Rapture Countdown ... join the after-party!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   Dean wrote: , this particular mention of tax-exemption was in a reply to one of my posts where you specifically said to me:  "If you don't like Tax exemption for Churches, then you have to modify the concordats and the law...." and I had not mentioned tax-exemption, or my opinion of it, in that pos      /edit:  Iván, you should have scrolled back 3 posts prior to Mike's post that you just quoted... You should scroll 3 or 4 posts up to the Churches Tax  by C Picard, that's where everything started  Iván You never know where the snowball begins in a thread .

Not the same thing though is it? Really.

I'm still waiting for the party that was promised in the title.

 Rumour has it, Got is quite enraptured with this song:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Well, Camping has claimed this was an invisible Judgement day....Why not an invisible party?  Iván

Well of course it was an "invisible Judgement day" -- it was for an invisible god.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Obviously the non-profit status doesn't preclude (some of its) employees from receiving exorbitant salaries ...  All the ONG , no matter their status are exempt of taxes and all their employess receive a salary. Amnesty International is tax exempt in all the world, and their staff has high salaries. But you say nothing then. Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Not the same, but the starting point of all the tax issue. Iván

That's a tad bloody tenuous if you ask me, but if you say so, then so be it - the matter of tax exemption was raised by Captain Jean-Luc Picard...

Edited by Dean - May 27 2011 at 03:58

Mr ProgFreak wrote:   It would be more honest to simply keep those activities separated: 1. Help 2. Heal 3. Educate 4. Indoctrinate 1, 2 and 3 can - and should - be provided independently of 4.

Dean wrote: The T wrote: There has to be a way to link this thread to libertarianism, just because it's what we do... Okay found it!  Mr ProgFreak wrote:   It would be more honest to simply keep those activities separated: 1. Help 2. Heal 3. Educate 4. Indoctrinate 1, 2 and 3 can - and should - be provided independently of 4. No it doesn't have to. If the provider of a service (education in this case) decides to teach their own version of history and related, they are entitled to. If you don't like it, you are free to choose another provider.  I knew it could be done!  ThaT presupposes another provider exists in that locality, which isn't very likely in most cases.

Remember we don't believe in anti-trust laws  

Dean wrote: The T wrote: There has to be a way to link this thread to libertarianism, just because it's what we do... Okay found it!  Mr ProgFreak wrote:   It would be more honest to simply keep those activities separated: 1. Help 2. Heal 3. Educate 4. Indoctrinate 1, 2 and 3 can - and should - be provided independently of 4. No it doesn't have to. If the provider of a service (education in this case) decides to teach their own version of history and related, they are entitled to. If you don't like it, you are free to choose another provider.  I knew it could be done!  ThaT presupposes another provider exists in that locality, which isn't very likely in most cases.

Well, if another free option doesn't exist, it's not the provider's responsibility.

The Church is doing FOR FREE what the Governments should do, they are allowed to teach their vision of the truth.

If an atheist charity institution supported schools, they would probably teach there is no God or at least they would simply ignore religion.

Please, don't tell me they wouldn't do that.

Iván. 

Dean wrote: The T wrote: Dean wrote: The T wrote: There has to be a way to link this thread to libertarianism, just because it's what we do... Okay found it!  Mr ProgFreak wrote:   It would be more honest to simply keep those activities separated: 1. Help 2. Heal 3. Educate 4. Indoctrinate 1, 2 and 3 can - and should - be provided independently of 4. No it doesn't have to. If the provider of a service (education in this case) decides to teach their own version of history and related, they are entitled to. If you don't like it, you are free to choose another provider.  I knew it could be done!  ThaT presupposes another provider exists in that locality, which isn't very likely in most cases. Remember we don't believe in anti-trust laws   Can't see how that helps.

I don't think it's up to the government to provide education (which also has a high indoctrination content, anyway). If the church (in this case) is the only provider of education in that zone, sadly until competition arrives they will have the chance to teach their own truth... Of course if they don't want their newly educated people to severely lag behind and in turn give the church a bad name they will prefer not to teach them that Adam and Eve really existed...