General Discussion

jmowreader

(53,277 posts)

4. I could live with that, but it has a couple of problems

Mon Mar 12, 2012, 02:47 AM

Mar 2012

The most obvious, to me at least, is the churches with the most to hide would scream "religious discrimination" and "persecution" and turn this shit into a "the big evil government is trying to keep you from praying in Jesus' Name!" pity party.

Slightly less important, but still important, is that churches, in general, are independently owned and operated. The paperwork would overwhelm the Congress, so they could hide a whole lot of atrocities in there.

I'd just like to see the looks on the parishioners' faces when they realize what "tax exempt" really means in the context of their own pocketbooks.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If abortion candidates have to be "told what's in there," churchgoers should too [View all] jmowreader Mar 2012 OP

I would go one better than that Major Nikon Mar 2012 #1

Or better yet, each year the churches need to prove they are not politicking to keep their RC Mar 2012 #2

They need to look at all their financial records Major Nikon Mar 2012 #3

I could live with that, but it has a couple of problems jmowreader Mar 2012 #4

If the churches don't like the idea of financial disclosure... Major Nikon Mar 2012 #5

Sat In A Vestry Meeting For The First Time Possumpoint Mar 2012 #6

Hey, shouldn't priests have to get a visible screen shot of their colon cancer exams? HopeHoops Mar 2012 #7

As long as the gov't is also willing to be accountable to the church SATIRical Mar 2012 #8

I'm not the one who doesn't want separation of church and state jmowreader Mar 2012 #10

Maybe they should be told what really is (and isn't) in the bible, too. (nt) thesquanderer Mar 2012 #9