NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/48489

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 1.7 KB

Xref: sparky soc.motss:48489 alt.politics.homosexuality:7423 talk.politics.misc:60949
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!emory!ncratl!mwilson
From: [e-mail] (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:45:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 26

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Halfman-Halfmachine) writes:

|>And isn`t THAT a pisser! It seems to me that if the Christian fund-
|>amentalists, Mormans, or whoever, want to play the political game, and
|>have the ability to propose changes to the state constitution, then
|>they should also pay taxes like everyone else. Isn't the Catholic
|>church one of the biggest money making organizations in the world?
|>It would be a sizable chunk of money fed directly into federal and
|>state coffers if religous organizations like those behind CFV had to
|>pay Uncle Sam, state and local taxes. It might take enough money out
|>of their seemingly overflowing propaganda, I mean, campaign fund to
|>at least make them think twice before they launch an attack on in-
|>dividual rights.

The same could be said of organizations like Greenpeace, and People for
the American Way.

Do you oppose tax free status for all groups, or only those whose message
you don't like?


--
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
[e-mail]