PIE!
-
Posts
813 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by PIE!
-
-
My almost 11 year old has no interest in boys. She does have the occasional fleeting interest in make-up, but I tell her she's too young and she's fine with that.
-
So I’ve read your links and you bring up some interesting points.
Through this remember that separating church and state are discussions of institutions, not people. I am a member of a church and a citizen of a state, but I am still one person, so what I do personally with my vote will be a reflection of my beliefs, as with every other citizen. I do not separate myself into a church side and a state side, and it would be unreasonable to ask anybody to section off their personality in any way when it came time to vote.
1st link – When any candidate is running for office their background will be brought into play. It would be foolish to vote for someone without knowing their history. Since many Americans are religious, it makes sense many candidates will have religious backgrounds. Since many Americans are religious it also makes sense that many Americans will want to know about those backgrounds. Since people tend to prefer voting for like-minded people, it makes sense that similar religious views might be an attraction to voters. I do not think one’s religion ought to be one’s entire platform (as it unfortunately is sometimes), but expecting people to ignore the religion of candidates isn’t realistic in this country. It also doesn’t have much to do with the taxation of churches, since candidates are running as individuals, and not as official representatives of their churches.
2nd link – We agree here that the law regarding churches endorsing candidates should be enforced. Any church telling its members how to vote should be penalized. If churches are no longer granted their special tax-exempt status though, then they should be allowed to back candidates, as they are no longer a separate entity from the state. That is something neither of us wants to see happen, which is one reason I am against taxing churches. I have a hard time understanding what exactly you want here. You want churches to be taxed, and you don’t want them to tell followers how to vote. I don’t think you can have it both ways. And again, I realize there are some churches violating the law here, but in my opinion the enforcing of the law is a better solution than figuring that they’ll get away with it anyway so let’s tax all churches.
3rd link – I’ll admit to unfamiliarity with lobbying laws. I was under the impression that churches could not lobby, though citizens who are members of churches are welcome to lobby for their beliefs. This quote sounds reasonable to me:
‘“the law treats those who wish to lobby motivated by their religious beliefs the same way it treats those who wish to lobby motivated by their feminist beliefs, their socialist believes, their support for Tea Party ideas and the like. They can raise money to speak out; they can contact elected officials; they can contact heads of regulatory agencies; they can submit amicus curiae briefs — all of the many forms of lobbying — without registering as professional lobbyists.
“However, if a church or religious organization sets up an outfit that will employ professional lobbyists, the lobbyists must register like other professionals,†he continued. “That distinction seems both reasonable and fair.â€â€™
People ought to be able to vote and affect change in government according to their beliefs, religious or otherwise. The link does not mention the tax status of groups that lobby based on faith. Someone up thread said that those are subject to taxes just like all other lobbying groups. That seems reasonable. I think we’ll both agree that there ought to be more transparency in lobbying and government in general. I don’t think a lobbying group based on religious beliefs should be treated differently than any other lobbying group. But a church is separate from a lobbying group.
I’m a bit fuzzy on how the whole thing works with the involvement of churches in lobbying. Maybe others with more political knowledge and experience can sort it out better than I can. I’m going to leave this thought unfinished, as I don't think I have enough understanding to make sound arguments any direction.
4th link – I’m not a fan of creationism in school. I don’t think taxing churches is the answer here. My original point is that taxing churches would give them more of a foothold in politics, because if they are taxed they can demand the right of representation.
So here is how I see it, and you can correct me if I’m wrong.
We both want separation between church and state.
My solution would be to enforce current laws regarding churches and politics, and push for less murky lobbying rules regarding churches. I’d even be fine (as I originally, but wrongly, thought the law said) if no church funds could go toward lobbying. There would still be faith-based lobbying groups, just as there are many other belief-based lobbying groups, but they would be under the same rules as other groups, and could receive no funding from churches. I would like to push church and state further apart, and I see taxing churches as an invitation for them to be fully active politically.
I’m not 100% of sure your stance, but from what I gather you would love for churches to have nothing to do with the state, but since they are going to break laws anyway, they should be taxed like anyone else. I don’t know if you would be fine legalizing complete church involvement in state, but I don’t see any other way for them to be subject to the same taxes.
We’ll probably just agree to disagree on this one, but this discussion has made me look into things that I had just assumed before, so it was not worthless. I’m probably not going to be spending much more time on this thread, as it will likely keep repeating itself.
Best wishes.
-
1
-
-
Not public grants, private okay.
They hardly need to, but some already do.
They already do, and we already do.
I agree with you.
I want to give a thoughtful reply, but currently don't have time to read your links. I'll get back to you later tonight when I've got more time for research. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. :)
-
My point is that taxing churches won't unleash a vast new industry of religious lobbyists. They already exist.
I wonder if any church has lost it tax exemption status even after publicly declaring their participation in Pulpit Free Sunday.
Should churches be able to actually receive government money through grants? Should candidates start having the official backing of specific churches? And I think if some of the larger churches were allowed to actively lobby for themselves you would see a difference.
Again, when churches do breach the line of church and state they should be brought under the penalty of law. I don't advocate churches crossing the line under the guise of freedom of speech. Church and state need to be separate.
-
Yes. This is what I was talking about when I posted this LA Times link earlier in the thread, but it didn't get any traction for discussion.
Sorry I missed that. I admit I haven't read all the posts or links on this thread. Thank you for already stating it!
-
1
-
-
This topic seemed to be going nowhere, so I left it for a while, and just now checked up on it. It still seems to be a cyclical discussion.
But here is what's been going through my head.
Our constitution declares a separation between church and state. I think we all agree that church and state should be separate. Once one starts getting into the other's business, then the other can do the same.
Churches are not supposed to get involved in matters of state. They are not supposed to lobby, or support specific candidates. Whether or not they do has been argued a bit on this thread, but regardless, it is illegal for them to do so.
The State stays out of the churches' business. They don't tax them or tell them what they can believe or how they can operate (assuming they're not trying to do human sacrifices or other such practices.)
Neither is funding the other. I do not agree with the argument that because churches are not taxed, they are supported by the tax payers' money. I think that is a huge leap. The government does not write checks to churches. They do write checks to many non profits such as planned parenthood, but not to churches.
They are separate.
If churches are taxed, then they should have the right to have a say in government. They should be able to have a voice in where their tax money goes, just like private citizens and businesses that pay taxes. We all know the arguments about taxation without representation. If churches start paying taxes, then they should have the right to lobby and support candidates, and petition for government grants.
Since they are not taxed, they can claim no right to representation by the state. The way things are, church and state can be separate. Now, if some churches are breaching their line, that means law enforcement needs to come into play, not that they need to be taxed.
If we don't want a theocracy, we need to keep the complete separation between church and state.
This will probably just become part of the circle this discussion is going in, but I thought I ought to add my thoughts.
-
2
-
-
W4 d2 done. Still just as hard physically, but mentally easier because I knew I could do it this time. Can't stop sweating though.
-
6
-
-
I did it! I set a world record for slowest jog ever, but I did not stop until the time was up. I can't believe I just voluntarily ran for 16 minutes (with walking breaks interspersed). I'm going to go take a long bath. LavenderGirl, have a great vacation, and thanks again for starting this!
-
6
-
-
Thanks for you input! That's really helpful. We're really excited for this too.
Today was supposed to be the first meeting, but the few people who were going to come called and cancelled for today. Honestly, I was expecting that. We've got a bit of fellowshipping to do so people feel comfortable here, and sometimes life just comes up. We also need to get the word out a little better.
I think I'll go ahead and prepare some food for social time afterwards. If it evolves into a potluck that'd be fine, but I don't want to put pressure on anyone, and I don't mind making a few snacks.
I'm not aware of any primary children here except ours. Most of the people who don't make the hour drive are elderly. But there is a single mom with two teens. I'll talk to DH, and we'll ask the bishop if we should do anything for them. Great idea!
Borrowing chairs is another good thing to consider. Right now we are in a tiny rental home, and we have more chairs than we have room for (many are in the basement), but in a year or two we plan to buy a larger home, and by then if our sacrament meeting group is larger too we might need more seating than we have.
Thanks again. I think we're starting to get an idea how this is going to work. If you think of any other advice, please share!
-
1
-
-
Have any of you had sacrament meeting (not just for your family) in your home? What is it like?
We recently moved to a new area, and are an hour from church. We go every Sunday, but there are several less-active members who don't because of the distance. The Bishop would like us (and we gladly volunteered) to have a once-a-month sacrament meeting in our home for people near by.
So what's that like? I guess technically I'm not having house guests, because we're having a worship service. But this is still my house. It kind of feels like I should serve refreshments and socialize or something. I don't know. We're excited to help the area grow (maybe we could eventually get a branch here and not have to drive an hour for church), but hosting a sacrament meeting is a new thing to me and I don't really know what to expect. And since this is our home, I think anyone who comes is going to expect us to know what's going on. :)
Any experience out there?
-
1
-
-
What does week 4 look like? I had a tough time on w3d3 with the 3 minute jogging part. Though on the plus side, it is now easy to run the 60 and 90 seconds that once seemed hard too.
Warm up walk 5 minutes
Jog 3 minutes
Walk 90 seconds
Jog 5 minutes
Walk 2.5 minutes
Jog 3 minutes
Walk 90 seconds
Jog 5 minutes
-
3
-
-
I think churches absolutely should lose tax exempt status. They don't work for the state, they don't represent the state, and so shouldn't be funded by the state. They work for the community according to subjective beliefs, including who should get help and what that help should be. Society should be pooling resources together (taxes) to help society based on reasons supported by evidence, not faith based claims, no strings attached, no sales pitch. The religious community wouldn't be prevented from helping society as they think best, they just wouldn't have public funds to do so.
When you donate to you diaconal fund, you contribute to services that exclude LGBT citizens in your community because faith based claims are acceptable. The state should not operate on claims accepted as true because of personal faith, and are held accountable to the public in a way a church does not have to be (indeed, cannot be). My taxes shouldn't be helping to support your diocese so the money your church collects from parishioners can be set aside for legal services (ie, priests and lobbyists for protecting religious discrimination). Your church should be collecting the money it needs to operate, and if wants to serve the public (and be aided through tax exemption), it should serve the entire public, not apply some kind of "tough love" philosophy in order to manipulate non parishioners' behaviors.
Forgive my ignorance, but how is being tax exempt the same as being funded by taxes? This is an honest question. Though I often disagree with your posts, I admit you always seem to use facts as the base of your opinion. I am not aware of the government funding churches. I thought they were funded by donations that were not taxed. If I have misunderstood how tax law works, I would like to understand it better. Do you have sources to show that tax exempt = funded by taxes?
-
Week 3 done. Week 4 looks hard. I think I can I think I can I think I can.
-
7
-
-
W3D2 today. Not my best run ever. A train blocked my regular route, iPod problems, dog wanted to either run ahead or stop and sniff. Puddles. Oh well. Better than no workout. I didn't think I'd really be able to run for 3 minutes without a break, but I can! Friday will be better. Thanks for getting me off the couch!
-
5
-
-
Day three complete. One week down!
-
4
-
-
We're big MFP fans here. I started it again with C25K this week to help me shed 15 pounds I stupidly gained.
As a side, DH is a doctor, and has told me that he usually tells his patients not to count in their exercise, as people tend to overestimate how many calories they've actually burned. Obviously if someone is doing something very taxing like training for olympic swimming or something, it would be different.
-
1
-
-
I just did day 2. I tried this with my earbuds and they didn't fall out once! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vgx18hQNROU
-
4
-
-
It is raining. I went out anyway. I came back soaked with a very happy dog. It helps having such an enthusiastic walking/running partner. :)
On T, Th, and Sat I plan to do Ab Ripper X from P90X. DH and I did P90X a few years ago, but I don't think I have it in me right now to do a full workout. My midsection would appreciate some attention, and Ab Ripper did wonders last time i did it.
Earbuds never stay in. Anyone else have this problem? Anyone have a solution?
-
3
-
-
I'm in!
I haven't heard of this one before, and was just planning on starting to exercise tomorrow, now that the kids are finished with school. I already take the dog for a 15 minute walk everyday, I don't think it'd be hard to find an extra 5 minutes, and she would love it if I would jog with her more.
Thanks for introducing me to this! A group to keep me accountable is very helpful.
-
1
-
-
I've gotten them at Costco before, but I don't know if they're there now.
-
Thanks for everyone who helped. Voting is over. I think they made it to the top 40, which is what they needed. Votes are being officially tallied right now.
-
1
-
-
Just bumping so the people on tonight will see this and possibly help my friends.
I'm not usually one to ask people to vote for things, and the people of Cut Bank are very appreciative of the help.
Thanks!
-
Thanks! And I'll bump tomorrow too. :)
-
Couch-to-5K: June 28 - July 4
in The Chat Board
Posted
Week 4 done!