Jeep thing or sheep thing?

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> 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.

I guess that's a good enough reason to become a Mormon, every man is a
priest there.

JD

On 22 Jul 2003 16:42:58 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>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

Lots of opinions, no data.

>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.

Still waiting for you to look at the data.

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote
> Marc wrote:

> > 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.

Actually, Matt, people do that (and other similar) things all the time.
It's called a Charitable Remainder Trust. There are many other
similar financial vehicles for similar purposes.

BTW, political organizations (PACs, Democratic and Republican
parties, etc.) are also non-profits (under section 501c4 IIRC).
So, we're all "subsidizing" the politicos, too.

Floyd

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> 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.

Then they are subsidizing them by not stealing the same amount from them.
Regardless of your political beliefs and hate towards others, the treatment
given to religious organizations is advantageous to them.

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

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

It isn't ethical to molest children, either, but we know that is done by
those in the church. Oh, and it is perfectly legal to let anyone live
there. I've been hearing complaints everywhere I've ever lived about the
mansions that church personnel (and "friends" of the church) live in.

If you think it runs afoul of the law, I'd like to see the law. All the
laws I've seen on the subject would easily allow it. The only restrictions
I've seen that come anywhere close to addressing this would require taxes
paid on commercial property, but never on the church grounds or the
multi-million dollar mansions (as in plural, as in the church has multiple
mansions) owned by the church.

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

JD wrote:
> 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".

Ha, ha, ha... I'm not objecting to paying personal taxes for services I
get and use, but I don't think the church should have to pay taxes.
BTW, my kids attend private school which I pay for, yet I still pay
public school taxes for a service I don't use.

The government doesn't have rights.

Matt

Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
> Then they are subsidizing them by not stealing the same amount from them.
> Regardless of your political beliefs and hate towards others, the treatment
> given to religious organizations is advantageous to them.

Hate towards others? That's quite a stretch.

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

Shouldn't that be remove the "ry?"

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> JD wrote:
>> 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".
>
> Ha, ha, ha... I'm not objecting to paying personal taxes for
> services I
> get and use, but I don't think the church should have to pay taxes.

There's nothing constitutionally prohibiting the government from taxing
churches, it's a perk that could well go down the drain if enough people get
****ed about pedophile priests, multimillionaire televangelists and
Religious Right PAC activities. Personally I think churches should pay so
that folks like me who don't care for the institution won't have to pickup
the slack.

> BTW, my kids attend private school which I pay for, yet I still pay
> public school taxes for a service I don't use.

We *all* paid those taxes before we had kids and we all get to pay them
after they graduate. Think of your school taxes as an investment in keeping
your propery values high. A crappy school system can knock off as much as
20% of your home's value with all other things being equal.

JD
>
> The government doesn't have rights.
>
> Matt

On Tue 22 Jul 2003 12:44:48p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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.

Prove it.

>> 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.

The APA's view on homosexuality was not due to new findings, but had
everything to do with the lobbying pressure and tactics of the homosexual
community. When it comes down to it, by claiming homosexuality is normal,
they are ignoring just about every scientific fact about homosexuality.

>> 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.

Prove it.

>>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.

By asking for same sex marriage and minority status, they are asking for
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.
>
> Your arguments could apply easily to religion.

Religious people aren't considered minorities, fool.

>>>> 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.

A bigot is anyone who you don't agree with. Next you will start using
imaginary words like 'homophobia.'

--
__________
==\ /================================
===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
=====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
======\/====================================

http://31337.pl

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>JD wrote:
>> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

>Ha, ha, ha... I'm not objecting to paying personal taxes for services I
>get and use, but I don't think the church should have to pay taxes.

Why?

>BTW, my kids attend private school which I pay for, yet I still pay
>public school taxes for a service I don't use.

Would you prefer that no one has to pay taxes on public schools? After the
public school system falls, then the cost to you will be higher than if
you'd just educated everyone else's kids.

>The government doesn't have rights.

And the black helicopters are all out to get us.

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

"fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Marc wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
>Actually, Matt, people do that (and other similar) things all the time.
>It's called a Charitable Remainder Trust. There are many other
>similar financial vehicles for similar purposes.
>
>BTW, political organizations (PACs, Democratic and Republican
>parties, etc.) are also non-profits (under section 501c4 IIRC).
>So, we're all "subsidizing" the politicos, too.

Yup. The only difference between a right-wing conservative and a left-wing
liberal is that the conservatives want to subsidize the rich and the
liberals want to subsidize the poor.

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

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> 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.
>>
>> Then they are subsidizing them by not stealing the same amount from them.
>> Regardless of your political beliefs and hate towards others, the treatment
>> given to religious organizations is advantageous to them.
>
>Hate towards others? That's quite a stretch.

Are you using communist and socialist in a derogatory manner? It seems so.
You are berating anyone that might possibly disagree with you before they
get a chance, even if they do not fit the labels you've already put on
them.

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

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Once again, here's an excerpt from amazon.com from the description of a
book called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers":

"Many researchers is the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality have
been taking a fresh look at the "conventional" wisdom which has been the
basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities.
The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be supported by
research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is
therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and
exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of
Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in the July,
1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science.

"Previous to this, a collection of papers by such authors as Bullough,
Bernard, Schild, Warren, Bauserman, et al., was published as 'Dares to
Speak', edited by Joseph Geraci. Before that there was 'Male
Intergenerational Intimacy' by Brongersma. Both of these volumes are
currently in print, and are available.

"The above mentioned paper and books are intended primarily for
researchers, educators, and other people knowledgeable in these areas.
Therefore, I have authored a "layman's" introductory volume,
'Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers', which essentially covers the
same premises, data, and conclusions as the above, but which is written
in mostly non technical language..."

So much for the APA and so-called "science". Some things are just plain
wrong no matter how much you try to hide behind false science. I do not
bow to the "wisdom" and "science" of the APA like you do Lloyd.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Marc wrote:
>
> It isn't ethical to molest children, either, but we know that is done by
> those in the church. Oh, and it is perfectly legal to let anyone live
> there...

No, Marc - the American Pschological Association has proven
"scientifically" that it's OK for men to have sex with boys - that
there's no harm done, and we all know how wonderful and above question
the APA is. Get in step with the times, man. According to the APA,
what the priests did to tall tose altar boys is just fine. 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>>
>> It isn't ethical to molest children, either, but we know that is done by
>> those in the church. Oh, and it is perfectly legal to let anyone live
>> there...
>
>No, Marc - the American Pschological Association has proven
>"scientifically" that it's OK for men to have sex with boys - that
>there's no harm done, and we all know how wonderful and above question
>the APA is. Get in step with the times, man. According to the APA,
>what the priests did to tall tose altar boys is just fine. 8^)

Well, it was perfectly fine according to the Catholic Church as well. They
just moved the priests and made false reassurances to the families
affected. When the priests had a new location, they set up shop again.

I glanced at the APA stuff you posted, and it looks like there was some
research into the effects, and the research didn't show that there were
long term effects on the children (effects only measured as deviation from
a random group). That's certainly not the same thing as saying it is ok to
have sex with children. But when you've already made up your mind, you
will pervert all incoming data to match your opinion.

Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what you
want them to find?

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

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 22 Jul 2003 16:42:58 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>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
>
>Lots of opinions, no data.

I guess then the virus that causes AIDS is just an opinion of the AMA, the
existence of atoms is just an opinion of chemists...

>
>>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.
>
>Still waiting for you to look at the data.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
>Matt
>
When an entity doesn't pay income tax, or property tax, everybody else has to
make up the difference, so it is a subsidy, albeit an indirect one.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>'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
>

Don't its customers and employees use roads, libraries, police, schools for
their children, etc., just like customers and employees of, say, Burger King
or K-Mart?

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:44:49 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yup. The only difference between a right-wing conservative and a left-wing
>liberal is that the conservatives want to subsidize the rich and the
>liberals want to subsidize the poor.

How is taxing the rich at more than 50%, while not taxing anyone who
makes less than $25,000 subsidizing the rich?

Take your time responding.

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Once again, here's an excerpt from amazon.com from the description of a
>book called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers":
>
>"Many researchers is the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality have
>been taking a fresh look at the "conventional" wisdom which has been the
>basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities.
>The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be supported by
>research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is
>therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and
>exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of
>Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in the July,
>1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
>*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
>protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
>United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
>the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
>level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science.
>
>"Previous to this, a collection of papers by such authors as Bullough,
>Bernard, Schild, Warren, Bauserman, et al., was published as 'Dares to
>Speak', edited by Joseph Geraci. Before that there was 'Male
>Intergenerational Intimacy' by Brongersma. Both of these volumes are
>currently in print, and are available.
>
>"The above mentioned paper and books are intended primarily for
>researchers, educators, and other people knowledgeable in these areas.
>Therefore, I have authored a "layman's" introductory volume,
>'Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers', which essentially covers the
>same premises, data, and conclusions as the above, but which is written
>in mostly non technical language..."
>
>So much for the APA and so-called "science". Some things are just plain
>wrong no matter how much you try to hide behind false science. I do not
>bow to the "wisdom" and "science" of the APA like you do Lloyd.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
And does Tim McVeigh's actions mean all Christians are baby-killers, or that
this is official Christian doctrine?