| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2005 12:05:25 AM |
| Object: |
Ohio Christofascists |
The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 5/31/05:
http://www.cleveland.com/letters/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1117532001135062..xml&coll=2
Drawing the line between churches and politics
Gilbert Cantlin
A member of my church gave to me a copy of the Ohio Restoration
Project.
This project is led by so-called Christians who have a plan for Ohio.
The project will target 2,000 pastors throughout the state to become
"patriot pastors."
These patriot pastors will be briefed on a specific political agenda
and asked to submit names of their parishioners in order to increase a
database to 300,000 names.
These pastors will be asked to place voter guides in their church
pews.
Ken Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state and a governor hopeful, is
named throughout the document.
Blackwell will be featured on 30-second radio ads promoting this
group's agenda and supporting the "Ohio for Jesus" rally set for the
spring of 2006.
At the end of the document are the words, "America has a mission to
share a living savior with a dying world."
This is not America's mission.
This is frightening, diabolical stuff for non-Christians and
Christians alike.
It is blasphemous to claim that any earthly kingdom is God's kingdom.
The theological foundations of this movement are vacuous.
They are set on the sands of opportunism, self-righteousness and
greed.
It is time for the citizens of Ohio to wake up.
This group and those like it will stop at nothing in making America a
theocracy shaped by one very limited interpretation of scripture.
The media must investigate and show this movement for what it is.
Courageous preachers must help their congregations understand what is
at stake.
Silence is not an option.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
03 Jun 2005 01:14:30 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote
These pastors will be asked to place voter guides in
their church pews.
You realize, of course, that it's against the law for a church
to endorse a vote -- for or against -- any elected official.
Legally, a church is a 501(c)(3) organization, and the
codes are quite clear:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate
for elective public office."
Of course, these are right-wing churches, and the laws
don't apply to the right-wing.
After all, we are talking about a government that OFFERED
a plea bargain to the terrorist who bombed numerous sites
in the United States -- including the Olympic park -- because
he was a lunatic right-winger. Nobody else has been charged
in connection to his attacks, though he most certainly didn't
go years without contact with other people.
Now, if anyone should get a paper cut on a PETA flier, on
the other hand, just watch those indictments fly!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
03 Jun 2005 07:45:28 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vdudnYJK1LG-bgLfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote
These pastors will be asked to place voter guides in
their church pews.
You realize, of course, that it's against the law for a church
to endorse a vote -- for or against -- any elected official.
Legally, a church is a 501(c)(3) organization, and the
codes are quite clear:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate
for elective public office."
Of course, these are right-wing churches, and the laws
don't apply to the right-wing.
After all, we are talking about a government that OFFERED
a plea bargain to the terrorist who bombed numerous sites
in the United States -- including the Olympic park -- because
he was a lunatic right-winger. Nobody else has been charged
in connection to his attacks, though he most certainly didn't
go years without contact with other people.
Now, if anyone should get a paper cut on a PETA flier, on
the other hand, just watch those indictments fly!
Especially if PETA stand for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
instead of People Eating Tasty Animals.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
03 Jun 2005 05:07:43 PM |
|
|
In article <vdudnYJK1LG-bgLfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote
These pastors will be asked to place voter guides in
their church pews.
You realize, of course, that it's against the law for a church
to endorse a vote -- for or against -- any elected official.
No, it's not. They can endorse all they want. They just can't do it and
remain tax-exempt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
04 Jun 2005 03:56:33 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
You realize, of course, that it's against the law for a
church to endorse a vote -- for or against -- any
elected official.
No, it's not. They can endorse all they want. They just
can't do it and remain tax-exempt.
They can't do it and remain a church in any legally
defined sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
04 Jun 2005 06:00:13 PM |
|
|
In article <ULmdnbY576PBjj_fRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
You realize, of course, that it's against the law for a
church to endorse a vote -- for or against -- any
elected official.
No, it's not. They can endorse all they want. They just
can't do it and remain tax-exempt.
They can't do it and remain a church in any legally
defined sense.
As if the legal definition of "church" matters to them.
The only reason they might care is for the tax breaks. If they decide
that tax breaks don't matter, then they couldn't care less how the law
defines "church".
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
05 Jun 2005 12:48:34 AM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
As if the legal definition of "church" matters to them.
It obviously does. Why else would they choose to break the
law? Why not simply do it legally?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
05 Jun 2005 07:47:28 AM |
|
|
In article <U_6dnbcWs82QDT_fRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
As if the legal definition of "church" matters to them.
It obviously does. Why else would they choose to break the
law? Why not simply do it legally?
They're not "breaking the law". If anything, they're just rescinding
their tax-exempt status. It's not illegal to do that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
05 Jun 2005 01:32:47 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
They're not "breaking the law".
Of course they are! In no uncertain terms, they are intentionally
violating the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
05 Jun 2005 02:31:26 PM |
|
|
In article <G6OdnUA3Y5y33j7fRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
They're not "breaking the law".
Of course they are! In no uncertain terms, they are intentionally
violating the law.
Whatever. Call it what you like. All it means is they are giving up
tax-exempt status.
It certainly isn't a criminal violation. Hell, it doesn't even rise to
level of a civil tort which could make them liable for monetary damages.
All it means is that the IRS puts them in a different column in their
ledgers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
05 Jun 2005 02:46:45 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
Whatever. Call it what you like. All it means is they
are giving up tax-exempt status.
No. All it means is that they have elevated themselves
above the law. They have knowingly -- and with
malice of forethought -- broke the law.
We call such people "criminals."
Well, okay, sometimes we refer to them as "sociopaths."
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
05 Jun 2005 06:07:23 PM |
|
|
In article <TeednXH4GbkcyT7fRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
Whatever. Call it what you like. All it means is they
are giving up tax-exempt status.
No. All it means is that they have elevated themselves
above the law. They have knowingly -- and with
malice of forethought -- broke the law.
Not any more than I break the law when I withdraw money from my IRA
early. It just means I have to pay taxes on it now.
The law says that churches must remain politically neutral or pay taxes.
The law leaves the choice up to the church. It's not a violation of law
for the church to make the latter choice.
We call such people "criminals."
No, you do. We, the intelligent, do no such thing.
Well, okay, sometimes we refer to them as "sociopaths."
Ah, so now a church member is a sociopath for advocating on behalf of a
political candidate?
I think it's now plain how monumentally stupid you truly are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
06 Jun 2005 02:47:56 AM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
Not any more than I break the law when I withdraw
money from my IRA early. It just means I have to
pay taxes on it now.
That's not the least bit similar, which you must know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
06 Jun 2005 05:53:46 AM |
|
|
In article <XfSdnWRYxMIaYD7fRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
Not any more than I break the law when I withdraw
money from my IRA early. It just means I have to
pay taxes on it now.
That's not the least bit similar, which you must know.
Legally, it surely is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
08 Jun 2005 02:47:49 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
That's not the least bit similar, which you must know.
Legally, it surely is.
Please, are you really this stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
08 Jun 2005 04:57:10 PM |
|
|
In article <xeidnaVDGaSj1DrfRVn-vQ@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
That's not the least bit similar, which you must know.
Legally, it surely is.
Please, are you really this stupid?
We can end this now.
Post the statute if you're so sure it's a criminal violation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
08 Jun 2005 05:48:12 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
We can end this now.
Honey, you never got off the ground!
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
08 Jun 2005 06:40:10 PM |
|
|
In article <0c-dncDyBu4Y7jrfRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
We can end this now.
Honey, you never got off the ground!
So no statute, then?
Figures.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
08 Jun 2005 07:01:36 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
So no statute, then?
Honey, I quoted the relevant laws from the begining!
Here's all of. You'll have to click on the political
link to see the specific provision they are violating.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
Moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
08 Jun 2005 09:10:16 PM |
|
|
In article <ao6dnU_kScAnGTrfRVn-1g@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
So no statute, then?
Honey, I quoted the relevant laws from the begining!
Here's all of. You'll have to click on the political
link to see the specific provision they are violating.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
Moron.
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals" that means you have to come up
with a cite from the federal CRIMINAL code and show that it's a CRIMINAL
violation. That's Title 18 just to get you started.
Now pony up or shut up, sparky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
08 Jun 2005 11:48:34 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
09 Jun 2005 04:07:33 PM |
|
|
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation? Where's the statute? If you're so
sure they've broken a criminal law, it shouldn't be too hard for you to
provide a cite to that law.
You just calling them criminals over and over again doesn't cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
09 Jun 2005 08:34:10 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation?
Are you trying to claim that because a cult isn't been indicted
it's not breaking the law? You're not _that_ Republican, are you?
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
09 Jun 2005 09:01:48 PM |
|
|
In article <11ahs5qd3l9jr94@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation?
Are you trying to claim that because a cult isn't been indicted
it's not breaking the law?
No, I'm simply asking for the damn law that's been broken.
If they're criminals, they have to have violated a criminal statute.
Cite the damn statute. That's all I want. Simple. But no one seems to be
able to pony it up.
You're not _that_ Republican, are you?
Nope, not a Republican at all. But I am a lawyer. I *know* that this
isn't a crime but it seems the only way I can prove that is to force you
guys to cite the law. Since it's a non-existent law, I get to sit back
and smile as you guys do verbal gymnastics to defend your position while
at the same time providing no proof whatsoever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
11 Jun 2005 01:31:27 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11ahs5qd3l9jr94@corp.supernews.com>,
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation?
Are you trying to claim that because a cult isn't been indicted
it's not breaking the law?
No, I'm simply asking for the damn law that's been broken.
Have you heard of something called the "United States Constitution?"
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
11 Jun 2005 05:52:47 PM |
|
|
In article <11amc5473fqcm90@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11ahs5qd3l9jr94@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation?
Are you trying to claim that because a cult isn't been indicted
it's not breaking the law?
No, I'm simply asking for the damn law that's been broken.
If they're criminals, they have to have violated a criminal statute.
Cite the damn statute. That's all I want. Simple. But no one seems to be
able to pony it up.
Have you heard of something called the "United States Constitution?"
Cite me the article and section of the Constitution that makes it a
criminal offense for a church organization to endorse a political
candidate.
In fact, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for everyone,
including the religious. Arguing that there's an entire section of
society that doesn't have the same right to free speech as everyone
else, upon pain of criminal prosecution is nonsensical.
The reality is that the Constitution forbids the government from
endorsing and establishing religion. It does not forbid religion from
endorsing the government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
12 Jun 2005 12:08:28 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11amc5473fqcm90@corp.supernews.com>,
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11ahs5qd3l9jr94@corp.supernews.com>,
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation?
Are you trying to claim that because a cult isn't been indicted
it's not breaking the law?
No, I'm simply asking for the damn law that's been broken.
If they're criminals, they have to have violated a criminal statute.
Cite the damn statute. That's all I want. Simple. But no one seems to be
able to pony it up.
Have you heard of something called the "United States Constitution?"
Cite me the article and section of the Constitution that makes it a
criminal offense for a church organization to endorse a political
candidate.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ constitution.billofrights.html
There ya go, rightard buttfuck Christofascist.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
19 Jun 2005 06:35:24 PM |
|
|
In article <11aorlh71diocfb@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11amc5473fqcm90@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11ahs5qd3l9jr94@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation?
Are you trying to claim that because a cult isn't been indicted
it's not breaking the law?
No, I'm simply asking for the damn law that's been broken.
If they're criminals, they have to have violated a criminal statute.
Cite the damn statute. That's all I want. Simple. But no one seems to be
able to pony it up.
Have you heard of something called the "United States Constitution?"
Cite me the article and section of the Constitution that makes it a
criminal offense for a church organization to endorse a political
candidate.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ constitution.billofrights.html
There ya go, rightard buttfuck Christofascist.
LOL! Wow. You're really gonna have a hemorrahage over this aren't ya,
chief?
First, calling me a "Christofascist" is ridiculous since I'm an atheist.
I'm just a not a drooling mouth-breather like you who goes into an
apoplectic fit of illogic over anything religious. Or is
"Christofascist" just your general catch-all term that you use to refer
to anyone who doesn't agree with you, regardless of whether they're
Christian or not?
Next, your link is broken. It goes nowhere and therefore proves nothing.
No big surprise there, either.
But it seems like all you did was try and link to an on-line copy of the
Constitution, in which case I've already addressed that particular
non-response from you:
Don't just cite the Constitution. Doing so is menaingless. Cite me the
article and section of the Constitution that makes it a criminal offense
for a church organization to endorse a political candidate, preferably
with cites to Supreme Court case law interpreting the 1st Amendment as
broadly as you seem to think it applies. I'll be waiting for that. Until
then you're just an idiot who can do nothing but call people names.
The fact is, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for
everyone, including the religious. Arguing that there's an entire
section of society that doesn't have the same right to free speech as
everyone else, upon pain of criminal prosecution is nonsensical.
In reality, the Constitution forbids the government from endorsing and
establishing religion. It does not forbid religion from endorsing the
government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
20 Jun 2005 09:19:45 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11aorlh71diocfb@corp.supernews.com>,
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11amc5473fqcm90@corp.supernews.com>,
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11ahs5qd3l9jr94@corp.supernews.com>,
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation?
Are you trying to claim that because a cult isn't been indicted
it's not breaking the law?
No, I'm simply asking for the damn law that's been broken.
If they're criminals, they have to have violated a criminal statute.
Cite the damn statute. That's all I want. Simple. But no one seems to be
able to pony it up.
Have you heard of something called the "United States Constitution?"
Cite me the article and section of the Constitution that makes it a
criminal offense for a church organization to endorse a political
candidate.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ constitution.billofrights.html
There ya go, rightard buttfuck Christofascist.
LOL! Wow. You're really gonna have a hemorrahage over this aren't ya,
chief?
Try reading it once, rightard buttfuck.
No offense intended, I'm sure.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
20 Jun 2005 10:25:05 PM |
|
|
In article <11beuukjs2lbbf5@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11aorlh71diocfb@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11amc5473fqcm90@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11ahs5qd3l9jr94@corp.supernews.com>,
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation?
Are you trying to claim that because a cult isn't been indicted
it's not breaking the law?
No, I'm simply asking for the damn law that's been broken.
If they're criminals, they have to have violated a criminal statute.
Cite the damn statute. That's all I want. Simple. But no one seems to
be able to pony it up.
Have you heard of something called the "United States Constitution?"
Cite me the article and section of the Constitution that makes it a
criminal offense for a church organization to endorse a political
candidate.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ constitution.billofrights.html
There ya go, rightard buttfuck Christofascist.
LOL! Wow. You're really gonna have a hemorrahage over this aren't ya,
chief?
Try reading it once, rightard buttfuck.
No offense intended, I'm sure.
So proud of yourself you posted it twice?
Try for three and maybe you'll get a cookie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Christofascists |
20 Jun 2005 09:19:48 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11aorlh71diocfb@corp.supernews.com>,
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11amc5473fqcm90@corp.supernews.com>,
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <11ahs5qd3l9jr94@corp.supernews.com>,
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <AYCdnV9xDeVhWjrfRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote
No, dumbass, you called them "criminals"
They are criminals. They knowingly & intentionally broke
the law. And the lied. They misrepresented themselves.
They pretended they were one kind of organization -- in
order to reap the tax benefits -- when in fact that were not
that kind of organization at all.
These are criminals who have chosen to break the law.
So where's the criminal violation?
Are you trying to claim that because a cult isn't been indicted
it's not breaking the law?
No, I'm simply asking for the damn law that's been broken.
If they're criminals, they have to have violated a criminal statute.
Cite the damn statute. That's all I want. Simple. But no one seems to be
able to pony it up.
Have you heard of something called the "United States Constitution?"
Cite me the article and section of the Constitution that makes it a
criminal offense for a church organization to endorse a political
candidate.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ constitution.billofrights.html
There ya go, rightard buttfuck Christofascist.
LOL! Wow. You're really gonna have a hemorrahage over this aren't ya,
chief?
Try reading it once, rightard buttfuck.
No offense intended, I'm sure.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
