Go to THE ECCLESIASTE
- Add a comment
- Go to some notes from the internet -- more to come
west
the conversation on 501 was done in comments, I think that's why we couldn't find them on search, anyway, I did a post on the topic in "when the constitution died".
posted by
PastorB
on October 23, 2004 at 7:42 AM
| link to this | reply
steelerman is
prevariocating
otherwise
bush could screw the jews rotally
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 23, 2004 at 7:28 AM
| link to this | reply
The Only...
intolerance I see is where Westend and Kooka are intolerant to anyone who quotes the Bible or expresses their belief of what Christianity is to them or the usual Bush bashing about Bush's Christian beliefs. Westwend and Kooka spend most of their time attacking any post concerning religion. If you want to see intolerance, Westwend, then look in the mirror.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on October 22, 2004 at 9:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Jewish Press Endorses Bush
I don't have a narrow point of view on this issue at all. Neither I, nor the Jewish Press, said anything about Saddam. In fact, I would argue that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the central reason why the Jewish Press (along with many other renowned Jewish papers) supports President Bush. He has been extremely supportive of Israel, which has contributed to the U.N.'s hatred for him. After all, the U.N. equates Zionism with racism. I would assume that John Kerry's unyielding trust in that anti-Semitic (not to mention corrupt and dictatorial) world body is yet another example of why the Jewish Press (and more American Jews than ever before) are going to vote for the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, this year. As for the economic issues, they don't come close to life vs. death. But if it were up to the perception of his economic policies, I would argue that some Jews agree with his fiscal policies and some don't.
posted by
Reaganesque
on October 22, 2004 at 1:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Jewish Press Endorses Bush
I don't have a narrow point of view on this issue at all. Neither I, nor the Jewish Press, said anything about Saddam. In fact, I would argue that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the central reason why the Jewish Press (along with many other renowned Jewish papers) supports President Bush. He has been extremely supportive of Israel, which has contributed to the U.N.'s hatred for him. After all, the U.N. equates Zionism with racism. I would assume that John Kerry's unyielding trust in that anti-Semitic (not to mention corrupt and dictatorial) world body is yet another example of why the Jewish Press (and more American Jews than ever before) are going to vote for the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, this year. As for the economic issues, they don't come close to life vs. death. But if it were up to the perception of his economic policies, I would argue that some Jews agree with his fiscal policies and some don't.
posted by
Reaganesque
on October 22, 2004 at 1:24 PM
| link to this | reply
freerain -- and anyone else interested
I went into an overview of the colonists history of relgious oppression and freedom in my blog
ANTI-ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
didn't add the Roger Williams(?) episode where the Puritans (pilgrims) who fled religious oppression in England to found Massachusetts in turn oppressed and restricted religous freedom -- Roger founded Rhode Island.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 22, 2004 at 6:47 AM
| link to this | reply
unicorn
I just did a blogit search for 501 (c)(3)
came up empty -- i need either an explanation here or the exact location of where you explained it.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 22, 2004 at 6:28 AM
| link to this | reply
I didn't say anything in this post
this is quotes from the internet
another quote that I saw and I can't recover now regards the Ten Commandments posted on schools. It says that this document is obviously a religious document and as such should not be posted on public property == separting church and state -- circa 1980 I think -- a search on the net under first amendment u.s. constitution should give more results for anyone interested.
Unicorn -- yes I want to see what you said -- I'll try to search for it again and hope I find it -- if you were to maybe give a specific location and if that fails, go ahead and repeat it here, I -- and others would be interested.
from what I glean it is a requirement that non-profits register, I would suppose so that gov can know that they're tax exampt -- also, tax exempt status can be taken away if a non-profit engages in political activity.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 22, 2004 at 6:26 AM
| link to this | reply
Well said West
Our founding fathers knew just how violent a relationship between Church and State can be. England suffered first Roman Catholicism, then Protestantism, and back and forth again. People were killed for their faith--martyrdom only strengthens blind faith and changes nothing--doesn't bring understanding or resolution to problems--what it does is leave a history of foolishness at the ignorance of those who profess to have the "word" of God and His blessings for their actions against humanity--we have evolved beyond the rightness of faith and realize that it cannot be dictated to others, but must be a matter of conscience, for the individual, and to leave judgement to God and none other.
Peace,
Freerain
posted by
freerain
on October 21, 2004 at 9:47 PM
| link to this | reply
ya know,
it amazes me when you say keep government out of religion. You obviously read nothing I wrote about one example of a clear 'violation' of that in the 501 (c)(3) issue I tried to explain to you; of course you don't bother mentioning that, actually you didn't even respond to it. As far as your statement in regard to the Kennedy fellow, I nor the article in regards to him said anything about Christian judges.
posted by
PastorB
on October 21, 2004 at 3:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Hi, Westwend - Haven't commented on your blogs for a while, not since
we decided we would just have to agree to disagree, but still reading you now and then.
posted by
TAPS.
on October 21, 2004 at 3:18 PM
| link to this | reply