Trio of Texas Churches Donated to Political Candidate Despite Clear IRS Prohibition - Others put candidate election signs on their property

[WolfGate]

It’s a variant of a Socratic argument, feign ignorance to get “the other side” to provide one with enough rope to tie them in knots.
If viewed with this knowledge it can be quite entertaining.

Thank you. That is enlightening and I enjoyed searching and reading elsewhere more deeply about Socratic arguments.

I did think of another, perhaps more practical reason. If I develop a desire to be a moderator in this fine community, there is a requirement that I must have made 200 posts per quarter. Nothing says they have to be worthwhile posts, or that they progress a discussion, but rather that they exist. If I were to decide to make that my goal, it certainly would be a time effective way to meet the requirement.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That won’t happen.

Why do I not believe you. You keep telling me that the chocolate wrapper gives you the right to dominate my peanut butter with your chocolate.

 

[Belk]

Yeah. Stifling free speech.

You are claiming free speech requires tax exempt status? If not I don't see how this is a limitation on free speech.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yeah. Stifling free speech.

No, speech is still free but "church" politicking is not supported by fellow tax-payers.

 

[Hammster]

Why do I not believe you. You keep telling me that the chocolate wrapper gives you the right to dominate my peanut butter with your chocolate.

No, I’ve never said that.

 

[Hammster]

You are claiming free speech requires tax exempt status? If not I don't see how this is a limitation on free speech.

I never claimed that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, I’ve never said that.

Since you don't seem to get the analogy:

You have stated that your favorite scriptural quotes should be instituted as law based on the god you claim exists. Traditionally, that's not how this country has worked, and I'd like it to stay that way.

No one is taking away anyone's right to speak their minds. We are only talking of tax privileges granted to certain institutions and the people that fund them. On that ground, your churches have far more privileges than similar non-religious institutions.

 

[Hammster]

Since you don't seem to get the analogy:

You have stated that your favorite scriptural quotes should be instituted as law based on the god you claim exists. Traditionally, that's not how this country has worked, and I'd like it to stay that way.

No one is taking away anyone's right to speak their minds. We are only talking of tax privileges granted to certain institutions and the people that fund them. On that ground, your churches have far more privileges than similar non-religious institutions.

I never said that my favorite scriptural quotes should be instituted as law. Not once.

 

[Pommer]

That’s not even close to a major function.

The reason one doesn’t desire to have a real heavy mixture of Church and State is because it ruins both.
Anywhere a theocracy has taken hold of political power as well, it’s always going to be “bad”, (or simply “not as good”), for the infidels.

Won’t that be glorious!?

 

[Pommer]

Thank you. That is enlightening and I enjoyed searching and reading elsewhere more deeply about Socratic arguments.

I did think of another, perhaps more practical reason. If I develop a desire to be a moderator in this fine community, there is a requirement that I must have made 200 posts per quarter. Nothing says they have to be worthwhile posts, or that they progress a discussion, but rather that they exist. If I were to decide to make that my goal, it certainly would be a time effective way to meet the requirement.

You might wanna go ahead and delete that last part, (it makes you sound as if you’re only going to do the bare minimum that you’d be required to do, which usually isn’t a “plus” for volunteer-work

 

[Hammster]

The reason one doesn’t desire to have a real heavy mixture of Church and State is because it ruins both.
Anywhere a theocracy has taken hold of political power as well, it’s always going to be “bad”, (or simply “not as good”), for the infidels.

Won’t that be glorious!?

I’m not arguing for a mixture of church and state.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I never said that my favorite scriptural quotes should be instituted as law. Not once.

I suppose you never did say they were your favorites, but you sure like quoting ancient texts in opposition to US laws.

 

[Hammster]

I suppose you never did say they were your favorites, but you sure like quoting ancient texts in opposition to US laws.

I’ve not done that.

 

[Belk]

I never claimed that.

Then how is this case a limitation on free speech?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’ve not done that.

you haven't argued for some sort of dominion over the US government? (and/or states)
you haven't told us again and again that some provision of the law is irrelevant because you can quote some bible verse?
you haven't characterized yourself as a theocrat/dominionist? (don't remember which, but I still found it shocking)

 

[Hammster]

Then how is this case a limitation on free speech?

Can pastors say what they want from the pulpit without fear of government interference?

 

[Hammster]

you haven't argued for some sort of dominion over the US government? (and/or states)

No.

you haven't told us again and again that some provision of the law is irrelevant because you can quote some bible verse?

No.

you haven't characterized yourself as a theocrat/dominionist? (don't remember which, but I still found it shocking)

Yes.

 

[Belk]

Can pastors say what they want from the pulpit without fear of government interference?

Yes. The government will not interfere in anything they say from the pulpit.

 

[Hammster]

Yes. The government will not interfere in anything they say from the pulpit.

No fines if they suggest a certain candidate is the best choice?

 

[Hans Blaster]

No.

No.

I certainly don't get that impression.

Yes.

I find all theocracy disturbing and un-American.