Creation Museum Video

[Promethium147]

AH, the Thread we were on was -

Creationist Museum is religious and receives tax break - this is Government Subsidy.

Loffler sez - tax break for Creationist Museum doesn't come from my pocket. This justifies Not Caring.

P147 sez - yes it does come from your pocket, when you must pay additional tax to cover fixed Govt. budget, and others who receive Govt. benefits from budget without paying taxes are getting what you payed in without paying out - it sums to the same thing as paying them directly, exactly. You could too - let's start a Atheist Church THREAD.

Loffler sez - Church sounds like good idea. I want to save money.

P147 sez - Yes, but I want every single citizen to pay their FAIR share of taxes. While we might not succeed (and gain the most individual dollar profit), we MAY make public spectacle, and force exempt "citizen" to start paying fair share - and we STILL make a profit, not as much for us personally, but some for everyone.

Loffler sez - Threats frighten me, and I comply.

P147 sez - I see. I realize now how different I am. Threats amuse me - but it works well. People who threaten me are sometimes terrified - by my Indifference.

And we all of us digress.

The closing point is - I assert the position that the Creationist Museum is not being paid directly by taxpayers just because it pays no taxes is simply and demonstrably false. It ends in their pocket, and the mechanism is irrelevant - EXCEPT that the extra steps of the mechanism are designed to mask the fact this otherwise direct payment is happening - from the average citizen. They wouldn't put up with being forced to write a check directly to the Church, so - confuse the process, and take a big shaving (finder's fee?) for the Government. 2 win (allies), one loses - viola!

I think the disagreement hinges on different outlooks - I live free or die, and the other party just wants to live. I just don't call it livin', I guess.

The Whole Thread is - Taxation without representation, as in the cases of Bill, Bob, Church and Us. It is intolerable, I say. If most agreed, it would not happen; if threat generates compliance, threat works. If threat generates revolt, we win.

And it may be done by passive resistance - but it all requires education.

"Those who would trade their freedom for safety - deserve neither freedom nor safety." - B. Franklin.    

[Loffler]

The fact that this museum exists is an absolute insult to science.

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I don't like science diluted. On the other hand, it is in Bible country, and I like the idea of Christians steeping in their own stupidity, so that their ignorance forms a self-destructive causal loop like the uroboros eating its own tail.

[rlrose328]

The fact that this museum exists is an absolute insult to science.

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I don't like science diluted. On the other hand, it is in Bible country, and I like the idea of Christians steeping in their own stupidity, so that their ignorance forms a self-destructive causal loop like the uroboros eating its own tail.

I agree with tornado... this museum is an affront to science, freethought, reason, logic and all that accompany these concepts.  It justifies their fairytale by calling it a museum which most people believe holds factual information.  By presenting all of their fairytales (did you look at the photos?) in such a way, it validates all of their mythology as fact.

And I, for one, detest that.  

[afreethinker30]

The fact that this museum exists is an absolute insult to science.

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I don't like science diluted. On the other hand, it is in Bible country, and I like the idea of Christians steeping in their own stupidity, so that their ignorance forms a self-destructive causal loop like the uroboros eating its own tail.

But there is a huge problem with this.They are teaching their children this crap and it shows kids that science is totally wrong.So what if one of those children has the ability to help find a cure for AIDS using science,but is told this crap and does something else with his/her life.And it's pushing along the dumbing down of America.Hey kids instead of doing something useful when you grow up why don't you become a preaching idoit...but of course that preaching idoit could end up on TV making millions of dollars off the other idoits.And also seeing how some of this crap is being pushed into schools it spreads like an evil virus.Not only to those with have children who believe this but to those who have children and don't.Plus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare...

[Loffler]

The fact that this museum exists is an absolute insult to science.

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I don't like science diluted. On the other hand, it is in Bible country, and I like the idea of Christians steeping in their own stupidity, so that their ignorance forms a self-destructive causal loop like the uroboros eating its own tail.

But there is a huge problem with this.They are teaching their children this crap and it shows kids that science is totally wrong.So what if one of those children has the ability to help find a cure for AIDS using science,but is told this crap and does something else with his/her life.And it's pushing along the dumbing down of America.Hey kids instead of doing something useful when you grow up why don't you become a preaching idoit...but of course that preaching idoit could end up on TV making millions of dollars off the other idoits.And also seeing how some of this crap is being pushed into schools it spreads like an evil virus.Not only to those with have children who believe this but to those who have children and don't.Plus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare...

Was it Hegel who saw history as a constant back and forth clash of opposites?

Anyway, I'm kind of a student of Jefferson regarding freedom of speech, and not just in the sense that it's good for people to have a right to say what they think, but also that everyone should say what they think.  I think if everyone is allowed to say whatever stupid shit pops out of their mouths, bad ideas will more quickly die natural deaths. When the truth and falsehood crash into each other, the truth is more likely to survive. It's an ideal of the Enlightenment. I think this is going on in fast forward on the internet, which is incidentally why I also think the Internet is the #1 reason why secularism and atheism are on such a steep rise in the world.

For this reason I welcome retarded Creationist Museums. Before that thing was built, these people were believing this quietly and in secret, in their backwoods Hobbit-holes. Now the laundry is on the clothesline, and the whole world can see it.

[Jolly Sapper]

I've heard that argument before but I wonder if it the argument isn't based too much on the notion that everybody is equal.

ie.

If you were black in the USA in 1800 and you spoke your mind you'd could be beaten to death and dumped in a ditch.  You're "master" would go out and buy another one of "you" as you weren't considered anything worthy of equal respect to the (probably) white "master."

Its all fine and dandy when the people spouting bs have no power but what happens when they do have power?  How can anybody in a minority position actually defend themselves when they don't have the power to do so after having spoken their mind?  

What would happen if the Grand Dragon of the KKK decided one day during a huge clan rally to say something like, "You know folks, maybe there is no biblical defense for our intolerance against everybody not white, maybe those Mexicans are really nice hard working people.  Heck, maybe we should all just get along."
Would not this person have to fear for their well being after making that statement?  Would the fear be enough to keep somebody from speaking what they truly believe?

[Loffler]

I don't see your point. Your examples all represent historical lapses in freedom of speech. If your safety is in danger when you speak your mind, you don't have free speech. The observation that that arrangement sucks is pretty much the foundation of the argument itself.

[Promethium147]

I have to agree with a lot of this, but push a further conclusion.

Jefferson felt that free speech had higher purpose. The right to free speech is irrelevant if one does not exercise it - and it goes away, dies a natural death. If you would be free, you must speak.

But slavery is impossible without the collusion of slaves; slaves collude with masters by submitting. If no one ever submits, there can be no slaves.

Of course, this may be a sacrifice - the individual slave may die in opposition. Note that these are immediately isolated, there is great danger to massa if the other slaves pick up on the idea; ideas spread too quickly to stop.

However, the idea may be spread before we are slaves, and this makes slavery much harder to initiate.

___________________________________________

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance (watching) - AND action to reverse shit that pops up, a la pop a mole. Just watching things go to shit doesn't help, all it does is break your widdle heart; we have to ACT where we see things tending towards shit. The longer we wait, the stronger shit grows, and the harder it is to reverse.

At this stage, nonviolent action will still work - aggressive passive resistance. I've tried that, and it works - but only on an essentially Moral Massa, or me  and massa in an essentially moral crowd that will ACT when they see clearly what massa's up to.

___________________________________________

Creationist Museums are bad, unless they are viewed as opportunities instead of disasters. They are the tip of an iceberg; and if you remove the tip of an iceberg, an apparently larger iceberg rises - it SEEMS to get bigger, but that's an illusion - you just see more of something that is actually smaller. If you keep working though, eventually - no iceberg.

Elephants must be eaten one bite at a time.

Get to bitin'!    

[Loffler]

Plus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare.

Again, I have to ask: where does it say this was paid for with tax dollars? Because they don't pay taxes? There is no end to this line of reasoning. Every penny you make is potentially tax revenue. Why don't I just follow you around the grocery store saying "There are better things for America to spend tax money on than Cheetos." That makes about as much sense as holding a church accountable for taxes they don't pay.

[Jolly Sapper]

Plus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare.

Again, I have to ask: where does it say this was paid for with tax dollars? Because they don't pay taxes? There is no end to this line of reasoning. Every penny you make is potentially tax revenue. Why don't I just follow you around the grocery store saying "There are better things for America to spend tax money on than Cheetos." That makes about as much sense as holding a church accountable for taxes they don't pay.

The reason why the "they're stealing my tax dollars" works for me is that I don't see a functional difference between taxes and the cost of a good or service.  Both perform the same function with only the names of the actors being different (government instead of WalMart).

[Loffler]

Plus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare.

Again, I have to ask: where does it say this was paid for with tax dollars? Because they don't pay taxes? There is no end to this line of reasoning. Every penny you make is potentially tax revenue. Why don't I just follow you around the grocery store saying "There are better things for America to spend tax money on than Cheetos." That makes about as much sense as holding a church accountable for taxes they don't pay.

The reason why the "they're stealing my tax dollars" works for me is that I don't see a functional difference between taxes and the cost of a good or service.  Both perform the same function with only the names of the actors being different (government instead of WalMart).

Am I stealing from the other customers when I refrain from giving my money to Walmart?

[Jolly Sapper]

The reason why the "they're stealing my tax dollars" works for me is that I don't see a functional difference between taxes and the cost of a good or service.  Both perform the same function with only the names of the actors being different (government instead of WalMart).

Am I stealing from the other customers when I refrain from giving my money to Walmart?[/quote]

Only if you don't pay for what you try to take out of Walmart.  

Now this could get nitpicky. You could respond by saying, "Well if I go into Walmart and use the toilet but don't ever buy anything am I stealing from the other customers?"  I'd have to say no, because unless you do nothing but sit in the WalMart on the can for a month constantly flushing the toilet you probably aren't costing WalMart enough (money or resources) to warrant an increase in prices to the customers.  Even if in reality you are costing WalMart more than you give back (since you're not a paying customer.)

Its the difference between a rational theoretical argument and reality.  They probably are stealing in the strictest sense of the word (benefit from stuff that taxes pay for without actually paying the taxes) and its very likely that more than one or two Churches exist that do some hiding of their members wealth (so they don't have to pay as much in taxes either) but I'm not terribly sure that every Church existing in a tax exempt status is causing an enormous drain (anybody interested enough to see if there are any reliable estimates of how much tax money isn't collected because of the tax exempt status that Churches and other non-profits can claim?)

[Loffler]

Its the difference between a rational theoretical argument and reality.  They probably are stealing in the strictest sense of the word (benefit from stuff that taxes pay for without actually paying the taxes) and its very likely that more than one or two Churches exist that do some hiding of their members wealth (so they don't have to pay as much in taxes either) but I'm not terribly sure that every Church existing in a tax exempt status is causing an enormous drain (anybody interested enough to see if there are any reliable estimates of how much tax money isn't collected because of the tax exempt status that Churches and other non-profits can claim?)

I'm mostly annoyed by this "tax" reasoning on this thread because I don't see this kind of reasoning for anything else. Lowering one person's property tax does not raise anyone else's, so you guys couldn't possibly be referring to the actual mechanics of taxation. You must be referring to the fact that if 9 people pay for a government, the 10th nonpaying person is getting the government for free.

The flaw in this reasoning is that our tax debt is by definition whatever the government says it is. If they say it's 100%, it's 100%. If they say it's 0%, it's 0%. It makes no sense to complain about what churches don't pay, because you also have taxes you "don't pay" (why don't you pay 100% instead of 20%?).

[Promethium147]

Darn it, I explain it yet again. You are unnecessarily complicating it and fooling yourselves - others do it to you too, to Rob you. The vast majority of tax is Hidden Tax - income tax amounts to only about 15% of taxes.

Intellectualism is not about thesis and synthesis alone - we MUST start with analysis, or we are lost Eggheads.

Property tax is cool - you get taxed regularly for the same property over and over, until the value of the tax is many, many times the value of the property itself - money from nothing, except you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

It's so shit simple, I can't stand it. Please pay attention - you are hurting yourselves, and that hurts me.

Let us assume that the Tax paid is for some Purpose (other than merely collecting tax, and I'm being liberal there); thus, there must be some limit on taxes needed for the Purpose, or the purpose is unattainable, the tax useless, and we would not agree to that - yet, we often do. We are Coerced and Fooled into it.

To say otherwise is to say the budget to do finite things needs to be infinite. This would be very Bad Business - and of course, that's Government.

So, there is a FIXED BUDGET from taxes here - yes, there is, that's how it's done.

Now assume that we each receive equal or similar benefits of the Purpose of the Tax.

If I then pay LESS tax than equal share, you must pay MORE tax than equal share to Satisfy the Budget Requirement. That's arithmetic for ya.

The net result is - I pay LESS, you pay MORE for the same thing - and we discard the idea of the thing, since that's equal, and does not affect the computation.

Now I have more money, and you have less money - which is a thing PERFECTLY equivalent - regardless of the mechanism - of you paying me directly. Arithmetic yet again.

But what would motivate you to do that? Nothing - except THREAT OF FORCE or SWINDLE, and we call it Robbery.

But how do I apply force? I vote - or write the voting agendum, or lobby, or propose laws - for the Government to take your money, and give it to me. If you don't, Govt. applies Force, and takes it - with penalty. Boob that I am, I may think I now control Government - HA! I am merely feeding a monster until it turns on me, and eats me, too. Many men are killed by their own attack dog - and good riddance.

What motivates the Government to apply the Force? They get some of the money, AND control of the whole process (they use some to buy more Force), which leads eventually to them getting it ALL - BY FORCE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

There is an ancient political principle that Pure Democracy leads directly to Totalitarianism. What we are trying here is different - Constitutional Representative Democracy. If I am not mistaken, the Constitution is largely ignored in practice, particularly when it comes to making Government Larger - the Constitution is for LIMITING Government, it is very explicit and redundant on that point.

We are well along the path of Soft Fascism.

WalMart does not come to my door with a gun, and throw me in prison for Buying Elsewhere.

Have a nice day.

[Loffler]

I understood the first time you said it. I just consider the government the villain, not the church. We should be figuring out how to evade our own taxes; churches are the heroes in this instance.