# Why is it that?



## Hammer Spank (Jul 16, 2014)

Swindling money from morons with no proof of any beneficial outcome is called fraud yet religions exist tax free?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2014)

Religions don't exist tax free.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 17, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> Swindling money from morons with no proof of any beneficial outcome is called fraud yet religions exist tax free?


Ask the religious if they get any beneficial outcome and their answer will probably be very different than a person's who got swindled.


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> Swindling money from morons with no proof of any beneficial outcome is called fraud yet religions exist tax free?


When you say morons I imagine you mean it in something of less than a good sense?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2014)

Sweet thread bro.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 17, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Sweet thread bro.



I think its supposed to be an insult but it kind of back fired on him


----------



## Hammer Spank (Jul 17, 2014)

So you all think that scientologists are benefiting from their beliefs and large financial losses?

Is that not fraud?


----------



## Hammer Spank (Jul 17, 2014)

And I don't know which country you think you live in, but churches have been exempt from income tax since before 1900.  Churches also pay no property taxes and church donations are tax deductible.


----------



## Hammer Spank (Jul 17, 2014)

And I don't care which religion either.  They all seem to hinder the progress of humanity.  

Just yesterday, I heard Pat Robertson on the radio.  A woman called into the show and told him that her son had stomach pains for a long time.  Instead of pointing him to a doctor, Pat says that he certainly has a demon inside of him and needs to be seen by a religious healer to have the demon drawn out.  The child could have a ruptured appendix but Pat simply gives his nonsense and asks for donations (tax deductible).  NOBODY is benefiting from this but the swindler (Pat).  Is this not pure fraud?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 17, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> So you all think that scientologists are benefiting from their beliefs and large financial losses?
> 
> Is that not fraud?


I think the questions is do THEY feel they benefit from their belief? 
If they are satisfied is it fraud?


----------



## Hammer Spank (Jul 17, 2014)

Well, I have heard him claim that he could cure blindness and deafness through prayer.  You're telling me that this is not fraud?

Keep in mind, this is a nationally known christian spokesman.


----------



## Hammer Spank (Jul 17, 2014)

Can I market the placebo affect?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 17, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> Well, I have heard him claim that he could cure blindness and deafness through prayer.  You're telling me that this is not fraud?
> 
> Keep in mind, this is a nationally known christian spokesman.


Its a bit more complicated than you make it sound since there is a legal definition to the word fraud.
As for the kid with the stomach pains I hold the mother responsible as she is the legal guardian. She should know better than to rely on Pat Robertson for medical advice.
His claim that he can cure blindness and deafness through prayer may be a lie or what he believes he can do, but not the legal definition of fraud.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> And I don't care which religion either.  They all seem to hinder the progress of humanity.


What do you mean by "hinder the progress of humanity" and how does Jainism accomplish this?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 18, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> Can I market the placebo affect?



Um... yes...


----------



## Hammer Spank (Jul 18, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> What do you mean by "hinder the progress of humanity" and how does Jainism accomplish this?




We are overpopulated yet religious people want abortion ended.  People are dying all the time of many diseases, yet religion hinders how we treat them (stem cell research).  Religious people want to deny rights to anyone who is not like them (homosexuals, transexuals, etc ).  Religious people deny scientific fact (evolution).  This all hinders the progress of humanity.


----------



## Israel (Jul 18, 2014)

I wonder if what "humanity" believes it is rushing after in its progress is apparent to _it_ at all?

"Where we going?"

"I have no idea, we're lost"


"But...





We're making good time..."


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 18, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> And I don't know which country you think you live in, but churches have been exempt from income tax since before 1900.  Churches also pay no property taxes and church donations are tax deductible.



You said religions, not churches.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 18, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> We are overpopulated yet religious people want abortion ended.



Do you view abortion as a valid mechanism for population control?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> We are overpopulated yet religious people want abortion ended.  People are dying all the time of many diseases, yet religion hinders how we treat them (stem cell research).  Religious people want to deny rights to anyone who is not like them (homosexuals, transexuals, etc ).  Religious people deny scientific fact (evolution).  This all hinders the progress of humanity.





> religious people want abortion ended


  its legal


> stem cell research


 - happening


> deny rights to anyone who is not like them (homosexuals, transexuals, etc


- happening  read todays news?


> deny scientific fact (evolution)


 - research continues

While your statements may or may not be true I think you are giving religions ability to hinder progress way too much credit.

EDIT - maybe I should specify here in the US ^


----------



## Israel (Jul 18, 2014)

Jesus never told anyone to not pay taxes that I know of.
In fact you might find a few verses in a couple of places specifically regarding taxes.
That he did claim general exemptions for free men in the earth is also quite clear, nevertheless, he still advised them to pay  the tax...for this reason alone, so that all the others, still blinded by their devotions to believing they alone had the power to decide who of God's creation were allowed to be free in God's creation...might not be _offended._
Offended by _ liberty_? One might ask...


yes.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 18, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> While your statements may or may not be true I think you are giving religions ability to hinder progress way too much credit.



....and I think you guys have your own "Dano" now


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 18, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> ....and I think you guys have your own "Dano" now


Aw c'mon Dano was just misunderstood


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 18, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> We are overpopulated yet religious people want abortion ended.  People are dying all the time of many diseases, yet religion hinders how we treat them (stem cell research).  Religious people want to deny rights to anyone who is not like them (homosexuals, transexuals, etc ).  Religious people deny scientific fact (evolution).  This all hinders the progress of humanity.


I know Atheist who are against abortion, homosexuality and stem cell research. They also do not view evolution as fact. 

What is your solution to the perceived crisis?

Also, if medical progress (stem cell research) can reduce people from "dying all the time of many diseases", how will that impact your view that "we are overpopulated"?


----------



## shane256 (Jul 21, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> its legal



Efforts are underway to ban it.



> - happening



With limitations.



> - happening  read todays news?



Efforts are underway to continue the discrimination.  Odd that... it seems that a lot of people think their religion is being violated if they aren't allowed to discriminate against people.



> - research continues



There's literally a mountain of evidence already that supports the theory. People get confused over the word "Theory" a lot... there's the common/layman usage of the word where it means "some random idea" and then there's the scientific definition of the word, which is what's used when it's called the "Theory of Evolution":

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 21, 2014)

shane256 said:


> Efforts are underway to ban it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You will have to show that religion and religion only is the cause for each of your comments.
As for the Theory of Evolution, a group of people that doesn't believe it does not equate to hindering the research of it.


----------



## shane256 (Jul 22, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You will have to show that religion and religion only is the cause for each of your comments.
> As for the Theory of Evolution, a group of people that doesn't believe it does not equate to hindering the research of it.



If you prod the anti-abortion crowd, they will eventually fall back to quoting the Bible. They've been burned enough by people citing the 1st Amendment that they stay clear at first, but when flustered, they will start to answer something about the soul.

There are a number of bills that have been introduced in various states that are supposedly to protect religion that specifically allow for discrimination of anyone based on religious beliefs. For example, they want to protect the right of the religious to not serve gay people in their stores, etc.

Evolution research hasn't been hampered that much but the religious have fought against it being taught in science classes in school. In some states, they got burned by the 1st Amendment enough to where they now call it "Intelligent Design" rather than religious studies but somehow the "Intelligent Designer" always seems to be a deity. Some states still don't want Evolution to be taught at all, but given that may be difficult, they want their religion, er, "Intelligent Design" to be given the same weight as the scientific theory.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 22, 2014)

shane256 said:


> If you prod the anti-abortion crowd, they will eventually fall back to quoting the Bible. They've been burned enough by people citing the 1st Amendment that they stay clear at first, but when flustered, they will start to answer something about the soul.
> 
> There are a number of bills that have been introduced in various states that are supposedly to protect religion that specifically allow for discrimination of anyone based on religious beliefs. For example, they want to protect the right of the religious to not serve gay people in their stores, etc.
> 
> Evolution research hasn't been hampered that much but the religious have fought against it being taught in science classes in school. In some states, they got burned by the 1st Amendment enough to where they now call it "Intelligent Design" rather than religious studies but somehow the "Intelligent Designer" always seems to be a deity. Some states still don't want Evolution to be taught at all, but given that may be difficult, they want their religion, er, "Intelligent Design" to be given the same weight as the scientific theory.


I don't disagree with anything you have said. However my point is that none of that is accomplishing the OP's statement that -


> This all hinders the progress of humanity


Most of the examples you have given are a result of religion NOT getting "their" way.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2014)

shane256 said:


> If you prod the anti-abortion crowd, they will eventually fall back to quoting the Bible. They've been burned enough by people citing the 1st Amendment that they stay clear at first, but when flustered, they will start to answer something about the soul.



You don't need religion to be pro-life.  You only need to believe that there is a right to life.  I am more than happy to have that debate with you, and, as always in this forum, I'll leave the bible out if it.



			
				shane256 said:
			
		

> There are a number of bills that have been introduced in various states that are supposedly to protect religion that specifically allow for discrimination of anyone based on religious beliefs. For example, they want to protect the right of the religious to not serve gay people in their stores, etc..



I also want gay folks to be free to discriminate against straight folks.  Again, an argument about rights, not religion.  I don't think you should be allowed to hold a gun to a gay man's head and force him to make you a wedding cake if he doesn't want too.  I then have the freedom to not do business with prejudice people based on how you were treated.

Either we are all free or none of are.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 22, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> shane256 said:
> 
> 
> > If you prod the anti-abortion crowd, they will eventually fall back to quoting the Bible. They've been burned enough by people citing the 1st Amendment that they stay clear at first, but when flustered, they will start to answer something about the soul.[\quote]
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I think that is the side/definition of "progress" that hasn't been mentioned yet.



It's not a 'nice' political position to take. But, as much as I detest coercion, I can't pick and choose who can and can't be coerced.  In order to be consistent, I have to consider if the freedom I want for me should also be extended to those I dislike.

If I can take his freedom, he can also take mine.  It's why I don't support laws which attempt to enforce morality on folks......this is the same whether the attemp is to enforce a religious morality or a social morality.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> You don't need religion to be pro-life.  You only need to believe that there is a right to life.



Absolutely. I am pro-life and believe there is a right to life. I just don't believe human life begins at conception.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 23, 2014)

660griz said:


> I just don't believe human life begins at conception.



Then the argument becomes biological at that point.  Not religious.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Then the argument becomes biological at that point.  Not religious.



Correct. Which is what I thought you meant by 





> I am more than happy to have that debate with you, and, as always in this forum, I'll leave the bible out if it.


----------



## Israel (Jul 23, 2014)

It seems that we, as a race, run headlong into all we are trying to avoid; unintended consequences.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2014)

Israel said:


> The world is a strange place.
> Please follow your reasoning to the very end, if you will.



The quotes are all sorts of messed up in this post.  Part of what you quoted is mine, Some is Shane's, and the other is Walt's, but Walt's comments are attributed to me, but much of it is attributed to nobody.

Just curious, who's reasoning is in question here?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 24, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The quotes are all sorts of messed up in this post.  Part of what you quoted is mine, Some is Shane's, and the other is Walt's, but Walt's comments are attributed to me, but much of it is attributed to nobody.
> 
> Just curious, who's reasoning is in question here?



It would appear Israel's.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 24, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The quotes are all sorts of messed up in this post.  Part of what you quoted is mine, Some is Shane's, and the other is Walt's, but Walt's comments are attributed to me, but much of it is attributed to nobody.



Agreed.  Is it really that difficult to click the "quote" button?  

I realize that if you quote somebody who has already messed up a quote, your post will be messed up, too.  You can edit your post to correct it, though.


----------



## Israel (Jul 24, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Agreed.  Is it really that difficult to click the "quote" button?
> 
> I realize that if you quote somebody who has already messed up a quote, your post will be messed up, too.  You can edit your post to correct it, though.



I agree.


----------



## Israel (Jul 24, 2014)

This would have been simpler. Sorry for the confusion.


Men are free. The question is...is it freedom we are discussing, or a place secure from perceived undesired  consequences of being so?
Primum non nocere.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 24, 2014)

Israel said:


> The question is...is it freedom we are discussing, or a place secure from perceived undesired  consequences of being so?
> Primum non nocere.



Freedom is the starting point, not safety.


----------



## Israel (Jul 24, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Freedom is the starting point, not safety.



Amen.
Something happens when a man meets another man.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 25, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> It's not a 'nice' political position to take. But, as much as I detest coercion, I can't pick and choose who can and can't be coerced.  In order to be consistent, I have to consider if the freedom I want for me should also be extended to those I dislike.
> 
> If I can take his freedom, he can also take mine.  It's why I don't support laws which attempt to enforce morality on folks......this is the same whether the attemp is to enforce a religious morality or a social morality.


Yeah this one can get complicated when you think about it. 
Is "progress" having multiple bakeries who aren't forced to serve anybody they don't want to?
Or is "progress" having one bakery that MUST serve everybody regardless of the owners beliefs?
On one hand you may be allowing for racism, discrimination etc.
On the other hand you are forcing a person to abandon their religious/personal beliefs etc.
Which is progress? Which is freedom? Depending on where you stand one may not get you the other.


----------



## Israel (Jul 25, 2014)

men find each other. the benefits of finding are weighed and contracts or warfare are entered. 
is man friend, or enemy?
all will fall out according to contracts already made.

two men meet. maybe they have already tasted the rigors of solitary, but are not yet so out of their minds they can recognize another man when they see one. Each decides not to kill the other. But now, how to "be" together? "
This is where "I" end, and you begin", they say mutually.
"You stay "in you" and I shall stay "in me"...they tell each other.
But one day one speaks, unbidden...they are no longer saying the same thing at the same time.
"What are you trying to put "in me?" says the other?
"Oh, it was nothing", says the first," just a thought I had"
"No, no, I felt something of you trying to enter me, didn't we agree, you stay in you, and I will stay in me?"
And hilts of swords are now wrapped by hands.
"Wait! They cry as one. "If we kill one another we both lose, if one of us triumphs, the other is sent back to solitary...there is no winning!"
"Maybe there is another we can find, like us, that we can both trust to tell us when one may be overstepping our bounds"
And so they search, they join together as one as they never had, seeking a one that may be over both, that both might live, that both might have justice, and a taste of freedom from one another.
Their diligence they believe has paid off. They find another.
"Are you a good decider?"
"Will you decide for us?" they ask. "Will you tell us when we are out of bounds with one another?"
"Sure I will, I can do that, no problem"
"But first, you will have to give me your swords, for if you kill one another, I am in solitary myself again, and if one of you triumphs, we are back to where you were before you found me"
"And, we shall all be equal!"
"Yes, yes" they cry as one, "we shall all be equal!"
But now, one has three swords, and two have none.
What now will the one with three swords be free to say, and do, anytime he wants...to "put" himself in the others?
What have you done when "overarmed", is all needs be answered.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah this one can get complicated when you think about it.
> Is "progress" having multiple bakeries who aren't forced to serve anybody they don't want to?
> Or is "progress" having one bakery that MUST serve everybody regardless of the owners beliefs?
> On one hand you may be allowing for racism, discrimination etc.
> ...



I would say that progress is good but not at the expense of freedom. My freedom to discriminate is as equally valuable to me and society as anyone else's freedoms. I've never understood why one can use religion or race to discriminate more than any other reason. I shouldn't need a reason to discriminate. One shouldn't use their religion or race as a crutch to discriminate. One should be able to say "I don't won't to rent my house to black lesbian bikers" and no question of society should be asked. 
My concern is in the fairness of the government stepping in with a list of whom we can discriminate against legally.
Example: I'm not renting my house to you because you are Left Handed. My experience is Lefties tear up things in my house. These things were designed to be used by normal Right Handed people and you people can't operate them properly.
The government doesn't have a problem with my discrimination of Lefties. Now if they did and it was in the Bible that being a Lefty was a sin and thus why Lefties are cursed by having to live in a straight/Right handed world, I might be able to discriminate by using religion as an excuse. Why do I need that crutch/excuse?


----------



## humdandy (Aug 8, 2014)

Hammer Spank said:


> Swindling money from morons with no proof of any beneficial outcome is called fraud yet religions exist tax free?



Religion has been sanctioned by the government...... swindling is not.............of course that can be debated too.


----------

