11399Re: [Death To Religion] Re: A Strategy of 'Subversive Rationalization' for a post-Ab
- Apr 5, 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "bestonnet_00" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 10:23 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: A Strategy of 'Subversive Rationalization'
for a post-Ab
>> I suspect you would be proven wrong. Undoubtedly Obama will be the
>> Democrat candidate.
> Him or another Clinton (and probably the loser between those two being
> the vice president).
We'll see, but I think it is 99% probable to be Obama, and about impossible
that the loser would be the VP candidate.
>> Judging by his spiritual advisor, I suspect he, leader of the
>> Democratics, will then be the theocrats,
> I suspect not. He is religious to be sure but he does seem to realise
> that religion should be kept out of government and that laws should
> not be made unless they serve a secular purpose.
Not so much that he is religious, which it might not even be, but rather his
racial prejudice plus his (and his wife's) basic anti-Americanism due to
whitey. He brings up the slavery and marginality past and connects this
with the black Christian religion. Not directly to government, but
indirectly in perspective and emphasis.
>> while McCain does not favor religion, although he does use all
>> sources for election support, such as the Evangelicals who are a
>> very large voting group.
> Hard to say, he's attempt at becoming presidential candidate in 2000
> was destroyed because he didn't pander to the nut cases but he sure
> seems to be doing a lot of pandering to them now. Should he get in
> it'll probably be just like another term of Bush.
Not even a possibility. But just which part of Bush do you think? Yes to
conservative, free market economy, strong military, finish the Iraq war and
get out while keeping a military force stationed there as in S. Korea and
> There is also Congress which should become majority democrat.
Is now, probably will continue.
>> The special privilege I have for a long time hoped to be corrected
>> is the tax exempt status for the all sorts of religious
>> organization. Churches should pay taxes just like the rest of us.
>> After all it is a well-established fact they are businesses in the
>> common definition of money makers.
> That's the big one that we need to see corrected (though I wouldn't
> have a problem with religious organisations which provide charity that
> isn't intended to convert people nor restricted to only their members
> getting tax exemptions) although there are others that I'd like to do
> away with (about the only one I'd keep would be exemptions from voting).
There is no practical way to distinguish those, and too controversial to do
that. Simply, all business entities should pay taxes. All business
entities do contribute to charity to some extent. Generally churches don't
contribute much outside their own organizations, and on the whole less than
secular contributions (government and business entities).
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>