How could churches need government stimulus funds?

[Agit8r]

I'm not even going to get into the obvious constitutional prohibition on congress providing such funds.

Just from a practical standpoint, what does it mean about a church body if the parishioners are not willing to contribute without being there in person. Are they unwilling to continue support because their only reason for contributing was to be seen by other people?

If so, verily they have already recieved their reward in full.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/20/stimulus-package-details/

 

[RodISHI]

Not going to WAPO as I on't believe in giving them a click but IMO churches, synagogues, or mosques, that can't stand on the merit of the Word, beliefs or their faith that are not supported by their parishioners need to go out of business. In that same note their parishioners being locked down so they cannot make a living the entity doing that to them should be made to pay.

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm not even going to get into the obvious constitutional prohibition on congress providing such funds.

Just from a practical standpoint, what does it mean about a church body if the parishioners are not willing to contribute without being there in person. Are they unwilling to continue support because their only reason for contributing was to be seen by other people?

If so, verily they have already recieved their reward in full.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/20/stimulus-package-details/

they deserve it a lot more than most of the people collecting it,,

 

[pknopp]

There is no Constitutional issue. The issue would be the government excluding a religious organization.

You are left with the argument whether any of this should be done. You can argue that it shouldn't be your problem if the members aren't keeping up. I can argue that it's not my problem that people aren't buying Tom Brady's stuff but he still got nearly a million dollars.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just from a practical standpoint, what does it mean about a church body if the parishioners are not willing to contribute without being there in person.

What about not willing to contribute because their business is suffering?

 

[Agit8r]

There is no Constitutional issue. The issue would be the government excluding a religious organization.

You are left with the argument whether any of this should be done. You can argue that it shouldn't be your problem if the members aren't keeping up. I can argue that it's not my problem that people aren't buying Tom Brady's stuff but he still got nearly a million dollars.

However there is no reason that the parishioners cannot donate online. None whatsoever.

There is even less operational overhead when the churches don't open their doors.

There is no logical reason that they could be losing more money just because their doors are closed.

 

[progressive hunter]

There is no Constitutional issue. The issue would be the government excluding a religious organization.

You are left with the argument whether any of this should be done. You can argue that it shouldn't be your problem if the members aren't keeping up. I can argue that it's not my problem that people aren't buying Tom Brady's stuff but he still got nearly a million dollars.

However there is no reason that the parishioners cannot donate online. None whatsoever.

There is even less operational overhead when the churches don't open their doors.

There is no logical reason that they could be losing more money just because their doors are closed.

theres no logical reason some people are losing money when they still have their jobs and their business's arent closed,,,

 

[martybegan]

There is no Constitutional issue. The issue would be the government excluding a religious organization.

You are left with the argument whether any of this should be done. You can argue that it shouldn't be your problem if the members aren't keeping up. I can argue that it's not my problem that people aren't buying Tom Brady's stuff but he still got nearly a million dollars.

However there is no reason that the parishioners cannot donate online. None whatsoever.

There is even less operational overhead when the churches don't open their doors.

There is no logical reason that they could be losing more money just because their doors are closed.

Government forced them to change their practices, government gets to pay up if they are offering similar compensation to other organizations.

 

[Agit8r]

Just from a practical standpoint, what does it mean about a church body if the parishioners are not willing to contribute without being there in person.

What about not willing to contribute because their business is suffering?

That is between the tither and their deity. Not the government's problem

Even if all the churches failed it wouldn't adversely impact the economy.

There are plenty of wealthy benefactors who value the propagation of religion. Let them put their money where their mouth is. Hell, Joel Olsteen and other megachurch pastors could bail out their businesses by diogging into their own ill gotten wealth.

 

[martybegan]

Just from a practical standpoint, what does it mean about a church body if the parishioners are not willing to contribute without being there in person.

What about not willing to contribute because their business is suffering?

That is between the tither and their deity. Not the government's problem

Even if all the churches failed it wouldn't adversely impact the economy.

There are plenty of wealthy benefactors who value the propagation of religion. Let them put their money where their mouth is. Hell, Joel Olsteen and other megachurch pastors could bail out their businesses by diogging into their own ill gotten wealth.

The parishioners weren't the ones forcing them to close.

 

[Agit8r]

There is no Constitutional issue. The issue would be the government excluding a religious organization.

You are left with the argument whether any of this should be done. You can argue that it shouldn't be your problem if the members aren't keeping up. I can argue that it's not my problem that people aren't buying Tom Brady's stuff but he still got nearly a million dollars.

However there is no reason that the parishioners cannot donate online. None whatsoever.

There is even less operational overhead when the churches don't open their doors.

There is no logical reason that they could be losing more money just because their doors are closed.

Government forced them to change their practices, government gets to pay up if they are offering similar compensation to other organizations.

That would be true, if churches were simply businesses where a person pays for services rendered.

However, a church's existance is based purely upon the generousity of those who wish for it to continue in its mission.

 

[martybegan]

There is no Constitutional issue. The issue would be the government excluding a religious organization.

You are left with the argument whether any of this should be done. You can argue that it shouldn't be your problem if the members aren't keeping up. I can argue that it's not my problem that people aren't buying Tom Brady's stuff but he still got nearly a million dollars.

However there is no reason that the parishioners cannot donate online. None whatsoever.

There is even less operational overhead when the churches don't open their doors.

There is no logical reason that they could be losing more money just because their doors are closed.

Government forced them to change their practices, government gets to pay up if they are offering similar compensation to other organizations.

That would be true, if churches were simply businesses where a person pays for services rendered.

However, a church's existance is based purely upon the generousity of those who wish for it to continue in its mission.

Actually, you pay for services like weddings and funerals at Churches, at least some churches.

 

[progressive hunter]

There is no Constitutional issue. The issue would be the government excluding a religious organization.

You are left with the argument whether any of this should be done. You can argue that it shouldn't be your problem if the members aren't keeping up. I can argue that it's not my problem that people aren't buying Tom Brady's stuff but he still got nearly a million dollars.

However there is no reason that the parishioners cannot donate online. None whatsoever.

There is even less operational overhead when the churches don't open their doors.

There is no logical reason that they could be losing more money just because their doors are closed.

Government forced them to change their practices, government gets to pay up if they are offering similar compensation to other organizations.

That would be true, if churches were simply businesses where a person pays for services rendered.

However, a church's existance is based purely upon the generousity of those who wish for it to continue in its mission.

but its the government forcing them to close not the people that fill their seats,,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

However, a church's existance is based purely upon the generousity of those who wish for it to continue in its mission.

Including, apparently, those who wrote the stimulus bill.

 

[Agit8r]

Just from a practical standpoint, what does it mean about a church body if the parishioners are not willing to contribute without being there in person.

What about not willing to contribute because their business is suffering?

That is between the tither and their deity. Not the government's problem

Even if all the churches failed it wouldn't adversely impact the economy.

There are plenty of wealthy benefactors who value the propagation of religion. Let them put their money where their mouth is. Hell, Joel Olsteen and other megachurch pastors could bail out their businesses by diogging into their own ill gotten wealth.

The parishioners weren't the ones forcing them to close.

Why do parishioners need to show up in person in order to support their church body.

Why are they not able to support it without being seen by others to gain their approval.

Such could only be the case if they were unscriptural hypocrites.

 

[Agit8r]

There is no Constitutional issue. The issue would be the government excluding a religious organization.

You are left with the argument whether any of this should be done. You can argue that it shouldn't be your problem if the members aren't keeping up. I can argue that it's not my problem that people aren't buying Tom Brady's stuff but he still got nearly a million dollars.

However there is no reason that the parishioners cannot donate online. None whatsoever.

There is even less operational overhead when the churches don't open their doors.

There is no logical reason that they could be losing more money just because their doors are closed.

Government forced them to change their practices, government gets to pay up if they are offering similar compensation to other organizations.

That would be true, if churches were simply businesses where a person pays for services rendered.

However, a church's existance is based purely upon the generousity of those who wish for it to continue in its mission.

but its the government forcing them to close not the people that fill their seats,,

can't they make a kickstarter?

Or have their parishioner given all that money to the defense funds of murderous cops, instead?

 

[progressive hunter]

Just from a practical standpoint, what does it mean about a church body if the parishioners are not willing to contribute without being there in person.

What about not willing to contribute because their business is suffering?

That is between the tither and their deity. Not the government's problem

Even if all the churches failed it wouldn't adversely impact the economy.

There are plenty of wealthy benefactors who value the propagation of religion. Let them put their money where their mouth is. Hell, Joel Olsteen and other megachurch pastors could bail out their businesses by diogging into their own ill gotten wealth.

The parishioners weren't the ones forcing them to close.

Why do parishioners need to show up in person in order to support their church body.

Why are they not able to support it without being seen by others to gain their approval.

Such could only be the case if they were unscriptural hypocrites.

their lives and how they live them are none of your business,,

the government forced them to close so the government by law has to reimburse them,,

 

[progressive hunter]

There is no Constitutional issue. The issue would be the government excluding a religious organization.

You are left with the argument whether any of this should be done. You can argue that it shouldn't be your problem if the members aren't keeping up. I can argue that it's not my problem that people aren't buying Tom Brady's stuff but he still got nearly a million dollars.

However there is no reason that the parishioners cannot donate online. None whatsoever.

There is even less operational overhead when the churches don't open their doors.

There is no logical reason that they could be losing more money just because their doors are closed.

Government forced them to change their practices, government gets to pay up if they are offering similar compensation to other organizations.

That would be true, if churches were simply businesses where a person pays for services rendered.

However, a church's existance is based purely upon the generousity of those who wish for it to continue in its mission.

but its the government forcing them to close not the people that fill their seats,,

can't they make a kickstarter?

Or have their parishioner given all that money to the defense funds of murderous cops, instead?

not when its the government that forced them to close,,

read the last sentence in the 5th amendment,,

 

[martybegan]

Just from a practical standpoint, what does it mean about a church body if the parishioners are not willing to contribute without being there in person.

What about not willing to contribute because their business is suffering?

That is between the tither and their deity. Not the government's problem

Even if all the churches failed it wouldn't adversely impact the economy.

There are plenty of wealthy benefactors who value the propagation of religion. Let them put their money where their mouth is. Hell, Joel Olsteen and other megachurch pastors could bail out their businesses by diogging into their own ill gotten wealth.

The parishioners weren't the ones forcing them to close.

Why do parishioners need to show up in person in order to support their church body.

Why are they not able to support it without being seen by others to gain their approval.

Such could only be the case if they were unscriptural hypocrites.

Government doesn't get to question how people worship, and the methods.

But here they are restricting how they worship.

 

[Rambunctious]

The entire stimulus bill is a joke...$600??? so struggling people get a lousy $600 but there are millions of dollars in foreign aid in the bill including cross gender education dollars for India?...WTF?...the aid was a demand from Pelosi...maybe we should call her....I wish Trump would refuse to sign this monstrosity...for the first time in a long time I agree with Rand Paul....