BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Jim

CalifBill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/09 1:25 PM, CalifBill wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:07:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
m...
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.

Ok.... so, what about the rest?

--
Nom=de=Plume

You are going to control religion by taxing it. The reason we will not
have a flat tax, is government loves control, and taxation is the
ultimate control. And that is unconstitutional to infringe freedom of
religion. This country does not have a revenue problem, it has a
spending
problem.
My proposal would free religion from having to prove that it's a
religion.
Right now, if you're claiming you're a religion, you have to prove it to
avoid taxes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

and it is good you have to prove you are a religion. Use to be a guy in
Modesto, Calif (maybe Turlock) that sold reverendships for the price of a
self addressed stamped envelope. So everyone could avoid paying taxes
then.

I've got to get me one of those!

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

And you probably would try to get a tax exemption if you made real money.

I was just thinking the same thing.