Ending God's Tax Exempt Status

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The fuck you haven't, over and over like a hammer.You not only misquote others you misquote yourself if it's convenient.No, but I'm going to be kicking yours from now on. Not as often as you've changed your posts.That's bullshit, YOU say, the millions of people that say they benefit from non-profit entities, like the Church, are wrong, because it can't be quantified to your satisfaction. You're arrogance is manifested in the hate you spew.It is you that is sad. A pathetic shell, eaten up by your own hate for everyone that won't toe your line, because they are somehow oppressing you. Newsflash, the world doesn't revolve around you and never will.

I have never stated any one is oppressing me.
I love how you read things into everything I type.
You are so fun, please never stop.
I hate no one and love everyone, including you.
Changing their tax-exempt status will change nothing in regards to what they "do" help or not, it will just make them responsible. Or, if they actually use their money the way they state they do, they will remain tax-exempt.

In a nutshell, religion does not deserve a hands-off approach to questioning discussions. Nor does it deserve the respect of anyone who does not share the belief.
Not respecting the belief does not disrespect the believer, that is a fallacy.
If you cannot handle them I don't understand why you involve yourself in them?

[9th Engineer]

You've really only argued one main point through this entire thread rk. Over and over again you've said that you want documented proof that a certain percentage of the money that a church receives goes to basic charity acts which contain absolutely no religious overtones.
I have no problem with you saying this, but unless you address the fact that there are other organizations that are not this rigorous with their paperwork yet are still considered tax exempt you are beating a dead horse. Condemn all, or condemn none.

Although it didn't come up directly I'm sure you would argue that saying a prayer before serving a free meal at a soup kitchen is subversive, with the final intent being to recruit new parishioners rather then providing the hungry with a much needed service.

I have stated that I want the criteria to apply to all.
If religious charity workers prays before serving fine, as long as they don't require it of those it feeds.

[Bullitt]

Personally, I'm a little more concerned with how the government is spending our tax dollars rather than where it does and doesn't come from.

[manephelien]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I have stated that I want the criteria to apply to all.
If religious charity workers prays before serving fine, as long as they don't require it of those it feeds.

Hear, hear.

That's why I'm a bit wary of any kind of charities based on religious ideologies. Tax exemptions are bad enough, but I find it even more disturbing when my taxes are going to subventions to religious organizations. Those who believe and can afford to pay should, but why should I?

[tw]

Originally Posted by manephelien

That's why I'm a bit wary of any kind of charities based on religious ideologies.

Also suspect are posts that would blindly support or defend such 'charities'. Are they charities? For whom?

Your block is broken.

[lumberjim]

::waiting for you to edit that into something entirely different::

[Cloud]

Disappointing devolution into mud slinging here.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I have admitted when someone has shown flaws in my reasoning and changed my views in here more than once.

Cite.

You have repeatedly made this claim, but I am certain I've never seen it. Please link to just one post in the past year and a half where you have openly acknowledged you were wrong.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You have repeatedly made this claim, but I am certain I've never seen it. Please link to just one post in the past year and a half where you have openly acknowledged you were wrong.

Do you always throw stones in glass houses?

Meanwhile, the general point from rkzenrage is accurate. There exist some serious and unanswered questions about these non-profits. Take the Catholic Church as example. An institution that must be heavy in wealth simply because of the number of buildings owned in Manhattan. A church that receives unknown amounts in donations, but as Tom Clancy noted in his book, did not even have funds to support their own priests in mainland China.

A charity organization that had to be subpoenaed in Philadelphia to release hundreds of priests the church listed in files as pedophiles - and only in that one diocese. rkzenrage raises good questions about the credibility of these non-profit organizations who seem to have so little money left for charity work.

Those who better worship god by giving to charity should donate instead to the Red Cross - or even better the Salvation Army.

If someone can defend the financial integrity of those institutions, then put forth the facts. Don't attack the questioner. The subject is religious institutions that even have massive funds to make political statements and commercials. 700 Club? That is a non-profit charity?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by tw

Do you always throw stones in glass houses?

Meanwhile, the general point from rkzenrage is accurate.

Folks! Folks! Gather round. Hear ye, hear ye, the mighty, all-powerful tw has spoken! Let not there be dissension amongst ye dwellars, for the ways of the world have been shown to us all.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile, the general point from rkzenrage is accurate. There exist some serious and unanswered questions about these non-profits. Take the Catholic Church as example. An institution that must be heavy in wealth simply because of the number of buildings owned in Manhattan. A church that receives unknown amounts in donations, but as Tom Clancy noted in his book, did not even have funds to support their own priests in mainland China.

A charity organization that had to be subpoenaed in Philadelphia to release hundreds of priests the church listed in files as pedophiles - and only in that one diocese. rkzenrage raises good questions about the credibility of these non-profit organizations who seem to have so little money left for charity work.

Those who better worship god by giving to charity should donate instead to the Red Cross - or even better the Salvation Army.

If someone can defend the financial integrity of those institutions, then put forth the facts. Don't attack the questioner. The subject is religious institutions that even have massive funds to make political statements and commercials. 700 Club? That is a non-profit charity?

Did you read the title of the thread?
I don't approve of the way the Catholic Church operates either but since I don't belong to that church, it's none of my business.
I don't like the way the Red Cross operates either, but I refuse to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[smurfalicious]

I really have a problem with the Catholic Church being construed as a "church" and singled out in this thread (along with the likes of of the Bakkers, who were scam artists, not religious leaders, who used individuals' weaknesses to take advantage of them). Let's be honest - the CC is more of a business than spiritual sanctuary. The Vatican City isn't even a city so much as it's another world entirely, not even a part of any recognized country.

There's a huge difference between your local hometown church that provides religious and/or spiritual services, counsel, charity, etc., and the enormous CC, so full of pomp and circumstance, and headquartered in its own country, if you will, thousands of miles away, in secrecy. The local church, whether or not you subscribe to the particular ideologies of that church, makes an effort to be involved in its local community; provides meals, clothing, shelter to those in need; passes on tithings to orphanages, and the like; and, most importantly, provides spiritual counsel to those who desperately seek a 'higher' purpose or just something to believe in. Perhaps the biggest charity a church can offer is the time and effort of its pastors and counselors. The pastors, ministers, etc. usually have 'actual' jobs to pay the bills, or are retired, and don't take much pay, if any, from the church.

By contrast, the CC conducts itself as a business throughout the world. Even your soul has a price in the CC. It is a profitable organization that holds its finances in such secret, that it must be because it would be appalling to know the amount of money it rakes in.

I was born a Catholic, raised a Christian, and then grew a brain of my own. I am not religious, nor am I defending churches; I am spiritual, and I do take issue - HUGE issue - with organized religion as a whole. I do believe that there are many people, some of whom I have known very personally, that have been on the receiving end of the charitable donations of a church, most often in the form of personal and spiritual guidance, and, as much as I want to, I cannot deny that it was the church that helped to make them happy, healthy, kinder, and hold themselves to a higher standard.

I don't have a problem with non-profit organizations of any kind being exempt - as long as they keep and produce the books that evidence that they are on the up-and-up. Just because I don't subscribe to their ideologies doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. I believe that battered women should stop fucking crying about it and leave their abusers, but I'm certainly not trying to make their lives harder by giving the battered women's shelters a hard time about how they manage their funds.

Edit:

Why?

Because you have no fucking manners.
And no fucking manners either.