On Now
Coming Up
  • Tue., Mar. 18, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Wed., Mar. 19, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Thu., Mar. 20, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Fri., Mar. 21, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Mon., Mar. 24, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Tue., Mar. 25, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Wed., Mar. 26, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Thu., Mar. 27, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Fri., Mar. 28, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Mon., Mar. 31, 2014 5:30PM - 6:00PM EDT Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

Jump to content


Photo

Should the Mormon LDS Church lose its tax exempt status?

gtfoh

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
59 replies to this topic

#1 footballhenry

footballhenry

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,251 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 06:09 PM

Posted Image



I bring this question to light because it is now known that the LDS Church funded over 20 million dollars to get Prop 8 passed this past election in California. Now it is to my understanding that churches are NOT supposed to be involved in political matters and this would constitute a breach of that rule. Therefore, quite simply shouldn't the LDS church lose its tax exempt status since it has directly injected itself into state issues??

In my estimation there is no question that they should. What's more though is I think it is sad that so much energy, and money is put towards a divisive agenda when it could go for much more humane, ethical causes. :2cents:

#2 The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

    The Heavy Hitter

  • Members
  • 7,595 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 06:10 PM

All churches should. Unless you favor giving businesses the same exempt status.

;)

Edited by The Evil Genius, 12 November 2008 - 06:13 PM.


#3 Larry

Larry

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 16,785 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 06:22 PM

What's Prop 8 got to do with Bigamy?

:movefast:

But seriously? I don't think it's possible to draw a line whereby churches can be prohibited from taking a stand on what they consider morality, without restricting their freedom of religion.

Face it, one purpose of religion is to discriminate. (I'm not using that in a negative context. Just pointing out that one person's evil discrimination is another person's moral stand.) If they can't discriminate, then they aren't churches any more.

Maybe there needs to be a big penalty for taking certain, specific, actions. Like sending a check to a PAC. But that would be, to me, a tough law to write.

#4 twa

twa

    The Gadget Play

  • Members
  • 3,896 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 06:27 PM

In my estimation there is no question that they should. What's more though is I think it is sad that so much energy, and money is put towards a divisive agenda when it could go for much more humane, ethical causes. :2cents:


Dang liberals always wanting to spend others money...Get a job and spend your own:silly::moon:


I think there should be NO tax exempt organizations,religious or otherwise,maybe then we could get real tax reform.

There are other tax exempt organizations that fund and support political goals as well....funny that Libs only care about the religious ones that oppose pet issues.

#5 Larry

Larry

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 16,785 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 06:39 PM

There are other tax exempt organizations that fund and support political goals as well....funny that Libs only care about the religious ones that oppose pet issues.


Could you mention some? I'm aware that there are a lot of organizations like the ACLU and NRA, who have PACs associated with them. But is that really illegal? If all the PAC isn't exempt?

#6 10fttall

10fttall

    The Special Teams Ace

  • Banned
  • 302 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:24 PM

No, they shouldn't lose their status. They cannot be involved directly in political advocacy, trying to elect one person or another. That is politics. Advocating for societal issues is not forbidden, as it is not the same type of politics.

Think about it for a minute and you'll see how stupid it is. They're a church, right? They talk about a wide variety of issues. How are you going to say that they can't advocate for their beliefs, or publicize what they feel is the right stand on an issue?

So whatever issues people disagree on, the church should have to shut up about? Remember, any area where people disagree is fertile ground for some kind of legislation, so it's ALL political.

#7 BleedBNG

BleedBNG

    The Free Agent

  • Members
  • 4,690 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:24 PM

The IRS would probably take away it's tax-exempt status for a year and then give it back like it has done with others in the past.

#8 Burgold

Burgold

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 14,118 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:29 PM

Nonprofits can take stands on issues what they can't do is take a political side (IE dem versus repub... they need to serve everyone) At least that's my understanding.

That's why the American Cancer Society can campaign against cigarettes for example, but technically they shouldn't be endorsing a political party. There's obviously some gray because clearly groups like the NRA are pro-repub or greenpeace is pro-Dem. Although I guess they're not "officially" a repub or dem group.

#9 Larry

Larry

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 16,785 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:41 PM

No, they shouldn't lose their status. They cannot be involved directly in political advocacy, trying to elect one person or another. That is politics. Advocating for societal issues is not forbidden, as it is not the same type of politics.

Think about it for a minute and you'll see how stupid it is. They're a church, right? They talk about a wide variety of issues. How are you going to say that they can't advocate for their beliefs, or publicize what they feel is the right stand on an issue?

So whatever issues people disagree on, the church should have to shut up about? Remember, any area where people disagree is fertile ground for some kind of legislation, so it's ALL political.


I wouldn't be surprised if you've hit on what the law is. (That they can endorse positions, but not individual candidates.)

OTOH, I also could say that there's a difference between encouraging church members to vote for Prop 8, and donating milions of dollars to it.

#10 redskins0756

redskins0756

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:44 PM

Posted Image



I bring this question to light because it is now known that the LDS Church funded over 20 million dollars to get Prop 8 passed this past election in California. Now it is to my understanding that churches are NOT supposed to be involved in political matters and this would constitute a breach of that rule. Therefore, quite simply shouldn't the LDS church lose its tax exempt status since it has directly injected itself into state issues??

In my estimation there is no question that they should. What's more though is I think it is sad that so much energy, and money is put towards a divisive agenda when it could go for much more humane, ethical causes. :2cents:


It's called lobbying. If that was illegal then there would be no tax exempt organizations in this country.

#11 BleedBNG

BleedBNG

    The Free Agent

  • Members
  • 4,690 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:46 PM

501©(3) does mention the influencing of legislation. But is a proposition only a loophole for what is all intents and purposes identical to legislation?

#12 redskins0756

redskins0756

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:46 PM

Nonprofits can take stands on issues what they can't do is take a political side (IE dem versus repub... they need to serve everyone) At least that's my understanding.

That's why the American Cancer Society can campaign against cigarettes for example, but technically they shouldn't be endorsing a political party. There's obviously some gray because clearly groups like the NRA are pro-repub or greenpeace is pro-Dem. Although I guess they're not "officially" a repub or dem group.


As an interest group they can lobby for a position correct. Now your point regarding specific party identification, I don't believe there is a specific law against that (correct me if I'm wrong) but I do know that endorsing a specific candidate is not allowed.

Through their PAC they can give money to whom they want though, effectively endorsing whomever they want.

#13 redskins0756

redskins0756

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:48 PM

501©(3) does mention the influencing of legislation. But is a proposition only a loophole for what is all intents and purposes identical to legislation?


They could also be tagged as just lobbying for an issue not for a piece of legislation (I'm sure their lawyers have found every loop hole there is).

#14 BleedBNG

BleedBNG

    The Free Agent

  • Members
  • 4,690 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:54 PM

They could also be tagged as just lobbying for an issue not for a piece of legislation (I'm sure their lawyers have found every loop hole there is).

That's what I was thinking earlier. They wouldn't commit that amount of money without checking the full circle with their lawyers first.

#15 redskins0756

redskins0756

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:57 PM

That's what I was thinking earlier. They wouldn't commit that amount of money without checking the full circle with their lawyers first.


Well for a group that holds as much weight as the LDS I'm sure that they can easily make that money "disappear". ;)

#16 Prosperity

Prosperity

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 10,052 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 08:03 PM

Mormonism is pretty much a cult, no matter how industrious they are... but I digress

#17 10fttall

10fttall

    The Special Teams Ace

  • Banned
  • 302 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 08:09 PM

I don't think they even had to do any fancy footwork with the money. They can advocate for legislation that fits their beliefs. If churches couldn't spend money in support or opposition to legislation, they could not pay the pastor, hold leadership conferences, conduct community outreach, or anything that might happen to indicate support or opposition to whatever random proposed laws or bills are out there.

#18 twa

twa

    The Gadget Play

  • Members
  • 3,896 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 08:40 PM

Could you mention some? I'm aware that there are a lot of organizations like the ACLU and NRA, who have PACs associated with them. But is that really illegal? If all the PAC isn't exempt?


If the PAC is exempt, yet they use the other parts resources it is tax evasion.

Moveon is a large example,but there are many others.

teachers unions
http://www.topix.com...o-on-8-campaign

http://www.citizen.o...ase.cfm?ID=1790

#19 zoony

zoony

    Ring of Fame

  • Moderators
  • 20,763 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 08:43 PM

Mormonism is pretty much a cult, no matter how industrious they are... but I digress


Why do you say that? (honest question, no strings attached, lol)

#20 AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

    The Starter

  • Members
  • 2,851 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 09:02 PM

I bring this question to light because it is now known that the LDS Church funded over 20 million dollars to get Prop 8 passed this past election in California. Now it is to my understanding that churches are NOT supposed to be involved in political matters and this would constitute a breach of that rule.


That's a misunderstanding of the current tax law, as a pastor I can openly support, and endorse or oppose particular legislation; much like I did with the expanded gaming legislation here in Kentucky.

http://www.gcfa.org/...iticspulpit.pdf (see page 5, questions 5 and 6)

#21 AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

    The Starter

  • Members
  • 2,851 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 09:06 PM

OTOH, I also could say that there's a difference between encouraging church members to vote for Prop 8, and donating milions of dollars to it.

Well with campaign finance reform they've already established that money is free speech.

#22 Corcaigh

Corcaigh

    The Field Goal Team

  • Members
  • 553 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 09:23 PM

The irony is a bunch of former polygamists worrying about 'protecting marriage'.

#23 Larry

Larry

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 16,785 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 09:26 PM

The irony is a bunch of former polygamists worrying about 'protecting marriage'.


I dunno. IMO, blacks voting 2 to 1 in favor of "separate but equal" has it beat by a long shot.

#24 The Sisko

The Sisko

    The Pro Bowlers

  • Members
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 09:26 PM

Why do you say that? (honest question, no strings attached, lol)

http://www.utlm.org/...urces/cults.htm

For the record, the folks that run the Utah Lighthouse Ministry are former Mormons that have done extensive research into the LDS church and completely blown them out of the water as a viable religion IMHO.

#25 Zguy28

Zguy28

    The Starter

  • Members
  • 2,869 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 09:36 PM

http://www.utlm.org/...urces/cults.htm

For the record, the folks that run the Utah Lighthouse Ministry are former Mormons that have done extensive research into the LDS church and completely blown them out of the water as a viable religion IMHO.

Yeah, but you get your own planet when you become a god.

Its kind of like Dungeons & Dragons when you became an immortal.

#26 Prosperity

Prosperity

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 10,052 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 09:37 PM

Why do you say that? (honest question, no strings attached, lol)


it's history the founders seem like cult leaders, and it has the general highly insulated/closed off feel about it you know?

#27 zoony

zoony

    Ring of Fame

  • Moderators
  • 20,763 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 09:49 PM

http://www.utlm.org/...urces/cults.htm

For the record, the folks that run the Utah Lighthouse Ministry are former Mormons that have done extensive research into the LDS church and completely blown them out of the water as a viable religion IMHO.


I've read a lot about Mormons- and my dad having been the only Catholic raised in the entire state of Utah in the 1950s- I've heard all the stories, and rarely with a positive slant :).

But it seems like it always comes back to a question of faith. Joseph Smith says Moroni delivered the golden tablets- either you believe him or you don't.

The reason I'd say its not a cult is because I don't believe it's a detriment to the members.

Regardless of your feelings on mormonism or the LDS church (I'm not a big fan), Mormons are pretty amazing people. Some of the best people out there- hardest working, family oriented, etc. It's not uncommon for mormons to have their utility bills and rent paid years in advance. And most of them make the Amish look like lazy bums, in terms of their work ethic.

#28 Special K

Special K

    The Starter

  • Members
  • 2,585 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 10:04 PM

Gotta love how a thread about the tax exampt status of the LDS church turns into posters talking about how it's a cult. :rolleyes:

By the exact lettering of the law, as I understand it, they did not break any laws related to campaign funding. They did not send money to a specific individual, but a specific cause, and as far as I know, that's not enough to revoke their tax exempt status. So no, they should not lose their tax exempt status in the case of Prop 8 IMO, but I'm not a lawyer or anyone who is truly knowledgeable about specific wording of laws. Predicto is much more qualified with this type of stuff, maybe he can shed a little light on this for us... :)

As far as Mormonism being a cult, I do not believe that mainstream Mormonism should be considered a cult. Fringe branches of Mormonism with polygamy, etc. is a different matter. However, ALL Mormons I personally know are probably some of the hardest working, family-oriented, upstanding people I know. And they have the cleanest darn cities ANYWHERE.

#29 zoony

zoony

    Ring of Fame

  • Moderators
  • 20,763 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 10:06 PM

As far as Mormonism being a cult, I do not believe that mainstream Mormonism should be considered a cult. Fringe branches of Mormonism with polygamy, etc. is a different matter. However, ALL Mormons I personally know are probably some of the hardest working, family-oriented, upstanding people I know. And they have the cleanest darn cities ANYWHERE.


great minds :D

#30 mistertim

mistertim

    The Pro Bowlers

  • Members
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 11:20 PM

I dunno. IMO, blacks voting 2 to 1 in favor of "separate but equal" has it beat by a long shot.


Gotta agree with this one. That is pretty bad.

#31 The Sisko

The Sisko

    The Pro Bowlers

  • Members
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 11:44 PM

I've read a lot about Mormons- and my dad having been the only Catholic raised in the entire state of Utah in the 1950s- I've heard all the stories, and rarely with a positive slant :).

But it seems like it always comes back to a question of faith. Joseph Smith says Moroni delivered the golden tablets- either you believe him or you don't.

The reason I'd say its not a cult is because I don't believe it's a detriment to the members.

Regardless of your feelings on mormonism or the LDS church (I'm not a big fan), Mormons are pretty amazing people. Some of the best people out there- hardest working, family oriented, etc. It's not uncommon for mormons to have their utility bills and rent paid years in advance. And most of them make the Amish look like lazy bums, in terms of their work ethic.

I don't disagree with you on the merits of Mormons as people. The few I've known have been genuinely good folks. However, that only makes their adherence to Mormonism an even bigger mystery to me. In my mind once your prophet and his teachings are proven beyond any doubt to be false, it kind of makes the rest of it a moot point. Faith in the unseen I can understand. Faith in something proven false is just crazy in my book.

Of course Keeastman is right. We did hijack the thread and it doesn't appear that the LDS did anything wrong in supporting an issue as opposed to a specific candidate.

#32 The Sisko

The Sisko

    The Pro Bowlers

  • Members
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 11:59 PM

I dunno. IMO, blacks voting 2 to 1 in favor of "separate but equal" has it beat by a long shot.

Nice try but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Corcaigh was highlighting the irony of folks who adhere to a religion that sanctions bigamy supporting legislation to restore "traditional" marriage. I'd imagine that the Blacks who voted for this had strong, conservative religious and/or social values against homosexuality. I think that's a very different issue than the case of the Mormons supporting it. With regard to the latter it's very much a case of people living in glass houses tossing bricks around.

In effect you're saying Blacks should support equality in literally everything to not be considered hypocrites. Therefore in your world, a Black person who supports separate men's and women's bathrooms for example would be a hypocrite.

#33 zoony

zoony

    Ring of Fame

  • Moderators
  • 20,763 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:21 AM

In my mind once your prophet and his teachings are proven beyond any doubt to be false, it kind of makes the rest of it a moot point.


Smith was a controversial figure, no doubt. But I don't think anything has been 'proven' false. Much was written against him during his life, his time as a soothsayer, his fascination with the occult, his secret plural marriages, and his arrest and even death were very well documented. But, as any Mormon would point out, these were the writings of the Gentiles. :)

I'm pretty sure that Christians accused Jews of denying the ressurection b/c they were told to by the powers that be. Probably a similar deal.

One thing IS clear about Joseph Smith though- he was a genius. He orated the entire book of Mormon start to finish in a very short time. He convinced thousands upon thousands to lay down everything they had and follow him. People came as far as England, got to the States, and walked to Utah. (yes, walked).

So while we can all point and laugh that they believe that native indians are one of the original 12 tribes of Israel and everything else in the book of Mormon that flies in the face of just about any kind of rational thought- I don't think we can say that it was "proven" false. It all comes down to faith in the end.

#34 Zguy28

Zguy28

    The Starter

  • Members
  • 2,869 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:28 AM

So while we can all point and laugh that they believe that native indians are one of the original 12 tribes of Israel and everything else in the book of Mormon that flies in the face of just about any kind of rational thought- I don't think we can say that it was "proven" false. It all comes down to faith in the end.

I don't know. One of the foundations of their faith is that the Indians were the lost tribes of Israel.

DNA evidence has proved that false.

#35 zoony

zoony

    Ring of Fame

  • Moderators
  • 20,763 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:29 AM

I don't know. One of the foundations of their faith is that the Indians were the lost tribes of Israel.

DNA evidence has proved that false.


And what do the Mormons say to this?

#36 Veretax

Veretax

    The Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 9,016 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:33 AM

I think some of you need to review these laws you are citing, because I thought they only thing they were prohibited from doing was endorsing particular candidates.

#37 Zguy28

Zguy28

    The Starter

  • Members
  • 2,869 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:37 AM

And what do the Mormons say to this?

"Some evangelical critics have latched onto the claims of dissident and ex-Mormon scholars that modern DNA evidence "disproves" Book of Mormon historicity in their effort to discredit the LDS faith. DNA and dating arguments do not present an exclusive challenge to LDS teachings, although critics would like to paint them as such."

#38 zoony

zoony

    Ring of Fame

  • Moderators
  • 20,763 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:00 AM

"Some evangelical critics have latched onto the claims of dissident and ex-Mormon scholars that modern DNA evidence "disproves" Book of Mormon historicity in their effort to discredit the LDS faith. DNA and dating arguments do not present an exclusive challenge to LDS teachings, although critics would like to paint them as such."



that sounds similar to responses made by conservative Christians/Jews who believe that the earth is 5000 years old. Modern science of course 'disproves' this. But the answer they give is very similar to the above.

#39 Larry

Larry

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 16,785 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:16 AM

I don't know. One of the foundations of their faith is that the Indians were the lost tribes of Israel.

DNA evidence has proved that false.


I seem to recall that science has pretty much disproven that the Universe was created in six days. Does that mean that Christianity is a cult?

#40 AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

    The Starter

  • Members
  • 2,851 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:27 AM

I seem to recall that science has pretty much disproven that the Universe was created in six days. Does that mean that Christianity is a cult?

Posted Image