On Mon, 4 May 2026 12:12:04 +0200
Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
occam hat am 04.05.2026 um 10:49 geschrieben:
In case you think I'm theorising, there is the small matter of the
Armenian genocide at the turn of the 20th century. It was real, it cause >>> 1.5M deaths and left a whole nation fearing and distrusting Islam.
Read "Turks and Turkey" instead of Islam. AFAIK Armenians don't fear and
distrust Indonesians.
I have no data, but AIUI the Quran seems to encourage conversion (forcible
is always an option) of infidels everywhere. I suspect some Indonesians
might find it as true there as it was in e.g N.Africa during early Islamic history.
On 07/05/26 16:38, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Ar an seacht|| l|i de m|! Bealtaine, scr|!obh Steve Hayes:
An example of prejudice would be that if the first case of
backache you encountered was a spinal epidural abscess, you treated
every subsequent case as a spinal epidural abscess.
Yes; and even that is usually actually helpful, because I *will*
adjust my pre-test-probability in the right direction with time,
whereas a spinal epidural abscess is generally not on the radar at
all for most doctors, and missing them is a routine medicolegal
catastrophe. ItrCOs unusual to investigate for something you never
thought of.
If you update your probability estimate on the basis of experience,
that's no long prejudice. A standard feature of prejudice is
unwillingness to look at the evidence.
On 07/05/26 16:38, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Ar an seacht|| l|i de m|! Bealtaine, scr|!obh Steve Hayes:
An example of prejudice would be that if the first case of
backache you encountered was a spinal epidural abscess, you treated
every subsequent case as a spinal epidural abscess.
Yes; and even that is usually actually helpful, because I *will*
adjust my pre-test-probability in the right direction with time,
whereas a spinal epidural abscess is generally not on the radar at
all for most doctors, and missing them is a routine medicolegal catastrophe. ItrCOs unusual to investigate for something you never
thought of.
If you update your probability estimate on the basis of experience,
that's no long prejudice. A standard feature of prejudice is
unwillingness to look at the evidence.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 07/05/26 16:38, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Ar an seacht|a-| l|a-i de m|arCo Bealtaine, scr|arCoobh Steve Hayes:
An example of prejudice would be that if the first case of
backache you encountered was a spinal epidural abscess, you treated
every subsequent case as a spinal epidural abscess.
Yes; and even that is usually actually helpful, because I *will*
adjust my pre-test-probability in the right direction with time,
whereas a spinal epidural abscess is generally not on the radar at
all for most doctors, and missing them is a routine medicolegal catastrophe. It|orCo-Os unusual to investigate for something you never thought of.
If you update your probability estimate on the basis of experience,
that's no long prejudice. A standard feature of prejudice is
unwillingness to look at the evidence.
Unwillingness to look at ALL the evidence.
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 07/05/26 16:38, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Ar an seacht|a-| l|a-i de m|arCo Bealtaine, scr|arCoobh Steve Hayes:
An example of prejudice would be that if the first case of
backache you encountered was a spinal epidural abscess, you treated
every subsequent case as a spinal epidural abscess.
Yes; and even that is usually actually helpful, because I *will*
adjust my pre-test-probability in the right direction with time, whereas a spinal epidural abscess is generally not on the radar at
all for most doctors, and missing them is a routine medicolegal catastrophe. It|orCo-Os unusual to investigate for something you never thought of.
If you update your probability estimate on the basis of experience, that's no long prejudice. A standard feature of prejudice is unwillingness to look at the evidence.
Unwillingness to look at ALL the evidence.
It is just a prejudice to believe that looking at all the evidence
will cure people of prejudices,
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
If you update your probability estimate on the basis of experience,
that's no long prejudice. A standard feature of prejudice is
unwillingness to look at the evidence.
Unwillingness to look at ALL the evidence.
It is just a prejudice to believe that looking at all the evidence
will cure people of prejudices,
IME people (and that includes me) are very fast to pick up on confirmatory evidence/gossip and very reluctant to accept information to the
contrary and look to pick holes in it.
wiki 'Confirmation bias'
Trump voter syndrome
Watch this space, where Kerr-Mudd, John advised that...
On Mon, 4 May 2026 12:12:04 +0200
Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
occam hat am 04.05.2026 um 10:49 geschrieben:
In case you think I'm theorising, there is the small matter of the
Armenian genocide at the turn of the 20th century. It was real, it
cause
1.5M deaths and left a whole nation fearing and distrusting Islam.
Read "Turks and Turkey" instead of Islam. AFAIK Armenians don't fear and >>> distrust Indonesians.
I have no data, but AIUI the Quran seems to encourage conversion
(forcible
is always an option) of infidels everywhere. I suspect some Indonesians
might find it as true there as it was in e.g N.Africa during early
Islamic
history.
As Madhu may be able to confirm:
Aside from the issue of conversion, Peter Frankopan describes several
periods where various Islamic regimes have been very tolerant of Jews
and Christians.-a IIRC, there is a fair correlation with periods of prosperity.
On 08/05/2026 01:55, Snidely wrote:
Watch this space, where Kerr-Mudd, John advised that...
On Mon, 4 May 2026 12:12:04 +0200
Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
occam hat am 04.05.2026 um 10:49 geschrieben:
In case you think I'm theorising, there is the small matter of the
Armenian genocide at the turn of the 20th century. It was real, it
cause
1.5M deaths and left a whole nation fearing and distrusting Islam.
Read "Turks and Turkey" instead of Islam. AFAIK Armenians don't fear and >>>> distrust Indonesians.
I have no data, but AIUI the Quran seems to encourage conversion
(forcible
is always an option) of infidels everywhere. I suspect some Indonesians
might find it as true there as it was in e.g N.Africa during early
Islamic
history.
As Madhu may be able to confirm:
Aside from the issue of conversion, Peter Frankopan describes several
periods where various Islamic regimes have been very tolerant of Jews
and Christians.-a IIRC, there is a fair correlation with periods of
prosperity.
The Ottoman Empire was one such period. Yes, Jews and Christian were tolerated to practice their respective religions under Ottoman rule.
However, they did not go unpunished. They were taxed at higher rates
unless they converted to Islam.
On 10/05/2026 16:37, occam wrote:
The Ottoman Empire was one such period. Yes, Jews and Christian were
tolerated to practice their respective religions under Ottoman rule.
However, they did not go unpunished. They were taxed at higher rates
unless they converted to Islam.
The same was true in Islamic Spain.
Problems arose when so many people converted to Islam. that the tax take declined to an unacceptable level.
The result was that those who converted were considered to not be
'proper' Muslims, and forced to continue paying the higher rate.
On 10/05/2026 16:37, occam wrote:
On 08/05/2026 01:55, Snidely wrote:
Aside from the issue of conversion, Peter Frankopan describes
several periods where various Islamic regimes have been very
tolerant of Jews and Christians. IIRC, there is a fair
correlation with periods of prosperity.
The Ottoman Empire was one such period. Yes, Jews and Christian
were tolerated to practice their respective religions under Ottoman
rule. However, they did not go unpunished. They were taxed at
higher rates unless they converted to Islam.
The same was true in Islamic Spain. Problems arose when so many
people converted to Islam. that the tax take declined to an
unacceptable level. The result was that those who converted were
considered to not be 'proper' Muslims, and forced to continue paying
the higher rate.
One of the mega-churches in this area has been buying houses that
are located in the area in order to own property for future growth
and additional parking.
The purchases are structured so that the current owner of the house
has the right retain use of the property as long as the current
owners are in residence there. They can occupy the house until they
die or move to some other place.
This is an older area of Orlando where the houses are small and
plain, and most of the residents are getting on in years. A
"lifetime right" isn't going to be that many years.
The county tax assessor has been fighting with the church for years.
While the houses are currently church-owned, the tax assessor says
they must be used for church business to be exempt from property
tax. The church claims they are property tax exempt.
On 11/05/26 04:55, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 10/05/2026 16:37, occam wrote:
On 08/05/2026 01:55, Snidely wrote:
Aside from the issue of conversion, Peter Frankopan describes
several periods where various Islamic regimes have been very
tolerant of Jews and Christians. IIRC, there is a fair
correlation with periods of prosperity.
The Ottoman Empire was one such period. Yes, Jews and Christian
were tolerated to practice their respective religions under Ottoman
rule. However, they did not go unpunished. They were taxed at
higher rates unless they converted to Islam.
The same was true in Islamic Spain. Problems arose when so many
people converted to Islam. that the tax take declined to an
unacceptable level. The result was that those who converted were
considered to not be 'proper' Muslims, and forced to continue paying
the higher rate.
I find it surprising to see how many countries demand that their
citizens pay for the support of the official religion, through the tax
system or otherwise. Even in countries whose constitution requires a >separation between church and state, the churches still get public
subsidies in the form of tax exemptions.
I find it surprising to see how many countries demand that their
citizens pay for the support of the official religion, through the tax
system or otherwise. Even in countries whose constitution requires a separation between church and state, the churches still get public
subsidies in the form of tax exemptions.
The county tax assessor has been fighting with the church for years.
While the houses are currently church-owned, the tax assessor says
they must be used for church business to be exempt from property tax.
The church claims they are property tax exempt.
On 11/05/26 04:55, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 10/05/2026 16:37, occam wrote:
On 08/05/2026 01:55, Snidely wrote:
Aside from the issue of conversion, Peter Frankopan describes
several periods where various Islamic regimes have been very
tolerant of Jews and Christians. IIRC, there is a fair
correlation with periods of prosperity.
The Ottoman Empire was one such period. Yes, Jews and Christian
were tolerated to practice their respective religions under Ottoman
rule. However, they did not go unpunished. They were taxed at
higher rates unless they converted to Islam.
The same was true in Islamic Spain. Problems arose when so many
people converted to Islam. that the tax take declined to an
unacceptable level. The result was that those who converted were
considered to not be 'proper' Muslims, and forced to continue paying
the higher rate.
I find it surprising to see how many countries demand that their
citizens pay for the support of the official religion, through the tax
system or otherwise.
separation between church and state, the churches still get public
subsidies in the form of tax exemptions.
Something that has been controversial in Australia in the last decade or
so is the use of prayers to open a sitting or parliament. A growing
number of members abstain from invoking the Christian god, but moves to
get rid of the prayer have never succeeded.
I find it surprising to see how many countries demand that their
citizens pay for the support of the official religion, through the tax
system or otherwise. Even in countries whose constitution requires a >separation between church and state, the churches still get public
subsidies in the form of tax exemptions.
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:34:34 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
I find it surprising to see how many countries demand that their
citizens pay for the support of the official religion, through the
tax system or otherwise. Even in countries whose constitution
requires a separation between church and state, the churches still
get public subsidies in the form of tax exemptions.
Is it *only* churches that get such tax exemptions? Do they not
apply to other voluntary organisations that are supported by the contributions of their members (who have already been taxed), like
the Boy Scouts, the amateur football club, the Photographic Society,
etc?
Den 11.05.2026 kl. 03.39 skrev Tony Cooper:
The county tax assessor has been fighting with the church for years.
While the houses are currently church-owned, the tax assessor says
they must be used for church business to be exempt from property tax.
The church claims they are property tax exempt.
Haven't the assessors taken this fight to the court?
I'm sure occam won't answer me, but I'll ask them all the same. What's
worse: higher taxes or pogroms?
On 11/05/26 04:55, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 10/05/2026 16:37, occam wrote:
On 08/05/2026 01:55, Snidely wrote:
Aside from the issue of conversion, Peter Frankopan describes
several periods where various Islamic regimes have been very
tolerant of Jews and Christians.-a IIRC, there is a fair
correlation with periods of prosperity.
The Ottoman Empire was one such period. Yes, Jews and Christian
were tolerated to practice their respective religions under Ottoman
rule. However, they did not go unpunished. They were taxed at
higher rates unless they converted to Islam.
The same was true in Islamic Spain. Problems arose when so many
people converted to Islam. that the tax take declined to an
unacceptable level. The result was that those who converted were
considered to not be 'proper' Muslims, and forced to continue paying
the higher rate.
I find it surprising to see how many countries demand that their
citizens pay for the support of the official religion, through the tax
system or otherwise. Even in countries whose constitution requires a separation between church and state, the churches still get public
subsidies in the form of tax exemptions.
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:34:34 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
I find it surprising to see how many countries demand that their
citizens pay for the support of the official religion, through the tax >>system or otherwise. Even in countries whose constitution requires a >>separation between church and state, the churches still get public >>subsidies in the form of tax exemptions.
Is it *only* churches that get such tax exemptions? Do they not apply
to other voluntary organisations that are supported by the
contributions of their members (who have already been taxed), like the
Boy Scouts, the amateur football club, the Photographic Society, etc?
Heh! For a period I was paying taxes in Spain while working for UPC in Barcelona. One of the questions on the tax form (which I remember well)
was - "did I want to make a voluntary contribution to the Church?". I
never ticked the box, but I assume they meant the Catholic Church and
not some other religious denomination of my choice.
Sam Plusnet hat am 10.05.2026 um 20:55 geschrieben:
On 10/05/2026 16:37, occam wrote:
The Ottoman Empire was one such period. Yes, Jews and Christian were
tolerated to practice their respective religions under Ottoman rule.
However, they did not go unpunished. They were taxed at higher rates
unless they converted to Islam.
The same was true in Islamic Spain.
Problems arose when so many people converted to Islam. that the tax take declined to an unacceptable level.
The result was that those who converted were considered to not be
'proper' Muslims, and forced to continue paying the higher rate.
Very unfair, if true, but still much better than kicking them out of the country after the conquest of the last Muslim kingdom in Spain.
I'm sure occam won't answer me, but I'll ask them all the same. What's
worse: higher taxes or pogroms?
On Mon, 11 May 2026 10:58:55 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:34:34 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
I find it surprising to see how many countries demand that their
citizens pay for the support of the official religion, through the tax
system or otherwise. Even in countries whose constitution requires a
separation between church and state, the churches still get public
subsidies in the form of tax exemptions.
Is it *only* churches that get such tax exemptions? Do they not apply
to other voluntary organisations that are supported by the
contributions of their members (who have already been taxed), like the
Boy Scouts, the amateur football club, the Photographic Society, etc?
In the US, a non-profit organization can apply for tax exempt status.
That means they don't pay income, property, or sales tax.
"Non-profit" is a misleading term. "Profit" is the difference between
cost and revenue. A non-profit can - and most do - make a profit.
What they can't do is share that profit with shareholders. The profit
has to be kept in the organization and reinvested in the organization.
Hospitals are an example of a profit-making non-profit. They don't
disburse the profit to shareholders, but there doesn't seem to be any
rule regarding how much they pay their executives. The CEO of Advent
Health (Florida's largest hospital group) is paid over $3 million
annually.
They are not as generous to ordinary staff.
On 11/05/26 18:58, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:34:34 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
I find it surprising to see how many countries demand that their
citizens pay for the support of the official religion, through the
tax system or otherwise. Even in countries whose constitution
requires a separation between church and state, the churches still
get public subsidies in the form of tax exemptions.
Is it *only* churches that get such tax exemptions? Do they not
apply to other voluntary organisations that are supported by the
contributions of their members (who have already been taxed), like
the Boy Scouts, the amateur football club, the Photographic Society,
etc?
Strictly speaking, it's charities who get the tax exemption (in this >country). The churches all qualify as charities. No attempt is made to >distinguish between their charitable works and their other activities.
Amateur groups usually don't make enough profit to be taxed. In fact,
most of them make no profit at all.
occam hat am 11.05.2026 um 15:27 geschrieben:
Heh! For a period I was paying taxes in Spain while working for UPC in
Barcelona. One of the questions on the tax form (which I remember well)
was - "did I want to make a voluntary contribution to the Church?". I
never ticked the box, but I assume they meant the Catholic Church and
not some other religious denomination of my choice.
I don't know the Spanish system. Italy has something similar, but with
14 possible beneficiaries. Details here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_per_thousand>
Important point: taxpayers in Italy have only one way not to pay that
eight per thousand, i.e. total income tax evasion. They can only choose
which organisation gets their money. I'd like to highlight this sentence
from that article: "The eight-per-thousand tax has significantly helped
the Piedmontese Waldensians, a Protestant community whose origins
predate the Reformation, the Waldensians have only about 25,000 enlisted members but about 412,000 Italians support them and their charitable
works." The motto: anything is better than paying to the Catholic Church.
I don't know about that, but rural churches in France are often in a much >tattier state than their equivalents in the UK, so if they get any subsidy
it isn't much.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:19:30 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,187 |