"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

Don't religious organizations enjoy tax exempt status?

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"?

"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"?

It does not conflict at all. Just says you really are a religion.

"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?

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

"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

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

"CalifBill" wrote in message
om...

"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.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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

"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.