May I assume that you were unaware that the fbi harassment of MLK included a bunch of IRS audits? May I also assume that your belief that he was more political than religious and didn't really speak to anything special religiously is s product of your complete ignorance of the man? His non violent civil disobedience was religiously inspired and was a big, big deal.
Televangelists
15,195 Views |
190 Replies |
Last: 10 yr ago by AuditAg
Please confirm that you're on board with the IRS here: The Internal Revenue Service is warning churches and nonprofits that improper campaigning in the upcoming political season could endanger their tax-exempt status.
The agency also launched a program to expedite investigations into claims of improper campaigning, prompting an advocacy group to charge this month that the program could restrict the free speech of nonprofit groups and churches.
Such investigations came to light last year when the IRS warned All Saints Church in Pasadena that it was reviewing the Episcopal church's tax-exempt status because a priest criticized the Iraq war shortly before the 2004 presidential election. Church leaders say they have no intention of scaling back their criticism of the war.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/18/local/me-irs18
The agency also launched a program to expedite investigations into claims of improper campaigning, prompting an advocacy group to charge this month that the program could restrict the free speech of nonprofit groups and churches.
Such investigations came to light last year when the IRS warned All Saints Church in Pasadena that it was reviewing the Episcopal church's tax-exempt status because a priest criticized the Iraq war shortly before the 2004 presidential election. Church leaders say they have no intention of scaling back their criticism of the war.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/18/local/me-irs18
quote:I also have not condemned the Holocaust in this thread or in this forum. If you were to prompt me now to do so, I would. Do you conclude from this that I don't really care about the Holocaust?
So you care a lot. But I have to actually prompt you to condemn it? Wth?
quote:
quote:I also have not condemned the Holocaust in this thread or in this forum. If you were to prompt me now to do so, I would. Do you conclude from this that I don't really care about the Holocaust?
So you care a lot. But I have to actually prompt you to condemn it? Wth?
That is not even remotely related to the subject. It's like the seals thing. It's not the subject matter. The charities ARE the subject matter. But the truth is you don't care.
I'm not asking you to condemn everything bad in the world. Sheesh. You're smarter than that.
quote:
What am I supposed to do about it?
And really, how pathetic of you. This is a totally unrelated issue. Why would I be posting about it here? Confronted with other scam charities on this very thread, you just shrugged your shoulders. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT CARE.
If you don't care about animals being slaughtered at irresponsible levels, then I suppose you should do nothing about it. The point about the seals was to point out the absurdity of how you keep asserting that I must not care about other types of fraud because of the fact that I have not condemned them all by name in a thread that is about religious fraud.
And again, don't presume you know anything about me to push your narrative, it is furthering the discussion. . . not that this little squabble is salvageable. . . .
quote:
quote:
What am I supposed to do about it?
And really, how pathetic of you. This is a totally unrelated issue. Why would I be posting about it here? Confronted with other scam charities on this very thread, you just shrugged your shoulders. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT CARE.
If you don't care about animals being slaughtered at irresponsible levels, then I suppose you should do nothing about it. The point about the seals was to point out the absurdity of how you keep asserting that I must not care about other types of fraud because of the fact that I have not condemned them all by name in a thread that is about religious fraud.
And again, don't presume you know anything about me to push your narrative, it is furthering the discussion. . . not that this little squabble is salvageable. . . .
So in your mind, you see no distinction at all here? You're not able to process this at all?
When I say this issue is about all charities doing this and really, people like you are interested in targeting just the religious ones, in your mind that's conceptually related to the Holocaust?
quote:
So you don't care if power is abused here and there as long as it's not "systematic"?
Never said that. Again, you are projecting.
quote:It is evidence of abusive conduct by the IRS and it is shameful. This part of the discussion was centered around whether the federal government is 'out to get' religion. I contend that the actions against MLK were political more than religious. That doesn't make it okay, I'm just discounting your example of religious intolerance by the government.
I'd say the harassment of a major religious and political figure is pretty damn good evidence of the extent to which the IRS will let itself be drawn to abusive conduct.
quote:If you say so. . . .
And I think you're now defending the IRS.
You want the IRS to crack down on religious charitable fraud. And you think the Holocaust is as relevant to this debate as your position on non religious charity scams?
Confirm that is your position. This will confirm you're not a serious person.
Confirm that is your position. This will confirm you're not a serious person.
quote:
quote:
So you don't care if power is abused here and there as long as it's not "systematic"?
Never said that. Again, you are projecting.
quote:It is evidence of abusive conduct by the IRS and it is shameful. This part of the discussion was centered around whether the federal government is 'out to get' religion. I contend that the actions against MLK were political more than religious. That doesn't make it okay, I'm just discounting your example of religious intolerance by the government.
I'd say the harassment of a major religious and political figure is pretty damn good evidence of the extent to which the IRS will let itself be drawn to abusive conduct.
quote:If you say so. . . .
And I think you're now defending the IRS.
Who should investigate these charities?
quote:
So in your mind, you see no distinction at all here? You're not able to process this at all?
When I say this issue is about all charities doing this and really, people like you are interested in targeting just the religious ones, in your mind that's conceptually related to the Holocaust?
Good grief man! My point is that absence of condemnation of something does not equal support or indifference. Of course there is a distinction - if you think I'm trying to draw a distinction between the Holocaust and charity fraud you need to go back to grade school reading comprehension. Are you drunk?
If it is the IRS, explain why you believe there is no reason to be concerned the investigation will not be abused. Address Lois Lerner and the 2006 investigations in your answer.
quote:
quote:
So in your mind, you see no distinction at all here? You're not able to process this at all?
When I say this issue is about all charities doing this and really, people like you are interested in targeting just the religious ones, in your mind that's conceptually related to the Holocaust?
Good grief man! My point is that absence of condemnation of something does not equal support or indifference. Of course there is a distinction - if you think I'm trying to draw a distinction between the Holocaust and charity fraud you need to go back to grade school reading comprehension. Are you drunk?
When I posted the link you said nothing about those charities. But this thread and the religious ones got you mad enough to post about it. Why is that?
quote:
Who should investigate these charities?
I'm not offering a solution. All I'm saying is that religious fraud is bad and should be investigated.
I am not saying that all religious institutions should be investigated. I am not saying they should be more highly scrutinized. I am not saying that they are the only tax exempt that is guilty of fraud. I am not saying that there are not other guilty foundations, organizations, charities, etc. You've fabricated all these lies about me for some reason or another. Every time I log in and read your posts, its nothing but new assumptions and conclusions that you've drawn about what I believe and they are all dead wrong.
Why would you expect me to condemn the Holocaust here? Were we discussing that? Or seals? I thought we were discussing charity scams. Or did you ONLY want to discuss religious ones? If so...why? Why not discuss them all?
quote:
When I posted the link you said nothing about those charities. But this thread and the religious ones got you mad enough to post about it. Why is that?
Because those charities were not the subject of the thread and pointing out that some other charities are bad does not excuse religious ones that are fraudulent also. There was no point in addressing the comment aside from apparently convincing you of my lack of bias. And again, any bias I have is utterly irrelevant. Do not attack my ideas by attacking me - its juvenile.
quote:
quote:
Who should investigate these charities?
I'm not offering a solution. All I'm saying is that religious fraud is bad and should be investigated.
I am not saying that all religious institutions should be investigated. I am not saying they should be more highly scrutinized. I am not saying that they are the only tax exempt that is guilty of fraud. I am not saying that there are not other guilty foundations, organizations, charities, etc. You've fabricated all these lies about me for some reason or another. Every time I log in and read your posts, its nothing but new assumptions and conclusions that you've drawn about what I believe and they are all dead wrong.
Great! I can offer no solutions too!
Who should scrutinize them? For the entity you select, why that entity?
I'm glad we've reached a point where you're kind of conceding this is pointless since you can't endorse anyone to even do anything about it!
quote:
quote:
When I posted the link you said nothing about those charities. But this thread and the religious ones got you mad enough to post about it. Why is that?
Because those charities were not the subject of the thread and pointing out that some other charities are bad does not excuse religious ones that are fraudulent also. There was no point in addressing the comment aside from apparently convincing you of my lack of bias. And again, any bias I have is utterly irrelevant. Do not attack my ideas by attacking me - its juvenile.
Why weren't other charities relevant? Why would we just be interested in religious charity scams?
quote:
Why would you expect me to condemn the Holocaust here? Were we discussing that? Or seals?
Oh my god, I want to stab my eyes!!!! Again, seals and the Holocaust are irrelevant. They were brought up to point out that my lack of condemnation of your list of fraudulent charities is not equal to support or indifference to them. How do you not understand this?
quote:
I thought we were discussing charity scams. Or did you ONLY want to discuss religious ones? If so...why? Why not discuss them all?
YES!!! I only want to discuss the religious ones!!!!!!!! Thats what the bloody thread is about!!!!!!!! You keep bringing in all these other scams in order to marginalize religious scams. If you want to discuss all of them, start a thread about how all scams are bad regardless of political agenda or affiliation and I'll support you!
So:
Religious fraud should be under scrutiny. TO THE SAME EXTENT AS OTHER FRAUD.
We can't think of a govt agency trustworthy enough to do it though.
Is that about where we stand?
Religious fraud should be under scrutiny. TO THE SAME EXTENT AS OTHER FRAUD.
We can't think of a govt agency trustworthy enough to do it though.
Is that about where we stand?
I take no exceptions to those statements.
quote:
quote:
Why would you expect me to condemn the Holocaust here? Were we discussing that? Or seals?
Oh my god, I want to stab my eyes!!!! Again, seals and the Holocaust are irrelevant. They were brought up to point out that my lack of condemnation of your list of fraudulent charities is not equal to support or indifference to them. How do you not understand this?
quote:
I thought we were discussing charity scams. Or did you ONLY want to discuss religious ones? If so...why? Why not discuss them all?
YES!!! I only want to discuss the religious ones!!!!!!!! Thats what the bloody thread is about!!!!!!!! You keep bringing in all these other scams in order to marginalize religious scams. If you want to discuss all of them, start a thread about how all scams are bad regardless of political agenda or affiliation and I'll support you!
Why not discuss it here? Why is it no more related than the Holocaust? Are religious scams worse? Why? Should they get more scrutiny? Should a different agency look at it?
I'm trying to figure out why you wouldn't want to just fix the charity scam issue all in one thread? Why find a solution first for the religious ones? Why not discuss them all and what we're going to do about it?
quote:
Why not discuss it here? Why is it no more related than the Holocaust? Are religious scams worse? Why? Should they get more scrutiny? Should a different agency look at it?
I'm trying to figure out why you wouldn't want to just fix the charity scam issue all in one thread? Why find a solution first for the religious ones? Why not discuss them all and what we're going to do about it?
I'm okay with discussing them all together and ideally I would think it would be the same agency auditing these organizations.
However, this thread started out, in my opinion, as a satire on the vagueness of what qualifies as a religious institution as it pertains to tax law and the dangers of being so vague. Religious institutions are specifically and separately identified in tax code - it is therefore not a stretch to have a conversation specifically about that topic.
The OP video was about a very specific part of the tax law. I intended to stay on that topic and saw the entrance of other types of abuses of tax law as a distraction to the original post.
Actually, religious charities are grouped together with other charities http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exempt-Purposes-Internal-Revenue-Code-Section-501(c)(3)
There's no point at all just to address on of the many exemptions. Except to target it. And why do that?
There's no point at all just to address on of the many exemptions. Except to target it. And why do that?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Weird, seems like they've published a lot of stuff specific to churches.
Did you actually read that?
Answer yes or no. And I have follow up.
Answer yes or no. And I have follow up.
skimmed it.
quote:
skimmed it.
Did you see the phrase "like other 501c3's" a lot?
I would point out also that historically what got the govt interested in churches was the non violent anti war message. Same with going after MLK. It has been the government overreach on that that has churches so suspicious. And the history is the IRS has let itself be used by people in power to silence critics. While friends of the powerful get off free.
Oliver's argument actually proves too much.
The issue really isn't scams as bad as the one he's pulling. And to the extent it is, the religious aspect makes it in no way special.
A truly helpful but on this wouldn't focus on the fringe like this.
If you really wanted a good discussion on this, you could have it. But it wouldn't start where Jon Oliver started.
Oliver's argument actually proves too much.
The issue really isn't scams as bad as the one he's pulling. And to the extent it is, the religious aspect makes it in no way special.
A truly helpful but on this wouldn't focus on the fringe like this.
If you really wanted a good discussion on this, you could have it. But it wouldn't start where Jon Oliver started.
quote:I know I'm going to regret engaging you even more on this then you already are, but why?
If you really wanted a good discussion on this, you could have it. But it wouldn't start where Jon Oliver started.
It's a legitimate, independently verifiable, perspective showing how some of these prosperity gospel churches are horrible little cretins.
I'm going to tell you the exact same thing I tell progressives when they want to insert their own personal agenda into every single thing they see. If you want to highlight the abuse in other, non religious, charities, then you are free to do the leg work and actually produce the medium that will highlight that abuse.
In fact, you could probably submit the evidence you collect to shows like Olivers in an attempt to reach a wider audience.
The funny thing is, I'm not even personally against the prosperity gospel as a whole. However, it's abundantly clear that these particular purveyors of that strain of Christianity are horrible little *******s that should be exposed for their predatory schemes.
quote:There is absolutely NOTHING special about this. Not one thing. People on this thread have tried and failed to identify reasons why it's different from other fraud.quote:I know I'm going to regret engaging you even more on this then you already are, but why?
If you really wanted a good discussion on this, you could have it. But it wouldn't start where Jon Oliver started.
It's a legitimate, independently verifiable, perspective showing how some of these prosperity gospel churches are horrible little cretins.
I'm going to tell you the exact same thing I tell progressives when they want to insert their own personal agenda into every single thing they see. If you want to highlight the abuse in other, non religious, charities, then you are free to do the leg work and actually produce the medium that will highlight that abuse.
In fact, you could probably submit the evidence you collect to shows like Olivers in an attempt to reach a wider audience.
The funny thing is, I'm not even personally against the prosperity gospel as a whole. However, it's abundantly clear that these particular purveyors of that strain of Christianity are horrible little *******s that should be exposed for their predatory schemes.
It's about preying on the good will of people. THAT'S WHAT FRAUD CHARITIES DO. Why would you not start with the broad, general fraud as opposed to the specific? You would only do that if you thought religion was different.
This isn't different at all. And if you look at the list I posted, there's plenty of them.
The idea that religious fraud is special here is an idiotic atheist argument that they can't and haven't supported. The question isn't why is this fraud alllowed. It's why is ANY such fraud allowed. The focus on religion is a total distraction.
Every single poster that has brought it up has tried, tried, but they cannot explain why this bothers them more than your average fraud cancer charity. They all prey on goodwill.
Kurt finally conceded the point after arguing about it for several pages.
RELIGIOUS FRAUD IS NOT SPECIAL. So why start with it?
What you would start with is just, comprehensively, a look at 501c3s. The issue is overall in our tax laws written by congress, regs, and enforcement.
Picking on religion is actually completely ****ing stupid. Only an idiot would think Jon Oliver had made a point here.
And, let me point out, what Oliver wants is EXACTLY what Emma Todd bit on--an end to the exemption. The "oh, that too..." bit about tagging all charities is bull****. Guys--That's not happening. Planned Parenthood is a 501C3. Do you think that's getting revoked? Seriously? Do you think liberals that believe religion should be taxed are going to line up behind this? Give me the odds. Tell me genuinely if you think that the people on this thread will go as full voiced after PP as churches.
And for what?
Most churches don't even have that much money to tax.
Churches and the IRS would spend money on enforcement for basically nothing.
And hell, Kurt, who has argued with me the most here, HAS COMPLETELY CONCEDED THAT THE IRS ISN'T REALLY A GOOD ENOUGH GOVT AGENCY TO ENFORCE THIS.
So the point of the whole thing, which is a Brit (who, I might point out by the way, would and does know nothing of our first amendment religious freedoms) suggesting that religion is getting away with something special. That brits would fall for this nonsense is not a surprise. That Americans that SHOULD know the history of IRS abuse of religious freedoms (with MLK--and Kurt thinks he wasn't special as a religious figure, which is one of the silliest things ever posted on this board) would fall for it is disturbing.
quote:
If you really wanted a good discussion on this, you could have it. But it wouldn't start where Jon Oliver started.
I get that you don't appreciate John Oliver picking only on televangelists in this 15 minute clip. How often do you watch his show? I freely admit that I don't know much about his show, but this provides some more well rounded review of the IRS from him.
His criticism of the tax code being so vague that it may permit the formation of 'Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption' seems like something you and I can surely agree on, no?
quote:
Kurt finally conceded the point after arguing about it for several pages.
Wait. . . . what did I concede? You really have a fantastic imagination. . . .
quote:
And hell, Kurt, who has argued with me the most here, HAS COMPLETELY CONCEDED THAT THE IRS ISN'T REALLY A GOOD ENOUGH GOVT AGENCY TO ENFORCE THIS.
Holy F@#$%! This was never part of my argument! You are completely insane! I'm done with you. . . .
quote:
quote:
Kurt finally conceded the point after arguing about it for several pages.
Wait. . . . what did I concede? You really have a fantastic imagination. . . .
That this is the same as other charitable fraud. Or are you now going to argue that it's worse to play on religious guilt than just general guilt? Because that's incredible if so. Explain.
quote:
quote:
If you really wanted a good discussion on this, you could have it. But it wouldn't start where Jon Oliver started.
I get that you don't appreciate John Oliver picking only on televangelists in this 15 minute clip. How often do you watch his show? I freely admit that I don't know much about his show, but this provides some more well rounded review of the IRS from him.
His criticism of the tax code being so vague that it may permit the formation of 'Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption' seems like something you and I can surely agree on, no?
Wait...the point of that was to spend more money on the IRS?.. I thought you couldn't defend the IRS? You want to spend more money giving them enforcement powers?
Featured Stories
See All
Elko calls for unified leadership in college football
by Olin Buchanan
Texas A&M tabbed as No. 12 national seed
by Richard Zane
Elko's 2027 class sits at 15 in number as summer heats up
by Ryan Brauninger
CFP expansion figures to dominate discussion at SEC Spring Meetings
by Olin Buchanan
4:57
1d ago
4.8k
coloradoag69
Elko calls for unified leadership in college football
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
10