| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"L. Raymond" |
| Date: |
03 Jul 2006 11:59:22 PM |
| Object: |
Too Many Churches |
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
04 Jul 2006 05:52:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
04 Jul 2006 09:47:11 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
I've actually heard interesting arguments against this. For instance,
a gentleman I met in an atheist group made the point that churches
already manage to sway elections from the pulpit. If we revoke their
tax status, we also revoke any prohibition on political involvement, and
it's easy to see their influence would be felt a thousand times worse
than it is now.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
10 Jul 2006 09:08:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:47:11 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Michael Gray wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
I've actually heard interesting arguments against this. For instance,
a gentleman I met in an atheist group made the point that churches
already manage to sway elections from the pulpit. If we revoke their
tax status, we also revoke any prohibition on political involvement, and
it's easy to see their influence would be felt a thousand times worse
than it is now.
The law has no teeth which is why the superstition industry continues.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
05 Jul 2006 03:51:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:47:11 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <5yvidmkmqrxm$.9l0axfegy56l.dlg@40tude.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
I've actually heard interesting arguments against this. For instance,
a gentleman I met in an atheist group made the point that churches
already manage to sway elections from the pulpit. If we revoke their
tax status, we also revoke any prohibition on political involvement, and
it's easy to see their influence would be felt a thousand times worse
than it is now.
This is to conflate two utterly disparate things, for the sake of
convenience.
If churches wield too much political power, that needs to be dealt
with separately.
A bit like giving punks ipods for free, to reduce theft.
One wrong does not revoke a potential future wrong, in fact it can
encourage it through blackmail.
No, I do not agree with this proposition at all.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
05 Jul 2006 03:55:05 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:47:11 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <5yvidmkmqrxm$.9l0axfegy56l.dlg@40tude.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
I've actually heard interesting arguments against this. For instance,
a gentleman I met in an atheist group made the point that churches
already manage to sway elections from the pulpit. If we revoke their
tax status, we also revoke any prohibition on political involvement, and
it's easy to see their influence would be felt a thousand times worse
than it is now.
This is to conflate two utterly disparate things, for the sake of
convenience.
If churches wield too much political power, that needs to be dealt
with separately.
If churches were to pay taxes just like any other corporate body, then
they would necessarily have the same right to involve themselves in
politics as any other corporate body, so tax status and political power
would in fact be tied together.
No, I do not agree with this proposition at all.
I haven't decided if I agree with his argument, but it is something to
keep in mind.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
05 Jul 2006 06:14:00 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 03:55:05 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <lxf3qu2ex2i2$.1nq017una7s1a.dlg@40tude.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:47:11 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <5yvidmkmqrxm$.9l0axfegy56l.dlg@40tude.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
I've actually heard interesting arguments against this. For instance,
a gentleman I met in an atheist group made the point that churches
already manage to sway elections from the pulpit. If we revoke their
tax status, we also revoke any prohibition on political involvement, and
it's easy to see their influence would be felt a thousand times worse
than it is now.
This is to conflate two utterly disparate things, for the sake of
convenience.
If churches wield too much political power, that needs to be dealt
with separately.
If churches were to pay taxes just like any other corporate body, then
they would necessarily have the same right to involve themselves in
politics as any other corporate body, so tax status and political power
would in fact be tied together.
Eh?
No, I do not agree with this proposition at all.
I haven't decided if I agree with his argument, but it is something to
keep in mind.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
10 Jul 2006 09:37:17 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
For once, I agree with this jerk. The Protestators are in Church
business
for the money and not for God and we think that Law should be mosessed
to prevent
them from defrauding the masses.
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS MEANINGLESS AS MEANINGLESS AS DOCUMENT
HYPOTHESIS ITS ATHEIST SISTER
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
10 Jul 2006 09:06:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
11 Jul 2006 04:23:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bs16b2lav1c5ni9lcvos60j6se64u6ults@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
14 Jul 2006 02:42:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:53:35 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bs16b2lav1c5ni9lcvos60j6se64u6ults@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
14 Jul 2006 08:54:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:42:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vssfb2djuv51sjcfucvhvvds37pf1gqto6@4ax.com>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:53:35 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bs16b2lav1c5ni9lcvos60j6se64u6ults@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
19 Jul 2006 06:09:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:04:17 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:33:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9n4mb21qhgvr1hckcla5abc50l0tsv761o@4ax.com>
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:24:57 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:42:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vssfb2djuv51sjcfucvhvvds37pf1gqto6@4ax.com>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:53:35 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bs16b2lav1c5ni9lcvos60j6se64u6ults@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
19 Jul 2006 11:45:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:09:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9tetb2t4h3i9agnjb1tb1t36jir0bva428@4ax.com>
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:04:17 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:33:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9n4mb21qhgvr1hckcla5abc50l0tsv761o@4ax.com>
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:24:57 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:42:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vssfb2djuv51sjcfucvhvvds37pf1gqto6@4ax.com>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:53:35 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bs16b2lav1c5ni9lcvos60j6se64u6ults@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
21 Jul 2006 03:33:14 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:15:41 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:09:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9tetb2t4h3i9agnjb1tb1t36jir0bva428@4ax.com>
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:04:17 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:33:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9n4mb21qhgvr1hckcla5abc50l0tsv761o@4ax.com>
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:24:57 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:42:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vssfb2djuv51sjcfucvhvvds37pf1gqto6@4ax.com>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:53:35 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bs16b2lav1c5ni9lcvos60j6se64u6ults@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
21 Jul 2006 06:52:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:33:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <afe2c21godjgsmhcu45j0j1suv4kko16mo@4ax.com>
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:15:41 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:09:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9tetb2t4h3i9agnjb1tb1t36jir0bva428@4ax.com>
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:04:17 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:33:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9n4mb21qhgvr1hckcla5abc50l0tsv761o@4ax.com>
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:24:57 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:42:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vssfb2djuv51sjcfucvhvvds37pf1gqto6@4ax.com>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:53:35 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bs16b2lav1c5ni9lcvos60j6se64u6ults@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
24 Jul 2006 10:28:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:33:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <afe2c21godjgsmhcu45j0j1suv4kko16mo@4ax.com>
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:15:41 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:09:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9tetb2t4h3i9agnjb1tb1t36jir0bva428@4ax.com>
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:04:17 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:33:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9n4mb21qhgvr1hckcla5abc50l0tsv761o@4ax.com>
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:24:57 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:42:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vssfb2djuv51sjcfucvhvvds37pf1gqto6@4ax.com>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:53:35 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bs16b2lav1c5ni9lcvos60j6se64u6ults@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
24 Jul 2006 08:09:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bop9c2t93vpvmbkebfgrmc7skqe4kl1kqu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:33:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <afe2c21godjgsmhcu45j0j1suv4kko16mo@4ax.com>
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:15:41 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:09:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9tetb2t4h3i9agnjb1tb1t36jir0bva428@4ax.com>
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:04:17 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:33:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9n4mb21qhgvr1hckcla5abc50l0tsv761o@4ax.com>
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:24:57 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:42:41 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vssfb2djuv51sjcfucvhvvds37pf1gqto6@4ax.com>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:53:35 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:17 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bs16b2lav1c5ni9lcvos60j6se64u6ults@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:59:22 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
- Refer: <vusf65lmfbdf.17lqzmzr1vcn2.dlg@40tude.net>
There was an interesting story on the news tonight about Stafford, a
small city in Texas just outside Houston. They've decided to prohibit
the building of any more churches inside the city limit. Stafford is
only eight square miles in size, has 51 churches and has no property
tax, meaning basically all their revenue comes from sales tax, and they
don't want to lose any more property that could be used for a retail
business. The member of the city council who was quoted said it's
actually a prohibition against any new non-profits at all, not just
churches.
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
27 Jul 2006 10:19:01 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:39:45 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bop9c2t93vpvmbkebfgrmc7skqe4kl1kqu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
27 Jul 2006 06:51:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:19:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e8mhc250sm6p1nptc6hcbtcsrc7i4out99@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:39:45 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bop9c2t93vpvmbkebfgrmc7skqe4kl1kqu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
02 Aug 2006 06:52:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:21:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:19:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e8mhc250sm6p1nptc6hcbtcsrc7i4out99@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:39:45 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bop9c2t93vpvmbkebfgrmc7skqe4kl1kqu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
02 Aug 2006 08:16:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:52:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bke2d29jcpcg3mprmna6vsp9pt22b74gm8@4ax.com>
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:21:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:19:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e8mhc250sm6p1nptc6hcbtcsrc7i4out99@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:39:45 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bop9c2t93vpvmbkebfgrmc7skqe4kl1kqu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
06 Aug 2006 12:07:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:46:51 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:52:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bke2d29jcpcg3mprmna6vsp9pt22b74gm8@4ax.com>
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:21:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:19:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e8mhc250sm6p1nptc6hcbtcsrc7i4out99@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:39:45 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bop9c2t93vpvmbkebfgrmc7skqe4kl1kqu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
They serviced all nations.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
06 Aug 2006 09:08:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:07:08 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <968cd21b82k0ade103dksia1ikibglc2u5@4ax.com>
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:46:51 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:52:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bke2d29jcpcg3mprmna6vsp9pt22b74gm8@4ax.com>
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:21:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:19:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e8mhc250sm6p1nptc6hcbtcsrc7i4out99@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:39:45 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bop9c2t93vpvmbkebfgrmc7skqe4kl1kqu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
They serviced all nations.
Very good, on so many levels!
I can't top that, so I won't try.
You win the pun fight. (Again)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
09 Aug 2006 06:55:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:38:55 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:07:08 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <968cd21b82k0ade103dksia1ikibglc2u5@4ax.com>
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:46:51 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:52:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bke2d29jcpcg3mprmna6vsp9pt22b74gm8@4ax.com>
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:21:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:19:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e8mhc250sm6p1nptc6hcbtcsrc7i4out99@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:39:45 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bop9c2t93vpvmbkebfgrmc7skqe4kl1kqu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
They serviced all nations.
Very good, on so many levels!
I can't top that, so I won't try.
You win the pun fight. (Again)
Puns of fun. You can't make just juan.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
11 Aug 2006 05:48:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:55:37 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hdtkd21uvv9bvvekv50qlf1hltcrkvo4n1@4ax.com>
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:38:55 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:07:08 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <968cd21b82k0ade103dksia1ikibglc2u5@4ax.com>
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:46:51 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:52:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bke2d29jcpcg3mprmna6vsp9pt22b74gm8@4ax.com>
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:21:07 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:19:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e8mhc250sm6p1nptc6hcbtcsrc7i4out99@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:39:45 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:28:39 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bop9c2t93vpvmbkebfgrmc7skqe4kl1kqu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:22:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
This immediately got me to thinking about the possibility that
municipalities hard up for cash may start thinking about how much of
their taxable property is tied up by churches. Probably, of course, the
only result will be a lawsuit demanding the right to build more
churches. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The solution is obvious.
Revoke tax deductability for all religions and churches.
Since they're business' anyway.
I mean, street hucksters, and con-men don't get tax deductability.
Why should the snake-oil merchants with funny hats and dresses get it?
Because they've the 'eternal' keys.
But the charlatans who sell perpetual motion (sorry, now it's called
greater than zero efficiency) machines have that as well!
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
They serviced all nations.
Very good, on so many levels!
I can't top that, so I won't try.
You win the pun fight. (Again)
Puns of fun. You can't make just juan.
Juan ton a mo' bray.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
14 Aug 2006 10:30:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:18:41 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:55:37 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hdtkd21uvv9bvvekv50qlf1hltcrkvo4n1@4ax.com>
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:38:55 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
They serviced all nations.
Very good, on so many levels!
I can't top that, so I won't try.
You win the pun fight. (Again)
Puns of fun. You can't make just juan.
Juan ton a mo' bray.
Where Bush bots hold sway.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
15 Aug 2006 01:48:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:30:25 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <tl51e29o1jduiqkl5m6n8670bugm26u4vm@4ax.com>
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:18:41 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:55:37 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hdtkd21uvv9bvvekv50qlf1hltcrkvo4n1@4ax.com>
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:38:55 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
They serviced all nations.
Very good, on so many levels!
I can't top that, so I won't try.
You win the pun fight. (Again)
Puns of fun. You can't make just juan.
Juan ton a mo' bray.
Where Bush bots hold sway.
Rumsfeld come, an' me wanna go home.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
16 Aug 2006 12:08:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:18:47 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:30:25 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <tl51e29o1jduiqkl5m6n8670bugm26u4vm@4ax.com>
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:18:41 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:55:37 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hdtkd21uvv9bvvekv50qlf1hltcrkvo4n1@4ax.com>
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:38:55 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
They serviced all nations.
Very good, on so many levels!
I can't top that, so I won't try.
You win the pun fight. (Again)
Puns of fun. You can't make just juan.
Juan ton a mo' bray.
Where Bush bots hold sway.
Rumsfeld come, an' me wanna go home.
{must scrub brain}
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
17 Aug 2006 07:38:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:08:38 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <58k6e29b69fn1sfb3juqb8l2815bc6ksd6@4ax.com>
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:18:47 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:30:25 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <tl51e29o1jduiqkl5m6n8670bugm26u4vm@4ax.com>
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:18:41 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:55:37 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <hdtkd21uvv9bvvekv50qlf1hltcrkvo4n1@4ax.com>
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:38:55 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
They serviced all nations.
Very good, on so many levels!
I can't top that, so I won't try.
You win the pun fight. (Again)
Puns of fun. You can't make just juan.
Juan ton a mo' bray.
Where Bush bots hold sway.
Rumsfeld come, an' me wanna go home.
{must scrub brain}
Then why not visit sunny Guantanamo Bay?
The finest brainwashing centre this side of the rust curtain!
Have your brain scrubbed in discomfort by trained experts.
And don't forget that accomodation is FREE to all Muslims!
(Just show a copy of the Koran at the reception rack.)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Too Many Churches |
19 Aug 2006 06:29:57 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:08:17 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:08:38 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <58k6e29b69fn1sfb3juqb8l2815bc6ksd6@4ax.com>
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:18:47 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Yabbut they don't promise eternal torture.
You ate correct.
That is one main difference between the two types of mountebank.
Is that the basis on which one is offered tax deductability?
Torquemada must have had one happy accountant!
I'm sure the accountant was lousey.
Burned at the steak, with special fried lice?
Only if 'mada' was Torque[d].
Yes, I couldn't talk 'em out of it.
His 'saddle' was then definately blazing.
Then that wouldn't be 'burned at the steak' rather 'burned at the
bean'?
(Oops. Pardon me. That was a "has bean".)
Crispy ham and hocks with stake oysters and a scrotum pole...
Scrotum Pole?
Which Native American Tribe had them?
The Pornee, possibly?
Chickasaw?
Kickapoo?
Hunkpapa?
(All genuine)
Saginaw and Potawamie....
The firm of Attournies?
Or train stations?
They serviced all nations.
Very good, on so many levels!
I can't top that, so I won't try.
You win the pun fight. (Again)
Puns of fun. You can't make just juan.
Juan ton a mo' bray.
Where Bush bots hold sway.
Rumsfeld come, an' me wanna go home.
{must scrub brain}
Then why not visit sunny Guantanamo Bay?
The finest brainwashing centre this side of the rust curtain!
Have your brain scrubbed in discomfort by trained experts.
And don't forget that accomodation is FREE to all Muslims!
(Just show a copy of the Koran at the reception rack.)
They've got a reception rack? Luxury!
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
