jkb: You're taking my words out of context.
No, it's your fault you snip and cut my quotations according to your liking and reply to them in part, making my statements contextually completely different. It's called manipulation.
jkb: Of course, all gifts to charitable institutions better be tax-free. But Church isn't only a charitable institution
No is not but the main bulk of its practical, material activity is in fact charitable and pro-social.
Main bulk? Show me some proof, statistics, how much money goes from church to the charity and what percentage is that. Then we can talk.
Anyway only foreigner would say gold dripping churches. Hardy any gold there. Are you sure that you are Polish.
Voluntary donations... I already explained the term to you in my previous post. Go read it. Also, have you been to any polish church recently? Hardly any gold? Right. And yes, I'm 100% Polish.
What luxurious vehicles?
And how did the "owners" get the money? Income. Taxed? No.
First search result from google:
It would be a real delight for fans of motoring, if some of them by chance showed up.
jkb: A small example: I want a church wedding. The price?
I'm not saying it should be free. It's a service. You're free to choose. I have absolutely no problem in church setting prices for its services. The only problem that I have is that these services should be taxed just like any other services performed by other parties. You willingly omitted my example about the party and the DJ, which was spot-on and you know it.
jkb: How much tax is being paid on that 1k and why is it 0?
Check then. But I can tell you right now. The church treats it as a donation. There is no tax distributed from that payment.
jkb: That is actually false. You have a say by electing your representatives..
My vision is false? Okay, then who elects these idiots to the parliament? Aliens?
jkb: But siphoning tax money to a religious institution in a country that has secularism written in its constitution - not fine.
You still failed to disclose how much does the state still owe to the parasite that our church is.
you don't that is the beauty of it! you are just being awkward.
I'm being awkward? So, you're telling me the tax money I pay don't go to church or its ministries? Welcome to the alternative reality.
jkb: Democracy works because there are checks and balances, because the majorities are required to protect the minorities.
That is not up for you to decide. I, as an atheist, am a minority in Poland. I'm definitely not best protected by "moral" and "ethical" "teachings" of the Church.
In the world there are hardly any democracy worth mentioning which didn't stared as a Christian state.
Right. Originally protestant or anglican democracies are so negligible that they are not even worth mentioning.
As long as Christan moral code is a guidance for the law makers that harmony and internal integrity of the society is ensured.
Take a look at the non-religious, and thus uncivilized and savage countries, such as: Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Czech Republic, Norway, Japan or United Kingdom. How come they are doing pretty well without any religious superstitions?
However if some dudes would like to call themselves married that wouldn't be punished by the law. No religious values forcing on somebody who is not Christan or don't want to be.
War on civilization? Interracial relationships used to be just that. Working women used to be just that. What gives you a moral mandate to decide what is "too far"? You're basing your judgement on your own superstitions. You are limiting other peoples' freedoms because of your religious possession. Why, do you think that once gay marriage is singed into law, you'll need to get married to another man? No, and that's the beauty of being able to choose.
But no one is preventing you from following your moral code as a Christian. You don't need to have it signed into law to follow it. Enjoy your freedoms and let others enjoy theirs. What do you consider "very basic democracy"? If it's Christian values, then following your logic, most of the western, civilized Europe is not democratic. That is obviously false.
You can debate about decoration and even walls of a house but when you staring digging at foundation the fun is over and you deserve smack for being an dangerous idiot.
If you keep on imposing your christian morals on others who don't want to accept them, you are the dangerous idiot here.
jkb: Otherwise we have something that's called a tyranny of majority, which would suppress minorities' rights.
Well, have fun looking. Let me know when you come up with something.
jkb: Since the constitution is the supreme law of our nation, we made it our law, which clearly says the state is secular.
We also did accept the EU law in public voting. And you completely are missing the point, which was that the concordat was signed single-handedly - in a very undemocratic manner.
I think that your understanding of the secular state concept is peculiar - secular do not mean atheistic or anti-Christian but that neither religion or any secular ideology do not take precedence in the state.
It means religion-free. Separate from religion. Not affiliated with any religion or any church. Look up the definition. It's not something you can discuss, it's something you either understand or not.
Also secular do not mean that some nondescript minorities can force on majority their morality and ruleFs. I take tyranny of majority any time over tyranny or minority.
No. But it also means that the state is not allowed to force minorities by the majority's vote to support any religion at all. And that's what's happening right now (vide tax money).
jkb: the state is secular. Hence, yes, I believe pouring tax money into church's pockets is wrong.
You still do not get it - money or property returned - simple and then we can talk.
Read up, I'm still waiting for the answer.
jkb: Regarding religious teachings.
How about we follow the German path then. These who declare themselves religious, pay an extra tax for their church. This way no money coming from atheists will support any church. Only people (and their children) who pay up will be able to attend religious teachings (in their respective church of course, not a secular school) and get all the perks of being religious. That sounds fair to me.
jkb: Semantics. The governments takes tax money and gives it to the church.
Pennies? Over 1 billion PLN per year to say the least - you call this pennies?
jkb: Again, there is no transparency.
I am all for a small government. But right now, in our current state of affairs, we are very far from it. This means, everyone has to declare their income and pay hefty taxes. That should include the Church.
jkb: The privileges of the Church haven't changed
Its position should be in religious people's hearts, away from all the politics.
jkb: Our church leaders are lobbyists.
They are. It doesn't change the fact that the church tries to influence the ruling class way too much.
jkb: Read up. If the majority tells you to praise Allah 5 times a day or be booked into the big house.
I'm showing you a hypothetic situation, in which a majority, in a democratic way, surpresses the minorities' freedoms. I know the example might be a bit too harsh, but that's exactly how it works. You're happy as long as you beloing to the majority. When you're a part of minority, you have to fight for your rights and freedoms.
jkb: Well the problem is that incoherence with this arbitrarily set moral law, which is written into current legislature, poses real problems to people who choose not to follow it, including jail time
the only people who have a problem with the moral law are those who are dangerously derailed.
Are you calling me dangerously derailed? I'm sorry, but it seems you're the one seriously derailed if you want to control what other people can or can't do, even if it doesn't infringe your personal freedoms.
jkb: . As for the assassination, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...
I still don't understand what you are trying to say here...
Doctors may invoke a conscience clause and refuse to perform an abortion, even if it is permissible under the law, if it violates their conscience.
If it makes sense, why isn't it permitted by law? This is exactly what I'm talking about - imposing your own moral code on others, by law. It's atrocious. Then, you're against public funding of such procedures, fine. I'm against public funding of most of things. Let the people have their money and decide what's best for them.
As to invocation of conscience clause, it should be abolished altogether. If you're taking the path to study and practice gynecology, one of your duties is to know how to perform an abortion, and to perform it if needed.