On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:00:25 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 01:37 PM 5/22/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: > >Second, It is a right to have all religions treated equally and not > >make some classified as "not a religion." > > That presumes that UU'ism is a religion. It is worth noting that the UU > congregation in question pretty clearly did not meant the stautory > definition of a religion in the State of Texas. Thus, why is UU'ism a > religion in a way in which say Alcoholics Anonymous, Kiwanis, and the > Fraternal Order of the Moose is not? > > JDG
There is no "stautory [sp- statutory] definition of a religion in the State of Texas." The Comptrollers office decided to create one to deny tax-exempt status to some institutions. There are two court decisions saying that the Texas Comptroller position is clearly wrong. Why don't you go talk some of the earliest churches in this country about why they are not a religion? Why don't you do some research at Harvard University? All UU historical documents are archived there because of the UU shared history and close connections with Harvard. There has never been any question about Unitarians, Universalists or UU's being a religion. (There has been much questioning about them being a "Christian" religion.) http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~history/resources/primary/special/andover.html Gary "???" #1 on Google for liberal news
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
