Submitted by Lisa, Sep 7, 2007 22:32

John,

Tax breaks are not exclusive to churches . . . . any non-profit entity gets them. The idea of tax breaks is not religious based. However, if you want to use an arguement that sounds like something you would quote to justify a viewpoint I would guess you have, let's use the false "separation of church and state" mantra. If churches are to be truly separate from the state, then as monies from the state should not go to the churches, monies from the church should not go to the state. If the reason for tax breaks is religious, if it's "separation of church and state," there would be no reason other non-profits to not contribute. Which means that other groups like World Wildlife Fund, The Land Trust, The National Parks Conservaition Association, among many others, should all start contributing.

In actuality, every church I know of (I won't claim all, because I don't know all) advocates the biblical "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" teaching. While I do see the rationalization of "tax benefits" on almost every solicitation I get for every charity, I don't hear my pastor, or any pastor's I've listened to, make that arguement when they teach on tithing. That's because the idea of tithing isn't about tax breaks. Tithing was around LONG before income tax.

Regarding your statement of "religion based biogotry." Let me ask you this . . . how come when someone with what would be called a liberal belief stands up for it, they are touted as brave. Yet, when someone stands up for what they believe in from a conservative standpoint, it's biogotry. Have you ever considered the idea that it's impossible to advocate tolerance in the way most liberal groups do, and practice it at the same time?

Tolerance means "the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others." In it's broader meaning, it refers to a positive or proper idea or thing allowing an improper or parasitic idea or thing. If you look at any of the definitions, it talks about a positive value surviving a negative value. If you TRULY believe in tolerance, not only should you "tolerate" people who do NOT believe as you do, you should promote the idea that they SHOULD be allowed their beliefs. From my perspective, most conservatives don't believe homosexuality should be outlawed, they just believe they should be allowed to believe it's wrong and practice that belief in how they live their lives. THAT is the definition of "tolerance," making allowances for people that don't believe as you do.

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to think it's good, that you have to support it in any way, just that you allow it . . . . in a medical sense, that you are able to survive it. How many people on the liberal side are willing to "tolerate" or allow conservatives to believe what they believe and to practice that belief? Is homosexuality the positive ideal that can survive the negative effects of christianity if it allows christianity to practice it's beliefs? I don't believe so and I'll tell you why . . . . the fear that causes them to fight against even allowing conservatives to voice the idea that it might be wrong.

The reason you don't see conservative individuals suing because they were denied a job they were the most qualified for based on their beliefs, is because they don't pursue jobs that require them to defend or support ideals they don't believe in. Why do non-conservatives even want a job with a group who's declaration of principle statement would be offensive to them? The only reason is to attempt to force someone else to not just tolerate, but support their agenda/beliefs. If they truly believed in tolerance, they would believe that person should also be allowed to live their beliefs. That they should be allowed to be true to themselves.

The way it stands right now, if a person expresses a belief or lifestyle that would be considered a liberal left ideal, conservatives are supposed to support this ideal in the name of tolerance. After all, the person should be able to be "true to themselves." However, if a person expresses a conservative belief and attempts to be "true to themselves," cries of bigotry and intolerance are thrown out. Who here is truly intolerant?

In regards to church keeping it's "nose out of government" . . . . if you study history a bit more, you'll find that the idea of government is biblical. Since the idea of government was grown out of the church, it's unlikely that it will ever "keep it's nose out", or that it should. The idea of government is a biblical mandate, as is "putting righteous men on the throne." SInce Christians are called to public service and to "put righteous men on the throne" asking them to NOT attempt to influence government would be asking them to not practice their religion . . . . which would amount to intolerance of their beliefs.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.