₦airaland Forum

Sagamite: You are a person!

I asked you a very simple question, ANSWER IT!

"So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?"

Why are you a pussyclat?

You come on a thread about homosexuality and your cretinous arsse is asking for definition of 'gay'. That is you attempt at stalling your slaughter?

I warned you early enough to run if you knew you were a very smart hyena.

If you do not run, you WILL BE intellectually slaughtered.

And you knoooow it!

Pussyclat!

Ok

Sagamite: You are a person!

Stop stalling. If you are going to run, run!

Pussyclat!

So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?

*Come on hyena. Take the bait. Move closer to the Lion*

Reply the post above where I call you an eediot.

But why so tough guy internet anyways? You adopt behavior from animals like baboons, beating your chest around (on an anonymous internet board no less) to show an 'alpha' status yet you reject their other behavior like homosexuality? That's selective, no? I'll give you that the alphas are usually not exclusively homosexual, then again you're not an alpha

Yes, this is using my own definition ghey

fellis: I see.....

In a sense, it's impossible to not be bigoted or hypocritical at some point or the other. Personally, I don't (or try to not) let the few times I'm a bigot get to me. Of course I do what I can to prevent being one

Sagamite: You are a person if you don't know what gay means in the context of the thread you are on.

Is that your way of attempting to run?

You scared, nigga? You scared!

Pussyclat!



Why do you say so?

I've never actually take you for a m.oron, just someone a tad immature who snapped under the sheer st.oopid that is the nl hivemind. But it seems I was mistaken

Whenever you're ready

Sagamite: So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?

Define gay, eediot.

fellis: How did you come to this conclusion after reading that definition?

It is does not induce alarm or anxiety for quite a lot of people. That your subjective reaction. You insisting it does, despite knowing it doesn't to a lot of people, would indicate intolerance. Maybe engendered by fear, but intolerance no less.

Even stating with conviction that it is unusual is highly debatable, considering you just read about gay fishes.

Sagamite: person this is the point you decide what kind of hyena you want to be.

The hyena that is a person and stays to face a lion or the smart hyena that runs as fast as it can.

I have already warned fucktards like you before.

https://www.nairaland.com/1094114/what-occupies-minds-atheists-24/4#12884413

I would gladly make you minced meat.

Make your decision.

We're having a duel to the death?
Oh, yeah, I remember seen a similar nonsensical post like this one before. I think I remember telling you to just skip to the bit where you skewer me

fellis: ab·nor·mal [ab náwrm'l, əb náwrm'l]
adjective
unusual: unusual or unexpected, especially in a way that causes alarm or anxiety
Example: X-rays of the lung showed nothing abnormal.

[Mid-19th century. < French anormal < Latin abnormis "deviating from a rule"]

-ab·nor·mal·ly [ab náwrm'lee], adverb

Then yes, you're probably a bigot

fellis: ^Who exactly?

Name names!!!

You haven't fully crossed the line, yet. You're close though by stating homosexuality is 'abnormal', and insunuating everyone should just accept your claim. Define 'abnormal'

Sagamite: And another person shows up!

Why, your fu.cktardness, how have you been doing?

fellis: By 'bigots' do you mean honest folks?

Most of the people on this thread, yes

Nothing like a 'gay' thread to attract bigots

Mr_Anony: Really? You forget that the man who blows another person up does so because he feels offended. Tell me, what is the difference between you and the terrorist? because your attack will also be fired on because you feel offended.
To make matters worse, there is no higher law in satanism to determine if an offense is worth retaliation or not, the decision is entirely yours, you are the one who decides when you have been offended and also what retaliation to mete out. "If you feel offended, attack as viciously as you deem fit". That is your philosophy.


There is no love in satanism, neither is there brotherhood nor family. It is all about the strong preying upon the weak and you know it. The path you have chosen is vile.


Shut up you liar. which corruption is abhorrent? show me one quote from your bible that says corruption is abhorrent. Self preservation is your highest law, You celebrate greed and selfishness as virtues.

Isn't this from your bible:
If victory is the basis of right, doesn't it show that as far as you are concerned, anything goes as long as you get what you want in the end?


I am quite convinced that you haven't really read your text and that you don't understand the philosophy of it. I haven't even begun to talk about other nonsense such as the practices of human sacrifice and how to place hexes and curses on people as is described in your book. The most worrying thing about satanism is that there is no authority within your religion to at least regulate your nonsense. In fact the only real precaution in your book is:


It is i[color=#000000]diot[/color]s like you that get themselves into trouble by claiming to be something they really know next to nothing about just to feel like a "bad guy" on the internet. I can almost bet that outside Nairaland, you are really an obedient timid church-boy and Nairaland is where you come to flex your feeble internet muscles. I feel truly sorry for you. May God have mercy on your soul.



Good that you know that you are a hypocrite...........you can turn to God before it is too late.


I do not have a selfish interest in seeing a better world, I preach and I pray that God's kingdom will come on earth and all will come to know God almighty and the great love He has for us.
It is because God has extended to me; a love that I do not deserve, and I can't even begin to deserve - I was dirty and filthy and detestable but God had mercy on me and cleaned me up.
How can I not talk about Him? How can I not tell everyone else about Him?
As tiny as insignificant as I am, the Almighty God who made the whole universe chose to hang out with me. Who am I and what have I done to deserve such great affection? Tell me.
With all my sins and my desperately wicked heart, God still forgives me.
I am like a beggar who has found a place where there is abundant bread. It would be wrong for me not to share this bread with my fellow beggars and show them the man that saved me from death. The man Jesus Christ.
The man who chose to die in my place so that I could escape. Why will I not talk about Him?

Dohohohohohohohohohohohohohoho

This guy is a class act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Mr_Anony: As I said, you don't know God.

Yes, like I said, "his ways are mysterious", bleat bleat bleat sheep

So, why can't satan's ways be mysterious?

I'll leave you alone though, xtian only, didn't even want to take this far, just foo.ling around.

Mr_Anony: yawn....you are ignorant about that too. You don't know God.

Ah, an addition to make it more potent. I see. So, lemme guess, he killed all those babies because "his ways are mysterious"?


edit: $deity dammit muskeeto where have you been? This place lost its tempo without its xavi.

Mr_Anony: yawn....

Is that the best you can do? You called him hypocrite, yes? Yet when I call your god evil, and he's undeniably so, you go off about how I'm being disrespectful. Yet here you are calling his god evil

WTH??

Simple examples of god doing godly things

In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and animals.
In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.
In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.
In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they are allowed to rape as spoils of war.
In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them.

Or, google is your friend, just type in "OT god atrocities"

Logicboy03: I didnt read Anony's comment to the satanist but Gaddem! I have never seen Anony rebuke somebody like this before! Na demon the guy dey cast out?

I've had the pleasure of having been called foo.lish and stu.pid by anony before, just once though. I believe you have to, but I think you were engaged elsewhere I think

Mr_Anony: Word of advice: Do not make judgements on things you are ignorant about. It is not hate to call evil exactly what it is.

Like your god?

OLAADEGBU: Sweetnecta is not trolling, he knows what he's talking about it is you who is in the dark here. The suggested videoclip backs up what he is trying to say and you will be better off educating yourself about end time predictions here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv-Wwv7ZrwE

Better off learning about end time predictions? I'm having a hard time holding back here...

Ok, maybe I will. But I think my end time predictions are better, you can read about them here

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Azor_Ahai

The Legend (for context)

Darkness lay over the world and a hero, Azor Ahai, was chosen to fight against it. To fight the darkness, Azor Ahai needed to forge a hero's sword. He labored for thirty days and thirty nights until it was done. However, when he went to temper it in water, the sword broke. He was not one to give up easily, so he started over. The second time he took fifty days and fifty nights to make the sword, even better than the first. To temper it this time, he captured a lion and drove the sword into its heart, but once more the steel shattered. The third time, with a heavy heart, for he knew beforehand what he must do to finish the blade, he worked for a hundred days and nights until it was finished. This time, he called for his wife, Nissa Nissa, and asked her to bare her breast. He drove his sword into her breast, her soul combining with the steel of the sword, creating Lightbringer.

The Prophecy
According to prophecy, in ancient books of Asshai from over five thousand years ago, Azor Ahai is to be reborn again as The Prince that was Promised to challenge the Others. This will occur after a long summer when an evil, cold darkness descends upon the world.[2] It is said that The Prince that was Promised, wielding Lightbringer once again, will stand against the Others and if he fails, the world fails with him.

“ "There will come a day after a long summer when the stars bleed and the cold breath of darkness falls heavy on the world. In this dread hour a warrior shall draw from the fire a burning sword. And that sword shall be Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes, and he who clasps it shall be Azor Ahai come again, and the darkness shall flee before him." ”

A woods witch prophesied that the Prince That Was Promised would be born from the line of Prince Aerys and Princess Rhaella. When Aegon V heard the prophecy he arranged the marriage between the two.

Isn't it cool? I think it's better than pirates and spaghetti monsters, jesus and undead army, and even valhalla. What do you think?

Mr_Anony: Lol, a better society my foot. Nothing about satanism talks about a better society. In fact satanism does not recognize good or evil.

This is from your bible:-
What part of the above quote talks about a better society?



Hypocrite!

Does your bible not say:

Why then are you so afraid of another who does the will of your master?



Says who? In fact if all your family members were satanists, I wonder what kind of family that would be where all you need to do is offend your brother once and you can be sure of vengeance instead of forgiveness.
Is this not in your bible?


I wonder what kind of family that will be where you cannot show any sign of weakness to your siblings or even your parents.
Does your bible not say:




Lol, and what is wrong with corruption?
Doesn't your bible say:

Seeing that corruption obviously gratifies the corrupt, what then is wrong with it?

You are a hypocrite. But then I don't blame you, hypocrisy and lies are allowed by your vile religion as long as they bring you pleasure.
You are evil and there is nothing good in you. You had better repent and come to the God of Love because I promise you, your master will not be merciful to you when you meet him.

Hmmm

Mr_Anony: Alas your true nature is beginning to show. Why are you so filled with hate, my friend?

Now, now, I don't know anything about satanism, nor do I care about who's more evil, mojojojo or the grinch, but still...

tobechi20: PLZ , I AM NOT SAYING RELIGON MAKES ONE MORAL OR THE RELIGOUS ARE MORE MORAL

am only imaginin an atheist society devoid of law system and curious to know how offences wil be handled

AM only asuming that a state made up of 100 percent atheist with no law,no constitution, no judge, no lawyer ., if one of them is caught comitin a crime wich is generaly acepted to be bad, what action would be taken?

The whole premise is wrong. You ask as if religion existed prior to morality or morality is totally dependent on religion, a patently false assumption. Morality has biological roots. It exists with or without religion, and has existed prior to the advent religion.

www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

Religions largely arise as a byproduct of codefying morality, not the other way round. Look up say evolutionary sociobiology/psychology if you want more info.

So how would issues be settled? As always, except without invisible men and/or (probably) dogma


Random: Look up libertarianism if you want to see a system of governance with more of a focus on individual rights. Not the silly religious version right wingers push though. Slightly relevant

Edits

F00028: pure bull!

• Even in China an officially non-religious state. A recent study by Paul Badham and Xinzhong Yao for the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford University, reported that a majority of those felt religious experiences had a positive effect on their lives.

• In 2000, Political Scientist and Professor
Robert Putnam surveyed 200 volunteer organisations and it showed that there was a
positive correlation between religiosity and
membership of volunteer organisations.

• The Index of Global Philanthropy, 2007 states:
“Religious people are more charitable than non-religious not only in giving to their own congregations, but also – regardless of income, region, social class, and other demographic variables – significantly more charitable in their secular donations and informal giving.”

• In 2002 Bryan Johnson and colleagues of the University of Pennsylvania Centre for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society reviewed 498 studies that had been published in peer reviewed journals. They concluded that a large majority of studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels
of perceived well-being and self esteem, and
lower levels of hypertension, depression and
criminal delinquency.

Ok. Did you conveniently forget the aforementioned much larger UN's hdi and its correlation to religiosity? Also, google is your friend. Just type in religiosity and poverty or crime, stick to only scholarly articles if you wish, and note the results.

But you're not a noob, you should know this already... Then again, you're religious...

@atheist_d, thanks, but of course it's all for our secret worldwide illuminati agenda to kidnap all muslims and force them to drink only cow milk. *secret handshake*

Heh heh @op, are you tobechi74 as well? If you are, then I can see what you're trying to say. You mean you did not mean it as some sort of attack but were genuinely curious as to how morality works without a 'god', yes? Ok, lol. In my defense, it's just a little poorly thought out, and considering bigots are the ones usually making posts like this you could excuse me if I mistook your intentions. (Though I wasn't particularly brash imo)

We've answered you already, though not in the most diplomatic manner. Your ball.

I doubt it really has come to an end for them, kishi is just too soft, but it was a worthy chapter at last

tobechi74: ..ur responce is way of target. I never atributed theism with morality. Am only asuming there was no constitution, how would an atheist society look like.?if someone comits an ofence, what hapens next?

Wow. Erm, yeah, you yourself explicitly compared atheism to theism, so wth are you complaining about my post for

Explain yourself else you're blatantly being dishonest here, to what end only you would know. Your op boils down to whatever flavor of dictator you follow specifies dos and do nots which you use as the basis for morality, and by extension a constitution, yes? I believe you have to be a theist before you have an invisible dictator that lays down laws, yes? As you need one of these gods as the basis for morality, without a deity then, we truly can't be moral, yes? Making the morals of an atheist at the very least questionable, yes?

As for what an atheistic society would look like, in case you missed it, here's a hint; look up the most advanced countries on the hdi. Quite a few have a very large percentage of atheists in their populations. For individual morality, mull over my post. Or are you inherently evil?

No, communist russia or current day korea are not examples of atheistic societies. They do have
religions, difference being their gods are not invisible bearded men.

And as a bonus, to an atheist, your moral code was built by man as well, despite how it might seem to you. So an atheist would probably look down on a theistic moral code for various reasons. For instance say accountability, or it may be outdated and inflexible, etc. These issues are less troublesome in a code which isn't built around dogma, therefore we'd be justified in thinking whatever code we subscribe to is probably better than theistic alternatives.

advocate666: I hope you know that those (bolded) are not real but at best virtual promises and threats that bound only those foolish enough to believe them.

So all a nefarious person need do is pretend to believe them. Then lo and behold, time to manipulate some sheeple. You catch him with his pants down:
- it was the devil
- I will repent
- but scripture says
- let god judge me, next life or not

Actually, even those who genuinely believe in whatever fairy tales will still use these excuses, and many others, to shift the blame or responsibility.

Area_boy: Always trust you to give a solid response. Thumbs up

Coming from one of the top practitioners of what our theist brothers refer to as the dark arts, aka science, that's high praise indeed. I suppose this means I've moved a step up in the order of the illuminati. Thanks

And btw, we're overdue another astronomy class. I wonder what you'll pick next...

And the top 2/3 countries with least crime and corruption on the hdi have large atheist populations because? Nigeria, on the other hand, proudly religious, is where on all such similar lists? And you're insinuating that without god it seems like you would gladly be an a yahoo boy, or an armed robber, or a murderer, etc. Na because dem scare u with silly stories of hell fire u dey do good boy? So, you're inherently evil

Tl; dr: can you think a little before you post?

Don't waste time anony, move on to other people/topics if you have nothing new to add. Basically your argument boils down to churches having some sort of special status. My position is that that obviously should not be so, it is a clear violation of separation of church and state. It is essentially a form of religious profiling as well. You will not see reason though. To indulge you

Mr_Anony: If I remember correctly, I said they are free to carry out their religion as long as it is non-violent and doesn't endanger human life. Your reference to baba and human head is pointless and shows you are not really paying attention.

What the heck do you think this was for?

me: And this isn't a victimless crime, there are victims. The parishioners giving they're hard earned money expecting it to be used for charity are victims (again even if you are happy with blindly giving I'm pretty sure others aren't). The rest of society that does not believe in your particular or any other delusion but pays taxes for services and infrastructure that the church will use, these people are victims as well. In a secular government, 'spiritual' is not a free pass to do as you please, I would have thought that would be obvious. If a church makes a claim for npo status, it must be held to the same standard of accountability of other such organizations, simple.

Who isn't paying attention? Non-violent is not the only type of crime there is, I hope you are aware of that, yes?

Mr_Anony: As I have argued earlier, the church should be accountable to it's members. I have no problem with that. I just don't think it is necessary that their numbers be declared to the general public or that the state should have a say in how the church's money is spent. Get it now?

No. Again, it is accountable to society as a whole. Especially if it expects a free pass. That includes people who do not share its delusions.

Mr_Anony: Unfortunately, you score no points here. Who is the church if not it's members? Members who have already paid their taxes before donating money for the running of the church. Why should these monies be taxed a second time?
Could you please name some of these "services and infrastructures" that the church is using for which it should be taxed.

This is a tough one...hmmm, let me see... What in the world do taxes pay for? Let's take a guess. Maybe government? Google is your friend, let's take a look at what americans use federal tax for, though this is probably laymans

http://www.ehow.com/facts_4928940_do-federal-income-taxes-pay.html

"Defense
According to the U.S. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the federal government spends over $700 billion a year on military and national security-related expenses, which accounts for approximately 20% of the federal budget.

Education
According to the U.S. Department of Education, the federal government spends over $68 billion a year to help schools and colleges, which accounts for approximately 2% of the federal budget.

Financial Assistance
The U.S. government spends over $700 billion a year on social security (20% of budget) and over $450 billion a year on welfare and financial aid programs (13% of budget.)

Health Care
The U.S. government spends approximately $700 billion a year (21% of budget) on government programs such as Medicare that provide health care coverage to the elderly, disabled individuals, and individuals that cannot afford care.

Transportation
The U.S. Department of Transportation receives approximately $68 billion (2 – 3% of budget) a year to establish and maintain airports, pipelines (oil, gas, etc.), roadways, railroads, waterways, and other similar forms of transportation."



Wait, why am I even wasting time responding to a question about what taxes pay for? To someone who lives in the UK no less, where people don't sit around all day and rely on oil money (that's arguably not theirs, myself included though)

And note, in this particular scenario, where a member might assume he's giving to a charity of sorts, members need not be taxed (that would probably depend), but the church itself as an entity should be, so long as it cannot prove it's NPO.
If it's NPO, then just like every other organization that wants that status, it should prove itself.

Mr_Anony: Not really, I have only pointed out that a religious organization is different from your regular charity in the sense that religious organizations have rules/codes of membership and practice (I would wager also that professional associations such as the National Union of Journalists, Nigerian Bar Association etc are not required by law to declare their finances to their members) the state has to respect that. and as much as possible not compel a religion to compromise it's rules.
The citizens of the state are free to choose whatever religion they like and are not compelled to join a religion or give money to it. If a religion does not disclose it's financials and you as an individual does not like it, then please feel free to leave the religion and join another one or even start your own religion. Calling the state to come in and force your religion to declare it's finances to you seems to me to go foul of the idea of religious freedom.

We are speaking about secular societies here, yes? I've already told you, there is nothing special about religious organizations. 'Spiritual' is not a free pass to do as they wish. At all. Think of my baba lawos from earlier. Just because your church might be bigger or their practices look more benign does not change the fact that they're own version of 'spiritual' is not above the law as well.

NBA and NUJ or what not would be required to show their books so long as they are NPO, that is assuming they are not even government run. Everyone is, except for....churches. I am not a member of a church, I pay taxes. If I ran any organization that was not for profit, I would have to prove I really was not for profit to get a free pass on tax. In essence, I would have to prove to society at large, not just members of my organization, that I deserve the goodwill I am receiving from them via tax breaks. That's it. All this about members etc, irrelevant. Society does not belong to just members of a church. It's an organization just like any other and they should earn their dues.

Mr_Anony: This is merely your subjective opinion. The parishioners themselves for the most part see their giving as an act of worship and not an act of trade. Besides it is their money and they have every right to spend it as they see fit.
In fact if you insist it is a trade, then you must quantify the "goods and services" where you cannot physically quantify the "goods and services", you have no business taxing it. Alternative medicine is quantifiable.

Who says they can't spend their money as they see fit? How many times have I stated this? Now, if someone pays $140 expecting to (the pastor won't forget to add a 'maybe') reap double the amount in 24 hours, that's a clear cut transaction. You are paying for his services, imagined or not, like fortune telling I suppose. So good for you, it's your money! But guess what, fortune tellers are regulated and do apply for business licenses in much of the developed world, just like everyone else. Alternative medicine is NOT quantifiable. It's pure quackery, placebos, yet they pay taxes as well. All these 'reap and sow' schemes fall in the same category, regardless of your subjective opinion. Pay money, receive service (with results that may vary). (some of these schemes should be outright illegal sef, but that's another topic)

And you speak for all xtians? I doubt it. Just look through these threads and see the testimonies of various xtians and how they 'reaped' whatever from their sowing. They clearly see it as a transaction, at the very least similar buying a lottery ticket.

Mr_Anony: You have attacked a strawman here. A religious organization is very different from other non-profit organizations because they deal the beliefs of an individual. If part of what an individual believes is that he should buy a jet for his pastor or donate money to that effect then so be it.
The church is not a business offering an easily quantifiable service. It usually does not make any material promises to it's members rather it is more focused on their spiritual lives. The state must respect that. . . .and as a result, the state cannot begin to dictate to tell a church what is or is not necessary for the propagation of it's gospel. For instance if a church chooses to buy 5 private jets with donations turnover, it is not in the place of the state to query the church over it or prescribe for the church how it's gospel ought to be propagated in that sense as long as their method of spreading their gospel is non-violent and doesn't endanger other non-member citizens, they are free to propagate their religion as they see fit.


As I said earlier, your understanding of how these churches work is poor. They are not saying "give us money" they are saying "give to God", "give for the propagation of God's kingdom" these people are not paying for a service but giving their money for something they hold dear to them.

Erm, do you know what a strawman is? A church is special in a secular society how, because you say so? 'Spiritual' automatically makes them above the law? We should let baba use human heads because they are spiritual? Or even say let said baba distribute banned or harmful substances harming others simply because they are spiritual? And this isn't a victimless crime, there are victims. The parishioners giving they're hard earned money expecting it to be used for charity are victims (again even if you are happy with blindly giving I'm pretty sure others aren't). The rest of society that does not believe in your particular or any other delusion but pays taxes for services and infrastructure that the church will use, these people are victims as well. In a secular government, 'spiritual' is not a free pass to do as you please, I would have thought that would be obvious. If a church makes a claim for npo status, it must be held to the same standard of accountability of other such organizations, simple.

You have nothing to add except to claim that churches are more equal than other organizations, in a secular society no less, then we've reached the LALALA stage.

As for the reaping, do you think I need a phd to understand what is happening? They aren't giving to charity, they are explicitly paying for a service. Even if it is a particularly silly one to onlookers, just like say alternative medicine. If these doctors get taxed for their 'services', then why not churches? Let me guess, in a secular society which preaches separation of church and state churches are above, or in fact are the law, yes?

Mr_Anony: Lol, wrong. That is your own invention right there. The churches in question sure don't see sowing/reaping as salvation.


If they are required to show their finances or not, I really see no problem with it. Every country is allowed to make it's own laws as it sees fit and for me, a religious institution is not the same kind of establishment as a mere charity.
There is something about religion and it's traditions that needs to be respected as long as they are not buying and selling, they are free to run as they want. At most if pressed, all they need to do is to show that the money is not being traded with. I know you might feel it sucks but in the end it is people choosing to donate money to a cause very dear to their hearts and give money to a man they like very much. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Nothing about this issue applies to "separation of church and state" because in this case, the church is not making any policies affecting the state in anyway. It is just receiving donations. When the government steps in, it becomes more a situation of dictating to a religion how it should conduct it's activities hence infringing upon religious freedom.

Good $deity anony, this is very simple. All this story is irrelevant. Church and state implies everyone gets treated the same, but churches in this case are treated differently. This is a crystal clear violation of that principle. Taxing them entails infringing on religious freedoms in what universe? Wth is telling them they can't practice whatever they wish to practice? They are the ones gaining special privileges just because. The other organizations are the ones being treated unfairly. For crying out loud how dishonest can you be??

As for the sowing, I said salvation or whatever, I do not know what it's called. But it's clear, give us money, you will be rewarded shortly. Placebo or not, it's a service. Practitioners of alternative medicine are taxed for similar 'services', why not churches?