Christian Brother Jailed For Sex Abuse, But His Church Still Stands By Him

Its better to suckle

 

How about you get your side to follow your beliefs? All those atheists organizations that take this status? Yeah, well, we expect you to start a campaign to bring atheism in line with the views of atheism. Only when you can follow your own beliefs about taxes should you be catigating other for something.

Once again its called hypocrisy.

Churches, unlike most atheist groups that do nothing but whine, actually have a chaitable component. The atheists are basicaly using a loop hole meant to acknowledge that reality for fraudulent purposes.

Once again, we see that you want one standard for our side and another fr your side.

As long as you can whine it'll be good for you.

 

Apparently. Yes, expropriate the fruits of my labor to satisfy your own desires.

 

Some churches have charitable components, certainly. Some have private jets and multimillion dollar sound systems. As I am opposed to charitable deductions in the first place, it is my position that if they are going to exist, they should exist solely to the extent that they ACTUALLY DO CHARITY. United Way needs to produce a TV commercial to appeal for donations? OK, that's a charitable expense. World Vision needs to produce leaflets to hand out at events to appeal for donations? OK, that's a charitable expense. Catholic Charities provide medical care for the indigent? OK, that's a charitable expense. Catholic Archdiocese pays out two billion in hush money to anal rape victims? NOT A CHARITABLE EXPENSE. Get it?

And stop patting yourself on the back. Of course my position applies to ALL organizations that claim tax-exempt status, even my beloved NAMBLA.

 

Yeah. It always is better when its at YOUR expense

 

Tell your atheist organizations to likewise pay their fair share in taxes.

 

And that attitude shows that you are within all probability expressing a little tinge of jealousy... Jealous of the fact that the "Christians are sucking at a rate of AT LEAST 350:1 over the atheists." My suggestion... have your atheist organizations work harder toward the attainment of an equal status (lawfully and legally).

 

I am not a member of any "atheist organizations," and as I have stated--now ad nauseum--yes, they should all pay their fair share in taxes. Of course, as there are only 18 atheist organizations reported by your own IRS query, that certainly won't move the needle that much... but the TENS OF THOUSANDS of religious organizations who enjoy the subsidy? Well, now we're talking!

 

Strawman indeed. Perhaps you should render your own opinion of whether the BSA or the UNCF are religions. In the eyes of some followers, it might occupy the status of a 'religion'. Have you completed a scientific analysis to show whether or not they are a 'religion'?

You seem to be gaining an interest in 'boys'. Is that perhaps due to the influence of NAMBLA within the ranks of Atheism?

 

Atheists? Boy Scouts? United Way? NAMBLA? World Vision? The Archdiocese of Los Angeles? All the same in the eyes of the law when it comes to taxation. Not sure I understand your point.

 

I was using your logic, sir.

If A then B

Tax exempt = religion

If Catholic Church then American Atheists.

If Firefighters' Benevolent Fund then Rotary International.

By your logic, all the above are religions as you used tax-exempt status to classify "atheism" as a religion.

 

The whole point is that Atheists do in fact receive subsidies in the form of 'tax exemption'; in contrast to the statement "It does not guarantee public subsidies for said associations. " made by one of the Atheists/non-theists on this forum. Gee it seems that you are the one that made that statement.

 

Your logical equation is illogical. It does not give consideration to all the factors necessary to bring 'truth' into the result.

Your logical equation leaves out "C". "C" = the supreme court decision which names Atheism as a religion for purposes of Article 1 of the Constitution, and now for purposes of the Internal Revenue Services.

 

Your ignorance is showing slick.

NAMBLA is not a tax free institute. Its the North American Man Boy Love Association.

I think we know moral relativism when we see it.

 

Well, like I said, apply your standards to YOUR side first.

I am not quite sure that flying flags on Independance Day, throwing concerts in Fort Bragg, and suing people qualifies as charity.

But of course, you won't take issue with it - because it isn't about the tax dollars, it about finding something in religion to (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about.

Atheism can only define itself by criticising others - a problem for atheists. Most grow out of it, those that don't - are just bitter old men.

 

Wow did you miss my point! "It does not guarantee public subsidies for said associations" was an argument against said subsidies. Worship what you please--just please pay your own way.

 

You were the one who conflated "religion" with "atheism" by virtue of tax-exempt status.

 

I stand corrected. NAMBLA chapters have been tax-exempt, but have lost their status due to legal noncompliance. Funny thing about making such a big issue out of NAMBLA is that the "organization" is nearly extinct these days anyway--just a few old perverts sitting around who probably don't even pack the gear to rape children any longer anyway... but you keep right on grasping at those straws.

 

I already do... slick.

501(c)3 status can be obtained for a variety of different associations. It is not just for Charities--ie, the Boy Scouts.

I have taken PLENTY of issue with it and you know it.

Ah, I think atheism "defines itself" as the lack of belief in deities. Am I missing something here? And you take issue with criticizing others yet you support religions that threaten to cast those who don't toe the line into a lake of fire??? Have you ever watched a Sunday morning preacher condemn homosexuality? Gosh, call me crazy, but I think that counts as "cticizing others." Oh, I know, I know, "hate the sin, love the sinner." I call bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Is dishonesty a trait required to be atheist?

NAMBLA has never been a tax exempt institution. It is an organization that has essentially been broken up by law enforcement because the activity it advocates, and that you apparently (but clearly not really) find abhorrent, which is the sexual abuse of children.

The simple fact is that you have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the group and its activities, bt now are apparently an expert on its tax status?

http://www.nambla.org/

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the group and its activities, and please spare us the fake accounting tricks. You've been wrong, and failed to referrence the declared financial statements of the Catholic Church, and now you are making things up about a group you know nothing about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Operations

Nice to see you have such intimate details about their finances however.

 

Really? Then let us all see the letters you have sent to American Atheists and other organizations that take advantage of this tax free status.

You haven't done that, you are simply rationalizing double standards to advance your bigotry.

By all means though, continue to advance the case that in a country that is majority Christian and increasingly tolerant and accepting of homosexuals, that Christianity is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Why do atheists spend so much time bad mounting other people from obviously fallacious positions, do you feel better about yourself after you attack a strawman of reality? Is your righteousness found solely in telling others on the internet how much they suck?

Apparently.

 

Wikipedia? Really? That's your reference?

OK, now I will admit I am NOT an expert on NAMBLA--go figure. However, I remember a 60 Minutes piece on them several years back where the reporter claimed they were a 501(c)3 organization. So if I am wrong about that--AGAIN, I stand corrected.

Maybe this is what he was referencing: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/NAMBLA.html

I want to say it was Harry Reasoner who filed the report?

 

I am simply advocating a position here, sir.

You may believe what you wish--I really don't care. If it makes you feel better, you go right ahead, but my position is consistent ACROSS THE BOARD.

Oh that's rich. As if homosexuals need to be "tolerated." But how good of you to "tolerate" them. *Pats Neutral on head.*

Oh man... not touching that one!

 

Really, so we just ignored the first one entirely?

And then we site the name from the Wikipedia source like its hard to use google after the fact and a point of minutia means you were honest?

#1 - please show us the source you used to arrive at the conclusion that NAMBLA 'lost' its tax exempt status, and how exactly it lost it by non-compliance?

#2 - perhaps you shoudl referrence the legion of cases against NAMBLA and consider why NAMBLA is watched very closely by law enforcement agencies.

Because the simple fact of the matter is that people who ACTUALLY care about stopping the abuse of children pay attention to these kinds of things and are aware of threats toward children.

Nihilists are just dishonest and malicious enough to use the sexual abuse of children to attack innocent people who had nothing to do with the abuse. After all, an educated, rational person would realize that victims and their families, indeed those who rose up in anger against the church, are Catholics. I guess we should disband them too.

But by all means, continue to make up fallacious financial transactions and after the fact minutia reporting to justify your complete avoidance and ever advancement of child sexual abuse.

Seriously, you would rather support NAMBLA then admit to ignorance? And that is the problem with modern atheism. And as the spot light begins to shift onto atheist organizations, well, it'll be intereesting to see what is found. Atheists remain human, and since sanctimony is teh basis of your morality .... I predict some delicious crow for atheists.

 

Yes, homosexuals do need to be tolerated. Perhaps you should read your history to see ho homosexuality has been variously tolerated and then rejected, often used as a political weapon against rivals that translates further down into violence and intolerance of humans who happen to be homosexual.

But, just like child sexual abuse, it isn't really about doing what is right for homosexuals is it? Its just finding something to bash the church over.

How self righteous is it bash someone with something you don't actually care about? It all about putting others down in order to feel good about yourself.

I wonder what imaginary financial transaction you will make up to excuse this one?