Politics And Current Events

[MWB]

@MWB

http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-think ... 1784664503

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for President, has already said there are “real questions” about whether vaccines cause autism in children. Now a video has surfaced where Stein says that wi-fi in schools might be harming kids.

Jill Stein: We should not be subjecting kids’ brains especially to that. And we don’t follow that issue in this country, but in Europe where they do, they have good precautions around wireless—maybe not good enough, because it’s very hard to study this stuff. We make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die. And this is like the paradigm for how public health works in this country and it’s outrageous, you know.

Her vaccine stance isn't really nuts:

"I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication," Stein said. "Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say? -- approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence."

Wifi stance seems pretty crazy, but seems a lot less harmful than what Clinton and Trump have to offer.

[tifosi77]

Oh darn.

I guess you don't like how much charity work churches and their non-profits do then?

Private charity will step in and fill the void. At least, that's what we keep hearing when other subject come up.

While I certainly understand that the crush would come down hard on little churches, this...



... is repulsive and indefensible.

I would be a lot more sympathetic to the little guy if the big guys were perhaps 95% less repugnant.

[shafnutz05]

Most small church congregations despise the mega church model, because they see it for what it is. I know Freddy can be counted among them

[columbia]

Trust me, as an atheist, I have zero problem with "profitable" churches be looked at for skirting non-profit status.

[PFiDC]

Netflix tax for PA. Garbage.

This state would tax oxygen if it could.

MD was taxing rain

I do not like the tax but instant service is $8 so we are talking about $5.76 a year for most subscribers.

[grunthy]

Oh darn.

I guess you don't like how much charity work churches and their non-profits do then?

Private charity will step in and fill the void. At least, that's what we keep hearing when other subject come up.

While I certainly understand that the crush would come down hard on little churches, this...



... is repulsive and indefensible.

I would be a lot more sympathetic to the little guy if the big guys were perhaps 95% less repugnant.

Some of the biggest private charities are religious entities or funded by them...

[PFiDC]

Most of those small churches probably don't do much charitable or community work anyway. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford to. Their entire income goes to keeping the building standing in some instances.

I want to emphasize the probably in the above statement. I do not know these churches personally. This is solely based on my own experience and each region is different.

[grunthy]

Most of those small churches probably don't do much charitable or community work anyway. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford to. Their entire income goes to keeping the building standing in some instances.

I want to emphasize the probably in the above statement. I do not know these churches personally. This is solely based on my own experience and each region is different.

It would hurt the charitable giving of medium churches. Which is a vast majority of the USA.

[grunthy]

Hillary Clinton took cash from, was director of, company that did deals with ISIS www.thecanary.co/201… more docs: search.wikileaks.org…

[PFiDC]

Most of those small churches probably don't do much charitable or community work anyway. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford to. Their entire income goes to keeping the building standing in some instances.

I want to emphasize the probably in the above statement. I do not know these churches personally. This is solely based on my own experience and each region is different.

It would hurt the charitable giving of medium churches. Which is a vast majority of the USA.

Again, just my experience, but most of the medium sized churches I have been to just want to be mega churches and end up spending all their money on ridiculous things like signage and new paint for the fellowship hall and a spot at the local Fall Festival cause you gotta get them for Jesus.

I've found 2 churches in this area that actually do something for the community. Interestingly enough they are both gay friendly...

[grunthy]

Most of those small churches probably don't do much charitable or community work anyway. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford to. Their entire income goes to keeping the building standing in some instances.

I want to emphasize the probably in the above statement. I do not know these churches personally. This is solely based on my own experience and each region is different.

It would hurt the charitable giving of medium churches. Which is a vast majority of the USA.

Again, just my experience, but most of the medium sized churches I have been to just want to be mega churches and end up spending all their money on ridiculous things like signage and new paint for the fellowship hall and a spot at the local Fall Festival cause you gotta get them for Jesus.

I've found 2 churches in this area that actually do something for the community. Interestingly enough they are both gay friendly...

Do you know these churches finances to be able to make such claims that they don't support charities?

[shafnutz05]

After reading the story last week about the Syrian refugee that hacked a pregnant woman to death with a meat cleaver in Germany, I was doing some thinking. It's well-known that inbreeding (marrying and having children with cousins) is a VERY common and accepted practice within the Islamic world, both in predominantly Islamic countries and among migrant communities elsewhere. It's also been established that this leads directly to the spread of recessive mental/physical disorders, a problem that has been on the increase.

Is it taboo to suggest that one potential reason for the, let's call it, "regressive" worldview of so much of the Islamic world, is the long-term damage that has been done to their genetic structure by inbreeding? I would imagine it would instantly be labeled "racist" by a fair number of people, but the statistics, numbers, and history backs it up. Or at least makes it a very plausible possibility, since it would offer an explanation as to why it's exclusively this world demographic, in 99.9% of the cases, where extremism turns violent.

INB4 Shad hates Muslims. Many leading geneticists have warned of the dangers (some of which have already happened) of inbreeding within this specific segment of the population, including this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jones_(biologist). So why wouldn't this be a plausible theory? The one thing that is undeniable is that cousin marriage is a distinctly medieval practice with very troubling consequences.

[PFiDC]

Most of those small churches probably don't do much charitable or community work anyway. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford to. Their entire income goes to keeping the building standing in some instances.

I want to emphasize the probably in the above statement. I do not know these churches personally. This is solely based on my own experience and each region is different.

It would hurt the charitable giving of medium churches. Which is a vast majority of the USA.

Again, just my experience, but most of the medium sized churches I have been to just want to be mega churches and end up spending all their money on ridiculous things like signage and new paint for the fellowship hall and a spot at the local Fall Festival cause you gotta get them for Jesus.

I've found 2 churches in this area that actually do something for the community. Interestingly enough they are both gay friendly...

Do you know these churches finances to be able to make such claims that they don't support charities?

I am not sure if it is a law in MD or what the legal issues are but the church we attended had to have an annual meeting in which they openly discussed the finances of the church. The budget was read line by line. I went to similar meetings at 2 other churches. As I said, in my own experience...

3 out of 3 church business meetings I went to I saw, in black and white, utter hypocrisy.

[shafnutz05]

My church has 375 members (obviously not all attending every Sunday). It's two blocks from my house in a town of 2,000. The amount of mission/charity work that they do boggles the mind. Just this past Sunday, there were about 80 bookbags that you could take home, each of which containing a card with the child's age, gender, and name. You bring back the bag the following Sunday chock full of school supplies--after the first Sunday, the bags were gone. To tif's point, I don't see another charity simply filling in that void. These kids all go to a local, rural elementary school with a decent poverty rate. Not too many secular charities really do too much about the rural yokels out there.

I'm not sure what churches you've been to, but each year every member of the congregation gets a ridiculously detailed and itemized list of expenses from the church, including a breakdown of staff salaries. It's an Evangelical Presbyterian Church

[Freddy Rumsen]

In Maryland and PA it is required that churches have a separate board and operate as a non-profit, in some states (like WV) it is actually illegal for a church to act like a non-profit, and in most states it is optional. There are some tax reasons why it may/may not benefit them.

[grunthy]

Most of those small churches probably don't do much charitable or community work anyway. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford to. Their entire income goes to keeping the building standing in some instances.

I want to emphasize the probably in the above statement. I do not know these churches personally. This is solely based on my own experience and each region is different.

It would hurt the charitable giving of medium churches. Which is a vast majority of the USA.

Again, just my experience, but most of the medium sized churches I have been to just want to be mega churches and end up spending all their money on ridiculous things like signage and new paint for the fellowship hall and a spot at the local Fall Festival cause you gotta get them for Jesus.

I've found 2 churches in this area that actually do something for the community. Interestingly enough they are both gay friendly...

Do you know these churches finances to be able to make such claims that they don't support charities?

I am not sure if it is a law in MD or what the legal issues are but the church we attended had to have an annual meeting in which they openly discussed the finances of the church. The budget was read line by line. I went to similar meetings at 2 other churches. As I said, in my own experience...

3 out of 3 church business meetings I went to I saw, in black and white, utter hypocrisy.

So they did zero food drives, toy drives, clothing drive and etc?

[PFiDC]

Yeah we got the same so maybe it's voluntary? Either way I stay away from AOG and "multi denominational" churches now. Never seen the books from a Presby church.

We like United Church of Christ and found 2 really good congregations in Pittsburgh; Sewickley (insert rich joke here) and Smithfield Street. The work these churches do for the community is fantastic. Both literally open their doors to the homeless for a hot meal and shower and a safe place to sleep. That's church to me. meowshrug.jpg

[Freddy Rumsen]

You don't need Jesus to tell you to feed and clothe the homeless. Many atheists do that better than the church.

[PFiDC]

In Maryland and PA it is required that churches have a separate board and operate as a non-profit, in some states (like WV) it is actually illegal for a church to act like a non-profit, and in most states it is optional. There are some tax reasons why it may/may not benefit them.

Thank you

I remember now that is why we had to have the meeting every year. I remember that one year the income from tithes and offering was something around 300k and the salary line item on the budget was over 175k of that. The church employed 4 people at the time. 1 was part time and another was the pastor's wife. F that noise.

[slappybrown]

@shafnutz05

[grunthy]

In Maryland and PA it is required that churches have a separate board and operate as a non-profit, in some states (like WV) it is actually illegal for a church to act like a non-profit, and in most states it is optional. There are some tax reasons why it may/may not benefit them.

Thank you

I remember now that is why we had to have the meeting every year. I remember that one year the income from tithes and offering was something around 300k and the salary line item on the budget was over 175k of that. The church employed 4 people at the time. 1 was part time and another was the pastor's wife. F that noise.

Well obviously that's wrong.

[Freddy Rumsen]

That store sells new scooters and antiques?

Awesome.

[PFiDC]

You don't need Jesus to tell you to feed and clothe the homeless. Many atheists do that better than the church.

Kinda my point. To me, and I know we differ on this, if Jesus said loving other people and loving and worshiping God are equal in his eyes than it should be more important than what kind of sign you have in front of your church or what color the paint is or what style bible is in the pocket in back of that ugly pentacostal green chair.

[PFiDC]

That store sells new scooters and antiques?

Awesome.

Legit

[PFiDC]

That store sells new scooters and antiques?

Awesome.

Legit