Thread: Why do Christards maintain that state-sponsored fairness is unfair to them?

Originally Posted by Swoop187

No you don't, the Church is tax exempt because they do things like take care of the homeless, something the government doesn't have to.

Do you have any idea of how much good the church does?

I'm not a "church" going man but I'm not going to sit back and act like the church does no good.

I am not talking about tax exemptions for churches. I am talking about federal tax money being given to religious organizations.

Originally Posted by Rationalist

I am not talking about tax exemptions for churches. I am talking about federal tax money being given to religious organizations.

All compensation made to the Church via government is due to the Churches generosity with the poor.

Do you have any idea how much money the Church saves the government due to their charity work?

They feed and cloth the homeless, provide medical care for them, go to other nations and bring aid and medical supplies.... They do a lot of good.

I would reserve judgment if I were you.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

No you don't, the Church is tax exempt because they do things like take care of the homeless, something the government doesn't have to.

Do you have any idea of how much good the church does?

I'm not a "church" going man but I'm not going to sit back and act like the church does no good.

Not only does the church do a lot of good, but it does so in a financially efficient manner. Something the Federal Government cannot, and will not do. I think that is what must raise the ire of the "Libtards".

Why is it that this fellow that calls himself "rationalist" is the most irrational member we currently have ?

How strange.

"Rationalist"

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Why is it that this fellow that calls himself "rationalist" is the most irrational member we currently have ?

How strange.

"Rationalist"

In Captain Trips-speak, being called the most irrational poster is equivalent to being the most rational poster here.

That would make you, the most rationalist poster here, by those standards.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Why is it that this fellow that calls himself "rationalist" is the most irrational member we currently have ?

How strange.

"Rationalist"

Yeah i would echo that.

So does anyone have an explanation why preventing the religious majority from forcing its will on others---e.g., maintaining strict state neutrality----is allegedly persecution of said religious majority, or is everyone going to continue to unrinate and defecate over the principles of basic logic and act as if my choice of words in the OP and the thread title justify state-sponsorship of Christianity (which happened before I even created this thread, so it is illogical in the extreme to use this very thread as justification for that which came before it), or are posters here going to continue making moronic, non-substantive posts?

Originally Posted by Rationalist

So does anyone have an explanation why preventing the religious majority from forcing its will on others---e.g., maintaining strict state neutrality----is allegedly persecution of said religious majority, or is everyone going to continue to unrinate and defecate over the principles of basic logic and act as if my choice of words in the OP and the thread title justify state-sponsorship of Christianity (which happened before I even created this thread, so it is illogical in the extreme to use this very thread as justification for that which came before it), or are posters here going to continue making moronic, non-substantive posts?

Well if you hadn't insulted the entire Christian world by calling them a disparaging name like "chistards," just stated your objection or thesis and then been a little more coherent in your original post perhaps people in this thread would take you more seriously.

Also, you could have provided a link to a news story, a poll or study that backs up your claim and then, and only then you'd have some credibility.

Originally Posted by Irrationalist

So does anyone have an explanation why preventing the religious majority from forcing its will on others---e.g., maintaining strict state neutrality----is allegedly persecution of said religious majority, or is everyone going to continue to unrinate and defecate over the principles of basic logic and act as if my choice of words in the OP and the thread title justify state-sponsorship of Christianity (which happened before I even created this thread, so it is illogical in the extreme to use this very thread as justification for that which came before it)?

This needed to be bold? Does that mean someone should actually take you seriously?
No one is saying any religion is being persecuted. What some are saying is that in it's desire to placate the demands of certain religions that have protected status confirmed on them by the PC police, government is allowing minority religions to do what they prohibit from the majority religion. I don't think it's fair when liberals in an attempt to placate Muslims urinate and defecate all over my faith.
The State is in no way sponsoring religion any more than they sponsor any other organization to which federal funds go. Bush realized that in some cases, churches may be better equipped to do certain things, like minister to a neighborhood or run a soup kitchen. Faith based programs do what needs to be done without the added expense of yet another government bureaucracy. There is not religion or denomination favored, or even required. All that's necessary is a presence in the target area or a proven program that needs help.

Originally Posted by JoMe

Well if you hadn't insulted the entire Christian world by calling them a disparaging name like "chistards," just stated your objection or thesis and then been a little more coherent in your original post perhaps people in this thread would take you more seriously.

Also, you could have provided a link to a news story, a poll or study that backs up your claim and then, and only then you'd have some credibility.

I clearly stated that only some Christians are Christards. Clearly, Christians like John Shelby Spong are NOT Christards.

Do you really question the existence of a large number of Christians who object when Atheists file legal challenges to instances where the state violates religious neutrality in favor of Christianity?

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

This needed to be bold? Does that mean someone should actually take you seriously?
No one is saying any religion is being persecuted. What some are saying is that in it's desire to placate the demands of certain religions that have protected status confirmed on them by the PC police, government is allowing minority religions to do what they prohibit from the majority religion. I don't think it's fair when liberals in an attempt to placate Muslims urinate and defecate all over my faith.
The State is in no way sponsoring religion any more than they sponsor any other organization to which federal funds go. Bush realized that in some cases, churches may be better equipped to do certain things, like minister to a neighborhood or run a soup kitchen. Faith based programs do what needs to be done without the added expense of yet another government bureaucracy. There is not religion or denomination favored, or even required. All that's necessary is a presence in the target area or a proven program that needs help.[emphasis mine]

Why should the state help a religious organization minister to a neighborhood?

Originally Posted by Rationalist

Why should the state help a religious organization minister to a neighborhood?

BECAUSE THEY CAN TO IT BETTER AND CHEAPER! Why the hell would you trust a system that pays $1,500 for a hammer to do a job where the infrastructure is already in place?
The money can't be used for missionary work or upkeep on the primary house of worship, only for the nonsectarian service that they provide.