Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

by Greatest I am Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:59 pm

Should Governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNHM84lBA0

These lies were and are given to insure social harmony in an uneducated and gullible population. Our Governments lie and allow liars to lie to us of the supernatural, fantasy and magic.

Governments learned a long ago that religions were a good tool to use for social manipulation and control. Governments allowed and encouraged belief in fantasy, miracles and magic, the opium of the masses, and have lived with the drugged up population and religions.

Governments, with this noble lie, have maintained the current idiocy of immoral teachings within religions and have caused much unjust discrimination and denigration of innocent populations of Gays, women and many others, for just doing what we now see as moral.

Do you think we have matured enough as a people that we can now rescind the laws that protect religions and gives them a tax haven and legitimacy?

Are we intelligent enough to not need these lies anymore?

Can the population take our real reality or is the Government just going to let the flim-flam con game of religions to continue to damage the mental capabilities of the citizens in our country?

Flim-flam and con artists are subject to the law of the land. --- except for religions.

Can the population of take the truth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

by ROB Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:05 pm

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

by Greatest I am Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:48 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Tax exempt is a law respecting religion IMO.

The issue is more Government allowing the con game to continue when all thinkers know it is a con game.
They do not deserve to be exempt from laws that the rest of us have to follow.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:40 pm

Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

Sure, and why not rescind the Law of Gravity at the same time?

by snowyflake Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:31 pm

Sure, and why not rescind the Law of Gravity at the same time?

The big difference is that we know Gravity exists. Smile

by oftenwrong Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:39 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Sure, and why not rescind the Law of Gravity at the same time?

The big difference is that we know Gravity exists.

"We" indeed do know about Gravity, but there are primitive peoples who have a firm belief in a God who inter alia provided the force we know as gravity, but who have no knowledge of Newton's Laws of Motion.

by Shirina Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:47 pm

As long as religious institutions have the right to influence politics, they should not be tax exempt.

As George Carlin said ... "Tax them! Tax the mother effers! Let them pay their admission fee like everyone else."

by ROB Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:34 am

snowyflake wrote:
Sure, and why not rescind the Law of Gravity at the same time?

The big difference is that we know Gravity exists.

Nah. I know God (YHVH Elohim); thus, I know that God and gravity exist.

Shirina wrote:
As long as religious institutions have the right to influence politics, they should not be tax exempt.

As George Carlin said ... "Tax them! Tax the mother effers! Let them pay their admission fee like everyone else."

In spite of the words of a bitter man whose disrespect for his fellow citizens’ Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to free exercise of religion borders upon obscene (read UDHR), as long as the 1st Amendment exists, those who participate in “religious institutions” will possess the right to exercise their collective right to free exercise of religion by collectively influencing anything they please.

by Greatest I am Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:40 am

oftenwrong wrote:Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?

Sure, and why not rescind the Law of Gravity at the same time?

Man cannot recognize his errors and eventually do the right thing?

OK.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:42 am

Shirina wrote:As long as religious institutions have the right to influence politics, they should not be tax exempt.

As George Carlin said ... "Tax them! Tax the mother effers! Let them pay their admission fee like everyone else."

I agree that religions should get the hell out of our wallets if they are going to teach as good and moral a God who uses genocide against us.

Regards
DL

by Shirina Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:00 am

as long as the 1st Amendment exists, those who participate in “religious institutions” will possess the right to exercise their collective right to free exercise of religion by collectively influencing anything they please.

Then they can pay taxes like the rest of us. Why should their religion be exempt from helping to fund this country? It's a conflict of interest when they get to influence things they don't have to pay for.

by ROB Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:08 am

Greatest I am wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Tax exempt is a law respecting religion IMO.

Erroneous twice.

The United States Tax Code is federal statute law, not Constitutional law; thus, tax-exempt status does not derive from Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution.
Tax-exempt status granted religious institutions is identical to tax-exempt status granted any not-for-profit institution that apply for same, and is so granted based upon the legitimacy of the applying institution’s claims to not-for-profit status, whether the that institution is a religious organization (church, synagogue, mosque, Baha’i center, Mormon temple (ugh)), service organization (YMCA, Boys’ and Girls’ Club, Rotary Club, Lions Club, Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, Omega Psi Phi, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Zeta Phi Beta, Phi Beta Sigma, Delta Sigma Theta, Alpha Phi Alpha), educational institution (University of Chicago, Swarthmore, Oberlin, Wilberforce, Duke, Antioch), hospital (Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente), or any other establishment, institution, organization, or agency operating on a not-for-profit basis.

Moreover, British citizens need look no further than a certain ornate hallowed hall in England wherein your current Head of State was enthroned sixty years ago to discover of what the authors of Amendment 1 were speaking when they wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”; the framers were, of course, speaking of the establishment of religion called the Church of England.

“Take the four by six out of your own eye, that you might better see to aid your brother in removing the sawdust speck from his eye.” A bit paraphrased, but the meaning is clear. My head of state is required to belong to no establishment of religion; my head of state is not installed in office by a chief archbishop.

by Shirina Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:21 am

Tax-exempt status granted religious institutions is identical to tax-exempt status granted any not-for-profit institution that apply for same, and is so granted based upon the legitimacy of the applying institution’s claims to not-for-profit status, whether the that institution is a religious organization (church, synagogue, mosque, Baha’i center, Mormon temple (ugh)), service organization YMCA, Boys’ and Girls’ Club, Rotary Club, Lions Club, Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, Omega Psi Phi, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Zeta Phi Beta, Phi Beta Sigma, Delta Sigma Theta, Alpha Phi Alpha), educational institution (University of Chicago, Swarthmore, Oberlin, Wilberforce, Duke, Antioch), hospital (Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente), or any other establishment, institution, organization, or agency operating on a not-for-profit basis.

My opinion of a non-for-profit enterprise is one that meets operating costs and nothing more. Any money earned above and beyond that is donated to a charity. But when a church owns more land than the government and has churches the size of mansions with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stained glass, mahogany carvings, and massive pipe organs ... and when preachers are driving around in a fleet of Cadillacs and living better than most Saudi princes ... I say it's not *really* a not-for-profit enterprise.

by ROB Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:24 am

Shirina wrote:
as long as the 1st Amendment exists, those who participate in “religious institutions” will possess the right to exercise their collective right to free exercise of religion by collectively influencing anything they please.
Then they can pay taxes like the rest of us.

Or they can not pay taxes like all other establishments, institutions, organizations, and agencies operating on a not-for-profit basis.

Shirina wrote:
Why should their religion be exempt from helping to fund this country?

Why should service organizations (YMCA, Boys’ and Girls’ Club, Rotary Club, Lions Club, Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, Omega Psi Phi, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Zeta Phi Beta, Phi Beta Sigma, Delta Sigma Theta, Alpha Phi Alpha), educational institutions (University of Chicago, Swarthmore, Oberlin, Wilberforce, Duke, Antioch), hospitals (Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente), or any other establishments, institutions, organizations, or agencies operating on a not-for-profit basis be exempt from helping to fund this country?

Shirina wrote:
It's a conflict of interest…

Nope.

by ROB Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:57 am

Shirina wrote:
Tax-exempt status granted religious institutions is identical to tax-exempt status granted any not-for-profit institution that apply for same, and is so granted based upon the legitimacy of the applying institution’s claims to not-for-profit status, whether the that institution is a religious organization (church, synagogue, mosque, Baha’i center, Mormon temple (ugh)), service organization YMCA, Boys’ and Girls’ Club, Rotary Club, Lions Club, Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, Omega Psi Phi, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Zeta Phi Beta, Phi Beta Sigma, Delta Sigma Theta, Alpha Phi Alpha), educational institution (University of Chicago, Swarthmore, Oberlin, Wilberforce, Duke, Antioch), hospital (Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente), or any other establishment, institution, organization, or agency operating on a not-for-profit basis.
My opinion of a non-for-profit enterprise is one that meets operating costs and nothing more.

Your opinion counts once every two years as you vote for your elected representative to the United States House of Representatives, once every six years as you vote for one elected senator to the United States Senate, and once every six years as you vote for your other elected senator to the United States Senate. As I have the same Constitutionally-guaranteed suffrage right as you, my opinion counts exactly the same as your opinion. Add up the expressed opinions of all voting citizens of these United States of America and we discover the expressed will of We the People of the United States, who did and “do ordain and establish this Constitution [and all laws enacted under its authority] for the United States of America.”

Shirina wrote:
… when a church owns more land than the government and has churches the size of mansions with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stained glass, mahogany carvings, and massive pipe organs ... and when preachers are driving around in a fleet of Cadillacs and living better than most Saudi princes ... I say it's not *really* a not-for-profit enterprise.

United States District Courts stand available to hear suits challenging the tax-exempt status of any establishment, institution, organization, or agencies claiming to operate on a not-for-profit basis.

Meanwhile, the balance sheet of my congregation is available quarterly for inspection by anyone choosing to attend Sunday morning worship and in a timely fashion (usually one day, two days tops) by any state or federal governmental agency. I intentionally avoid “mega-churches”, and the only on-air solicitation to which I’ve ever responded was the humbly spoken plea spoken by the late E.V. Hill, who invited anyone that so chose to participate by donation in his congregation’ soup kitchen ministry, which feed hungry homeless persons three times per day seven days per week with no government funding and at no cost to the person who are fed.

by snowyflake Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:59 am

Religion is big business and they are NOT not-for-profit. That is the big lie. Look at the money generated and invested in property, businesses, precious metals, art, antiquaries and other assets. There is enough from all the religions that there is no excuse for a single homeless or hungry person in the world. Yet there are millions. The churches, mosques, temples and synagogues are doing the bare minimum to retain their tax exemptions but boy do they have some nice buildings to pray to God in.

by ROB Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:56 am

snowyflake wrote:
Religion is big business…

… The churches, mosques, temples and synagogues are doing the bare minimum to retain their tax exemptions…

Not necessarily. Not-for-profit means not for profit; if your purpose is a legal not-for-profit purpose, and if your balance sheet (a) is honest, and (b) shows no profit, you’re good to go. As to deciding what purposes are legal not-for-profit purposes, in a republican system of government, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, those decisions are made by We the People through their elected representatives.

by oftenwrong Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:02 am

None of which explains how Priests can take a vow of poverty whilst enjoying a not uncomfortable lifestyle modelled on the Downton Abbey example.

by ROB Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:06 pm

Babies and Bath Water

Edifices owned by the Roman Catholic Church dot the globe. The Vatican is a sovereign nation owned by the Roman church. US cities in which I’ve lived host cathedrals owned and placed upon land owned by Roman Catholic dioceses and archdioceses.

In 1985, days after (I believe the day after) a massive earthquake devastated Mexico City, a cargo aircraft landed at Mexico City airport and disembarked food, water, clothing, medical supplies, and personnel to distribute and use these items. On the cargo plane’s tail was inscribed the label “Catholic Charities.”

Older folks have often taught me, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

by Greatest I am Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:32 pm

snowyflake wrote:Religion is big business and they are NOT not-for-profit. That is the big lie. Look at the money generated and invested in property, businesses, precious metals, art, antiquaries and other assets. There is enough from all the religions that there is no excuse for a single homeless or hungry person in the world. Yet there are millions. The churches, mosques, temples and synagogues are doing the bare minimum to retain their tax exemptions but boy do they have some nice buildings to pray to God in.

+ 1

It the temples were hospitals, no one would starve to death.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:34 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
snowyflake wrote:
Religion is big business…

… The churches, mosques, temples and synagogues are doing the bare minimum to retain their tax exemptions…

Not necessarily. Not-for-profit means not for profit; if your purpose is a legal not-for-profit purpose, and if your balance sheet (a) is honest, and (b) shows no profit, you’re good to go. As to deciding what purposes are legal not-for-profit purposes, in a republican system of government, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, those decisions are made by We the People through their elected representatives.

If not for profit, then why is the Vatican one of the riches corporations on the planet?
And why does Christianity hold a slush fund to buy silence of the pedophile victims?

Regards
DL

by ROB Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:44 pm

RockOnBrother wrote: am"
RockOnBrother wrote:
snowyflake wrote:
Religion is big business…

… The churches, mosques, temples and synagogues are doing the bare minimum to retain their tax exemptions…
Not necessarily. Not-for-profit means not for profit; if your purpose is a legal not-for-profit purpose, and if your balance sheet (a) is honest, and (b) shows no profit, you’re good to go. As to deciding what purposes are legal not-for-profit purposes, in a republican system of government, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, those decisions are made by We the People through their elected representatives.
If not for profit, then why is the Vatican one of the riches corporations on the planet?

I’m not a Vatican “apologist.” You don’t need my help to grind that axe.

Greatest I am wrote:
And why does Christianity hold a slush fund to buy silence of the pedophile victims?

Christianity does not “hold a slush fund to buy silence of the pedophile victims.” And insofar as your thread title, “Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?” is concerned, the question has been answered in my post of 26 September 2012 at 16:05 (click here); so far, you’ve not addressed this answer.

by Greatest I am Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:34 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"]

RockOnBrother wrote: am"
[
Christianity does not “hold a slush fund to buy silence of the pedophile victims.” And insofar as your thread title, “Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?” is concerned, the question has been answered in my post of 26 September 2012 at 16:05 (click here); so far, you’ve not addressed this answer.
[/color]

I did. You just did not like the answer.

Regards
DL

by ROB Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
Christianity does not “hold a slush fund to buy silence of the pedophile victims.” And insofar as your thread title, “Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?” is concerned, the question has been answered in my post of 26 September 2012 at 16:05 (click here); so far, you’ve not addressed this answer.
I did. You just did not like the answer.

Of course I like the answer. I posted the answer. Here it is again.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by RockOnBrother on Wed 26 Sep 2012 - 16:05
United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What’s not to like about Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution?

by Tosh Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:58 pm

In a nutshell, if you do not think, believe, feel and act in accordance with the Christianity of Texas, then you are not a Christian.

Christianity is not a broad church( 38,000 variations), its a one man band, or a lone star, and the star is not Jesus.

by snowyflake Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:32 pm

Not necessarily. Not-for-profit means not for profit; if your purpose is a legal not-for-profit purpose, and if your balance sheet (a) is honest, and (b) shows no profit, you’re good to go. As to deciding what purposes are legal not-for-profit purposes, in a republican system of government, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, those decisions are made by We the People through their elected representatives.

It might be legal, Rock, but it is immoral and unethical. Religious people need a building to go to every week and give up their hard earned pay so someone can tell them how they should live and for the upkeep of the pastor/reverend/minister/rabbi/imam/mullah's house and the upkeep of church/mosque/synagogue/temple. When the Vatican sends an airplane to Mexico to help the victims of the earthquake, that was more about advertising than it was about doing a good deed. What would you think of William Buffett flipping a fiver to a homeless guy?

The business of religion is a big bastard bee in my bonnet, Rock. Smile

by Greatest I am Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:01 pm

Tosh wrote:In a nutshell, if you do not think, believe, feel and act in accordance with the Christianity of Texas, then you are not a Christian.

Christianity is not a broad church( 38,000 variations), its a one man band, or a lone star, and the star is not Jesus.

Have you seen this rather good view of Jesus?
I guess I should say bad view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

I try to get Christians into debates on morality but they run away from it all the time. They know they do not have a moral leg to stand on.

Regards
DL

by Tosh Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:30 pm

If Christianity was based soley on ones actions then an atheist could be a Christian.

by ROB Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:52 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Not necessarily. Not-for-profit means not for profit; if your purpose is a legal not-for-profit purpose, and if your balance sheet (a) is honest, and (b) shows no profit, you’re good to go. As to deciding what purposes are legal not-for-profit purposes, in a republican system of government, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, those decisions are made by We the People through their elected representatives.
It might be legal, Rock, but it is immoral and unethical. Religious people need a building to go to every week…

Snowy,

Incorrect in its non-specificity. By “it” I conclude that you mean a religious organization and/or religious organizations as a whole. That’s far too broad a brush with which to paint.

Take, for example, the Roman church, perhaps the most “mega” church of all. I cannot and shall not apologize for the Vatican; in contrast, I can and do donate to Catholic Charities, because I remember the aircraft on the tarmac at Mexico City airport in 1985, certain Catholic orders that operate hospitals, including the hospital that provided exemplary care to my grandfather until he passed away, the hospital in which one of my children was born and received excellent care, and the hospital that, through its excellent emergency services, has saved more lives than I can count in one of the cities in which I’ve lived.

I’m not Roman Catholic. I’ve never been Roman Catholic. I’ve attended Roman Catholic services in several of the buildings you reference and have seen the people therein give to provide continuous support for these activities.

William Wilberforce is the human most responsible for the abolition of slavery in the modern world. He was a Methodist Episcopal minister.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of the humans most responsible for eradicating Jim Crow. He was a Baptist minister.

El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, Malcolm X, is the human most responsible for promulgating positive Black pride amongst Africans of the diaspora in the United States of America. He was a Muslim minister.

Mother Teresa, who dedicated her life to helping the poor of Calcutta, is one of the finest examples of selflessness in human history. She was a Roman Catholic nun.

Om one hand you have TD Jakes, Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff, and others who are, in my opinion, are pulpit-pimp charlatans. On the other hand you have the noble souls mentioned above. One can focus on the former, or one can focus on the latter. I choose the latter from whom I draw strength.

snowyflake wrote:
Religious people need a building to go to every week and give up their hard earned pay so someone can tell them how they should live and for the upkeep of the pastor/reverend/minister/rabbi/imam/mullah's house and the upkeep of church/mosque/synagogue/temple.

I go to such a building regularly. I give money regularly. I don’t “give up” my “hard earned pay”; I “give willingly and purposefully.” The minister to whose salary I purposefully contribute uses his hard earned pay (his average work week exceeds sixty hours) to support his family, pay his house note, pay his car note, pay exorbitant university tuition, room, and board, and contribute financially to good works. I consider it an honor to call him my friend.

Once again, I could on the pulpit pimps and their “shell games” (my opinion), but I choose to focus upon good men and women who serve the Lord by serving (ministering to) “these, the least of my children.”

snowyflake wrote:
When the Vatican sends an airplane to Mexico to help the victims of the earthquake, that was more about advertising than it was about doing a good deed.

The Vatican didn’t send the aircraft. Catholic Charities sent the aircraft. The Vatican is “the bath water”; Catholic Charities is “the baby.”

snowyflake wrote:
What would you think of William Buffett flipping a fiver to a homeless guy?

I’m not sure that he does that. The rabbis teach that the greatest gifts are given anonymously. I know of one “for instance”; a door to a well-known community service organization remains anonymous as she/he periodically donates something on the order of two to three million to this fine organization. Cold she/he be Warren Buffet? Could Batman be Bruce Wayne?

I know that Buffet and Bill Gates are friends. Check out the gate foundation; “I betcha” Buffet kicked in some cash.

snowyflake wrote:
The business of religion is a big bastard bee in my bonnet, Rock.

Insofar as Jakes, Hinn, Popoff, Creflo Dollar, and the like are concerned, I agree.

by boatlady Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:24 pm

In reply to the original question - it seems to me that organised religion is a political entity, and as such should probably come out of the closet, declare itself as such and take its place with other political parties - don't know if they're tax exempt, but my feeling is they shouldn't be.
The purpose of religion is to persuade or otherwise convince us all to live in a particular way - same as political parties, so religion should be out there in the same market place (however dirty) canvassing for our votes.

by boatlady Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:25 pm

I think it was Ghandi said something like - 'I like your Christ - I don't like your Christianity'

by Greatest I am Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:34 pm

boatlady wrote:In reply to the original question - it seems to me that organised religion is a political entity, and as such should probably come out of the closet, declare itself as such and take its place with other political parties - don't know if they're tax exempt, but my feeling is they shouldn't be.
The purpose of religion is to persuade or otherwise convince us all to live in a particular way - same as political parties, so religion should be out there in the same market place (however dirty) canvassing for our votes.

Well put.

I agree that at their root, theology and philosophy are both just the search for the best sets of rules to live by.
God to me was always just a set of rules. Even after my apotheosis, I am a Gnostic Christian, that definition remains the same. That is why I try to engage Christians in debates on morals but they always run from such.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:24 pm

Politics is a Power Game, as is Religion.

What more needs to be said?

by Tosh Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:34 am

Politics is a Power Game, as is Religion.

What more needs to be said?.

Judging by the sheer volume of political and religious threads, quite a lot.

by snowyflake Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:17 pm

William Wilberforce is the human most responsible for the abolition of slavery in the modern world. He was a Methodist Episcopal minister.

He was a believer during a time when most people were believers. He might have done the same in spite of his religious convictions.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of the humans most responsible for eradicating Jim Crow. He was a Baptist minister.

Great man. I was very affected by his assassination. I was 9 years old.

El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, Malcolm X, is the human most responsible for promulgating positive Black pride amongst Africans of the diaspora in the United States of America. He was a Muslim minister.

Another civil rights activist assassinated by a crazy man who was allowed his freedom for 30 years. That's America for you.

Mother Teresa, who dedicated her life to helping the poor of Calcutta, is one of the finest examples of selflessness in human history. She was a Roman Catholic nun.

Sorry, she also prevented birth control and family planning in a country that is over run by the poor and starving. Not sure she actually did that much good.

When I asked what would you think of William Buffett flipping some homeless guy a fiver, it was an analogy to the Vatican. Catholic Charities is still part of the Catholic Church and the vast wealthy empire that it is. William Buffett is one of the richest men in the world. Catholic Charities sending a plane to Mexico in light of the vast wealth of the Catholic Church is the same as William Buffett flipping a fiver to a homeless guy. In other words, it's meaningless.

by oftenwrong Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:57 pm

William Buffett is one of the richest men in the world.(QUOTE)

That's remarkable, so is WARREN Buffet.

by ROB Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:57 am

Hey Snowy,

The overarching commitment to free exercise of religion in Australia, Canada (your home nation), New Zealand, the United Kingdom (your adopted nation), and the United States (my only nation) is eloquently expressed in the quoted documents below.

Note: For purposes of this dialogue and discourse, I don’t much care about non-Locke-ian nations such as France and Belgium, both of which are democracies wherein free exercise of religion is currently disparages by law. Slightly left field, my disinterest in these nations is accompanied by deep love for each of the “Big Five” listed in the first paragraph.

Once again the “unwritten constitution” of the United Kingdom rebuffed my efforts to decipher, so there is no quote therefrom herein. However, as documented in 5b, the UK is an original signatory to UDHR, and is thus ethically and morally bound to and by the provisions therein.

1.

Australian Constitution, Chapter 5, Section 116

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

2.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

3.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Democratic and civil rights

13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

15 Manifestation of religion and belief
Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

4.

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

5a.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

5b.

Adoption, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions…

The following countries voted in favour of the Declaration: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

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

Insofar as I am able, I abide by each and all of these affirmations guaranteeing and/or affirming Creator endowed unalienable rights of free exercise of religion unto all men, gender-“race”/ethnicity-religion-culture-nationality inclusive. To me, there is no substantive difference between: (a) “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]” (United States), which I am bound by allegiance to obey, (b) “The Commonwealth shall not make any law… for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion” (Australia), (c) “freedom of… religion” (Canada), and (d) “Everyone has the right to freedom of… religion, and belief… Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private” (New Zealand). Each of these constitutional provisions (there is dispute as to whether NZ’s Bill of Rights Act 1990 is constitutional law or statute law) affirms Thomas Jefferson’s stated principle of “a wall of separation between church and state” of such robustness as to protect all citizens/residents of these four great nations from government interference into their religious affairs. From “common sense”, I believe it reasonable to assume that such ironclad protection is also guaranteed British citizens/residents no matter my unsuccessful attempts to locate the exact wording.

This is my “Alpha” and “Omega”, the foundation, framework, outer and inner walls, floor, ceiling, and roof of my firm belief in free exercise of religion. I enjoy these protections every day. If every jurisdiction in which humans draw breath would immediately institute and enforce these guarantees, it would be a better world.

snowyflake wrote:
William Wilberforce is the human most responsible for the abolition of slavery in the modern world. He was a Methodist Episcopal minister.
He was a believer during a time when most people were believers. He might have done the same in spite of his religious convictions.

William Wilberforce’s two ministries, actualized through his simultaneous services to humanity as a Methodist Episcopal minister and a crusader against involuntary slavery in all its insidiously evil forms, were inextricably intertwined. Wilberforce’s story can be read at these links:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/williamwilberforce_1.shtml

http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce2.htm

snowyflake wrote:
Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of the humans most responsible for eradicating Jim Crow. He was a Baptist minister.
Great man. I was very affected by his assassination. I was 9 years old.

I was a bit older. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the fourth of five men that assassins stole from us in the 1960s. You might appreciate this song:

Abraham, Martin & John[/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/v/HRtPuQ23NZY

Robert Francis Kennedy, the greatest President of the United States of America who never was, spoke these words upon learning that Martin Luther King had been assassinated:

Robert F. Kennedy's Statement on Dr. King's Death
https://www.youtube.com/v/gigsZH5HlJA

snowyflake wrote:
El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, Malcolm X, is the human most responsible for promulgating positive Black pride amongst Africans of the diaspora in the United States of America. He was a Muslim minister.
Another civil rights activist assassinated by a crazy man who was allowed his freedom for 30 years. That's America for you.

Brother Malcolm was murdered before his young daughter’s eyes. Multiple bloody bullet holes could be seen spread across his chest could be seen in Life Magazine photographs of the assassination scene. Calypso Louis has yet to answer for what I believe was his deep involvement in this atrocity nearly forty-eight years ago.

snowyflake wrote:
Mother Teresa, who dedicated her life to helping the poor of Calcutta, is one of the finest examples of selflessness in human history. She was a Roman Catholic nun.
Sorry, she also prevented birth control and family planning in a country that is over run by the poor and starving. Not sure she actually did that much good.

Mother Teresa did all she knew how to do, and she gave her life to doing it. So far, I’ve not been to Calcutta where she spent most of her adult life.

Birth control is not the cause of India’s abject poverty. The world’s second most populous nation wallows in an indigenous culture in which cows walk around alive while people starve. In my opinion, the caste system doesn’t help, either.

snowyflake wrote:
When I asked what would you think of William Buffett flipping some homeless guy a fiver, it was an analogy to the Vatican. Catholic Charities is still part of the Catholic Church and the vast wealthy empire that it is. William Buffett is one of the richest men in the world. Catholic Charities sending a plane to Mexico in light of the vast wealth of the Catholic Church is the same as William Buffett flipping a fiver to a homeless guy. In other words, it's meaningless.

Here I vehemently disagree. Catholic Charities in the United States is a separate legal and de facto entity from the Vatican encompassed by Rome. It is supported by donations from individuals, and I suspect other entities interested in doing good. Its funds come from people they choose to donate and are dispersed to people in need. Like for federal and state officers in the US and for Commonwealth officers in Australia, there is no religious test for recipients of aid from Catholic Charities.

From 1985 through 1994, I regularly donated clothing to Catholic Charities. I’ll get to the significance of 1994 in a moment. I started donating directly after the Mexico City earthquake when I found out that whatever I donated today would be clothing someone in Mexico City two days later. Not one stitch was diverted to yard sales to raise money for the Vatican.

In fact, a group of ladies asked my advice as to what they could do to help Mexico City earthquake victims. I said, “Fill up as many bags of clothing and canned goods as you can and take the bags to the local Catholic Charities collection center.” The space for the collection center was donated, and all the collection workers were volunteers. One hundred percent “pass through” from donors to victims. The ladies took up the suggestion and asked permission from the “leaders” of their congregation to do just that. The next time I talked to the ladies, they told me that the “leaders” vetoed the suggestion because “Catholic” was inscribed on the aircraft’ tail and sides. The bags of clothing and canned goods sat around somewhere waiting for the “leaders” to figure out a way to get the needed items to Mexico City victims in vehicles that didn’t have the evil word “Catholic” inscribed thereon. Insofar as I know, the needed clothing and canned goods never left the US city in which they were collected and bagged.

Neither you nor I is Roman Catholic. Neither you nor I should give a flip what word is inscribed on the vehicles that ensure delivery of items which we donate to victims to whom we donate. As I said, one hundred percent of what I gave went to those for whom I gave it.

The significance of 1994: That year, a Catholic Charities volunteer advised me to temporarily halt my contributions because his diocese, unethically, immorally, and perhaps illegally, had started “dipping in” to Catholic Charities funds to pay off pedophile child sexual assault settlements. I asked him for how long, and he said indefinitely, most likely decades. This heinous “co-mingling” was soon verified by another person, a friend, a Reform Jew that had been donating clothing and funds to Catholic Charities since long before Mexico City 1985. Damn shame; the bathwater drowned the baby.

Now if you’re looking for “The Vatican Connection”, you’re “following the money” in the wrong direction. It never flowed from the Vatican to Catholic Charities, but circa 1994, the Vatican and local diocese and archdioceses began “sucking up” donated money from Catholic Charities to pay the piper for decades-long in-house sexual predation upon children under de facto Vatican and diocese protection.

As I said earlier, I‘m not a Vatican apologist.

by snowyflake Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:49 am

William Buffett is one of the richest men in the world.(QUOTE)

That's remarkable, so is WARREN Buffet.

Oops OW

That's hoo I ment. Thanks for your stingent vijilance. What would we do without ewe? x

by oftenwrong Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:42 pm

Please let me see if I've understood correctly.

A message from an educated and intelligent person contains several spelling errors. Presumably (but correct me if I'm wrong) intended to suggest that writing "William" instead of "Warren" was also no more than a typo.

Nice try, but no Kewpie doll. 'fess up, snowyflake. But who cares, anyway on a thread with this title?

by Tosh Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:28 pm

But who cares,

Only pretentious anoraks who fear debating thread content.

by Sponsored content