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
44,281 - 44,300 of 47,724 Comments Last updated Sep 4, 2013

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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45961 Jan 7, 2013
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

#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

#45963 Jan 7, 2013
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

#45965 Jan 7, 2013
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

Kinross, UK

#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.
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

#45967 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Of course you don't care, because the fact that we have a fully functioning Parliament in which the legislative chamber is democratically elected by the people renders your whole song and dance about our monarchy meaningless.

Parliament runs the country, the Queen pets corgis. Hug that dictionary nice and tight little boy, because reality simply does not support you.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#45968 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.
king of sweden have no supreme power = All public power in Sweden proceeds from the people (the Swedish Constitution)

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

#45969 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
That’s what I like to seem drippydick total meltdown where cherry picking quote miners revel in death
Wipe your chin, Skanque... you are dripping...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45970 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<
You words not mine you cocksucking cuckold
Every one here knows who has had the real life experience, eh, Skanque?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45971 Jan 7, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
king of sweden
Democracies do not have kings, honey.

Do stop spamming the board.

Flagged.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45972 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, Barefoot, once you cite the author of your Edward VII website.
Already posted, SuperFag.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45973 Jan 7, 2013
[QUOTE who="SupaAFC"
Parliament runs the country[/QUOTE]

Most of themembers of the Parliament have been appointed by the monarch... including those appointed by the Queen as head of the Church of England.

And the Queen can dismiss the Parliament after she finishes her tea.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45974 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you don't care, because the fact that we have a fully functioning Parliament in which the legislative chamber is democratically elected
In actual fact: no matter how hard you stomp your feet, most of the members are appointed or they inhered their appointmentss, by the monarch.

~stomp stomp stomp~

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45975 Jan 7, 2013
[QUOTE who="SupaAFC"
Parliament runs the country,[/QUOTE]
The head of state is the Queen, yes or no?

Maybe you can ask the prime minister... who is appointed by the Queen.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 min Big Sky 305,464
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 4 min VN Vet 435
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 4 min Here Is One 1,899
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Yeah 1,100,592
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 6 min bob Dillon 1,847
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 17 min woodtick57 256,462
US condemns 'heinous murder' of Palestinian teen 18 min ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 1,598
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 44 min Truth 1,491
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Cornelius Scudmister 151,291
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••