HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:45:53 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: Rush

>Interesting thought, though - that might explain the recent nazi wave, too

-T
I'm really getting sick of the calling of people nazis if they are right wing
We all know the negative stigma attached to this name-calling. It was a tragic
event in history, although not the only time that genocide has been performed.
Remember Stalin. Please leave this term out of your comments it is not
conducive to discussion and makes you no better if not worse then the people
to whom you refer. It is stereotypical and wrong.

Kemp'96

--mike....
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:29:48 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQS7WVJTDG0008CB@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>, JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU
.EDU (Song Weaver) writes:
>Jayce:
>
>I never said that Hill was qualified just because she was a woman.
>She _does_ have a law degree, and I _believe_ that she would make a
>very good judge based seeing her speak and seeing her ability to
>reason.  She is an incredibly perceptive individual.  I think she
>would hold the position with honor.
>
>However, I find it annoying that I would be accussed of choosing
>Hill for the court because she is a woman, when I never even suggested
>such a fact and yet no one challenged that Bush intentionally populated
>the Supreme Court with men who were pro-life and pro-business.  Thomas
>was choosen specifically as a black male, as a political decision,
>becuase Bush and co. knew that Congress was scared of being perceived
>as racist and therefore would not reject him.  He is not a qualified
>judge.  Even his peers on the Supreme Court have no respect for him.
>
>--Julie
>
I'm wondering something here.  Who did you support in the PA senate race,
Arlan Specter or Lynn "I have no political experience and am proud of it"
Yeakel?  By the way if you said Yeakel, she started running for the sole
purpose of how Specter did his job in the Hill-Thomas hearings.
                                            Jayce

                                            
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:53:07 EST
From:         robert v head jr <rhead@S850.MWC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Presidential Debates - 1996
Comments: To: "(Forum for the Discussion of Politics)"
              <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>
> Thoughts from Arizona:
>
> I would hope that in 4 years we would be able to form a debate commission
> that would allow appearances of ALL candidates running for the presidency.
> The bipartisan debate commission is an oxymoron, if membership is controlled
> by the two major parties.  At least, let ALL candidates on 50 state ballots
> take part in the debates.
>
>                                              ---roger
>
	This is an excellent idea.  Most voters do not know who Andre
Marrou is, even though his name was on the ballot in all 50 states and
the Libertarian party has several candidates who are competitive in
state races.  Marrou was not allowed in the debate because Bush objected
to him appearing, which is understandable because the Libertarians more
accurately represent the views of a large number of Republicans than
does Bush.  My proposal would be to allow any candidate who could
theoretically win (i.e. in the ballots of enough states to total up to
at least 270 electors) to participate in the debate.  This year this
would have included Marrou, Fulani, and the Natural Law party.

	As for the debate commission, it is not incorrect to call it a
"bipartisan" commission.  It would be incorrect to call it a
"nonpartisan" commission.
					Robert Head
					rhead@s850.mwc.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:24:18 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Flags (was Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any
              weirder...)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

mike:

>The flag is a symbol of a country, respected and honoured and loved
>by millions.

Ah. This is the issue. A flag is, in fact, a piece of cloth. I can't
say I'd be happy about a child of mine pledging allegiance to a piece
of cloth at school.

This piece of cloth can be useful as a symbol of tribal identity -
indeed, some football hooligans wear union jack T shirts to show those
foreigners where they come from. It is also a useful token to mark
events (the Queen's birthday, or the death of an elder statesman).

But it's not the flag which is important. It's the country.

Dunstan.
From: ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: sexual harrassment - response to JasonZ
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:37:18 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Kerry:

Yeah, I think your analysis is right.  I agree that sexual harrassment is
"wrong" in an ethical sense, but that it shouldn't be outlawed (much like
discrimination, which we drove into the ground before).

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:59:49 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Politics and Celebrities
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Who is Jennifer Grey?
>
>--Julie

	I take it you didn't see Dirty Dancing (or just didn't notice the
female lead :).
	She's also been in Ferris Beuhler's Day Off, Red Dawn, Wind, etc.

	Oh, another Libertarian: Dave Barry.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:29:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: electoral collage and question from my 9-yr-old
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt379749@drew.edu>, andy <2893684@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA> writes:
>     Here's an idea, how about getting rid of the Electoral College and doing
> what France does. Declare the candidate that gets over 50% of the vote the
> winner, if no candidate does that on the first ballot, have a run-off between
> the top two candidates in two or three weeks time. Your current system holds
> the possibility that a candidate can get a majority in the Electoral College
> and come in second in the popular vote (it's already happened once, late last
> century). It's a strong possibility in especially close elections.
>
3 presidents were elected who got a minority for the popular vote:
Harrison, Hayes, and John Quincy Adams. Electoral voting originally
came in because the founders didn't trust the people plus fears of small
states (what one was a stronger reason is open to argument).
Clinton's electoral landslide shows that his popularity was
countrywide (he only missed Fl and TX by a few percentage points),
which is a lot better than winning the popular vote but doing so in
select areas.  The Electoral College helps make the president a
countrywise insitution, not one that is fought by region alone.
Problems arise for third party candidates plus that Clinton didn't
have to win any votes in Ca, TX, or Fl (or any other combination of
100 odd votes) to win the presidency. [this would mean he'd need some
other 3 votes because 370-101 is too little, but you see my pt] One
has to decide the pluses and minuses.

Clinton's major advisor was/is James Carville.  His Northern one died
a little while ago.

      -Joe

P.S. Anyone hear any mention of Thomas Kean as a possible presidental
or vice-presidental candidate?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:33:43 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      RE: America Has Spoken
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I agree wholeheartedly with your post...especially your quote at the end.

--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:18:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      The Draft Dodger, Adulterer, & Commie Sympathizer

   Slick Willie has won, what a blow to the Republicans!  Of course to many
it was no surprise, but to actually witness the event unfold on television
was astonishing.  In the electoral college it was a landslide, in the popular
vote it was damn close.  Most of all I think that the majority of people were
glad that Perot kept the race focused on issues, especially the deficit.  He
was able to capture an astonishing percentage of the popular vote, a result
of people's dissatisfaction with both the Republicans and the Democrats.
   The issue of trust, character, and forthrightness did not seem to matter to
most voters.  As one tv commentor said "Clinton is the first draft dodger
elected to the high office."  A person can, and often does, have indiscretions
when they are young that should not have much weight in his, or her, life as an
adult.  Yet, will Bill concede that he made a few youthful errors?  At this
point in time it is probably unimportant.
   President Bush has called for his party to put aside partisan politics and
to support President-Elect Bill Clinton, as every American should do for their
President.  Hopefully, the conservatives will be able to fulfill this request
better than the liberals have tried to do the last four years.  America should
come first, not the party.  Today is the day to think about tomorrow.  Today
is the day to deal with faded dreams and hopes.  Today is the day to give
Clinton the benefit of the doubt until he proves himself.  Will he remain
true as a moderate Democrat, or as Ed Koch says will he give in to the parties
"radicals?"
   Only time will tell and with time we will know if Clinton is, or is not, a
fake, fraud, and a phony.  Hopefully he is not, because we would have to endure
him for four years.  Wishing him good luck.

Carl-----------------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:33:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: The Youngest Science

>You really need to get your humors in order. Or, I have some
>nice hermetic recipes you might try.

>Jamie

i was wondering...does anyone know where i can find the barber? i need a
tooth pulled and also i have this headache. can anyone spare a leech or two?

-linda
From: sbc3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SHAWN BRENDON CREWS)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:38:45 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <01GQSE0ZTUWY000OY3@RHODES.BITNET>, FOXML@RHODES.BITNET (MARTIN FOX)
writes:
>>Listen DICK, You talk about grammar and spelling, don't you know that proper
>nouns (for example your dumb liberal ass name).  So shut up.
>>                                        Jayce
>
>THAT was entirely inappropriate, Jayce, and illustrates your total intolerance
>and immaturity.  This list is not for flaming -- it's for the exchange of
>ideas.  If you intend to make insults, do it on another list.  Although
>some witty exchange is a welcome amusement, to call someone a "DICK" is
>utterly unacceptable.  Telling someone to "shut up" is equally unacceptable
>on this list.  If you want to spread your ideas, you must do so without
>insults such as these.  Otherwise, you have no place on POLITICS.
>
>-Martin

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING MARTIN??
DID JAYCE'S FATHER DIE AND SAY, "MARTIN, YOU STUPID LIBERAL, I WANT YOU TO
TELL MY SON WHAT HE CAN AND WHAT HE CAN'T SAY BECAUSE YOU ARE SO PERFECT."
I DON'T THINK SO, SO SAVE YOUR LECTURES FOR SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:19:19 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Churches and Tax Exempt Status

>From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

>Rick-- Please DO post the tax laws.  I'm very interested.

I second that.

>Another thing-- I actually may look this up today when I get to
>campus if I have a chance between schoolwork-- but I am curious
>about something:  Is federal income tax legal?  I was listening
>to a talk show a few months ago which talked about the taxax code
>and questioned the Federal Government's right to levy taxes on
>personal income-- the idea was that PROFITS are taxable, but not
>income.

>I might grill you on definitions, not because I am attempting to
>challenge you (though I am not going to rule that possibility
>out ;-)) but more so because I am trying to understand.

I'll be interested to see if you find anything to grill in this:

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (1913)

      The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on
      incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
      among the several States, and without regard to any census
      or enumeration.

Shucks.

Jamie
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Taxes and Depressions
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:28:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Okay, Paul says that I should look at Hoover's presidency since Hoover
raised taxes during a depression and then it turned really ugly.

Okay, Paul:  Why don't you fill me in.  What is the difference between
1931 and 1993 and what are the similarities.  How does how Hoover raised
taxes relate specifically to the possible tax consequences of Clinton,
and what do you expect George Bushor Ross Perot would have done
differently?  Were Hoover's taxes across the board, or limited to
specific income groups?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:34:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: RE:Catholic Tradition
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Paul writes:
>...how is the church
>imposing it's morality on you, by preaching it?  So many Catholics
>do not follow every Catholic doctrine.  You really do not have to
>worry about the Church imposing morality on you.


*Sigh*.  Do we have to go through this again?  I don't _care_ what the
Catholic Church preaches.  I care what the Catholic Church attempts to
get passed into LAW.  I care that the Pope has not only said that it
is wrong for Catholics to be both non-celibate and gay (about which I
could not care less) but that he has said that Catholics in the United
States should ACTIVELY LOBBY AGAINST legislation which insures  less
discrimination against lesbians and gay men who are NOT necessarily
Catholic.

Get it?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:18:31 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Proposed policies from the new History Czar
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>        First, I will need some staff.  I would like to appoint Tony Clark (aka
>T.) as Associate Czar in charge of 20th Century American History, -JOE (sorry,
>don't remember your last name) as Associate in charge of Legal and Judicial
>History, Brett Kottmann (Brett') as Associate in charge of Military History
>(although we have gone 'round and 'round on the list HISTORY concerning whether
>FDR had prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor) and VMS as Associate in
>charge of Russian/Soviet/CIS History (although doubtless he will be tapped for
>a higher cabinet position).  If there are any others out there whom I have
>omitted, please speak up.

	Upon further review, my call on FDR and Pearl Harbor has been
overruled.  There was no "December Surprise" :)
	I humbly accept your gracious appointment.

Brett'
Always in search of a good conspiracy :)
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Conventional vs. Natural Meaning
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:48:23 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         "(rf35)" <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

>       Concerning the meaning of flag burning (and similar acts)
>I'm afraid that no act or symbol has any particular inherent
>meaning.  Rather, its meaning is determined by the context in
>which the symbol appears.

I think this is false, Richard.
Some things have natural meaning. Smoke means fire.

Flag burning has no particular natural meaning, though.

Jamie
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:01:43 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Electoral College

Joe muses:

>P.S. We had a note by some intelligent sounding pol sci type who took
>one look at a days posts' and went off in disgust.  This is not a good
>sign.

I'm not sure, Joe.  I've always been amused by people whose only
contribution to a list is a vitriolic farewell complaining about
the level of discourse and/or subject matter and/or the intellectual
capability of the membership.  While I would agree that the content
of the list has been weak recently, I wouldn't take the opinion of
the person described above *too* seriously.

Steve  (not to be confused with the new guy, double minus Steve)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:31:32 GMT
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: new tariffs
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

>One professor at Rhodes, claims that this trade-war mentality will
>send the US into a full-scale Depression.  Are there any economists
>out there who might have any ideas?
[stuff deleted]
>j.B.

I'm not an economist but yes, it will, and the rest of the world too.

Dunstan--
 Dunstan  | Systems Design Division           |dv@gec-epl.co.uk
 Vavasour | CEGELEC Projects                  |From JANET:
          | Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 1BU, UK |dv%uk.co.gec-epl@uk.ac.uknet
          | Tel: (+44) 788 563535             |Fax: (+44) 788 560767
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:04:13 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: APOLOGY TO EVERYONE!!!!!

In article <1992Nov10.163429.57797@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO) says:
>
>In article <POLITICS%92110920102601@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,              B
>CLARK@EVMSVMS.
>ITNET writes:
>>I am no great expert on the Soviet Union, but wasn't it the RIGHT who led
>>the coup against Gorbachev?  Hasn't it been the RIGHT that has sponsored
>>Communism all these years?  Wasn't it the LEFT who successfully put down the
>>coup and are now leading the people towards democracy?
>>
>>All corrections welcome, as I plead ignorance on the issue.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>
>>-T.
>>
>The RIGHT in the ex-Soviet Union corresponds to our LEFT, and vice versa.  I
>read this info in Tom Clancy's Cardinal of the Kremlin.  This is one fact that
>confuses many Americans as they are "opposite" us.
>                                        Jayce

A highly simplistic analysis which ignores the fact that the anti-Yeltsin
coalition which has recently been ban was an organisation uniting both
explicitly Stalinist forces and explicitly fascist, neo-nazi forces.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:58:02 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: right v left

Jimbo:
>Does anyone have a handy copy of the libertarian 'smallest political
>quiz' with the so-called 'Nolan Chart' or whatever it is called?

Is that the two-dimensional one with economic freedom on one axis and
individual liberty (or whatever) on the other?  With libertarians in the
high economic freedom/high individual liberty quadrant and so forth?  I
can't remember the correct names that go in the others, but basically
traditional liberals go in the high individual liberty/low economic freedom
spot and "Republicans" (I don't remember the correct label) in the low
individual liberty/high economic freedom part -- is that about right?

I liked that chart.  I found it gave me a much better way to think about
the right/left stuff (and that's sort of what I was driving at in my posts
to JasonZ).

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:04:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      C.E. not B.C.
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

I erred, please forgive me.

When I claimed the B.C. was one of the more extreme examples of
political correctness, I meant C.E. (Common Era).  I mis-typed.

-Paul
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:51:15 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Why would I want the last word? I've made my point and you have yet to
disqualify it.
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:28:34 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Churches and Tax Exempt Status

From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.BITNET>

> Kat-- you are missing my point.  In order for an organization to attain
> tax exempt status it must NOT be a political organizations or take
> political positions.  It can take _moral_ positions, but not political.
> So it's okay for the Catholic Church to feel that homosexuality is
> a mortal sin, but not okay for the Church to make a policy statement
> about legislation which involves gay rights (or anything else for
> that matter!).

Good point!  Are the Catholic church and the Salvation Army tax
exempt for the exact same reason?  I don't know the answer but
if they are then I have to agree with you.

If the government attempts to strike down the tax exempt provision,
and Salvation Army lobbies against it, would they lose their tax
exempt status (because they lobbied) even if the provision survives?

Our state just recently passed a constitutional amendment legalizing
bingo for churches and non-profit organizations.  Many churches
lobbied for it extensively.  Nothing happened to them and the
amendment passed.

> --Julie

--KAT