The early days of intelligent design

18 Responses

  1. Here is some of the worst offenders, the criminal RCC:

    http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/2010/11/catholic-heirarchy-in-quantry-over-us.html

  2. The worst offenders of what exactly?

    Oh I see. Michael has posted something referencing religion. So of course you needed to respond with:

    “Ewwwwwwww! Catholic Church Bad! Bad! Bad!”

    You want the wall but you’d be more than happy if the government tunneled under it to get some taxes.

  3. Once again, Nate, you try to put words in my mouth that is not even close to what I think. You are pathetic.

  4. Oh? Your against church taxation now?

  5. Your against? No comprendé.

  6. I want an against too.

  7. My goodness, what a terrible error I made. Its good that you found “fault” with that, but not with the line of argument itself.

    Moving on to the adult world:

    You are against church taxation now?

  8. Actually I think you have sort of a point there, Nate. Personally I’m against a wall between church and state. The state/government is for everyone who lives or does business in a country. Talking about a wall almost gives the impression that the church is equal to the state and should be given the same privileges, and everyone can then choose which side they want to be on. This is, of course, merely a fault in the metaphor, and metaphors are never perfect – that’s sort of the point with them.

  9. Thomas Jefferson coined the term, and he meant that this “wall” would serve to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

    Churches would have protection from state intervention, meddling and control of their belief systems, whatever they may be.

    Its not that churches should be equal to the national government its that the government should simply not meddle. Peoples personal beliefs and feelings will always have an impact on government policy, but government policy should stay out peoples personal beliefs.

  10. In order to have freedom of religion, we must also have freedom from religion. What this means is that the wall between church and state must be two way. If we only say the state cannot meddle in one religious group’s affairs but that that religious group can meddle in the state’s affairs in terms of the law, then the state is necessarily supporting that group – and harming others. For example, if we allow the Catholic Church in Maine to make $86,000* in untaxed contributions to support a ballot measure against civil rights, the state is effectively supporting that church, its beliefs, and its harming the beliefs of religious and non-religious groups which reject blind bigotry.

    *I believe they may have donated more in total, but this was a one-time contribution leading up to that 2009 vote.

  11. Also, if religious organizations want to have a say in the public forum or in government, they should pay taxes. They are deferred to now far more than they deserve. Religions have no expertise in moral issue. On the contrary, they are the biggest violators of moral values. They should shut up or pay their share for the services provided and for their immoral interference which is usually contrary to freedom.

    As you van see, NAte my position is not what your one dimentional mind attributed to me. So stop doing it.

  12. Freedom of speech must than be accompanied by freedom from speech. The same for freedom of the press and expression and assembly.

    Your assertion simply doesn’t add up when applied equally to the other rights mentioned in the same article.

    All non-profits are regulated in the way they can interact with ballot measures. If the catholic church violated the terms of their non-profit status I suggest you file a complaint with the ethics commission or the secretary of states office.

    Bob, I find I can’t understand what you are trying to say!

    “van”? It renders your points incomprehensible. As my misspelling apparently rendered mine.

  13. If the constitution forced people to express themselves or write in the press or assemble, then we would not have freedom of any of those things. But the constitution does not do that.

  14. It doesn’t state that I should be free from the influences of other people speech.

    I am not, for example, free from having to inconvenienced or influenced by rallies and marches taking place on public streets. Does that count as state support of a cause? If a non-profit organized said rally or march than they have not paid any taxes either.

  15. I am not, for example, free from having to inconvenienced or influenced by rallies and marches taking place on public streets. Does that count as state support of a cause?

    No.

    If a non-profit organized said rally or march than they have not paid any taxes either.

    If they advocate for voting a certain way? Yes, absolutely, or they should lose their non-profit status.

  16. Non-profits, at least 501 c 3 organizations, are only prohibited from partisan political activities. They can’t donate to or support candidates, voter initiatives and referendums are different under the law. Non-profits of all kinds are free to take sides on political issues, but not candidates.

    File a complaint . If a non-profit is doing things in violation of their status than they should be investigated and punished if guilty.

  17. i love when people fight about religion… this is great stuff… please, continue.

  18. Its not even so much about religion.

    Tax law really. Also, some peoples misunderstanding of what a partisan political activity is, and the whole point of many nonprofits to begin with.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: