The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > State Land and Private Religous Purposes.

State Land and Private Religous Purposes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All
At least the non-voting Exclusive Brethren handed some of their non-taxed savings back as a "donation" to that Political Party they sponsored.

Too bad, because it makes it look like a money-laundering scam.
Posted by rache, Thursday, 16 October 2008 12:56:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few things confuse me about the Exclusive Brethren.

They don't vote, but support political candidates.

They don't watch TV, listen to the radio or read newspapers or magazines so how do they know what is going on in the world.

But best of all, they are not allowed to use computers (not to mention the internet) but they have their own website.

http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/
Posted by Steel Mann, Thursday, 16 October 2008 1:39:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Either no state land should be supplied for any religious purpose, or state land should be supplied to all religious purposes equally, if desired, without discrimination.
I prefer the former.

Polycarp = BOAZ_David.
Pericles caught him out I knew that Pericles was correct.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1953&page=0#40197

Pericles said, "Well, it's good to see you back in your new persona, Boaz/Polycarp."

Polycarp replied, "and who is this 'BOAZ' character? "

Now, how would Polycarp have known that BOAZ's moniker was spelled in capitals if he'd never heard of him?
Pericles didn't use captials, I suspect for a reason.
I thought it was a clever way of Pericles to haul in the carp this way!

Besides, apart from the Bible quotes and being anti-Islam, they both say BINGO when they think they scored.

Not that it matters to me that someone changes their moniker; in fact it can be a nice game to try to spot 'em.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 16 October 2008 1:49:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One thing about BD - just when you think nothing he does is capable of shocking one any further...whoompa! The rug gets pulled out from under once again.

I didn't realise he had ever denied being BOAZ. By the time I got back from overseas that particular teacupfull must have been over. So I didn't realise that he ever, seriously, tried to pose as someone else. Geez. I should have learned by now, but I guess I haven't because - once again - I'm shocked.

Even if there were no people with IQ's into double figures on this thread I find it difficult to comprehend a mindset which would honestly and truly consider fooling all of the people all of the time into believing that BOAZ was not Poly.

Yeah, I also couldn't give a rats about changing names - but to lie - even by intent (after all, it was BD himself who defended the position that one was equally culpable for a transgression in the mind as in the act)so publicly and unashamedly is bad enough.

But to consider, seriously, that other posters would uniformly be so thick, so stunted or so stupid as to be decieved is mind-bogglingly crass. Illustrates perfectly how he earns the accusations of arrogance, doesn't it?

And to try to dress this thread up - once again - as something else is equally crass.
Posted by Romany, Thursday, 16 October 2008 2:53:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doncha luv it... a feeding frenzy :)

Wellll.. talk about selection and emphAsis to try to score cheap points...

Cel...why not past the COMPLETE LINE!

<and who is this 'BOAZ' character? is he perchance someone who for you provides meaning in life? 0_^

That little thingy at the end is a WINK....just in case you lot are that computer speek illiterate.
OLO rules are that you may have only ONE on line persona at a time.
I've not broken any rule.
I also prefaced my post with PEOPLE are not the issue but ISSUES are.

Don't bother trying to railroad me more on this, it won't produce anything other than *sigh*.

Now..back to the ISSUE.

David F glad you agree on the issue. Please note, I am adamant that this should apply equally to any Christian group as well.

PROBLEM Most of you who are so busy trying to rip chunks of flesh out of me... are not seeing the key point.

Chapels are not for the EXCLUSIVE use of one particular denomination as far as I know... unless one can prove otherwise. I know that ANYone can enter a Catholic, or protestant chapel when the doors are open and they can sit there mocking (quietly) if they wish.

So..I hope you all 'get' this point.. it is not the allocation of state land per se..it is the EXCLUSIVE use by ONE religion...which denies access to non them. "That" is the issue.

I argue that this has the effect/impact of.. 'establishing' one religion over others, (116 Aust constitution) or.. at best is discriminates on the grounds of religious orientation.

A Sikh, Hindu, Bahai,Moslem, Buddhist are ALL welcome to enter any Christian chapel and no-one is going to regard them as a 'dirty infidel'..no..they will regard them as people for whom Christ died.

What happened to the "tolerance" of differing views which a Multi Faith facility offers?
Discriminatory use of State land is disgraceful.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 16 October 2008 4:46:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp nee BOAZ DAVID

What is it with you and straightforward questions?

Instead throwing another tanty, you could have turned the other cheek and answered my question, which was:

To which religion are you claiming has use of state property for its own exclusive use?
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 16 October 2008 5:23:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy