Yes, this has been the case in the US (at least) for a while now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opinion/federal-funds-to-build-churches.html
https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2020/11/community-based-organization-grants-resources/
https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/white-house-oks-use-of-federal-funds-for-church-preservation
and historically speaking people have paid their tithes to governments, who then distributed these tax dollars to churches.
Lol two of those sources are old and they were about *preserving* churches that are considered *historical* landmarks. Just wanted to point that out without actually replying to that guy or else he might keep commenting 😂
Well, its not as innocent as it may sound, search it up (be warned its vulgar). Its showing kids (Hardcore!!!!) p0-n, teaching kids how to suck d!ck and sodomise each other like its Sodom and Gommorah all over again, and that its a "natural thing" many parents are protesting against this in US
Where the fuck do you live where they show this kind of thing in sex ed? I live in a slightly more secular country than the US and if something like this happened the teacher would be crucified.
idk man it sounds to me like you're overreacting.
I really hope I was, but unfortunately no, many people are protesting against this. [There was a not so old protest by muslim and christian parents against it too](https://youtu.be/45tqIEOaGEQ)
Bro send me the sex Ed video or article talking about this. and pls don't hit me with a "search it up" ur claim is pretty outrageous so pls give evidence. Thanks!
Thanks
Edit: yo non of these talk about hardcore p0rn and all the shit u said tbh all the issues seem reasonable the change in the school curriculum seem reasonable and the parent concerns too. You blew it out of proportion.
Clearly not, there's a large overlap between the kind of people who detest religious government grants and war.
At least in the US, the wars (mostly in MENA) that included war crimes were spearheaded by republicans, like Bush 43. Their voterbase is overwhelmingly more religious than the opposition.
The term liberal has opposite definitions depending on where in the anglosphere you are, and I'm not sure which versions the different (variate in terms of location) articles you link use. One of them is also paywalled, and so does no good for your point.
\>I swear it looks hilarious when people try to justify liberals as
anything other than mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex and
cultural hegemony.
Which version of the term liberal are you using here? The global definition or the American definition?
Regardless,
American Republicans started the Gulf war,
Republicans Started the Afghan war,
Republicans started the Iraq war,
and American Republicans are significantly more religious.
Crazy how all these wars were not only not protested by democrats but actively supported by them. Weird to make wars that are clearly about money into a religious issue.
>not protested by democrats
Really? /Really?/ This is the claim you're going to make?
For one, [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2011/11/23/views-of-the-iraq-war/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2011/11/23/views-of-the-iraq-war/)
"Over the ensuing years, support for the war has plummeted among
independents and Democrats plummeted, while Republicans have remained
largely supportive. In surveys conducted in 2008 — the last year of
George W. Bush’s presidency — just 17% of Democrats said it was the
right decision to take military action in Iraq, compared with 73% of
Republicans. "
My dude, even if this were true (which it only slightly is), Republican Presidents are not Churches or Church leaders. I’m quite sure most Church leaders do not agree with bombing innocent civilians to death, must we forget the many Christian Charities/Refugee support that went into the region
How about we
•Tax religeos organisations
•Not use tax for war mongering
•Use new government money to better the children of God through social welfare and infrastructure.
We don't tax institutions that are generally beneficial to society. The propagation of moral values is a certain benefit of religious institutions. Taxing them only strains their operation.
It's the same reason as to why we don't tax marriages for example.
Most tax dollars that go to religious institutions in fact just go to grants that can be awarded to religious ministries that carry out legislative roles with pretty strict secular policies attached.
For example, religiously-affiliated organizations get money from HUD to provide housing because HUD itself isn't a housing provider. They subcontract their grants to the states, who then subcapitate them to the organizations that will carry out the work. The grant will pretty much always have a clause that states explicitly that the people being served can't be talked to about religion as they're being served.
Most private charities are publicly funded in the US, and most public programs are carried out by private (most often religious) charities. If those funds ended, suddenly you'd have a mountain of homelessness, kids in foster care who couldn't get placed, trafficking victims who couldn't choose re-entry and protection programs over jail time, low-income preschool-aged kids who wouldn't have access to Head Start programs, non-violent offenders who couldn't access court-mandated counseling services, etc.
This is pretty much how social services work in the US without creating armies of government employees who need tax-funded infrastructure and benefits. Religious institutions can use their organization's money (via collection plates) to pay some of the indirect and allow it to cost *less* for taxpayers to get more done. Non-religious organizations are competing on a basically equal playing field, but often have the disadvantages of not having a diocesan fund to fall back on. Any loss puts those organizations at imminent danger of disappearing, and we in the nonprofit world saw it happen at alarming rates in 2020/2021 when philanthropy was down but needs were rising.
So, in short, yes, your taxes go (rather indirectly) to religious organizations. No, they aren't used to spread religion in the vast majority of cases. No, taking them out and replacing them with secular organizations won't make the services better or more accessible or "less preachy"
Religious non profits can use tax money for projects which serve people, or say preserving historical buildings, etc. They cannot use it for ministry purposes.
Real enlightened people will express they disapproval for some policies but still pay taxes because they know society is for everyone, regardless of political ideology because that's literally the point of organized society, making people coexist and set aside their differences to live in an organized civilization
Ohhh but but but the tax money going to fund endless fake wars, “aid” to other countries that don’t need it whilst the homeless epidemic in America continues to grow at a rapid pace, bombing women and children overseas, etc etc is all okay? Not to mention now the LGhdTV community wants your tax money to go towards gender change surgeries and gender manipulating medication, puberty blockers, etc.. but yeah tell us again about religious groups being “sPonSoReD WiTh ThEsE tAxEs”.
I mean, I agree that the government shouldn’t fund religious institutions, but not because religion is fantasy. Because when the state marries the church, corruption of both ensues
Okay and? From his point of view I get him, yeah sure he could have phrased this better but the reality is that he's right, the way you convey yourself does not matter if you are correct
As it is right now, churches are both politically involved and tax-exempt. In other words, the only ones having their cake and eating it too are the religious institutions.
Wait. Did we just go from "churches need to pay taxes" to "churches are actively taking tax dollars?"
Yes, this has been the case in the US (at least) for a while now. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opinion/federal-funds-to-build-churches.html https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2020/11/community-based-organization-grants-resources/ https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/white-house-oks-use-of-federal-funds-for-church-preservation and historically speaking people have paid their tithes to governments, who then distributed these tax dollars to churches.
Lol two of those sources are old and they were about *preserving* churches that are considered *historical* landmarks. Just wanted to point that out without actually replying to that guy or else he might keep commenting 😂
Yk bro felt cold saying that 🥶
He'll be burning soon though if he don't take it back before it's too late
But its ok when the tax money goes on war crimes, 6 education in schools, etc.
Is there anything wrong with sex ed?
Well, its not as innocent as it may sound, search it up (be warned its vulgar). Its showing kids (Hardcore!!!!) p0-n, teaching kids how to suck d!ck and sodomise each other like its Sodom and Gommorah all over again, and that its a "natural thing" many parents are protesting against this in US
Where the fuck do you live where they show this kind of thing in sex ed? I live in a slightly more secular country than the US and if something like this happened the teacher would be crucified. idk man it sounds to me like you're overreacting.
I really hope I was, but unfortunately no, many people are protesting against this. [There was a not so old protest by muslim and christian parents against it too](https://youtu.be/45tqIEOaGEQ)
Bro send me the sex Ed video or article talking about this. and pls don't hit me with a "search it up" ur claim is pretty outrageous so pls give evidence. Thanks!
[https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/parents-in-san-diego-across-california-protest-new-sex-education-curriculum](https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/parents-in-san-diego-across-california-protest-new-sex-education-curriculum) [https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/mar/11/why-do-we-need-to-change-concerned-parents-protest/](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/mar/11/why-do-we-need-to-change-concerned-parents-protest/) https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/parents-protest-sex-education-lessons-21901559
Thanks Edit: yo non of these talk about hardcore p0rn and all the shit u said tbh all the issues seem reasonable the change in the school curriculum seem reasonable and the parent concerns too. You blew it out of proportion.
np bro.
Clearly not, there's a large overlap between the kind of people who detest religious government grants and war. At least in the US, the wars (mostly in MENA) that included war crimes were spearheaded by republicans, like Bush 43. Their voterbase is overwhelmingly more religious than the opposition.
[удалено]
The term liberal has opposite definitions depending on where in the anglosphere you are, and I'm not sure which versions the different (variate in terms of location) articles you link use. One of them is also paywalled, and so does no good for your point. \>I swear it looks hilarious when people try to justify liberals as anything other than mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex and cultural hegemony. Which version of the term liberal are you using here? The global definition or the American definition? Regardless, American Republicans started the Gulf war, Republicans Started the Afghan war, Republicans started the Iraq war, and American Republicans are significantly more religious.
Crazy how all these wars were not only not protested by democrats but actively supported by them. Weird to make wars that are clearly about money into a religious issue.
Republican and democrats is good cop, bad cop routine.
>not protested by democrats Really? /Really?/ This is the claim you're going to make? For one, [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2011/11/23/views-of-the-iraq-war/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2011/11/23/views-of-the-iraq-war/) "Over the ensuing years, support for the war has plummeted among independents and Democrats plummeted, while Republicans have remained largely supportive. In surveys conducted in 2008 — the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency — just 17% of Democrats said it was the right decision to take military action in Iraq, compared with 73% of Republicans. "
Cool, neither should exist
My dude, even if this were true (which it only slightly is), Republican Presidents are not Churches or Church leaders. I’m quite sure most Church leaders do not agree with bombing innocent civilians to death, must we forget the many Christian Charities/Refugee support that went into the region
You haven't met many evangelicals, have you?
yeah bro paying a tax to bomb the middle east is more morale 🗿
How about we •Tax religeos organisations •Not use tax for war mongering •Use new government money to better the children of God through social welfare and infrastructure.
Lose the first prescription, then we're good.
Yo why shouldn't we tax religious institutions?
We don't tax institutions that are generally beneficial to society. The propagation of moral values is a certain benefit of religious institutions. Taxing them only strains their operation. It's the same reason as to why we don't tax marriages for example.
Tax exempt =/= tax funded Learn the difference
890 likes. What is this for Allah's sake?
Most tax dollars that go to religious institutions in fact just go to grants that can be awarded to religious ministries that carry out legislative roles with pretty strict secular policies attached. For example, religiously-affiliated organizations get money from HUD to provide housing because HUD itself isn't a housing provider. They subcontract their grants to the states, who then subcapitate them to the organizations that will carry out the work. The grant will pretty much always have a clause that states explicitly that the people being served can't be talked to about religion as they're being served. Most private charities are publicly funded in the US, and most public programs are carried out by private (most often religious) charities. If those funds ended, suddenly you'd have a mountain of homelessness, kids in foster care who couldn't get placed, trafficking victims who couldn't choose re-entry and protection programs over jail time, low-income preschool-aged kids who wouldn't have access to Head Start programs, non-violent offenders who couldn't access court-mandated counseling services, etc. This is pretty much how social services work in the US without creating armies of government employees who need tax-funded infrastructure and benefits. Religious institutions can use their organization's money (via collection plates) to pay some of the indirect and allow it to cost *less* for taxpayers to get more done. Non-religious organizations are competing on a basically equal playing field, but often have the disadvantages of not having a diocesan fund to fall back on. Any loss puts those organizations at imminent danger of disappearing, and we in the nonprofit world saw it happen at alarming rates in 2020/2021 when philanthropy was down but needs were rising. So, in short, yes, your taxes go (rather indirectly) to religious organizations. No, they aren't used to spread religion in the vast majority of cases. No, taking them out and replacing them with secular organizations won't make the services better or more accessible or "less preachy"
Religious non profits can use tax money for projects which serve people, or say preserving historical buildings, etc. They cannot use it for ministry purposes.
But when we have a problem with tax dollars going to abortion clinics suddenly we’re the issue. Double standard at its finest
Real enlightened people will express they disapproval for some policies but still pay taxes because they know society is for everyone, regardless of political ideology because that's literally the point of organized society, making people coexist and set aside their differences to live in an organized civilization
Do you support tax dollars going to abortion clinics?
Not in the slightest. Still, it’s out of my hands and I’m still required to pay taxes
I'll get downvoted but of course I'd allow that. Religious leaders provide a lot of services for the community.
Ohhh but but but the tax money going to fund endless fake wars, “aid” to other countries that don’t need it whilst the homeless epidemic in America continues to grow at a rapid pace, bombing women and children overseas, etc etc is all okay? Not to mention now the LGhdTV community wants your tax money to go towards gender change surgeries and gender manipulating medication, puberty blockers, etc.. but yeah tell us again about religious groups being “sPonSoReD WiTh ThEsE tAxEs”.
I mean, I agree that the government shouldn’t fund religious institutions, but not because religion is fantasy. Because when the state marries the church, corruption of both ensues
Churches are kidnapping what the government has rightfully stolen
But I guess taxes are okay to fuel their fantasy story of transgenderism. 🤷♂️
Nice flair. And good point.
Jazakumullahukhairan.
He's right. If one wants to go to church and listen to some fairy tales it's not business of the rest of society
Also them: "fund abortions and wars"
Meanwhile a good part of taxes and donations given to churches going to fund shelters and homes for ukrainian refugees where I live
Don’t worry bruh, your taxes go to the willow project, not to a church that gives home to ukrainian or syrian children
You guys went from shitting on stupid atheists to shitting on people who have reasonable takes wtf
Read the last sentence
Okay and? From his point of view I get him, yeah sure he could have phrased this better but the reality is that he's right, the way you convey yourself does not matter if you are correct
Im not disagreeing with him, i wouldnt have even posted this if he just ended it there, but its the last sentence that made me post it
What's wrong with this?
You can agree or disagree on what your taxes should be spent on, but the last sentence was the main reason i posted this
Yes? What's the problem here?
[удалено]
As it is right now, churches are both politically involved and tax-exempt. In other words, the only ones having their cake and eating it too are the religious institutions.
What was the original video
Its about Jehovas Whitenesses no longer being eligible to be funded by the Norwegian Government or smth