History Forum / General / British History / July 2008

"The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epoch in the
history of America. I am apt to believe it will be celebrated by
succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival." John Adams

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:17:52 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> left the following dangerously dangling
participle:

Why was Adams sleeping in the first place?

Here are some more examples of this kind of sloppy writing:

"Soaring high above the fields, we could see the eagle clearly."

"Having finished my homework, dad said I could go out."

"Driving down the street, the house came into view."

"Sleeping in my orchard, a serpent stung me."

"Rushing to catch the bus, the man's wallet fell out of his pocket."

--------

"Don't take the Fifth."
Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis)

James Hogg

For Independence Day, let's visit a patriotic topic --

TAXING "RELIGIOUS" BUSINESSES/CHURCHS

There were practically no Federal taxes in early America - most Federal
government money was raised by customs or tariffs on imports. It wasn't
until the Civil War that the Federal govt started invoking income taxation.
It was in 1916 that Federal income taxation really got going.

In the US nowadays, it's the Congress, the IRS and the various states that
establish laws and practices regarding taxation of religious institutions.

The Constitution has language about separation of church and state. At a
time when nobody else was paying income taxes, to force churches to pay
taxes obviously would have been selective and punitive.

Nowadays, when almost all people and institutions DO PAY TAXES, to exempt
churches from paying is obviously selectively supportive.

Exempting churches from taxation, but still supporting them with services
like police, fire, etc., etc., is obviously a form of selective support -
other people and institutions have to pay for public services through taxes,
but churches don't - that's *support*.

Churches are businesses that do a great deal of false advertising, and
should be taxed and held to the same standards as other businesses in the
US.

BOTTOM LINE - the tax exempt status of churches can be rescinded *without*
an amendment to the US Constitution.

The US Government is aiding religion by subsidizing it through giving it a
free ride - that should be reversed by imposing the usual taxes on all
churches, with no favor or disfavor for any particular myth system.

For more on the argument to tax churches:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tax-the-churches.html

2 March 1461
[A1461/2]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]

Non-parliamentary record: public instrument made in parliament (abstract)
In the name of God, amen. On 2 March 1460 [1461], in the presence of [Andrew
Stewart, lord Avondale], chancellor of Scotland, in the presence of
prelates, lords and nobles in parliament in Edinburgh in the tolbooth,
personally compeared John Scrimgeour, provost, Malcolm Dunquhour, Robert of
Balmannoch, Robert of Crail, commissioners of the burgh of Dundee, and there
Robert of Balmannoch, forespeaker on behalf of the burgh, alleged that the
commissioners did not wish to enter into litigation or a plea at the
instance of the burgesses and community of Montrose, before the lords of
parliament, for certain reasons set our by Robert, as follows in the
vernacular:

In the presence of the reverend fathers in Christ, the noble and worthy
lords auditors of complaints, we commissioners of the burgh of Dundee show
and allege that we ought not answer here at this time to the pretended
action moved against us by the burgesses and community of Montrose, for
which we protest solemnly that we enter in no plea at this time, and for
these reasons: First, we were summoned at the instance of the said party in
our sovereign lord's time of noble memory who last died [James II], whom God
forgive, to the parliament last held at Edinburgh by him and convened from
there to the law days next after Michaelmas [29 September] thereafter, and
then to have been before our said sovereign lord and his council as the acts
of the said continuation thereupon purport. And so by the death of our said
sovereign lord the said summons and continuation were damaged of law. And
this notwithstanding, where our [opposing] party has formed their summons
saying that there are certain bounds and privileges debateable between us
and them within the sheriffdom of Angus as they allege, lords, we say that
we know no such bounds, freedoms nor privileges debateable between us and
them, for as we understand they have pursued us regarding those debates many
times before, and these debates are fully determined, ended and decided by
force of parliament, which, as we understand, is known to your lordships;
upon which we have new infeftment from our said sovereign lord of good
memory, being of age, with advice of his lords of parliament and council,
which end and infeftment the community of our burgh will not put in dispute
nor plea, nor will grant commission to us thereto. Which end and infeftment,
if it pleases your lordships, under our protest made before, we offer to
show for information, which, being seen, we beseech your lordships to put
silence to our [opposing] party in that matter forever. Protesting also
further costs in money and wrongful vexation done to us by the said party as
we understand against the law. And suppose our neighbours of Montrose plead
that they have little cause or none for the said deliverance of parliament,
give them all that their own evidence purports, and so they shall not be
injured, for "he is but lightly plundered who has his own" as wives say.

Which reasons displayed and openly read through, along with the
commissioners' commission, Robert de Balmannoch asked if the lords of
parliament enacted or decreed to the contrary of the decision or infeftment,
that the said burgh of Dundee, its burgesses and community should in no way
receive harm thereform. Concerning which Robert asked public instrument from
the notaries public named below. Done in the tolbooth at around the third
hour after noon on the date above. Present Andrew [Durisdeer], bishop of
Glasgow, Thomas [Lauder], bishop of Dunkeld, Thomas [Spens], bishop of
Aberdeen, Ninian [Spot], bishop of Galloway, George [Lauder], bishop of
Argyll, Archibald [Crawford], abbot of Holyrood, Malcolm [Brydy], abbot of
Arbroath, Henry [Crichton], abbot of Paisley, Richard [Bothwell], abbot of
Dunfermline, Thomas [Lundie], abbot of Newbattle, Andrew [Stewart], lord
Avondale, chancellor, Colin [Campbell], earl of Argyll, lord Campbell,
Andrew [Gray], lord Gray, William [Borthwick], lord Borthwick, James
Lindsay, provost of Lincluden, keeper of the privy seal, Stephen of Angus,
treasurer of Brechin, Archibald Whitelaw, clerk of the rolls, Thomas Brown
and Sir Robert Laing, vicar of Maryton, notaries public written below, with
many other witnessed specially summoned to the foregoing.

Notaries' statements of Thomas Brown, John of Durham and John Laing.