In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51437 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45939 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
By Lincoln's argument his figures were all male. Therefore, men cause misery and devastation and thus we must leave all important roles and decisions to women.
Can you imagine a female pope?
It has happened before, Pope Joan died while giving birth

Hence ever since a new pope is carried high above their heads and his cardinals must take a little peek and recite the words

“Testiculus habet, et bene pendentes”

Loose translation

He has testicles and they hang well
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#45940 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
....Can you imagine a female pope?
A sort of 'immaculate conception'?
:-)

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45941 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
I have shown you the relevant HMRC documents
Do you want to continue to deny (some) churches enjoy tax benefits in the UK?

Do you want to work through your lies forward or backward?

Or jump into the middle of the pile?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45943 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is the maximum estimate
Ah, so there was an estimate of 500,000K and you lied when you said otherwise.

PS: It is real hard to make esitmates from bomb photos and easly estimates from UK/USA "intelligence" put the death toll at 25,000.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45944 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar- not only do UK churches (religions) enjoy tax benefits, they have "official" statuses, i.e., the Church of England (the official STATE church) is recognized while the Church of Scientology is not.
There is on "recognition" of churches or religions in the US.
Do you want to get tax free status for your Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster? A meeting house for your Association for fellow NotBots?
(quote)
When a local congregation practices the Lord’s Supper, who should participate?
Although other variations and definitions of the terms exist, the two main answers to that question are:
(1) Open communion: membership in that particular local congregation is not necessary. Anyone who examines themselves and knows that they are in Christ may participate.
(2) Closed communion: whether someone is a professing Christian or not, communion is restricted to actual members of that congregation.
These are fantastic areas for vigorous Biblical and theological debate and reflection. What at first may seem to be a “majoring on minors,” the discussion quickly opens into core concerns: the nature of the Gospel, regenerate church membership, church discipline, the marks of the church, etc.
In the end, whether a congregation holds to “open communion” or “closed communion,” the vital concern is for local congregations and pastors to search and study the Scriptures and ground their church practice on the authority of the Scripture.
But what if the government weighs in on this discussion?
Last week in the UK, a parliamentary select committee met to hear evidence that a Plymouth Brethren group may be denied charity status by the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission is the government agency that “registers and regulates charities in England and Wales” Although not an exact parallel, this would be similar to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States deciding that a church or denomination no longer qualified for 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.
So, what did this particular Plymouth Brethren group do to endanger their charity status? They practice closed communion:
“The right of churches to decide for themselves who may attend Holy Communion is being challenged by the Charity Commission. The Commission has refused to register a Plymouth Brethren group because its Holy Communion services are for members only. This would have a huge impact on the group’s tax relief and would also have other implications.”
Of course, the larger issue is about much more than Communion practices. The Commission would be setting a precedent that religious groups do not have an intrinsic characteristic of existing for the benefit of the public.
As reported in The Telegraph the Charity Commission argued that “there is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England.”
If this decision by the Commission stands, the effect would be chilling. We will track this story and report on future developments.
Honey, how may times, I do not lie. I have shown you the official HMRC relevant data, you seem to ignore that. Never mind.

Whatever the church makes no difference to its tax status. Unless of course you can show me official HMRC documentation to prove me wrong

US churches are tax exempt whether they are recognised or not

Not interested in the rest of your hypothetical clap trap

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45945 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Why do you think Wikipedia is unreliable if it is regularly moderated and been able to put a major encyclopedia program out of business?
Cite the name of the author of the Wikipedia source.

“One of the dangers of Wikipedia is that students are maybe not critical enough of what is there,” Goldner said.”One-stop shopping makes for a lazy historian, and I think history students need to strengthen their research skills.”

Some students agree with what Goldner has to say about Wikipedia and believe that the site should be used as more of a reference with hobbies, and not as a reference for school.

“I’ll use it to get a general idea of what I’m researching, but I won’t use it as a source,” said Marlon Henriquez, a CTVA senior at CSUN.

And 22 percent of students said they rarely use Wikipedia, if at all, according to the PIL study.

Art major Chyenne DeWitt falls under this category and shares Henriquez’s belief in not using the website as a scholarly source.

“I’ve been on there and checked things and have found many inaccuracies,” DeWitt said.

Wikipedia is aware of the possible inaccuracies found on its articles, warning users from the start that not all entries are of encyclopedic quality and the articles may contain false or debatable information.

These inaccuracies are why most documents on Wikipedia are never considered complete, and they are continually edited and improved on over time. With this, Wikipedia generally sees results in an upward trend of quality and a growing consensus over neutral representation of information.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45946 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want to continue to deny (some) churches enjoy tax benefits in the UK?
Do you want to work through your lies forward or backward?
Or jump into the middle of the pile?
Show me evidence other than gift aid status that has already been explained to you and is available to all registered charities
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, so there was an estimate of 500,000K and you lied when you said otherwise.
PS: It is real hard to make esitmates from bomb photos and easly estimates from UK/USA "intelligence" put the death toll at 25,000.
Cherry picking again. I said and I quote
That is the maximum estimate of an unqualified third party seeking sensationalism and termed “the wilder fringes of speculation” by academics

Yes real hard, however there were around 750,000 inhabitants and after 4 years of research all but 25,000 have been accounted for as specified in my link that you choose to ignore. Well done for being you typical ignorant self.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Nykvarn, Sweden

#45947 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
'Monarchy definition, a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.'
What's the official name of Sweden?
Do stop spamming the thread, Meatball.
Sweden = Democracy

Democracy

"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

stop spamming the tread with false information about sweden,

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45948 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
People who live in reality. We can explain why Parliament exists, you can't. Why?
I don't give two sh!ts if the (mostly appointed) UK Parliament exists.

I've said so dozens of times.

Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or NO?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45950 Jan 7, 2013
[QUOTE who="ChristineM"
Whatever the death toll people died and you are trying to score debating points out of those deaths you sick moron.
[/QUOTE]

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA !

I guess you get to use those deaths,eh, you filthy diseased-infected Skanque.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45951 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
No you never said anything about the US involvent
I never said anything about the US "involvent" in WWII, SKAQUE?

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45952 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Why would I be fascinated with your drippydick?
We all see you keep bringing it 'up', eh, Skanque? They must have left a bad taste in your mouth...

You spend a lot of time getting a closer view, it seems.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#45953 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Garbage in, garbage out.
One needs only ONE source if it's reputable.
And that wouldn't be Wiki.
You are correct, wikipedia is often irrefutable.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45954 Jan 7, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweden = Democracy
'Monarchy definition, a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.'

What's the official name of Sweden?

Do stop spamming the thread, Meatball.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45955 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me evidence
Already refuted.

PS: tax benefits are tax befits no matter what you call them.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45956 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Cherry picking again.
Church wants another tax privilege

Posted: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:28
Church wants another tax privilege

The Church of England is up in arms that the Government has removed zero-rated VAT status from the cost of alterations to listed buildings – without giving the Church an exemption.

In a letter to George Osborne last week, Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, said that the removal of zero-rated status for such works would "be a blow to huge numbers of volunteers who are working to open up their churches to wider community use".

Chartres called for an exemption for places of worship, or if that was not possible, additional funds for the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which he said "to some extent offsets the VAT payable on repairs on listed buildings", which are not currently zero-rated. The grant scheme – introduced by Gordon Brown when he was told by Europe that he could not vary the VAT rate to the Church's advantage - was previously given the go-ahead until 2014. In his Budget announcement Osborne advised that this would be extended, however no additional funds were announced for this purpose.

Chartres said in his letter that "some £22m in VAT liability was incurred by parochial church councils on works undertaken in the community interest last year and they have therefore already had to bear the lion's share".

The Church of England is responsible for 45 per cent of all Grade 1 buildings in the country, with 12,500 of its 16,000 buildings listed. Many of these are undergoing alterations to make them more accessible, such as providing toilet and kitchen facilities or disabled access, and prior to the Budget, these works had been exempt from the standard rate of VAT.

A further letter supporting the Church's demands was sent by Tony Baldry MP, the Second Church Estates Commissioner. He questioned whether the inclusion of places of worship in the measure was "deliberate or an oversight" and added that "for a significant number of MPs, their greatest contact with churches in their constituencies is as a consequence of churches looking for help and support in parishes and communities having to fundraise to maintain and restore church buildings".

Baldry called for a meeting between Chartres, Osborne and himself to discuss the issue.

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: "Many churches have architectural and historical significance that is worthy of state support, but so are many secular buildings that are also not exempt from this tax responsibility. They, too, are struggling, and some important buildings are falling into disrepair because the owners cannot afford to maintain them. Is the National Trust or English Heritage to receive the same perks?

"The Church's self-interest seems to know no bounds. Not satisfied with the VAT subsidy on repairs to listed buildings but ring-fenced to places of worship, it wants yet more preferential treatment. Much of this privileged tax funding is for the benefit of parishioners rather than as a part of the nation's heritage preservation.

"If we value our heritage, we should value all of it, not just churches. If churches are to receive grants from the Government to cover VAT on heritage building alterations, then grants should be made to all heritage buildings on the same basis."

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45957 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
That is the maximum estimate of an unqualified third party seeking sensationalism
You keep forgetting that your sources put deaths at 25,000.

And I gave you my source, Skanque.

Wipe your chin... you are a frightful mess.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45958 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct, wikipedia is often irrefutable.
Which means it is refutable.

Time to change those batteries, Chubby.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45959 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Yes real hard, however there were around 750,000 inhabitants and after 4 years of research all but 25,000 have been accounted
Liar liar pants on fire.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45960 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, how may times, I do not lie.
You lie every time you draw a breath, Skanque.

You lie about your up close and personal experiences with drippydicks, for example.

I understand: you ex tells us you insist were never wrong, either.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 min Aura Mytha 255,963
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 min Patrick 4,657
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Patrick 40,444
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 min Patrick 15,989
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 1 hr IB DaMann 220
A Universe from Nothing? 3 hr u196533dm 56
News Why I quit atheism 10 hr Nooooo 391
More from around the web