Re: If the Government can get into the Religions business lets get into all of them

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/13/2012 11:03 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:03:32 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2012 9:07 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jjojqa$l5s$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>>> On 3/13/2012 7:00 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jjoeps$m8e$2...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 5:34 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Deucalion<som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:c94vl7hnohjodffnb...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What makes you think that the Church has any right to tell the
>>>>>>>> insurance company how to conduct their business?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They don't and haven't. They have simply said that they will not
>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>> artificial birth control in the employee health plan since it goes
>>>>>>> against the tenets of the church and they are the ones paying the
>>>>>>> premiums.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like they are telling the insurance company how to conduct
>>>>>> their business to me, namely the church says the insurance company
>>>>>> cannot add a policy rider directly with the employee for free birth
>>>>>> control.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is correct. Neither the employee nor the insurance company has any
>>>>> authorization to change the terms of the contract the Church made with
>>>>> the insurance company. Which, BTW, is what a rider does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rider - endorsement to an insurance policy that modifies clauses and
>>>>> provisions of the policy, including or excluding coverage.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...or do you think other people should be allowed to alter the terms of
>>>>> a contract you're involved in without your permission?
>>>>
>>>> When the government lawfully mandates it, yes. Is this mandate
>>>> lawful? I don't know. My point above being only that the religious
>>>> rights of the employer aren't the only thing at stake in this case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes they are! Nothing else matters. Well, the President of the United
>>> States telling a private company what it _must_ provide matters to those
>>> of us that think the Constitution actually matters, but the only issue
>>> here is that the church _not_ be forced to provide coverage for service
>>> that it finds offensive to the very core of the church.
>>>
>>> If some are going to scream that a privately installed and maintained
>>> Cross on a hilltop someplace violates the separation clause because
>>> religion is too close to government, then surely the same screamers
>>> should be calling the ACLU 24/7/365 over government telling a church
>>> what religious practices it must violate as it serves its employees.
>>>
>>> You cannot look at this any other way than the government telling
>>> religion that it has no right to its free expression thereof.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Consider this hypothetical. An Amish objects to paying into his
>>>> employees' Social Security on religious grounds. But, the employee
>>>> has a statutory right to have those payments made. Who wins the case
>>>> if the Amish employer sues the government?
>>>
>>> The Amish object to social security? Really?
>>
>>
>>
>> So because the Liberals already violate the constitution they feel it
>> should be easy to violate the constitution some more and force religions
>> to use their NON profits and other endeavors to provide what violates
>> their religious tenets?
>>
>>
>> That would mean that we can force all Mosques and their NON profits and
>> "Islamic community centers" to *HIRE WOMEN* and provide medical
>> insurance for Jews to get health care. They seem to be
>> "discriminating" against their Jewish friends.
>>
>> That Black Church that Obama was at for 20 years, well we will just have
>> to look into their lack of hiring and paying health care for Asians and
>> Mexicans....
>>
>>
>> If the Government can get into the Religions business lets get into all
>> of them.
>
> Religions should not be in the business of business. However, if they
> elect to do so, they should abide by the rules applicable to all the
> other businesses.

Tell government to stop taxing them.

--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.

[RD Sandman]

Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:hbr2m71fn1n7jh86t...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:27:11 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

> Are you sure that pastors, asset. pastors, etc, pay income taxes? You
> might want to check that out.
>

Hmmmmm, I remember a little story told to me about the collections in the
church. It seems that a reverend, a priest and a rabbi where discussing
that collection plate business when the question arose as to how the
plate was divided between the person and church. The reverend replied
that he drew a 10' circle around himself and threw the monies collected
into the air. What remained in the circle he gave to God and what left
the circle he kept. The priest said he did the same thing but in
reverse. What left the circle he gave to God and what stayed in the
circle, he kept. Then they both turned to the rabbi. The rabbi said
that he didn't need a circle. He simply threw all the money in the air
and whatever God wanted he took.


Now, I expect lightning from several corners.

--


If you woke up this morning, don't complain.....


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Well the IRS says you have to be a "NON PROFIT" and that means file a
tax form to prove you are a non profit. If you engage in politics you
lose your tax exemption.


So the IRS decides what is religion and what is NOT.

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:4F623881...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

Not really. They are deciding what is "engaging in politics" and what is
not.

[Stormin Mormon]

Ancient joke, but still relevant. Mormons just send all the tithes and
offerings to Salt Lake City, Utah, where God regularly visits.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0176106...@216.196.121.131...

[Stormin Mormon]

I guess someone has to decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4F623881...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/15/2012 11:43 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:44:17 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

> No. The IRS determines what is exempt and not.

The constitution says they can't tax or interfere with or create a
National religion, so if they tax it they must to be declaring that it
is NOT Religion.

[pyotr filipivich]

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61***spam...@hotmail.com> on Thu, 15 Mar
2012 21:53:11 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:

>I guess someone has to decide.
>
>Christopher A. Young
>Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
>.
>
>"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>message news:4F623881...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>
>Well the IRS says you have to be a "NON PROFIT" and that means file a
>tax form to prove you are a non profit. If you engage in politics you
>lose your tax exemption.

And that is what is known as the "Johnson Amendment" - after he
had a close re-election due to preachers speaking out against him. So
he tucked that little tidbit into the tax code.
--
pyotr filipivich
Watergate didn’t have a body count. Gunwalker has hundreds.

[Paul K. Dickman]

"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:q3q5m7953iubc9gdq...@4ax.com...

>
> And that is what is known as the "Johnson Amendment" - after he
> had a close re-election due to preachers speaking out against him. So
> he tucked that little tidbit into the tax code.
> --
> pyotr filipivich
> Watergate didn't have a body count. Gunwalker has hundreds.

Which re-election was that?
Johnson was elected to the senate in '48 with 66% of the vote.
He was re-elected in '54 with 85% of the vote.
In '64 he was re-elected to the presidency with 61% of the vote

Paul K. Dickman

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:4F62BD33...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

Excuse me, but just exactly where does the Constitution state that? The
closest I can find is in the First Amendment where it says, "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof;...."

Although churches were historically considered to be non taxed
institutions, they were not added to the 501C3 section of the tax code
until 1954 under LBJ. Prior to that, they didn't even need to apply for
that section of the code.

so if they tax it they must to be declaring that it
> is NOT Religion.

The tax exemption is partially due to the fact that they are not to speak
out or try to influence political issues. Ergo, if they have no voice,
they should not be taxed.

[RD Sandman]

Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:itk5m7hm2pidndfe6...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:10:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

> Nope, that's not what it says. It does say that tax money can not be
> used to support a particular religion though.
>

There are those, however, who say that they should be taxed but the First
Amendment does state "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...".
If the church is taxed, is that exercise really free?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

A tax doesn't prohibit the "FREE" exercise thereof?


banning or inhibiting one religion isn't establishing the one you have
NOT inhibited, as the "established" religion by de facto rational.

>
> Although churches were historically considered to be non taxed
> institutions, they were not added to the 501C3 section of the tax code
> until 1954 under LBJ. Prior to that, they didn't even need to apply for
> that section of the code.
>

As it should be. They should NOT apply to be a church.

> so if they tax it they must to be declaring that it
>> is NOT Religion.
>
> The tax exemption is partially due to the fact that they are not to speak
> out or try to influence political issues. Ergo, if they have no voice,
> they should not be taxed.

If they are a church they can NOT be forced to do anything that
infringes on their Religion.


Why does the Federal government pay a tax on gross money it pays it's
workers.... Isn't it a circle jerk to pay federal taxes on federal
paychecks that was paid with tax money? Why should churches pay a tax...?





--
*WHO IS JOHN GALT*

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:4F6391EC...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

I take it you haven't read my reply to Deucalion where I made that very
point.

> banning or inhibiting one religion isn't establishing the one you have
> NOT inhibited, as the "established" religion by de facto rational.
>
>
>>
>> Although churches were historically considered to be non taxed
>> institutions, they were not added to the 501C3 section of the tax
>> code until 1954 under LBJ. Prior to that, they didn't even need to
>> apply for that section of the code.
>>
>
> As it should be. They should NOT apply to be a church.

As long as they remain out of the political arena. Do you feel that
Reverends Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton should pay taxes?

>> so if they tax it they must to be declaring that it
>>> is NOT Religion.
>>
>> The tax exemption is partially due to the fact that they are not to
>> speak out or try to influence political issues. Ergo, if they have
>> no voice, they should not be taxed.
>
> If they are a church they can NOT be forced to do anything that
> infringes on their Religion.

And what about not being taxed or keeping quiet on political matters is
an infringement on their religion?

> Why does the Federal government pay a tax on gross money it pays it's
> workers....

It doesn't. The public sector workers do.

Isn't it a circle jerk to pay federal taxes on federal
> paychecks that was paid with tax money?

Do you honestly feel that public sector workers should not be taxed? And
would that be just income taxes or would you include state, local and
sales taxes? How about taxes on gasoline? Or excise taxes?

Why should churches pay a
> tax...?

They should if they enter the political arena.

[Jeff Strickland]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4F6391EC...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

I'm not sure I'm following along very well.

I _think_ churches don't pay taxes because the church that pays the highest
tax could be perceived as lobbying for special dispensation because it pays
more taxes than another church (the tax is not the special dispensation, but
the idea that the taxes paid might open the door to it lobbying for special
treatment). Alternatively, the church that is able to avoid taxes might be
seen as receiving deferential treatment because it has avoided something
that another cannot avoid.

To avoid the ugliness of appearing to do things for the lobbyists from the
church and/or looking like any church gets some treatement through a
loophole that does not apply to others, the feds do not collect income taxes
from any religious institution.

I do not believe that taxes, in and of themselves, are a religious
infringement -- a religion can exercise the free expression thereof and
still be taxed. I'm not suggesting we should tax religion, I'm only
suggesting that free expression is not the reason we do not tax them.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Weren't Muslims taxed for saying their prayers about 700 years ago?

--
*WHO IS JOHN GALT*

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NOT if they are practicing religion.... If they are running a strip
club.... well yes if it isn't a place for prayer. If they can get
someone in there to pray then it is religion.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

What then if we only put an Income tax on any school that teaches
Socialism, or any school that teach Global Warming. It would NOT be
infringing on their free speech would it?


But you might see many schools drop that curriculum and fill their time
with TEA PARTY ISSUES that are NOT taxed.


Looks like it is a tax on religion to halt the spread of religion, like
a tax on teaching Global Warming would be used to halt the spread of the
Global warming movement.


Taxes are used to stop/impede smoking and many other things and are
called SIN taxes.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/16/2012 11:50 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:18:04 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> (Super snip)

>
>>
>> If they are a church they can NOT be forced to do anything that
>> infringes on their Religion.
>

> You may want to have a serious discussion with the Mormon's about how
> well that works out in practice. There is a reason that Mitt Romney's
> daddy was born in Mexico.


Governments rarely lives up to their words. They are made up of liars.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:05:31 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

They are both very vocal political speakers for the Left. In fact..their
ministry appears to be DNC based, rather than Bible based.

Afterall...wasnt it Jessie Jackson who was fucking his girl friend while
on the phone with Bill Clinton at the same time Bill Clinton was
getting a hummer?

Something about the 7th Commandment .....?

Gunner

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/16/2012 1:48 AM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:10:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

> Nope, that's not what it says. It does say that tax money can not be
> used to support a particular religion though.

Taxation yet they get no benefits from the taxation?



And they can't preach any political rhetoric?




That's a one way street isn't it?




Like taxation with no representation, the religions pay tax and get no
return from the government for their tax.



Obviously Churches can't use THE Bridges that were funded by FEDERAL tax
dollars or that would be helping a religion with tax dollars correct?


--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22]

He has the most who is most content with the least.
Diogenes

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:41:33 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

WE get taxed. And our tax money can't be used to support their
religion. It *can* be used to defend them with an army, and to put out
fires if their churches catch fire, and to arrest and try crooks who
steal from them. They can drive over the same roads that all of us
taxpayers pay for.

In other words, they get the same benefits and protections as everyone
else. What they DON'T get is benefits to help them prosyletize or
promote their religion over others -- although they do get some tax
breaks that reduce the burden on them to do so. That's the way the
Founders designed it, and the spirit of it is carried out under the
law. There is little in the Constitution to say how it all should be
implemented -- something that's typical of the Constitution, and the
entire reason for Congress and for the "implied powers."

>
>
>
>And they can't preach any political rhetoric?

No charitable organization can. If they do, they lose their tax-exempt
status.

And you just imagined what the Constitution says. It doesn't say you
can't tax religion. It just says you can't interfere with the exercise
of religion. As Jefferson and others pointed out, that means they can
preach but they can't violate the civil laws in doing so.

There's nothing in there about taxation. That's all statutory law.

>
>
>
>
>That's a one way street isn't it?

Nope. It's a no-way street when it comes to promoting a religion.

>
>
>
>
>Like taxation with no representation, the religions pay tax and get no
>return from the government for their tax.

See above.

>
>
>
>Obviously Churches can't use THE Bridges that were funded by FEDERAL tax
>dollars or that would be helping a religion with tax dollars correct?

Try re-engaging your brain. See if there is any sense left in there.

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:HrR8r.151154$%Q3.9...@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com:

How about when they speak up to address political issues? Or badmouth
Republicans?

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:4F63CF94...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

I don't know. Do you have a cite?

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:rzR8r.151722$2a.4...@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com:

If they were taxed as a group and no one else was selected that way, yes,
it would be an infringement on their free speech.

> But you might see many schools drop that curriculum and fill their
> time with TEA PARTY ISSUES that are NOT taxed.

What curriculum? Non secular studies?

> Looks like it is a tax on religion to halt the spread of religion,
> like a tax on teaching Global Warming would be used to halt the spread
> of the Global warming movement.
>
> Taxes are used to stop/impede smoking and many other things and are
> called SIN taxes.

Methinks you have lost the context of the thread.

[RD Sandman]

Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:u928m75ptf99f3l5f...@4ax.com:

Actually, it says that the feds cannot support the establishment of a
particular religion. It does not specify in what manner that support
could exist.

>>
>>There are those, however, who say that they should be taxed but the
>>First Amendment does state "...or prohibiting the free exercise
>>thereof;...". If the church is taxed, is that exercise really free?
>

> Sure, the exercise is free. However, the monetary transactions would
> not be.
>

Do you feel that a church should be taxed if it spoke out on political
issues? What if they took your side? Would you still tax them or would
it only apply if they dissented with you? Does free speech only apply to
your side? ;)

[JimmyHaslip]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA01963BD9...@216.196.121.131...

^^^^^^

IMHO, Churches should be charged taxes on everything they own and do
business with, just like normal people are regarding income, land, and, well
business.
PLUS, they should be charged more for "green house taxes" now, as most of
them have those HUGE cathedrals that are lofty with huge ceilings that waste
energy .
A "Church" should be VERY energy efficient, so that the suckers that donate
to it, have it's moneys go TO the poor, instead of the heating and cooling
costs of those pathetic over priced buildings and Faggoty silk robes and
Hammond organs.

By the way, I recently sold my '78 Hammond C-3, With it's accompanied Leslie
Model 122 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hammond_b3_con_leslie_122.jpg

(Picture shown is a B3.. not mine... I had a C-3 Full Cabinet. )

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/17/2012 12:48 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:41:33 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

> You arguments have become absurd. Is this the best that you have?


No more absurd than me being forced to pay for your contraceptives.



Sometimes absurd people can't see how absurd they are until someone does
something just as absurd to them.


I point out the absurd like a shock jock would yell and curse at
listeners, in hopes that it wakes people up.


You have been awakened, but you just refuse to open your eyes.

[de...@dudu.org]

I can see you've never had the need or opportunity to provide birth
control for a woman in your life, and a stupid bitter asshole like you
certainly isn't going to start now.

>
>
>
>Sometimes absurd people can't see how absurd they are until someone does
>something just as absurd to them.

<snork !!!!!!>

>
>
>I point out the absurd like a shock jock would yell and curse at
>listeners, in hopes that it wakes people up.
>
>
>You have been awakened, but you just refuse to open your eyes.

The irony here is almost too much to stand....

[RD Sandman]

"JimmyHaslip" <Yellow...@bass.gov> wrote in
news:4f64cd0d$0$5021$607e...@cv.net:

I can't wait to hear what you really think. ;)

> By the way, I recently sold my '78 Hammond C-3, With it's accompanied
> Leslie Model 122
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hammond_b3_con_leslie_122.jpg
>
> (Picture shown is a B3.. not mine... I had a C-3 Full Cabinet. )

I just gave a Conn to the Salvation Army. Look here at figure 3.

http://theatreorgans.com/hammond/keng/kenhtml/ConnOrgans.htm

It was my wife's. I could play about two songs on it. ;(

[JimmyHaslip]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message

news:XnsA019782E4...@216.196.121.131...

^^^^
I'm fairly clear.
The churches people should be forced to eat an outfit themselves with the
same stuff that they give to the poor that they say they give.

> By the way, I recently sold my '78 Hammond C-3, With it's accompanied
> Leslie Model 122
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hammond_b3_con_leslie_122.jpg
>
> (Picture shown is a B3.. not mine... I had a C-3 Full Cabinet. )

I just gave a Conn to the Salvation Army. Look here at figure 3.

http://theatreorgans.com/hammond/keng/kenhtml/ConnOrgans.htm

It was my wife's. I could play about two songs on it. ;(

^^^^^^
Nice, I'm sure.. But nothing like a Hammond that a rock star could Kick
around.

[RD Sandman]

"JimmyHaslip" <Yellow...@bass.gov> wrote in
news:4f64e2ca$0$28363$607e...@cv.net:

>> By the way, I recently sold my '78 Hammond C-3, With it's accompanied
>> Leslie Model 122
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hammond_b3_con_leslie_122.jpg
>>
>> (Picture shown is a B3.. not mine... I had a C-3 Full Cabinet. )
>
> I just gave a Conn to the Salvation Army. Look here at figure 3.
>
> http://theatreorgans.com/hammond/keng/kenhtml/ConnOrgans.htm
>
> It was my wife's. I could play about two songs on it. ;(
>
> ^^^^^^
> Nice, I'm sure.. But nothing like a Hammond that a rock star could
> Kick around.
>

It was nice but it didn't cost me anywhere near as much as a Hammond. ;)

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:qdl9m7tcv1dpr7p2v...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:17:03 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>> You arguments have become absurd. Is this the best that you have?
>>
>>
>>No more absurd than me being forced to pay for your contraceptives.
>
> I can see you've never had the need or opportunity to provide birth
> control for a woman in your life, and a stupid bitter asshole like you
> certainly isn't going to start now.

Neither have you.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/17/2012 2:21 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:17:03 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>> You arguments have become absurd. Is this the best that you have?
>>
>>
>> No more absurd than me being forced to pay for your contraceptives.
>
> I can see you've never had the need or opportunity to provide birth
> control for a woman in your life, and a stupid bitter asshole like you
> certainly isn't going to start now.
>

You are blind as a bat.... I was Married for a long time, raised 3
kids, two were girls.


If my kids expect "you" to buy them contraceptives, I failed as a
parent. It's obvious your parents failed.


If I provide contraceptives it's because I am dipping my wick and it's
my responsibility to maintain my personal freedom.


You're just parasitic scum that wants someone else to wipe your ass
while you shit where you eat.


But then I'm just a bitter stupid asshole that managed to live an entire
lifetime without begging and whining like you, until others paid for you
to dip that tiny little limpdick into some girl that has bigger balls
than you.


You must belong to the "GAY GENERATION", it seems we have reached a time
when government indoctrination has made the men not just useless, but
they are a waste of time and space.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/17/2012 12:49 PM, Deucalion wrote:

> You brag about not being Christian. Why do you worry about
> "commandments"?



that wasn't me with the 7th commandment..... but I do toss some
religion out there from time to time just to point out that they have
RIGHTS also. The same as you.


I don't care for religion, but that doesn't me I want it eradicated.



Some aspects of religion are interesting and maybe even useful. But
the main point is that it is NOT your RIGHT to ban religion or otherwise
spread your HATE for people due to their religion.


It may be that you think your HATE is special and different from the KKK
or others, but it really isn't.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/17/2012 12:48 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:41:33 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

> You arguments have become absurd. Is this the best that you have?

We asked you first.... but you still want contraceptives paid for and
distributed by the Pope.

[de...@dudu.org]

Dude, I've been married for 34 years to the most beautiful and
incredible woman I have ever known. Actually, right at this minute
she is vacuuming up after the 3 labs while I am watch our grandchild.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

["The community that Muhammad maintained was known as the umma(h) . Its
members followed Muhammad�s code of law, called shari�a, which he formed
from his revelations. Muhammad became a leader of the Muslim people in
every way. He could rightfully be called a political and military
leader, a warrior, an economic leader, and a social reformer. He waged
war against powerful nonbelievers. *He collected taxes* *from*
*Muslims*, and even offered protection for non-Muslim people who would
contribute to his community. He led raiding expeditions, which were, at
that time, a common Arabian practice when a tribe needed sustenance. And
he expressed firm opinions on issues ranging from marriage, to children,
to slavery, to inheritances."]


http://www.muslimgateway.com/community/prayer/articles/f_lib_article_hc_islam.html



["The Umayyad aristocracy viewed Islam as a religion for Arabs only;[98]
the economy of the Umayyad empire was based on the assumption that *a
majority of non-Muslims (Dhimmis) would pay taxes to* *the* *minority of
Muslim Arabs*. A non-Arab who wanted to convert to Islam was supposed to
first become a client of an Arab tribe. Even after conversion, these new
Muslims (mawali) did not achieve social and economic equality with the
Arabs. The descendants of Muhammad's uncle Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib
rallied discontented mawali, poor Arabs, and some Shi'a against the
Umayyads and overthrew them with the help of the general Abu Muslim,
inaugurating the Abbasid dynasty in 750 and moved the capital to
Baghdad.[99]"]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

[Gunner Asch]

Ive got a rather nice Thomas organ..model Jester 135 that I need to move
out of the house.

Works very well in all functions.
Its got the various rythem makers, synthesisers and the keys light up in
some combination Ive not bothered to figure out yet.

Its a small instrument..well..smaller than many Ive seen
About 40" wide..dont have a tape handy at the moment.

I picked it up at an auction about 2 yrs ago and had plans on
learning to play a keyboard..but..sigh..just dont have the interest or
the time. So Im staying with the banjo and mountain dulcimer...


Know any one who wants to play..but doesnt have a lot of room?
Swap/trade/Free

if anyone is interested, let me know and
Ill shoot some pictures of it

Might be fun for the family to putter around with on these cold winters
nights.

[JimmyHaslip]

DooDoo wrote in message news:kjt9m7ddr4frb3j00...@4ax.com...

Dude, I've been married for 34 years to the most beautiful and
incredible woman I have ever known.

^^^^!


DooDoo doesn't realize "It's a man, baby!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOIEGz7o_s

[JimmyHaslip]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message

news:XnsA019816DB...@216.196.121.131...

"JimmyHaslip" <Yellow...@bass.gov> wrote in
news:4f64e2ca$0$28363$607e...@cv.net:

>> By the way, I recently sold my '78 Hammond C-3, With it's accompanied
>> Leslie Model 122
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hammond_b3_con_leslie_122.jpg
>>
>> (Picture shown is a B3.. not mine... I had a C-3 Full Cabinet. )
>
> I just gave a Conn to the Salvation Army. Look here at figure 3.
>
> http://theatreorgans.com/hammond/keng/kenhtml/ConnOrgans.htm
>
> It was my wife's. I could play about two songs on it. ;(
>
> ^^^^^^
> Nice, I'm sure.. But nothing like a Hammond that a rock star could
> Kick around.
>

It was nice but it didn't cost me anywhere near as much as a Hammond. ;)

^^^^

I didn't pay for mine either...well except for the moving fee! :(
I inherited it after my father croaked and my stump stupid brother was gonna
throw it away.

Going for $8k now!

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:4F64F77B...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

Thanks.

[RD Sandman]

"JimmyHaslip" <Yellow...@bass.gov> wrote in
news:4f650288$0$15003$607e...@cv.net:

I paid $700 for mine. You win. ;(

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:hju9m7lripl5vm6b3...@4ax.com:

Not off hand. Ours became a place holder rather than a warm music maker.
As I noted, I paid $700 for it and had to fix the tremulo. About the
only thing on it that was fairly modern. It had a spinning speaker to
add a tremulo effect if you wanted it.

[Scout]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4F64F0F9...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

> On 3/17/2012 2:21 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:17:03 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You arguments have become absurd. Is this the best that you have?
>>>
>>>
>>> No more absurd than me being forced to pay for your contraceptives.
>>
>> I can see you've never had the need or opportunity to provide birth
>> control for a woman in your life, and a stupid bitter asshole like you
>> certainly isn't going to start now.
>>
>
> You are blind as a bat.... I was Married for a long time, raised 3
> kids, two were girls.

You have to forgive Dudu, he's got no experience with a wife, and probably
not much more with a girl friend.

Farm animals on the other hand he could probably tell you more than most
people would want to know.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:kjt9m7ddr4frb3j00...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:07:46 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:qdl9m7tcv1dpr7p2v...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:17:03 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You arguments have become absurd. Is this the best that you have?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No more absurd than me being forced to pay for your contraceptives.
>>>
>>> I can see you've never had the need or opportunity to provide birth
>>> control for a woman in your life, and a stupid bitter asshole like you
>>> certainly isn't going to start now.
>>
>>Neither have you.
>>
>>
> Dude, I've been married for 34 years

BULLSHIT.

You're not even 34, much less married for that long.

[Scout]

"JimmyHaslip" <Yellow...@bass.gov> wrote in message
news:4f65005d$0$11750$607e...@cv.net...

Sometimes, I wonder if it's not a dissociative identity disorder thinking
himself to be his G'da

After all, it's sort of weird to have a high school senior claiming to have
a 50 year old wife, and otherwise claiming to be involved in events that
occurred before he was even born.

[Gray Guest]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:kjt9m7ddr4frb3j00...@4ax.com:

Sure you do. You married her after you left the Indian Air Force as a
Brigadier General and before you smoked pot with Ravi and the Beatles.

Nobody with an iota of sense would leave a child in your care.

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:43:39 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>He could rightfully be called a political and military
>leader, a warrior, an economic leader, and a social reformer. He waged
>war against powerful nonbelievers. *He collected taxes* *from*
>*Muslims*, and even offered protection for non-Muslim people who would
>contribute to his community. He led raiding expeditions, which were, at
>that time, a common Arabian practice when a tribe needed sustenance. And
>he expressed firm opinions on issues ranging from marriage, to children,
>to slavery, to inheritances."]
>
>
>http://www.muslimgateway.com/community/prayer/articles/f_lib_article_hc_islam.html
>

Lets see..dictator, who stole from the people, used extortion to keep
them paying and then robbed and raided others for funds..and he had a
bullshit line for every discussion.

Hell..even the Vikings were more honest than that.

[de...@dudu.org]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

funniest part is you have no fucking clue how wrong you are.

[Gunner Asch]

Inside...and out.

[RD Sandman]

Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:ngpam7h1mgjop52pc...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:48:15 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in

>>news:u928m75ptf99f3l5f...@4ax.com:

>>Actually, it says that the feds cannot support the establishment of a
>>particular religion. It does not specify in what manner that support
>>could exist.
>
> Well, since that support cannot exist, I would think that what form it
> can not exist in is irrelevant.

Bingo!!!

>>>>There are those, however, who say that they should be taxed but the
>>>>First Amendment does state "...or prohibiting the free exercise
>>>>thereof;...". If the church is taxed, is that exercise really free?
>>>

>>> Sure, the exercise is free. However, the monetary transactions
>>> would not be.
>>>
>>
>>Do you feel that a church should be taxed if it spoke out on political
>>issues? What if they took your side? Would you still tax them or
>>would it only apply if they dissented with you? Does free speech only
>>apply to your side? ;)
>
> IMO, Church transactions should be taxed just like any other business.
> Jesus was pretty plain about how he felt about taxes when he said to
> render unto Cesar those things which are Cesar's. On the other hand,
> I do not personally feel that the Church should be involved in
> politics.

Then it shouldn't be taxed. Otherwise that is an example of taxation
without representation.

It (the Church) has had a long history of delving into
> politics and most of it has not been pretty. One only has to look at
> the Arab countries to see what you get when religion and politics are
> involved with each other. The only mixing of politics and religion
> should be made by each individual member, in secret, at the ballot
> box.

Again, we agree. Mixing religion and politics creates a theocracy....not
a republic or a representative democracy.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/18/2012 12:46 AM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:28:43 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

> Now you resorted to telling lies. Does this mean that you are
> finished? I believe it does.


So then you are saying that you don't want church charity funds that go
to help their tax free charity hospitals, to be use to pay for insurance
that includes contraceptives?


How about the people that donate to a charity and don't want to pay for
contraceptives and Abortions..... will they continue to give to a
hospital that offers it's employees insurance that is including
contraceptives or Abortions?



You can sugar coat Socialism all you want and tell me that I am NOT
paying money to a Socialist government and I will still NOT touch what
you are selling because Socialism is NOT what I consider a valid honest
philosophy and I will never contribute to it, I will sit in your
Socialist prison or turn to attacking your socialist icons if given no
other options.

When you take away peoples freedom they will turn against you.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:jk330n
$fh2$1...@dont-email.me:

Maybe he means dog years....but even that is a stretch.

[RD Sandman]

Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:p4dcm71d81bcci2bg...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:25:55 -0500, RD Sandman

> You may want to look up the type of government that existed when Jesus
> made that "render unto Caesar" comment for the religious perspective.

Why would I wish to do that? I am not religious.


> However, from a Constitutional perspective, your assertion would only
> be true if its members did not have the right to vote.

Hmmmm, do you believe that Citizen's United should stand if the church
has no say in government? Just curious.

A church can
> go a long...long ways towards endorsing a particular candidate/party
> without ever calling names and there is nothing wrong with that.

And they do. However, there comes a point where I believe that they
should lose 501C3 status if they become too vocal.

> It is when the Church becomes directly involved in politics or
> politics becomes directly involved in the Church that I have
> objections.

Well, that is the situation in the free birth control problem.

I guess that sounds a lot like that "separation of church
> and state" argument doesn't it? I guess that you will have to
> remember that I was alive when Blue laws were prevalent where I lived.

And I am older than you are.

>> It (the Church) has had a long history of delving into
>>> politics and most of it has not been pretty. One only has to look
>>> at the Arab countries to see what you get when religion and politics
>>> are involved with each other. The only mixing of politics and
>>> religion should be made by each individual member, in secret, at the
>>> ballot box.
>>
>>Again, we agree. Mixing religion and politics creates a
>>theocracy....not a republic or a representative democracy.
>

> I have a feeling that we may be in complete agreement, but I'm having
> trouble expressing my beliefs adequately.

We mostly are. I am only in this discussion because I find it an
interesting one.

[Who Is John Galt]

On 3/18/2012 1:03 AM, Deucalion wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:17:03 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2012 12:48 PM, Deucalion wrote:

>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:41:33 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/16/2012 1:48 AM, Deucalion wrote:

>>>> Taxation yet they get no benefits from the taxation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And they can't preach any political rhetoric?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a one way street isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like taxation with no representation, the religions pay tax and get no
>>>> return from the government for their tax.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obviously Churches can't use THE Bridges that were funded by FEDERAL tax
>>>> dollars or that would be helping a religion with tax dollars correct?
>>>

>>> You arguments have become absurd. Is this the best that you have?
>>
>>
>> No more absurd than me being forced to pay for your contraceptives.
>>
>>
>>

>> Sometimes absurd people can't see how absurd they are until someone does
>> something just as absurd to them.
>>
>>
>> I point out the absurd like a shock jock would yell and curse at
>> listeners, in hopes that it wakes people up.
>>
>>
>> You have been awakened, but you just refuse to open your eyes.
>
> You do remember that you are talking to the person who really believes
> that, if a person doesn't have health insurance or the ability to pay,
> the hospital should have the right to refuse to treat them don't you?


You do realize that the grocery store does just that.....

Also the Gas Station that sells the gas that you need to use to get to
the hospital will NOT "give" you free gas to get to that hospital.

Why is the Hospital any more evil than the gas station when the hospital
will NOT giving you the water or soap or electricity you need so that
any test or procedure can be performed?

If anything the Hospitals should be prosecuted for price gouging because
they charge ridiculous sums for aspirins in an emergency situation just
as gas stations after a hurricane sometimes charge ridiculous prices for
their gas.





Liberal-Socialism == stupidity.





Does the AUTO parts store put a Starter on your car for free so you can
go the the HOSPITAL for free medical care?


Do you have free shoes to get you there for free?


*FREE SHIT IS A DYSTOPIAN SOCIALIST INSANITY*

[RD Sandman]

Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:qhhcm7lltvj4qu1of...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:14:12 -0500, RD Sandman

> Then you should not engage in religious arguments.

I'm not. I am not taking sides, I am only explaining what the argument
is. I do present it from the church's view as I think it is an
interesting one that brings in religious beliefs, the Constitution's
separation of church and state and has tones of the government telling a
private entity what it must purchase from another private entity much
like its individual mandate in Obamacare.

>>> However, from a Constitutional perspective, your assertion would only
>>> be true if its members did not have the right to vote.
>>
>>Hmmmm, do you believe that Citizen's United should stand if the church
>>has no say in government? Just curious.
>>
>> A church can
>>> go a long...long ways towards endorsing a particular candidate/party
>>> without ever calling names and there is nothing wrong with that.
>>
>>And they do. However, there comes a point where I believe that they
>>should lose 501C3 status if they become too vocal.
>

> I don't believe that they should be tax exempt period.

That's another discussion for another day, but we probably are pretty
close to agreement on that one also.

>>> It is when the Church becomes directly involved in politics or
>>> politics becomes directly involved in the Church that I have
>>> objections.
>>
>>Well, that is the situation in the free birth control problem.
>

> It is indeed. The church is trying to tell the government how to
> regulate a business. The government should stand firm and treat
> business like business and churches like churches.

Then it should be simple for the church to simply opt out and furnish
healthcare insurance that fits its tenets. For example, does your
insurance get to say what diseases and coverages they will provide? Like
co-pays, etc.. or the cost of premiums?

>> I guess that sounds a lot like that "separation of church
>>> and state" argument doesn't it? I guess that you will have to
>>> remember that I was alive when Blue laws were prevalent where I
lived.
>>
>>And I am older than you are.
>

> Probably, but did you live smack dab middle of the Bible Belt?

I lived a long time in Minnesota with all those lakes and fish. In the
old days, you had to hid behind a tree to even bait your hook.

I am in the discussion not through belief....I believe we have already
covered that a few times.

>>>> It (the Church) has had a long history of delving into
>>>>> politics and most of it has not been pretty. One only has to look
>>>>> at the Arab countries to see what you get when religion and
politics
>>>>> are involved with each other. The only mixing of politics and
>>>>> religion should be made by each individual member, in secret, at
the
>>>>> ballot box.
>>>>
>>>>Again, we agree. Mixing religion and politics creates a
>>>>theocracy....not a republic or a representative democracy.
>>>
>>> I have a feeling that we may be in complete agreement, but I'm having
>>> trouble expressing my beliefs adequately.
>>
>>We mostly are. I am only in this discussion because I find it an
>>interesting one.
>

> I hit the thread with the baseball bat (filter) three times and it
> wouldn't go away. Perhaps it was a sign?

Perhaps. ;)

[Gunner Asch]

Hear Hear!! Bravo!! Bravo Indeed!!!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/18/2012 5:56 PM, Deucalion wrote:

> You and I are in agreement, except there is a lot more to medical
> tests and procedures that electricity, soap, and water. You do know
> who it was that required hospitals to treat patients regardless of
> ability to pay don't you?
>



Yes they were the people that had yet another moment of stupidity.


It's a growing trend for all parties.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/18/2012 5:56 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:45:36 -0400, Who Is John Galt
> <MenOfT...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>

> You and I are in agreement, except there is a lot more to medical
> tests and procedures that electricity, soap, and water. You do know
> who it was that required hospitals to treat patients regardless of
> ability to pay don't you?
>

Progressives in All the parties....

[Lookout]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:09:45 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

No, that's wrong. They must STABILIZE an EMERGENT patient..that's as
much as they have to do. If you are NOT an emergency they don't have
to treat you.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

True enough, someone said it And I accepted it as true and it's NOT
totally true, but under ObamaCare/Socialist medical care single payer
that is being ushered in is partially and will be totally true.

And what "I" said still holds true as the hospitals do over charge for
stuff and the gas station won't give out free gas for you to get to the
hospital.....

If a hospital refuses to treat you, they better have made sure you
aren't going to die of anything but old age, lest they will be sued for
more money than the hospital will ever be able to pay and the cost of
aspirin will increase yet again.

This reminds me of the Liberals plan to get everyone a home mortgage and
any Bank that refuse a loan would be sued for billions and then the cost
of their over draft and ATM fees would necessarily skyrocket....



This is all an attack on Capitalism by the Socialists, it has been for
100 years and will continue to be until it is recognized and seen for
what it really is. Obama has his Socialist fingerprints on the Mortgage
collapse and now his fingerprints will be on the Health care industry
collapse and government take over.


Every where you look at the economic disasters there will be a common
thread of Socialist fingerprints.


Occam's razor or Ockham's razor

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be
multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the
simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an
explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of
what is already known. Occam's razor is named after the deviser of the
rule, English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham (1285?-1349?).

[Lookout]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:08:01 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

No, there is no such thing as ObamaCare/Socialist medical care single
payer
You're lying again

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:vtvem7hhihttdgqg1...@4ax.com:

You are correct. It is emergency service only.

> They must STABILIZE an EMERGENT patient..that's as
> much as they have to do.

Not quite.....they will treat you. It is more than simply stabilizing
someone.

> If you are NOT an emergency they don't have
> to treat you.
>

The problem is that by the time they have arrived at the fact you are not
in an emergency situation, it may be that all they really have left to do
is to write a prescription.

You should know that all emergency conditions are not trauma.

[Lookout]

Nope. They must stabilize you. PERIOD. If you are stabile they can
refuse any more examination or treatment.

>> If you are NOT an emergency they don't have
>> to treat you.
>>
>
>The problem is that by the time they have arrived at the fact you are not
>in an emergency situation, it may be that all they really have left to do
>is to write a prescription.
>

They WON'T do that. What happens if you have a reaction? Then they
could be liable.
You're have no idea what you're talking about.

>You should know that all emergency conditions are not trauma.

Never said they were.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:6nbfm79n5u0jsv29j...@4ax.com:

Yes, but they usually don't. They usually give you a script for whatever
ails you and then discharge you. One reason why some of the ERs in
hospitals here get used for the flu. Urgent care isn't free....the ER
is.

>>> If you are NOT an emergency they don't have
>>> to treat you.
>>>
>>
>>The problem is that by the time they have arrived at the fact you are
>>not in an emergency situation, it may be that all they really have
>>left to do is to write a prescription.
>>
> They WON'T do that.

Bullshit.

What happens if you have a reaction? Then they
> could be liable.
> You're have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, mon ami, I do.

>>You should know that all emergency conditions are not trauma.
>
> Never said they were.
>

[Lookout]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:22:49 -0500, RD Sandman

So now you are changing your story. Good..because you're wrong again.
No, they usually DON'T.

> They usually give you a script for whatever ails you and then discharge you.

As I said they can't give you a SCRIP (as in prescription) because of
liability problems.

>One reason why some of the ERs in hospitals here get used for the flu. Urgent care isn't free....the ER
>is.
>

True. But the flu can be contagious and that means they have to
protect the public.

>>>> If you are NOT an emergency they don't have
>>>> to treat you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The problem is that by the time they have arrived at the fact you are
>>>not in an emergency situation, it may be that all they really have
>>>left to do is to write a prescription.
>>>
>> They WON'T do that.
>
>Bullshit.
>

Nope. The truth.

> What happens if you have a reaction? Then they
>> could be liable.
>> You're have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>Yes, mon ami, I do.
>

No you don't.