View Full Version : Christian Pastor on Liberty
First off:
Can we PLEASE try to keep the theological debates out of this? If you don't believe in God, or you aren't sure, more power to you. We have a handful of Christians here, and I'm sharing this primarily with them. (although this pastor hits on many universal truths)
His name is Doug Wilson, and by the sound of it, he's made out of the same stuff as our founders. This sermon is about Federal overreach, Constitutional/Godly governance, State Nullification, government assuming the status of god, etc. I've listened to this three times already. It's just incredible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wuc2yBxXQo4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Unfortunately, the vast majority of pastors in America are total sissies. They don't want to make waves, and so they rarely, if ever, connect the lessons about resistance to unlawful/unrighteous civil authority in the Bible to modern abuses of government. Not to mention that many are enslaved to their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, and feel they have too much to lose by speaking out against the government and possibly having it yanked by the IRS.
Anyway, Wilson is a fresh of breath air. It's worth a listen. Thoughts?
(again, please keep christian ridicule out of it. This is about the sermon/speach, not theology. you know who you are)
Quite interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
montanadave
07-13-12, 07:11
More power to him.
Now revoke the tax-exempt status of his church.
The_War_Wagon
07-13-12, 08:11
More power to him.
Now revoke the tax-exempt status of his church.
If you don't like his message Herod, you could just lop his head off and be done with him... ;)
montanadave
07-13-12, 08:45
If you don't like his message Herod, you could just lop his head off and be done with him... ;)
Alas, tis so oft the case the loper soon becomes the lopee. And there's the rub.
Now revoke the tax-exempt status of his church.
Does that apply to the left? :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris
CarlosDJackal
07-13-12, 09:53
...Now revoke the tax-exempt status of his church.
Typical liberal bull. This is why more Pastors and religious institution do not speak out against their government. Atheists and anti-religion parties are convinced that the so-called Separation between Church and State is absolute and means that a Pastor's or a particular religious institution's right to point out problems with the current government is illegal.
And to what end? If the government were to start executing a particular group (IE: Nazis leading up to WWII, etc.) just because they did not fit their government's definition of a perfect citizen; can religious institutions then speak out? Or are they still in violation of the separation?
What if a government, passes a law that is against a religious institution's core values, are they allowed to speak out against it? Or does the Separation of Church and State somehow mean that any religious institution, because they are under some sort of tax-exemption status, has to accept these decisions with their hands over their mouths like most anti-American Liberals claim?
And this is why our Society is headed in a downward spiral. The dumboKratic/athiest party has convinced their lemmings that the Separation of Church and State means that it is illegal for religious institutions to have a voice that is against what their party believes.
Basically, they believe that the very institutions that are supposed to act as the Conscience for our Society should stop doing so. The organizations that are the very first to codify Common Law, long before any European or African ever set foot onto North American shores, should not speak out against any wrongs that they observe.
Bravo!! Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung would be proud!!
VooDoo6Actual
07-13-12, 10:24
First off:
Can we PLEASE try to keep the theological debates out of this? If you don't believe in God, or you aren't sure, more power to you. We have a handful of Christians here, and I'm sharing this primarily with them. (although this pastor hits on many universal truths)
His name is Doug Wilson, and by the sound of it, he's made out of the same stuff as our founders. This sermon is about Federal overreach, Constitutional/Godly governance, State Nullification, government assuming the status of god, etc. I've listened to this three times already. It's just incredible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wuc2yBxXQo4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Unfortunately, the vast majority of pastors in America are total sissies. They don't want to make waves, and so they rarely, if ever, connect the lessons about resistance to unlawful/unrighteous civil authority in the Bible to modern abuses of government. Not to mention that many are enslaved to their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, and feel they have too much to lose by speaking out against the government and possibly having it yanked by the IRS.
Anyway, Wilson is a fresh of breath air. It's worth a listen. Thoughts?
(again, please keep christian ridicule out of it. This is about the sermon/speach, not theology. you know who you are)
Thanks for sharing that, I appreciate it & generally agree with it's message. I would like to see some reforms in the structuring of churches monetary exclusions/status & criminality "Get Out of Jail Free" passes within but that's everywhere as well especially within our Gubmint. That's another topic for different discussion as I'm not going to get into theological discussion as you mentioned, just painting w/ a broad stroke regarding accountability issues.
More power to him.
Now revoke the tax-exempt status of his church.
:lol:
Why because you don't like his message? Because he's speaking out against the government and how it's overstepped it boundries? Sounds like someone just renewed their Progressive membership...if you don't like what someone has to say, silence them. If you keep this up you might get a Czar appointment.
montanadave
07-13-12, 10:36
:lol:
Why because you don't like his message? Because he's speaking out against the government and how it's overstepped it boundries? Sounds like someone just renewed their Progressive membership...if you don't like what someone has to say, silence them. If you keep this up you might get a Czar appointment.
No. I think churches should lose their tax-exempt status period. Regardless of the message.
Then they can preach whatever they damn well please.
Good sermon. I don't see why the atheists and agnostics couldn't replace "God" and "Jesus" in the sermon with whatever code they live by and come to the same conclusion. The ultimate claim of universal health care is that we owe it to everyone to cover their health needs, regardless of the cost to others. That by doing so, everyone will suffer somewhat, so that no one will suffer a great deal. This is socialism at it's very core. It's anethema to personal responsibility. Let's just dumb down the entire country in order to protect a few.
Does the few include some very unfortunate souls who have no control over the fate they find themselves in? Sure. Does it include a much larger segment that choose to ignore the threat to themselves and willfully disregard that which should be their own responsibility? Absolutely.
My contention is that whatever number of lives we save by instituting universal health care (if any), is not as important to the continuity of the Republic as the continuation of self-determinism as a core value. When you remove the personal choice on something so basic as your own continued survival, you diminish EVERYONE that falls under the mandate. :(
No. I think churches should lose their tax-exempt status period. Regardless of the message.
Then they can preach whatever they damn well please.
No, churches should retain their tax exempt status (separation of church and state!) and should be able to preach whatever they damn well please (again, separation of church and state!)
--
montanadave
07-13-12, 12:32
The OP asked that this thread not be turned into a theological debate or an argument about religion. I should have kept my mouth shut. My bad.
Carry on. He's just preaching to the choir.
Moose-Knuckle
07-13-12, 19:29
Now revoke the tax-exempt status of his church.
I wished they would go after the prosperity preachers, these douche nozzles are multi-multi millionaires fleecing their "mega churches". :rolleyes:
Sorry, not to derail.
No. I think churches should lose their tax-exempt status period. Regardless of the message.
Then they can preach whatever they damn well please.
Agreed. Dangling a carrot in front of a church can have the effect of that church remaining silent toward the government when they should be critical. Particularly when the threat of revocation is always there.
Good sermon. I don't see why the atheists and agnostics couldn't replace "God" and "Jesus" in the sermon with whatever code they live by and come to the same conclusion
Agreed also. Put "Nature" or "Natural Rights" in place of God and Jesus, and this whole sermon speaks to atheists
The "This isn't a theology debate" comment was because I don't want to see this thread turn into the same cluster**** that the "If I Were The Devil" thread turned into.
I just wanted to share a video of a pretty intelligent pastor making some great points, without having to discuss whether fish can sprout legs or whether someone turned water into fermented grape juice.
More power to him.
Now revoke the tax-exempt status of his church.
Since libs love to tax I hope you give the gov lots of extra money !
Do you try to figure out how to pay more or less when you do your taxes ?
Most likely as little as possible which is hypocritical of liberals and considering churches do a lot more to help out than our gov !
And proven republicans give more to charity then democrats !
Funny how the libs dont like facts though !
montanadave
07-14-12, 11:30
Since libs love to tax I hope you give the gov lots of extra money !
Do you try to figure out how to pay more or less when you do your taxes ?
Most likely as little as possible which is hypocritical of liberals and considering churches do a lot more to help out than our gov !
And proven republicans give more to charity then democrats !
Funny how the libs dont like facts though !
You know absolutely zero about my income, my taxes, or my charitable contributions so how about you quit talkin' out your ass?
I don't see why people want to increase the taxing power of government by going after churches.
Churches' "income" comes from donations by their congregations. The money for those donations is already taxed. Repeat: the money has already been taxed. There is no economic activity happening by the church to "earn" the money so nothing to tax.
Some churches get income, in addition, through economic activity. They may own a farm or something and sell the produce. AFAIK, churches pay taxes on that sort of income. I know mine does. (Not on their farms, but they don't sell the produce to the public -- they use it exclusively for helping people and for aid around the world). But I know my church owns commercial enterprises and pays taxes on those enterprises income. But the "income" through donations should in no way be taxed.
And most churches provide a lot more value to the dollar back into the community than the government does.
And lastly, the doctrine of "separation of church and state" as it has evolved would preclude taxation of church's donation income. That is meddling in the affairs of the church.
---
You know absolutely zero about my income, my taxes, or my charitable contributions so how about you quit talkin' out your ass?
Touchy now, aren't we? He never once said anything about you personally. He said that REPUBLICANS, as a group, give more to charity than DEMOCRATS do. Most studies confirm this based on IRS records and other sources. Group studies do not say anything about any individuals in the group, they only talk about the group as a whole.
So Honu was not talking out his ass and was not talking about your finances and level of charitable contributions personally. He did ask if you tried to minimize or maximize your tax burden, and rightly commented on the hypocrisy of someone minimizing their own while try to maximize anothers.
kaiservontexas
07-14-12, 11:52
Yep they get taxed on things other than Church activities. The clergy even pay sales tax if it is not for Church activities. You do not just assume when one of the clergy is buying something it is for the church. You ask them so you know to add sales tax or not. I learned this when I was working for a ministry.
montanadave
07-14-12, 12:02
Since when are donations to your church not considered tax-deductable?
Churches' "income" comes from donations by their congregations. The money for those donations is already taxed. Repeat: the money has already been taxed.
Good point. Just like sales tax. People are spending their income to buy things, but the income was already taxed. Es caca del burro
He said that REPUBLICANS, as a group, give more to charity than DEMOCRATS do. Most studies confirm this based on IRS records and other sources.
That's why as religious institutions, particularly the protestant and catholic churches that traditionally provided for the poor and needy over the centuries, continue to decline, there's a growing need for gov't forcing people to contribute to the welfare of the less fortunate via taxation and other mandates, because they don't give it as willingly as the Christian groups historically have.
Despite claiming to be the loving and tolerant crowd, the left is actually very selfish. As always, actions speak louder than words and they simply don't contribute to the welfare of others out of charity the way conservatives do, so they have to be forced to do so by the government. Part of the reason they're so eager to see churches lose tax-exempt status is to force those who still do give charitably to reduce their giving, so they can feel less bad about their own lack of charity. Typical liberalism at work there: hating the good others do so much that they will expend energy that could be used to produce good of their own, to instead reduce the good others have been doing.
You know absolutely zero about my income, my taxes, or my charitable contributions so how about you quit talkin' out your ass?
Did I say anything about your income or your charity contributions ? Or make any statements about them ! NOPE
I just figured I would ask if you like to pay more or less to the gov come tax time !
Since you seem to think everyone should be taxed figure you must try to pay the max amount and even give extra !
Pure fact democrats/liberals give less than Republicans/conservatives !
Yet libs seem to think they do ! Funny how facts get in the way !
Then act like you when confronted with facts !
So Honu was not talking out his ass and was not talking about your finances and level of charitable contributions personally. He did ask if you tried to minimize or maximize your tax burden, and rightly commented on the hypocrisy of someone minimizing their own while try to maximize anothers.
Exactly :)
Since when are donations to your church not considered tax-deductable?
Yes and no. You are correct, however, that I screwed up and did not consider that.
IFF you itemize, then yes, the donations are tax-deductible so the money was not taxed before donation and I was wrong.
But, if you do not itemize, then your donations are post tax and I was right. Since I don't itemize I stopped there, which was my bad.
I would bet that a reasonably large percentage of donations to church are made with post tax dollars (i.e., not taken as a deduction on an itemized return). Either, not enough is given to get past the standard deduction "limit" so itemization makes no sense, or no record of the donation was kept by the giver and hence no way to take the deduction. Think, tossing in a $20 bill to the plate each Sunday as the plate goes by.
But yes, I was not correct in my original statement that donations come from taxed money. That is only true in certain cases.
mea culpa
--
Good point. Just like sales tax. People are spending their income to buy things, but the income was already taxed. Es caca del burro
See my "mea culpa" post. It is only true for people who do not itemize or are otherwise not able to take the deduction.
--
Moose-Knuckle
07-14-12, 18:12
I don't see why people want to increase the taxing power of government by going after churches.
Churches' "income" comes from donations by their congregations. The money for those donations is already taxed. Repeat: the money has already been taxed. There is no economic activity happening by the church to "earn" the money so nothing to tax.
Some churches get income, in addition, through economic activity. They may own a farm or something and sell the produce. AFAIK, churches pay taxes on that sort of income. I know mine does. (Not on their farms, but they don't sell the produce to the public -- they use it exclusively for helping people and for aid around the world). But I know my church owns commercial enterprises and pays taxes on those enterprises income. But the "income" through donations should in no way be taxed.
And most churches provide a lot more value to the dollar back into the community than the government does.
And lastly, the doctrine of "separation of church and state" as it has evolved would preclude taxation of church's donation income. That is meddling in the affairs of the church.
---
You do realize there are mega-church preachers flying around in Gulf Stream jets they purchased with their tax free income from their church right? These are the slime balls I'm talking about. Not the poor small churches where the pastor has a day job.
You do realize there are mega-church preachers flying around in Gulf Stream jets they purchased with their tax free income from their church right? These are the slime balls I'm talking about. Not the poor small churches where the pastor has a day job.
So? As long as they are acting as a church, what they do with their donations is between them and their congregants.
Just like a lot of wall street fat cats fly around in private planes, where maybe they could do better with their customer's money, I'm not willing to let the government decide how private organizations best spend their money.
ETA: Freedom is also letting dirtbags be dirtbags
-
montanadave
07-14-12, 19:04
I don't see why people want to increase the taxing power of government by going after churches.
Some churches get income, in addition, through economic activity. They may own a farm or something and sell the produce. AFAIK, churches pay taxes on that sort of income. I know mine does. (Not on their farms, but they don't sell the produce to the public -- they use it exclusively for helping people and for aid around the world). But I know my church owns commercial enterprises and pays taxes on those enterprises income. But the "income" through donations should in no way be taxed.
So say you. But not everyone sees the LDS church in such a favorable light. Check out a recent article on the finances of the Mormon money machine in Bloomberg Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money#p1
A couple of excerpts from the article cited above:
As a religious organization, the LDS Church enjoys several tax advantages. Like other churches, it is often exempt from paying taxes on the real estate properties it leases out, even to commercial entities, says tax lawyer David Miller, who is not Mormon. The church also doesn’t pay taxes on donated funds and holdings. Mitt Romney and others at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he co-founded in 1984, gave the Mormon Church millions’ worth of stock holdings obtained through Bain deals, according to Reuters. Between 1997 and 2009, these included $2 million in Burger King (BKW) and $1 million in Domino’s Pizza (DPZ) shares. Under U.S. law, churches can legally turn around and sell donated stock without paying capital-gains taxes, a clear advantage for both donor and receiver. The church also makes money through various investment vehicles, including a trust company and an investment fund called Ensign Peak Advisors, which employs managers who specialize in international equities, cash management, fixed income, quantitative investment, and emerging markets, according to profiles on LinkedIn (LNKD). Public information on Ensign Peak is sparse. In 2006 one of the fund’s vice presidents, Laurence R. Stay, told the Mormon-run Deseret News, “As we trade securities, all of the trading happens essentially with a handshake. … There’s lots of protections around it, but billions of dollars change hands every day just based on the ethics of the group—that people know that they can trust each other.”
As for the charitable works of the Mormon church:
According to an official church Welfare Services fact sheet, the church gave $1.3 billion in humanitarian aid in more than 178 countries and territories during the 25 years between 1985 and 2010. A fact sheet from the previous year indicates that less than one-third of the sum was monetary assistance, while the rest was in the form of “material assistance.” All in all, if one were to evenly distribute that $1.3 billion over a quarter-century, it would mean that the church gave $52 million annually. A study co-written by Cragun and recently published in Free Inquiry estimates that the Mormon Church donates only about 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity; the United Methodist Church gives about 29 percent.
Church or corporation? Hell, the Mormon leadership doesn't even pretend to make a distinction.
Who says you can't serve God and Mammon both?
Moose-Knuckle
07-14-12, 19:14
So? As long as they are acting as a church, what they do with their donations is between them and their congregants.
Just like a lot of wall street fat cats fly around in private planes, where maybe they could do better with their customer's money, I'm not willing to let the government decide how private organizations best spend their money.
ETA: Freedom is also letting dirtbags be dirtbags
-
So you and I by law have to pay taxes on our income but a multi-million dollar sleaze ball preacher doesn't have to all because he says he comes in the name of God, that’s "freedom"? Not in my book.
The Wall Street fat cats are in business and know the ins and outs of the tax book; they pay taxes but know the game well enough to get all the tax breaks. These "preachers" are in business to sell their product and live the life of a celebrity all the while skating on their church's tax exemption status. IMHO, this is immoral, unethical, and considering the subject matter . . . downright sinful.
I don't support the IRS (far from it), but by God if they are going to tax me and you then they need to tax these charlatans for the millions they fleece off their flocks (pun intended).
I read this article earlier today.
So say you. But not everyone sees the LDS church in such a favorable light. Check out a recent article on the finances of the Mormon money machine in Bloomberg Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money#p1
A couple of excerpts from the article cited above:
As a religious organization, the LDS Church enjoys several tax advantages. Like other churches, it is often exempt from paying taxes on the real estate properties it leases out, even to commercial entities, says tax lawyer David Miller, who is not Mormon. The church also doesn’t pay taxes on donated funds and holdings. Mitt Romney and others at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he co-founded in 1984, gave the Mormon Church millions’ worth of stock holdings obtained through Bain deals, according to Reuters. Between 1997 and 2009, these included $2 million in Burger King (BKW) and $1 million in Domino’s Pizza (DPZ) shares. Under U.S. law, churches can legally turn around and sell donated stock without paying capital-gains taxes, a clear advantage for both donor and receiver. The church also makes money through various investment vehicles, including a trust company and an investment fund called Ensign Peak Advisors, which employs managers who specialize in international equities, cash management, fixed income, quantitative investment, and emerging markets, according to profiles on LinkedIn (LNKD). Public information on Ensign Peak is sparse. In 2006 one of the fund’s vice presidents, Laurence R. Stay, told the Mormon-run Deseret News, “As we trade securities, all of the trading happens essentially with a handshake. … There’s lots of protections around it, but billions of dollars change hands every day just based on the ethics of the group—that people know that they can trust each other.”
And this is a problem why?
The church uses their money to promote their mission as a church. The Arizona Republic newspaper regularly tries to find misuse of funds in LDS finances and has never been able to find any.
You won't find jets and high paid people at the top of the church.
As for the charitable works of the Mormon church:
According to an official church Welfare Services fact sheet, the church gave $1.3 billion in humanitarian aid in more than 178 countries and territories during the 25 years between 1985 and 2010. A fact sheet from the previous year indicates that less than one-third of the sum was monetary assistance, while the rest was in the form of “material assistance.” All in all, if one were to evenly distribute that $1.3 billion over a quarter-century, it would mean that the church gave $52 million annually. A study co-written by Cragun and recently published in Free Inquiry estimates that the Mormon Church donates only about 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity; the United Methodist Church gives about 29 percent.
I actually have a question in on a question webpage I found on lds.org, though I don't know if I will get an answer.
I think that the number is misleading but I don't have any proof so far. For one, I think it does not include the so called "fast offering" donations and expenditures. "Fast Offering" donations are donations given in conjunction with a fast period, usually once a month, and are given in order to help those who need temporary assistance. Donations given to this category stay within the local congregation to be used by the congregation. (Technically they get wired to SLC because, at least in the US, all congregations bank accounts are managed as part of an overall church account but the fast offering money is credited to the local congregation's account). Money in the fast offering fund not used by the local congregation is then given to the local "parish" type of organization, which is usually a grouping of 6-12 congregations. In my area, that is a couple square miles. In other areas, it could be hundreds of square miles. This is so that one local congregation who may have excess can share with another of their neighbor congregations who may have need. Only if there is an excess there is that money then sent to a higher fast offering fund to be shared elsewhere where this is need.
The funds are used locally for temporary help of people in the congregation, in need of whatever help the local congregation leader deems would be helpful and proper. Examples could be temporary rent assistance, vehicle assistance [repairs, payment], counseling, medical bills, utilities, etc. Food assistance usually comes through the "Bishops Storehouse" which is a warehouse kept by the church filled with foodstuffs and other basic necessities, and not through cash assistance. In almost all cases, cash assistance is not given to the congregant in need of help. Rather, the local congregation will provide assistance by paying specific bills or parts of bills, etc, for services and help deemed appropriate by the local leadership.
My "calling" (we all get asked to donate time in service in various positions in the local congregations) is "assistant clerk for finance" in our local congregation. In my calling as a finance clerk, I help cut the checks for these payments. Most are short term and for people who have exhausted their own means [savings etc] and family. I am not involved with determining the need or anything -- I just cut the checks as well as record the donations made in the computer. (Every other week -- we have two finance clerks so I am on every other week). But I see the volume of money in and out in the fast offering category, and if our congregation is any indication, a lot more money is spent on local "welfare" type needs of the membership than is represented in that figure given on the church statistical website for "humanitarian assistance."
I also think, but have no proof, that the cost basis used for determining the amount of aid given for humanitarian assistance is probably on the low side. Since a lot of the stuff is self produced or donated, they are not using retail price equivalents for items. For example, a lot of clothing is donated to the church owned "Deseret Industries" network, which collects donations of stuff, sorts it, and resells some of it in thrift stores, which provide work experience for people in need [many with physical or mental disabilities]. The rest, and with clothing, probably the majority, is sorted and the stuff in good condition is bundled up and used for humanitarian assistance. I would bet that the cost basis for those donations is not anywhere near what it would be to purchase lightly used clothing and hence not a meaningful number. IN other words, a lot of stuff is donated by the church and that stuff has a retail price or street price equivalent but that is not used to value its worth as a donation and hence would be under reported for those looking at just one number. I've seen the volumes of stuff in pictures, as well as by talking with people who have donated time at welfare square hand the DI [I used to coordinate the local congregations welfare activity assignments -- at the local farm, at the Deseret Industries [DI], at the "Welfare Square" HQ in SLC that coordinates this whole thing] and the value of stuff flowing through there over the last 27 years is more than 1.3$B if you had to go buy it at wholesale. And the article in BW mentioned that a significant amount of that amount was in-kind donations.
Church or corporation? Hell, the Mormon leadership doesn't even pretend to make a distinction.
Who says you can't serve God and Mammon both?
Legally the church is organized as a corporation. In its mission to serve both the spiritual and physical needs of its membership it runs organizations that are commercial. Those commercial entities pay taxes and operate as normal commercial entities. And this is wrong how? Money is only mammon when it becomes the focus of your activity. To the LDS church, money is a tool to help them realize their mission to help people spiritually and physically. Big difference.
So you and I by law have to pay taxes on our income but a multi-million dollar sleaze ball preacher doesn't have to all because he says he comes in the name of God, that’s "freedom"? Not in my book.
The Wall Street fat cats are in business and know the ins and outs of the tax book; they pay taxes but know the game well enough to get all the tax breaks. These "preachers" are in business to sell their product and live the life of a celebrity all the while skating on their church's tax exemption status. IMHO, this is immoral, unethical, and considering the subject matter . . . downright sinful.
I don't support the IRS (far from it), but by God if they are going to tax me and you then they need to tax these charlatans for the millions they fleece off their flocks (pun intended).
It is not for me (or you) to decide how a church operates and where they spend their resources. That is between them and their congregants and those who donate to them. As long as they are operating as a legitimate church, then they can do what they want.
Do you want to set the precedent that the state gets to decide what a legitimate church can spend its resources on? Really?
Freedom means that dirt balls get to be dirt balls too, as long as they are not infringing on the freedoms of others.
(In other words, I wouldn't support such a church and don't think that these high flying preachers should be supported the way they are but it is not for the government to fix as a problem either)
--
Did I say anything about your income or your charity contributions ? Or make any statements about them ! NOPE
I just figured I would ask if you like to pay more or less to the gov come tax time !
Since you seem to think everyone should be taxed figure you must try to pay the max amount and even give extra !
Pure fact democrats/liberals give less than Republicans/conservatives !
Yet libs seem to think they do ! Funny how facts get in the way !
Then act like you when confronted with facts !
Sorry man, but I just cant stand it any longer.
Enough w/ the fricking exclaimation points already.
Carry on.
Moose-Knuckle
07-17-12, 16:50
It is not for me (or you) to decide how a church operates and where they spend their resources. That is between them and their congregants and those who donate to them. As long as they are operating as a legitimate church, then they can do what they want.
Do you want to set the precedent that the state gets to decide what a legitimate church can spend its resources on? Really?
Freedom means that dirt balls get to be dirt balls too, as long as they are not infringing on the freedoms of others.
(In other words, I wouldn't support such a church and don't think that these high flying preachers should be supported the way they are but it is not for the government to fix as a problem either)
--
I think the IRS should lock them away like they did Capone. Tax evasion. And yes, the IRS has many of them under investigation.
I think the IRS should lock them away like they did Capone. Tax evasion. And yes, the IRS has many of them under investigation.
Amazing.
Seems everyone who claims to be a conservative, limited government person has their place where they want the government to be in charge and be the nanny.
Moose-Knuckle
07-17-12, 17:19
Amazing.
Seems everyone who claims to be a conservative, limited government person has their place where they want the government to be in charge and be the nanny.
Irony.
Seems individuals who spout off about freedom and liberty pay their taxes yet look the other way when a "man of God" cashes in.
Irony.
Seems individuals who spout off about freedom and liberty pay their taxes yet look the other way when a "man of God" cashes in.
We are compelled to pay taxes at the point of a gun. I assume you pay yours as well, however grudgingly.
However, separation of the state from the church means that the state has no right or authority to tax the church or interfere in the preaching, the ideology/theology, or their non-criminal doings [ie, if they are plotting murder that is different], or to dictate how they spend their funds.
Whether the church spends their money on things you or I agree with, is immaterial. It is not up to me to sick the state on someone with whom I disagree or who is "cashing in". That is between the church and their membership on how they use the funds entrusted to their use.
ETA: No irony at all. I think you mean "consistency". I strive to be relatively consistent in my beliefs. I don't agree with personal income taxes, though due to the nature of the beast, conform.
---
We are compelled to pay taxes at the point of a gun. I assume you pay yours as well, however grudgingly.
However, separation of the state from the church means that the state has no right or authority to tax the church or interfere in the preaching, the ideology/theology, or their non-criminal doings [ie, if they are plotting murder that is different], or to dictate how they spend their funds.
Whether the church spends their money on things you or I agree with, is immaterial. It is not up to me to sick the state on someone with whom I disagree or who is "cashing in". That is between the church and their membership on how they use the funds entrusted to their use.
ETA: No irony at all. I think you mean "consistency". I strive to be relatively consistent in my beliefs. I don't agree with personal income taxes, though due to the nature of the beast, conform.
---
I can agree with this. Whatever effect a 501(c)(3) status has on a church or it's leadership, is solely in the hands of its leadership and the flock who donate. They can opt in or opt out.
Moose-Knuckle
07-17-12, 19:51
We are compelled to pay taxes at the point of a gun. I assume you pay yours as well, however grudgingly.
Your damn skippy I pay my income tax begrudgingly, after all I EARNED THAT MONEY. I doubt it puts a smile on your face when you see on your return how much Uncle Sugar takes from you and yours.
We can agree to disagree, I am in no way for government involvement in people's day to day affaris however the Beeny Hinns, Kenneth Copelands, and Creflo Dollars of this country need to pay the piper.
Your damn skippy I pay my income tax begrudgingly, after all I EARNED THAT MONEY. I doubt it puts a smile on your face when you see on your return how much Uncle Sugar takes from you and yours.
Damn straight! Irks me to no end.
We can agree to disagree, I am in no way for government involvement in people's day to day affaris however the Beeny Hinns, Kenneth Copelands, and Creflo Dollars of this country need to pay the piper.
Thanks for posting that. Makes you wonder what percentage of our universal, compulsorily "educated" people have any idea of why government should be limited at all. But then when the goal is to breed sheep that would only muck up the work.
His point that politics IS a proper subject matter for churches, whereas partisanship is not, is well taken.
Caesar has a habit of getting too big for his britches, and he gets testy when anyone objects. We are not immune either.
Moose-Knuckle
07-18-12, 21:25
Lets not forget the whole seperation of church and state thing came from Jefferson's observation of the Church's power and influence in the Old World.
Exactly. Neither should attempt to exercise power over the other. But ultimately the individual either retains his individual freedom and dignity--or he is a subject.
Neitzche was an odd duck but every once in a while he nailed it. In his words, "The State is a cold monster."
Having been a federal agent (not much of a team player, though) I can attest to the truth of that. :rolleyes:
As for the charitable works of the Mormon church:
According to an official church Welfare Services fact sheet, the church gave $1.3 billion in humanitarian aid in more than 178 countries and territories during the 25 years between 1985 and 2010. A fact sheet from the previous year indicates that less than one-third of the sum was monetary assistance, while the rest was in the form of “material assistance.” All in all, if one were to evenly distribute that $1.3 billion over a quarter-century, it would mean that the church gave $52 million annually. A study co-written by Cragun and recently published in Free Inquiry estimates that the Mormon Church donates only about 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity; the United Methodist Church gives about 29 percent.
To revisit this. I asked some questions and was told that the $1.3-$1.4 billion (I have seen both numbers with slightly different time spans) for "Humanitarian Aid" is only a small part of the money used for "charitable" purposes and represents only one "account". It is primarily money and goods sent out (all over the world) for disaster relief and relief from calamity and other humanitarian purposes. It is totally separate from the "welfare" expenditures to help people in need, food kitchens, and similar. While I don't have those numbers, based on my own experience as 1 of 2 finance clerks for our local congregation ("ward"), that number would be much much higher.
The church expends huge amounts of resources on helping people in need -- helping them get back on their feet. It can pay for or offer in-kind help for food, medical, counseling, housing/utilities, and other areas of a person's life as best decided by the local authorities (the local Bishop or Branch President in most cases) when a person is in need and needs temporary assistance. The church also owns a bunch of farms/agricultural plots where it raises produce, animals, etc, which are fed into the Bishop's Storehouse system where people can be sent to get items with a "recommend" from the Bishop. This is for temporary assistance. About 6 weeks go I spent a few hours in the morning working on one of the farms locally where we picked zucchini and cucumbers, peppers, and similar and then washed peppers. Some of the items were then taken to the local "Bishop's Storehouse" which was adjacent to the farm plot. The rest would be shared with other "Storehouses" here in Utah and the extra that was not needed by them would be given to the local non-LDS food kitchen run for the homeless and indigent and others in need in downtown SLC.
From a practical standpoint, the largest expenditure (largest amount of money that goes out from the LDS church) is for building new meeting houses and other structures, and for their ongoing maintenance around the world. None of the leadership lives high on the hog. Technically none of the leadership (or anyone who serves in a "calling" anywhere) receives payment for their services. It is all volunteered. However, the very most upper leadership of the church, which serves full time, and basically for life, receives living stipends and accommodations based on funds that come from the commercial operations the church is involved in (and pays taxes on that income raised commercially) and their duties as leadership (boards etc) over these entities.
----
montanadave
08-30-12, 14:35
And with regards to that "largest expenditure," the amount of money spent to acquire land, building meeting halls, and maintain them. How much of that money goes to church members?
Anybody that has spent any time around mormon communities (as I have) knows full well that mormons take care of their own, first and foremost.
Everybody else gets treated like a second-class citizen and is looked upon as an "outlander." Don't get me started. I've had enough shitty dealings with the LDS church over the years that I'm hardly an objective observer.
It's your church and your faith, Chad. I don't want to get in a pissin' match about something which is as personal and emotionally charged as a man's religious beliefs so I'm just gonna move on.
And with regards to that "largest expenditure," the amount of money spent to acquire land, building meeting halls, and maintain them. How much of that money goes to church members?
Any of it that might go to church members would be because the church members own construction companies that are used to build buildings or furnace or AC companies used for maintenance of the environmental systems, or to purchase land that a member might own. In Utah, there is a good chance that some of the construction companies, HVAC companies, and the like are owned by LDS members seeing as the state as a whole is about 2/3 LDS (on the rolls, not necessarily active). The church puts this out to bid. Outside of Utah, (except in some places near Utah like Idaho, and neighboring areas), the chance of the construction companies the church uses being owned by LDS is probably pretty low given the low percentage of LDS outside of this area. Especially when you get to foreign countries. So, except for maybe in Utah and surrounding areas of high LDS membership amongst the populace, most of that money used for buildings and the like does not go to member owned businesses. And those member owned businesses employ both members and non-members so the money going to the employees would be to both groups. And it is all taxable income to the member owners (on profits) and to member employees.
Often, at least here in Utah but I doubt outside of Utah, the land itself is donated to the church by the land developers as it is seen as a competitive advantage in getting people to buy houses to have a church building nearby.
The day to day and week to week janitorial services on the church's buildings, in most places in the world, is donated labor by the members. No money outflow there.
The church used to hire people, mostly members, for janitorial work, but in most cases, has stopped doing that and members donate time weekly. I helped clean the main sanctuary about 12 days ago in our local building. Spent about 2-2.5 hours Saturday morning vacuuming, picking up stuff, cleaning up, dusting, etc. My wife worked elsewhere in the building cleaning bathrooms and vacuuming classrooms, etc as did my son. Our local building is shared by 3 congregations so our congregation has 4 months out of the year where we are responsible for janitorial work and for snow removal from sidewalks and stuff. (They pay a local contractor for plowing out the parking lots when it snows)
So Dave, I don't know what you are trying to insinuate, but the money enters normal commerce through the normal channels.
And interestingly, if you drive around the Salt Lake Valley, you will run across other denominations church buildings and you look and swear it looks like an LDS building. And at one time it was. The church has donated a lot of older buildings to other churches who are in need of a place to meet (yes, I believe in many if not most cases it was given, not sold). I am not saying this happens with all the old buildings, but I have seen many examples here in the valley (some are used for ever by the LDS Church and others are torn down, and new ones built when they get really old, and some land is sold off when no longer needed).
Anybody that has spent any time around mormon communities (as I have) knows full well that mormons take care of their own, first and foremost.
And it is bad to take care of your own?
Btw, lots of the church's money goes to outside charities for distribution in the communities. The LDS church works a lot through the "Catholic Charities" organization as they are better set up to provide the actual services used/needed by the communities. And they provide a lot of in-kind and money donations to the "Utah Foodbank" group and other similar groups.
And in my finance clerk calling, I know our local congregation has distributed funds or helped people with rent who themselves were not members (though usually they would have connection to a member who came to get help for their relative) who lived within our boundaries.
Everybody else gets treated like a second-class citizen and is looked upon as an "outlander."
I won't say that has never happened, but in most cases that is pure BS. I am not from Utah originally so did not grow up "Utah Mormon" and I have talked to a lot of people outside of Utah who spent time living in Utah (or Idaho or similar high LDS concentration), or visiting here, who remark that the people are very friendly, outgoing, and open to outsiders. There was a recent article by a non LDS professor who works at an Idaho state university and had nothing but praise for his LDS neighbors who go out of their way to help any and all who need help. (He told the story about one neighbor who came out when his Suburban crapped out and gave him the keys to one of his cars for as long as he needed it while the Suburban was getting fixed).
There are bad apples in every orchard and that includes the LDS orchards. No disputing that. But in general, most people have positive experiences with LDS members. (you can look it up but there are lots of sources for studies of this)
Don't get me started. I've had enough shitty dealings with the LDS church over the years that I'm hardly an objective observer.
I call BS. You may have had bad experiences in areas that have lots of LDS but it was not with the LDS church itself. You get small towns that have high LDS membership but that have long history and the people there, like people in lots of small towns across the country, get stratified into cliques and the like. That has nothing to do with the LDS church, and little to do with them being LDS, and a lot to do with them being humans, imperfect humans, as we all are. Especially when you get into smaller cities and towns that have been pretty stagnant in terms of population flows. No matter what the predominant faith or faiths in those areas, you get that sort of environment.
Where I grew up in Massachusetts, there were a handful of LDS families (yes you could probably count the LDS families in my town when I grew up on one hand -- no more than both hands). Most of those people who were of faith (and many were not), were either Catholic, or "Community Church" protestants (yes, there was a church called "Community Church" though I don't know who they identified with, if any group) and the same sorts of intrigues and cliques existed there as you probably experienced in "LDS communities". However, I won't claim that their being Catholic or Community Church or anything played any major role in what sorts of things went on and it certainly did not color me negatively to Catholics or anyone else. I got along with folks from both groups, as well as the lower percentage other groups that existed.
It's your church and your faith, Chad. I don't want to get in a pissin' match about something which is as personal and emotionally charged as a man's religious beliefs so I'm just gonna move on.
Let it out Dave. Let us know how you really feel. (Btw, this has nothing to do with a person's religious beliefs. It has to do with factual information against subjective innuendo)
Dave makes a comment in almost every ****ing political thread about Mormons or Romney yet says he wants to move on. Who/what has gotten you so butthurt over them? You seem to view every lefty conspiracy theory against them as the gospel.
I was raised in a Baptist church and though I'm agnostic now I don't paint them all with a broad brush because of any misgivings I had with them. FWIW every Mormon I've known (have close friends that are) are nothing but unimposing and unassuming people. Granted my exposure is a small sampling but they haven't tried to guilt me into submission like many of the Protestants in this area have.
How is their generosity toward "their own" as well as humanitarian efforts to the outside world a problem? Are you angry because they won't take care of you if you lose your job unless you join the church? How many Protestant congregations can say they are even able to take care of their own...much less any of the rest of the world? Who wouldn't start by taking care of the ones closest to them first? If your family or close friends were in need would you help a total stranger first? I have no right to tell them how to manage their resources even if I thought it were wrong.
I don't pretend to know the intricacies of their churches, businesses, or charities but even a recent TV program by ABC showing some of the inner workings of the church and good will efforts painted them in a favorable light and didn't reveal any improprieties AFAIK. A few bad apples don't make the entire following bad. You talk here about all the multi millionaire Protestant Mega church pastors flying in private jets and you want to single Mormons out? Taking a few antiquated and obscure references to their theology and emblazon it on billboards like the atheists in FL did reeks of prejudice they claim to be against. Any religion has strange passages in their scriptures that many (if any) of its members don't adhere to.
A lot of you are angry at the wrong people for all the wrong reasons.
Why is it that people that are Soooooooo against religion and churches always coming into threads and discussions like this? Is it just to beat their chests, act tough and bitch? Sure seems like it.
How about if you see something that has to do with religion you stay the **** out of it and shut the **** up?
Problem solved.
montanadave
08-31-12, 12:41
Why is it that people that are Soooooooo against religion and churches always coming into threads and discussions like this? Is it just to beat their chests, act tough and bitch? Sure seems like it.
How about if you see something that has to do with religion you stay the **** out of it and shut the **** up?
Problem solved.
Let's just set the record straight, sport.
I don't give two shits who somebody wants to bend a knee to or where they while away their Sunday mornings. Likewise, I don't look askance at kids writing letters to Santa Claus or putting out a basket for the Easter Bunny.
But when some sanctimonious prick starts insinuating his religious beliefs into matters of public policy and asserts that his particular deity du jour has chosen to bestow him with a divinely guided vision as to what's best for all of us, sorry, I'm calling bullshit.
And I have zero intention of shutting the **** up when it comes to voicing my dissent.
But when some sanctimonious prick starts insinuating his religious beliefs into matters of public policy and asserts that his particular deity du jour has chosen to bestow him with a divinely guided vision as to what's best for all of us, sorry, I'm calling bullshit.
But when you do the equivalent as the above and we call BS you then get all huffy?
And exactly, what "sanctimonious prick is insinuating his religious beliefs into matters of public policy and [is] assert[ing] that his particular deity du jour has chosen him with a divinely guided vision as to what's best for all of us"?
So far I have not seen you calling BS on anything of the sort. You just have something up your bum about Mormons and take every opportunity to open your clap about it and say stupid things.
---
montanadave
08-31-12, 13:15
Chad, I stated above my opinions regarding the LDS church are based upon my personal experiences. I don't expect anyone to give them any more credence than they would afford any other anecdotal evidence. And, as I also previously noted, it's a waste of time to get into a contentious discussion regarding another man's faith.
For the record, I don't find the teachings of the Mormon faith any more outlandish or farcical than most other religions.
But when you do the equivalent as the above and we call BS you then get all huffy?
And exactly, what "sanctimonious prick is insinuating his religious beliefs into matters of public policy and [is] assert[ing] that his particular deity du jour has chosen him with a divinely guided vision as to what's best for all of us"?
So far I have not seen you calling BS on anything of the sort. You just have something up your bum about Mormons and take every opportunity to open your clap about it and say stupid things.
---
Rick Santorum pretty much did, but he's done and over with. I haven't seen Mittens do it. My issues with him have absolutely nothing to do with his religion.
montanadave: You're extremenly butthurt and it shows in a lot of things you post. Since you don't go for organized religion, have you though about yoga or therapy? Perhaps long walks in solitude with nature, or getting an aquarium? You really should consider doing something, because at a certain point you're hurting yourself more than anything. :(
Chad, I stated above my opinions regarding the LDS church are based upon my personal experiences. I don't expect anyone to give them any more credence than they would afford any other anecdotal evidence. And, as I also previously noted, it's a waste of time to get into a contentious discussion regarding another man's faith.
For the record, I don't find the teachings of the Mormon faith any more outlandish or farcical than most other religions.
Yet you don't pass up a chance at a cheap shot.
(from other threads)
Mitt Romney to Create Mormon Theocratic State Fulfilling Vision of Joseph Smith.
Read more: http://mormonconspiracy.com/mormon-c...president.html
Sure, go ahead and laugh. But you'll be wishin' you'd traded that tin hat for some magic underwear and seer stones soon enough.
montanadave
08-31-12, 13:37
Shit, you're right.
I just can't lay off a hanging curveball. :laugh:
Let's just call it a day and I'll make a stronger effort to lay off the wisecracks about the LDS church.
Please point to the place on the troll doll where the bad thread touched you. :D
http://addictedtotrolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DAM-THINGS-TAILED-TROLL-DOLL-9-700x700.jpg
Good grief we've fed the troll again.
Let's just set the record straight, sport.
I don't give two shits who somebody wants to bend a knee to or where they while away their Sunday mornings. Likewise, I don't look askance at kids writing letters to Santa Claus or putting out a basket for the Easter Bunny.
But when some sanctimonious prick starts insinuating his religious beliefs into matters of public policy and asserts that his particular deity du jour has chosen to bestow him with a divinely guided vision as to what's best for all of us, sorry, I'm calling bullshit.
And I have zero intention of shutting the **** up when it comes to voicing my dissent.
Seriously Dave, you CAN NOT possibly think that politics and public policy are not related to one's application of his religion. You can no more remove religion from public policy than you can go without oxygen. Politics is just the practice of religion by other means. It's just that some people's god dejour happens to be themselves.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.