1786
Pope says 'backward' US conservatives replaced faith with ideology
(www.euronews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
1786 points (98.2% liked)
News
23287 readers
3774 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I would settle for taxing them.
I think a better option would be stripping the tax exempt status from the ones that politik from the pulpit. Actually enforce the law we have now instead of being afraid of looking like we're persecuting them. Hell, they all have that complex already anyway.
Taxing them all would just open the floodgates.
It's very inline with the church's teaching to pay taxes.
Mark 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and give to God the things that are God's.” The men were amazed at what Jesus said.
There is no religious conflict at all with taxing churches.
You gave one example for one religion. I don't necessarily think taxing churches is a bad idea, but I don't think that's a great argument for it.
This is in a thread about a sect of Christianity. I am not aware of another religion that uses the word church. The dictionary definition is christian house of worship. Jewish Synagogue. Islamic Mosque. Hindu Temple. Norse Hof. Greek and Roman temples.
Talking about taxing churches is about a tax on Christian houses of worship. There is no Christian religious rule against it, which means that it would be a stretch for anyone to claim that the government is violating the first amendment.
I assumed you meant churches as all places of worship. If you meant you want to only tax Christians, then I completely disagree with you.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
These assholes should deal with a real flood for once.
I dont think the churches that just sit and read a book are really deserving of a "flood". I also wouldn't call taxes a flood though, so I'm not opposed to that.
Not good enough. They need to strip that status even from the ones that don't.
Would definitely be a step in the right direction. I'd even be ok with exceptions for the tiny churches in small towns.
I agree but only because they tend to have budgets so small that they aren't worth taxing.
At the risk of interrupting the circlejerk here, most churches have tiny budgets that aren’t worth taxing, and run by clergy with very little pay. The other side of that is the established ones sit on land in the center of towns that has been in their hands for decades or centuries: they may not be able to afford the property taxes.
On the other hand, if you were thinking of modern televangelist millionaires, by all means tax their income. I don’t know where to draw the line and it’s probably good to be conservative about it, but some of these people really seem to have crossed it already
If you allow taxing churches you open the door for Republicans to just tax every church they disagree with, and I'm pretty sure you can figure out how that will go.
I don't understand the problem.
The problem is there will still be untaxed churches and all of those churches will be evangelical churches that promote the Republican party.
All the others will be taxed out of existence.
I believe the intent of the first comment was all churches would be taxed.
That's just not how government works in practice, however.
While true, how the us government works in practice currently cannot be a barrier for ideas. I mean that it isn't working at all
I'd argue being a policy realist is an absolute necessity, rather than a "barrier for ideas."
I am a volunteer climate lobbyist in a deeply red constituency, so I very much live a life bound by practicality.
My rep I lobby most often has solar panels and drives an EV and votes against climate change proposals unless we can sell them as "job creation" so he can sell them to his constituents.
The messy details absolutely take precedence over what we'd like.
You are aware that the entire reason taxing churches was a big deal in the 18th century is that we've already seen what happens when taxing churches is made political, right?
Do you know this is a topic with historical precedence, in a situation in which it is laughably easy to predict what a certain party would do with this power?
I'd love to think so but here we are banning books and shit.
Oh the horror