man, some things are good and some things are evil" (or words to that effect.)

yes it's the judging mind in the world of perceived duality that has created good and bad to God it just is.

Big word that

is.

[TheDave]

Dont you remember that backlash over that Christian soldier thing ?......this one will get you toasted ;D

Seriously. Nobody was to pissed about their christian brothers burning and hacking their muslim neighbors... But Dave says "Onward Christian Soldier"... well, now we've got a fvcking problem... crazy bastards

[Spider]

Seriously. Nobody was to pissed about their christian brothers burning and hacking their muslim neighbors... But Dave says "Onward Christian Soldier"... well, now we've got a fvcking problem... crazy bastards
;D welcome to the land of Spider , for now on you will have a terrorist name , you will be accused of hating Christians ,and you wil be just plain and mean :rofl: now that is out of the way , Welcome I Bin Pharteen.......PS we ran out of Virgins , but we are offering 52 inch plasma screen TV's , and a O'Rielly factor coat and mug .....we have plenty of factor gear ;D

[Spider]

had to pick out a new terroristname for myself , I cant remember the one errand gave me , so I wil call myseld Haid D Salami..........PERTER GOZINYA didnt fit right

[scorpio]

Was it Anselm of Canterbury who proposed that there was no true evil, just an absence of good? Like a shadow.

[Spider]

Was it Anselm of Canterbury who proposed that there was no true evil, just an absence of good? Like a shadow.
Appearently this Canterbury never met my mother in law

[baja]

Was it Anselm of Canterbury who proposed that there was no true evil, just an absence of good? Like a shadow.

Ya the allegory is there is no darkness just the absence of light,

[baja]

when you turn the light on where does the darkness go?

[scorpio]

Appearently this Canterbury never met my mother in law

Hilarious!

Well met. Now that I think about my ex-girlfriends mother, I suppose that evil is totally subjective.

[Rascal]

I think everyone saw this coming... I'm just shocked that they put this in place without exclusions for cases involving rape, incest and a threat to the women's health.

And because of that it won't pass the SC.

If they truly wanted it to pass they should have included provisions for the above cases.

[TheDave]

And because of that it won't pass the SC.

If they truly wanted it to pass they should have included provisions for the above cases.

I agree it seems like a really poorly thought out tactic... Someone else was saying this earlier that the smarter way would be to chip away at it over time. Not sure what they are hoping for with this full frontal assault. Then again maybe they know something we don't.

[Spider]

what a better way to test Roberts and Alito ............

[Spider]

Hilarious!

Well met. Now that I think about my ex-girlfriends mother, I suppose that evil is totally subjective.
there ya go ......... I was thinking about opening a clothing linecalled the mother in law suit....complete with Antlers ;D

[Rascal]

I understand the notion of wanting to test the new SC setup, but this is not the way to do it IMO.

If anything the need to include those provisions...as is based on media reports that may or may not be accurate as I haven't read the actual bill this won't even get heard by the SC.

[Pezman]

Sweet, I'm all for this, especially the part where they allow sheep rape babies not to be aborted as well. ROFL!

Seriously, I'm amazed that it passed with even that much dissent in the house. God I hate big brother and the way it takes over our lives. Disgusting.

[Hogan11]

I don't know where you're getting that. The only Christians I know of who don't believe in any kind of exception are hard line Catholics, who also happen to be the only ones I know who don't believe in contraceptives. Perhaps you know otherwise of some who don't fit that mold...and I'm sure there are...but have you got some definitive information to proves your assertion?

I believe in using contraception. People who use the rythum method are called...PARENTS...LOL

That was exactly whom I was talking about.....Of course, that might have changed since I left the Church years ago. In the words of Bill Maher "I'm pretty Pro-Death." I'm pro death penalty, I'm pro abortion, I'm pro right to die....harboring such opinions makes them show you the door pretty quickly Ha!

[Pezman]

That was exactly whom I was talking about.....Of course, that might have changed since I left the Church years ago. In the words of Bill Maher "I'm pretty Pro-Death." I'm pro death penalty, I'm pro abortion, I'm pro right to die....harboring such opinions makes them show you the door pretty quickly Ha!

I wonder if we can abort South Dakota, I mean, we already have one Dakota anyway right?

[Hogan11]

I wonder if we can abort South Dakota, I mean, we already have one Dakota anyway right?

I went through there years ago...pulled a "Clark Griswald at the Grand Canyon" at Mt. Rushmore...wasn't too impressed with the Badlands....Pre-casino Deadwood was actually pretty boring and the Indian monument was barely underway...I did, however have a great meal in Souix Falls.

That's my memory of SD in a nutshell.

[gunns]

1) I'm raising three that are not mine and two that are. Believe me...they're costing HUGE $$$ in food, clothing, medical, school, etc...so maybe you can generalilze a little less on us "pro life pricks" OK? I met another pro life prick a few weeks ago who has 5 of his own, 2 of his wifes, and ELEVEN he adopted, all from Brazil...he said he makes 78K a year and I have no idea how he's doing that.

Was this a choice you made? Was this a choice the other pro life guy made?

2) Don't see the whole situation? Hmmm...what I see is that somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 MILLION babies have been aborted in this country. I feel for any 16 year old girl who this happens to. I also know that there are a lot of people who can't have kids and would like to adopt. I think if you have the resources to adopt you should.

So this girl has to go through a pregnancy, the emotions of having a baby she knows is the result of a horrific situation and possibly not have the maturity to see what a baby entails and wants to keep it? Saying give it up for adoption is about as easy as saying have an abortion, it's not.

3) Us "Christian ****s" have indeed been saying that choices we make come with consequences. You disagree? It appears one of the reasons we're in the current situation is because that fact has been de-emphasized, not over emphasized. Check out the illigitimacy birth rate for African American children and you'll see it rises upward sharply dating from the Great Society of FDR with it's accompanying social programs and decreased emphasis on personal accountability.

Again, he was talking about rape. And as far as those who don't put the emphasis on personal accountability, some are raising the next generation of criminals, they are milking the welfare system and they don't give them up for adoption. Yet we still don't want to teach responsibility in schools. Just don't go out and have sex. Yeah they are listening to that.

I'm personally against abortion for personal and moral reasons. That doesn't give me the right to inflict my convictions on someone else that actually has to go through it.

[baja]

I have been struggling with this issue for years I think if they would lump in the ability to abort mother-in-laws that would swing me in favor of abortion.

[Hogan11]

The state is gonna lose all that extra income after the Sturgis rallies if this thing passes Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

;D welcome to the land of Spider , for now on you will have a terrorist name , you will be accused of hating Christians ,and you wil be just plain and mean :rofl: now that is out of the way , Welcome I Bin Pharteen.......PS we ran out of Virgins , but we are offering 52 inch plasma screen TV's , and a O'Rielly factor coat and mug .....we have plenty of factor gear ;D

:rofl:

[Jetmeck]

I cant think of 1 person that likes abortion , take my situation , my wife is PG with tripplets , we couldhave had a baby reduction , no one would have blamed us , sacrafice 1 so the other 2 have a 100% chance at life , We decided against this , it will cost us , 3- 8 weeks in Billingsin a hospitial , me driving back and forth from Casper to Billings , back to casper for work , seen gas prices ? If we would have had the baby reduction , my wife could deliever the babies right here in casper with no problems .....What about those people that dont have the resources to make the same decision me and my wife did ? this pregnancy wasnt planned , been married over 14 years , shít happens , as you all know I am a democrat as is my wife ,you pro life pricks dont taake in the big picture , you see your situation and thats it , you dont see the other side , dont even get me started on crack babies , so now some 16 yeargirl in South Dakota gets raped , she is stuck with this kid now , quit school , get job asawaitress , meanwhile , you christian fúcks say she should have made better choices .......... I knew I hated south Dakota ............

Good post,
Boils down to common sense in a lot of ways. Also boils down to a right to control your own life. These religious freaks need to butt out, do things the way they want too and leave others alone. They keep getting involved in the
law making yet churches and such pay no taxes and the constitution CLEARLY states SEPARATION of church and state.

These are the same idiots that believe EVOLUTION is a theory and has no proof, HELLO- fossil records don't lie.
They want us to teach that someone waved a magic wand and created it all in 6 days. OK, let's teach that SANTA,
tooth fairy, and leprechauns are all real too...really F up the kids head.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Good post,
Boils down to common sense in a lot of ways. Also boils down to a right to control your own life. These religious freaks need to butt out, do things the way they want too and leave others alone. They keep getting involved in the
law making yet churches and such pay no taxes and the constitution CLEARLY states SEPARATION of church and state.
The Constitution specifies that the government shall not make laws that are designed to acrue specific advantage or dissadvantage to religion. That has nothing to do with people's individual rights to vote, or participate in forming society through the political process. People who attend church have as much right to vote as you do.

As for churches paying taxes...why should they? Individual members pay income taxes just like you do. Non profits, including churches, don't pay taxes, nor should they. They produce social benefit to society that creates value, and are INFINITELY more efficient than government in doing so. This has nothing to do with people's right to be involved in politics.
These are the same idiots that believe EVOLUTION is a theory and has no proof, HELLO- fossil records don't lie.
Evolution is a theory. Any reputable scientist will admit that.

Finally, in case you don't realize it...being pro life does not require one to be religious. You can be an atheist and be pro life.

[Jetmeck]

Evolution is a theory. Any reputable scientist will admit that.

Finally, in case you don't realize it...being pro life does not require one to be religious. You can be an atheist and be pro life.


Evolution has proof in the fossil records, any SCIENTIST WILL TELL YOU THAT. There is NO PROOF of any kind THAT SOMEONE MADE IT ALL IN 6 DAYS. Honestly IMO you have to wonder about the mental state of those who reject scientific analysis of fossil records and INSISTS that it was all made in less than a week.

Where exactly do you think these religious people are taught to believe this hype? That's right in church, some go as far to say "god is watching you as you vote" OR ETC. So yes the church is severely influencing our
laws and our lawmakers by how these brainwashed idiots are voting because of what they are taught in their church .

There is "supposed to be "separation of church and state, just do a little reading on the subject.

Fossil records cannot be denied, they can stick their head in the sand all they like, it doesn't change a thing.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Evolution has proof in the fossil records, any SCIENTIST WILL TELL YOU THAT. There is NO PROOF of any kind THAT SOMEONE MADE IT ALL IN 6 DAYS. Honestly IMO you have to wonder about the mental state of those who reject scientific analysis of fossil records and INSISTS that it was all made in less than a week.
Arguing about this topic may be the only thing on this board less productive than debating about abortion. In a nutshell though, you are wrong. Evolution has numerous problems, which is why there is no such thing as "the" theory of evolution. There are in fact, NUMEROUS theories about how life supposedly evolved. These theories also change continuously. Suggesting evolution is fact is nonsense. In any case...this has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone should be able to vote, or otherwise participate in the poliltical machinery regarding this or any other issue.
Where exactly do you think these religious people are taught to believe this hype? That's right in church, some go as far to say "god is watching you as you vote" OR ETC. So yes the church is severely influencing our laws and our lawmakers by how these brainwashed idiots are voting because of what they are taught in their church.
I attend church and I'm far from a brainwashed idiot.
There is a "supposed to be "separation of church and state, just do a little reading on the subject.
You do some research. You can start with the 1st sentence of the the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which you obviously do not understand. Nothing in the 1st Amendment suggests people who believe in God or attend church have no right to vote. Women were denied the right to vote until 1920...blacks until 1964...now it appears you'd like to remove that right from anyone who attends church? Bizzarre to say the least...

[Jetmeck]

Arguing about this topic may be the only thing on this board less productive than debating about abortion. In a nutshell though, you are wrong. Evolution has numerous problems, which is why there is no such thing as "the" theory of evolution. There are in fact, NUMEROUS theories about how life supposedly evolved. These theories also change continuously. Suggesting evolution is fact is nonsense. In any case...this has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone should be able to vote, or otherwise participate in the poliltical machinery regarding this or any other issue.

I attend church and I'm far from a brainwashed idiot.

You do some research. You can start with the 1st sentence of the the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which you obviously do not understand. Nothing in the 1st Amendment suggests people who believe in God or attend church have no right to vote. Women were denied the right to vote until 1920...blacks until 1964...now it appears you'd like to remove that right from anyone who attends church? Bizzarre to say the least...

You are proving a lot of my points, you will ignore fossil records to the end. Show me evidence that "creationism" or "intelligent design" (there is an oxymoron) or whatever word they are hiding religion with has any proof or basis in fact. You cannot but you will ignore the fossil records. Evolution does not change " all the time", where did you dig that up ? Sure wasn't down there with all the "fossil records", was it ? LOL

EVOLUTION HAS NUMEROUS problems, then what does that say about your "made in 6 days theory that has no scientific proof whatsoever" . You truly have been brainwashed by religion, you are defending your creatism theory and the proof you can offer is a fictional book and "they told me so in church so it must be true".

If there is no separation of church and state then what is all the hubbub about saying prayers in school and the ten commandments outside of a state institution all about ?

[Jetmeck]

Take away the religious freaks voting rights, I like it. ANybody that votes based on one issue shouldn't have the right to vote IMO. You have to look at all the issues and use common sense not just vote the way your church TOLD you to.

[GonzoLays]

Eh, whats the big deal either way, huh? You guys get so emotionally wrapped up in a issue that will never be solved. One idiot clams against the religious who want to stop abortion while the other idiot rants on about its a woman's choice. Who the f*ck cares! If you are stupid enough to get some pregnant, deal with it. And for the 1 in 3 freaking million women who get pregnant after a rape, tough f*cking luck. Sh*t happens.

This issue is about as big as midgets claiming discrimination when getting a job. Sure its an issue but if effects such a small few who gives a rats ass? Stupid.

[footstepsfrom#27]

You are proving a lot of my points, you will ignore fossil records to the end. Show me evidence that "creationism" or whatever word they are hiding religion with has any proof or basis in fact. You cannot but you will ignore the fossil records. Evolution does not change " all the time", where did you dig that up ?

EVOLUTION HAS NUMEROUS problems, then what does that say about your "made in 6 days theory that has no scientific proof whatsoever" . You truly have been brainwashed by religion, you are defending your creatism theory and the proof you can offer is a fictional book and "they told me so in church so it must be true".

If there is no separation of church and state then what is all the hubbub about saying prayers in school and the ten commandments outside of a state institution all about ?
Read the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

As I said, arguing about this issue is pointless. Irregardless of what someone believes about science, creation, seperation of church and state, etc...this has zip to do with the right to vote...almost as little as your foolish suggestion that churches should pay taxes or their members have no voice in the political process.

[Jetmeck]

Eh, whats the big deal either way, huh? You guys get so emotionally wrapped up in a issue that will never be solved. One idiot clams against the religious who want to stop abortion while the other idiot rants on about its a woman's choice. Who the **** cares! If you are stupid enough to get some pregnant, deal with it. And for the 1 in 3 freaking million women who get pregnant after a rape, tough ****ing luck. Sh*t happens.

This issue is about as big as midgets claiming discrimination when getting a job. Sure its an issue but if effects such a small few who gives a rats ass? Stupid.

Freedom of choice and control of our own bodies.It is not for someone else to decide what I do or don't with my body. Let them decide and make THEIR own decisions and I will make mine. Leave the law alone, religious zealots do not have the right to impose their views on ALL OF US, BOTTOM LINE. I do agree with you it will never end but it does matter. Am off my pulpit, PEACE

[footstepsfrom#27]

Take away the religious freaks voting rights, I like it. ANybody that votes based on one issue shouldn't have the right to vote IMO. You have to look at all the issues and use common sense not just vote the way your church TOLD you to.
I don't vote the way anyone tells me to. Even if I did that is irrelevant.

Newsflash...most people vote on the basis of one issue...economics. So in your opinion voting rights should be denied for all who attend church or believe in God huh? What other rights garaunteed by the US Constitution would you like to deny? Free speech? Perhaps you'd also like to deny the right to employment and housing? Procreation? The right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Freedom of choice and control of our own bodies.It is not for someone else to decide what I do or don't with my body. Let them decide and make THEIR own decisions and I will make mine. Leave the law alone, religious zealots do not have the right to impose their views on ALL OF US, BOTTOM LINE. I do agree with you it will never end but it does matter. Am off my pulpit, PEACE
1) It is not your body

2) You are imposing your views on me

3) A pro life position does not depend on belief in God. My dad is an atheist. He's also pro life.

Your arguments are ludicrous.

[GonzoLays]

I don't vote the way anyone tells me to. Even if I did that is irrelevant.

Newsflash...most people vote on the basis of one issue...economics. So in your opinion voting rights should be denied for all who attend church or believe in God huh? What other rights garaunteed by the US Constitution would you like to deny? Free speech? Perhaps you'd also like to deny the right to employment and housing? Procreation? The right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

Shiiiiiiit, if you think HALF of the people that voted in the pass election could tell you the difference between amortization and joint float I will send you a hundred bucks. NOBODY outside of a select few understand political economics. Yet everyone chimes in on the subject like they understand. Over three fourths of Americans don't even know that the Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor a Reserve. And these are the people who decide who should be president? HA!

People vote down party lines. Sadly, I think people vote just to put the sticker on their car during the elections and talk about who they voted for. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard, "I know they are BOTH out to screw me, but I think (fill in the blank) is more qualified to do the job." Right on! Good grief.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Shiiiiiiit, if you think HALF of the people that voted in the pass election could tell you the difference between amortization and joint float I will send you a hundred bucks. NOBODY outside of a select few understand political economics. Yet everyone chimes in on the subject like they understand. Over three fourths of Americans don't even know that the Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor a Reserve. And these are the people who decide who should be president? HA!

People vote down party lines. Sadly, I think people vote just to put the sticker on their car during the elections and talk about who they voted for. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard, "I know they are BOTH out to screw me, but I think (fill in the blank) is more qualified to do the job." Right on! Good grief.
So what test of knowledge would you impose on the ignorant masses before you allow them to vote?

I don't vote along party lines.

[Jetmeck]

1) It is not your body

2) You are imposing your views on me

3) A pro life position does not depend on belief in God. My dad is an atheist. He's also pro life.

Your arguments are ludicrous.

Seriously I don't know why I bother.......
1) You know darn well I meant each individual should have the right to make their own decision

2)I am not imposing my views on anyone, IN FACT I am saying know one has the right to impose theirs on others.

3)I believe your dad is a realist and I respect his views to believe in PRO-LIFE while dealing with his family. Him, or me or you do not have the right to force our beliefs upon another in respect to this issue.

There is nothing ludicrous about believing "TO EACH HIS OWN". Believe and think anyway you want but allow me the Same FREEDOM TO THINK AND BELIEVE the way I want !

[Hogan11]

1) It is not your body

2) You are imposing your views on me



1) If it's not my body...who's is it then? Really, I'd like to know because there's a couple of things I would like to get changed if I could.

2) Anyone who doesn't keep their mouths shut is "imposing their view" if one doesn't happen to agree with what's being said......amazing isn't it?

[GonzoLays]

So what test of knowledge would you impose on the ignorant masses before you allow them to vote?

I don't vote along party lines.

Good for you. You might be one of the two of out ten Americans who don't vote along party lines.

The truly special people are the one who say if the Republicans keep messing up they are going to vote for the Democratic party in the upcoming elections. Right, the "either or" option of the Republicans and Democrats really addresses this great nations problems. Grrrrrrr

[Jetmeck]

You are proving a lot of my points, you will ignore fossil records to the end. Show me evidence that "creationism" or "intelligent design" (there is an oxymoron) or whatever word they are hiding religion with has any proof or basis in fact. You cannot but you will ignore the fossil records. Evolution does not change " all the time", where did you dig that up ? Sure wasn't down there with all the "fossil records", was it ? LOL

EVOLUTION HAS NUMEROUS problems, then what does that say about your "made in 6 days theory that has no scientific proof whatsoever" . You truly have been brainwashed by religion, you are defending your creatism theory and the proof you can offer is a fictional book and "they told me so in church so it must be true".

If there is no separation of church and state then what is all the hubbub about saying prayers in school and the ten commandments outside of a state institution all about ?

Well ?

[GonzoLays]

Seriously I don't know why I bother.......
1) You know darn well I meant each individual should have the right to make their own decision

2)I am not imposing my views on anyone, IN FACT I am saying know one has the right to impose theirs on others.

3)I believe your dad is a realist and I respect his views to believe in PRO-LIFE while dealing with his family. Him, or me or you do not have the right to force our beliefs upon another in respect to this issue.

There is nothing ludicrous about believing "TO EACH HIS OWN". Believe and think anyway you want but allow me the Same FREEDOM TO THINK AND BELIEVE the way I want !

Everyone who believes abortion should be legal would have to agree that drugs like marijuana should be legal, correct? Every individual should have the right to make their own decisions. I believe that issue falls under the umbrella of "self rights" as well.

[TheDave]

I'm doing my absolute best to avoid the evolution debate...

OK as for abortion, I'm in a really weird place on this during the first few months (2 maybe 3) i have no problems with it... After that i start to develop some serious moral questions. This is one of the reasons that i get fairly passionate about the Morning After Pill. The MAP is no more an abortion than than an in-vitro clinic, stem cell research, AND the Birth Control Pill. Unfortunately many of the pro-lifers try to equate it to a partial birth abortion. There needs to be some reasoning put to use when discussing this. There is a huge difference between preventing a 6 cell zygote from attaching to itself to the uterine wall and the complete dismantling and evacuation of a 4-5 month fetus.

As far as taxing religion, i couldn't be more for it. For every small country church that is put out of business (irony intended) there will be millions upon millions of dollars taken from the TV evangelists... Anyone for free health care? I think we just figured out a way.

Now i need to get out of here before i get involved in the evolution debate.

[Jetmeck]

Good for you. You might be one of the two of out ten Americans who don't vote along party lines.

The truly special people are the one who say if the Republicans keep messing up they are going to vote for the Democratic party in the upcoming elections. Right, the "either or" option of the Republicans and Democrats really addresses this great nations problems. Grrrrrrr

Lesser of two evils, historically the DEMS have more helpful to the working class and obviously Bush proved
this time around conclusively with his shameless pandering to his corporate friends that Republs are biased to the rich and powerful. Truly very little difference in the parties but there is a little. There have been DEMS I wouldn't vote for either.

[Jetmeck]

Everyone who believes abortion should be legal would have to agree that drugs like marijuana should be legal, correct? Every individual should have the right to make their own decisions. I believe that issue falls under the umbrella of "self rights" as well.

So you are comparing abortion to an illegal drug ?

[baja]

Eh, whats the big deal either way, huh? You guys get so emotionally wrapped up in a issue that will never be solved. One idiot clams against the religious who want to stop abortion while the other idiot rants on about its a woman's choice. Who the **** cares! If you are stupid enough to get some pregnant, deal with it. And for the 1 in 3 freaking million women who get pregnant after a rape, tough ****ing luck. Sh*t happens.

This issue is about as big as midgets claiming discrimination when getting a job. Sure its an issue but if effects such a small few who gives a rats ass? Stupid.

I have been posting here about 5 years now and this may be the most thoughtless and insensitive post i have read to date.


It's hard to believe there are people that actually think this way.

[Hogan11]

I'm doing my absolute best to avoid the evolution debate...

OK as for abortion, I'm in a really weird place on this during the first few months (2 maybe 3) i have no problems with it... After that i start to develop some serious moral questions. This is one of the reasons that i get fairly passionate about the Morning After Pill. The MAP is no more an abortion than than an in-vitro clinic, stem cell research, AND the Birth Control Pill. Unfortunately many of the pro-lifers try to equate it to a partial birth abortion. There needs to be some reasoning put to use when discussing this. There is a huge difference between preventing a 6 cell zygote from attaching to itself to the uterine wall and the complete dismantling and evacuation of a 4-5 month fetus.

As far as taxing religion, i couldn't be more for it. For every small country church that is put out of business (irony intended) there will be millions upon millions of dollars taken from the TV evangelists... Anyone for free health care? I think we just figured out a way.

Now i need to get out of here before i get involved in the evolution debate.

Oh come on Dave....don't cha wanna rehash the same old, tired, circular arguements all over again this year? Maybe we can kill the thread by doing a search and posting the several thousand links to past threads all dealing with these go nowhere topics....not only would people maybe use the existing threads but it would also satisfy those who absolutely need a link for everything that's ever posted on the message board (I've come to know them as..The Linkmen..."got a link?", "Where's the link?" Ha!)

I'd do it, but I don't have the two days required to post all the links...such is life.

[GonzoLays]

Truly very little difference in the parties but there is a little. There have been DEMS I wouldn't vote for either.

Once again, yet another intelligent citizen who understands that the their is really no difference between the parties, yet still votes for the parties. Unbelievable. Goes back to what I said in my earlier post:


People vote down party lines. Sadly, I think people vote just to put the sticker on their car during the elections and talk about who they voted for. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard, "I know they are BOTH out to screw me, but I think (fill in the blank) is more qualified to do the job." Right on! Good grief.

Admit it, heck everyone admit it, you know you are getting screwed by our political system and you damn well know this is NOT they way it should be and you feel helpless, right? Its like that street gang down the street who takes half of your lunch money everyday yet protects your block from other street gangs so you say, "ah, it could be worse."

[footstepsfrom#27]

Seriously I don't know why I bother.......
1) You know darn well I meant each individual should have the right to make their own decision
The point is...the decision is not just about one's own body...there is another body impacted by this decision.
2)I am not imposing my views on anyone, IN FACT I am saying know one has the right to impose theirs on others.
Regardless of which position becomes law, someone's going to feel they're being imposed upon.
Let them decide and make THEIR own decisions and I will make mine. Leave the law alone, religious zealots do not have the right to impose their views on ALL OF US, BOTTOM LINE.
They have as much right to do so as anyone else. The Supreme Court did not authorize abortion until 1973 when they ruled that prohibition against it violated an (alleged) constitutional right to privacy...something many legal scholars do not believe exists in the US Constitution. The point is...ALL codified law is ultimately the result of one opinion being enforced at the expense of another. You're no more imposed on than the other side has been for the last 33 years.
3)I believe your dad is a realist and I respect his views to believe in PRO-LIFE while dealing with his family. Him, or me or you do not have the right to force our beliefs upon another in respect to this issue.
Nonsense. The political process in a democratic society ALWAYS imposes restrictions upon one or more groups no matter what the issue is.

[footstepsfrom#27]

As far as taxing religion, i couldn't be more for it. For every small country church that is put out of business (irony intended) there will be millions upon millions of dollars taken from the TV evangelists... Anyone for free health care? I think we just figured out a way.
1) Churches consist of people. Those people already pay taxes just like you do. People who are employed by churches also pay taxes just like you do. What you're suggesting is that we tax churches like corporations. Churches are not corporations, and they do not receive tax exemptions for any business activity not consistent with their non profit mission.

2) Churches are non profits. Non profits do not pay taxes on any activity consistent with their organizational mission. Neither do other non profits...there is no difference.

3) Removing tax exempt status from churches will also remove a coresponding percentage of income from the US economy that is used to support social services and community work that churches do. Churches are BY FAR the most philanthropic of all US community non profits in terms of efficiency as well as absolute dollars. Removing funds from that model and transfering it to the most wasteful of all philanthropic business models is fiscally foolish. It would also increase your taxes since you will have to make up the difference to pay for things that you once didn't have to pay for.

[TheDave]

1) Churches consist of people. Those people already pay taxes just like you do. People who are employed by churches also pay taxes just like you do. What you're suggesting is that we tax churches like corporations. Churches are not corporations, and they do not receive tax exemptions for any business activity not consistent with their non profit mission.

Corporations also consist of people who are already taxed... Sorry but too many churches (the majority of my experience comes from catholic churches) operate as businesses and therefore should be held responsible as businesses are.

2) Churches are non profits. Non profits do not pay taxes on any activity consistent with their organizational mission. Neither do other non profits...there is no difference.

This is one are i have not thought enough about, but at first glance the vast majority of non proffits should be re-examined anyways.

3) It would also increase your taxes since you will have to make up the difference to pay for things that you once didn't have to pay for.

Such as?

[baja]

3) Removing tax exempt status from churches will also remove a corresponding percentage of income from the US economy that is used to support social services and community work that churches do. Churches are BY FAR the most philanthropic of all US community non profits in terms of efficiency as well as absolute dollars. Removing funds from that model and transferring it to the most wasteful of all philanthropic business models is fiscally foolish. It would also increase your taxes since you will have to make up the difference to pay for things that you once didn't have to pay for.

This argument looks good on the surface but when you consider the wealth of the Catholic Church ( some say the single richest entity on earth ) you have to question just how philanthropic the church is. Hell Jimmy and Tammy Fay Baker had a $10,000 air conditioned dog house for crying out loud.

[TheDave]

This argument looks good on the surface but when you consider the wealth of the Catholic Church ( some say the single richest entity on earth ) you have to question just how philanthropic the church is. Hell Jimmy and Tammy Fay Baker had a $10,000 air conditioned dog house for crying out loud.

See this is probably why i am pretty tainted... The majority of my experience comes from the catholic church, the Mormon church, and the collection of TV evangelists / conartists... That group alone makes me want to regulate the hell out of them. Imagine the shock on some peoples faces if their churches books became public.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Corporations also consist of people who are already taxed... Sorry but too many churches (the majority of my experience comes from catholic churches) operate as businesses and therefore should be held responsible as businesses are.
The Catholic churchc operates on a different model given that their organizational control is centrally managed from a foreign "country" (the Vatican operates as a political state in many ways). This doesn't apply to the vast majority of churches. The differences are obvious...two come immediately to mind:

1) Corporations are taxed on the basis of profits they generate from the sale of services or products. Employees who work for these corporations make that revenue possible through their skills, but they do not also SUPPLY the actual revenue for those corporations by donating their personal income back to the business they work for. In fact the net effect is the opposite, since corporations are able to WRITE OFF overhead, including employee salaries and benefits as tax deductable. The purpose of taxation is to benefit the public good...something churches and other non profits are already engaged in.

2) Churches generate the vast majority of their revenue, through membership contributions. You are, in effect, saying that people should be taxed twice; once for working and a second time for voluntarily contributing their income.
This is one are i have not thought enough about, but at first glance the vast majority of non proffits should be re-examined anyways.
Non profits are already subject to intense scrutiny by the IRS in the wake of recent scandals and loopholes some 501c3 organizations have used to hide revenue. Make no mistake about it...there are non profits out there playing games with the IRS to cheat the system. If you're suggesting that non profits should be subjected to close scrutiny, I couldn't agree more. If you're suggesting we eliminate the tax free status for non profits and simply tax them on the basis of their revenues as if they were for profit entities, that is foolish and counter productive.
Such as?
Such as numerous social and community services that government would have to assume additional responsibility for. Churches run shelters for homeless people and battered women, soup kitchens, employment training workshops, homes for unwed mothers and troubled kids, drug and alcohol treatment programs, adult literacy programs, dissaster relief efforts, after school youth programs, and community assistance for food and clothing for poor people just for starters... They do this primarily with volunteer help and little income. The same efforts replicated with equivilent community impact would cost dozens of times more if run by government agencies loaded with wastefull pork barrel spending. Here's a perfect example:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/8073.htm

Mission Arlington/Metroplex is an Arlington Texas based non profit with an organizational mission that is religious in nature. The 501c3 holds church services in Arlington appartment complexes for people who cannot drive a car to church do to age or health reasons. They also generate over $2.5 million a year in revenue they use to feed, cloth and provide housing assistance to thousands of people in Arlington every year. They assist thousands of people every month with utility bills, child care expenses, job placement and medicine among other things and they do all this by spending a penny in fund raising costs for every dollar they raise in assistance to the public. Government on the other hand spends $1.20 for every dollars worth of service they provide, which makes Mission Arlington/Metroplex an incredible 120 TIMES MORE EFFICIENT. More amazingly, CEO Tillie Burgin, who could easily justify a 6 figure salary to the IRS...works for free.

Do you think we should tax Mission Arlington/Metroplex simply because they have a religious mission objective? If you do then you will need the city of Arlington to fork up the difference in the services they are unable to provide when you subtract that revenue. Most non profits like Mission Arlington/Metroplex operate on the absolute razors edge for fiscal sustainability. A 25% tax bite would put them out of business. Doing so would then require the city of Arlington's tax payers to fork up a cool $3,072,000...which is what it will take at 120% of replacement value to equal Mission Arlington/Metroples's funds. That's ony half the solution however. MAM funnels over 90% of their $1.2 million in operational revenue into programs and invests the difference to grow their capacity. The city government will be FAR less efficient. Total tax bite to the city is likely to exceed $5 million...nearly twice what MAM is spending. How much does it cost MAM to raise $2.58 million? Last year it cost them $16K in fundraising expenses and $113K in administrative overhead. You won't get within light years of that kind of efficient production from the public tax rolls.

The non profit sector of the US economy represents over 8-10% of gross domestic income and much more than that in SROI (Social Return on Investment). Using abusive and vindictive tax enforcement to punish churches and other 501c3's that drive $2 Trillion a year in benefit to the nation is crazy. Far from being beneficial to US taxpayers...you will pay more...MUCH more. Additionally, the non profit sector is currently being used as a strategic planning base to build and launch the next generation of US business models neccessary to compete in a global economy. These businesses, called "social enterprises", are hybrid forms that bridge for profit and non profit business models. Damaging this process would set our economy back 20 years in terms of our ability to compete in 2015 and beyond.

All in all...a VERY bad idea.

[TheDave]

The Catholic churchc operates on a different model given that their organizational control is centrally managed from a foreign "country" (the Vatican operates as a political state in many ways). This doesn't apply to the vast majority of churches. The differences are obvious...two come immediately to mind:

2) Churches generate the vast majority of their revenue, through membership contributions. You are, in effect, saying that people should be taxed twice; once for working and a second time for voluntarily contributing their income.

2) health clubs generate the vast majority of their revenue, through membership contributions. You are, in effect, saying that people should be taxed twice; once for working and a second time for voluntarily contributing their income.

Yes i do


Non profits are already subject to intense scrutiny by the IRS in the wake of recent scandals and loopholes some 501c3 organizations have used to hide revenue. Make no mistake about it...there are non profits out there playing games with the IRS to cheat the system. If you're suggesting that non profits should be subjected to close scrutiny, I couldn't agree more.

For now, i will simply agree with you that they need to be watched as closely as possible. I just haven't delved into that part of the equation enough yet to offer any credible argument either way.


Such as numerous social and community services that government would have to assume additional responsibility for. Churches run shelters for homeless people and battered women, soup kitchens, employment training workshops, homes for unwed mothers and troubled kids, drug and alcohol treatment programs, adult literacy programs, dissaster relief efforts, after school youth programs, and community assistance for food and clothing for poor people just for starters... They do this primarily with volunteer help and little income. The same efforts replicated with equivilent community impact would cost dozens of times more if run by government agencies loaded with wastefull pork barrel spending. Here's a perfect example:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/8073.htm

Mission Arlington/Metroplex is an Arlington Texas based non profit with an organizational mission that is religious in nature...

For every Mission Arlington i can bring up a Benny Hin, Crystal Cathedral, and/or 700 club. When you balance out the good and the bad my bet is they will cancel themselves out... that makes taxing it significantly more beneficial to society. Be honest your concern here is that Christian churches will be taxed. Do you honestly have a problem with taxing the church of Satan, Wicca, or Scientology? Your smart, so you know this is a trap, but be honest... you would have no problem putting the squeeze on these groups. Of course you wouldn't... now you know why i wouldn't have a problem taxing all of them.

[TheDave]

Here is a smaller example of why i feel the way i do... From http://www.pastors.com/

It tripled our offerings... by Juan Gulloso, White Plains, NY (Church Size 1-500)
As a Pastor I commited $1,500 dollars for the cash offering before presenting the program to the leadership. 2 days later I received three times more. Testimonies like this became common after we started the campaign. Our church collected last year in Tithes and offering about $40,000. This amount has trippled and we are expecting by 2,001 to give the down payment for our building. By then our church will be only three years old.

We set a goal of 1.1 million dollars, and quite miraculously, we hit our goal, EXACTLY! by Tim Woody, Saint Joseph, MO (Church Size 500-1000)
My church averages about 950 in attendance. I began to serve as the Senior Pastor only 7 months ago and immediatly found our church in great need for a new youth facility. I ordered the Time To Build kit and adapted the information to fit our church. We set a goal of 1.1 million dollars, and quite miraculously, we hit our goal, EXACTLY! The congregation is exuberant and it has elevated me to a new level in their eyes. The small investment for the kit REALLY paid off!!

We raised $309,000! by Greg Doebler, Johnson City, TN (Church Size 1-500)
Our church just completed a Time to build campaign. I found the materials to be extremely thorough and easily adaptable. We went through and fully adapted the materials to meet our needs and followed the plan.

Our church was attempting to raise money for the purchase of land. Our attendance is 140 on average. Our goal was to raise $30,000 cash offering for the land and raise a total of $300,000 in commitments. On Commitment Sunday, we received a $39,000 cash offering and commitments in the the total of $307,000. To God be the glory.

In one single offering over 180,000.00 in cash... by Jimmie Davidson, Abingdon, VA (Church Size 1-500)
We began time to build three years ago this past Easter. The church was averaging 230 in attendance at the time and was 2 years old meeting in a High School. In one single offering over 180,000.00 in cash and over 600,000.00 in three year commitments was given. As of Easter Sunday 2000, three years later over 1.5 million dollars in cash has been given, we are now in our new facility and are averaging 1200 in worship. Wow! What a wave and a big thanks to Rick and Saddleback Church!


These are not the works of of charitable foundations these are campanies (tax-free) building their business....

[footstepsfrom#27]

2) health clubs generate the vast majority of their revenue, through membership contributions. You are, in effect, saying that people should be taxed twice; once for working and a second time for voluntarily contributing their income.
Apples to oranges...health clubs do business by offering a service that drives the accumulation of profit for shareholders. Churches and other 501c3's do not.
For every Mission Arlington i can bring up a Benny Hin, Crystal Cathedral, and/or 700 club. When you balance out the good and the bad my bet is they will cancel themselves out... that makes taxing it significantly more beneficial to society.
Untrue. The number of these scams represent a highly visible but statistically insignificant factor.

Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org) tracks financials through IRS 990 public domain information on US 501c3's that collect at least $500K a year in public donations from individual rather than organizational contributors. Of those 5,000 non profits only 245 have religious activities as their mission, and only 144 more are religious media or broadcasting organizations, or .0288 percent of the organizations in their data base. Of this number, most are publishing based rather than electronic media and are completely legitimate such as the 190 year old American Bible Society. In other words, the high profile religious broadcasting shows such as the ones you mentioned account for an extremely small percentage of the non profit sector. Taxing the entire non profit sector to stop a few con artists and charletons would have devastating consequences to the US economy, exploding government spending and taxation to unprecedented levels to make up the difference, putting 10 million US jobs in the sector at risk and deducting billions in SROI from the investments made by US corporations and philanthropic partners. This would also cause a near collapse of the little known but highly strategic and fragile socially responsible investment market that is now growing faster than the overall US economy. Say goodbye to our best environmentally clean energy research, new greener technologies designed to clean toxic waste, reduce reliance upon fossil fuels...community redevelopment projects...micro enterprise loan programs for the developing world...and many more things we need and can't get soley through government funding. Say goodbye to the beta testing ground for new economic models that the best business schools in America have spent years creating...

All of this...for...what? So you and a few others who choose to scorn religion can feel good that a few people aren't contributing money to something you don't agree with? I thought you guys were about choice...No? As much as I dislike some of the religious broadcasters...not all of them BTW are crooks...the people who choose to contribute make that CHOICE of their own free will. Who are you to tell them what they can do with their money? What you're talking about is uneccessary...unproductive...and unwaranted; especially since the same effect on crooked 501's can easily be achieved through better monitoring and reporting systems put in place by the IRS.
Be honest your concern here is that Christian churches will be taxed. Do you honestly have a problem with taxing the church of Satan, Wicca, or Scientology? Your smart, so you know this is a trap, but be honest... you would have no problem putting the squeeze on these groups. Of course you wouldn't... now you know why i wouldn't have a problem taxing all of them.
Wrong again. A society that values free speech, academic and religious liberty and the other rights gauranteed by the US Constitution is obligated to tolerate the bad to benefit from the good. Think of freedom of speech for example...which requires that permission even for repulsive or abhorent ideas, ideas that are obnoxious, idiotic, provocative, unseemly, irresponsible, immoral, and insane...be heard. I have no wish to tax Satanists, etc...they are not for profit business entities.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Here is a smaller example of why i feel the way i do... From http://www.pastors.com/
It is not your job...or mine...to rescue or baby sit everyone who might get stung by cons. You're shooting a sparrow with a bazooka.

[TheDave]

Apples to oranges...health clubs do business by offering a service that drives the accumulation of profit for shareholders. Churches and other 501c3's do not.

I completely disagree, acording to articles i've read churches and religous institutions hold upwards of 20% of the land in the U.S.. The assets of the Catholic church alone exceed those of the five largest American corporations combined and cash donations to churches total tens of billions of dollars every year. Just because their wealth isn't listed on wall street doesn't mean it is non-exestant


Untrue. The number of these scams represent a highly visible but statistically insignificant factor.

Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org) tracks financials through IRS 990 public domain information on US 501c3's that collect at least $500K a year in public donations from individual rather than organizational contributors. Of those 5,000 non profits only 245 have religious activities as their mission, and only 144 more are religious media or broadcasting organizations, or .0288 percent of the organizations in their data base. Of this number, most are publishing based rather than electronic media and are completely legitimate such as the 190 year old American Bible Society. In other words, the high profile religious broadcasting shows such as the ones you mentioned account for an extremely small percentage of the non profit sector.

(strawman #1) I've already admitted that i need to reconsider how to handle non-profits. Therefore we are talking about 144 out of 245 or 59%... no longer insignificant.

Taxing the entire non profit sector to stop a few con artists and charletons would have devastating consequences to the US economy, exploding government spending and taxation to unprecedented levels to make up the difference, putting 10 million US jobs in the sector at risk and deducting billions in SROI from the investments made by US corporations and philanthropic partners. This would also cause a near collapse of the little known but highly strategic and fragile socially responsible investment market that is now growing faster than the overall US economy. Say goodbye to our best environmentally clean energy research, new greener technologies designed to clean toxic waste, reduce reliance upon fossil fuels...community redevelopment projects...micro enterprise loan programs for the developing world...and many more things we need and can't get soley through government funding. Say goodbye to the beta testing ground for new economic models that the best business schools in America have spent years creating...

(repeat of Strawman #1) Again i conceeded the non profit portion of this some time ago... but you already knew that.

All of this...for...what? So you and a few others who choose to scorn religion can feel good that a few people aren't contributing money to something you don't agree with? I thought you guys were about choice...No?

Just so I know who i am being grouped in with...Who are you guys?


As much as I dislike some of the religious broadcasters...not all of them BTW are crooks...the people who choose to contribute make that CHOICE of their own free will. Who are you to tell them what they can do with their money?

(Strawman #2) ... I couldn't care less what people do with their money, and have never said otherwise.


What you're talking about is uneccessary...unproductive...and
unwaranted;

In your opinion... In my opinion it's neccessary...productive...and waranted


especially since the same effect on crooked 501's can easily be achieved through better monitoring and reporting systems put in place by the IRS.

Good lets do that also...

Wrong again. A society that values free speech, academic and religious liberty and the other rights gauranteed by the US Constitution is obligated to tolerate the bad to benefit from the good. Think of freedom of speech for example...which requires that permission even for repulsive or abhorent ideas, ideas that are obnoxious, idiotic, provocative, unseemly, irresponsible, immoral, and insane...be heard.

(Strawman #3) Did you read any of my post or were you planning on arguing with yourself... No where did i ever mention Freedom of speech...

I have no wish to tax Satanists, etc...they are not for profit business entities.

Sorry, but i don't believe that for a second

[TheDave]

Figured since i stole some of this i might as well paste it in full.....

Why Taxation of Religion Matters
From Austin Cline,


Tax exemptions may not be the most common issue facing courts in arguments over the separation of church and state, it is one of the most fundamental. Initially it appears to be a form of government support for religions and religious activities; on the other hand, the power to tax is the power to restrict or destroy, so is exempting religions from taxation a means of ensuring their independence?

Religious exemptions from taxation is no trivial matter. It is estimated that churches and other religious bodies may own anywhere between twenty and twenty-five percent of all of the land in the United States. This represents a huge portion of the possible tax base and billions of dollars in potential revenue which could be used to fund schools and other portions of the social infrastructure upon which the churches depend, just like the rest of us. The assets of the Roman Catholic church alone exceed those of the five largest American corporations combined and cash donations to churches total tens of billions of dollars every year.

Every dollar not paid by churches or other religious organizations must be made up from some other source. When all tax exemptions are taken into account, it is estimated that the average family may pay up to $1,000 in extra taxes every year to make up for the lost revenue not received from churches and religious groups. This includes sales taxes, inheritance taxes, income taxes, personal taxes, and ad valorem taxes.

It is thus arguable that all of this money represents an indirect contribution to all of those religious organizations. Because taxes which would go to pay for their share of maintaining society are made up for by the rest of us, they are free to use that money in other ways, for example promulgating their message to a wider audience. They certainly have a right to spread their ideas wherever they wish, but do they also have a right to public assistance in doing so? We have, then, two inter-related objections to religious tax exemptions: they represent a huge amount of money which must be made up by everyone else, and filling that gap may constitute indirect subsidies paid by the public to religious institutions in violation of the separation of church and state.

Tax exemptions for religious groups have existed throughout American history and are a legacy of our European heritage. At the same time, those tax exemptions have never been total or automatic. For example, some states have broad tax exemptions for parsonages while others have narrow restrictions on such exemptions. Some states have exempted Bibles from sales taxes while others have not. Some states have exempted church businesses from state corporate taxes while other have not. Private donations to churches have also had varying degrees of tax exemptions, while direct payments to churches for goods or services are rarely exempt from taxes.

Over the years both the courts and various legislative bodies have limited the ability of religions to benefit from tax exemptions. There are appear to be two possible means for this: either by generally eliminating tax exemptions for all charitable and non-profit groups, or by eliminating churches from the classification of charities.

Eliminating tax exemptions for charities generally would provide a great deal more money for governments, which is part of the argument for eliminating tax exemptions for religion. However, it is unlikely that there would be much broad public support for such a radical change in the tax code. Tax exemptions for charitable organizations have a long history, and for the most part, people tend to have a favorable impression of them.

The latter option, re-conceiving the idea of charities such that churches and religions would no longer be automatically included, would probably encounter just as much resistance. Currently, churches receive an automatic charitable tax exemption which is not available to other groups — an unfortunate preference. Should churches actually have to demonstrate that they are doing charitable work that entitles them to tax exemptions on their own merits, it is unlikely that they would receive the same extensive benefits as they currently do.

However, even when religious groups are not involved with any work traditionally regarded as charitable — like feeding the poor or cleaning the streets — but instead focuses upon evangelization and religious study, people still tend to feel that that qualifies as “charity.” After all, those groups are trying to save the souls of others, and what could be more important?

[TheDave]

It is not your job...or mine...to rescue or baby sit everyone who might get stung by cons. You're shooting a sparrow with a bazooka.

Strawman alert: I'm not trying to rescue anyone... I just want ALL businesses to pay their taxes. what i showed you were the actions of Companies... Not churches trying to feed the homeless.

[Jetmeck]

The point is...the decision is not just about one's own body...there is another body impacted by this decision.

Regardless of which position becomes law, someone's going to feel they're being imposed upon.

They have as much right to do so as anyone else. The Supreme Court did not authorize abortion until 1973 when they ruled that prohibition against it violated an (alleged) constitutional right to privacy...something many legal scholars do not believe exists in the US Constitution. The point is...ALL codified law is ultimately the result of one opinion being enforced at the expense of another. You're no more imposed on than the other side has been for the last 33 years.

Nonsense. The political process in a democratic society ALWAYS imposes restrictions upon one or more groups no matter what the issue is.


The only nonsense here is you and inability to see the other side of the fence. But you are from TEXAS so we know how you voted and will DEFEND BUSH TO YOUR LAST BREATH.

JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER "restictions upon one or more groups" DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT OR A GOOD THING TO IMPOSE A RESTRICTION ON WHAT A WOMAN CAN OR CAN'T DO WITH HER OWN BODY.

You thick headed religious types piss me off to the core.
Your wife or etc gets pregnant have it, offer it for adoption, abort it I don't care because it is NOT MY BUSINESS. I expect the same from you if the shoe was on the other foot.

Since you don't get the basic underlying facts about this issue, Peace . Be sure to give extra this week at church so they can INTERFERE with the political process some more. You should have taken the red pill, you are still asleep !

[footstepsfrom#27]

I completely disagree, acording to articles i've read churches and religous institutions hold upwards of 20% of the land in the U.S.. The assets of the Catholic church alone exceed those of the five largest American corporations combined and cash donations to churches total tens of billions of dollars every year. Just because their wealth isn't listed on wall street doesn't mean it is non-exestant
As I previously stated, the Catholic church is centrally managed from what amounts for all practical purposes, to a foreign nation. This represents a completely different business reality than the one faced by the little country church you said you couldn't wait to shut down. I doubt your figures but it's irrelevant anyway...the point is churches generate SROI that far exceeds what government does. Taking from them and distributing to wastefull government taxation based programs? Horrible idea.
(strawman #1) I've already admitted that i need to reconsider how to handle non-profits. Therefore we are talking about 144 out of 245 or 59%... no longer insignificant.
Churches ARE non profits. So what you're saying is that it's OK to let other non profits skate free but people who believe in God have to pay? Why? Because you don't like them? Second, it is not 144 out of 245...go look it up on Charity Navigator if you doubt it...the great majority of those 144 are not broadcasters. They're publishers...tracts, Bibles, religious literture, CD's, educational material, Bible study aids, Christian publishing for church materials...even Crown Financial Ministries is listed which offers small groups that teach people Biblical principles of money management to avoid debt. Those that are broadcasters also include mostly legitimate broadcasting like Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, John MacArther...radio programs rather than TV shows...What you don't understand is that churches represent the MOST benevolent, MOST efficient, and MOST community oriented of ALL non profits. Only 7% of all US philanthropy dollars are invested into community development projects to help people in need...most represent things that don't directly benefit poor people... Of that amount, the vast majority comes from churches and other faith-based organizations.
(repeat of Strawman #1) Again i conceeded the non profit portion of this some time ago... but you already knew that.
Again...see above; churches ARE non profits. You're attempt to marginalize and compartmentalize them is based on nothing more than your personal experience with the Catholic church and your own bias towards religion in general.
Just so I know who i am being grouped in with...Who are you guys?
The thread is about abortion...anyone favoring "choice" for abortion on the basis of it being a personal decision should have the same thoughts about how people spend their money.
(Strawman #2) ... I couldn't care less what people do with their money, and have never said otherwise.
Right...that's why you posted the info on the scams...because you don't mind that people are donating to that stuff...right? Please.
In your opinion... In my opinion it's neccessary...productive...and waranted
Your opinion is based on personal prejudice towards religious institutions, poorly thought through knee jerk reactions and simplistic solutions to what amount to fairly minor problems in the grand scheme of things. You indicated yourself that you're influenced by your experience with the Catholic church. My opinions are based on FACTS based on 7 years of research and what I do for a living...managing strategic design and operational planning for non profits and NGO's, creating business revenue engines for social enterprise organizations and social entrepreneurs and building collaborative partnerships with both for profit and non profit business models.

Let me put it this way...when I go to church and drop a dollar in the collection plate so I can support the things my church is doing which I believe in...what right do YOU have to take 25% of that and stick it in your pocket through taxation? It isn't YOUR money. I've already paid my taxes...payroll, sales, property, etc...just like you have. Last year I scarfed up $37K and change for Uncle Sam. Is that enough for you? I also paid into a public school system that my kids don't attend, and I don't complain about it. But my money...ALL OF IT...that I give of my own free will to my church? That's NOT yours...NOT Uncle Sams...nobodies but the people I intended it for. We generate no shareholder profit, and what we do SAVES YOU MONEY.

Keep your paws outta my pocket, and outta my church's pocket.

And I could care less about Satanists paying taxes...gimme a break...that's absurd. What do you plan on...IRS agents roaming through the woods to locate midnight covens so they can hand out 990 forms?

Don't be a goofball.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Figured since i stole some of this i might as well paste it in full.....

Why Taxation of Religion Matters
From Austin Cline,


Tax exemptions may not be the most common issue facing courts in arguments over the separation of church and state, it is one of the most fundamental. Initially it appears to be a form of government support for religions and religious activities; on the other hand, the power to tax is the power to restrict or destroy, so is exempting religions from taxation a means of ensuring their independence?

Religious exemptions from taxation is no trivial matter. It is estimated that churches and other religious bodies may own anywhere between twenty and twenty-five percent of all of the land in the United States. This represents a huge portion of the possible tax base and billions of dollars in potential revenue which could be used to fund schools and other portions of the social infrastructure upon which the churches depend, just like the rest of us. The assets of the Roman Catholic church alone exceed those of the five largest American corporations combined and cash donations to churches total tens of billions of dollars every year.

Every dollar not paid by churches or other religious organizations must be made up from some other source. When all tax exemptions are taken into account, it is estimated that the average family may pay up to $1,000 in extra taxes every year to make up for the lost revenue not received from churches and religious groups. This includes sales taxes, inheritance taxes, income taxes, personal taxes, and ad valorem taxes.

It is thus arguable that all of this money represents an indirect contribution to all of those religious organizations. Because taxes which would go to pay for their share of maintaining society are made up for by the rest of us, they are free to use that money in other ways, for example promulgating their message to a wider audience. They certainly have a right to spread their ideas wherever they wish, but do they also have a right to public assistance in doing so? We have, then, two inter-related objections to religious tax exemptions: they represent a huge amount of money which must be made up by everyone else, and filling that gap may constitute indirect subsidies paid by the public to religious institutions in violation of the separation of church and state.

Tax exemptions for religious groups have existed throughout American history and are a legacy of our European heritage. At the same time, those tax exemptions have never been total or automatic. For example, some states have broad tax exemptions for parsonages while others have narrow restrictions on such exemptions. Some states have exempted Bibles from sales taxes while others have not. Some states have exempted church businesses from state corporate taxes while other have not. Private donations to churches have also had varying degrees of tax exemptions, while direct payments to churches for goods or services are rarely exempt from taxes.

Over the years both the courts and various legislative bodies have limited the ability of religions to benefit from tax exemptions. There are appear to be two possible means for this: either by generally eliminating tax exemptions for all charitable and non-profit groups, or by eliminating churches from the classification of charities.

Eliminating tax exemptions for charities generally would provide a great deal more money for governments, which is part of the argument for eliminating tax exemptions for religion. However, it is unlikely that there would be much broad public support for such a radical change in the tax code. Tax exemptions for charitable organizations have a long history, and for the most part, people tend to have a favorable impression of them.

The latter option, re-conceiving the idea of charities such that churches and religions would no longer be automatically included, would probably encounter just as much resistance. Currently, churches receive an automatic charitable tax exemption which is not available to other groups — an unfortunate preference. Should churches actually have to demonstrate that they are doing charitable work that entitles them to tax exemptions on their own merits, it is unlikely that they would receive the same extensive benefits as they currently do.

However, even when religious groups are not involved with any work traditionally regarded as charitable — like feeding the poor or cleaning the streets — but instead focuses upon evangelization and religious study, people still tend to feel that that qualifies as “charity.” After all, those groups are trying to save the souls of others, and what could be more important?
Austin Cline is an Atheist. Since you didn't reveal that I figured I would. How surprising he holds this view, which is FULL of total nonsense...LOL
http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=35947

Here's his own statement on his personal views:

I have been an atheist and a secular humanist for many years. I actively run a site about agnosticism & atheism and attempt to help people understand more about these topics. I have made extensive study of both philosophy and of a wide vareity of religions.

[footstepsfrom#27]

The only nonsense here is you and inability to see the other side of the fence. But you are from TEXAS so we know how you voted and will DEFEND BUSH TO YOUR LAST BREATH.
Hey genius...look all over this entire board. You'll find DOZENS of my criticisms of Bush. I want him impeached in case you missed it. I even posted on another thread that I know crap about him none of you know about. Sorry...didn't mean to destroy your foolish argument so quickly but when you post something about me try to know what you're talking about. Second...I'm from Colorado...Lakewood in fact, not Texas. I live here. So what?

[footstepsfrom#27]

For the purposes of IRS taxation policy...please tell me what constitutes a church? A church is a group of people meeting together. If I have 4 people in my home to read the Bible every Sunday afternoon...is that a church? How 'bout 3 friends who pray together once a week? Do they get taxed?

The whole idea is bunk.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Eliminating tax exemptions for charities generally would provide a great deal more money for governments, which is part of the argument for eliminating tax exemptions for religion.
Economics 101...moving money from non efficiency towards efficiency creates jobs, economic growth, social benefits...etc...and represents part and parcel of what constitutes the essence of entrepreneurial activity...the basis for job growth in the new economy.

Churches and other non profits are infinitely more productive than the government. For every dollar you remove from them, expect to pay several times that in taxes to make up the difference.

Quick lesson on the trajectory thinking coming down from people like Harvard's Rosabeth Moss-Kanter...former editor of the Harvard Business Review and called by the Institute for Strategic Change..."one of the top 10 business minds in the world"...

1) the social need in this society is increasing

2) the size of the workplace able to sustain social program financing is shrinking

3) government and philanthropy cannot keep pace with the short fall

4) churches and other 501c3's with innovative business models built on revenue generating non profit businesses, and social enterprise for profit businesses represent the solution to this problem

Gideon Rosenblatt...CEO of the non profit environmental organization OneNorthwest and a former Sr. level executive with Microsoft...says that the innovation and creativity of smaller non profits, faith based organizations and hybrid business models represents the best hope for social impact and community based organizations able to meet niche market needs that bigger organizations cannot...and that they need to continue to thrive in a world where the big guys...American Red Cross, United Way...etc...are eating up the pie.

[Spider]

Hey genius...look all over this entire board. You'll find DOZENS of my criticisms of Bush. I want him impeached in case you missed it. I even posted on another thread that I know crap about him none of you know about. Sorry...didn't mean to destroy your foolish argument so quickly but when you post something about me try to know what you're talking about. Second...I'm from Colorado...Lakewood in fact, not Texas. I live here. So what?;D Nobody is prefect ........

[TheDave]

As I previously stated, the Catholic church is centrally managed from what amounts for all practical purposes, to a foreign nation. This represents a completely different business reality than the one faced by the little country church you said you couldn't wait to shut down.

The catholic church is a foreign company...So is Toyota. Tax their U.S. operations the same.

"For every small country church that is put out of business (irony intended) there will be millions upon millions of dollars taken from the TV evangelists"

Never said i can't wait to shut it down... you don't need to lie to make a point.


I doubt your figures but it's irrelevant anyway...the point is churches generate SROI that far exceeds what government does. Taking from them and distributing to wastefull government taxation based programs? Horrible idea.

Not according to what I've read... but we can argue figures all night. As far as the government being inefficient tell me something i don't know. Still don't think your group should get off tax free big brother is not as efficient as they should be.

Churches ARE non profits. So what you're saying is that it's OK to let other non profits skate free but people who believe in God have to pay? Why? Because you don't like them?

"Based upon court rulings on how tax exemptions for charitable corporations work, we cannot conclude that churches and religious organizations automatically deserve their exemptions. Even if one believes that their religion and their church provide a necessary public service, it does not follow that all religions and all churches necessarily provide a public service which merits support through tax exemptions.

If a church or other religious group wanted to receive tax exemptions because of the charitable work they do, should they be required to make a case for that rather than benefit from the presumption that religion equals charity? "

It has nothing to do with my personal taste... I'm just not ready to pretend that all they give is equal to or greater than what they receive.



Second, it is not 144 out of 245...go look it up on Charity Navigator if you doubt it...the great majority of those 144 are not broadcasters. They're publishers...tracts, Bibles, religious literture, CD's, educational material, Bible study aids, Christian publishing for church materials...even Crown Financial Ministries is listed which offers small groups that teach people money Biblical principles of money management to avoid debt. Those that are broadcasters also include mostly legitimate broadcasting like Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, John MacArther...radio programs rather than TV shows...What you don't understand is that churches represent the MOST benevolent, efficient, and MOST community oriented of ALL non profits. Only 7% of all US philanthropy dollars are invested into community development projects to help people in need...most represent things that don't directly benefit poor people... Of that amount, the vast majority comes from churches and other faith-based organizations.

and that is why i said earlier that we should do a better job of monitoring them. In addition i think it is time to monitor the churches also... I'm just not swayed by you constantly telling me that they are more benevolent.


The thread is about abortion...anyone favoring "choice" for abortion on the basis of it being a personal decision should have the same thoughts about how people spend their money.

So because i am Pro-choice (to an extent) i should be happy footing your churches tax bill. I have a better idea, next time their is a fire or police emergency at the parish you folks deal with it in a tax exempt manner... leave the public servants to the tax payers.


Right...that's why you posted the info on the scams...because you don't mind that people are donating to that stuff...right? Please.

again i couldn't care less what you do with your money... I just want businesses to pay their share.

Your opinion is based on personal prejudice towards religious institutions, poorly thought through knee jerk reactions and simplistic solutions to what amount to fairly minor problems in the grand sceme of things. You indicated yourself that you're influenced by your experience with the Catholic church. My opinions are based on FACTS based on 7 years of research and what I do for a living...managing strategic design and operational planning for non profits and NGO's, creating business revenue engines for social enterprise organizations and social entrepreneurs and building collaborative partnerships with both for profit and non profit business models.

and because of that i respect your opinion... but don't pretend you don't come to the table with your own prejudices. I too have shown facts that point to abuses within the religious community and again i think it is fair for them to pay their way.

Let me put it this way...when I go to church and drop a dollar in the collection plate so I can support the things my church is doing which I believe in...what right do YOU have to take 25% of that and stick it in your pocket through taxation? It isn't YOUR money. I've already paid my taxes...payroll, sales, property, etc...just like you have. Last year I scarfed up $37K and change for Uncle Sam. Is that enough for you? I also paid into a public school system that my kids don't attend, and I don't complain about it. But my money...ALL OF IT...that I give of my own free will to my church? That's NOT yours...NOT Uncle Sams...nobodies but the people I intended it for. We generate no shareholder profit, and what we do [b]SAVES YOU MONEY.

No they just hide the profits in land, real estate, and other holdings...Tax Free. In most areas of the U.S., a church held property it is taken off the tax base. Guess what that means? I am subsidizeing your religion with my tax dollar. If churches were taxed, either the tax rate could be lowered or needed services could be provided. Communities are already struggling to provide imperative services to protect the lives and property and education of their citizens. Money received from taxing churches could be used to fund law enforcement, fire services, hospitals and schools. But hey as long as every nickle you give to them stays with them why should i care?


And I could care less about Satanists paying taxes...gimme a break...that's absurd. What do you plan on...IRS agents roaming through the woods to locate midnight covens so they can hand out 990 forms?

Don't be a goofball.

No, but i would sure love it if they walked in on your group one Sunday and handed them out.

[TheDave]

Austin Cline is an Atheist. Since you didn't reveal that I figured I would. How surprising he holds this view, which is FULL of total nonsense...LOL
http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=35947

Here's his own statement on his personal views:

I couldn't imagine why i would have trouble finding quotes on religous taxation from the local minister... maybe they don't want to upset the gravy train. :devil:

[Spider]

«««««««««««««««««Bitting my tounge

[TheDave]

«««««««««««««««««Bitting my tounge

since when?

don't tell me you started church of spider and are hording money tax free :)

[Spider]

since when?
:rofl: ........hell you are doing a good job , all I would do is bring the conversasion down a few levels

[Spider]

since when?

don't tell me you started church of spider and are hording money tax free :)
LOL

[TheDave]

LOL

I know how you roll! ;D

[TheDave]

here's a little quote i found from another site:

Many churches spend millions of dollars on their buildings but never put even $1 into helping pay for schools or police and fire protections like other property owners. In many states, the rich church lobbyist have gotten laws passed to exempt churches from even paying sales taxes.

http://www.taxchurches.com/

Warning: I have a feeling that the owners of said site may not be overly religous types...

[Spider]

I know how you roll! ;D
tempting .........if I could bullshít that many people on every sunday ;D

[footstepsfrom#27]

The bottom line here is that you're POV comes from unsupported propaganda generated by a guy who admits to being an Atheist, a fact you conveniently ignored. Second, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to churches being businesses. Do you even know what a non profit is? Most people think non profits are not allowed to earn income, or that employees don't get paid. Neither is true. The basic difference is that non profits don't pay dividends to share holders since they have none, and second, that any revenue they earn has to be used for specific mission objectives related to their non profit purpose. Did you know that churches DO pay taxes? They pay taxes on any revenue they generate that is the result of activity not related to their non profit mission or used for those purposes. Other non profits do the same thing. Corporations that pay taxes get to write off business expenses, and besides that they also pass their overhead on to their customers, which means that ultimately it's the customer who pays for them in the end. Where do churches pass their overhead to? It's the membership who gives their own money in the first place...and they've allready paid their share.

[TheDave]

and another...

An investigative report released by the Humanist Society of Gainesville found that Alachua County residents provided a $1.8 million property tax subsidy to county-wide religious organizations in 1993. A total of 516 religious properties in the county are tax exempt, and carry a total assessed value of approximately $65 million.

The report also analyzes the merits of exempting religious organizations from taxation, and concludes that such an exemption is not only detrimental to the welfare of county residents, but is clearly an unconstitutional endorsement and promotion of religion.

The report urges Alachua County to end its practice of religious property tax exemption.

*same warning as above applies*

[Spider]

well I am in Billings Montana , got kick ass doctor , but man he is deeply religious ...... But I like the little fella , he does somthing I could never do .........

[TheDave]

The bottom line here is that you're POV comes from unsupported propaganda generated by a guy who admits to being an Atheist, a fact you conveniently ignored.

And have since addressed this, now that we are playing the attack the messenger game.


Second, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to churches being businesses. Do you even know what a non profit is? Most people think non profits are not allowed to earn income, or that employees don't get paid. Neither is true. The basic difference is that non profits don't pay dividends to share holders since they have none, and second, that any revenue they earn has to be used for specific mission objectives related to their non profit purpose. Did you know that churches DO pay taxes? They pay taxes on any revenue they generate that is the result of activity not related to their non profit mission or used for those purposes. Other non profits do the same thing. Corporations that pay taxes get to write off business expenses, and besides that they also pass their overhead on to their customers, which means that ultimately it's the customer who pays for them in the end. Where do churches pass their overhead to? It's the membership who gives their own money in the first place...and they've allready paid their share.

Yes having a business degree i do have a basic understanding of what a non-profit organizations are. Since I am not religious is it not fair that at the very least a church pays there property taxes. These are taxes that that as you know effect the general community... As much as you do not want to pay a perceived "Double Tax", I certainly don't want to subsidize your religion. From my POV that's fair.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Yes having a business degree i do have a basic understanding of what a non-profit organizations are. Since I am not religious is it not fair that at the very least a church pays there property taxes. These are taxes that that as you know effect the general community... As much as you do not want to pay a perceived "Double Tax", I certainly don't want to subsidize your religion. From my POV that's fair.
First of all, churches in many communities already pay property taxes, and many more pay on property they own that's not the church building. Second, the government also subsidizes other non profit, non religious community efforts. Neighborhood empowerment zones are a good example. NEZ's qualify low income neighborhoods that meet area, demographic, population and other requirements for all kinds of freebies to stimulate economic growth. Land developers, including for profit companies...other businesses as well...qualify for free or reduced fees, waivers on property taxes, sliding scale reimbusement on construction costs qualifying for rebates...where is your indignity over that? What about non profit hospitals? They don't generally pay property taxes either. Further more, lots of communities also offer tax free or tax reduced property for major for profit corporations that move in. In Dallas the Exxon company is headquartered here. Exxon was given millions in tax incentives to move here despite the facct they make billions.

You are subsidizing NOTHING. The benefits of tax advantages that churches enjoy are repaid mutliple times over again by services they provide that government does not, or cannot afford to pay for. I don't need to quote ministers, churches or other biased sources for information as you did with the Atheist source. This is from the Colorado Legislatures analysis on ballot initiatives, where both pro and con information is expressed, most of which you're already trying to convince me of. You're argument boils down to the fact you think you're paying somebody else's way. You aren't.

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/96bp/amd11.html

Colorado depends on charities and churches to fill many needs. As a society, we rely on charitable groups to provide many human services including counseling, health care, family help programs, programs for the mentally ill, and services for youth. Without this assistance, more needy citizens will be forced to turn to the government for aid, but the private sector can often provide assistance better and for a lower cost than the government. These days, nonprofit community groups are asked to do even more to help the less fortunate in society, but taxing churches and other nonprofit organizations will only reduce their ability to provide charitable services.

Imposing property taxes on churches and charitable organizations will force some to close, eliminating the activities and services they offer. Government cannot possibly replace them all since no increased money will be available and some rely on volunteers today. Services that may be lost include those that the community has a duty to provide, such as medical assistance, food banks, child care, meals on wheels, soup kitchens, and social activities for youth and the elderly. Further, many communities in Colorado are served by nonprofit hospitals, which are currently exempt. This amendment could force many of these hospitals to increase their charges for services, possibly reducing access to health care for many Coloradans.

Residential property owners in some areas could pay more in property taxes because of this measure. The main beneficiaries will be businesses and industries because they pay the largest share of property taxes. The small benefit to taxpayers is not worth the $70 million burden that this amendment places on religious and charitable organizations.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Signing out...

[TheDave]

First of all, churches in many communities already pay property taxes, and many more pay on property they own that's not the church building. Second, the government also subsidizes other non profit, non religious community efforts. Neighborhood empowerment zones are a good example. NEZ's qualify low income neighborhoods that meet area, demographic, population and other requirements for all kinds of freebies to stimulate economic growth.

I guess you missed this...

An investigative report released by the Humanist Society of Gainesville found that Alachua County residents provided a $1.8 million property tax subsidy to county-wide religious organizations in 1993. A total of 516 religious properties in the county are tax exempt, and carry a total assessed value of approximately $65 million.

The report also analyzes the merits of exempting religious organizations from taxation, and concludes that such an exemption is not only detrimental to the welfare of county residents, but is clearly an unconstitutional endorsement and promotion of religion.





Land developers, including for profit companies...other businesses as well...qualify for free or reduced fees, waivers on property taxes, sliding scale reimbursement on construction costs qualifying for rebates...where is your indignity over that? What about non profit hospitals? They don't generally pay property taxes either. Further more, lots of communities also offer tax free or tax reduced property for major for profit corporations that move in. In Dallas the Exxon company is headquartered here. Exxon was given millions in tax incentives to move here despite the fact they make billions.

You must not of read some of the stuff i say about Exxon and their buddies... Trust me i am plenty pissed about this. But i also understand why a community would give freebies to companies that could easily employ hundreds possibly thousands of their citizens...Not quite an apples to apples comparison.

As for a community hospital or church...Hmmm... I'm going to take the hospital every time... Sorry


You are subsidizing NOTHING. The benefits of tax advantages that churches enjoy are repaid mutliple times over again by services they provide that government does not, or cannot afford to pay for. I don't need to quote ministers, churches or other biased sources for information as you did with the Atheist source. This is from the Colorado Legislatures analysis on ballot initiatives, where both pro and con information is expressed, most of which you're already trying to convince me of. You're argument boils down to the fact you think you're paying somebody else's way. You aren't.

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/96bp/amd11.html

Colorado depends on charities and churches to fill many needs. As a society, we rely on charitable groups to provide many human services including counseling, health care, family help programs, programs for the mentally ill, and services for youth. Without this assistance, more needy citizens will be forced to turn to the government for aid, but the private sector can often provide assistance better and for a lower cost than the government. These days, nonprofit community groups are asked to do even more to help the less fortunate in society, but taxing churches and other nonprofit organizations will only reduce their ability to provide charitable services.

Imposing property taxes on churches and charitable organizations will force some to close, eliminating the activities and services they offer. Government cannot possibly replace them all since no increased money will be available and some rely on volunteers today. Services that may be lost include those that the community has a duty to provide, such as medical assistance, food banks, child care, meals on wheels, soup kitchens, and social activities for youth and the elderly. Further, many communities in Colorado are served by nonprofit hospitals, which are currently exempt. This amendment could force many of these hospitals to increase their charges for services, possibly reducing access to health care for many Coloradans.

Residential property owners in some areas could pay more in property taxes because of this measure. The main beneficiaries will be businesses and industries because they pay the largest share of property taxes. The small benefit to taxpayers is not worth the $70 million burden that this amendment places on religious and charitable organizations.


From your same link:

1) Fairness dictates that everyone who uses public services share the costs of paying for those services. Tax-exempt organizations receive police and fire protection and benefit from libraries, streets, public schools, and other services paid for by the property tax, without paying the tax. By charging only some property owners for costs incurred by all, the current system forces taxpayers to subsidize these exempt organizations. Homeowners and businesses should not have to subsidize organizations that they do not choose to support. Exemptions should only be allowed for purposes that the community has a duty to provide - schools, orphanages, community corrections facilities, and housing for low-income elderly, disabled, homeless, or abused persons.

2) The exemptions allowed today have been broadened far beyond the wording of the constitution, leading to abuses. The constitution specifically exempts from taxation any property that is used solely and exclusively for religious worship or for strictly charitable purposes. However, over time the definition has been expanded to include many other types of property not directly related to religious worship or strictly charitable purposes, such as parsonages, camp facilities, office space, and athletic facilities. Also, many groups organized as "charitable" primarily use their exempt property for the benefit of their limited membership, not for society as a whole. On the other hand, many businesses perform charitable acts without the exemption.

3) Requiring religious organizations to pay property taxes, like all other organizations, ensures and honors the concept of separation of church and state. Government should be neutral toward religion, but the exemption indirectly forces others to subsidize religious groups by paying higher property taxes. A tax on essential public services is not a tax on religious beliefs, and removing the tax exemption will not infringe on any rights connected with religious freedom.

4) The current exemptions give an unfair advantage to nonprofit organizations competing directly with similar businesses in the private sector. For example, some nonprofits provide the same facilities and services as restaurants, health clubs, stables, or outdoor camps, but they can charge lower fees than private companies because their costs are lower without property taxes. Likewise, nonprofit day care facilities and hospitals do not pay property taxes, so they have an unfair advantage in competing with other day care or health care facilities. The subsidy provided through property tax exemptions distorts the competitive nature of the market place and should be eliminated.

5) The measure provides property tax relief. The $70 million in revenue collected from religious and nonprofit groups is not an increase for the government; it will be returned to taxpayers through lower mill levies. Communities with more new taxable property would see greater reductions in their mill levies. The amendment lightens the property tax burden of those currently paying the tax, while still taking care of the needy.

Seems that i'm not the only one with the Subsidy idea...

Thanks for the link!

[TheDave]

Signing out...


Fair enough...

[Taco John]

As a libertarian minded individual, it makes me smile when I see states asserting their rights. Abortion shouldn't be a federal issue. It should be a state issue.

[maven]

As a libertarian minded individual, it makes me smile when I see states asserting their rights. Abortion shouldn't be a federal issue. It should be a state issue.

No gov't should decide what one person wants to do with their own body regarding abortion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No gov't should decide what one person wants to do with their own body regarding abortion.

Bingo. :thumbs:

This is just another example of how the "pro-life" (a misnomer if ever there was one) people flip-flop in regard to their nominal "get government off our backs" mindset.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I guess you missed this...

An investigative report released by the Humanist Society of Gainesville found that Alachua County residents provided a $1.8 million property tax subsidy to county-wide religious organizations in 1993. A total of 516 religious properties in the county are tax exempt, and carry a total assessed value of approximately $65 million.

The report also analyzes the merits of exempting religious organizations from taxation, and concludes that such an exemption is not only detrimental to the welfare of county residents, but is clearly an unconstitutional endorsement and promotion of religion.
You really shouldn't have put this up here. I didn't miss it. It took a while to stop laughing once I checked it out though. First of all, this "investigative report" is nothing remotely close to that. "The Humanist Society of Gainesville" doing an "investigative report" on something related to churches is a bit like the KKK weighing in on Martin Luther King. But just for laughs I decided to check it out.

This might make a decent 3rd grade book report but I'm afraid that's about it. The "investigative report" is a collection of atheistic writings offering no objectivity whatsoever, no citations for it's source material beyond a bibliography at the end, and obviously no actual research beyond a benign set of figures supposedly representing property values of churches in a Florida county. Most of the information is not traceable online so it's impossible to tell what any of it actually said. The funniest part however are the absurd sources for this mess. The 9 sources include the American Atheist Magazine, two different references to "Freethought Today" another Atheist magazine printed by the Society for the Freedom from Religion, a 30 year old article by Madeline Murray O'Hair, an article by oddball (deceased) New York ACLU lawyer Steven Delibert, a couple of untraceable newspaper articles, one from an obscure small Georgia town, and a 75 year old article by a 19th century Franciscan monk turned atheist named Joseph McCabe.

Color me unimpressed.

One of the main points addressed is that churches don't really benefit society with social or community services...it's all for their money grubbing wealthy ministers and rich church goers fancy buildings instead of helping people. No real data is available...only opinion. But just so you can get an idea what kind of "analysis" (the Humanist Society claims they did an "analysis"...remember?) doing this actually involves, I've taken the liberty of posting a few links from the training manuals of the 2005 Global Social Venture Competition, an international business competition sponsored by the University of California, University of Columbia, London School of Business and the Yale based Goldman Sachs Foundation, a philanthropic think tank that suports research into non profit management, community investment, socially responsible business and social entrepreneurship. The GSVC is a competition with hundreds of teams of MBA's from all over the world who have to produce a sustainable business plan and measure the SROI (Social Return On Investment) using accepted business metrics and measuring tools to calculate, monetize and quantify the benefit to the community per dollar invested. This is what you have to do before you know anything about this subject, and what your "investigative report" obviously didn't do.

We're a little past Madelline Murray O'Hair here: http://socialvc.net/

The GSVC website offers a bit of inight into just how difficult it is to measure, monetize and quantify SROI, even for MBA's who do this for a living. How for example...do you measure the impact of church people offering rides to work for those without a car? How do you measure the importance of a life spent in church instead of running the streets selling drugs? Can you calculate what the benefit is when a sick old woman gets meals delivered by a minister or the churches youth pull weeds in her yard to keep her from having to hurt her back doing it? Can you?

Obviously the Humanist Society of Gainesville didn't do anything remotely like this, nor do they even realize that everything they said was pure BS unless they did this kind of research. Take a crack at it if you want to...figure out how much SROI the local soup kitchen is producing maybe? The First Baptist Church? Here's a start:

http://socialvc.net/_uploads/documents/live/SROIStandardGuidelinesI.pdf

http://www.socialvc.net/_data/N_0001/Resources/live/PrismaSROI.pdf

http://www.socialvc.net/_uploads/documents/live/CBS_GSVC_SIA_Mentoring_WKSHP_2004-5.pdf


“To claim that tangible assets should be measured and
valued, while intangibles should not - or could not - is like
stating that 'things' are valuable, while 'ideas' are not."

~ Barach Lev, Professor
Stern School of Business, New York University
Thanks for the link!
Why do you think I told you it was there? Because it represented a source with both sides...not the kind of drivell you're posting in here.

To truly appreciate this topic...you'd need to do something I did a few months ago here in Dallas. Check out the real world. Driving around south Dallas in the cities poorest neighborhoods I discovered dozens of old churches now long since abandoned and overgrown with weeds. Some looked like they'd folded in the last year...some decades ago. All had one thing in common...they went under because they couldn't make it financially...the people in the church couldn't sustain it because they didn't have the funds. Can you calculate the lost value to community pride? To community safety? To lost lives shot in drive-bys from kids who used to have a place to go on a Saturday night and now they don't? These are HUMAN costs we're talking about here...not just dollars and cents.

I'm working on a neighborhood re-development project in another area of town...in Fort Worth. The area is bad...but the residents proudly told me they have 32 churches there...they're small....poor...look like nothing at all. They even own a little property in some cases...most of it pathetic looking.

But they provide something no tax supported government program ever can...HOPE.

Can you measure that?

[TheDave]

Hears how this works...

You start off with your attack the messenger trick saying that they are nothing but bias and that i have simply just fallen for a pack of Atheistic lies... But then you follow it up with telling me i should drive around a poor neighborhood to "See" what is really going on. Yeah, cause when you drove through those impoverished areas I'm sure you did so with out your Jesus glasses on. Sorry, but a drive through poor places looking for church created hope doesn't hold any more water with me than my godless 3rd grade sources hold for you.


Ironically everything that i have said about subsidizing religion was confirmed in that link that you provided...even though every statement i made was challenged with "You don't know what you are talking about".


Here is the great news for you. It's not going to change... Right now our society is just too religious and our tax code too screwed up to make any worthwhile changes. On the other hand the bad news is that people like me exist. People that are able to find hope and meaning without subscribing to a particular religious doctrine...

[footstepsfrom#27]

Hears how this works...

You start off with your attack the messenger trick saying that they are nothing but bias and that i have simply just fallen for a pack of Atheistic lies...
Gimme a break. Attack the messenger? That's to laughable for words. The "messenger" DESERVES ATTACKING...is BEGGING to be attacked...LOL It's called "credibililty". When you post something to prove your point, you ought to consider if the source is credible, particularly to the other side you're trying to convince. If I threw up something here from Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson or George W. Bush, you'd be laughing yourself silly that I was stupid enough to think you'd buy into that, and justifiably so. Those guys are biased, not objective information sources. I don't need to "attack the messenger" even though it is rather fun to do so...I can simply attack what they SAY...since it's complete BS. So maybe when you decided to post an "analysis", done by an "investigative report"...you should have considered two things 1) is the source biased or unbiased?...and 2) is this actually an "investigative" report? Newsflash: a hastily thrown together propaganda piece done by the Hummanist Society of Gainesville quoting Madeline Murray O'Hair and a bunch of online atheist publications isn't going to convince ANYONE not already on board with your POV. I can't believe you dragged that stuff in here...LOL I also can't believe they called that an "investigative report". You quote and CITE sources and do RESEARCH for an investigative report...and you begin with an UNBIASED approach to finding the results of that research so you know what position you should support. These fools simply took their already biased opinions and grafted nonsense onto it by people who don't know any more than they do. To funny...your entire position was destroyed with that pile of dung...TOTAL lack of credibility.
But then you follow it up with telling me i should drive around a poor neighborhood to "See" what is really going on. Yeah, cause when you drove through those impoverished areas I'm sure you did so with out your Jesus glasses on. Sorry, but a drive through poor places looking for church created hope doesn't hold any more water with me than my godless 3rd grade sources hold for you.
Jesus glasses? Uh...right. I went with a group of developers looking for investment opportunities in the community. You missed the entire point. The POINT is that one of the main arguments made by the little atheist rags you quoted has to do with churches not actually providing social benefit to the community, which is the key question in this whole debate...and the reason I targeted that issue. Because if they DO provide more benefit than their tax advantages negate, then it's simply good business to let them be the outsource providers for many social services. MY point, which you don't get...is that these silly little atheist organizations ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO KNOW whether they do or not because they have no idea how to figure that out. Neither do you. You're rambling on about something that you know didly jack squat about, and your feable attempts to toss out "investigative reporting" from these idiots is an absolute joke. The links I provided give you a good idea on what's required to measure the social impact of non profits, religious or otherwise. It's an extremely complicated undertaking to monetize, quantify and measure SROI...something that takes a lot of expertise to do, and something your "investigative report" ommited because they are UNAWARE of it. You gave me Madeline Murray O'Hair and a dead Franciscan monk. I gave you Columbia University and the Goldman Sachs Foundation...advantage...me.
Ironically everything that i have said about subsidizing religion was confirmed in that link that you provided...even though every statement i made was challenged with "You don't know what you are talking about".
Uh...H-E-L-L-O....dude...you DON'T know what you're talking about...do you NOT get it? Why do you think I GAVE you the link?...and also TOLD you it was there with support for your position?... SO YOU WOULD USE IT.

Duh.

I wanted you to see something OBJECTIVE since all you could come up with was the Humanist Society and their "analysis". And for your information...nothing in that information "confirms" anything at all. It's simply the Colorado legislature's attempt to state the basic issues involved so voters will be able to weigh different considerations. They state both pro and con arguments for each position and I quoted the stuff of interest to mine and left you to check out yours. No wonder you can't post anything worth a crap on this...you don't know the difference between research, supporting evidence, political propaganda and mere statements on a ballot meant to summarize the issue. There was nothing in that link you hadn't already mentioned...I was simply showing you how it was handled by the Colorado election commission when they put the issue on the ballot. Sheesh!
On the other hand the bad news is that people like me exist. People that are able to find hope and meaning without subscribing to a particular religious doctrine...
Dude...will you EVER get it? This is not about "subscribing to a particular religious doctriine". I don't CARE whether you do or not...not my business. It's not about that. It's about ECONOMICS. It's about what the top 20 business schools in the United States...top 50 in the world...Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Wharton...University of Toronto...Duke...etc...are doing to prepare for a MAJOR change in the way our economy functions. What you don't seem to understand is that is what it's about for ME also. The church I go to would not be affected either way by something like you're talking about. They raise huge amounts of money and provide ENORMOUS societal benefits all over Dallas and around the world. But it's about small, poor churches on the front lines in impoverished communities, and how you identify the needs of disenfranchised people and those falling through the government social services safety net in small niche markets where community resources from government barely exist. It's about the FACT that government CAN NOT meet the tsunami wave of social problems and issues we are facing 10 years from now, and why creative non profits, churches and other FBO's hold the key to doing this kind of work. It's about the fact that our ageing work force and sliding position in the world economy based on information, math and science is leaving us in a position where we are going to see massive new social problems and a much SMALLER tax base to work with. If you taxed every single church in America with property, income and any other kind of tax you could name it would not produce a drop in the bucket compared to what we're going to need. Who is going to provide these services? Government? Don't make me laugh. They cannot even maintain it NOW. In 20 years when all the baby boomer are retired and our work force is almost entirely service related, and our IT cannot compete with massive Asian work forces that have the same level of technological infrastructure but work for pennies on the dollar...how do we take care of people in need? Where does it come from? It comes from business models designed to compete in different areas where we're stronger...and from services provided by small, lean, innovative and collaborative organizations like churches, social entrepreneurs, dedicated social investment strategies in global markets...all the stuff that eggheads at Harvard Business School are sitting around in smoke filled rooms dreaming up.

It won't come from the Gainesville Humanist Society.

Why do you think I keep giving you BUSINESS reasons for this? You keep harping on religion and trying to tell me that atheists know what this is about, which is ludicrous...and I keep posting serious information, research, links to web sites, universitity programs, etc...GET A CLUE.

[TheDave]

wow another 6+ paragraphs ranting, raving, and attacking everything that doesn't support your POV... Relax, it's not going to change anyway.

[footstepsfrom#27]

wow another 6+ paragraphs ranting, raving, and attacking everything that doesn't support your POV... Relax, it's not going to change anyway.
Six paragraphs to tough for ya? Maybe if I threw in a link to what a dead Franciscan monk thought that would make it more appealing.

I'm done with you. You're not even remotely interested in whether what I'm saying is true or not, only in continuing to push an anti-religion agenda I couldn't care less about...and for somebody with a business degree you are shockingly ignorant of what all this is about.

Go read something with pictures and large print.

I'm out...

[TheDave]

Six paragraphs to tough for ya? Maybe if I threw in a link to what a dead Franciscan monk thought that would make it more appealing.

I'm done with you. You're not even remotely interested in whether what I'm saying is true or not, only in continuing to push an anti-religion agenda I couldn't care less about...and for somebody with a business degree you are shockingly ignorant of what all this is about.

Go read something with pictures and large print.

I'm out...

and then follows it with a buch of personal attacks... Like i said... RELAX

[Rohirrim]

If I was going to be born in South Dakota, I'd want to be aborted too. Ha!

[alkemical]

I'm torn on this. I'm for the state to choose, but i'm against just banning out and out something can does have benifit.

[Crushaholic]

No gov't should decide what one person wants to do with their own body regarding abortion.

Murder is a crime outside the womb and should be a crime inside the womb. This is not a tumor growing inside of a mother. It's a separate individual. Pro-choice people like to throw the "it's my body" argument around like they are going in and having dental work or something.

[alkemical]

Murder is a crime outside the womb and should be a crime inside the womb. This is not a tumor growing inside of a mother. It's a separate individual. Pro-choice people like to throw the "it's my body" argument around like they are going in and having dental work or something.


then why impose what impeding judgement would come their way? Wouldn't that be for your god to decide? Isn't it about free will?

[Crushaholic]

then why impose what impeding judgement would come their way? Wouldn't that be for your god to decide? Isn't it about free will?

In my mind, this has nothing to do with God. Society has determined that murder should be a punishable offense. A life inside the womb should be protected in the same manner.

[alkemical]

In my mind, this has nothing to do with God. Society has determined that murder should be a punishable offense. A life inside the womb should be protected in the same manner.


then war is murder as well, and our gov't should be held responsible for those deaths, agree?

[GonzoLays]

then war is murder as well, and our gov't should be held responsible for those deaths, agree?


You are getting to deep on them, amesj523.

[alkemical]

You are getting to deep on them, amesj523.


Well i want to know if 'killing is murder' - then how and when do you justify murder?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If I was going to be born in South Dakota, I'd want to be aborted too. Ha!

Hilarious!

[Crushaholic]

then war is murder as well, and our gov't should be held responsible for those deaths, agree?

In wartime, there is an enemy trying to kill you first. That's completely different than killing someone whose crime is just being conceived...

[BroncoInferno]

In wartime, there is an enemy trying to kill you first. That's completely different than killing someone whose crime is just being conceived...

But what if you iniate the war?

[alkemical]

In wartime, there is an enemy trying to kill you first. That's completely different than killing someone whose crime is just being conceived...


Murder is murder is it not?

what about the innocents that died by our bombs, etc?

[alkemical]

any answers to the last few questions?

[alkemical]

Silence, thanks!

[bendog]

Mississippi is gonna ban abortion too, and the best part is that if the woman sought counseling, we have to pay for the kiddies healthcare till age 19. who said there isn't a right to heathcare in our society? (errrrrrrrrr)

[Traveler]

Murder is murder is it not?

what about the innocents that died by our bombs, etc?:thanku:


True! Same argument folks have about the death penalty. However hard they try, the argument doesn't hold water. Like you said, "murder is murder!"

[alkemical]

I want to understand the dynamics of hypocrisy.

[alkemical]

Mississippi is gonna ban abortion too, and the best part is that if the woman sought counseling, we have to pay for the kiddies healthcare till age 19. who said there isn't a right to heathcare in our society? (errrrrrrrrr)


19???

that's not right.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Paging bendog...

Mississippi to ban abortion?

A state House committee voted to ban most abortions in Mississippi,
which already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation.

The bill approved Tuesday would allow abortion only to save the pregnant woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/ap_on_re_us/mississippi_abortion_1;_ylt=AiPy4XWHPvo9QxIL8lj1gJ 6B_YEA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

So, the GOP wants to force women to have their rapist's baby. They want to force 14 year-olds to give birth to their brothers and sisters.

[clarker]

Paging bendog...

Mississippi to ban abortion?

A state House committee voted to ban most abortions in Mississippi,
which already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation.

The bill approved Tuesday would allow abortion only to save the pregnant woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/ap_on_re_us/mississippi_abortion_1;_ylt=AiPy4XWHPvo9QxIL8lj1gJ 6B_YEA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

So, the GOP wants to force women to have their rapist's baby. They want to force 14 year-olds to give birth to their brothers and sisters.This bill was written by a democrat. From the link you posted.

"The Mississippi lawmaker who introduced the near-ban, Democrat Steve Holland, said he acted because he was tired of piecemeal attempts to add new abortion restrictions year after year."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This bill was written by a democrat.

One of the last of the dixiecrats, no doubt.

I guess this is what he has to do to hold onto his seat in Miss.

What a joke this guy is.

[clarker]

One of the last of the dixiecrats, no doubt.

I guess this is what he has to do to hold onto his seat in Miss.

What a joke this guy is.Your probably right. I just thought it was funny that you assumed it was Republicans who wrote it.

To be fair, I can understand why. Banning abortion is the far right's pass time.

I really don't know how I feel about it. It is a very tricky question. However when they want to ban it in cases of rape and incest, that is too far for me.

I heard that part of the SD bill even went as far as saying that not only can a women not have a abortion in the case of rape, they are required to let the rapist have the rights to visit the child. I don't know if that is true, but if it is that is f.cked up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your probably right. I just thought it was funny that you assumed it was Republicans who wrote it.

Steve Holland is just a Republican who happens to have a 'D' after his name.

[clarker]

Steve Holland is just a Republican who happens to have a 'D' after his name.Ok,what ever you say.;D

[Spider]

Your probably right. I just thought it was funny that you assumed it was Republicans who wrote it.

To be fair, I can understand why. Banning abortion is the far right's pass time.

I really don't know how I feel about it. It is a very tricky question. However when they want to ban it in cases of rape and incest, that is too far for me.

I heard that part of the SD bill even went as far as saying that not only can a women not have a abortion in the case of rape, they are required to let the rapist have the rights to visit the child. I don't know if that is true, but if it is that is f.cked up.
lets put it this way last time I wasin S.Dakota i was in Belle fart ....Belle ****s.......err bellesucks.........err the Shíthole north of Spearfish , all i did was fight with the locals over the Denver broncos , if the Idiots are not smart enough to be Broncos fans ...........I dont put anything past the pricks

[clarker]

lets put it this way last time I wasin S.Dakota i was in Belle fart ....Belle ****s.......err bellesucks.........err the Shíthole north of Spearfish , all i did was fight with the locals over the Denver broncos , if the Idiots are not smart enough to be Broncos fans ...........I dont put anything past the pricksHey man I live in Belle Fourche. It is a ****ty town, but there some good people here and some jack asses. Just like everywhere else in the world. Not many Broncos fans though.

[Spider]

Hey man I live in Belle Fourche. It is a ****ty town, but there some good people here and some jack asses. Just like everywhere else in the world. Not many Broncos fans though.highway 212 and 34 meet there is a truckstop there .......... I was the big guy that told a few of them pricks off

[clarker]

highway 212 and 34 meet there is a truckstop there .......... I was the big guy that told a few of them pricks offDude, they have the right to cheer for who they want. It makes them stupid for not being Broncos fans, but it is their right to be that stupid.;D

[Spider]

Dude, they have the right to cheer for who they want. It makes them stupid for not being Broncos fans, but it is their right to be that stupid.;D
well they didnt talk back after i got pissed , my advice to them is dont give thier opinion when it wasnt asked for ......... All Iwanted to do was eat my dinner and watch the game ........