Yep.
When you invite religion into government, you also are inviting government into religion.
That never ends well...
Yup. There is no reason why these for profit organizations operate free from taxation. Particularly since its impossible to separate government from religion.
And where do we exactly have a "seperation of church and state"?
Answer: We DON'T. And NO I am not for religion sticking it's nose in government affairs.
Personally I think the problem is calling "it" marriage. Everyone should be allowed the same benefits hetro OR gay IMO. The sticking point is the term marriage. Call it a union, whatever but don't use the term marriage and IMO ALOT of the *****ing would cease.
And yes, churches SHOULD be paying taxes. "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's".
A sign of the times - maybe we are reaching the end.
Sweet. I just declared my home a church. No more taxation.
Sweet. I just declared my home a church. No more taxation.
And where do we exactly have a "seperation of church and state"?
Answer: We DON'T. And NO I am not for religion sticking it's nose in government affairs.
Personally I think the problem is calling "it" marriage. Everyone should be allowed the same benefits hetro OR gay IMO. The sticking point is the term marriage. Call it a union, whatever but don't use the term marriage and IMO ALOT of the *****ing would cease.
And yes, churches SHOULD be paying taxes. "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's".
Ok, there are several points that need to be addressed here.Exactly right- thank you for sharing with us a hard learned lesson of history and the true nature of government and church. Repped
In this case, Ceaser has said churches don't have to pay taxes. But let's pretend you guys are right and that churches are "for profit" (which is a joke, obviously you haven't seen too many churches budget reports). If churches pay taxes then we are entitled to representation. How would that work? Would we have certain seats of congress for Baptists, others for Catholics, others for witchcraft? And, if we pay taxes, we are entitled to any government benefit. Would you really be OK with your personal tax dollars coming into my church in part of a stimulus (not that we would take it, and in fact, Southern Baptists have repeatedly refused government funds for disaster care relief)? And what if a certain denomination grew so large within government that it began to pass laws for the persecution of "non-believers"? Are you cool with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by firehawk
And where do we exactly have a "seperation of church and state"?
Answer: We DON'T. And NO I am not for religion sticking it's nose in government affairs.
Personally I think the problem is calling "it" marriage. Everyone should be allowed the same benefits hetro OR gay IMO. The sticking point is the term marriage. Call it a union, whatever but don't use the term marriage and IMO ALOT of the *****ing would cease.
And yes, churches SHOULD be paying taxes. "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's".
No, they should drop the term "marriage" and admit that long term relationships are an economic issue. Long term pairings are encouraged by the current tax structure - married couples pay less. Does a homosexual relationship have any greater probability of becoming chaotic and unstable than an heterosexual relationship? Why not let the government license all unions of any sort between two adults, and let the churches figure out for themselves who they will recognize or perform marriage ceremonies for? Easy on .gov since they don't lose their revenue stream, easy on religion since the churches aren't forced to join anyone they don't want to.
Why only two?
Why only two?
why would you want too? I have my one and most days that is more than enough estrogen in the house. (we are newly weds and she has gone into I want a little ingo'er mode.)
Actually, there are at least two religions (likely more, when you get right down to it) that recognise plural marriages. All should be allowed to practise their religions without government interference.I don't want more than two in my marriage...but there's a certain religion which isn't permitted to practice its beliefs because some people decided to use the force of our government to prevent them from having polygamous marriages...even after a bunch of them specifically moved to a state which was friendly to their beliefs at the time.
I'm just curious how people justify using government force in such a way as to prevent religious ceremonies & consensual domestic groupings.
I don't want more than two in my marriage...but there's a certain religion which isn't permitted to practice its beliefs because some people decided to use the force of our government to prevent them from having polygamous marriages...even after a bunch of them specifically moved to a state which was friendly to their beliefs at the time.
I'm just curious how people justify using government force in such a way as to prevent religious ceremonies & consensual domestic groupings.
Actually, there are at least two religions (likely more, when you get right down to it) that recognise plural marriages. All should be allowed to practise their religions without government interference.
because we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment.
Oh yeah...that is just what I need....two disappointed women instead of just oneWhy only two?
Ok, so when the husband dies and leaves no will, which wife gets the children, house, cars, debt, etc?
When he's a vegetable in the hospital, which wife gets to pull the plug?
And on and on and on.
Not that I'm disagreeing, just pointing out that our legal system is steeped in marriage and "divorcing" our laws of marriage would be a hefty project to undertake.
So, the governments way of doing things would have to change. I don't see that as a bad thing. More choices, more freedom. As for your examples, the children go with the biological mother, as they would today. All other assets are sold or split evenly, that's what probate courts do on a daily basis. If he or she doesn't have any medical directive then the wives, or husbands come to a consensus and take the decision. My father faced this dilemma years ago with my mother and everyone was consulted. Since we were all aware of her wishes in the matter we knew how to act.Ok, so when the husband dies and leaves no will, which wife gets the children, house, cars, debt, etc?
When he's a vegetable in the hospital, which wife gets to pull the plug?
And on and on and on.
Not that I'm disagreeing, just pointing out that our legal system is steeped in marriage and "divorcing" our laws of marriage would be a hefty project to undertake.