Religious Liberty Is Critical for Believers and Non-Believers Alike

  
Via:  Heartland American  •  one month ago  •  154 comments


Religious Liberty Is Critical for Believers and Non-Believers Alike
These nations generally experience lower rates of violence and crime. Moreover, governments that respect religious liberty also display greater peace and stability, which is attractive for business investment and jobs. Religious freedom also goes hand-in-hand with other fundamental human rights. One only has to look at countries like Iran, China, and Venezuela to see that a lack of respect for religious liberty correlates directly with high levels of oppression and the lack of respect for...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


I was recently at the United Nations General Assembly when President Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president in history to convene a meeting at the U.N. solely devoted to protecting religious liberty. When critics declared it was simply a political move to score points with his base, they failed to understand how important religious liberty is to the peace, prosperity, and freedom of the religious and non-religious alike.

In fact, the evidence that society benefits as a whole when religious freedom is protected is so impactful that today, The Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government is  livestreaming online a discussion  with key officials from the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services on the administration’s efforts to protect religious liberty and the effects they are having.

In addition to the obvious spiritual, moral, and emotional benefits religion provides to the faithful, non-religious people realize tremendous advantages when religious liberty is respected. Long before government did it, churches and religious organizations were building schools, hospitals, research centers, homeless shelters, and food kitchens for the benefit of everyone, not just believers. They were also providing disaster relief and sending missionaries to aid impoverished people in the farthest reaches of the globe.

We see even more benefits for both believers and non-believers when we study nations that allow a significant amount of religious freedom and see large numbers of people practicing their faith. These nations generally experience lower rates of violence and crime. Moreover, governments that respect religious liberty also display greater peace and stability, which is attractive for business investment and jobs.

Religious freedom also goes hand-in-hand with other fundamental human rights. One only has to look at countries like Iran, China, and Venezuela to see that a lack of respect for religious liberty correlates directly with high levels of oppression and the lack of respect for other rights.

Even in nations where citizens have a great degree of religious freedom, we are seeing that freedom challenged and diminished. When tolerance for religious beliefs wanes, intolerance for other beliefs isn’t far behind. When it becomes acceptable to discriminate against or persecute people for their religious beliefs, it's a short slide down the slippery slope to justify doing the same thing to both the religious and non-religious based on their political beliefs, their beliefs on how they raise and educate their children, or some other belief system that doesn’t comport with the government’s.

According to data from the Pew Research Center, over 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or banned. Thousands are displaced or killed annually because of their religious faith. In response, President Trump in his U.N. speech called on foreign leaders to protect the free exercise of religion, to end the persecution of people practicing their faith, and to repeal laws restricting freedom of religion and belief. He also reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to promoting religious freedom here at home.

One part of the president’s announcement that didn’t get much notice was his creation of a first-of-its-kind coalition of U.S. businesses tasked with encouraging the private sector to protect people of all faiths in the workplace and integrate support for religious liberty into their diversity strategies. When religious freedom is respected in the workplace, morale and even productivity can improve significantly.

However, the benefits aren’t just within companies. They can encompass whole economies. According to a 2014  study  by Georgetown and Brigham Young University researchers, religious freedom is one of three factors significantly associated with overall economic growth. The study found a positive relationship between religious freedom and 10 out of 12 indicators of global competitiveness.

Demonstrating more than just correlation between religious freedom and economics, the study found that both government restrictions on religion and societal hostility to religion harmed economic growth, driving away business investment as well as home-grown entrepreneurs who decided to take their talents elsewhere. Businesses seek peace and stability when locating facilities or seeking new markets in which to sell their products and services. When religious freedoms aren’t respected, violence and conflict can result.

These are just some of the myriad reasons society benefits as a whole when we protect religious freedom. In the end, the work the current administration continues to do to promote and protect religious liberty here and abroad could result in not only greater religious freedom for believers, but in greater respect for all human rights and greater prosperity for all people. That’s a win for everyone.

Pundits can continue to argue that’s politics, but I will argue that’s just good policy.




Recommended from Townhall




Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    one month ago

... Although a liberal politician endorsing ending tax exemption may seem farfetched to many churchgoers, conservatives have warned the Church for some time the Left views the pews and the pulpit as an enemy of progressivism.

One example is Barack Obama  replacing “freedom or religion” with “freedom of worship” during his term, which was recognized by some as moving 1st Amendment rights inside the church building and off the public square. 

holybible_250x156.jpg More recently, OneNewsNow  reported  on LGBT-friendly civil rights commissions in two states that expanded their demands beyond Christian-run businesses to include churches. 

Their reasoning? A “public accommodation," non-discrimination ordinance demands "equality" from not only the Christian baker and the Christian florist but the local Catholic, Southern Baptist, and United Methodist congregations, too.

"Beto and some Democrats have declared war on churches," observes  Texas Values  leader Jonathan Saenz. "And to that we say,  Come and take it ." .... https://onenewsnow.com/church/2019/10/11/dems-dim-view-of-churches-comes-out-of-closet

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @1    one month ago

.........That was just pandering," responds Ed Vitagliano, a longtime pastor who also serves as a vice president at the  American Family Association . "I have no doubt Beto and the other Democrats would do that if they could, but it's not going to happen so he was just pandering to the crowd."

“Beto O’Rourke wants the government to punish anyone who has the wrong beliefs,”  Washington Examiner  columnist Brad Polumbo responded  in a hastily written online op-ed.

Polumbo went on to state that he personally supports same-sex marriage but described a push to revoke tax exemption “viewpoint discrimination” that would amount to a “financial death sentence” for many churches.

ap508581424322__1__300x188.jpg “There’s little doubt,” he writes, “that if every church that followed biblical teachings on homosexuality lost tax-exempt status, thousands upon thousands of churches would likely have to shut their doors.”

If such a law was passed, says Vitagliano, churches would be forced to pay taxes on tithes and offerings that remain in the church's bank account at year's end.

What makes such a proposal so unlikely, the AFA spokesman adds, is that a federal law targeting religious non-profits but exempting secular ones would never become law. If it did, he says, it would be struck down as unconstitutional.  

evitagliano_lores_mug.jpg Vitagliano

Although a liberal politician endorsing ending tax exemption may seem farfetched to many churchgoers, conservatives have warned the Church for some time the Left views the pews and the pulpit as an enemy of progressivism.... https://onenewsnow.com/church/2019/10/11/dems-dim-view-of-churches-comes-out-of-closet

 
 
 
pat wilson
2  pat wilson    one month ago

If leaders of congregations involve politics in any way, shape or form when they preach then their tax exempt status should end.

Either lose the politics or lose the exemption.You can't have both.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @2    one month ago
If leaders of congregations involve politics in any way, shape or form when they preach

How do you feel about them just offering up a generic prayer for whoever happens to hold public office?

Personally, I wouldn't attend or belong to a church that tried to tell me what candidate to support.

Taxing something is exercising a form of control over it. We can't very well say that people have the right to freely worship and then set about taxing the activity. The purpose of the first amendment is to limit the government, not to limit churches.

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.1  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @2.1    one month ago
How do you feel about them just offering up a generic prayer for whoever happens to hold public office?

I don't feel anything about that. I don't care one way or the other who or what they want to pray for. But there should be no political agendas pursued in houses of worship.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.1    one month ago

I agree. A persons' religious beliefs and ways of worshiping their chosen deity should be a private matter between them and their deity. There is no place for it in politics and vise versa. The separation between church and state should be upheld to the fullest measure. 

JMOO

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.3  MUVA  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.1    one month ago

Then you don't want to see what goes on in a black church on election day.

 
 
 
charger 383
2.1.4  charger 383  replied to  Tacos! @2.1    one month ago
"freely worship and then set about taxing the activity."

But the churches benefit from the taxes others have to pay, They get police and fire protection, roads are paved so it is easy to get to church, municipal services are available ect ect. Citizens have to pay for this and churches should not get a free ride.

This means I am subsidizing someone else's religion.     

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.5  pat wilson  replied to  MUVA @2.1.3    one month ago

I don't care what goes on in churches. If it's promoting a certain political agenda then they should loose the tax exemption. I don't know how many times/ways I need to say it. It's really a very simple concept.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.1.6  SteevieGee  replied to  Raven Wing @2.1.2    one month ago

I agree with all of that except for the JMOO part.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.7  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @2.1    one month ago

Christians are directed by God Himself to pray for the wisdom and well being of our national and other government leaders.  As to politics, it’s not getting involved directly in politics if it involves beliefs of a religion.  A religion that is opposed to abortion or birth control or euthanasia or relationships between same sex people  or adultery or stealing or coveting what others have or killing even in war or opposed to the use of tobacco or alcohol or whatever may certainly talk about those matters and their basis for their beliefs about them with no fear of the tax man as those are what they view as foundational beliefs straight from the written source of their beliefs. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.8  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.5    one month ago

So, all the liberal mainline Protestant Christian and various Jewish organizations that got involved in leading or being a part of the anti war movement and or the civil rights movement in the late 50’s to early 70’s should have voluntarily given up their tax exempt status or the government should have taken it then? How about in the 1890’s to 1920’s when churches were involved in labor rights, or women’s suffrage, or the various temperance societies of those days?  Should they have lost theirs?  Should we retroactively take away the exemptions of those who engaged in any or all the above?  Or is it only the awakening to politics of denominations whose members are more conservative that truly concerns now?  

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.9  pat wilson  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.8    one month ago

How many times/ways can I explain it ? Please see my comments above, there's your answer.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.4    one month ago
But the churches benefit from the taxes others have to pay, They get police and fire protection, roads are paved so it is easy to get to church, municipal services are available ect ect.

The people inside that church are the ones paying those taxes. You want to tax them twice?

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.11  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.10    one month ago

The organization should be taxed, not the members. Big difference.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.11    one month ago
The organization should be taxed

Why? Most churches bring in donated money for starters (from people who have probably already been taxed), then they turn around and give it away or pay a salary to people who work in the building. The organization is lucky if it makes any kind of profit at all, and if they do, it usually goes to their facilities or more charity. What are you going to tax?

 
 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.14  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.10    one month ago

That’s their basic idea.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.15  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.11    one month ago

The members are the organization and vice versa at least in most Protestant denominations.  

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.16  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.12    one month ago
then they turn around and give it away or pay a salary to people who work in the building.

This is laughable. Your post is beyond naive.

 
 
 
charger 383
2.1.17  charger 383  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.10    one month ago

They should pay property tax otherwise who pays for what they get?   The homeowners and business of the town and/or county have to make up for lost tax revenue   

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.4    one month ago

It pisses me off to see churches that have police controlling traffic when services dismiss, so everybody can get out of the parking lot.  They're being subsidized to disrupt traffic.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.12    one month ago
Why?

I pay taxes on my business. Every patient I see already pays taxes on the income they use to pay me.  My employees and I pay taxes on our salaries.  My landlord pays property taxes.  My local business taxes and my landlord's property taxes (paid indirectly by me) provide emergency services and street upkeep so that my business can operate and be kept secure.  

Why should churches get preferential treatment?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.18    one month ago

I can’t imagine being so petty as to have that bother me.

talk about first world problems 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.20    one month ago

I can't imagine being so entitled that I think I deserve for the government to help me get to the Cracker Barrel for Sunday lunch before everyone else, but here we are, paying cops to do exactly that.  For churchgoers, anyway.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.1.22  Kathleen  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.12    one month ago

That is their choice, you are not forced to pay a church anything. You make that choice when you become a member. 

 
 
 
charger 383
2.1.23  charger 383  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.12    one month ago

"give it away or pay a salary to people who work in the building"

both of those would be expenses in a regular business and not part of the profits that would be taxed

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.16    one month ago
Your post is beyond naive.

Your post contributed nothing to the conversation, except maybe some unwanted arrogance.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.25  KDMichigan  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.18    one month ago
It pisses me off to see churches that have police controlling traffic when services dismiss,

How dare they, were they on duty? I mean why would you direct traffic to avoid accidents? I thought we paid them to focus their time on persecuting minorities. The next thing you know they will be stopping traffic for funerals. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.26  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.19    one month ago

Why should any not for profit get tax relief?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.25    one month ago

I'd rather they spend their time preventing crimes, looking for those who have committed crimes, training, or directing traffic where they're actually needed, such as at the scene of accidents or breakdowns, rather than for the convenience of a few.  

There was one megachurch locally who used to have cops stop traffic when their services dismissed, on a road that didn't have nearly enough regular traffic for there to be any real danger for a competent driver.  County government put a stop to it pretty quickly.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.28  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.27    one month ago

I actually agree with there is a church in my area that lets cars go one that a time or the will empty the whole parking lot including letting people walk to the there car as they hold up traffic .The worst part the people directing traffic aren not even cops.All this with very light traffic.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.26    one month ago

Because some do some actual, tangible good.  They feed people, clothe people, treat the sick.  Spreading mythology provides no tangible good.

Are you ok with your family business subsidizing any organization that claims its supernatural beliefs entitle it to your financial support?  Seems to me that as much as you complain about taxation and paying others' share, you'd have a problem with paying religious organizations' share, too.  For the sake of consistency, you know.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.30  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.28    one month ago

I would think that would be more likely to lead to a crash, not less.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.1.31  Raven Wing  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.6    one month ago
I agree with all of that except for the JMOO part.

What part of the JMOO don't you like Steevie?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.32  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.29    one month ago

So do churches.I'm not for a zero tax policy on any organization  or churches.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.33  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.30    one month ago

It's ridiculous they stop traffic for up to 10 minutes.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.32    one month ago
So do churches.

Some do.  Some don't.  Some are just spreading mythology.  Some are even spreading hate.  I really think those churches don't deserve a tax break.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.33    one month ago
It's ridiculous they stop traffic for up to 10 minutes.

That's not right.  It's like they claim more right to the roadways than anybody else out there.

If I were sitting there waiting, with ice cream melting in my trunk, I'd be pissed.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.36  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.34    one month ago

I think everyone and every business,church and not for profit should pay some tax then mine will be less how's that for consistency. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.37  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.36    one month ago

Fair enough.

I'm willing to subsidize a food pantry, health clinic, or volunteer fire department, because they benefit all in the community.  Churches may benefit the community, and I donate to church programs that I know help to feed disadvantaged children and house families, but I don't think I should have to subsidize all churches.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.38  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.20    one month ago

Indeed on both counts.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.39  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.37    one month ago

I donate to charity's my wife has given most of the money her mother left her to Chesapeake bay Academy I donate to the seal foundation and tunnels to towers. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.40  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.35    one month ago

This thread is quite the diversion from the topic of the seeded article.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.41  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.40    one month ago

Not really.  The thread is about church exemption from taxation, and you commented on it yourself.  If you felt the thread diverted conversation away from your intended topic, you shouldn't have participated.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.42  MUVA  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.40    one month ago

I'm sorry.

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.43  pat wilson  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.40    one month ago
.. Although a liberal politician endorsing ending tax exemption may seem farfetched to many churchgoers,

That's the first sentence of your first comment.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.44  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.42    one month ago

I think he's more upset that you agree with taxing churches than he is about the thread being "off topic" (which it wasn't).  It was on topic as long as his usual supporters were, well, supportive.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.45  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MUVA @2.1.42    one month ago

No worries. It wasn’t you who led the diversion.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.46  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MUVA @2.1.42    one month ago

Also, l looked up that Chesapeake Bay Academy and its a fine place well worthy of support.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.47  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.43    one month ago

Which was a part of the seeded article that I highlighted.  Too many Christians have no idea that there as many out there such as yourself who would strip their denominations of their tax exempt non profit status if only they could.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.11    one month ago
The organization should be taxed, not the members. Big difference.

Do you believe that all non-profits should be taxes, too?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.19    one month ago
Why should churches get preferential treatment?

Because of the separation of church and state which you tout.

Pretty simple, really.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.50  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.21    one month ago
I can't imagine being so entitled that I think I deserve for the government to help me get to the Cracker Barrel for Sunday lunch before everyone else, but here we are, paying cops to do exactly that.  For churchgoers, anyway.

Well, gee, maybe we shouldn't have cops directing traffic at games and concerts, either.

Or at protests.

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.51  pat wilson  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.47    one month ago

Only for the churches promoting political agendas which I've repeated ad nauseum.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.52  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.49    one month ago

Then they need to separate themselves from state activities.  Too many churches want the preferential treatment, but still want to legislate their own beliefs.  If they're politically active, they need to pay taxes.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.53  MUVA  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.51    one month ago

How about unions with political agendas able to spend millions on political campaigns.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.54  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.52    one month ago
Then they need to separate themselves from state activities.  Too many churches want the preferential treatment, but still want to legislate their own beliefs.  If they're politically active, they need to pay taxe

If we are to go by your logic, than ALL non-profits who do ANY of that should also pay taxes, correct?

Like Planned Parenthood, right?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.55  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.54    one month ago

I agree with that.

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.56  pat wilson  replied to  MUVA @2.1.53    one month ago

They should be taxed also.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.51    one month ago
Only for the churches promoting political agendas which I've repeated ad nauseum.

I suspect that Democrats would cry bloody murder of any such restrictions were placed on black churches which bus people to polls.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.56    one month ago

How about PP?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.59  MUVA  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.56    one month ago

I agree everyone one should be taxed if anyone is taxed from the low earner to the billionaire all should have some skin in the game.I say retired people that have paid taxes for years get relief  and the handicapped.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @2.1.59    one month ago

I am willing to bet that some don't believe that everyone should be taxed.

But they damn sure want churches to be taxed.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.61  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.54    one month ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Planned Parenthood spends money on politics and elections through the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (its federal political action committee ), through its Super PAC, and through a variety of related 501(c)(4) entities. [125]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#Allowed_activities

The income tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but income spent on political activities—generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election—is taxable. [41] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization. [42] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively, [43] direct or grassroots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose. [44]

A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities. [34] [45]

A 501(c)(4) organization that lobbies must register with the Clerk of the House if it lobbies members of the House or their staff. [40] Likewise, a 501(c)(4) organization must register with the Secretary of the Senate if it lobbies members of the Senate or their staff. [40] In addition, the 501(c)(4) organization must either inform its members the amount it spends on lobbying or pay a proxy tax to the Internal Revenue Service. [40] Lobbying expenses and political expenses are not deductible as business expenses. [ 40]

PP is already subject to taxation on money it spends for political activities.  As it should be.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.62  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.60    one month ago

They want Europe type government without the tax in Europe low earners and poor pay more taxes for their slow growth utopia.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.57    one month ago
bus people to polls.

That's not an endorsement of a particular candidate.

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.64  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.58    one month ago

If they promote clear, political agendas they should be taxed.

If you have anymore posts asking the SAME questions please refer to these:

96

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.63    one month ago
That's not an endorsement of a particular candidate.

No, but it is a political activity.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.61    one month ago

PP is already subject to taxation on money it spends for political activities.  As it should be.
So, how much in taxes did they actually PAY?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.65    one month ago

And?  So long as they're not endorsing a particular candidate or legislation, it's allowable.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.68  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.66    one month ago

I have no idea.  The law stipulates that they taxed on money spent on political activities, and I'm agreeing with that law.  You asked if they should be paying taxes on money spent on political activities.  I said they should, and showed that they are expected to do so.

You're moving goalposts.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.69  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.67    one month ago
And?  So long as they're not endorsing a particular candidate or legislation, it's allowable.

And?

And churches are tax exempt.

For a very good reason--separation of church and state.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.70  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.69    one month ago

Some churches engage endorse candidates, in violation of tax law.  If they want to do so, they should give up their tax-exempt status.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.71  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.68    one month ago
You're moving goalposts.

Didn't move a damn thing

Asked a simple series of questions.

Don't like them, don't answer them.

If you do answer, don't get mad when responded to.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.72  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.70    one month ago

That should be the same law for every institution from unions to churches but like I said everyone should be taxed any way. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.73  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.70    one month ago
Some churches engage endorse candidates, in violation of tax law.  If they want to do so, they should give up their tax-exempt status.

You should alert the IRS of these crimes.

Maybe they'll even pay you for the info!

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.74  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.73    one month ago

We all the IRS is a tool of the left just look at what happen when conservatives were targeted nothing.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.75  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.50    one month ago

Or after the fireworks on the 4th of July, our Independence Day.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.76  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.71    one month ago

I've answered them several times.  In my answers, I've actually agreed with you.  It seems you can't abide that, so you keep asking more questions, and yes, moving goalposts.  You did the same to pat.  Your inability to accept that we mean what we say is on you, not us.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.77  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.74    one month ago
the IRS is a tool of the left

Under Trump?

Sure, sure.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.78  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @2.1.74    one month ago
We all the IRS is a tool of the left just look at what happen when conservatives were targeted nothing.  

According to some clowns, the IRS did nothing wrong!

LMFAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.79  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.77    one month ago
Under Trump?
Sure, sure.

Then post some type of proof.

I know I can prove that conservatives were targeted under the Obama IRS.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.80  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.79    one month ago
Then post some type of proof.

What, proof that the IRS under Trump is a tool of the left?

MUVA made the statement, and should be the one to prove it, if he can.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.81  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.51    one month ago

got it so then let’s go retroactively remove the tax exempt status for all churches involved in abolition of slavery, advancing women’s suffrage, promoting child labor laws or fairness for factory workers, then nail all the churches that warned of the dangers of alcohol and tobacco back in the day, then we will take it away from those who advanced anti Vietnam war and or pro civil rights ideas from their pulpits and those that pushed environmental reform and earth day.  Then we will take it away from all the African American churches who openly let democrat politicians black and white electioneer from their pulpits.  Perhaps you might want to tell your progressive friends who are still believers how little you regard their contributions to your cause and how they have to be punished too because conservative churches started doing it too, but we disagree with what they believe so we have to tax you to tax them.  Is that it?  

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.83  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.80    one month ago
 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.84  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.80    one month ago
What, proof that the IRS under Trump is a tool of the left?

Muva's post:

We all the IRS is a tool of the left just look at what happen when conservatives were targeted nothing.  

No, not a single word about Trump in his post. That's ALL you.

That's okay, I knew you couldn't prove it anyways.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.85  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.68    one month ago

I know that the Christian Coalition did the same thing.  Set up a separate entity for tax purposes for their activities directly related to politics.  

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.86  Ender  replied to  MUVA @2.1.83    one month ago
ATR...

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is an anti-tax lobbying group founded in 1985 by  Grover Norquist

ATR has close ties to the  Republican Party

ATR is a member of the  American Legislative Exchange Council  (ALEC).

ALEC  is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills

ATR has several significant ties to the   Koch brothers   and their network of conservative donors.

In 2010, ATR received $4,189,000 from the Koch-linked   Center to Protect Patient Rights   (CPPR) ( see below for more ). [5]   The Center's contribution amounted to approximately a third of ATR's revenue in 2010, which was almost $12.4 million. [6]   The CPPR, a   501(c)(4)   group now known as   American Encore , receives the bulk of its funding from the Koch-backed funding organizations   TC4 Trust   and   Freedom Partners , and is overseen by "Koch operative"   Sean Noble . [7] [8]

ATR has also received money directly from the Kochs. In 2012, Americans for Tax Reform's   501(c)(3)   arm, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, accepted $50,000 from the   Claude R. Lambe Foundation , one of the   Koch Family Foundations .

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Tax_Reform
 
 
 
Ender
2.1.87  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.84    one month ago

So the trump administration appointed commissioner of the IRS is letting this happen?

So MUVA claims that right wing groups are still being targeted, Sandy questions the veracity of such a claim as trump picked the people in charge.

Then you question why trump would be brought up in this discussion....

The only thing proven is ones own ability to ask inane questions that do not even pertain to the topic at hand.

 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.88  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.83    one month ago

That's from January 2016.  Trump hadn't even been nominated by the GOP yet.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.89  MUVA  replied to  Ender @2.1.87    one month ago

The old personal attack comment thanks for your input.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.90  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.84    one month ago
No, not a single word about Trump in his post. That's ALL you.

Ok, so let's review verb tenses.

"Is" implies present tense.  The IRS at present IS an agency of executive branch of government, which branch IS currently headed by Trump.

So when MUVA says

the IRS is a tool of the left

he is, by definition of the word "is", not referring to the IRS under Obama, or the IRS in January 2016 (his "supporting" link), but the IRS now, under Trump.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.91  Ender  replied to  MUVA @2.1.89    one month ago

Did I attack you or Texan? Or did I attack the diversionary comment/question...

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.92  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Ender @2.1.87    one month ago

As we know just because a president appoints the top person or two the deep state within each organization remains and it is hostile to to conservatives, particularly the IRS.  I’ve got a seed up today about how the deep state is undermining the administration and cabinet heads as if they run the country instead of us through our elected leaders.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.93  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.89    one month ago

I'm going to make an observation.  You, pat, and I were having a reasonably civil discussion.  We weren't in total agreement, but we had quite a bit of common ground, and conversation was fairly friendly.

Then the sealioning started.  It wasn't you, BTW, engaging in sealioning.  But it dragged the whole discussion into the cesspit.  We mostly agreed, until you let someone convince you that we didn't.

Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.94  Ender  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.92    one month ago

Just for once could you stop with the nonsense. Who told you about this deep state? If trump is so wonderful and a savior, why does this deep state still exist? Is he not the president? Does he not have power? Why has he not done anything about this deep state?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.95  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.93    one month ago

This is my observation everything was going swimmingly till I said something you disagreed with.I still agree with we most of what you and pat said   during that conversation  but disagree that the IRS isn't a tool of the left because no one was fired or hardly investigated for targeting conservative groups that means the bruceaucy is still intact. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.96  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @2.1.95    one month ago

You can't take civil disagreement with your statements?

Oh, well.  Some here can't even stand for me (or pat) to agree with their statements, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.97  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.96    one month ago

I can take it you made a observation and so I did and I still agree with what was said in our discussion.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.98  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.68    one month ago
'You're moving goalposts.'

Primary MO of some posters here on NT

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  pat wilson @2    one month ago

It seems that some secularists are far more interested in taking away and removing the religious liberty of believers than even maintaining their present freedom to choose to have no religious belief at all.  To them taking away from others and feeling smug about lashing out at them and punishing them for acting on what they believe is the highest priority.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Beato O'Rourke and company simply want to destroy the first amendment. 

Sad to see.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one month ago

That pretty much sums them up.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    one month ago

I have a totally different take on the headline and the article.

"Religious liberty is critical of-----liberty.

Sorry CH4P.  I just never thought the 'cake people' were really all that genuine. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  bbl-1 @4    one month ago

We see even more benefits for both believers and non-believers when we study nations that allow a significant amount of religious freedom and see large numbers of people practicing their faith. These nations generally experience lower rates of violence and crime. Moreover, governments that respect religious liberty also display greater peace and stability, which is attractive for business investment and jobs.

Religious freedom also goes hand-in-hand with other fundamental human rights. One only has to look at countries like Iran, China, and Venezuela to see that a lack of respect for religious liberty correlates directly with high levels of oppression and the lack of respect for other rights.

Even in nations where citizens have a great degree of religious freedom, we are seeing that freedom challenged and diminished. When tolerance for religious beliefs wanes, intolerance for other beliefs isn’t far behind. When it becomes acceptable to discriminate against or persecute people for their religious beliefs, it's a short slide down the slippery slope to justify doing the same thing to both the religious and non-religious based on their political beliefs, their beliefs on how they raise and educate their children, or some other belief system that doesn’t comport with the government’s.

According to data from the Pew Research Center, over 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or banned. Thousands are displaced or killed annually because of their religious faith. In response, President Trump in his U.N. speech called on foreign leaders to protect the free exercise of religion, to end the persecution of people practicing their faith, and to repeal laws restricting freedom of religion and belief. He also reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to promoting religious freedom here at home.

One part of the president’s announcement that didn’t get much notice was his creation of a first-of-its-kind coalition of U.S. businesses tasked with encouraging the private sector to protect people of all faiths in the workplace and integrate support for religious liberty into their diversity strategies. When religious freedom is respected in the workplace, morale and even productivity can improve significantly.

However, the benefits aren’t just within companies. They can encompass whole economies. According to a 2014   study   by Georgetown and Brigham Young University researchers, religious freedom is one of three factors significantly associated with overall economic growth. The study found a positive relationship between religious freedom and 10 out of 12 indicators of global competitiveness.   https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7078/religious-liberty-is-critical-for-believers-and-non-believers-alike

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    one month ago

Do not totally disagree with what you said. 

But-----I honestly believe there are many of the 'disingenuous sort' who harbor nefarious reasons and jumped on the 'religious liberty train.'

In other words this is not that simple and certainly not cut and dried.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  bbl-1 @4    one month ago

Really?  Who are you or myself to sit in judgement over whether ones closely and deeply held religious beliefs are genuine or not?  

 
 
 
charger 383
5  charger 383    one month ago

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  charger 383 @5    one month ago

Freedom of religion does mean the right to choose to follow or believe no religion at all.  I don’t think that is seriously in dispute in this country.  It does not mean the ability to infringe upon the free religious speech or expression of one to protect another from any exposure to religious thought.  

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.1  JBB  replied to  Heartland American @5.1    one month ago

WRONGO! You have zero right to foist your beliefs onto others at our public schools, at public events or at work. All Americans are free to believe in magic and mythical entities, or not...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    one month ago
WRONGO! You have zero right to foist your beliefs onto others at our public schools, at public events or at work. All Americans are free to believe in magic and mythical entities, or not...

Freedom of speech extends to all of those locations.  

Religious people have the same right as political whackjobs to attempt to convert others.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.3  MUVA  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    one month ago

Wrongo you can't stop someone from speaking because you don't like what they are saying. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
5.1.4  SteevieGee  replied to  Heartland American @5.1    one month ago

When the Christies show up unannounced on my porch I'm always happy to talk about religion with them;  They never seem to want to discuss it though.  What they want is to preach THEIR religion at me.  It's not a discussion at all.  When I explain to them that on my porch I have a right to explain how I feel they scurry away like cockroaches.  These people do not want freedom of religion they  want me to join their religion.  THIS IS NOT FREEDOM OF RELIGION.  Perhaps I should just be rude to them or, better yet, they should just stay the fuck off my porch.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    one month ago
foist your beliefs onto others

What does that mean? Are you suggesting that people are forcing others to be religious? Are you suggesting that religious people should have to hide it?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  SteevieGee @5.1.4    one month ago
These people do not want freedom of religion they  want me to join their religion. 

Those are two different things. Obviously they want you to join. There's nothing wrong with that sentiment. Atheists want more atheists in the world. Democrats want more Democrats.

But if they didn't believe in freedom of religion, they wouldn't being trying to talk you into it. They'd hold a gun or a sword to your head and threaten you with death if you didn't convert. That happens in some places, just not in America.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.7  Kathleen  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    one month ago

I agree with your first sentence, but not the second sentence because nothing has been fully proven on this subject.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.8  Kathleen  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.2    one month ago

I was at the mall and a guy came up to me and asked me if I believe in god. He and others were in a group approaching shoppers. It was very disturbing and uncomfortable. I said I was not going to answer that and walked away. He chased me and would get in front of me and preach.  My husband and daughter saw me, they were in another store.  My husband got in his face and told him he better leave me alone. He walked away. 

Now that is wrong.  That is the kind of thing I really dislike.  That is not free speech.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.9  Raven Wing  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.8    one month ago
That is not free speech.

Agree. There is also the thing called freedom from religion. Everyone has the right to worship who and what they feel is best for them and their life, or simply do not believe in a deity at all. 

I had a similar experience many years ago at the airport while waiting to board a flight. This was long before 9/11 and resultant TSA and heavy security stuff. There were a group of men with bald heads and what looked like Monk robes walking around and approaching people to try and convert them to their ideal religious belief. 

When the man began to speak to me in English I looked at him and shrugged my shoulders and replied, "Sprechen sie deutsch?". He shook his head a little and looked at me confused. I then asked, "Capiche Italiano? or "Parlay vu Français?" He shrugged and walked away in a huff. Certainly not the demeanor of a Monk in my opinion.

I do the same with any of those who barge into my three feet of personal space no matter where I am or what they are trying to sell. If I want to know I can seek out the information myself. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.10  Kathleen  replied to  Raven Wing @5.1.9    one month ago

I like that... you confused him. I think it becomes more like harassment. These people were young in their 20’s. I was walking and he was walking beside me and leaning over in my face telling me I will go to hell if I don’t believe.  I should have called the cops.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.11  Raven Wing  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.10    one month ago
I should have called the cops.

If he was that close in my face that is assault and I would have smacked his chops, or given him a knee so he could praise his deity while he was kneeling. jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

Then called the cops. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.8    one month ago
Now that is wrong.  That is the kind of thing I really dislike.  That is not free speech.

Physically preventing you from going about your business is interfering with your rights, and therefore is not protected as "free speech".

This is something the "occupy" movement failed to comprehend.  Many other protesters have fallen into that same trap over recent years, as well.

However speaking to you in the mall is within his rights.  Just like it is within yours to ask somebody if they have the time or where they got the shoes they're wearing.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.13  Kathleen  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.12    one month ago

Speaking is one thing, chasing me and trying to stop me from walking is another.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.13    one month ago
Speaking is one thing, chasing me and trying to stop me from walking is another.

Yes.  Exactly.

Just like sitting on the street outside the abortion clinic is one thing, but trying to keep people from entering is another.

Just like carrying signs outside a bank on Wall Street is one thing, but trying to block the entrance is another. 

Just like protesting a Trump rally is one thing, but blocking the highway leading to it is another.

Sadly, we're in an age of overstep.  People don't seem to understand rules, boundaries, and limitations.

 
 
 
JBB
5.2  JBB  replied to  charger 383 @5    one month ago

Correct...

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3  Tacos!  replied to  charger 383 @5    one month ago
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion

In America, I don't think anyone is actually being forced into a religion. If they are, and they're not kids, a crime is probably being committed.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
5.3.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Tacos! @5.3    one month ago
and they're not kids,

Millions of kids are forcefully indoctrinated into religions all the time in the US.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @5.3.1    one month ago

Would you prefer that parents have no say in it for their minor children?

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.3.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @5.3.2    one month ago

Many on the left would prefer no parental role in the raising or education of our children and think the government a better choice.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.3.4  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  SteevieGee @5.3.1    one month ago

As if parents aren’t going to raise their children in the same traditions and values they were raised in or if they rejected those as adults their own new beliefs.  Would you prefer parents be forced to leave their children with government sponsored day care on weekends while they went to church?  You wouldn’t expect parents to leave their children at home alone for 3-4 hours would you? Or would you prefer that government forbade parents from going to church while children live in their home? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  SteevieGee @5.3.1    one month ago
Millions of kids are forcefully indoctrinated into

Kids are forced into things every day. School, for example. It's part of being a kid. That's why any reasonable discussion on this topic excludes kids, as I did in my comment. The fact it's the only thing you can identify as a lack of freedom just shows how weak that position is.

 
 
 
devangelical
5.4  devangelical  replied to  charger 383 @5    one month ago

I call the cops on door knocking bible thumpers, since my condo complex is clearly posted with no soliciting signs on every door. it's fun to watch them argue with the cops until they receive tickets for trespassing. seems so difficult for them to understand that they're subject to the law of the land. tough shit thumpers, pay that fine and share your tale of religious persecution next sunday to people that give a holy shit. maybe they'll get reimbursed from the collection plate, or not.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.4.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  devangelical @5.4    one month ago

Since condos are individually owned housing units what makes you so sure that such a sign is up on every single owners front door?

 
 
 
devangelical
5.4.2  devangelical  replied to  Heartland American @5.4.1    one month ago

come knocking and find out

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.4.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  devangelical @5.4.2    one month ago

Whether I’m doing precinct walking for the local GOP or passing out literature or outreach invitations for my church, I never knock on a door with a no soliciting sign on it.  I just leave what I have to share and move on to the next place.  

 
 
 
devangelical
5.4.4  devangelical  replied to  Heartland American @5.4.3    one month ago

both are considered soliciting in the eyes of the law in a place clearly posted with no soliciting signs

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.4.5  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  devangelical @5.4.4    one month ago

No it’s not.  If you walk up to a door and see a no soliciting sign and leave without knocking or bothering the people inside, it’s not soliciting.  

 
 
 
katrix
5.4.6  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @5.4.5    one month ago
If you walk up to a door and see a no soliciting sign and leave without knocking or bothering the people inside, it’s not soliciting.  

If you leave your thumper literature, it IS soliciting.

 
 
 
devangelical
5.4.7  devangelical  replied to  Heartland American @5.4.5    one month ago

going door to door without the consent of the HOA is trespassing

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.4.8  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  devangelical @5.4.7    one month ago

Unlike many on the left , I’m not elite enough or wealthy enough to live in or anywhere near a neighborhood with an hoa. Most HOA’s are about restricting race and preventing veterans from flying American flags on or in front of their homes 

 
 
 
devangelical
5.4.9  devangelical  replied to  Heartland American @5.4.8    one month ago

our HOA is extremely diverse and is all about keeping door knocking sales pimps and religious pests out. I have a 5x9 American flag hanging inside my sliding glass door that can be seen by everyone in the courtyard.

 
 
 
lady in black
5.4.10  lady in black  replied to  devangelical @5.4.9    one month ago

Good.  I do not have an HOA thankfully, but, on Monday someone (and I'm not sure who) came to my door 3 times in 2 hrs. Everyone who knows me knows to come to my back door, so I know when it's the front door, someone is trying to sell me something or convert me.....

 
 
 
devangelical
5.4.11  devangelical  replied to  lady in black @5.4.10    one month ago

I convert thumpers into fine paying contributors to the local municipal court after they lip off to the cops, with the full backing of our HOA. freedom from religion.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.4.12  MUVA  replied to  devangelical @5.4.11    one month ago

You should be proud.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.4.13  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @5.4.12    one month ago

When and where don't the 'religious' have liberty?

 
 
 
devangelical
5.4.14  devangelical  replied to  MUVA @5.4.12    one month ago
You should be proud

I am. it's an important lesson for the morons that think their book of fables supersedes the US Constitution and I'm all about trying to help ignorant knuckle draggers to see the brighter light.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.4.15  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @5.4.13    one month ago

I’m not religious don’t care that other people are.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.4.16  MUVA  replied to  devangelical @5.4.14    one month ago

Then you took my advice and you are proud.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7  Sean Treacy    one month ago

It's amazing to me how the very concept of church and religion seems to mentally unhinge some non believers.  I don't believe myself but it never occurs to me to be upset that some people do.   Counseling is probably a good idea for some, given their unhealthy  issues with other people's beliefs.

Relax. Learn to tolerate people who think differently than you.  You'll be happier than when  throwing hissy fits over the concept of thoughts and prayers being offered.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
7.1  Kathleen  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    one month ago

Even though I am as well, it does not bother me either way.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    one month ago

It just blows me away that the concept of the headline and religious liberty being important for both the believer and the non believer could in any way be controversial.  

 
 
 
MUVA
8  MUVA    one month ago

So it's like that a personal attack for posting a comment  that must be decency you were talking about.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1  MUVA  replied to  MUVA @8    one month ago

I responded to a post that a unnamed member posted then removed.

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MUVA @8.1    one month ago

Here’s a tip. Always wait until what you are responding to has been up longer than 10 minutes before doing so.  After that then hit em with your best shot.  I learned this after a lefty posted something and I refuted it completely and then the post was deleted and the person denied ever having written what I responded to.  After that time 10 minutes, only one with moderator powers could delete their own post in that manner.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Kavika
Kathleen
Jack_TX
CB
cjcold
GregTx
KatPen


38 visitors