Jeep thing or sheep thing?

In article <[email protected]>,
Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

You prove your claim. That's like claiming 98% of Jews kill babies for
sacrifices and then when someone challenges you on it, demanding THEY prove
it's false. Typical bigot.

>
>>> 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.

Liar.


> When it comes down to it, by claiming homosexuality is normal,
>they are ignoring just about every scientific fact about homosexuality.

You are lying.

>
>>> 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.

Prove your claim, fool. I see logic isn't your strong point.

>
>>>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?

Slinking away with your tail between your legs?

>>
>>>
>>>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.

You cannot be this stupid by yourself. Who's helping you?

>
>>>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.

Jews are sure a minority. Catholics, Moslems, etc.

How do you define minority? Can you even read a dictionary?

>
>>>>> 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.'
>

No, just someone who shows they're a bigot.

In article <[email protected]>, 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 -


OK, lying scumbag alert.


>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! =-----

In article <[email protected]>,
Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>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"
He and others here would only be satisfied with herding gays into gas
chambers.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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...
>

Well if I were to assume you to be representative of the chemistry
profession, I'd never trust a chemist's opinion unless its backed up by
something a physicist or engineer says.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

Guys, I would not argue with poor Lloyd. It really isn't fair to have a
battle of witts with an unarmed man.

Marc wrote:
> "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?

It would be against the 1st amendment as it would infringe on religious
freedom. Also, even though I object to the "separation" interpretation
made by the judiciary, since it is now firmly entrenched, the government
would be in violation of that as well. Can't have it both ways.



>>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.

I really don't have that big an issue with paying for public education.
My point was that we all pay for things we don't care about or use.
We could go to a complete "pay as you use" system, but that would likely
have a lot of disadvantages as well. Especially with regards to
transportation ... which is now at least a little on topic.


>
>>The government doesn't have rights.
>
>
> And the black helicopters are all out to get us.

Have you suffered this lack of logic and ability to connect thoughts for
a long time?

Matt

Marc wrote:
> "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.

Criticizing or even berating is far different than hating. I'm sorry
you don't understand that. I criticize my kids now and then as well,
but hardly hate them.

Matt

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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?

Shopping isn't protected under the constitution. Next poor analogy...


Matt

Marc wrote:

> And the black helicopters are all out to get us.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Hey - that's just what Odai and Qusai were saying yesterday. And I
thought that was only a worn out line from the liberal playbook to be
used when you have nothing of substance to come back with in an
argument! Who knew!

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! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, 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 -
>
> OK, lying scumbag alert.


Well, Lloyd - the publisher of that book sure seems to think that the
APA has proven scientifically that it does no harm. Here - I'll run it
by you again - I'll type real slow so you can read it:

"Many researchers is [sic] 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."

Got that? "...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.

APA "objective science" ("...subjected to intensive examination at every
level [what the hell does that mean?], has been judged to be true,
accurate...") has proven that the wrongness of such perverted behavior
("intergenerational male/male sexual activities") is "without any
rational basis".

But I'm the lying scumbag. Yeah - right.

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! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Marc wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It isn't ethical to molest children, either...

> >>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 all those altar boys is just fine. 8^)
> >
> >
> >Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what you
> >want them to find?

And of course you think such a study was honest? Hardly. Much less,
scientific. Anyone who thinks little boys who've beem sexually molested
by grown men are not scarred for life is pathetic - no matter how much
"scientific proof" he has coming out his sphincter to prove otherwise.

> He and others here would only be satisfied with herding gays into gas
> chambers.

Based on...? Couldn't be further from the truth. Funny - you're the
one who earlier today called *me* the lying scumbag. I gave you the
smoking gun on the APA for what I said. You just think you can slander
with no basis whatsoever. I guess my proving my point, and then you
retaliating (for my having proved my point) by calling me a lying
scumbag and then creating your own baseless lie is supposed to even
things up in Lloydworld. Your reputation precedes you.

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! =-----

On 23 Jul 2003 16:03:30 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, 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 -
>
>
>OK, lying scumbag alert.

Yes but we will ignore that issue with you.

On 23 Jul 2003 16:04:14 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>He and others here would only be satisfied with herding gays into gas
>chambers.

Typical liberal hysteria.

When you know your argument is weak, attack the enemy with
fabrications.

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

Theoretically, churches don't have profit. There's nothing to tax
(incomewise). Aside from the anomolies of misbehaving priests, money
grubbing televangelists and other Jim Jones type kooks, the *vast* majority
of churches are a powerful force for good. Congress knew that taxing
charities and churches would be a real loser.

> > 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
>
>

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

If churches stopped doing (as much) charitable and social service work,
everybody else would have to make up the difference. And we all know how
good government is doing work like that.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

Churches don't have customers. But those who attend (I suppose that's you
perjoritively called "customers") pay taxes. Their employees pay taxes.

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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"

There are lots of tax shelters masquerading as churches. Doesn't make them
real churches. Anytime you put a pile of money (gov't spending, tax breaks)
within reach of people, they'll find a way to get their greedy little hands
on it. Human nature.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
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 and advocating their
discrimination.
>
> >
> >Soon, the term bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
> >bestiality, incest, or bigamy.
>
> What an idiot.

Lloyd, you are the king of cheap $0.25 insults, with ONLY the assumption
that yours is the opinion that everyone but idiots agree with to back up the
insult.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means. The
US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is Muslim.
While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when dealing
with nations who regard Christians as infidels.

Is that how you see it Lloyd? Or perhaps, the physical presentation of the
words "not a Christian nation" was enough for you to run with. By the way,
some states had "state" religions during the first few decades. None of the
founding fathers found that un-constitutional.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >That's not what I'm talking about. If homosexuality had the
potiential
> >for
> >> >having an enduring and stable family structure, it would exist
somewhere
> >on
> >> >Earth...laws be damned and bigotry be damned. It doesn't.
> >>
> >> How did marriage exist before the church and state teamed up to have
it?
> >>
> >
> >Proves my point. Before they "teamed up", they certainly weren't there
to
> >prohibit it. Yet it never emerged.
> >
> >
> >
> >> >I remember reading about the issue back when AIDS hit the gay
community.
> >> >*One* of the reasons it spread so quickly was the rampant promiscuity
in
> >the
> >> >community.
> >>
> >> And why is that? Because society will not recognize stable
relationships.
> >>
> >
> >In San Francisco? Uh, no.
> >
> >
> >> >Oh please. It's not bigotry to believe that it's a tough thing to be
> >> >homosexual. Nor does believing it create it. It doesn't mean much to
> >wake
> >> >up in the morning and think "I'm heterosexual". Much more so for
> >> >homosexuals. All the world's cultures have roots in the traditional
> >family
> >> >structure.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure, Nazism, Marxism, etc. Jim Jones' "Kool-Aid" cult. The KKK was a
> >very
> >> traditional family group.
> >>
> >
> >Your point?
>
> That traditional family groups aren't all good.
>

No one or no group is. That's a pretty lame point to feel like you have to
make. You can't use exceptions to invalidate the value and success of the
traditional family. I know you must know something of statistical analysis
and the traditional bell curve and standard deviations, etc.


> >
> >
> >> > To be homosexual is to be outside that "norm".
> >>
> >> So is to be Jewish, left-handed, or red-headed.
> >
> >read the sentence Lloyd.
>
> I did. You said homosexuality was not "normal," meaning, I presume, not
what
> most people are. I gave 3 other examples.
>

No I didn't. I said homosexuality is outside "that" norm.


> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >Over the
> >> >milennia of human existence, no homosexual based culture or "family"
unit
> >> >has emerged.
> >>
> >> Perhaps because society kept killing those who dared try?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> > it won't change anything for them
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you think *they're* the ones who should decide that? Or do you
> >think
> >> >> they're helpless and brainless and unable to determine their own
needs?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Biology determines it.
> >> >
> >> >> > and it would open the gates of chaos for the traditional family
and
> >the
> >> >> > institutions supporting it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Still waiting for your answer on exactly how two homosexuals getting
> >> >> married would affect, in *any* concrete way, your marriage and your
> >> >> family.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >The problem isn't how me and my wife are hurt if Frank and Sam accross
> >the
> >> >way are "married". The absurdity of that is obvious.
> >> >
> >> >Marriage is about creating a stable place to raise a family. It isn't
> >about
> >> >money, or hospital visitation, or tax returns.
> >>
> >> Then why are those benefits accorded married couples? And are you
saying
> >> people who are too old to raise a family should be barred from
marrying?
> >Or
> >> if one of the couple is infertile?
> >>
> >
> >Enhances welfare of family. No. No.
>
> So you were lying when you claimed marriage was "about creating a stable
place
> to raise a a family."
>

That statement stands as self evident, your $0.25 insult, "lying",
notwithstanding.

> >
> >>
> >> > To legally redefine marriage
> >> >to accomadate those things or to provide a legal and moral playground
for
> >> >imaginative adults is going in the wrong direction for those of us who
> >> >believe the purpose of marriage is all about families.
> >> >
> >> >I'm all for gays being able to solve practical problems such as
hospital
> >> >visitation or pick their partners children up from school and so on.
But
> >we
> >> >don't need to redefine marriage to get there.
> >>
> >> Then I take it you support civil unions?
> >>
> >
> >Did I say that?
> >
> >