by Mattieu 153 Replies latest watchtower scandals
WOW! debator! Lets move on to something harder:
Yes or no. Should a government be able to REVOKE the tax-excempt status for a religion which ABUSE said status?
Abuse being defined as above. Notice they will not be dissolved, they just have to pay tax, just like my local "Angry Atheist Institute" would have to.
Hi bohn
What definition of abuse? your biased one that you have put on witnesses from your opinion?
Then I can happily say No.
Taxation has nothing to do with what a religion teaches or preaches.
Debator: Yes or no. Should a government be able to REVOKE the tax-excempt status for a religion which ABUSE said status?
Ofcourse, a simple and extremely obvious, general, yes/no question was to damn hard, so you picked up on your tirade about a SPECIFIC religion and failed to answer it. But it gets worse.
What definition of abuse?
Oh geh, lets try 4th grade reading comprehension. I wrote: "Abuse being defined as above"
Is it reading or the word "above" which cause you problems this time? Never mind that. Lets try a more pedagogical excersize:
"Yes or no. Should a government be able to REVOKE a liquor license for a bar which ABUSE said license?" (uhm... yes)
"Yes or no. Should a government be able to REVOKE a drivers license for a driver who ABUSE said license?" (uhm... yes)
...
NOW the big finale:
Yes or no. Should a government be able to REVOKE the tax-excempt status for a religion which ABUSE said status?
The problem is that you have dug yourself into a rethorical hole because your not 10% the legendary debater you think you are. Since your to full of yourself to admit that, you just blow smoke and try to derail the conversation.
You dont realize that your attempts are so obvious and stupid to everyone here, and it all give the impression you couldnt argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
And its BOHM.
Is the great debator running away from the most obvious of yes/no questions? Did it become to hard to defend the witnesses on this topic so you must skip along and find another topic to derail? (i can see you are posting on the blood topic now).
Reniaa always runs after her bs answer is refuted.
Bohm
My answer is No to the second because taxing a religion that is simply funding the luxury lifestyle of a leader is not stoping them doing it. It is just saying "We want a slice of it too".
It's like legalising brothels it doesn't stop them it just makes governments pimps themselves.
But you are drawing away from the topic at hand.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2899026.htm
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 13/05/2010
Reporter: Tony Jones
The Senate has agreed to launch an inquiry into the tax exempt status of religions and charities after allegations of abuse within The Church of Scientology.
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Well the Senate has agreed to hold inquiries in the laws regarding the tax exempt status of religions and charities.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed a test which asks groups to demonstrate whether their activities are of public benefit or cause harm before being granted tax exempt status.
The inquiry was sparked by allegations of serious abuses within the Church of Scientology.
And we obviously have a problem with that piece, but Senator Nick Xenophon, in any case, says the Senate inquiry will not focus on a single group.
He says any religious or charitable organisations found to have harmed individuals should lose their tax exempt status.
Isaac
You prove my point, Australia isn't stopping scientology "harming" individuals they are just saying they need to pay for the right to carry on harming individuals in there country.
Taxation is a very dishonest greedy way to sanction a religion.
Fill me in on what the deal is with Scientology. Just give me the facts without your opinions.
