As Yakoff Smirnoff said - "What a country!"

[DrewKaree]

Quite the dichotomy in the news today.  Top 2 stories, in the order they were listed:

First, this:

http://www.news4jax.com/news4georgia/5331893/detail.html

Then this?  It's almost as if the constancy of the first story and others just like it are leading to more of the second kind of story.....yet somehow, the two stories are never put together in such a provocative manner:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47416

Yeah, America needs MORE stories like the second one

And people say we were attacked because we didn't "understand" or "communicate" with Islamist fundamentalists.  It DEFINITELY wasn't because we're a degenerating country working dilligently to remove any moral aides to our people...well, unless porking a pig (HAH ) is somehow something to strive for.

[grueinthebox]

Yes, because everyone who isn't Christian loves to get their jollies by screwing goats... 

Giving tax breaks on bibles and not other religious texts is discriminatory.  Screwing animals isn't healthy behavior.  The two are unrelated.

I'm sure there are a good number of bible owners who engage in sex with animals...  Screwing altar boys can only keep one entertained for so long.

Personally, I'd like to see no tax breaks on any religious texts, and the animals provided with pepper spray (or maybe frickin' lasers attached to their heads) with which to defend themselves from would-be rapists.

[jbox]

Not sure which is funnier, that it was so obvious or that someone fell for it. 

[allroy1975]

"a move pro-family activists say is a natural progression of the state's legalizing same-sex marriage. "

so...in this day and age...gay people with kids, can't be a family?  if I don't have a problem with what homosexuals do behind their doors or adopting children or getting married does that make me "anti-family"? 

I guess so...since I'm also "anti-life"  oh no wait..I'm pro-choice.  why can't the "conservatives" be "anti-choice"? 

 

[saint]

Quite the dichotomy in the news today.  Top 2 stories, in the order they were listed:

First, this:

http://www.news4jax.com/news4georgia/5331893/detail.html

Do you think the ACLU is wrong on this one? Why should the Judeo-Christian Bible be tax exempt, and not say... the Koran? (If the Koran and other holy books are in fact tax exempt then I'm reading this wrong and missing the point, but it sounds like only the Judeo-Christian Bible is getting the benefit of this law)...

[DrewKaree]

Giving tax breaks on bibles and not other religious texts is discriminatory.

"The law exempts from sale taxes the Bible as well as "similar books commonly recognized as being Holy Scripture regardless of by or to whom sold."

Seems to say "other religious texts" such as the Koran or whatever else others consider to be their "Holy Scripture" would be exempt.  If the state law refines it further to state ANY text considered "Holy Scripture" is to be tax exempt, great.  I'm surprised the quote above was included in the story, but even more so that you seem to be stating that you either missed it, or can't see how it would apply to other religions.

The person who has a problem with the law unwittingly lays out the defense of the law, and how it was interpreted by me, in case you were thinking I'm nuts.  Who do you agree with, the lady who's bringing the suit you seem to agree with, or me, who agrees with the opinion/interpretation of the law by the lady who's bringing the suit?

"Apple argued that the phrasing is too vague to be restricted to Judeo-Christian publications, or even to books reflecting major religions."

Here's an idea.  Read my comments on the topic.  You might be so blind with rage you missed the fact that there wasn't a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim putdown like you couldn't resist.  Go ahead, check it again.  Moral aides.  Yeah, that's something Christians have cornered the market on

Relaxing laws on deviant behavior while working to remove what little incentive is available for religious practice certainly IS related, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  Oh, and screwing altar boys is almost exclusively a Catholic thing, since we're on the "unrelated" stuff.  I'm wondering who you know that agrees that screwing altar boys is somehow better than goats, or is somehow a precept that any religion condones. 

[DrewKaree]

Do you think the ACLU is wrong on this one? Why should the Judeo-Christian Bible be tax exempt, and not say... the Koran? (If the Koran and other holy books are in fact tax exempt then I'm reading this wrong and missing the point, but it sounds like only the Judeo-Christian Bible is getting the benefit of this law)...

I believe the lady herself laid it out perfectly, and provided a reasonable way to go about this.  I don't know anyone who thinks what we need are more lawsuits.  Where I definitely WOULD agree with the ACLU is if they didn't charge tax for the Koran and were penalized for it.  Involving the court system to further clarify a law that seems to be written so as to include ANY religion and what it considers "Holy Scripture" seems foolish and unneedy....UNLESS it specifically stated that ONLY the Bible would be tax exempt.  The additional text seems to give the woman (and her representatives) exactly what they are looking for.

[DrewKaree]

why can't the "conservatives" be "anti-choice"?

Why do you assess "pro-life" to all conservatives?  You've never met a conservative who doesn't have a problem with abortion?  I have.  Know a few of 'em.  Drive on up, I'll introduce you.

The reason I consider the term "pro-life" appropriate is that I view that life as a child.  I view the "choice" as something to be made when actions are undertaken to produce a child.  You simply view abortion differently, and the way I understand it, you interpret abortion as a choice to end a pregnancy.  While we differ in how we view what happens after conception, I've never considered "your side" to be anti-life. 

Somehow renaming the other side as "anti-choice" would make their views better, or easier for you to swallow?

[saint]

Hm, I had to go back and re-read it. I'm not entirely sure what she's getting at. 

"The federal suit filed Mondayin Atlanta on behalf of a metaphysical bookstore owner says the tax exemption should be extended to all publications dealing with the meaning of life.

Store owner Candace Apple said if the state is not taxing one holy scripture, it should not be taxing any."

I don't think "any publication dealing with the meaning of life" is the same thing as any religion's holy book. That'd get you the whole gambit of philosophy books on the shelf. If that's the actual intent behind this lawsuit it's silly.

Of course, that does beg the question of how to define what is and isn't a religion and by extension a religion's holy book.  Should the Satanic Verses be tax-exempt? 

Do you think the ACLU is wrong on this one? Why should the Judeo-Christian Bible be tax exempt, and not say... the Koran? (If the Koran and other holy books are in fact tax exempt then I'm reading this wrong and missing the point, but it sounds like only the Judeo-Christian Bible is getting the benefit of this law)...

I believe the lady herself laid it out perfectly, and provided a reasonable way to go about this.  I don't know anyone who thinks what we need are more lawsuits.  Where I definitely WOULD agree with the ACLU is if they didn't charge tax for the Koran and were penalized for it.  Involving the court system to further clarify a law that seems to be written so as to include ANY religion and what it considers "Holy Scripture" seems foolish and unneedy....UNLESS it specifically stated that ONLY the Bible would be tax exempt.  The additional text seems to give the woman (and her representatives) exactly what they are looking for.

[saint]

Dug a bit more:

Apple and Thomas Budlong, former president of the Georgia Library Association, sued in federal court Monday, contending that the tax break as written is unconstitutional. Georgia Revenue Department spokesman Charles Willey had no comment Tuesday.

The law, enacted in the 1950s, exempts the Bible from sales taxes as well as "similar books commonly recognized as being Holy Scripture."

"What about A Witches' Bible?" Apple asked, referring to a book she sells for Wiccans.

She's right in this case -- Wicca is a recognized religion as far as I understand it. The military will give you a Wiccan burial if you're of that faith and die while serving. Under the law as reported, I think their holy book should be tax exempt, and if it's not as she seems to be saying, then there's reasonable grounds for the ACLU to step in.

More

The lawsuit said Budlong objected to having to pay sales tax on his recent purchases of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values" and "The Bhagavad Gita," a sacred Hindu text.

I don't know about the Zen book, but it certainly sounds like the Hindu's may not be getting fair treatment under the current enforcement of this law.

HOWEVER - from the same article:

"Most organizations or advocates will approach us to isolate a specific issue they have," Graham told the paper. "Often we can take a number of issues off the table, either by rule or regulation. ... We don't like to start in court, but if someone wants to go down that road, we're more than happy to accommodate them and work through the issue."

Graham's office already has suspended sales tax for purchase of Islam's sacred book the Quran, in response to an inquiry. But there have been no requests about other religious or spiritual texts, he said.

So if that's in fact the case, it sounds like they jumped the gun unless someone's misinformed or obfustigating...

--- saint

[DrewKaree]

Hm, I had to go back and re-read it. I'm not entirely sure what she's getting at. 

"The federal suit filed Mondayin Atlanta on behalf of a metaphysical bookstore owner says the tax exemption should be extended to all publications dealing with the meaning of life.

Store owner Candace Apple said if the state is not taxing one holy scripture, it should not be taxing any."

I don't think "any publication dealing with the meaning of life" is the same thing as any religion's holy book. That'd get you the whole gambit of philosophy books on the shelf. If that's the actual intent behind this lawsuit it's silly.

I was referring to the quote attributed to her that said "Apple argued that the phrasing is too vague to be restricted to Judeo-Christian publications, or even to books reflecting major religions."

The lawsuit she's got pending assumes the law DOESN'T apply to "other texts" even though she can see how it could be interpreted to read that it DOES.

If such books as the Wiccan holy text aren't exempt, they should be, but again, using her words, if the phrasing is that vague, I'd assume it to be exempt, and see reasonable actions being what the Graham person you reference is quoted as saying how the issue would be handled.  Write them.  Ask.  If they believe they can prove that whatever book they want to be considered a "Holy Scripture" and should be exempt and isn't going to be ratified by a simple request, THEN use the court system to enact the change you want.

[jbox]

Does anyone else find it funny that the guy waving the "government sux0r" flag is happy with letting the government decide what should be considered a "holy scripture"? 

I wonder why that might be...

[DrewKaree]

Does anyone else find it funny that the guy waving the "government sux0r" flag is happy with letting the government decide what should be considered a "holy scripture"? 

I wonder why that might be...

I'm for allowing the legal system set up in this country to work, and to use reasonable measures to solve problems BEFORE adding yet another turd into the legal system.

How is it you can't differentiate between expanding government to control areas it wasn't (and ISN'T) designed to capably handle, and allowing and using government to do what it's intended to do?  Is it not something you can keep straight in your own head? 

[jbox]

I'm for allowing the legal system set up in this country to work, and to use reasonable measures to solve problems BEFORE adding yet another turd into the legal system.

Okay, sounds reasonable.

How is it you can't differentiate between expanding government to control areas it wasn't (and ISN'T) designed to capably handle, and allowing and using government to do what it's intended to do?  Is it not something you can keep straight in your own head? 

Huh? So your government was intended to decide what is or isn't a religous text? Just want to make sure I'm understanding what has got you so worked up about taxation legislation, when I thought you were just annoyed that the Republican bible wasn't tax exempt yet. 

[DrewKaree]

Huh? So your government was intended to decide what is or isn't a religous text?

I see that I was correct.  See the legal system quote.

[AC.]

Not to really change the subject but.... did you see Southpark tonight?  It may have been a rerun, but it was about Scientology.  I spent about 2 hours online reading about Scientology. They got thier tax-exempt status revoked many years ago.  Too much of my adult education comes from Southpark.

[DrewKaree]

I read something about that too, but can't remember the specifics of why they got revoked.  From what I've seen, they use it as a proof to demonstrate somehow about how everyone's out to get them

[AtomSmasher]

Not to really change the subject but.... did you see Southpark tonight?

[locash]

The portion of the MA General Law in question in the second story currently reads:

Section 34. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

The proposed change would read:

Section 34.  Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2

[Grasshopper]

It's ridiculous to try and suggest that bestiality is a 'natural progression' from legalising gay marriage. For a start in the latter case the two participants have both (presumably) given their consent. However, it is difficult to imagine how an animal could consent to having sex with a human. They don't talk for a start.

Having said that is bestiality really such a big deal? We already treat animals appallingly by for example rearing them unnaturally in factory farms and then killing them for food. In this context having sex with animals hardly seems to matter. Also, as far as we know animals don't feel all the emotions that humans experience such as humiliation and shame when they are forced to have sex against their will.

I'm not saying that bestiality is actually a good thing. But I can't say it really bothers me from the moral perspective.

As far as the tax break issue is concerned, I wonder whether The Origin of the Species would qualify for tax exemption.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I think the animals like it.



mrC

[saint]

Based on this it sounds more like they are getting rid of the "with mankind" clause (such as the archaic laws against sodomy and other such silly laws poking into the affairs of two consenting adults) rather than weakening the law against beastiality. If that's the case, then I think that's a good thing and the reporting on this was misleading...

The portion of the MA General Law in question in the second story currently reads:

Section 34. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

The proposed change would read:

Section 34.  Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2

[Stingray]

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

OH NOES!!!!





mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If that's the case, then I think that's a good thing and the reporting on this was misleading...

One, it's a link from Drew. Two, the link leads to WorldNetDaily (aka: WorldNutDaily).

It's not surprising in the least that WorldNetDaily, extremist right-wing online publication that traffics in neocon conspiracy theories, would mischaracterize a story in order to cast a disparaging light on Massachusetts, a state they perceive as a bastion of Liberal depravity.

Here are some of their current frontpage headlines (as of today):

'How illegal immigration is destroying our culture'
'Guns, media, Islam, abortion

[mr.Curmudgeon]

ROFL. Here's another classic article currently on WorldNutDaily:

How exactly do 'fossils' make 'fuel'? [link]

"Let's examine closely the alleged chemical processes by which decaying plants and dinosaurs are supposed to decay into "fossil fuel."  {emphasis mine}

Alleged? Supposed?

This latest attack on science brought to you by Jerome Corsi, the beautiful mind behind the Swift Boat Liars for Bush, and author of such loving comments as, "Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote "gays in the military." RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together."

These are the people Drew goes to for support? Clintoon? Ragheads? WTF?
Jesus, they say the left is hateful...Me'thinks thats nothing but projection.

mrC

[allroy1975]

yeah, and also when Chris Carpenter won the Cy Young the other day, ESPNs hedline read "SORRY DONTRELL"

damn anti-cardinal media.

I don't know if it's the left or right..but c'mon!  how about Congrats Carp, or Carp OWNED you..  something more..up!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Top 2 stories, in the order they were listed:

Btw, Top 2 stories where, exactly?

Conservative Whiner Weekly? Wingnut News? Warped Worldview Standard?



mrC

[RayB]

Of course, that does beg the question of how to define what is and isn't a religion and by extension a religion's holy book.

[saint]

Er.. yeah, what you said. Anton Levey (spelling?). Not Salmon Rushdie (spelling?).

Of course, that does beg the question of how to define what is and isn't a religion and by extension a religion's holy book.  Should the Satanic Verses be tax-exempt? 

I think you meant "the Satanic Bible". "Satanic Verses" is a novel (fiction).

[fredster]

ROFL. Here's another classic article currently on WorldNutDaily:

How exactly do 'fossils' make 'fuel'? [link]

"Let's examine closely the alleged chemical processes by which decaying plants and dinosaurs are supposed to decay into "fossil fuel." {emphasis mine}

Alleged? Supposed?

This latest attack on science brought to you by Jerome Corsi, the beautiful mind behind the Swift Boat Liars for Bush, and author of such loving comments as, "Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote "gays in the military." RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together."

These are the people Drew goes to for support? Clintoon? Ragheads? WTF?
Jesus, they say the left is hateful...Me'thinks thats nothing but projection.

mrC

You took a lot out of context on that Mr. C.  The article was just discussing the ongoing theory on how oil was created and by what process.  There are quite a few links inside that article to different sources. 

There is still speculation on the formation of oil and where it actually did come from.  There is speculation on a lot of topics that aren't right or left.

It was a nice touch to twist that into somekind of political statement.  It was a pretty dry article otherwise. Nice smear attempt though.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It was a nice touch to twist that into somekind of political statement.

There is a war against scientific theory that is being perpetrated by the right. (See: Intelligent Design) No need for me to "twist" anything...it's part of a continued barrage against what they perceive as the "cultured elite." Corsi is high in the ranks among the detractors.

I see this article (again co-authored by Corsi) as another example of that same flawed line of thinking. Corsi isn't "speculating"...he's put forth his agenda in the first sentence, where he then goes on to manipulate information to support his agenda. The guy is NOT a scientist, he's an idiot.

I mean, there are people on his side of the argument, that DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE DINOSAURS EXISTED! They truly believe that the fossils are all a scam, perpetrated by scientists! They believe this simply because it refutes what they've been told happened in the Bible.

Corsi pretty much flat out equates the idea of 'fossil fuels' with heresy, in his last sentence:

"Has anyone ever taken a flask of downed flora or dead protoplasm and produced a hydrocarbon fuel out of the mixture, or is this a process for alchemy?"

Alchemy? Cute. Morons with code words.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It was a nice touch to twist that into somekind of political statement.

Furthermore, I wasn't making a political statement with it. I was pointing out how outrageously farcical a reference this WorldNutDaily site is that Drew keeps linking to.

If anything, his whole intent was to twist these - already twisted- articles into somekind of political statement. I mean, if the fossil fuel story didn't "get your goat", then maybe you'd find the article about the Israeli assassin poisoning Arafat in the ear more interesting?



mrC

[fredster]

Was there something not right with that article? Factually?

[btoddkelley]

why can't the "conservatives" be "anti-choice"?

Why do you assess "pro-life" to all conservatives?

[ChadTower]

Do you think the ACLU is wrong on this one? Why should the Judeo-Christian Bible be tax exempt, and not say... the Koran? (If the Koran and other holy books are in fact tax exempt then I'm reading this wrong and missing the point, but it sounds like only the Judeo-Christian Bible is getting the benefit of this law)...

The obvious solution is that from a revenue perspective, the Bible is just a book, so it should be taxed.

It is not to open the doors for anyone's definition of religious text to be untaxed.

[RetroACTIVE]

The obvious solution is that from a revenue perspective, the Bible is just a book, so it should be taxed.

problem solved.

[AtomSmasher]

I mean, there are people on his side of the argument, that DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE DINOSAURS EXISTED! They truly believe that the fossils are all a scam, perpetrated by scientists! They believe this simply because it refutes what they've been told happened in the Bible.


mrC

Just thought I'd throw out there that the bible doesn't actually confirm or deny the existence of dinosaurs, ignorant people just interpret it that way.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The left is not pro-choice, they are pro abortion. The words "Pro-choice" are words that mean abortion without having to think about the act...

What a huge pile of steaming bullsh!t...no one I know who considers themselves "pro-choice" is "pro-abortion"...and I'd gather that a great deal of people that have felt compelled to actually make a decision to have an abortion are pro-abortion. I think most people on the "pro-choice" side feel they should be "safe, legal, and rare."

Maybe "pro-lifers" need a constant reminder of what happens during an abortion, evidenced by the plethora of gruesome posters, and other shock tactics used to promote their agenda...but I'd gather most other people are fully aware of the choice they are making, without all the hemming and hawing about the sanctity of life.

I can't fathom it being an easy choice either. It's an invasive procedure, and I imagine it greatly effects ones conscience. But it is a woman's right to choose...not mine, not yours, not our governments.

...rather than sending it to some low level government functionary who then gives it to some idiot in New Orleans that doesnt have the drive or brains to walk out of town when they are told the storm is coming.

Let me guess....you're a "compassionate" conservative? Furthermore, what moron, at this stage, still clinges to the tired adage that people simply refused to "drive or walk out"?



mrC

Edit: spelling

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Just thought I'd throw out there that the bible doesn't actually confirm or deny the existence of dinosaurs, ignorant people just interpret it that way. 

That's not why they believe or disbelieve...they refute the scientific discovery of dinosaurs   because the bible states the life on earth began with Adam and Eve....not  millions of years ago as established by the fossil record.


mrC