Should churches that refuse to perform gay marriages lose tax exempt status?

[Steophan]

@Munch

Now that we have this out in the open, I think we can just go ahead and close this thread. Steophan is now arguing against 235 years of American history, and the basis of the Constitution. Beliefs DO matter, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Forcing others to believe what you want them to believe is entirely antithetical to the concept of freedom. You have met a brick wall here in that regard.

You are right on one point though - bigotry IS wrong. But you will not be able to provide a logical justification for having the government force religious organizations to act against their bigoted ways. Your disdain for all religious organizations and your wish to see them eradicated is coloring your argument.

I’m neither attempting to force anyone to believe anything, nor take any actions at all. I am saying that, should they act, they must act in a non-bigoted fashion regardless of their beliefs.

If that is against your 235-year-old holy writing, that matters no more from a moral point of view than millennia old holy writing. A constitution should not be considered that way, it should be adjusted when shown to be wrong. Allowing religion as an excuse for bigotry is wrong, and your constitution needs to be changed to recognise that.

[tomndebb]

Ahh! I see the problem.

You have an idea not connected to reality that you can only repeat over and over without understanding the actual concepts about which you are typing words.

Not a problem.

I will leave you alone with your delusions, then.

[Steophan]

@tomndebb

Ahh! I see the problem.

You have an idea not connected to reality that you can only repeat over and over without understanding the actual concepts about which you are typing words.

Not a problem.

I will leave you alone with your delusions, then.

I strongly suspect you are the one with delusions, that you use to justify your bigotry. I also strongly suspect that, unfortunately, you won’t be alone with them.

[Munch]

@Steophan

I’m neither attempting to force anyone to believe anything, nor take any actions at all. I am saying that, should they act, they must act in a non-bigoted fashion regardless of their beliefs.

It’s funny - normally it’s the extreme conservatives that want to force people to act in a way that conforms to their particular beliefs. I’m not sure if it’s refreshing or sad to see it happen from the other side.

I cannot fathom the police force necessary to muster should the government have to get into the business of making sure that every baptism, communion, confession, counselling session, marriage, funeral, bar mitzvah, bris, etc. is being offered to anyone and everyone. The IRS currently can’t keep up with churches that violate the politicking rules - how the hell are they going to keep up with this?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Steophan

I strongly suspect you are the one with delusions, that you use to justify your bigotry. I also strongly suspect that, unfortunately, you won’t be alone with them.

Dude, all the people you’re arguing with are atheists. Let this go. You’re, like, Clothahump wrong.

[Steophan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Dude, all the people you’re arguing with are atheists. Let this go. You’re, like, Clothahump wrong.

Unless I’m very much mistaken, tomndebb is Catholic, and has been quite vocal about being so on this board. It was him that post was directed at, on that assumption.

[Steophan]

@Munch

It’s funny - normally it’s the extreme conservatives that want to force people to act in a way that conforms to their particular beliefs. I’m not sure if it’s refreshing or sad to see it happen from the other side.

I cannot fathom the police force necessary to muster should the government have to get into the business of making sure that every baptism, communion, confession, counselling session, marriage, funeral, bar mitzvah, bris, etc. is being offered to anyone and everyone. The IRS currently can’t keep up with churches that violate the politicking rules - how the hell are they going to keep up with this?

How did they do it when desegregation was enforced? That succeeded. It may have taken time, and not been perfect, but modern history is full of occasions where minority or otherwise underprivileged groups have had their rights legally guaranteed, and those laws enforced. Off the top of my head, in America, you had the 13th Amendment in 1865, desegregation in the 60s, the ADA in the 90s, and the ongoing attempts to give equal rights to those other than heterosexual and cisgender. Usually rather than police every single place or event, the authorities would respond to specific complaints.

Oh, and once again, I’m not attempting to force anyone to act in any way whatsoever, and repeatedly claiming that I am is still foolish.

[lance_strongarm]

@Steophan

Exactly. They are wrong, and need to stop inflicting their warped views on others.

But they don’t. Nobody is forced to have a religious marriage. Nobody is denied the right to have a marriage if they can’t have a religious one.

Your argument is as absurd as saying that everyone who wants a Girl Scout badge should have one, even those who aren’t Girl Scouts and haven’t done what’s needed to earn the badge.

[lance_strongarm]

@Munch

It’s funny - normally it’s the extreme conservatives that want to force people to act in a way that conforms to their particular beliefs. I’m not sure if it’s refreshing or sad to see it happen from the other side.

Every once in a while you get these people who are so far to the left, they come back out on the right, or vice versa.

[lance_strongarm]

@Steophan

I’m neither attempting to force anyone to believe anything, nor take any actions at all. I am saying that, should they act, they must act in a non-bigoted fashion regardless of their beliefs.

I ask again - should Jews be forced not to be “bigoted” against Nazis and allow them to join synagogues, for instance?

[Munch]

@Steophan

but modern history is full of occasions where minority or otherwise underprivileged groups have had their rights legally guaranteed, and those laws enforced.

And modern history is even more full of occasions where religious organizations are left to practice their own beliefs unhindered.

Oh, and once again, I’m not attempting to force anyone to act in any way whatsoever, and repeatedly claiming that I am is still foolish.

Total nonsense. Forcing religious organizations and their followers to alter their practices reduces their beliefs to be meaningless to them. You know this. If you don’t, then you’re far more guilty of ignoring people’s posts than the other way around.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Guinastasia

Hardly – these people are a very small minority. Unless, of course, you have proof otherwise? :dubious:

Well, that’s why I was asking if other people agreed with Steophan or if he’s a lone voice on this board. The impression I get is that he is getting at least some support in spirit even if the support seems to think his vision is impossible.

@JRDelirious

Yes, they are a very small minority. But the reactionaries WILL point at them as evidence of “our” ulterior motive.

Y’know, I can dig when people say churches,* all churches, should not be tax-privileged at all*. But that’s a whole lot different than saying we should use the power of the state to enforce the “right” doctrine. We used to do that, and the smell of burnt flesh was not pleasant.

Yes, churches and other denominations have evolved and adapted. There are more moderate and liberal and progressive branches of all the major faiths. But… the Justice Department did not file an injunction for the US Episcopal Church to ordain female clerics. Catholics did not start eating meat on Fridays because the Beef Cattle Association sued them or doing their rites in the local language because the city council mandated simultaneous translation if they kept using Latin. Conservative and Reform Jewish women did not give up frum because of a tax on long sleeves and wigs. They adapted to the evolving society, and in the process it was unnecessary to deliberately destroy the more orthodox or prevent them from continuing to observe their way in order to achieve this. Even to this day and on this issue: Disagreement on gay marriages and ordinations? Split the congregation, progressives go one way, reactionaries go the other. History shall judge them.

But of course, no, that’s “tolerating bigotry”. (BTW, do people seem to think the cry of “bigotry” somehow should shut everyone up?) Thing is, there is not much effect in throwing around an accusation of “tolerating bigotry” just because everyone else is not as much of an absolutist hardliner about ritualistic ceremonies, if people ARE getting their rights recognized before the law where it counts.

Exactly. It is attitudes like Steophan that will make people point and say “I TOLD YOU SO!!!” Of course I have enough faith in our judiciary and our constitution to know that no matter how many Steophans there are in this country, we will never uphold a law that will force a priest to perform a gay marraige.

[Munch]

@Damuri_Ajashi

The impression I get is that he is getting at least some support in spirit even if the support seems to think his vision is impossible.

Who do you think is giving him support, even in spirit?

[Steophan]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Of course I have enough faith in our judiciary and our constitution to know that no matter how many Steophans there are in this country, we will never uphold a law that will force a priest to perform a gay marraige.

Assuming you’re talking about the US, you have, to my knowledge, no Steophans there, and I also suspect you’re right that your country, despite nominally having separation of church and state, will never allow the church to relax it’s control. But also, one day, your country will not be a world superpower, and will have to follow more advanced countries or be left behind. That may be a way off, but it’s probably sooner that some people think. Unlikely to be in the lifetime of many people posting here though.

However, I hope and expect that the Church of England will perform gay marriages soon, and other churches here will follow suit. Eventually, those that don’t follow will be considered unacceptably intolerant, just as a church that refused to marry black people would now.

[Munch]

@Steophan

However, I hope and expect that the Church of England will perform gay marriages soon, and other churches here will follow suit. Eventually, those that don’t follow will be considered unacceptably intolerant, just as a church that refused to marry black people would now.

Since we all understand your opinion, why exactly do you not find this to be an acceptable process than getting the government entangled in forcing the issue across the board?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, the government is entangled with the Church of England, so it’s a special case.

[Munch]

Well sure - but it’s more the second part of that I was interested in. Why not just let the marketplace of ideas sort out the non-CoE institutions, rather than having the government strong arm every. single. one?

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Steophan

Exactly. They are wrong, and need to stop inflicting their warped views on others.

No, they aren’t.

[lance_strongarm]

@Steophan

Assuming you’re talking about the US, you have, to my knowledge, no Steophans there, and I also suspect you’re right that your country, despite nominally having separation of church and state, will never allow the church to relax it’s control. But also, one day, your country will not be a world superpower, and will have to follow more advanced countries or be left behind. That may be a way off, but it’s probably sooner that some people think. Unlikely to be in the lifetime of many people posting here though.

However, I hope and expect that the Church of England will perform gay marriages soon, and other churches here will follow suit. Eventually, those that don’t follow will be considered unacceptably intolerant, just as a church that refused to marry black people would now.

Yeah, you stupid Limey, 'Mericans rule! USA! USA!

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Munch

Who do you think is giving him support, even in spirit?

The OP for one. I didn’t go through the entire thread but the first post kinda stuck out.

@Steophan

I also suspect you’re right that your country, despite nominally having separation of church and state, will never allow the church to relax it’s control.

Really? So which church control’s the state in the USA?

But also, one day, your country will not be a world superpower, and will have to follow more advanced countries or be left behind. That may be a way off, but it’s probably sooner that some people think. Unlikely to be in the lifetime of many people posting here though.

Just because it happened to you doesn’t mean it will happen to the USA. Our power doesn’t rely on a global network of colonies. Sure, one day the USA may fall the way Rome did but right now there is noone that is remotely close to knocking us out of the top spot.

However, I hope and expect that the Church of England will perform gay marriages soon, and other churches here will follow suit. Eventually, those that don’t follow will be considered unacceptably intolerant, just as a church that refused to marry black people would now.

Maybe, but threat of government action is not the way to do it.