2016 Postmortem

BanTheGOP

(1,068 posts)

8. That is for a court to decide. The negation of holding the ceremony provides the trigger...

Reply to RGinNJ (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 01:14 PM

Jun 2013

...for taxing the hell out of the organization, particularly the Catholic Church.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

78 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Time to tax the churches! [View all] BanTheGOP Jun 2013 OP

Yep. That is LONG overdue. Arugula Latte Jun 2013 #1

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #77

What a scam. Fleecing the gullible. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #78

I am not sure that would work RGinNJ Jun 2013 #2

That's correct. The state considers you to be legally married the second you've signed and paid for stopbush Jun 2013 #4

Doesn't work that way in Canada. ConcernedCanuk Jun 2013 #24

The marriage license needs to be signed by someone authorized to perform cermony LiberalFighter Jun 2013 #43

That is for a court to decide. The negation of holding the ceremony provides the trigger... BanTheGOP Jun 2013 #8

Churches have a constitutional right not to perform any ceremony they choose onenote Jul 2013 #69

I agree, churches that get involved in politics should be taxed AndyA Jun 2013 #3

Churches should be taxed because we shouldn't allow make-believe to have the same standing stopbush Jun 2013 #6

1 corinthians 13:11 madrchsod Jun 2013 #18

I think you're missing the point Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #27

What about other non-profits? Do you think they should not be involved cbayer Jun 2013 #30

I don't see religions as non-profits. Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #32

Well, they are and that is where there tax status is derived. cbayer Jun 2013 #34

I agree with your last sentence. Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #35

I apologize if I came across as harsh. cbayer Jun 2013 #36

I didn't want to accuse you. Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #37

Let's call them spirited and not nasty, lol. cbayer Jun 2013 #38

Granted. Spirited it is then. Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #39

Wow. I feel honored by your words. cbayer Jun 2013 #40

Did you feel that way about churches that led the fight for civil rights or against the Vietnam War? onenote Jul 2013 #70

I was too young to have an opinion back then AndyA Jul 2013 #72

Okay. If you had been around in the 1960s, how would you feel about tax-exempt churches onenote Jul 2013 #74

Amen, brother! yortsed snacilbuper Jun 2013 #5

Agree with a few others JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #7

Not completely the point. BanTheGOP Jun 2013 #10

The Problem Is JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #13

i agred with you d_r Jun 2013 #33

Carole Rylander didn't understand about Unitarian fellowships. Manifestor_of_Light Jun 2013 #63

Wow JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #64

Why should the govt. force the churches to accept premium Jun 2013 #42

How can you "blackmail" an organization whose tax exempt status is fraudulent in the first place? BanTheGOP Jun 2013 #66

Why is it fraudulent? premium Jun 2013 #67

There is no reason to force churches to marry those that they don't want to. LiberalFighter Jun 2013 #44

that depends on your income greymattermom Jun 2013 #55

Be careful what you wish for. cbayer Jun 2013 #9

I trust the government far more than I trust the republican rethugs BanTheGOP Jun 2013 #11

My goodness, you are optimistic. cbayer Jun 2013 #12

Pretty much. Most rethugs are religous neanderthals, most democrats are enlightened progressives. nt BanTheGOP Jun 2013 #14

So what do you make of the large groups of progressive/liberal religious people and organizations? cbayer Jun 2013 #15

Progressives don't use religion to politicize. Rethugs do. BanTheGOP Jun 2013 #16

Really? Tell that to this guy: cbayer Jun 2013 #17

NAACP is not a religion. Duh. BanTheGOP Jun 2013 #19

The man is a minister. Take a look at the article. cbayer Jun 2013 #20

Oh, man this is scary. premium Jun 2013 #21

Agree. It's just a bit too much, I would say. cbayer Jun 2013 #22

I agree they should be but not for this. bamacrat Jun 2013 #23

The technicalities are not important BanTheGOP Jun 2013 #25

What do you mean when you use the term "bitchslap"? cbayer Jun 2013 #28

That's a pretty darn sexist term being used. premium Jun 2013 #52

I am not able to take this member seriously at this point. cbayer Jun 2013 #57

Nice seeing you also cbayer. premium Jun 2013 #58

Bitchslapping? premium Jun 2013 #51

I disagree! My Church does a lot of good and could not do as much if taxed. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #26

He's apparently of the opinion that all religious organizations are republican by definition. cbayer Jun 2013 #29

I can tell him my church is definately not. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #31

A way to do this right in my opinion would be to LiberalFighter Jun 2013 #45

I think the system is fine as is. If a few reforms are needed than do it but I am in favor of not hrmjustin Jun 2013 #46

Another option is to not allow tax deductions for contributions LiberalFighter Jun 2013 #48

Then so should all non-profits then. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #50

There are different classifications of non-profits. LiberalFighter Jun 2013 #62

You realize that not all churches are conservative and politically active. The Metropolitan Church musicblind Jun 2013 #41

That is the biggest thing that bothers me on ths site. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #47

Me too Freddie Jun 2013 #54

I love the The Christian left FB page. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #59

Oh dear void... Chan790 Jun 2013 #49

^^^This^^^. premium Jun 2013 #53

DISAGREE Jeneral2885 Jun 2013 #56

That's not how it works.... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #60

The OP really has no grasp on reality premium Jun 2013 #61

And he forgot that JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #65

Tax the churches? dawg Jul 2013 #68

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #71

Tax the rich Ter Jul 2013 #73

When the rich has billions, if not hundreds of billions, of untaxed money for the GOP to use... BanTheGOP Jul 2013 #75

I was wondering how long it would take for this sort of bullshit. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #76