|
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On 10/9/09 8:14 AM, Don White wrote:
"H the wrote in message m... On 10/8/09 10:03 PM, Tosk wrote: In , says... wrote in message ... In , says... H the K wrote: On 10/8/09 1:15 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: 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. MINORITY VIEWS DON'T TRANSLATE TO MINORITY RIGHTS. HOW ARE MINORITY RIGHTS ANY DIFFERENT FROM MAJORITY RIGHTS. ANSWER THIS SWEETIE. HOW HAS AFIRMATIVE ACTION AFFECTED THE WHITE MANS RIGHT TO COMPETE FOR A JOB. You are so full of crap. Majority rules in the Supreme Court. Majority voted in a president I didn't and don't want. Are there federal laws prohibiting religeous symbols on private or public property? We let Congress critters decide major issues by writing laws and voting on them. And guess what, majority rules. How well is that going for us? I suppose that depends on who you ask. I really don't like your condescending bs. Get a life. If you can't speak without yelling or trying to put me "in my place," you have no business in a rational discussion. It's totally obnoxious. The majority has the responsibility to protect the rights of the minority. If you don't believe that, then you're not much of an American. Flajim's wife, if he has one, probably beats the crap out of him...thus, he lashes out at...you. **** off, Krause Here is your answer son...;) http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/ Then, filter, filter, filter... if you need a free fast news server to go with that try eternal-september.org Both easy to set up. And you really won't miss the bozo's anyway. When you get fed up with somebodys irrational name calling festivals, you hit one button and don't see them anymore, it's easy. I strongly suggest you plonk me. Please. Sure Harry, no problem... just do a favor, stop with the sock puppets, you are not fooling anybody but dumb donnie the rat bitch... Mr. Network Expert, aka Scott Ingersoll, aka justhate, aka tosk, again shows the world just how stupid he is. Is he still claiming to run some kind of network with actual paying customers?? ~~ Snerk ~~ Yup. Imagine being a network customer of Scotty the Idiot Network Guru. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
Don White wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... H the K wrote: On 10/8/09 1:15 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: 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. MINORITY VIEWS DON'T TRANSLATE TO MINORITY RIGHTS. HOW ARE MINORITY RIGHTS ANY DIFFERENT FROM MAJORITY RIGHTS. ANSWER THIS SWEETIE. HOW HAS AFIRMATIVE ACTION AFFECTED THE WHITE MANS RIGHT TO COMPETE FOR A JOB. You are so full of crap. Majority rules in the Supreme Court. Majority voted in a president I didn't and don't want. Are there federal laws prohibiting religeous symbols on private or public property? We let Congress critters decide major issues by writing laws and voting on them. And guess what, majority rules. How well is that going for us? I suppose that depends on who you ask. I really don't like your condescending bs. Get a life. If you can't speak without yelling or trying to put me "in my place," you have no business in a rational discussion. It's totally obnoxious. The majority has the responsibility to protect the rights of the minority. If you don't believe that, then you're not much of an American. Flajim's wife, if he has one, probably beats the crap out of him...thus, he lashes out at...you. **** off, Krause Here is your answer son...;) http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/ Then, filter, filter, filter... if you need a free fast news server to go with that try eternal-september.org Both easy to set up. And you really won't miss the bozo's anyway. When you get fed up with somebodys irrational name calling festivals, you hit one button and don't see them anymore, it's easy. I strongly suggest you plonk me. Please. Sure Harry, no problem... just do a favor, stop with the sock puppets, you are not fooling anybody but dumb donnie the rat bitch... Not Harry, not a sockpuppet, I don't morph. If you can't figure that out, I'm sorry for you. -- Nom=de=Plume Is the Freaky Ponytail talking about me? I wonder if he's spent all his inheritance yet on shiny baubles and used motobike parts. When you and hairball team up, you guys remind me of Abbot and Costello or Martin and Lewis, or Burns and Allen. Yuk Yuk |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
"thunder" wrote in message
t... On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:59:03 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote: "thunder" wrote in message t... On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:07:07 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote: 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. That will open it's own can of worms, and how does that fit with the First Amendment's "the free exercise thereof"? Not sure I follow... I don't think any religious organization should be tax exempt. Did you think I wrote something else? No, I think I understood you. I was trying to make the point that taxing religions might not pass Constitutional muster, especially with the present court. I know the First Amendment is talking free as in freedom, but taxing an entity does restrict it. Hmmm... Well, if corporations can be "people," then I guess anything is possible. -- Nom=de=Plume |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
"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@earthl ink.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 |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
"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@earth link.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. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
"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@eart hlink.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 |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
"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@ear thlink.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. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
"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@ea rthlink.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 |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
"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. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
"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 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@ earthlink.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. Ok.... so, what about the rest? -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com