In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

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.

Comments (Page 2,215)

Showing posts 44,281 - 44,300 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45945
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45947
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45948
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45952
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45954
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45955
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45956
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45957
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45958
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45959
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45960
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45961
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ChristineM wrote:
Whatever the church makes no difference to its tax status
Liar liar pants on fire.

(quote)
The government is urging councils across the country to stop giving hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax breaks to the Church of Scientology.

The communities secretary, Eric Pickles, said a majority of the public did not want the "controversial organisation" to be given the kind of favourable treatment usually reserved for charities and questioned this use of public money.

The church, which is not classed as a religion by the Charity Commission, was described as a cult by a high court judge in 1984.

It is the first time a cabinet minister has intervened in the long-running row over the tax breaks for Scientology.

At least four authorities have given tax breaks to the group, which counts a host of celebrities among its high-profile members.

City of London Corporation has asked it to pay only one-fifth of the usual rates on its London headquarters, near St Paul's cathedral. As a result, it has saved £1.3m worth of tax.

The six-storey building was opened in a lavish ceremony attended by the leading Scientologist Tom Cruise in 2006.

The corporation decided Scientology could be classed as a charity either for the advancement of religion "or other purposes beneficial to the community".

The council says it feared the organisation would take it to court were the tax breaks to cease.

Conservative-controlled Westminster council has granted 80% rates relief on Scientology's Celebrity Centre in Bayswater, London, saving £165,303 over the past 10 years.

The council has defined the organisation as a "non-registered charity" that is "beneficial to the community". The Scientologists moved out this property, set up for prominent people in the arts, in July, council officials said.

In Birmingham, the city council has given the Church of Scientology Religious Education College 80% discretionary relief, awarded because the property is being used as an educational institution, and in Sunderland, the council has given Scientology £30,000 of rates relief on its city centre base over five years.

In a statement to the Guardian, Pickles said he could not see why Scientology was being given privileged treatment by councils.

"Tolerance and freedom of expression are important British values, but this does not mean that the likes of Church of Scientology deserve favoured tax treatment over and above other business premises," he said.

"The Church of Scientology is not a registered charity, since the Charity Commission has ruled that it does not provide a public benefit. Nor are its premises a recognised place of worship.

"Councils may award charitable relief. They should take into consideration the Charity Commission's rulings when weighing up whether to do so.

"I do not believe the majority of the public would want their own council to be giving special tax breaks to such a controversial organisation."
(clip)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45962
Jan 7, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which means it is refutable.
Time to change those batteries, Chubby.
No, you said it was not refutable, and that's what irrefutable means:

irrefutable [&#618;&#712;r&#60 3;fj&#650;t&#601;b &#601;l &#716;&#618;r&#618 ;&#712;fju&#720;t& #601;b&#601;l]
adj
impossible to deny or disprove; incontrovertible
irrefutability , irrefutableness n
irrefutably adv

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45963
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you said it was not refutable
Not refutable means not refutable.

You should concentrate on speaking for yourself, to trying to restate what I had no problem stating myself.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45965
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not refutable means not refutable.
You should concentrate on speaking for yourself, to trying to restate what I had no problem stating myself.
Yes, you said it was irrefutable, you cannot refute the information in wikipedia, you said it.
SupaAFC

Milnathort, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45966
Jan 7, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sure, Barefoot, once you cite the author of your Edward VII website.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 44,281 - 44,300 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••