Re: Why Jodi Hoffman must be called, etc. etc.

Lizard wrote:
>At 07:39 PM 11/4/97 -0500, Jodi Hoffman wrote:
>>You're a bright one, aren't you?  
>>Not that I feel I owe anyone an explanation, but since you took the time 
>>and trouble to write so damn much.....
>>CIN donated the webspace.  Another Christian organization arranged for 
>>someone to build the website and, well, here I am.  
>>Aside from the fact that I didn't want to have to pay for _anything_, I 
>>think that was very generous of them, don't you?
>
>So, allying yourself with people who would gladly force *your* childen to
>pray to *their* God doesn't bother you in the least. Fascinating.

More telling, she doesn't seem to have a problem using a religious (and
therefore tax-exempt) organization to push a political agenda. Apparently
that whole 'separation of church and state' thing only applies when it's
convenient.

If religions want to play politics, the least we can do is get them to pay
for the privilege. I'd feel a certain guilty pleasure seeing some of those
bottom-feeders taxed into penury.

At 7:10 PM -0700 11/4/97, Anonymous wrote:

>More telling, she doesn't seem to have a problem using a religious (and
>therefore tax-exempt) organization to push a political agenda. Apparently
>that whole 'separation of church and state' thing only applies when it's
>convenient.
>
>If religions want to play politics, the least we can do is get them to pay
>for the privilege. I'd feel a certain guilty pleasure seeing some of those
>bottom-feeders taxed into penury.

Nonsense. And a dangerous course.

One can decide to "tax churches" or to "not tax churches." I have no
particularly strong opinion on either option.

But one must definitely _not_ base the decision to tax or not to tax on the
opinions expressed by a church!

One cannot decide to tax the Catholic Church "into penury" because its
anti-abortion views have become politically incorrect in the last 30 years.
Nor can one decide to tax the tempes and synagogues of Judaism "into
penury" because they are centers of support for the Zionist Entity.

Think about it.

--Tim May



The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May Writes:

> Nonsense. And a dangerous course.

> One can decide to "tax churches" or to "not tax churches." I have no
> particularly strong opinion on either option. 

> But one must definitely _not_ base the decision to tax or not to tax on
> the opinions expressed by a church!

> One cannot decide to tax the Catholic Church "into penury" because its
> anti-abortion views have become politically incorrect in the last 30
> years.  Nor can one decide to tax the tempes and synagogues of Judaism
> "into penury" because they are centers of support for the Zionist
> Entity. 

> Think about it. 

I have no objection to churches holding opinions.  However, when they
become a tax-exempt mechanism for the illegal injection of money into
political campaigns, taxing is the minimally appropriate response.

There is a big difference between saying "Our religion disapproves of
abortion", and saying "Vote for candidate Y and attend the big rally we
are paying for out of last week's poorbox donations." 

The Christian right wing has made a mockery of the separation of church
and state in its conspicuous and direct support of particular political
candidates.

--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Tim May wrote:


>
>Nonsense. And a dangerous course.
>
>One can decide to "tax churches" or to "not tax churches." I have no
>particularly strong opinion on either option.
>
>But one must definitely _not_ base the decision to tax or not to tax on the
>opinions expressed by a church!
>
>One cannot decide to tax the Catholic Church "into penury" because its
>anti-abortion views have become politically incorrect in the last 30 years.
>Nor can one decide to tax the tempes and synagogues of Judaism "into
>penury" because they are centers of support for the Zionist Entity.
>
>Think about it.
>
>--Tim May

You should only tax churches who hand out guns instead of bizarre flat
bread and intone "this is my body, use it for target practice".
You should also tax any church where the priests routinely recruit young
boys and tell them anal sex with a priest will get them into heaven.
Also tax any church where the sermon is immediately followed by an orgy.

At 9:58 PM -0700 11/4/97, Eric Cordian wrote:

>I have no objection to churches holding opinions.  However, when they
>become a tax-exempt mechanism for the illegal injection of money into
>political campaigns, taxing is the minimally appropriate response.

Taxation or not taxing is not a favor I entrust to government. This is the
way countries with state religions favor the state religion over other
religions.

Fortunately, we do things differently in this country.


>There is a big difference between saying "Our religion disapproves of
>abortion", and saying "Vote for candidate Y and attend the big rally we
>are paying for out of last week's poorbox donations."

How a church spends its money is not for government to approve of or
disapprove of.


>The Christian right wing has made a mockery of the separation of church
>and state in its conspicuous and direct support of particular political
>candidates.

The "separation of church and state" refers to what power the state may
have over the practice of religion, the establishment of a state religion,
etc.. It has nothing whatsoever to do with stopping the Amish, say, from
voting in blocs for various causes.

See my other post on this topic. The Christian *LEFT* has been active for
several decades in opposing U.S. involvement in wars, in aiding and
abetting draft dodgers, in supporting Marxist regimes in Latin America, in
establishing the Sanctuary Movement, in sabotaging ICBM production
facilities, and in urging churchgoers to vote the agenda being pushed.

So?

Tax all churches or tax no churches, but don't give government the power to
decide if a religion is "worthy" of special tax treatment.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> At 9:58 PM -0700 11/4/97, Eric Cordian wrote:
> See my other post on this topic. The Christian *LEFT* has been active for
> several decades in opposing U.S. involvement in wars, in aiding and
> abetting draft dodgers, in supporting Marxist regimes in Latin America, in
> establishing the Sanctuary Movement, in sabotaging ICBM production
> facilities, and in urging churchgoers to vote the agenda being pushed.
> So?
> Tax all churches or tax no churches, but don't give government the power to
> decide if a religion is "worthy" of special tax treatment.

	While I agree with some of your points, I would think that a clear line can
be drawn between Religions as expressed in organized churches, and religously 
oriented political organizations. Raplh Reed & Crew have distinctly different 
characteristics than does Da Pope. 

	I don't believe that the churches religious activities should be taxed or
regualted, however their commercial enterprises should be taxed like every other 
corporation.