"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:07:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"CalifBill" wrote in message
news:PoqdnbCgSJ_Du1PXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@e arthlink.com...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:59:42 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:

Let religion put up a
cross, menora, etc on public property. The people own the
property.

How would you feel about Muslim or Rastafarian religious
symbols in
your town square?

The problem is that once you start you can't say no to the
next group,
and you can't say no to bigger and better.


Since I am an semi agnostic married to a Catholic, I can
accept all
religions putting up displays in the town square. I was
married by a
Monsignor in a Catholic Church with a JW best man, and a
Jewish usher.
Locally the Jewish community puts up a Menorah during their
holidays,
and Christians put up Christmas Displays during their
holidays, and we
have had different religions also. Seems to work fine. I
believe there
may be a higher power, but not sure what it is. May be the
Flying
Spaghetti Monster.



Who gets to decide what symbol gets put up? You can say... oh,
let the
locals decided, but how do you deal with the various minority
views that
are inevitable? It can't be a simple majority, because it's
the
obligation of the majority to protect the rights of the
minority. If you
put a cross or spire, you're basically promoting a religion,
which
without much of a stretch is prohibiting others from doing so.
You're
taking sides. The simplest thing to do is to prohibit all
symbols.

--
Nom=de=Plume


You have an established religion, put up your symbols for your
holiday.
Simple. Does not matter what religion. As long as it gets a
religious
tax ID, go for it. The people own the public lands, not the
government!
We own the government. Does not seem that way these days, but
maybe if we
get serious and vote out those owned by lobbiests, we will get
OUR
governments back.

An established religion? A tax ID? Sounds like it's government
promoting
religion by giving tax breaks and determining who can and can't
claim to be
part of a religious order.

I'm not in favor of any tax breaks for religions. If they can
stand on their
own, fine. If not, too bad.

Actually, Em, your attitude is not too far removed from the
concerns
that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had about government
sponsorship of particular Christian denominations in the granting
of
subsidies. This is what lead to the Statute of Virginia for
religious
freedom which was authored by Jefferson and was the precurser to
the
Constitutional Amendment.


Nice crowd to be part of... It just urks me that (for example) the
Catholic Church can own whole swaths of buildings, and they don't
have to pay a dime in tax.

--
Nom=de=Plume


But they do charitable work.

So? Their buildings don't do anything. The mega-churches are the
same... should have tax-exempt status.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If they taxed churches, would be a restriction on religion. Now I
know you would like that. Tax them out of existance.

I just want them to stand on their own, which is what I said. You
don't know me, so you can't know what I would like or not like.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MN10159JCM.DTL

--
Nom=de=Plume


Knowing San Francisco tax accessor office, I have zero respect for
them. They jsut want the money for an overspending SF politcal agenda.
Took us 5 years to get a generational transfer straightened out, and
still cost us money that it should not. Every time my wife talked to
an actual person, which is really hard to do, normally you get a full
voice mailbox, they said they would take care of it. They did not.



Which has nothing to do with taxing church property, and nothing to do
with the argument that they should or shouldn't be taxed.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Separate argument. But seems as if SF is trying to change the rules.
They need more money for an overpriced govenment.

I said that I believe churches should stand on their own and be taxed like
the rest of us. SF is apparently trying to hold them to at some portion of
that notion. You said that you don't have any respect for SF. That's fine,
but that has nothing to do with the proposed argument of taxing churches.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I said I had no respect for the SF Tax Collector. I actually like SF.
Graduated University there for my BSc.