"Put Gays and Lesbians in Electrified Pen to Kill Them Off"

[EmperorNorton]

I love Christianity. All about loving your neighbor, unless you're a damn queer.


[EDIT]

[GGT]

I saw this a few days ago, and almost added it to *cough* other threads in D & D....

I've also waited to see who'd post a reply here in Community Chat, to this kind of outrageous and hateful 'speech' that's hiding under the auspice of religious freedom. I'm tired of waiting, and disappointed that I'm the first to reply.

This "church" and their pastor can preach any outrageous thing they like, and call it "religious freedom". But they can't preach politics from the pulpit, encourage parishioners to vote a certain way, and expect to retain their tax-exempt non-political status.

Now, if we can hold the Roman Catholic Church to that same standard, we might actually get somewhere.

[Loki]

They can actually preach politics (just think about what not preaching politics would entail); they can't say which candidate/party to vote for. And I like how you try to use an article about an idiotic pastor to make a point for censorship.

[GGT]

They can actually preach politics (just think about what not preaching politics would entail); they can't say which candidate/party to vote for. And I like how you try to use an article about an idiotic pastor to make a point for censorship.

Clergy can unwittingly endorse one party over the other...in every sermon that invokes their version of interpreted Biblical morality, and encourages parishioners to "vote" those religious beliefs accordingly. It's one thing for the Pope/Vatican to decry birth control as a "sin", and quite another to have a Diocese, Bishops, Priests or parishioners fighting against Planned Parenthood....or demanding that every Walgreen's or Rite Aid pharmacy take condoms off their shelves...or employ Pharmacists who can invoke a religious exemption against filling BCP or Plan B prescriptions.

I like how you try to call that censorship.

[RandBlade]

Clergy can unwittingly endorse one party over the other...in every sermon that invokes their version of interpreted Biblical morality, and encourages parishioners to "vote" those religious beliefs accordingly. It's one thing for the Pope/Vatican to decry birth control as a "sin", and quite another to have a Diocese, Bishops, Priests or parishioners fighting against Planned Parenthood....or demanding that every Walgreen's or Rite Aid pharmacy take condoms off their shelves...or employ Pharmacists who can invoke a religious exemption against filling BCP or Plan B prescriptions.

I like how you try to call that censorship.

Then become an atheist

[Flixy]

It is a bit silly that they are tax exempt, of course. I'm hoping similar non religious organizations are also exempt over there? (they are here)

[Nessus]

Then become an atheist

Hate-speech

[Loki]

Clergy can unwittingly endorse one party over the other...in every sermon that invokes their version of interpreted Biblical morality, and encourages parishioners to "vote" those religious beliefs accordingly. It's one thing for the Pope/Vatican to decry birth control as a "sin", and quite another to have a Diocese, Bishops, Priests or parishioners fighting against Planned Parenthood....or demanding that every Walgreen's or Rite Aid pharmacy take condoms off their shelves...or employ Pharmacists who can invoke a religious exemption against filling BCP or Plan B prescriptions.

I like how you try to call that censorship.

So if a biology teacher says that evolution is correct and that their students should vote on that basis, they're endorsing a party and should be fired? Like I said, you never think your positions through. As usual, your position is "anyone I don't like should only be able to do things I approve of".

It is a bit silly that they are tax exempt, of course. I'm hoping similar non religious organizations are also exempt over there? (they are here)

Yes, they are. Finding facts in GGT's posts is like finding love in al-Qaeda videos.

[RandBlade]

So if a biology teacher says that evolution is correct and that their students should vote on that basis, they're endorsing a party and should be fired? Like I said, you never think your positions through. As usual, your position is "anyone I don't like should only be able to do things I approve of".

Absolutely a biology teacher shouldn't be encouraging students how to vote. That is totally inappropriate. Better comparison is a charity.

Then again pupils are forced to go to schools by law, people choose what congregation if any they're a part of and can choose like me to be a part of none.

[Loki]

How is that different from all the pro-environment propaganda taught in schools?

[RandBlade]

How is that different from all the pro-environment propaganda taught in schools?

Teaching about global warming from a scientific appropriate - Appropriate
Advising pupils to vote for pro-environment parties - Not Appropriate.

[Aimless]

How is that different from all the pro-environment propaganda taught in schools?

Indeed, even today I find it very difficult to fight down the urge to hate environments and to place all environments inside electrified pens until they die.

[Loki]

Teaching about global warming from a scientific appropriate - Appropriate
Advising pupils to vote for pro-environment parties - Not Appropriate.

The more apt analogy would be "this is an important issue, and if you care about it, you should not be afraid to vote solely on the basis of this issue".

[RandBlade]

The more apt analogy would be "this is an important issue, and if you care about it, you should not be afraid to vote solely on the basis of this issue".

Inappropriate. A teacher should not give any instructions on how one should vote.

[Steely Glint]

Kind of academic, given how you're practically done with school by the time you can vote?

[Flixy]

can't start too early with indoctrination

[Aimless]

Out of curiosity, what does this tax exemption business have to do with freedom of speech?

[RandBlade]

Out of curiosity, what does this tax exemption business have to do with freedom of speech?

Religions are classed the same as charities and so are exempt from certain taxes. Freedom of Speech prevents the government discriminating against religions or favouring religions, so in order to be even they would have to tax all religions (and potentially all charities) if they taxed any. Personally despite being an atheist I agree that a religion is more like a charity than like a business.

[Lewkowski]

I think the whole "You should Vote" is bad.

[RandBlade]

Previous generations have died to fight for our right to vote, you should vote. You shouldn't have to, but you should want to/understand why it's important.

[Aimless]

Religions are classed the same as charities and so are exempt from certain taxes. Freedom of Speech prevents the government discriminating against religions or favouring religions, so in order to be even they would have to tax all religions (and potentially all charities) if they taxed any. Personally despite being an atheist I agree that a religion is more like a charity than like a business.

From what I've heard, "charitable" contributions to religious orgnisations in the US amounts to almost $100B/year, and last I heard faith-based lobbying amounts to a few hundred million per year. If you include the merchandising I'd guess the total revenue and profit of religious organisations in the US would be even higher. And where does that money go? Yes, religious organisations do a lot of great work, but I'm fairly sure that's not all the money goes to. It goes to salaries--where many get a little and some get a lot--and to recruitment and to lobbying. I dunno if they can be considered to be particularly effective businesses but I don't buy the comparison to charities or to educational organisations.

[GGT]

So if a biology teacher says that evolution is correct and that their students should vote on that basis, they're endorsing a party and should be fired? Like I said, you never think your positions through. As usual, your position is "anyone I don't like should only be able to do things I approve of".

My "position" is quite clear. Biology teachers are responsible for conveying scientific factual data, as well as introducing theories. Social Science and Philosophy teachers are responsible for helping students learn how to compile data, theories, put them into context, and come to their own conclusions.

Any public K-12 biology teacher that melds evolution theory with voting is teaching beyond the scope of their field. Since they use public tax dollars, they can (theoretically) be fired.

Any clergy that melds religious theory with voting is preaching beyond the pulpit. Since they're tax-exempt religious entities, they can (theoretically) choose between proselytizing or giving up their tax-exempt status.

Several non-religious groups have tax exempt status. Including PACs and super-PACs that directly influence our voting process. They don't hide behind the religious exemption, but instead use the Money is Speech and Corporations are People.

Yes, they are. Finding facts in GGT's posts is like finding love in al-Qaeda videos.

[GGT]

Kind of academic, given how you're practically done with school by the time you can vote?

Not in the US. Most of my friends voted for POTUS during HS, but I wasn't an eligible voter until freshmen year of college, and had to wait a few years until the next presidential election.

[RandBlade]

From what I've heard, "charitable" contributions to religious orgnisations in the US amounts to almost $100B/year, and last I heard faith-based lobbying amounts to a few hundred million per year. If you include the merchandising I'd guess the total revenue and profit of religious organisations in the US would be even higher. And where does that money go? Yes, religious organisations do a lot of great work, but I'm fairly sure that's not all the money goes to. It goes to salaries--where many get a little and some get a lot--and to recruitment and to lobbying. I dunno if they can be considered to be particularly effective businesses but I don't buy the comparison to charities or to educational organisations.

Charities play salaries - and lobby.

I got into a Facebook argument the other day with an old friend from uni. She works for the charity Oxfam and is lobbying for an introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax, or as they call it "Robin Hood Tax". I respect Oxfam but won't personally donate to them while they're using that money to lobby for a tax I bitterly oppose, but I don't think they're not a charity because they're doing that. Oxfam has a team of people on salary doing that. All major charities spend a lot on salaries.

[RandBlade]

Not in the US. Most of my friends voted for POTUS during HS, but I wasn't an eligible voter until freshmen year of college, and had to wait a few years until the next presidential election.

Considering you guys have an election every other year I imagine a significant chunk of people are able to cast their first ballots before leaving HS.

[Catgrrl]

Man, if you've seen some of the mega churches in the good ol' South, you know where the money goes. Drove by one in NC that was so huge, the parking lot had a van that took churchgoers from the end of the lot to the front door. Like a fuckin' theme park. What the hell would you go to a giant church?!?!

Maybe I should have gone in, there could have been a rollercoaster inside...

[RandBlade]

Across Europe many Church buildings are architectural and historical marvels. A lot of Church income is spent on upkeep, I'm happy with that. It would not be a shame to lose religion, it would be a shame to lose the Churches and Cathedrals.

[Catgrrl]

Don't get me wrong, I love architecture too. The only reason I set foot in some religious institutions, really. The church I'm thinking of is an older congregation dating back to the 1930s, but this new building is less than 10 years old. They have a 3 million dollar organ. And a cafe. And a library. 5,000 capacity seating in the main chapel. Not sure how any of this gets you into Heaven faster, though. Megachurches I think they call them. They're really big business. It's kind of ugly too. Big and pink.

Found it! Calvary Church: http://www.calvarychurch.com/site/index.cfm

[RandBlade]

Sounds cool.

Private non-profit-making libraries would generally be charities too won't they? So not sure having a charity ought to negate tax-free status.

[Catgrrl]

I'm not saying they can't have tax-free status; I just find it a bit of a gross advantage of the tax-free issue. But as long as they are using it as "charity" and for the church's growth itself I don't have a problem. I'm just griping about the hypocrisy of organized religion. "Give us money to feed the poor; oh ya, we just bought a laser light show and the pastor got a new Benz!" It's all about the business of saving souls, and reaping the monetary reward for it. I kind of applaud their getting around the loophole of taxes: pretend to care about the souls of others and strike it rich! I definitely can't understand being a serious worshipper at a facility like that.

EDIT: I'm not saying that no ones pays taxes on the laser light show and Benz, that's just leftover money from the collection plate right into someone's pocket so what's a little sales tax on those items.