 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:47 PM 'Annie Laurie Gaylor speaks with a soft voice, but her message catches attention: Keep God out of government. Gaylor has helped transform the Freedom From Religion Foundation from obscurity into the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, with a fast-rising membership and increasing legal clout. Next week, the group started by Gaylor and her mother in the 1970s to take on the religious right will fight its most high-profile battle when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on its lawsuit against President Bush's faith-based initiative. The court will decide whether taxpayers can sue over federal funding that the foundation believes promotes religion. It could be a major ruling for groups that fight to keep church and state separate. "What's at stake is the right to challenge the establishment of religion by the government," Gaylor said.' Talk about rockin' the boat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:52 PM I would imagine that many politicians in Congress will be breathing a deep sigh of relief over this. They will not have to address the question from citizens. Simply say they will abide by the ruling. GO ANNIE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:56 PM It amazes me that the USA has arrived at such a pass. Polls say that more than half of its citizens espouse religion in some formalized way. That such a substantial number of these same citizens should cry for governmental empowerment boggles my mind. One would think that watching Iran, for instance, shift to state-sponsored religion would have had s seriously sobering effect on any devout people. Go, Gaylor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: GUEST Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:10 PM Someone needs to do something about it
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:16 PM It sure is difficult to argue with the logic on the site you linked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: bobad Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:35 PM They don't make christians like jesus anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:43 PM Adding a thought to the mix: Every one of those people in your link has its adherents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:50 PM "Mr Swaggart's confession is all the more scandalous since he himself unleashed fire and brimstone against rival TV evangelist Rev Jim Bakker a few months ago for committing adultery with minister and secretary Jessica Hahn. Rev Bakker was subsequently defrocked and fired from his multi-million-dollar Praise the Lord TV station. This time it was Mr Swaggart's turn to repent after officials from the Assemblies of God church were given photographs showing him taking a prostitute to a Louisiana motel. They were handed in by rival TV evangelist Martin Gorman who was also defrocked after Mr Swaggart accused him of "immoral dalliances" in 1986. Mr Gorman, who ran a successful TV show from New Orleans, had launched an unsuccessful $90m law suit against Mr Swaggart two years ago for spreading false rumours." One big happy family . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: MMario Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:51 PM I still think that more people should remember that not only does the constitution forbid laws establishing religion - it also forbids the making of laws to prevent the free excercise of religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: John O'L Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:51 PM Unfortunately most of the noise is usually made by the hysterical and the lunatic. It's good to see the calm and sensible making a bit of noise. Common sense has had a hard time of it lately. |
|
Subject: Churches and Taxes From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:51 PM I'm for her effort as well. For too long the notion that gummint started the whole idea of faith-based initiatives, and thus can co-opt social ministry into partisan political clout, has stood unchallenged. Churches and other faith-oriented institutions have carried the load of delivering back-breaking service to people who need services, with no tax money, from conributions raised for those causes. I say let the gummint keep its money-- AND its unwelcome influence. And another thing, while I'm at it. Abolishing tax-exempt status for churches? (Local TV was ranting about this earlier in the week.) Churches are simply places where people congregate, who are already paying taxes. They are not a business failing to pay their share of taxes for services. They are a place where people who pay for those services would like to be able to receive them. Churches (through taxpaying members' contributions) pay for utilities, water, and trash hauling-- commercial rate. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:55 PM Pardon me. The clip of the post about Jimmy was from an article in 1988. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:58 PM But churches hire people, and they don't pay payroll taxes on the people they hire either. Worse than that, they don't pay property taxes, and some churches are taking up space in some of the most prime real estate locations in the country. Then there are the estates that are left to churches. No taxes are paid on that either, and in some cases, they own real property worth a lot of money that remains untaxed as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: MMario Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:04 PM But churches hire people, and they don't pay payroll taxes on the people they hire either guess again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:33 PM ".. it also forbids the making of laws to prevent the free excercise of religion." Indeed it does. You can interpret that to mean: 1)That anyone in any group can demand religious ceremony & prayer be allowed, no matter what the makeup of the group (as it was done in a group I sometimes attend....and as those in that website (http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html)would seem to favor.) or 2) That persons who choose to assemble and conduct religious ceremonies or prayer in private circumstances or in buildings designated for religious purposes not be prevented from doing so. (these could be worded differently, but I'll assume the sense is clear)(could there be 1a,b,c etc? or 2a,b,c?..maybe...but) Obviously, I support #2 and decry ANY attempt to install #1 as a rule of law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:43 PM "But churches hire people, and they don't pay payroll taxes on the people they hire either." Riginslinger Wbat MMarion said. It's not even a good guess. I agree with the tax-exempt(ness) of churches- and I don't care if it's a church or a synagogue or a mosque. The congregations, as Susan said, already pay taxes. Many of the people give financial support to the limits of their means. If the church building that burnt down last year and where I work part time had not received the thousands of dollars donated for rebuilding it would not be able to re-open its doors. It had insurance - good insurance - but it does not come close to the loss it incurred or the replacement costs. Not only was there a church building but there was also a community hall attached where events ranging from live theatre to dinners to concerts and slide shows took place and it hosted two groups of AA (English and Spanish), Weight Watchers, prayer groups, a quilting group, a thrift shop, a food bank - and probably some others that I forget at the moment. My point is, tax exempt as it was, it was a community resource. Bequests and prime real estate locations help tax exempt organizations survive. Most of them are not living very high on the hog. Do you also object, Rigin-, to governmental buildings and organizations being tax exempt? Religion, having spiritual components and being legal, is as important to civilization's daily life as are governing bodies. Life is complex and difficult. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:48 PM Well said, Ebbie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:50 PM No, I don't object to governmental buildings being tax exempt. But I don't see any social value to religion, and, in fact, find religion to be counter-productive to civilization. Life would be a lot less complex and/or difficult without religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Wesley S Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:53 PM Speaking only for yourself of course Riginslinger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:59 PM "Life would be a lot less complex and/or difficult without religion." RiginS It seems to me that you are saying that to you life would be easier if you could know *for sure* that when you lie down and die that is it. To me, people's (including mine) objections to religion are actually speaking of the abuses of religion. By the way, the reason I am not saying 'spirituality' rather than 'religion' is that I am tired of making the distinction. If religion is *anything*, it is spiritual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: katlaughing Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:04 PM Churches, as you all have written about, including Susan, I don't have a problem with being tax-exempt, but I do have a problem with the mega-churches which also hand out political voting guides, etc. and those of people like Falwell who have mega-media sources, too, being tax-exempt. Some of them are as politically active as members of congress and should pay taxes on their income, imo. I hope Gaylor is successful! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: GUEST,Crazyhorse Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:12 PM To me, people's (including mine) objections to religion are actually speaking of the abuses of religion. Most people with agree with you on this, however once one begins to list the abuses agreement may not be so strong. I consider teaching children a specific religion as abuse, as is mixing religion with politics, as is the banning of books etc. I don't expect everyone to agree with these. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: GUEST,Crazyhorse Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:16 PM If you're in europe and you want a secular system you may like to visit http://www.visionforeurope.org/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:38 PM Interesting web-site, Crazyhorse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:59 PM ... I do have a problem with the mega-churches which also hand out political voting guides, etc. and those of people like Falwell who have mega-media sources, too, being tax-exempt. Some of them are as politically active as members of congress and should pay taxes on their income, imo... I agree! Church employees, of course, pay income tax and property tax on houses if they own them. Tax on phone service, sales tax at the store-- all that stuff. Many churches do not "own" their buildings and cannot sell them; in our denomination, the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA), the denomination, owns the building and we not only cannot sell it at the local level, we PAY THE DIOCESE for the use of it! (and other services the diocese provides, and other missions the denom does in the name of the local parishes). The American Red Cross owns buildings-- are they taxed? Should they be? Libraries-- are they taxed? Should they be? Schools-- are they taxed? Should they be? I am not a tax expert, so I really don't know about the tax situations for those types of nonprofits. When I managed a Red Corss chapter, we did have to file returns showing we were not making a profit. Volunteer ambulance/fire assoications? They own and operate buildings that house the vehicles used to serve the public. Are they taxed? Should they be? Generally, my impression is that businesses that make a profit that goes into someone's pocket, are taxed on those profits. OK, Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker accumulated a lot of loot. How does that relate to the little square white building on the corner with a steeple, that feeds the poor and shelters them when they lack heat? An organization whose every "business" decision is governed by a board of members elected by the membership, where no one gets a dime except for well-earned (low!) salaries? Religion is not tax-exempt because it's a religion, per se, but because it delivers services to a tax-paying public with money upon which tax has already been paid. Taxing them would be double-taxing those same people, because it's those people who pay money to the church for its mission and maintenance. Yes I know the world is mad at churches-- YOU gonna feed all the people we feed? Yes I know some of you have experienced churches who can't service without cramming a relion-or-hell message down your throat-- they actually don't all do that. Yes I know some municipalities lack a good tax base, and that a lot of their land may be held by churches. Did they do poor city planning to exclude a manufacturing district? Do they have poor business development policies? Is it fair to try to "fix" their poor policies by taxing the going concerns that DO remain in the town-- the churches delivering services to poor folks that the town cannot afford to assist? I'm all for separation-- and the separation of dollars. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: pdq Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:37 PM Here is a list of the largest religious groups in the world. Note: Atheism is the third largest religion: 1. Christianity: 2.1 billion 2. Islam: 1.3 billion 3 Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion 4. Hinduism: 900 million 5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million 6. Buddhism: 376 million 7. primal-indigenous: 300 million 8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million 9. Sikhism: 23 million 10. Juche: 19 million 11. Spiritism: 15 million 12. Judaism: 14 million 13. Baha'i: 7 million 14. Jainism: 4.2 million 15. Shinto: 4 million 16. Cao Dai: 4 million 17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million 18. Tenrikyo: 2 million 19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million 20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand 21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand 22. Scientology: 500 thousand |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:54 PM It's enouraging that Rastafarians outnumber Scientologists. It's puzzling that they lumped athiest, agnostic, nonreligions, and secularists together. If they should have a disagreement amongst themselves, they'd all drop off the chart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:56 PM I most definitely agree that churches - or other tax exempt organizations - should lose their tax exempt status *immediately* when they venture into candidate-pushing or issue proseltyzing. I think that the loss of tax exemption should be swift, even if it is in the middle of an election campaign. Perhaps after a period of five years or so of paying taxes an organization would be cautious and maybe they could reapply for the exemption and live within its prohibitions. I think a church may safely educate from the pulpit- but if that includes anti-abortion views or pro-choice views or other current controversies they have overstepped their mission. I think that religion should proffer more questions than answers. I think a church- or parent, for that matter - may lay out the parameters of an issue, citing anecdotal evidence or long-held traditional views, but they cannot, they MUST not, tell their parish or their children that they must believe the same *only* because they have been told so or face punishment. And that's what I thunk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: pdq Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:00 PM Jesse Jackson founded and still runs a large tax-exempt organization. He ran for president. So that is OK, Ebbie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:03 PM Check 'Publication 557'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:08 PM From this distance it all looks like an enormous waste of effort arguing back and forth about this kind of stuff. I suppose it helps divert attention from real issues, and splits people up in a way that ensures that real issues won't get addressed. I suppose that suits some people's agenda. Bigenders versus Littlenders in a Republic evidently modelling itself on Lilliput.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:17 PM On the face of it, these arguments would seem to be a waste of effort, but tax exempt organizations (i.e. churches) seem to have gained a huge political influence over a portion of the non-thinking public. That's how we got stuck with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Ebbie Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:18 PM pdq, of course. It was not his organization that ran for office. The same way that I would not object if Falwell or Phelps or Gandhi himself ran for office. McGrath, it may be a bigger issue in the US than it is in the UK. From what I understand, religion is a much bigger factor in people's lives in the US. For the record, I don't want any church calling itself: AMERICA'S CHURCH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:20 PM There are far-reaching effects should the Supreme Court rule in favour of the Plaintiff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: JohnInKansas Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:34 PM The question is not whether churches should be taxed. It is quite firmly established and generally accepted (in the US) that non-profit organizations, and particularly those that provide a public benefit, may be, and should be, exempted from taxes. The majority of non-profits comply with the requirements that they periodically demonstrate, by filing appropriate statements with the various tax jurisdictions, that they are in fact not for profit. The majority of non-profits are subject to taxes on profit making ventures, to the extent that profits go to the benefit of the organization and not to the provision of the "good works" that the organization performs. (This conforms to the requirement that individuals pay taxes on income that is to their own benefit.) Churches, and to large extent anyone claiming to be religious-based, have been exempted from demonstrating that they are, and remain, non-profit, largely through the REFUSAL of the IRS to require such organizations to certify their non-profit status, even in cases where there is substantial evidence that the organizations have other than benefit to society at their core of purpose. The government in the US CANNOT exempt churches from taxation on the basis of their being churches. It can and does exempt them from many taxes on the same basis that it exempts other non-profit, and in some cases "public benefit," organizations and agencies. It does have the authority to question the status of any agency or organization, with respect to exemption from taxation, provided that all such organizations are treated equally. Churches are not, and have not been, treated on the same basis as other non-profit organizations. No "exemption" from income taxes is required for a non-profit organization. If you have no income you pay no income taxes. Expenses of "doing your work" are reasonably allowable deductions from gross income in the determination of your "profit" or taxable income. A very broad interpretation of what is an "expense of the business" of saving souls probably is acceptable. The exemption from accounting for income and expenses is NOT ACCEPTABLE to many of us. An exemption from payment of property taxes may not be given based solely on the property being "a church," but IF SIMILAR EXEMPTIONS are available to other agencies performing public services without profit from them, on the same basis, then there is no particular argument with exempting a non-profit organization from payment of property taxes. The only need is to treat religious organizations the same as we treat non-religious ones. That DOES NOT IMPLY that the good works of the churches must be in any way restricted or curtailed - for tax purposes. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:52 PM "It is quite firmly established and generally accepted (in the US) that non-profit organizations, and particularly those that provide a public benefit, may be, and should be, exempted from taxes." The problem here might be in trying to define a "public benefit." In the case of churches, many people might argue, I think correctly, that churches do more harm than good, by a large margin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:57 PM I disagree with that statement, Riginslinger. I do agree that many churches do much harm; yet, others do much good. (I am thinking that by 'churches' you mean individual buildings with a membership and not some sort of 'holy see' imposed by out-of-town corporate heads.) I have great admiration for some churches because of the works they do on behalf of the homeless, the disenfranchised, the lost, the hungry. I'm afraid I have much less respect for others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:19 PM This way-too-general statement was made: "Life would be a lot less complex and/or difficult without religion." ONLY if everyone agreed on why they were eschewing religion. If religion were simply banned, life would likely be much MORE complex & difficult. There are people who, for various reasons, desire and/or need something beyond themselves to cope with the uncertainties of life. You can argue all day whether they really need it, but I'd really hate to see them suddenly deprived of it. Only if, over the ages, education and security allow humans to gradually shed dependence on religion and/or superstition, will religion be simply studied as a phenomenon of history and not used as a substitute for our own strength. (and I doubt this is likely) All we can reasonably hope for in the near future is that beleivers and non-believers tolerate and respect each other's viewpoints and not attempt to coerce or legislate in favor of their own view. This, of course, will not be easy. GO to that website and READ the views of hard-nosed, right-wing take-no-prisoners Christians about how we should have no choice. And remember there are Muslims and others with similar views....many of whom believe that IF they are correct in their beliefs, they are REQUIRED to convert, kill, and/or conquer others. You see, as it stands, reason and logic have little to do with the decisions made by many...some are flatly not capable of debating the issue with logic...others use it in ummmm...'interesting' ways. All we can do is try to concoct a system where we mostly stay out of each other's way and avoid the worst conflicts. The US constitution made an attempt at this, but never was quite clear enough...and now there are factions which think it's just a matter of 'majority rule'...we get enough votes and decree what shall be observed, if not believed! It's a mess...and it will remain a mess....but I still don't want it even suggested that those who WANT religion should not be allowed to practice it, within limits. Therein lies chaos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:20 PM ... but tax exempt organizations (i.e. churches) seem to have gained a huge political influence over a portion of the non-thinking public... SOME tax exempt organizations (i.e. churches) seem to have gained a huge political influence over a portion of the non-thinking public-- don't condemn ALL churches for what a few, media-savvy, poltically-driven churches have been allowed, by their members, to do. There will ALWAYS be people who capitalize on folks who stop thinking. NOT ALL DENONMINATIONS aim for mental shut-down as part of the Faith! You can always tell who hasn't darkened the door of a church in the last little while-- they seem to know so much about what goes on inside-- usually because they have been influenced by the media: hook, line, and sinker. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:20 PM "They don't make christians like jesus anymore. " They got rid of him and got his ideas corrupted real quick, Viz, The Pauline Conspiracy, the Justinian Conspiracy, the Constantinian Conspiracy... etc :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:23 PM (as it stands, I have no problem with keeping the tax-exempt status as it is...with the rules double-checked to prevent outright silliness) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:32 PM Oh thanks for reminding me, Bill. Churches-- every one I've known-- do annual reports like other non-profits. Like Red Cross units, budgets over a certain size are usually audited as well. As far as I know they are available to the public. We'd prefer to simply TELL interesed parties what we do in the community, but the annual report (finacial and programmatic) has sat free for the taking on a table in the hallway, since I can recall being here. ANd the monthly balance sheet is on the bulletin board for all and sundry who pass through on their way to give blood, attend a hospital function in our parish hall, or come to a community concert we're hosting in our space. [rant on] You know MAYBE we really should take a cut of that blood money, healthcare money, and concert tix and pay taxes on it-- NOT. We're just.... OPEN. AA meetings, TOPS, scouts, and what's that hiking/conservation group that meets at our church (free with heat on that we pay for) for their annual trail-maintenance meeting.... loved the FOLK MUSICIANS they had (paid) for entertainment one year. BAD church, yeah that's us. Lemme see how many people we can make stupider this year..... [shaking head] [rant off] I think I may have been saving this up for some time now. I feel better! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:35 PM FYI, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 (which was passed by the Senate in 2003 but shot down by the White House) will likely save the USA enough money that it won't HAVE to get into the religion business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:53 PM "showing we were not making a profit." ahhhh - Met this sorta madness in the SCA... many idiots think this means that 'the organisation' is not 'allowed' to 'make a profit' - but the LAW means that the individuals associated WITH the organisation are not THEMSELVES making a profit (they ARE allowed to recoup expenses!) - big difference, and ANY non-profit organisation 'not making a profit' i.e. spending less than they get - will be broke and non-existent sooner or later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: bobad Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:10 PM "NOT ALL DENONMINATIONS aim for mental shut-down as part of the Faith!" Faith = mental shutdown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: bobad Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:11 PM IMO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:17 PM Wait till you meet me and my Anglican pals, bobad. I'll bring my thinking cap. We can wear 'em AND carry a cross, with no trouble. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:29 PM Like walking and chewing gum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Feb 07 - 10:05 PM I never walk my gum. Waggle it, but never walk it. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 10:15 PM "The president's religious patronage system is now pouring more than $2 billion in federal funding into church- affiliated organizations around the country annually" from here. |
