|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 13:24:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then you haven't studied Scripture. |
It's statements like this that reinforce my belief that for you the issue is ideology and not adherence to law. What are you trying to argue with this point? That scripture is so egregiously offensive that dirty-tricks are justified in silencing anyone who believes and preaches them?
Originally posted by Dave W.
Really, you would let your seven-year-old child hang out with a guy who smoked pot with your kid in the same room? Where I live, such negligent "child endangerment" is a crime. Hell, I don't even let my boy eat too much candy! |
I don't know any pot-smokers who would smoke in front of my kid, or if they did, wouldn't remove themselves just from my saying, “Hey! Go do that somewhere else. My kid is here.” Calling the police, in my opinion, is inappropriate and way disproportionate to the offence. You don't take action that could put someone in jail, cost them potentially thousands in legal fees, and possibly threaten their livelihood over an offence that amounts to a breach of etiquette.
I'd be curious to learn how you think the kid would be harmed any more than if that same person had a couple stiff alcoholic drinks instead of pot?
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ray, on the other hand, seeks to make the whole world stupid. The danger he presents is more immediate and deadly to a pluralistic, tolerant society. |
It's his right to try. Just as UFO fanatics have the right to push their points of view, new-agers, Scientologists, or whoever. A pluralistic society has to respect the right of the individual to be wrong and to advocate for a wrong point of view, or there is no freedom. If you disagree with Ray it's entirely appropriate for you to state your disagreement, ridicule his point of view, and present your arguments against him in an effort to convince others that he's wrong, but a line is crossed if you seek to use the force of law to silence him.
Originally posted by Dave W.
He only posed the question, but he's an asshat for doing so, apparently. |
Oh lighten up. Everyone behaves as a jerk sometimes. Being called on it isn't a big deal.
Originally posted by Dave W.
I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that you, Mycroft, were first exposed to the homophobic, anti-choice and other old, old ideas expressed in Ray's post, but the suggestion you've made that proponents of such ideas must be engaged as if they're the only ones offering or capable of a "free debate" on the subject really does point to such a conclusion. |
I've never made these claims and I don't understand why you assert that I have. Who says these people are the only ones capable of offering free debate? What difference would it make either way? The issue is how you deal with people who disagree with you, it doesn't matter if there are others who disagree or not.
Originally posted by Dave W.
But the fact of the matter is that guys like Ray are a dime a dozen, and even if they all lost their tax-exempt status, they'd still be spouting their nonsense and refusing to engage in rational, free debate. Heck, Kent Hovind is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence for tax evasion, but he's still writing and publ |
 |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2008 : 13:30:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It's not a dirty trick. One of the primary reasons churches are able to enjoy tax-exempt status is that they agree not to directly engage in politics. That's the agreement they make when they submit their taxes every year. If a church or pastor breaks that agreement then they are in violation of the law. The only "dirty trick" here would be a church that immorally tries to go back on their agreement and cheat the system, or the frauds that would defend such dishonesty.
|
Do you see me as defending Ray Comforts dishonesty? |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 13:38:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
This was on written by the church under the church letterhead: |
If a Unitarian church that supported gay marriages had written on their own letterhead to members of their congregation an appeal to donate their time and money to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment, would you object to that?
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 13:56:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Kil
This was on written by the church under the church letterhead: |
If a Unitarian church that supported gay marriages had written on their own letterhead to members of their congregation an appeal to donate their time and money to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment, would you object to that?
|
If they asked for my advice, I would tell them to work within the law because there are reasons for the law and someone who doesn't agree with them, if they work outside of their agreement with the IRS, just might report them with good justification.
I'm not sure if I would report them myself. I wouldn't have to.
It's likely that the people who are offended are the most likely to complain. Those are the people that the law is there to protect.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 14:25:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
If you disagree with Ray it's entirely appropriate for you to state your disagreement, ridicule his point of view, and present your arguments against him in an effort to convince others that he's wrong, but a line is crossed if you seek to use the force of law to silence him.
|
But that's not what's been happening here. None of us is trying to use the law to force him silent. Reporting him to authorities that would potentially force him to pay taxes isn't the same as silencing him. Indeed, he could go on with his political agenda. The only thing that would have happened is that he will be forced to play the game according to the same rules as everyone else!
No more, no less.
Kent Hovind (creationist) refused to play by the rules. That's his choice.
Ben Jonson (athlete) refused to play by the rules. That's his choice.
Their respective actions harmed society because they break the rules that are necessary (and agreed upon) for the greater good of said society.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 14:50:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Do you see me as defending Ray Comforts dishonesty?
|
Yes, you keep saying it's "his right to try" to influence politics. But it isn't. Not as a public leader of a church. He doesn't have the right that you keep defending. So what is that if not dishonest? Stupid?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 15:17:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
I disagree with what they say, but I respect their right to say it.
How about you? |
I called it "legal." Was there anything unclear about that?| Neither your nor I believe the actions of these people are comparable to Ray Comfort. |
Don't speak for me, Mycroft. I consider the theocratic wet-dreams of Ray Comfort and his ilk to be much more dangerous to me and my family than a single burning tree next to my house.
I can't dial three digits to summon a team of legal experts to repair the government in under five minutes.
You also wrote:| If you disagree with Ray it's entirely appropriate for you to state your disagreement, ridicule his point of view, and present your arguments against him in an effort to convince others that he's wrong, but a line is crossed if you seek to use the force of law to silence him. |
So long as you think revoking Ray Comfort's 501(c)3 status would "silence" him, you're being much more unreasonable than you obviously think I'm being.
Ray has a right to say whatever the hell he wants to say, he just does not have a right (it is settled law) to use his ministry's voice to say it. Stripping his ministry of its tax-exempt status wouldn't do anything to silence him. It's ludicrous to think that it would, because he has always been and will always be free to speak his mind apart from his ministry.
The fact that you seem to be incapable of even acknowledging this point shows your own ideological dogma at work, Mycroft. It's no fault of mine or Ig's or Kil's that you can't be bothered with the facts while making an argument which, if applied fairly, would suggest that laws against libel or inciting riots actually stifle freedom.
So I guess you're no scientist, eh? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 15:33:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
If a Unitarian church that supported gay marriages had written on their own letterhead to members of their congregation an appeal to donate their time and money to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment, would you object to that? |
I would. The law is clear. The church can repeat its own stance in favor of gay marriage all it likes, but it is again settled law that it cannot directly entreat its congregation to vote in a particular way on legislation (or for or against a particular candidate) and keep its tax exemption.
Again: from the pulpit, "we believe it is God's will that gay couples be allowed to marry" doesn't come anywhere close to crossing the legal line, but "vote NO on Proposition 8" clearly crosses it.
You're claiming that prosecuting churches for breaking that law stifles their freedom, but to the informed voter sitting in a pew, the two statements are saying the same thing. Only the uninformed voter who doesn't know what Proposition 8 was and doesn't read it while voting would need it all spelled out for him, but the church doesn't have a tax exemption so that it can better engage in voter education.
Or do you really think, Mycroft, that "vote NO on Prop 8" expresses a different opinion than does "gay marriage is okay," and that difference is part of the plurality that needs to be protected? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 19:07:19 [Permalink]
|
| So for you the issue is if it has a personal effect on you? |
Usually. I believe that most of the problems in the world are caused by people minding other people's business, so if it's not my business, I try to stay out of it.
There are exceptions, of course. For instance, Proposition 8 has no direct effect on me. But it does affect my friends, so I would like to see every church that promoted it lose their tax exempt status.
Full disclosure: I think every church should lose their tax exempt status anyway, except for things that are directly chartable. So if we can get them one at a time for breaking a very clear law, that's fine with me.
And in every case I'm aware of they are advocating for removing my rights, or the rights of friends.
Which, again, tells me that for you the issue is about ideology, not about enforcing the law. |
|
So what if it is? My ideology is not to have my tax dollars subsidize hateful organizations. I'm sorry you have trouble with that.
| In a democracy we're all supposed to advocate for change. If you disagree with someone's opinion you're supposed to make a cogent argument against them, not pull dirty-tricks to silence them. |
As far as I'm concerned churches are pulling dirty tricks when I have to pay to provide them with fire and police protection. And I do pay for them.
But since when it advocating for enforcing the law dirty tricks? I'm not familiar with that point of view. Please explain it in detail.
| It's his right to try. Just as UFO fanatics have the right to push their points of view, new-agers, Scientologists, or whoever. A pluralistic society has to respect the right of the individual to be wrong and to advocate for a wrong point of view, or there is no freedom. If you disagree with Ray it's entirely appropriate for you to state your disagreement, ridicule his point of view, and present your arguments against him in an effort to convince others that he's wrong, but a line is crossed if you seek to use the force of law to silence him. |
You persist in missing the most important point. Ray is not simply advocating for his stupidity. He is trying to make it the law of the land, and in the process is breaking a law.
| Do you see me as defending Ray Comforts dishonesty? |
Yes. He broke the law and you're defending his actions.
| If a Unitarian church that supported gay marriages had written on their own letterhead to members of their congregation an appeal to donate their time and money to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment, would you object to that? |
Yes.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 23:28:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Don't speak for me, Mycroft. I consider the theocratic wet-dreams of Ray Comfort and his ilk to be much more dangerous to me and my family than a single burning tree next to my house.
I can't dial three digits to summon a team of legal experts to repair the government in under five minutes. |
Do you honestly believe there is any chance that Ray Comforts ideas on government have any chance of being enacted?
Originally posted by Dave W.
So long as you think revoking Ray Comfort's 501(c)3 status would "silence" him, you're being much more unreasonable than you obviously think I'm being.
Ray has a right to say whatever the hell he wants to say, he just does not have a right (it is settled law) to use his ministry's voice to say it. Stripping his ministry of its tax-exempt status wouldn't do anything to silence him. It's ludicrous to think that it would, because he has always been and will always be free to speak his mind apart from his ministry.
The fact that you seem to be incapable of even acknowledging this point shows your own ideological dogma at work, Mycroft. It's no fault of mine or Ig's or Kil's that you can't be bothered with the facts while making an argument which, if applied fairly, would suggest that laws against libel or inciting riots actually stifle freedom. |
What part of my argument suggests laws against libel or inciting riots stifle freedom?
If Ray Comfort were inciting riots, if he were telling his followers to go out and harm or kill people, then I'd be all for bringing in the full force of the law to stop him. If he were another Tom Metsger, who was convicted of inciting racial violence, I'd fully support the legal tactics used to bankrupt him and drive him out of town.
Libel? If Roy Comfort were guilty of that, I'd be all for someone taking the appropriate steps to seek redress.
As far as I can tell, Ray is just another evangelical Christian. He believes in Jesus, Judgment Day, and he doesn't believe in evolution. Wrong? Sure, but harmless too. Let's not kid ourselves.
If it seems I'm not acknowledging your point, it's because that point isn't on the issue I'm arguing. You keep trying to argue the law aspect, which is not in dispute. I'm not arguing that churches should or should not have tax exemption, or should or should not be allowed political advocacy.
No, what I argued is that it's un-cool to seek to harm someone for disagreeing with you.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10587&whichpage=1#154663
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 23:38:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Yes, you keep saying it's "his right to try" to influence politics. But it isn't. Not as a public leader of a church. He doesn't have the right that you keep defending. So what is that if not dishonest? Stupid? |
So now you're claiming that I'm dishonest (or stupid) and not Ray Comfort? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 00:33:47 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft:
No, what I argued is that it's un-cool to seek to harm someone for disagreeing with you. |
Which is, once again, your way of saying that you don't agree with the law.
I guess to you it's just an uncool law that only exists to harm people who are otherwise harmless. And hey, who cares if prop 8 passed mostly due to church influence and money. Who was harmed? (Not you I guess.) We should not seek to harm individuals (which means making them pay taxes like all other political's do) who represent themselves in an official capacity doing church business which just happens to sometimes be partisan politics. Sure they are breaking the law, but it's just uncool to call them on it...
Brilliant!
Now, read this part slowly and maybe you will get it. Ray Comfort is the head of a tax exempt organization that brings in butt-loads of money through evangelizing and selling books he has authored. He's not just another Evangelical Christian. He is the head of a church. He is not a follower in his flock. He is the leader of his flock.
I doubt that what he did will jeopardize the tax exempt status of his church. But hey, let's not kid ourselves...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 01:07:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Do you honestly believe there is any chance that Ray Comforts ideas on government have any chance of being enacted? |
If you'd asked me that in 1990, I would have said "no."| What part of my argument suggests laws against libel or inciting riots stifle freedom? |
The part where you say, without qualification, that all expression of ideas should be protected, otherwise we are not free.If Ray Comfort were inciting riots, if he were telling his followers to go out and harm or kill people, then I'd be all for bringing in the full force of the law to stop him. If he were another Tom Metsger, who was convicted of inciting racial violence, I'd fully support the legal tactics used to bankrupt him and drive him out of town.
Libel? If Roy Comfort were guilty of that, I'd be all for someone taking the appropriate steps to seek redress. |
So "Joe Schmoe raped his own sister" and "we should burn this town down in protest" are somehow ideas that deserve less protection than "vote for McCain," in your ideal pluralistic society. I see. How do you draw these lines demarcating someone being an asshat for suggesting that the law be enforced on the one side, and someone being an upstanding citizen for suggesting that the law be enforced on the other?| As far as I can tell, Ray is just another evangelical Christian. He believes in Jesus, Judgment Day, and he doesn't believe in evolution. Wrong? Sure, but harmless too. Let's not kid ourselves. |
No, let's not. A majority agree with him on some points, and a sizable minority on others. He hasn't been a fringe thinker for many years, but is dangerously close to being mainstream. The recent election wasn't a referendum against religious whackaloonery, because the vast majority of the campaigning had nothing to do with purely social issues.If it seems I'm not acknowledging your point, it's because that point isn't on the issue I'm arguing. You keep trying to argue the law aspect, which is not in dispute. I'm not arguing that churches should or should not have tax exemption, or should or should not be allowed political advocacy.
No, what I argued is that it's un-cool to seek to harm someone for disagreeing with you. |
Then why do you think it's cool to harm someone for saying that a riot would be a good idea?
What it is that you refuse to acknowledge is that stripping a church of its tax-exempt status does nothing to "silence" any ideas. That was simply a consequence that you fabricated out of thin air, and have used as a rhetorical bludgeon, to demonize those who disagree with you.
You also bizarrely say that harming someone is okay for certain violations of the law, but not for others. You refuse to acknowledge that if Ray Comfort had violated the law against campaigning from the pulpit, he should face the same punishment that anyone else would face. In fact, you keep trying to shift the burden by asking others here if they would enforce the law if it were a campaign issue they agreed with, and when someone says, "yes, I would," you effectively ignore the response, thereby evading the answer entirely.
And let me approach another question you dodged from another angle. By a conservative estimate, there are tens of thousands of people who are advocating the same ideas that Ray was (in the questionable post). How is it damaging to a pluralistic society for |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 08:39:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
So now you're claiming that I'm dishonest (or stupid) and not Ray Comfort?
|
Yes. Mycroft, you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever known. You're inability to acknowledge that the law does not guarantee the same right to free speech to churches and their leaders that it does individuals can only be considered an act of willful dishonesty at this point. In fact, I predict you will try to use my calling you on your dishonesty as an excuse to act even more dishonest, by still refusing to admit you are wrong and pretending to be the wounded party even after despicably impugning the motives of several SFN members.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 14:10:59 [Permalink]
|
Despite my original belief to the contrary, it does appear that churches can by, present IRS regulations, support or oppose ballot ballot propositions, but not candidates. (This is not what I consider the Constitution requires, but is a fact of present law.)
I think it is dangerous to allow any tax-exempt entity to sway a political issue. I think secularists should lobby to have the "no-politics" rule for churches and other tax-exempt entities extended to ballot propositions.
Otherwise, we will see more and more situations like the persecution of same-sex couples. In the principles of American democracy, the one exception to the rule of the majority is the protection of minority rights, even against abuse by the majority. In principle, the will of the majority must have no say at all when basic rights are at stake.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/10/2008 14:11:59 |
|
|
 |
|
|
How do you report somone to the IRS?
