[Newsbot]

Title: Austria passes controversial reforms to 1912 Islam law
Category: World
Posted By: martin14
Date: 2015-02-25 11:26:44

[martin14]

The basic reform is to ban foreign funding of mosques and imams.

This is a good idea.

[Public_Domain]

It IS a good idea! Fully support it and find it pretty even-handed from what I see in the article.

Ban foreign funding of churches and synagogues too.

[andyt]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

It IS a good idea! Fully support it and find it pretty even-handed from what I see in the article.

Ban foreign funding of churches and synagogues too.

Agreed. Not sure how that would work for the Catholics tho. I don't see how they can get away with passing a law that only affects one religion. Do they have no charter of rights at all?

[Gunnair]

There is agreement...on CKA...

[andyt]

You might want to hold your horses. PD and I agreeing isn't all that strange. The question is whether other CKArs agree that all religions should be covered by this ban.

I'd like to see the same thing here. And removing the charitable status of religious groups unless they actually practice charity, and then only for that portion, not to subsidize churches/temples/mosques.

[Delwin]

Nope, completely discriminatory. The Catholic Church is a charitable organization, they are Centrally run from the Vatican and logistically, it makes more sence to have the organizations finances handled and distributed from a central location because of its size. This is allowed with other non profit international organizations and is the most coSt effective method. Your assertion that they should have financial constraints because they are religious is counter productive and discriminatory.

Some churches would not be able to expand or operate without outside finances and so by denying practioners access to the church of their faith, you are in effect denying them their right to practice their religion.

[Praxius]

Delwin Delwin:

Nope, completely discriminatory. The Catholic Church is a charitable organization, they are Centrally run from the Vatican and logistically, it makes more sence to have the organizations finances handled and distributed from a central location because of its size. This is allowed with other non profit international organizations and is the most coSt effective method. Your assertion that they should have financial constraints because they are religious is counter productive and discriminatory.

Some churches would not be able to expand or operate without outside finances and so by denying practioners access to the church of their faith, you are in effect denying them their right to practice their religion.

Oh please... You don't need a church, mosque or scientologist prison camp to practice one's religion.

God is everywhere, or so we're told.

God(s) don't need money or funding, they need worship. Worship can be done anywhere.

You don't need a gold plated Muslim phallic tower to poke God in the butt and you don't need a Jesus Christ Superstar Opera House.

At the very most, you just need a book.... And maybe a shed and a rug.


Ok and maybe hands.... And shoulders... And knees.... And toes, knees and toes... And average coordination abilities.

But you don't need funding.

If you think you need money and a fancy building to keep your religion afloat, then your religion isn't a very strong one and you don't really have much faith. You just show up for the weekend attendance and occasional baking rally.

[Public_Domain]

Yeah, I don't believe simply being religious means you're entitled to a building. I'm communist and also appairently free to be so, can I have a building?

[Delwin]

Sure you can, and you can receive funding for that building straight from Moscow if you like. Moreover, if you want to give all of your hard earned money over to lazy do-nothings like a good communist you might even be eligible for charitable status just like a church.

I get that you have an anti-religion agenda and would love to force Christians into the sewers like the Romans did but 84% of the world actually has a religion and your little pipe dream will never come to fruition.

Churches provide many much needed services that the state is neither willing or able to provide.

[Praxius]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Yeah, I don't believe simply being religious means you're entitled to a building. I'm communist and also appairently free to be so, can I have a building?

I want a building for my worship of The Rules of Acquisition

[Delwin]

Sure why not. Freemasonry has its origins in the construction of buildings and stonework and is now a fully recognized charity, so go for it. Unless of course you are like public animal, then maybe you feel like the state should set it up for you.

You see there is nothing and no one actually stopping you from establishing an organization to practice and preach your beliefs. The thing is you actually need to believe in something and have the drive to get it organized.

There are many "new" religions that have been established in the last 50 years and operate under the same rules as the old ones.

[ShepherdsDog]

Praxius Praxius:

Oh please... You don't need a church, mosque or scientologist prison camp to practice one's religion.

God is everywhere, or so we're told.

In fact it's quite clear about temples and places of worship and ostentatious displays of public faith

$1:

In Acts 7:48, where it says, "the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands," and also with this from Luke 17:21 (Pharisees are asking when the Kingdom of God will come..) "Neither shall they say, lo here or lo there for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you."

and there is also this

$1:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your closet, and when you have shut the door pray to your Father which is in secret, and your Father which sees in secret will reward you openly." [Matthew 6:5-6]

The reference to "go into your closet" has been translated in other versions of the Bible as "go into your inner room," "go away by yourself," "be all alone," "your most private room," "enter into thy chamber," and "go into your room." The message of Mathew 6:6 clearly implies that: Jesus condemns prayers in situations where other people are present. Prayers are to be an intensely private communion between an individual and their God; no one else should be present. One can infer that, according to Matthew, prayers should not be given in groups, for instance, in a building called a church!

There is also the entire Gospel of Thomas(Nag Hamadi), which is supposed to be the actual words of Christ, but the Vatican has declared heretical. If it were to be accepted as gospel the Vatican would be in serious shit.....mind you it wouldn't be the first time they igniored the teachings of the early Church founders......the entire enforced celibacy runs contrary

$1:

1 Timothy 4:1-3King James Version

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It's funny that Peter, the rock the Church was built upon, and acknowledged as the first pope was a married man, according to Matthew 8:14:

$1:

And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

One of the requirements to be a priest or bishop in the early Church was to be a good husband and father.

Celibacy was to be a choice made by individuals, not imposed from above.

[Delwin]

I love how people believe that their interpretation of others religions should dictate how people should behave. The sciptures themselves have nothing to do with whther a specific religion believes they need a building or not.

But while we are on the subject, in Judaism, there are certain prayers that need to be read in the presence of a Minyan, or a gathering of 10 or more men. This isn't highly relevant though since people are free to practice their religion acoording to what THEY believe and not what YOU believe.

[andyt]

Religions can have all the buildings they want, just funded by their local membership. And not partially funded by people who have nothing to do with that religion - ie by not having to pay taxes like everybody else. We don't need Saudi Arabia funding madrassas that preach jihad here, and we don't need our Christians pushing their religion in other places, ie missionaries.