Dear Path,
Friend has put forth a good argument on taxation. So has Red Horse and yourself, Frenchy and myself and others. We all have opinions - they are all valid, are they not?
This is a sticky situation - not because of the taxation laws - but because of the religious ethics touched upon. We all agreed, from the very beginning, that no laws were broken by WTBTS and the other religious organizations filing the Friends of the Court brief. Everyone was looking out for their own tax benefits - legally.
In my opinion, whenever a lawyer touches religion, and whenever a religion touches law - ramifications occurr.
Not everyone agrees with the ramifications. Even lawyers don't agree - and they, presumably, know the laws. Why should we have to agree? No laws were broken. We all agree. Ethics, they're opinions, aren't they? And everyone has one.
Perhaps that's the answer. We just agree to disagree - being civil.
Edited by - waiting on 10 June 2000 7:20:42