From: Ray Fischer on
Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>I am curious as to how religion in the US could require someone to
>>>"relinquish choice". There is no mechanism by which a citizen may cede
>>>his voting rights to another party.
>>
>> You haven't heard anything of the various cults which demand total
>> obedience of followers and use all manner of coercive techniques to
>> obtain consent, freedom, and property?
>
>Those abusers do not make all organized religions bad. It is an example of
>what can easily happen if we lose vigilance.

Almost all religions rely upon some form of coercion to ensure a steady
income. Usually it's by pretending that only the church can "save"
you from damnation, or by claiming that people who do not rely upon
religion are "immoral" or dangerous.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: David Ruether on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4bcfd59d$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Pete Stavrakoglou <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote:
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> Neither group is guaranteed equal acceptance by society, but both
>>> groups should be guaranteed equal rights under the law.

>>Beyond their control? That is debatable.

> Just like being (let's assume) heterosexual is your choice and not
> beyond your control. You could choose to be aroused by naked guys if
> you wanted to.
>
> Right?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer

Oh, why don't I think of such great and "obvious" questions? 8^)
But I suspect that "PS", possibly having some doubts about his
own sexuality as evidenced by his steadfast avoidance of any
flexibility on the issue (yuh gotta keep th' lid on tight...! ;-), will
respond with a "duck and cover" insult...;-)
--DR


From: Ray Fischer on
Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am curious as to how religion in the US could require someone to
>>>>>>>"relinquish choice". There is no mechanism by which a citizen may
>>>>>>>cede
>>>>>>>his voting rights to another party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You haven't heard anything of the various cults which demand total
>>>>>> obedience of followers and use all manner of coercive techniques to
>>>>>> obtain consent, freedom, and property?
>>>>>
>>>>>Those abusers do not make all organized religions bad. It is an example
>>>>>of
>>>>>what can easily happen if we lose vigilance.
>>>>
>>>> Almost all religions rely upon some form of coercion to ensure a steady
>>>> income. Usually it's by pretending that only the church can "save"
>>>> you from damnation, or by claiming that people who do not rely upon
>>>> religion are "immoral" or dangerous.
>>>
>>>You know less about religions than you know about business.
>>>In many religions there is no central authority, to which the money flows.
>>
>> Who said anything about a "central authority"? I referred to religions.
>> Is the money that the local priest collects any different from the
>> money the "central authority" collects?
>
>In many cases yes!

You're either lying or stupid. Money is money. If you spend $100 on
the local priest it matters not in the slightest to you if he gives
some of that to some "central authority". You're still out $100.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Peter on
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4bd07ce4$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am curious as to how religion in the US could require someone to
>>>>>>>>"relinquish choice". There is no mechanism by which a citizen may
>>>>>>>>cede
>>>>>>>>his voting rights to another party.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You haven't heard anything of the various cults which demand total
>>>>>>> obedience of followers and use all manner of coercive techniques to
>>>>>>> obtain consent, freedom, and property?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Those abusers do not make all organized religions bad. It is an
>>>>>>example
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>what can easily happen if we lose vigilance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost all religions rely upon some form of coercion to ensure a
>>>>> steady
>>>>> income. Usually it's by pretending that only the church can "save"
>>>>> you from damnation, or by claiming that people who do not rely upon
>>>>> religion are "immoral" or dangerous.
>>>>
>>>>You know less about religions than you know about business.
>>>>In many religions there is no central authority, to which the money
>>>>flows.
>>>
>>> Who said anything about a "central authority"? I referred to religions.
>>> Is the money that the local priest collects any different from the
>>> money the "central authority" collects?
>>
>>In many cases yes!
>
> You're either lying or stupid. Money is money. If you spend $100 on
> the local priest it matters not in the slightest to you if he gives
> some of that to some "central authority". You're still out $100.


As I said earlier you know nothing about how churches operate. You only see
the deadlines about abusers. I've advised churches, of differing
denominations on how to effectively collect money from its members and give
it directly to poor and deserving people. You only see greed. I feel sorry
for you.

Bye

--
Peter

From: tony cooper on
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:05:18 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>So regardless of how that minority group in our society came to be
>"different" they are there, and there is no valid reason for the "LAW"
>to treat them differently. I don't particulary care what any Christian
>denomination, Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, or whatever believes.
>That is their internal issue, and they should neither discriminate
>against, nor interfere with the beliefs of their fellow citizens.

Religions do discriminate against members of other religions and
people without a religion, but I see absolutely no problem with that.

Many churches will not allow you to marry (and I'm referring to a
"straight" couple) unless you are a member of that church. The
Mormons will not even allow you to *attend* a "temple marriage" if
you are not a Mormon. Mormon also forbid non-Mormons from attending
endowments.

Some religious private schools admit only children of church members
or admit children of non-church members only if enrollment is not
filled by church members.

Most synagogue will not seat you on high holidays if you are not a
member. If the "holy rollers" or "snake handlers" don't want present
at their services, they can refuse you entrance. You can't just call
any church and expect them to host a funeral service for you if you
are not a member. You can't demand to be buried in their cemetery.

There are many other instances of discrimination by churches. Much of
it is based on the premise that a church is private property and you
have no right to access without permission.

It's legal discrimination, though...just as legal as it would be for
you to refuse to admit some walk-up stranger to a party at your home.
You can turn the JW away at your door, so it's fair that the JW can
turn you away at their church's door.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida