Jeep thing or sheep thing?

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 18 Jul 2003 14:58:25 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 17 Jul 2003 17:06:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> I believe God does not approve of homosexuality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think God would be highly offended that you presume to know His mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe God would appreciate my reading the bible. Something you
>>>>>obviously don't do, nor have any direct knowledge of.
>>>>
>>>>But the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. Do you think people who
grow
>>2
>>>>crops in the same field are going to hell? That you should stone
adulters?
>>>>That the earth was created in 6 days?
>>>
>>>What I believe is none of your business. Feel free to interpret the
>>>Bible any way you want, I am not your judge.
>>
>>You seem mighty willing to judge gays.
>
>No, I am judging homosexuality. I should not be able to judge gays,
>because I have no reason to know who is gay and who isn't.
>
>>After the scientific evidence, bigot.
>
>There is no evidence to support the assumption that homosexuality is
>based on genetics. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

OK, cite that evidence of yours. Because mine is what the American
Psychological Association and American Medical Association say, based on
scientific research.

>
>>>>Wrong. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity.
>>>
>>>Gravity and evolution are both theories.
>>
>>Also both facts. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon. The first day
>>in most freshman science classes, that is taught.
>
>No, they are not facts.

Yes they are. If you drop something, it's a fact that it's pulled down to the
earth.


> Personally I treat them as facts also, but a
>theory is not a fact.

True; a theory is the accepted explanation for something. The theory of
gravity is an explanation for gravity. That there is a theory of gravity does
not mean gravity itself is not factual.


> If you could open up a science book, you could
>find information of what a hypothesis is and how it becomes a theory.

Yes, by being repeatedly tested and not disproven.

>At one point the theory was the Earth is round. That is no longer the
>theory. Another theory was that the Earth was the center of the
>universe.

Not a scientific theory though.


>No longer accepted theory. I could go on, but hopefully
>you understand by now that a theory is the working model of what we
>have observed, but that all theories are open to change as we learn
>more.

Yes, but once an explanation has become a theory, meaning it's become accepted
as the explanation of something by the scientific community, you'd have to
have some pretty compelling data to refute it.

>
>>> Personally I support both
>>>theories, but there is no such thing as scientific fact when it comes
>>>to issues like those.
>>
>>Yes there is. Evolution is as much a fact as, say, atoms.
>
>No, they are both theories.

No, they are both facts and theories.

>
>>> Pick up a high school science book if you want
>>>to understand what theory means as opposed to hypothesis.
>>
>>Let's see, Ph.D. in chemistry, teaching it at the college level for 30
years.
>>I'd say it's you who's ignorant.
>
>Well we all know are kids are in trouble in schools, now we know why.
>What college employs people like you to teach science without any
>ability to understand it?

I suggest you take a science class. Perhaps there's a community college
nearby. Anyone who things atoms, gravity, and evolution are not factual needs
to learn.

In article <[email protected]>,
Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri 18 Jul 2003 11:04:49a, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Nathan Nagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> DTJ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said
>>>>>>>> ignorance is very widespread, readers would be wise to consider
>>>>>>>> the value of automotive opinions rendered here. This NG does seem
>>>>>>>> to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's
>>>>>>> not bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to
>>>>>> the congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He
>>>>>> spoke for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should welcome them with open arms.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners,
>>>>> regardless of the sin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>
>>> That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you to
>>> accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is true
>>> whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>>
>> How about bigotry?
>
>Bigotry, as well as the non-existent condition known as 'homophobia', is
>an overused term that has begun to lose its true meaning. Lately, it has
>been used to label anyone who doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

No. I don't agree with the lifestyle of riding motorcycles, for example, but
I'm not calling them immoral and abnormal and advocating their discrimination.

>
>Soon, the term bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
>bestiality, incest, or bigamy.

What an idiot.

In article <[email protected]>,
Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu 17 Jul 2003 08:09:57p, "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]>
>wrote in newsWGRa.9079$Bp2.3056@fed1read07:
>
>>
>> "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>>: wrote:
>>:
>>: > Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>>: >
>>: >> I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said
>>: >> ignorance is very widespread, readers would be wise to consider the
>>: >> value of automotive opinions rendered
>>: >> here. This NG does seem to be a good recruiting place for the
>>: >> christian reich
>>: >
>>: > And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's not
>>: > bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
>>:
>>: The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to the
>>: congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He spoke
>>: for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>:
>>: We should welcome them with open arms.
>>:
>>: >You know - if the ratio of God-haters to God-lovers were 99 to 1, I'd
>>: >be honored to be included in the 1 per cent, and I'd galdly die for
>>: >the privilege.
>>:
>>: So would I, and we might one day get close to that percentage if the
>>: liberals in this country get their way.
>>
>> oh spare me that clap trap. You mean the LIBERALS who were the founding
>> fathers" You guys all parrot the same crap. Take your theocratic wet
>> dreams and go start another Jones-like christian colony on some
>> forgotten island
>
>There is a newsgroup called alt.revisionism that was created for types
>like you. If the founding fathers were so 'liberal', then why are the
>liberals today always trying to get the Constitution (written by the
>'liberal' founding fathers) changed by judges?

Like what?

>
>Liberals almost never get their agenda passed using the democratic
>process. They have to use liberal judges to legislate from the bench.

Funny, because now it's conservative judges who are the most activist.

In article <[email protected]>,
Omphalos <Omphalos> wrote:
>On Fri 18 Jul 2003 03:03:35p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> 'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 18 Jul 2003 15:03:20 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no law
>>>> establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, no, no! You miss the point Lloyd. They don't want to establish
>>> a law establishing a religion, they just want to put prayer in the
>>> schools, prayer with the dominant religion in that area, you know,
>>> like, say, a Christian prayer. And, maybe a cross on the wall. But
>>> that's it, no "religion".
>>>
>>> Now why would anyone be opposed to Christian prayers in the
>>> schools ? I mean, after all, aren't we a Christian country ?
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> Perhaps they've never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, in the early
>> 1800s, signed by Pres. Adams, which said we are not a Christian country.
>
>Unfortunately for your position, the United States was not in any sense
>founded on the Treaty of Tripoli. The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli was
>John Barlow's, not any elected representative's certainly not any elected
>Founding Father.

What does the constitution say about a treaty?


>No one knows who invented Article 11, or when, except
>that it was created after the Treaty was signed in Tripoli and Algiers; it
>does not appear in the original version of the Treaty. Humanists and other
>God-haters have latched onto the spurious phrase as if it represented the
>belief or opinion of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

Who signed it?


>Even if
>those who ratified the Treaty in the United States saw the wording (and
>there is no certain evidence they did there is absolute silence from that
>period on the matter), it still would not mean that any of them agreed
>with every phrase including that one that appeared in the Treaty.

Again, what does the constitution say about a treaty?


>Rather
>than send the Treaty back to Tripoli (a 2- or 3-month trip at that time,
>plus the diplomatic difficulty of getting the Moslems to re-sign a treaty
>they didn't like and soon broke) for a single insignificant phrase, it
>would have been signed. Finally, the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli that
>the Humanists have attached to it is simply factually incorrect; no matter
>what the authenticity of the Article 11 might have been, it would have
>been factually incorrect for it to have denied the Christian foundations
>of the United States.

Most of the founders were deists, not "Christians."


>Indeed, this Treaty with Tripoli and other
>correspondence from that period and location contained several references
>to the US being a Christian nation; one of the legal witnesses of the
>Treaty even signed it,
>
>"We Don Gerardo Joseph de Souza Knight of the order of Christ, Consul
>General and Charge des Affaires of his Catholic Majesty in this City and
>Kingdom of Tripoli of Barbary. Certify That the foregoing signatures and
>seals are those of the persons who sign all treaties of peace which are
>concluded with Christian Nations."
>
>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796n.htm
>
>So, the idea that the Treaty of Tripoli demonstrates that the US was not a
>Christian nation is absurd. The straightforward, simple logic of these
>statements has, for some reason (probably spite) eluded the grasp of the
>Humanists.

Again, what is the wording and what does the constitution say about treaties?

>
>That piece of paper probably wasn't even in North America when Washington
>left office. It was signed in Algiers on January 3, 1797. It was then
>hand-copied (at least 3 copies were made) and translated into English,
>before eventually being sent half-way around the world to the United
>States and it could not have been copied and translated along the way to
>the United States, because at least one copy (the Cathcart Copy) remained
>in the Mediterranean area. The trip itself must have taken months it took
>2 or 3 months just to sail that distance, besides any delays along the
>way. It would have been quite difficult for the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797
>to have arrived in the United States before Washington retired to Mount
>Vernon.

Funny; you right-wingers always argue for strict constructionism when reading
the constitution, but with this treaty, you're arguing to ignore the words.

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>What interests me about the school prayer debate and the larger issue of
>religion in the public square is that the arguments tend to center on the
>establishment clause of the 1st amendment. To me, that seems wrong.
>
>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the federal
>government. It can't abrogate the right to the free practice of religion
>(an individual right) nor can it pass law establishing a national religion
>(a state right?).

Wrong and wrong. It can't pass a law establishing religion (not "a" religion,
but religion, period). And the bill of rights applies to the states.

>
>The real bone of contention, it would seem, is not the 1st amendment with
>it's establishment clause, but the 14th amendment that identifies certain
>rights of individuals that states can't abrogate. State religions existed
>for a long time, but disappeared eventually. But they existed legally under
>the original bill of rights.

Until it was "incorporated" -- extended to the states too, after the Civil
War.

>
>The argrument would seem to more correctly be the issue of whether a state
>or local law violates an individuals right to freely exercise their
>religious rights protected by the free exercise clause. Not whether a state
>or local law violates the establishment clause, which is a prohibition on
>congress and the federal government from establishing a national religious
>obligation on states and/or people. That places a barrier between the feds
>and the states/people. Just a reminder that rights not held by the federal
>government are reserved to the states and to the people (10th amendment).
>
>Another reminder, I'm not arguing for prayer in school here, just the basis
>of the arguments I always read on the subject.
>
>"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >'nuther Bob wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:45:03 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>This is quite a retreat from the claim that it was in the Constitution.
>> >>> You are now approaching accuracy. Keep trying, you'll get it right.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm not retreating. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting
>> >> an establishment of religion" is blatantly clear. The Congress may not
>> >> make *any* law establishing *any* religion. Get it ? The government
>> >> cannot mingle in religion. No how, no way, "*no law*".
>> >>
>> >> Therefore the Congress cannot legalize prayer in the schools when
>> >> by virtue of the nature of religions, it would require selecting
>> >> one or more as the source of that prayer.
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >
>> >If you don't know the difference between establish, separate and mingle,
>> >then you'll never understand the 1st amendment. I've never established
>> >a restaurant, gas station or any other business yet I don't separate
>> >myself from them. I go into and make use of many businesses, all
>> >without ever having established one.
>>
>> Then lets make it more simple. The federal government illegally respects
>> establishments of religion. The federal government defines what
>> constitutes an established religion. The federal government (and most
>> state and local governments) subsidize these religious organizations that
>> have their establishment respected by the laws of the federal government.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the federal
>>government. It can't abrogate the right to the free practice of religion
>>(an individual right) nor can it pass law establishing a national religion
>>(a state right?).
>
>Then leave it as that.
>
>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
>the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
>receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
>well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Technically, they receive tax breaks because they're a nonprofit institution,
same as colleges or the Red Cross.

On 21 Jul 2003 16:48:05 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>OK, cite that evidence of yours. Because mine is what the American
>Psychological Association and American Medical Association say, based on
>scientific research.

Cite yours. Then look at the actual data, not a gay/lesbian groups
interpretation. You, if you really are a scientist, will quickly see
the error of your ways.

>Yes, by being repeatedly tested and not disproven.

Which is different than being proven.

On Mon 21 Jul 2003 12:54:12p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri 18 Jul 2003 11:04:49a, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>
>>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nathan Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> DTJ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said
>>>>>>>>> ignorance is very widespread, readers would be wise to consider
>>>>>>>>> the value of automotive opinions rendered here. This NG does
>>>>>>>>> seem to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's
>>>>>>>> not bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to
>>>>>>> the congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church.
>>>>>>> He spoke for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We should welcome them with open arms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners,
>>>>>> regardless of the sin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
>>>>>
>>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>> That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you
>>>> to accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is
>>>> true whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>>>
>>> How about bigotry?
>>
>> Bigotry, as well as the non-existent condition known as 'homophobia',
>> is an overused term that has begun to lose its true meaning. Lately, it
>> has been used to label anyone who doesn't agree with the homosexual
>> lifestyle.
>
> No. I don't agree with the lifestyle of riding motorcycles, for
> example, but I'm not calling them immoral and abnormal

Homosexuality is anything but normal. Published studies by gay researchers
(The Gay Report, Jay and Young, Summit Books) showed 98% of homosexuals
practice dangerous and bizarre sexual activities. Many studies support the
clinical view that homosexuality is a disorder with extremely compulsive,
highly reckless, and self destructive. Many therapists view this
addiction, like others, as being driven by numerous emotional conflicts.
In many individuals their homosexual behavior is frequently preceded by
the use of alcohol or drugs. Read Michael Warners " Why Gay Men Are Having
Risky Sex” "Newsweek Sept 19,1994,The Advocate Aug. 1994.J Grudel “
Homosexuality; Fact or Fiction”

Homosexual men live an average of 40 years, compared to the general male
standard of 70+. Lesbian life expectancy is 45 years, compared to a
heterosexual woman's 76 year.(CDC)

AIDS is contagious almost exclusively through behavior, and modification
of that behavior can reduce future AIDS cases virtually to zero without
another penny spent on research and without a single medical breakthrough.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that male homosexuals
contract the following diseases more frequently than heterosexuals by the
following multiples:

Syphilis - 14 times
Gonorrhea - 3 times
Genital warts - 3 times
Hepatitis B - 8 times
Scabies - 5 times
Penile infection - 30 times
Anal Infection - 100 times
AIDS - 5000 times

> and advocating their discrimination.

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. As Americans,
homosexuals are entitled to equal rights, not special rights. Their
behavior based lifestyle does not qualify for privileged minority status
under the U.S. law. All individuals; good, bad, homosexual, or whatever,
are protected under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. As a class,
the courts have repeatedly denied homosexuals their claim to "insular and
discreet" minority status, quotas and affirmative action. Homosexuality is
a behavior, not a race. Homosexuals fight for protection by drawing an
analogy between themselves and African Americans before the civil rights
movement, and by presenting themselves as severely persecuted. Is the
analogy reasonable? People of color cannot abandon their color the way
many homosexuals are abandoning their homosexuality. Protection of
homosexuals is based on behavior held as immoral by the majority of
people. A Black or a Caucasian can be either morally upright or morally
corrupt; a practicing homosexual seeks social sanction of inherently
illicit activities, not of an immutable or constitutionally recognized
trait.

>> Soon, the term bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
>> bestiality, incest, or bigamy.
>
> What an idiot.

Not as much as you are making yourself out to be.

Marc wrote:
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the federal
>>government. It can't abrogate the right to the free practice of religion
>>(an individual right) nor can it pass law establishing a national religion
>>(a state right?).
>
>
> Then leave it as that.
>
> The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
> the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
> receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
> well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"

Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?

Matt

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Marc wrote:
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the
>>> federal government. It can't abrogate the right to the free
>>> practice of religion (an individual right) nor can it pass law
>>> establishing a national religion (a state right?).
>>
>>
>> Then leave it as that.
>>
>> The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is
>> recognized by the federal government. After recognized by the
>> federal government, they receive subsidies from federal, and often
>> state and local governments as well. Wouldn't you say that may tend
>> to be "an establishment of religion?"
>
> Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?

The tax breaks are a huge subsidy plus with all this "faith based"
privatization going on in some social services a lot of churches are, in
effect, subsidized for doing their Christian duty anyway.

JD
>
> Matt

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:07:58 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
>> the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
>> receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
>> well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"
>
>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>
>Matt

You probably already get them: no need to pay federal income taxes as
a non-profit, no need to pay state income taxes, no need to pay state
or local real property or tangible property taxes in most locales.

You still use the same services as most other business and
individuals, you just pay no taxes. Quite a deal when you think
about it.

Bob

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the federal
>>>government. It can't abrogate the right to the free practice of religion
>>>(an individual right) nor can it pass law establishing a national religion
>>>(a state right?).
>>
>>Then leave it as that.
>>
>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
>>the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
>>receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
>>well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>
>>Marc
>>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>Technically, they receive tax breaks because they're a nonprofit institution,
>same as colleges or the Red Cross.

They are recognized as a nonprofit because they are recognized by the
federal government as a religion. They are a separate class of nonprofit.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the federal
>>>government. It can't abrogate the right to the free practice of religion
>>>(an individual right) nor can it pass law establishing a national religion
>>>(a state right?).
>>
>>
>> Then leave it as that.
>>
>> The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
>> the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
>> receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
>> well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"
>
>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?

Give them the money to buy your house from you. They gift is tax
deductible. Then, they can let you live there without ever having to pay
taxes on it again. Property owned by the church (including the mansions
that they let the church leaders or large donors use) are not taxed. You
will save thousands a year.

There are more, but that is one of the largest that is not directly
associated with church activities.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 03:23:40 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:07:58 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
>>> the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
>>> receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
>>> well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>
>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>>
>>Matt
>
>You probably already get them: no need to pay federal income taxes as
>a non-profit, no need to pay state income taxes, no need to pay state
>or local real property or tangible property taxes in most locales.

Oh, isn't that the same subsidy Jesse Jackson gets for political
action he does in the name of race?

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 21 Jul 2003 16:48:05 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>OK, cite that evidence of yours. Because mine is what the American
>>Psychological Association and American Medical Association say, based on
>>scientific research.
>
>Cite yours. Then look at the actual data, not a gay/lesbian groups
>interpretation. You, if you really are a scientist, will quickly see
>the error of your ways.
>

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

http://www.significantdifference.org/hooker.html

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html

Now, these documents have extensive references. Arguing with the APA about
this issue is like arguing with the AMA that, say, being left-handed is caused
by the devil.

I challenged you before -- if you're got research showing otherwise, post it.

>>Yes, by being repeatedly tested and not disproven.
>
>Which is different than being proven.

In article <[email protected]>,
Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon 21 Jul 2003 12:54:12p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Fri 18 Jul 2003 11:04:49a, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>
>>>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nathan Nagel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DTJ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said
>>>>>>>>>> ignorance is very widespread, readers would be wise to consider
>>>>>>>>>> the value of automotive opinions rendered here. This NG does
>>>>>>>>>> seem to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's
>>>>>>>>> not bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to
>>>>>>>> the congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church.
>>>>>>>> He spoke for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We should welcome them with open arms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners,
>>>>>>> regardless of the sin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nate
>>>>>
>>>>> That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you
>>>>> to accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is
>>>>> true whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>>>>
>>>> How about bigotry?
>>>
>>> Bigotry, as well as the non-existent condition known as 'homophobia',
>>> is an overused term that has begun to lose its true meaning. Lately, it
>>> has been used to label anyone who doesn't agree with the homosexual
>>> lifestyle.
>>
>> No. I don't agree with the lifestyle of riding motorcycles, for
>> example, but I'm not calling them immoral and abnormal
>
>Homosexuality is anything but normal.

Neither is Judaism, for example.


> Published studies by gay researchers
>(The Gay Report, Jay and Young, Summit Books) showed 98% of homosexuals
>practice dangerous and bizarre sexual activities.

Liar.


>Many studies support the
>clinical view that homosexuality is a disorder with extremely compulsive,
>highly reckless, and self destructive. Many therapists view this
>addiction, like others, as being driven by numerous emotional conflicts.
>In many individuals their homosexual behavior is frequently preceded by
>the use of alcohol or drugs. Read Michael Warners " Why Gay Men Are Having
>Risky Sex” "Newsweek Sept 19,1994,The Advocate Aug. 1994.J Grudel “
>Homosexuality; Fact or Fiction”


I refer you to the APA web site, bigot.

>Homosexual men live an average of 40 years, compared to the general male
>standard of 70+. Lesbian life expectancy is 45 years, compared to a
>heterosexual woman's 76 year.(CDC)

You are lying.

>
>AIDS is contagious almost exclusively through behavior, and modification
>of that behavior can reduce future AIDS cases virtually to zero without
>another penny spent on research and without a single medical breakthrough.

Ryan White ring a bell?

>
>The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that male homosexuals
>contract the following diseases more frequently than heterosexuals by the
>following multiples:
>
>Syphilis - 14 times
>Gonorrhea - 3 times
>Genital warts - 3 times
>Hepatitis B - 8 times
>Scabies - 5 times
>Penile infection - 30 times
>Anal Infection - 100 times
>AIDS - 5000 times
>
>> and advocating their discrimination.
>
>Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. As Americans,
>homosexuals are entitled to equal rights, not special rights.

No gay is asking for special rights, bigot.


>Their
>behavior based lifestyle does not qualify for privileged minority status
>under the U.S. law. All individuals; good, bad, homosexual, or whatever,
>are protected under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. As a class,
>the courts have repeatedly denied homosexuals their claim to "insular and
>discreet" minority status, quotas and affirmative action. Homosexuality is
>a behavior, not a race. Homosexuals fight for protection by drawing an
>analogy between themselves and African Americans before the civil rights
>movement, and by presenting themselves as severely persecuted. Is the
>analogy reasonable? People of color cannot abandon their color the way
>many homosexuals are abandoning their homosexuality. Protection of
>homosexuals is based on behavior held as immoral by the majority of
>people. A Black or a Caucasian can be either morally upright or morally
>corrupt; a practicing homosexual seeks social sanction of inherently
>illicit activities, not of an immutable or constitutionally recognized
>trait.

Your arguments could apply easily to religion.

>
>>> Soon, the term bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
>>> bestiality, incest, or bigamy.
>>
>> What an idiot.
>
>Not as much as you are making yourself out to be.

Crawl back under your rock with the rest of the slime, bigot.

JD wrote:
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the
>>>>federal government. It can't abrogate the right to the free
>>>>practice of religion (an individual right) nor can it pass law
>>>>establishing a national religion (a state right?).
>>>
>>>
>>>Then leave it as that.
>>>
>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is
>>>recognized by the federal government. After recognized by the
>>>federal government, they receive subsidies from federal, and often
>>>state and local governments as well. Wouldn't you say that may tend
>>>to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>
>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>
>
> The tax breaks are a huge subsidy plus with all this "faith based"
> privatization going on in some social services a lot of churches are, in
> effect, subsidized for doing their Christian duty anyway.

Sorry, but not having to give money to the government when it has no
right to that money does not constitute a subidy. I guess if you are a
communist or socialist, maybe that is more true.


Matt

'nuther Bob wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:07:58 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
>>>the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
>>>receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
>>>well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>
>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> You probably already get them: no need to pay federal income taxes as
> a non-profit, no need to pay state income taxes, no need to pay state
> or local real property or tangible property taxes in most locales.
>
> You still use the same services as most other business and
> individuals, you just pay no taxes. Quite a deal when you think
> about it.
>
> Bob
>

Which services? The only service I can think of that our church would
get is fire coverage and this is from a volunteer fire company that is
support almost entirely by local contributions.

Matt

Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the federal
>>>>government. It can't abrogate the right to the free practice of religion
>>>>(an individual right) nor can it pass law establishing a national religion
>>>>(a state right?).
>>>
>>>
>>>Then leave it as that.
>>>
>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
>>>the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
>>>receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
>>>well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>
>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>
>
> Give them the money to buy your house from you. They gift is tax
> deductible. Then, they can let you live there without ever having to pay
> taxes on it again. Property owned by the church (including the mansions
> that they let the church leaders or large donors use) are not taxed. You
> will save thousands a year.

Sorry, but that is not legitimate unless you are the pastor of the
church. My church does not and would not do that and I suspect that
would run afoul of the law somewhere. It certainly isn't ethical for
anyone other than a legitimate minister of the church.


Matt

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> JD wrote:
>> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of
>>>>> the federal government. It can't abrogate the right to the free
>>>>> practice of religion (an individual right) nor can it pass law
>>>>> establishing a national religion (a state right?).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then leave it as that.
>>>>
>>>> The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is
>>>> recognized by the federal government. After recognized by the
>>>> federal government, they receive subsidies from federal, and often
>>>> state and local governments as well. Wouldn't you say that may
>>>> tend to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>>
>>> Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>>
>>
>> The tax breaks are a huge subsidy plus with all this "faith based"
>> privatization going on in some social services a lot of churches
>> are, in effect, subsidized for doing their Christian duty anyway.
>
> Sorry, but not having to give money to the government when it has no
> right to that money does not constitute a subidy. I guess if you are
> a communist or socialist, maybe that is more true.
>

OK Ace, I'm guessing from the tone of your post that your probably sportin'
a "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker and a tattered flag clipped to the
aerial. The road you drove to work on was paid for with taxes, as were the
$1,000,000 each smart bombs. Let's not even get into the trillions (you read
that right,Trillions) W's adventure in Iraq is going to cost. All paid for
with ....taxes. Having spent a good number of years as an engineering
contractor all over the world I can tell you with all confidence that the
taxes you whine about paying are chump change compared to the rest of the
world. Damn few countries give exemptions to churches and even then the
definition of what is a "church" is much more stringently defined. If you're
so certain the government has no right to tax you perhaps you should avoid
paying then you can become yet another tax burden through the prison system
at $40,000/yr/prisoner. The government *does* have the right to your money;
your peers gave it to them so the teachers who put up with your kids and the
cops who protect them can make a living. Even Jesus said "Render to Caesar
that which is Caesar's".

JD