CDZ Religion in Schools

[oldsoul]

A matter of fact presentation of very basic facts can be included in a Social Studies curriculum.

This is exactly what I would be proposing. I envision the entirty of the material could be covered in five to six week at most (assuming a 50-55 minute period). It may take even less time, depending on the depth a particular school/district wished to have the students study. I am not, repeat not, envisioning a year long course. I beleive the esential parts of the major religions could be covered in far less time, possibly as a part of a world history course.

I just don't think high schoolers MUST be educated in the world's major religions and their basic tenets to have a functioning grasp of the world at large.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this, for reasons I have already covered.

 

[SingleVoyce]

A matter of fact presentation of very basic facts can be included in a Social Studies curriculum.

This is exactly what I would be proposing. I envision the entirty of the material could be covered in five to six week at most (assuming a 50-55 minute period). It may take even less time, depending on the depth a particular school/district wished to have the students study. I am not, repeat not, envisioning a year long course. I beleive the esential parts of the major religions could be covered in far less time, possibly as a part of a world history course.

I just don't think high schoolers MUST be educated in the world's major religions and their basic tenets to have a functioning grasp of the world at large.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this, for reasons I have already covered.

Earlier in this thread, we had a discussion about the training that would be required for teachers to actually teach such a subject in a way that would improve students' understanding of religion. Some of the participants seemed to think this would be fairly easy. I just ran across some statistics that relate to that and thought I would share them:

"The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of mathematics and science education. Sixty-nine percent of our public school students in fifth through eighth grades are taught mathematics by someone without a degree or certificate in mathematics. Ninety-three percent of them are taught the physical sciences by a teacher without a degree or certificate in the subject."

source:

http://kotlikoff2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Write-Me-In-Kotlikoff-2016-May-25-Release.pdf

If these basic subjects are being taught mostly by teachers who do not have adequate training, would it really be possible to generate a pool of teachers who are capable of effectively teaching comparative religion?

 

[oldsoul]

A matter of fact presentation of very basic facts can be included in a Social Studies curriculum.

This is exactly what I would be proposing. I envision the entirty of the material could be covered in five to six week at most (assuming a 50-55 minute period). It may take even less time, depending on the depth a particular school/district wished to have the students study. I am not, repeat not, envisioning a year long course. I beleive the esential parts of the major religions could be covered in far less time, possibly as a part of a world history course.

I just don't think high schoolers MUST be educated in the world's major religions and their basic tenets to have a functioning grasp of the world at large.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this, for reasons I have already covered.

Earlier in this thread, we had a discussion about the training that would be required for teachers to actually teach such a subject in a way that would improve students' understanding of religion. Some of the participants seemed to think this would be fairly easy. I just ran across some statistics that relate to that and thought I would share them:

"The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of mathematics and science education. Sixty-nine percent of our public school students in fifth through eighth grades are taught mathematics by someone without a degree or certificate in mathematics. Ninety-three percent of them are taught the physical sciences by a teacher without a degree or certificate in the subject."

source:

http://kotlikoff2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Write-Me-In-Kotlikoff-2016-May-25-Release.pdf

If these basic subjects are being taught mostly by teachers who do not have adequate training, would it really be possible to generate a pool of teachers who are capable of effectively teaching comparative religion?

We have put a man on the moon, several times, we have, at one time, build the most formitable fighting force the world has ever known, we are expanding the technological capabilities faster than ever. Surely we can figure out how to train sufficient quantities of teachers how to teach a given subject. There just needs to be the will to do it.

 

[320 Years of History]

A matter of fact presentation of very basic facts can be included in a Social Studies curriculum.

This is exactly what I would be proposing. I envision the entirty of the material could be covered in five to six week at most (assuming a 50-55 minute period). It may take even less time, depending on the depth a particular school/district wished to have the students study. I am not, repeat not, envisioning a year long course. I beleive the esential parts of the major religions could be covered in far less time, possibly as a part of a world history course.

I just don't think high schoolers MUST be educated in the world's major religions and their basic tenets to have a functioning grasp of the world at large.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this, for reasons I have already covered.

Earlier in this thread, we had a discussion about the training that would be required for teachers to actually teach such a subject in a way that would improve students' understanding of religion. Some of the participants seemed to think this would be fairly easy. I just ran across some statistics that relate to that and thought I would share them:

"The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of mathematics and science education. Sixty-nine percent of our public school students in fifth through eighth grades are taught mathematics by someone without a degree or certificate in mathematics. Ninety-three percent of them are taught the physical sciences by a teacher without a degree or certificate in the subject."

source:

http://kotlikoff2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Write-Me-In-Kotlikoff-2016-May-25-Release.pdf

If these basic subjects are being taught mostly by teachers who do not have adequate training, would it really be possible to generate a pool of teachers who are capable of effectively teaching comparative religion?

First of all:
??? Are you questioning the teachers' adeptness with subject matter itself or with the process of instructing students about it?

I have no mathematics degree or math certificate; however, I've taken quite a lot of math classes, including calculus, linear algebra (LA) and differential equations (DE). I can assure you that there is nothing in any K-12 math text that I do not fully understand. I wouldn't hold myself out as a qualified teacher of LA or DE, but then I'm not aware of any high schools that teach those subjects. What I don't have is pedagogical training.

Next:
The metric cited isn't even accurately cited. Search for "United States" in the World Economic Forum (WEF) reports. You'll find that the only things at which the U.S. is ranked even close to 48th are:

• Mobile telephone subscriptions
• Distortive effect of taxes and subsidies on competition

On the metric called "quality of math and science instruction," the WEF ranks the U.S. at 27th.

Last:
I am astounded that you've actually cited a politician's platform statements as a source of credible information. The guy doesn't even provide a footnote referencing the source of the "data point" he noted and that you have pasted into your remarks above.

Looking at the WEF's summary ranking of U.S. education, what the WEF calls its "fifth pillar" in assessing competitiveness, the U.S. ranks number 1, in an eight-way tie.

• Summary rankings: Competitiveness Rankings
  
• Breakdown of the U.S. ranking: Economies

Closing thoughts:
It seems to me you've found a politician who is even less trustworthy and who has even less integrity than Donald Trump or any candidate in recent history from the Dem or Rep parties. Unlike Trump, this guy has fabricated his own facts and attributed them, in print no less, to a respected organization.

Did you really think nobody would actually check the source seeing as you provided a link for it? I'd like to ask Mr. Kotlikof what he was thinking when he cited that utter lie. His doing so can be thought of nothing less than malfeasant prevarication.

P.S./Edit:
It took me all of two minutes to figure out that Mr. Kotlikof had fabricated the data point in question here.

 

[SingleVoyce]

A matter of fact presentation of very basic facts can be included in a Social Studies curriculum.

This is exactly what I would be proposing. I envision the entirty of the material could be covered in five to six week at most (assuming a 50-55 minute period). It may take even less time, depending on the depth a particular school/district wished to have the students study. I am not, repeat not, envisioning a year long course. I beleive the esential parts of the major religions could be covered in far less time, possibly as a part of a world history course.

I just don't think high schoolers MUST be educated in the world's major religions and their basic tenets to have a functioning grasp of the world at large.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this, for reasons I have already covered.

Earlier in this thread, we had a discussion about the training that would be required for teachers to actually teach such a subject in a way that would improve students' understanding of religion. Some of the participants seemed to think this would be fairly easy. I just ran across some statistics that relate to that and thought I would share them:

"The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of mathematics and science education. Sixty-nine percent of our public school students in fifth through eighth grades are taught mathematics by someone without a degree or certificate in mathematics. Ninety-three percent of them are taught the physical sciences by a teacher without a degree or certificate in the subject."

source:

http://kotlikoff2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Write-Me-In-Kotlikoff-2016-May-25-Release.pdf

If these basic subjects are being taught mostly by teachers who do not have adequate training, would it really be possible to generate a pool of teachers who are capable of effectively teaching comparative religion?

First of all:
??? Are you questioning the teachers' adeptness with subject matter itself or with the process of instructing students about it?

I have no mathematics degree or math certificate; however, I've taken quite a lot of math classes, including calculus, linear algebra (LA) and differential equations (DE). I can assure you that there is nothing in any K-12 math text that I do not fully understand. I wouldn't hold myself out as a qualified teacher of LA or DE, but then I'm not aware of any high schools that teach those subjects. What I don't have is pedagogical training.

Next:
The metric cited isn't even accurately cited. Search for "United States" in the World Economic Forum (WEF) reports. You'll find that the only things at which the U.S. is ranked even close to 48th are:

• Mobile telephone subscriptions
• Distortive effect of taxes and subsidies on competition

On the metric called "quality of math and science instruction," the WEF ranks the U.S. at 27th.

Last:
I am astounded that you've actually cited a politician's platform statements as a source of credible information. The guy doesn't even provide a footnote referencing the source of the "data point" he noted and that you have pasted into your remarks above.

Looking at the WEF's summary ranking of U.S. education, what the WEF calls its "fifth pillar" in assessing competitiveness, the U.S. ranks number 1, in an eight-way tie.

• Summary rankings: Competitiveness Rankings
  
• Breakdown of the U.S. ranking: Economies

Closing thoughts:
It seems to me you've found a politician who is even less trustworthy and who has even less integrity than Donald Trump or any candidate in recent history from the Dem or Rep parties. Unlike Trump, this guy has fabricated his own facts and attributed them, in print no less, to a respected organization.

Did you really think nobody would actually check the source seeing as you provided a link for it? I'd like to ask Mr. Kotlikof what he was thinking when he cited that utter lie. His doing so can be thought of nothing less than malfeasant prevarication.

P.S./Edit:
It took me all of two minutes to figure out that Mr. Kotlikof had fabricated the data point in question here.

Search for world economic forum quality of math and science education 2013 and you'll find that table 5.02 shows us coming in at 47 in Quality of math and science education. That's pretty close to 48. He may have had more recent info. I think you owe Mr. Kotlikof an apology.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR/2013/GITR_DataTable5_2013.pdf

 

[D Truth]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

What if we raised our own children as we see fit?
We don't need the village idiots raising children, we need parents.

 

[Picaro]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

They should learn about the actual theologies of the major religions, yes. They should also learn that they are not 'equivalent', or all 'equally bad or good', and some are indeed far better than others as a philosophy and model for societies, using comparative results of their influences on culture and progress. But that would make the PC Nazis go nuts, so it won't happen, as the one that would win hands down in all categories is a target for extermination and genocide at the moment, especially re academia, as it doesn't endorse anal sex between mentally ill males as normal and wonderful, which is the current criteria by which a society is judged these days.

Your response is a perfect example of why the study of major religions should not be required in public schools. It is too difficult for us to keep our opinions out of it.

Religion and specific theologies played and continue to play key roles in all previous history and current events. One isn't educated at all if studying religions and how the specific theologies influenced and affected events. To dismiss this part of history and culture with some pseudo-intellectual pretenses and biases is to reject genuine objectivity and intellectual inquiry based purely on current fashions on one side of the political spectrum. But of course that's the whole idea behind PC fascism, isn't it?

Your response is typical of those who insist on making schools baby sitting services and indoctrination camps, avoiding real educational studies in favor of a collection of inane memes and PC fantasies enforcing a particular passive conformity on a s many drones as possible.

 

[Picaro]

We have put a man on the moon, several times, we have, at one time, build the most formitable fighting force the world has ever known, we are expanding the technological capabilities faster than ever. Surely we can figure out how to train sufficient quantities of teachers how to teach a given subject. There just needs to be the will to do it.

The generations who accomplished that and more were educated in an entirely different school environment than those today are, and grade inflation wasn't nearly as rampant; an 8th grade education actually meant something then.

 

[320 Years of History]

A matter of fact presentation of very basic facts can be included in a Social Studies curriculum.

This is exactly what I would be proposing. I envision the entirty of the material could be covered in five to six week at most (assuming a 50-55 minute period). It may take even less time, depending on the depth a particular school/district wished to have the students study. I am not, repeat not, envisioning a year long course. I beleive the esential parts of the major religions could be covered in far less time, possibly as a part of a world history course.

I just don't think high schoolers MUST be educated in the world's major religions and their basic tenets to have a functioning grasp of the world at large.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this, for reasons I have already covered.

Earlier in this thread, we had a discussion about the training that would be required for teachers to actually teach such a subject in a way that would improve students' understanding of religion. Some of the participants seemed to think this would be fairly easy. I just ran across some statistics that relate to that and thought I would share them:

"The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of mathematics and science education. Sixty-nine percent of our public school students in fifth through eighth grades are taught mathematics by someone without a degree or certificate in mathematics. Ninety-three percent of them are taught the physical sciences by a teacher without a degree or certificate in the subject."

source:

http://kotlikoff2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Write-Me-In-Kotlikoff-2016-May-25-Release.pdf

If these basic subjects are being taught mostly by teachers who do not have adequate training, would it really be possible to generate a pool of teachers who are capable of effectively teaching comparative religion?

First of all:
??? Are you questioning the teachers' adeptness with subject matter itself or with the process of instructing students about it?

I have no mathematics degree or math certificate; however, I've taken quite a lot of math classes, including calculus, linear algebra (LA) and differential equations (DE). I can assure you that there is nothing in any K-12 math text that I do not fully understand. I wouldn't hold myself out as a qualified teacher of LA or DE, but then I'm not aware of any high schools that teach those subjects. What I don't have is pedagogical training.

Next:
The metric cited isn't even accurately cited. Search for "United States" in the World Economic Forum (WEF) reports. You'll find that the only things at which the U.S. is ranked even close to 48th are:

• Mobile telephone subscriptions
• Distortive effect of taxes and subsidies on competition

On the metric called "quality of math and science instruction," the WEF ranks the U.S. at 27th.

Last:
I am astounded that you've actually cited a politician's platform statements as a source of credible information. The guy doesn't even provide a footnote referencing the source of the "data point" he noted and that you have pasted into your remarks above.

Looking at the WEF's summary ranking of U.S. education, what the WEF calls its "fifth pillar" in assessing competitiveness, the U.S. ranks number 1, in an eight-way tie.

• Summary rankings: Competitiveness Rankings
  
• Breakdown of the U.S. ranking: Economies

Closing thoughts:
It seems to me you've found a politician who is even less trustworthy and who has even less integrity than Donald Trump or any candidate in recent history from the Dem or Rep parties. Unlike Trump, this guy has fabricated his own facts and attributed them, in print no less, to a respected organization.

Did you really think nobody would actually check the source seeing as you provided a link for it? I'd like to ask Mr. Kotlikof what he was thinking when he cited that utter lie. His doing so can be thought of nothing less than malfeasant prevarication.

P.S./Edit:
It took me all of two minutes to figure out that Mr. Kotlikof had fabricated the data point in question here.

Search for world economic forum quality of math and science education 2013 and you'll find that table 5.02 shows us coming in at 47 in Quality of math and science education. That's pretty close to 48. He may have had more recent info. I think you owe Mr. Kotlikof an apology.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR/2013/GITR_DataTable5_2013.pdf

Go take a look at the WEF website and read the metric development methodology for the metrics you/Mr. Kotlikof cited. You'll find that the weighting in them burdens very large countries for being very large and for having lots of schools as a result.

That said, I'm not going to argue that U.S. math and science educational achievement (K-12) can't stand to be improved. It seems that some states don't even have minimum math requirements for high school graduation.

 

[GaryDog]

pastors make a ton of money, tax free.

You may want to rethink that....Ministers and Taxes - TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos and Why Pastors Must Pay Federal Income Taxes. Ministers may pay self-employment tax (SET) on their income, rather than payroll taxes, provided they're self employed. The SET is essentially the same thing as the SSI and Medicare payroll taxes, the major difference, largely a semantic one, being that if one is not an employee, one is not on a payroll, and if one is not on a payroll, one cannot be assessed payroll taxes.

Your correct in that it was semantics. Churches are classified as non-profits, they file a 990 and don't pay any corporate income tax. They can continue to enrich their parishes to their heart's content, with the blessing of the IRS. That is what I was referring to.

 

[GaryDog]

pastors make a ton of money, tax free.

You may want to rethink that....Ministers and Taxes - TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos and Why Pastors Must Pay Federal Income Taxes. Ministers may pay self-employment tax (SET) on their income, rather than payroll taxes, provided they're self employed. The SET is essentially the same thing as the SSI and Medicare payroll taxes, the major difference, largely a semantic one, being that if one is not an employee, one is not on a payroll, and if one is not on a payroll, one cannot be assessed payroll taxes.

A few do pay actual salaries, but very few; most of the rest are 'subcontractors', and receive 1099's every year as such. I think the Catholics pay regular salaries like regular employees, but I'm not sure if that is still the case.

In Joel Osteen's case, he has had over 20 best selling books; his last deal with Time/Warner I believe, was some $12 or $14 million up front. He has drawn no salary or reimbursements from his church there in Houston for some 10 years now, and paid off some millions of its debts to boot. It costs about $30-$40 million a year to run the place and all of its programs, maintenance, utilities, etc., etc.

And ALL of the revenue that the church receives in tithes, offerings, contributions, is NOT TAXED.

That was my point. I'm a tax attorney. I know exactly what the hell I'm talking about, and I'm pretty sure both of you knew what I was referring to. But I get it, it's fun to pull acrimony out of your ass.

 

[GaryDog]

We have put a man on the moon, several times, we have, at one time, build the most formitable fighting force the world has ever known, we are expanding the technological capabilities faster than ever. Surely we can figure out how to train sufficient quantities of teachers how to teach a given subject. There just needs to be the will to do it.

The generations who accomplished that and more were educated in an entirely different school environment than those today are, and grade inflation wasn't nearly as rampant; an 8th grade education actually meant something then.

But they still used science.

The dummies. We all know that's bunk.

 

[320 Years of History]

pastors make a ton of money, tax free.

You may want to rethink that....Ministers and Taxes - TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos and Why Pastors Must Pay Federal Income Taxes. Ministers may pay self-employment tax (SET) on their income, rather than payroll taxes, provided they're self employed. The SET is essentially the same thing as the SSI and Medicare payroll taxes, the major difference, largely a semantic one, being that if one is not an employee, one is not on a payroll, and if one is not on a payroll, one cannot be assessed payroll taxes.

Your correct in that it was semantics. Churches are classified as non-profits, they file a 990 and don't pay any corporate income tax. They can continue to enrich their parishes to their heart's content, with the blessing of the IRS. That is what I was referring to.

Oh.....That's not semantic at all. It's the difference between a church and a church's pastor/ministers. The 1099 vs. salary distinction, on the other hand, is largely semantic in substance in the case where the founder of a church, say Joel Osteen or other "mega ministers," is also the raison d'etre for the church's very existence. In that scenario, the 1099 approach is basically what allows the preacher to remain wealthy even if the church goes bankrupt., for example. Regardless, I now understand what had in mind. TY.

 

[GaryDog]

pastors make a ton of money, tax free.

You may want to rethink that....Ministers and Taxes - TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos and Why Pastors Must Pay Federal Income Taxes. Ministers may pay self-employment tax (SET) on their income, rather than payroll taxes, provided they're self employed. The SET is essentially the same thing as the SSI and Medicare payroll taxes, the major difference, largely a semantic one, being that if one is not an employee, one is not on a payroll, and if one is not on a payroll, one cannot be assessed payroll taxes.

Your correct in that it was semantics. Churches are classified as non-profits, they file a 990 and don't pay any corporate income tax. They can continue to enrich their parishes to their heart's content, with the blessing of the IRS. That is what I was referring to.

Oh.....That's not semantic at all. It's the difference between a church and a church's pastor/ministers. The 1099 vs. salary distinction, on the other hand, is largely semantic in substance in the case where the founder of a church, say Joel Osteen or other "mega ministers," is also the raison d'etre for the church's very existence. In that scenario, the 1099 approach is basically what allows the preacher to remain wealthy even if the church goes bankrupt., for example. Regardless, I now understand what had in mind. TY.

Indeed, but there are also these so called wealth ministries that gouge poor people with the con that their tithing will come back to them in personal wealth if they pray hard, contribute financially to the church, etc. and everyone knows how frequently the average business man blurs the line between biz and personal expenses and gets away with it. Now imagine there is no limit to the claimable business expenses. You now have a church's unique privilege.

 

[320 Years of History]

pastors make a ton of money, tax free.

You may want to rethink that....Ministers and Taxes - TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos and Why Pastors Must Pay Federal Income Taxes. Ministers may pay self-employment tax (SET) on their income, rather than payroll taxes, provided they're self employed. The SET is essentially the same thing as the SSI and Medicare payroll taxes, the major difference, largely a semantic one, being that if one is not an employee, one is not on a payroll, and if one is not on a payroll, one cannot be assessed payroll taxes.

Your correct in that it was semantics. Churches are classified as non-profits, they file a 990 and don't pay any corporate income tax. They can continue to enrich their parishes to their heart's content, with the blessing of the IRS. That is what I was referring to.

Oh.....That's not semantic at all. It's the difference between a church and a church's pastor/ministers. The 1099 vs. salary distinction, on the other hand, is largely semantic in substance in the case where the founder of a church, say Joel Osteen or other "mega ministers," is also the raison d'etre for the church's very existence. In that scenario, the 1099 approach is basically what allows the preacher to remain wealthy even if the church goes bankrupt., for example. Regardless, I now understand what had in mind. TY.

Indeed, but there are also these so called wealth ministries that gouge poor people with the con that their tithing will come back to them in personal wealth if they pray hard, contribute financially to the church, etc. and everyone knows how frequently the average business man blurs the line between biz and personal expenses and gets away with it. Now imagine there is no limit to the claimable business expenses. You now have a church's unique privilege.

Perhaps the fact that I get the distinctions (in current tax and financial accounting regulations) between and among these things, it's impossible for me to get what you are saying above, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's not making sense for me.

• The average businessman is an employee. Any "blurring of lines," as it were, that s/he does must be sanctioned by his/her employer. An employee can claim pre-AGI deductions for unreimbursed business expenses, but owning no business and doing so is going to raise eyebrows, particularly if the sum deducted is considered material. (Material = more than the IRS thinks a W2 worker should have given that they are a W2 worker and not a 1099 worker or the owner of a business. From a accounting perspective, an owner is not an employee or worker, they are a recipient/taker of business distributions.)
• The reward promised by preachers quite often is one that donors will reap when they get to Heaven. Indeed, getting to Heaven is often itself the reward.

BTW, can you help me out? How did we get from whether religion should be taught in schools to the classification and taxation of personal and business transactions?

 

[Muhammed]

Schools should have the same basic ground rules as a local dive biker bar around her.

They have a big sign on the wall that says...

NO Fighting
NO Gambling
NO Colors
NO Religion
NO Politics
NO Weapons

Or you will be barred.

 

[Picaro]

And ALL of the revenue that the church receives in tithes, offerings, contributions, is NOT TAXED.

And so what??? What is there to tax? It is not income of any sort, and it goes for maintaining and expanding services not only to maintaining the church and grounds, paying utilities, education programs, childrens' programs, senior citizens' programs, and many other services, and not only for the congregation but the surrounding community and beyond, and to pay for future needs and contingencies; it's not like they know how much is going to come in every week, after all. there is no 'capital gains' involved.

And once again, since this claim turns up all the time, no matter how many times it gets shot down, churches are excepted from Federal interference, including Federal tax codes, and are not required to file anything at all, and they are not 501.c's either; many file a letter of determination with the IRS, and recive a reply for their files and make copies of it as a convenience for donors who want something for their tax records showing their charitable deductions are real. This is not the same as incorporating as a 501.c., and that is not a requirement to qualify for such a determination; the IRS has no say in it, as per the Constitution. If a church is a member of a large national congregation, such as the Baptists, they need only use copies of the national Convention's letter and don't need an individual determination. Pretty simple stuff, and it's all online at the IRS site. No need to post ignorant idiocy on this topic.

That was my point. I'm a tax attorney. I know exactly what the hell I'm talking about, and I'm pretty sure both of you knew what I was referring to.

Obviously you're a lousy one, because anybody can find out what the Constitution says and what the IRS guidelines are re churches, they're online for anybody to see. It's 'tax experts' like you that should make it obvious why people should learn to do their own taxes, actually.

But I get it, it's fun to pull acrimony out of your ass.

Well, you're the 'expert' who pulled some weird and blatantly false stuff about Osteen out of his ass, unsubstantiated, vicious gossip in fact, even though his history and where his money comes from is easily found as well, speaking of 'acrimony'. Congratulations on posting gibberish about one of the ministers who is not ripping off anybody at all, and living on his own money, and not even getting paid by his church to boot as an 'example'. If he was some kind of crook he would be a hell of lot richer, no doubt at all. He certainly wouldn't have paid off the church's bonds with his own income if he were swindling anybody.

Tell us again now, how many 'tax attorneys' besides you run around claiming 'ministers don't pay taxes n stuff? Or are you just the only dummy in your law school class?

 

[OldLady]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

They should learn about the actual theologies of the major religions, yes. They should also learn that they are not 'equivalent', or all 'equally bad or good', and some are indeed far better than others as a philosophy and model for societies, using comparative results of their influences on culture and progress. But that would make the PC Nazis go nuts, so it won't happen, as the one that would win hands down in all categories is a target for extermination and genocide at the moment, especially re academia, as it doesn't endorse anal sex between mentally ill males as normal and wonderful, which is the current criteria by which a society is judged these days.

Your response is a perfect example of why the study of major religions should not be required in public schools. It is too difficult for us to keep our opinions out of it.

Religion and specific theologies played and continue to play key roles in all previous history and current events. One isn't educated at all if studying religions and how the specific theologies influenced and affected events. To dismiss this part of history and culture with some pseudo-intellectual pretenses and biases is to reject genuine objectivity and intellectual inquiry based purely on current fashions on one side of the political spectrum. But of course that's the whole idea behind PC fascism, isn't it?

Your response is typical of those who insist on making schools baby sitting services and indoctrination camps, avoiding real educational studies in favor of a collection of inane memes and PC fantasies enforcing a particular passive conformity on a s many drones as possible.

I think you had difficulty understanding my posts. Your bias is clear and there is nothing wrong with having your opinion. However, public education is not the place for religious indoctrination. Matter of fact discussion about religion in context of studying a foreign country, fine.
I have no idea where you're getting the rest of your accusations from; I'm the one saying NO to pseudo-intellectual pretenses and biases.

 

[GaryDog]

pastors make a ton of money, tax free.

You may want to rethink that....Ministers and Taxes - TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos and Why Pastors Must Pay Federal Income Taxes. Ministers may pay self-employment tax (SET) on their income, rather than payroll taxes, provided they're self employed. The SET is essentially the same thing as the SSI and Medicare payroll taxes, the major difference, largely a semantic one, being that if one is not an employee, one is not on a payroll, and if one is not on a payroll, one cannot be assessed payroll taxes.

Your correct in that it was semantics. Churches are classified as non-profits, they file a 990 and don't pay any corporate income tax. They can continue to enrich their parishes to their heart's content, with the blessing of the IRS. That is what I was referring to.

Oh.....That's not semantic at all. It's the difference between a church and a church's pastor/ministers. The 1099 vs. salary distinction, on the other hand, is largely semantic in substance in the case where the founder of a church, say Joel Osteen or other "mega ministers," is also the raison d'etre for the church's very existence. In that scenario, the 1099 approach is basically what allows the preacher to remain wealthy even if the church goes bankrupt., for example. Regardless, I now understand what had in mind. TY.

Indeed, but there are also these so called wealth ministries that gouge poor people with the con that their tithing will come back to them in personal wealth if they pray hard, contribute financially to the church, etc. and everyone knows how frequently the average business man blurs the line between biz and personal expenses and gets away with it. Now imagine there is no limit to the claimable business expenses. You now have a church's unique privilege.

Perhaps the fact that I get the distinctions (in current tax and financial accounting regulations) between and among these things, it's impossible for me to get what you are saying above, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's not making sense for me.

• The average businessman is an employee. Any "blurring of lines," as it were, that s/he does must be sanctioned by his/her employer. An employee can claim pre-AGI deductions for unreimbursed business expenses, but owning no business and doing so is going to raise eyebrows, particularly if the sum deducted is considered material. (Material = more than the IRS thinks a W2 worker should have given that they are a W2 worker and not a 1099 worker or the owner of a business. From a accounting perspective, an owner is not an employee or worker, they are a recipient/taker of business distributions.)
• The reward promised by preachers quite often is one that donors will reap when they get to Heaven. Indeed, getting to Heaven is often itself the reward.

BTW, can you help me out? How did we get from whether religion should be taught in schools to the classification and taxation of personal and business transactions?

In my experience the average business man is not an employee (I represent small businesses with tax troubles, and that's often part of the problem) but instead takes draws, takes reimbursement for capital infusions they made when starting the business, or simply uses the business account to pay personal expenses with little to no documenting of them. This is a common problem among small business owners, legal or not. When pastors do this (and I represent SEVERAL churches), they're avoiding any tax whatsoever, whether corporate or personal income, and of course they're avoiding the payroll taxes, too.

The reward promised by preachers in the so-called wealth ministries is specific to THIS life. Prosperity theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We got here because I made an off-hand remark about churches not being taxed (and why I take umbrage with it) and the teenager here picked up on it and made a federal issue. We can drop it, and I'll sleep like a coma patient.

 

[GaryDog]

And so what??? What is there to tax? It is not income of any sort, and it goes for maintaining and expanding services not only to maintaining the church and grounds, paying utilities, education programs, childrens' programs, senior citizens' programs, and many other services, and not only for the congregation but the surrounding community and beyond, and to pay for future needs and contingencies; it's not like they know how much is going to come in every week, after all. there is no 'capital gains' involved.

"It's not income of any sort" is a claim, not an argument. It absolutely is income. Money passes from one legal entity to another, in exchange for services, or consideration of some sort. In this case, they offer up cash for the fake promise of an afterlife, or to keep a building open that houses worship regarding this fictional afterlife. It's a wonderful scam, and that's WHY L. Ron Hubbard fought for exempt status as a religion, and not a secular non-profit.

No business knows how much money is coming in every week. What in the hell are you talking about? You think THAT'S determinative of income? Have you never heard of "estimated tax payments" for self-employed individuals?

And once again, since this claim turns up all the time, no matter how many times it gets shot down, churches are excepted from Federal interference, including Federal tax codes, and are not required to file anything at all, and they are not 501.c's either; many file a letter of determination with the IRS, and recive a reply for their files and make copies of it as a convenience for donors who want something for their tax records showing their charitable deductions are real. This is not the same as incorporating as a 501.c., and that is not a requirement to qualify for such a determination; the IRS has no say in it, as per the Constitution. If a church is a member of a large national congregation, such as the Baptists, they need only use copies of the national Convention's letter and don't need an individual determination. Pretty simple stuff, and it's all online at the IRS site. No need to post ignorant idiocy on this topic.

You're acting as if I disputed what the IRS's current position is regarding churches. I didn't dispute that. I said I disagree with it in principle. I've represented churches and quoted the exact code section you're describing. Are you mentally ill? Or just low on blood sugar?

Obviously you're a lousy one, because anybody can find out what the Constitution says and what the IRS guidelines are re churches, they're online for anybody to see. It's 'tax experts' like you that should make it obvious why people should learn to do their own taxes, actually.

The Constitution has NOTHING to do with this whatsoever, unless you think the Establishment Clause somehow applies. It doesn't. Churches are tax-exempt because they've garnered special favor for centuries as tradition.

Well, you're the 'expert' who pulled some weird and blatantly false stuff about Osteen out of his ass, unsubstantiated, vicious gossip in fact, even though his history and where his money comes from is easily found as well, speaking of 'acrimony'. Congratulations on posting gibberish about one of the ministers who is not ripping off anybody at all, and living on his own money, and not even getting paid by his church to boot as an 'example'. If he was some kind of crook he would be a hell of lot richer, no doubt at all. He certainly wouldn't have paid off the church's bonds with his own income if he were swindling anybody.

This is laughable. Yes he "doesn't take a salary" from the church that made him famous, created a following of millions (albeit because he followed in daddy's footsteps) and therefore a built-in platform to sell books, etc., and make his millions that way.

You are very easily conned, aren't you?

Tell us again now, how many 'tax attorneys' besides you run around claiming 'ministers don't pay taxes n stuff? Or are you just the only dummy in your law school class?

I've explained earlier I meant churches themselves, not ministers filing 1040s. Once again, you chose to ignore it, and insodoing chose acrimony over any reasonable discussion. Hence, pulling acrimony out of your ass.