My current definition of “irony”: Someone who can’t spell “prey”, but who wants to sterilize stupid people. :rolleyes:
Let’s start with this premise. Most religious groups – at least the ones with which I’ve been associates – are not profitable. In any case, the same still holds true for any 501-status organization.
They do. On their income. Are preachers not allowed to buy what they want with their income? (If someone is embezzling, as has been known to happen, that’s a different matter altogether.)
They do? All of them? Really? I attended an Episcopal church for several years and never heard any such thing. I’m sure many of our fellow posters can back me up there.
This is not necessarily true. Intelligence by itself is not nearly sufficient, especially given the “broad history of evolution,” without physical hardiness, dexterity, and a host of other traits. This is such a gross simplification as to be useless.
Actually, no, I don’t agree with this at all. And since you’re making the assertion, I’d still like to see some cites correlating contraceptive use with intelligence. It really isn’t that uncommon for honor students, for example, to graduate from high school with a bun in the oven. Lack of contraceptive use probably correlates strongly with poverty, which has little to do with intelligence.
Woah, woah, woah . . . are you claiming definitively that intelligence is genetic? I’m going to have to ask for lots of cites here.
You’re the one claiming otherwise, and I still haven’t seen a cite.
Their logic is wrong, and completely counter intuitive. Why? Well, it’s simple:
- They claim that the crime rate falls as the incidence of abortion rises, and that they are strongly correlated, with a causal relationship implied.
- We know, from decades of study, that crime is strongly and positively associated with poverty.
- It isn’t the poor people having most of the abortions; it’s the middle and upper classes.
- Ergo, since the poor are the ones having the most children while this crime rate has been falling, it’s the abortion of the non-poor that must be causing the drop in the crime rate.
Now, does that conclusion make sense to anyone? Of course not.
Again, it isn’t the poor that are having the abortions. So that drop in the crime rate must be attributable to something besides abortion, or it means that the people that are having abortions (the middle and upper class) are the ones responsible for most crime.
Oh yeah, EJsGirl, I am well aware of what eugenics means. One dictionary provides a nice, succinct definition: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding. I would change one word though… I’d change “study” to “duty”… And yes, no republican has ever complained about felons being disfranchised. The democrats are the ones going to prisons trying to sign up voters. They know where their constituency is 
As you can probably tell, I’m not much of a Republican fan either… but they don’t go “rock the vote” in San Quentin.
**
[/QUOTE]
In my earlier posting, I was attempting (and apparently succeeded, according to kalt) to explain more fully, the statement they’d made about churches being ‘underwritten’ in a way by tax payers.
In doing so, perhaps people believed things about my position on this topic.
Mine is nearly the same as Sua’s. Although, since many health insurers will pay for abortions, they apparently see them as not-quite-the-same-thing as elective.
Where I get into serious disagreement with the position of ‘I don’t want my tax $$ going for…’ is two fold -
First, it is the slipperiest slope of all (so, Fred down the street hates Marines, but likes the Air Force, so his tax $$ will only support part of our armed forces…),
The second objection I have is that it also gets folks into the same sort of thinking that kalt did - that any consideration of tax money can be interpreted as support. This can be seen in either of two ways, both of which I disagree with a- an organization not paying taxes at all, is ‘costing’ tax payers in the sense that any organization not contributing means individual tax payers are contributing more than if those organizations would be paying. and b, that by getting any tax payer funds for any programming, that ‘frees’ up other funds for things that tax payers don’t want to pay for (ie, giving any support to an organization that also does abortions therefore indirectly funds abortions). Like I said, both arguments are the same to me.
[QUOTE
How many church employees have you ever met that drive a Mercedes or Lexus or BMW, that don’t also work a second Monday-thru-Friday job? **[/QUOTE]
like Benny Hinn drives a corolla like me…
…like all writers make the same kind of cash as Danielle Steele…
…like all musicians make the same kind of cash as billionaire Paul McCartney…
There is a difference in making abortion freely available - which I am in favour of BTW - and promoting it as a good form of birth control, particularly when you suggest it in the context of ‘social engineering’ as you did. IMO thats disgusting.
Besides (and cripes, this tangent is ridiculous, but ignorance must be confronted everywhere), Benny Hinn is NOT a church employee. He’s an entertainer: he hosts a religious television program, does a road show, and writes religious books.
Drive through town this week, and stop off at your local Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Assemblies of God, and other Christian churches, as well as a synagogue or Jewish Community Center, and see what kinds of cars are in the parking lot. Then go in and ask the employees which ones are theirs.
If anyone here thinks working at a church is the fast road to riches, they have a hole in their head.
wring said:
While it is difficult to delineate where income tax goes, some taxes have clearer allocations, e.g., the telephone tax. It can be resisted by filling out forms at the start of a new telephone account.
From http://www.warresisters.org/wtr.htm"
This site also describes other methods of war tax resistance.
Paul McCartney and Danielle Steele are not claiming to collect money for charitable purposes.
When I purchase a book or CD of Danielle Steele and Paul McCartney its not tax deductible.
Christ…are you even paying attention here? The statement was made earlier (by Kalt) that ministers make tons of tax free money. pldennison responded to that statement…pointing out at least 2 errors (1) MOST ministers don’t make that much money, (3) ALL income (even income earned by ministers) is taxed.
YOU responded with a mention of Benny Hin, suggesting (I guess) that he is representative of ministers in terms of income…Which of course, is a load of horse shit. I did not claim that McCartney & Steele were doing charity…I chose those examples to illustrate the foolishness of extrapolating from an extreme example to generalize the income of ONE person in an occupation…to the occupation as a whole.
It is taking one hell of a long time to fight ignorance…
Damn, how hard is this to understand?
Do you know why the parsonage system is in effect in many denominations? FYI- a parsonage is a house owned by the church that the pastor lives in free of charge for as long as he is employed by the church.
Answer- because the vast majority of pastors don’t make enough money to live in their parish!
Benny Hinn, Tammy Faye, et al, are NOT what I consider to be people of the cloth. As stated earlier, they are TV personalities, and we all know that they are overpaid for what they do, whether it’s on Friends or The PTL Club.
Sheesh.
Should read- “to pay rent or a mortgage in their parish.”
I have NEVER heard of a religious group that’s not profitable. They may blow their yearly surplus on a solid gold chair or on expanding their sanctuary or on advertising (a lot of them have billboards and TV commercials) but that doesn’t mean they’re not profitable. Have you ever seen a church that gave “tithing refunds”? Don’t think so.
Yeah, and where do you think their income comes from? Directly from the donation basket and the tithings. Incidentally, I do NOT believe a preacher (or rabbi, etc) should be allowed to buy a fancy car. A man of god would never do such a thing (unless he/she is a hypocrite). They should buy a simple car and give the rest of the money either to their congregation or to some charity. Any preacher who buys a car that costs over $15k should have his church lose tax free status.
I am of the opinion that all religions prey on all people. The more vulnerable someone is (i.e. suffering from cancer) the easier it is for a religion to capture them as a customer. There is a lot of talk right now by GW about “faith based” charities … and how they help people. Well, don’t think for a minute that Joe Homeless is going to get that bread without being brainwashed about Jesus. Faith based charity is a euphemism for “active recruitment.” Sort of off the subject, but do you think tax money should go to a “charity” that requires the people they purport to be helping to say prayers or study their bible/koran/torah? I don’t.
I’ll go find some cites for ya… but it seems like you really have to go out on a limb to say my assertion is wrong. I mean, if I said “do you not agree that the dumber a person is, the greater the chance of them getting in a traffic accident is?” would you say I’m wrong?? Yes i’m sure there are indeed some really stupid people out there who are just wonderful drivers… as I’m sure there are some really stupid people out there who use contraception properly all the time… but I’m looking at the macro level of things here.
Okay, I’ll go find you some sources that show intelligence is hereditary. Can you show me one reliable source that says it’s definitely not??
But that’s not their thesis at all. Have you read their report?
I have NEVER heard of a religious group that’s not profitable. They may blow their yearly surplus on a solid gold chair or on expanding their sanctuary or on advertising (a lot of them have billboards and TV commercials) but that doesn’t mean they’re not profitable. Have you ever seen a church that gave “tithing refunds”? Don’t think so.
Yeah, and <i>where do you think their income comes from?</i> Directly from the donation basket and the tithings. Incidentally, I do NOT believe a preacher (or rabbi, etc) should be allowed to buy a fancy car. A man of god would never do such a thing (unless he/she is a hypocrite). They should buy a simple car and give the rest of the money either to their congregation or to some charity. Any preacher who buys a car that costs over $15k should have his church lose tax free status.
I am of the opinion that all religions prey on all people. The more vulnerable someone is (i.e. suffering from cancer) the easier it is for a religion to capture them as a customer. There is a lot of talk right now by GW about “faith based” charities … and how they help people. Well, don’t think for a minute that Joe Homeless is going to get that bread without being brainwashed about Jesus. Faith based charity is a euphemism for “active recruitment.” Sort of off the subject, but do you think tax money should go to a “charity” that requires the people they purport to be helping to say prayers or study their bible/koran/torah? I don’t.
I’ll go find some cites for ya… but it seems like you really have to go out on a limb to say my assertion is wrong. I mean, if I said, “do you not agree that the dumber a person is, the greater the chance of them getting in a traffic accident is?” would you say I’m wrong?? Yes i’m sure there are indeed some really stupid people out there who are just wonderful drivers… as I’m sure there are some really stupid people out there who use contraception properly all the time… but I’m looking at the macro level of things here.
Okay, I’ll go find you some sources that show intelligence is hereditary. Can you show me one reliable source that says it’s definitely not??
But that’s not their thesis at all. Have you read their report?
I feel like I’m posting to Bizarro Great Debates…I’ll leave the solid gold chair example for what it is…a silly unsubstantiated nonexisitent notion…
By your definition…NO organization would be considered non-profit. NO organization gives back donated money left over at the end of the year…
Are you suggesting that the use of billboards or tv ads makes them a “for profit” organization? Shit…better tell that to the Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, the United Way etc…Do you even know what the word “profit” means?
My church (and those of my friends of other faiths) do not have idle surpluses lying around…take a look, for example at the diocese of Chicago, where dozens of schools are being closed because of a “lack” of funds.
Kalt, where did they grow you? I can tell you without question that my church is not a profitable enterprise.
We take in a little less than our budget, unfortunately. We don’t do a lot of advertising, our facility is in need of both major & minor repairs, and our employees are few and at least half of them have other jobs as well, because we can’t pay a whole lot.
We are in the majority, not the minority. I think maybe you watch too much TV or something, because your views on religion seem extreme at best. Did you perhaps have a scarring experience with Sister Mary Rhino? Or did Daddy lose the rent money because he gave it to a fake healer?
Ignorance has a firm foothold and refuses to give an inch.
I’ll have to back up Kalt on there being evidence of a certain genetic component to intelligence. Like most things, it seems to be a mix of nature and nurture…
The NR2B gene assists in the production of NMDA providing the basis for memory association and learning.
This was all over the news back in 1999.
http://www.sciam.com/2000/0400issue/0400tsien.html
I seem to remember another gene as well, but haven’t found links to it yet.
BTW, Kalt, your theory “stupid people are breeding” is not very new. It has been the basis of eugenics proposals since the beginning. Whether it is a correct theory or not, doesn’t mean that birth control should be forced.
It sounds a lot like you’ve been reading Fredrick Pohl’s The Marching Morons actually…
Ignorant?..hmmm
Well lets see, I full well realize that
#1 MOST church employees in one way shape or form DO NOT make alot of money at it.
#2 Famous televangelists are the exception not the rule
I’m new, I figured im gonna get smacked around a couple times around here for a while.
I find my self at a loss for how to best articulate my thoughts so I bow to the logic of yours.