Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
not when its the government that forced them to close,,but its the government forcing them to close not the people that fill their seats,,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.
can't they make a kickstarter?
Or have their parishioner given all that money to the defense funds of murderous cops, instead?
read the last sentence in the 5th amendment,,
thats all irrelevant to the facts of the case,, the government forced them to close and as the law states its the governments job to reimburse them,,not when its the government that forced them to close,,but its the government forcing them to close not the people that fill their seats,,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.
can't they make a kickstarter?
Or have their parishioner given all that money to the defense funds of murderous cops, instead?
read the last sentence in the 5th amendment,,
As mentioned before--there is no reason that churches cannot collect contributions in other ways than in-person attendence
Their parishioners are no less obliged to support their shepherds, just because there is a pandemic.
Ya'll make it sound like these churches are no different from any other business.
If that were the case, there would certainly be no reason not to tax them in the same manner
thats all irrelevant to the facts of the case,, the government forced them to close and as the law states its the governments job to reimburse them,,not when its the government that forced them to close,,but its the government forcing them to close not the people that fill their seats,,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.
can't they make a kickstarter?
Or have their parishioner given all that money to the defense funds of murderous cops, instead?
read the last sentence in the 5th amendment,,
As mentioned before--there is no reason that churches cannot collect contributions in other ways than in-person attendence
Their parishioners are no less obliged to support their shepherds, just because there is a pandemic.
Ya'll make it sound like these churches are no different from any other business.
If that were the case, there would certainly be no reason not to tax them in the same manner
I just told you,, the 5th amendment,,thats all irrelevant to the facts of the case,, the government forced them to close and as the law states its the governments job to reimburse them,,not when its the government that forced them to close,,but its the government forcing them to close not the people that fill their seats,,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.
can't they make a kickstarter?
Or have their parishioner given all that money to the defense funds of murderous cops, instead?
read the last sentence in the 5th amendment,,
As mentioned before--there is no reason that churches cannot collect contributions in other ways than in-person attendence
Their parishioners are no less obliged to support their shepherds, just because there is a pandemic.
Ya'll make it sound like these churches are no different from any other business.
If that were the case, there would certainly be no reason not to tax them in the same manner
What law?
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.
I'm not even going to get into the obvious constitutional prohibition on congress providing such funds.
I can only take from your funny tag is you know I'm right and have nothing left but hypocrisy,,I just told you,, the 5th amendment,,thats all irrelevant to the facts of the case,, the government forced them to close and as the law states its the governments job to reimburse them,,not when its the government that forced them to close,,but its the government forcing them to close not the people that fill their seats,,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.
can't they make a kickstarter?
Or have their parishioner given all that money to the defense funds of murderous cops, instead?
read the last sentence in the 5th amendment,,
As mentioned before--there is no reason that churches cannot collect contributions in other ways than in-person attendence
Their parishioners are no less obliged to support their shepherds, just because there is a pandemic.
Ya'll make it sound like these churches are no different from any other business.
If that were the case, there would certainly be no reason not to tax them in the same manner
What law?
again why arent you complaining about the companies that didnt close that still got money when they suffered no loses??
Many churches have large numbers of employees! Many churches own hospitals that are on the front line of the covid battle. Hospitals are just one of many businesses churches are involved in. If there is a basic need to be met there is a church out there trying to provide it at a reduced cost to the needy. This is a fact, how every there has to be a separation between church in and state. Life is complicated this is certainly a situation where some lines blurr. Glad I am not the one that gets to sort it out! LolI'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.
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.
I'm not even going to get into the obvious constitutional prohibition on congress providing such funds.
What prohibition?
you forgot to show where they do that,,,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.
I'm not even going to get into the obvious constitutional prohibition on congress providing such funds.
What prohibition?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- Amendment I
so you know I'm right,, why not just say that??you forgot to show where they do that,,,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.
I'm not even going to get into the obvious constitutional prohibition on congress providing such funds.
What prohibition?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- Amendment I
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.
I'm not even going to get into the obvious constitutional prohibition on congress providing such funds.
What prohibition?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- Amendment I
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.
Even if all the churches failed it wouldn't adversely impact the economy.
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.
If I understand correctly, we are talking about funds that are intended to help employers continue to pay employees who are forced by the #CoronaHoax2020 shutdowns out of work. Many churches have paid employees too. Are you suggesting that we should discriminate against some victims of the #CoronaHoax shutdowns on the basis that they were employed by religious organizations?
its because they employ people and the government stopped them from doing business,, case closed,,,This whole issue of government payments to religious communities needs to be examined publicly There doesn't seem to be any records kept as to how much the taxpayers have funded various groups and religious beliefs. For example, it seems like the federal government gave millions to some "abstinence only" groups. Was there a reason?
what about this??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.
its because they employ people and the government stopped them from doing business,, case closed,,,This whole issue of government payments to religious communities needs to be examined publicly There doesn't seem to be any records kept as to how much the taxpayers have funded various groups and religious beliefs. For example, it seems like the federal government gave millions to some "abstinence only" groups. Was there a reason?
the bigger question is why are people that didnt lose their jobs or their business's didnt close are receiving money???
they are employers that lost the ability to pay their employees due to government restrictions,,,its because they employ people and the government stopped them from doing business,, case closed,,,This whole issue of government payments to religious communities needs to be examined publicly There doesn't seem to be any records kept as to how much the taxpayers have funded various groups and religious beliefs. For example, it seems like the federal government gave millions to some "abstinence only" groups. Was there a reason?
the bigger question is why are people that didnt lose their jobs or their business's didnt close are receiving money???
Okay, so they are businesses then. Just like palm readers, and escort services. Glad we cleared that up.
its because they employ people and the government stopped them from doing business,, case closed,,,This whole issue of government payments to religious communities needs to be examined publicly There doesn't seem to be any records kept as to how much the taxpayers have funded various groups and religious beliefs. For example, it seems like the federal government gave millions to some "abstinence only" groups. Was there a reason?
the bigger question is why are people that didnt lose their jobs or their business's didnt close are receiving money???
