Even years after the cheat is exposed

[xfundy]

Believers still buy into it.

I guess it doesn't matter how many times the crooks are exposed, there's a sucker born (or "reborn&quot every minute.

Imagine how much good all the money these crooks are given could actually do to help the poor, the sick, the hungry-- basically all the things I was taught "christian" meant when I was a child.

"Christians" today, at least the most vocal ones, are the exact opposite of what I was taught as a child in the 70s and 80s.

Actually, more like the Antichrist we were warned about repeatedly.

[hrmjustin]

1. Anyone who tells me to take my checkbook out from the pulpit is not getting anything unless

they can show me where it is going. My Episcopal Church is very good at telling me where my money is going.

[xfundy]

2. That's peachy.

But it doesn't address the fact that "preachers" have a tax-free special right to rip off the old and the sick without consequence.

[hrmjustin]

9. Petition the government to change that.

[rug]

3. How long were you a fundy?

[xfundy]

5. Until I actually read the whole Bible.

[Still Blue in PDX]

11. It took me twice through the whole thing. nt

[xfundy]

14. It's very dense.

I slogged through the KJV-1611 as it's the one most fundies use as the only real version. Took a lot of time. Wish I could get it autographed.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

25. I know a guy who claims he can get you one

He also claims that he can get you an autographed picture of the Holy Spirit.


Now just to be clear, you would get a picture of my dad dressed up as a wizard and his unintelligible signature on it.


I'll come clean, the guy is my dad. He's been pulling this con for years and has had a few takers.

[xfundy]

26. What a hoot!

Your dad sounds like fun.

[cbayer]

4. Great. Call believers suckers.

Are you aware that the social safety net provided by the US government is full of gaping holes, and that those goals are primarily filled by religious groups and institutions? Do you think we should remove those and just let the most needy and marginalized among us fall through and die?

There are many very vocal progressive, liberal and activist believers. If you don't see them, it's because you aren't looking. Check out moral mondays in North Carolina. Is the leader of that movement the antichrist?

Careful now. What you are doing here does not look nice at all.

[trotsky]

6. He called a particular subset of believers "suckers."

Much like you called a particular subset of believers "dumbasses."

I don't think you have any right to criticize, cbayer.

FWIW, there are many very vocal progressive, liberal, and activist non-believers. If you don't see them, maybe it's because you aren't looking. Instead, what I see from you are far more posts heaping hatred on Richard Dawkins, or criticizing atheist groups unilaterally for being sexist.

[xfundy]

7. I used a WC Fields quote.

Now, where did I paint all Christians with the broad brush your accusation implies?

I am aware there are liberal Xians. I applaud Moral Mondays, as well as ML King's approach to civil rights debate.

Another quote, from A Lincoln, on the civil war:

"Both (sides) read the bible day and night. One sees black, the other, white."

And, Shakespeare:

"Even the devil can use scripture for his purposes."

Of course, you missed the point entirely, jumping up to yell "persecution."

I don't care if people continue to believe the obvious frauds, such as televangelists, faith healers, witch doctors, shamans, seers, etc. I do question their intelligence, given the abundance of evidence. That's my right.

And, as for gov't services, you're right, there are tons of loopholes. Taxing churches that dabble in politics would go a long way toward addressing them.

[cbayer]

10. I am going to speak to the taxation issue.

Churches enjoy the same tax-exempt status that other 501(3)c's (non-profite organizations) enjoy. To take this away from them would mean taking it away from all non-profits, or you would run into major problems with the 1st amendment.

The problem, imo, lies with the IRS. They do not monitor either secular or religious organizations closely enough for true non-profit and do not enforce when they find those that aren't really meeting the criteria. Were they to do this, many of the profit making churches (and non-religious) organizations would lose their status, while those that are truly putting their funds into charitable causes would retain it.

As to the rest, I appreciate your clarification. I read what you were saying as highly generalized, and if that was not your intent, then I have much less of a problem with it.

[xfundy]

12. Perhaps, then

Tax exemption should only go to those organizations that actually offer proof of their claims.

[cbayer]

13. Absolutely agree. Both religious and secular.

That's where the IRS has completely dropped the ball.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. And what tears should we shed if such organizations have to exist on a percentage of their income

less than 100%?

I do. A chunk of my personal income goes to the government for those programs. Why shouldn't an organization like a church also contribute?

State and federal dollars spent on such programs have been found to be highly effective.

[cbayer]

28. If you are proposing that all legitimate non-profits lose their tax exempt status,

you might want to be very careful what you wish for and consider who would be most harmed by this.

If you are proposing that churches that are legitimately non-profit lose theirs while other secular organizations maintain it, you are trampling over all over the 1st amendment. You might also want to consider the ramifications of that.

Show me data that state and federal dollars spent of social safety net programs are effective. They are not. They are abysmal.

That's why there are so many religious and secular non-profits trying to fill the holes. And it's a giant sieve.

[trotsky]

29. Actually, the government programs are among some of the best run - by far.

Administrative costs of Social Security, for instance, have been below 1% for decades.

This site says Catholic Charities is at 14.8%

You should be careful about the claims you throw out simply because you would prefer your narrative to be true. Social Security is one of the most successful government programs ever created - yet you would call it "abysmal"? What site am I on?

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Yes, ALL.

Bill and Ted's excellent secular non-profit, AND regular churches/charitable organizations. Are you KIDDING ME?

I have to pay even my property taxes. I pay for local Emergency Medical, Police, Fire, out of my property taxes. 2.4 million dollar piece of property 1 block away? Pays ZERO property taxes. Because it's a magic building. NEVERMIND that it consumes the services I am paying for. Disputes can break out on church property. Fires can break out on church property. Heart attacks can happen on church property. I see absolutely no reason I should pay for services the church consumes. That's actually a pretty vile form of parasite, right there. ESPECIALLY since they take in more money than they require to operate. I have seen the claims of what they spend on various activities. I know they take in more than they need. They can pay their freakin' property taxes just like anyone else. Especially with us scraping trying to find some money in the city budget to fund social workers for the homeless people living by the damn river, try to get them on the right foot, get them some help, get them some shelter.

Income taxes? Same. The government expends resources on assets that benefit churches. Roads. Flood control. Property management. Defense. Disaster response. Churches consume all of these things, just as I do. Why do I have to pay for myself AND the church?

No thanks.

Federal and state safety net programs might function a bit better if they weren't bleeding from a thousand cuts from these barbarians: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2152320

[cbayer]

31. So, all the charities in this country that provide assistance to the neediest among us should

essentially be put out of business? United Way, Feed the Children, American Cancer Society, the Red Cross, America's Second Harvest, on and on and on? Well, who exactly is going to care for them? Or should we just let them die off, natural selection and all.

This is becoming almost Poe like.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Strawman alert.

Income taxes and property taxes are not currently set at a rate of 100%.

[cbayer]

33. Economics alert.

Charities survive best and get more donations if they can keep their operating costs as low as possible. It also gives them more to actually provide the services for which they are providing donations.

They will not survive if their tax status is changed.

[trotsky]

34. "They will not survive if their tax status is changed."

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you haven't supported it with anything resembling data or facts. You are simply asserting your opinion as if it were the absolute truth.

On edit: I found a very appropriate quote for this situation. It's from another DUer you might know.

...when one states their beliefs as facts, there is something quite wrong with that. It's not different than a religious fundamentalist might do.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. You say 'economics' and then you spout unfounded nonsense.

"They will not survive if their tax status is changed."

You have just made a very absolute, very firm, and falsifiable claim.

The United Way's operating costs stand at about 16% of their income. Administrative costs at 6.2% (United Way/America) A combined 22.2%. Tax bracket if the org was a single individual: 35%

Of 4.2 billion in operating income, that's about 2.4bn spent off the top of 4.2bn for ALL taxes, operating costs, administrative costs. The rest goes to people. (and the government has 1.4bn in its coffers for it's own charitable services, that must be delivered to people without, for instance; discrimination. And, as you might notice, they still have 1.8bn to spend directly on people.

And all the while, United Way uses government infrastructure to deliver aid, every step of the way.

I'm missing the part where charities fail to survive by paying taxes. You've demonstrated NO economic principle by which they implode. The only thing you said that was correct was that they would have more money to spend if they didn't pay taxes. Not in dispute. I disputed whether that is REQUIRED for them to do what they need, and could the government maybe spend it better.

[cbayer]

40. Ok, we can agree on this, I guess.

You think that no organizations should be granted 501(3)c status and have tax exemption. You think that full tax status should apply to all organizations that currently function under that category.

Is that right?

If so, any idea how this would square with the democratic party in general, and liberal/progressive people in particular?

[AtheistCrusader]

41. You don't seem to have a high opinion of government safety net efficiency.

Unless that changes, I imagine you and I will not see eye to eye on this. I have a high opinion of the Government's ability to, and track record of delivering such social services directly, and cherry on top, without discrimination.

I would be perfectly happy to see some of those charitable dollars in the government's hands. Doesn't bother me at all. I don't buy into (what I would characterize as a right-wing privatization meme) the idea that government is inefficient. Moreover, the government has very hard legal criteria inhibiting it from discrimination.

The government had to broadly threaten to withhold money from the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston because they had a single sub-entity charity that refused to process adoptions for same sex couples. Rather than comply, they simply shuttered the adoption program.

Pass. No thanks. I'd rather the state administer that program, since private charities cannot be trusted to both spend that dollar wisely, and without discrimination.

Special cases like Planned Parenthood do not move me. These are basic services the state should provide as well, and I am a proud donor to PP, and I do, and will continue to fight that fight to get people the basic social services they need for family planning as well. We can solve that problem without PP at all. It is merely a stopgap. One that could pay income taxes, and survive.

Remember, you specified they would collapse/fail.

[cbayer]

43. Having worked extensively with both governmental and 501(3)c organizations, no I don't.

Have you ever needed any social safety net services? Anyone in your family?

You didn't answer my question. Are you proposing that this be eliminated for all 501(3)c organizations?

And, how do you propose that we get the government up to speed to take over all the programs that they currently underwrite and administer?

What exactly will you be doing to move that along? You mentioned the fight you were engaged in. Is it a fight or merely an ideology?

Should and do are very, very far away here.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Don't tell me I haven't answered your question, when I have.

I already answered in the affirmative in post 29 and 37. ALL OF THEM. Why is that hard to retain? Why do I keep having to answer the question. ALL OF THEM. Asking me again, about one subset of tax-exempt status was ALREADY INCLUSIVE of 'Yes, all of them", and "Yes, ALL".

ESPECIALLY frustrating that you would play the 'you didn't answer my question' card when you have completely ignored 2 requests to support your bald assertion that charities would 'essentially be put out of business?', and two more observations (one by Trotsky) that you have not supported that assertion.


Yes, I have been in need of social safety nets earlier in life, and so have family members. I personally received excellent service both from the state, and from Planned Parenthood. (I will always donate to PP when I have the means, for this reason)

"And, how do you propose that we get the government up to speed to take over all the programs that they currently underwrite and administer?"

Having a large new income source, the government would probably start hiring people to administer said services, for starters. If there is a negative impact on the existing charities, quite likely the people displaced would find new employment with the government anyway.

I missed the part where I was volunteering to spell out minutiae explaining how the government might scale up and out social services if existing charities curtailed operations, or failed entirely. How did the government get in the game of social services in the first place? They would probably use the same game plan, and it is simply a matter of the government having more budget. (Which it would have.)

[cbayer]

47. I think you may have successfully auditioned for the job.

I know that's obscure, but I'm not going to explain it right now.

The problem is that the government does not provide and some people's lives depend on both religious and secular organizations that provide the services that are lacking.

While I would love to see a country where that is not the case, we are light years aways from that.

Before proposing to cut those organizations off at the knees, let's make sure we have put something in place that will replace them.

It's that simple.

The democratic party works to do that. I support the democrat party.

And I support the organizations that fill the gaps in the meantime.

Your views are commendable, but not currently realistic.

And I am not your enemy.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Part of the reason government does not always provide is

budget squabbles that curtail available funds. This tax issue will increase federal and state revenue significantly. By many, many billions per year.

All those billions are lost revenue. Maybe it gets used efficiently for good, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it helps all comers, maybe they discriminate. Maybe it's wasted on garbage programs like abstinence outreach, instead of comprehensive sex ed.

You're essentially advocating for a privatized solution that has no oversight, no accountability, and isn't even necessarily used for anything at all. It may be, but it has no legal requirements to be.

Government safety nets are audited. They have legal requirements for open access/nondiscrimination. They are INCREDIBLY efficient.

Paying taxes isn't being 'cut off at the knees'. I repeat my earlier request for you to support your assertion that this would put (in the same breath) the United Way "essentially be put out of business?". As you can see, the United Way would, even if we used the individual max personal income tax bracket (which they would absolutely not be paying anywhere near that for a corporate tax) they have just shy of 2 billion cash, just in the US, for direct funds after ALL tax, operational expenditures (travel/materials) and administration (payroll).

Hardly 'out of business'. I would love to be so destitute.

[trotsky]

52. It's creepy, in a way...

since the argument cbayer is making is straight out of the right wing playbook. "Government is grossly incompetent and could never do the job, let private charities and churches take care of it."

And if that wasn't creepy enough, she says she supports the "democrat party." WTF???

[AtheistCrusader]

53. And suggested I might find bedfellows with the Libertarians...

Still. Tells can be false positives. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

A person who genuinely believes private charities are good, or even better than government, regardless of the underlying data, might come to the same conclusion that poster has.

And, as with most things that are believed, no amount of data is going to change the person's mind. Sad, but a common refrain for all political issues. I'm sure there are times I do it as well, but I TRY to be open minded to new data. Not sure I always succeed.

[2ndAmForComputers]

62. WTF. "Democrat party."

[font size="+10"]I. KNEW. IT.[/font]

[cbayer]

63. That's right!! I'm a republican troll.

Or I could be a Randian.

Or perhaps I am actually Karl Rove!!!

You win the big prize.

You are definitely smarter than the average bayer.

[2ndAmForComputers]

64. Where did I say such a thing?

[cbayer]

66. What exactly did you know, then?

It must have been tremendously profound to warrant such big, bold letters.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Obscure inside jokes are unhelpful.

[cbayer]

59. Yes, I know.

[cbayer]

35. Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Easter Seals, Nature Conservancy, Planned Parenthood

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Yes. All of them.

I do not engage in special pleading.

[cbayer]

38. Well, hope you are ready to find some way to take care of these people.

Once you get that done, then I think your "proposal" might be worth some consideration.

Or, like I said, we could just let them all die off - natural selection and all.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. You have yet to offer any credible evidence they would be faced with that end result.

You have claimed charities would cease to be. You have not supported that claim.

[cbayer]

42. Nah, you are right. They would all be fine, I am sure.

Just want to make sure that you are proposing this for all non-profits and not just for religious ones, right?

[AtheistCrusader]

45. How many times do I have to give you the SAME ANSWER.

"Bill and Ted's excellent secular non-profit, AND regular churches/charitable organizations."

ALL OF THEM

[cbayer]

46. Ok, well you might want to start looking at the libertarian candidates, because you

are going to find the most support for this from them.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. No I wouldn't.

They would burn down Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and everything else the Government does for social safety nets if you take your eyes off them for five minutes.

[cbayer]

50. And all the other social safety nets as well.

Basically Randians, who think people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps or perish.

We have to be very careful about supporting their agenda, imo. Non-govermental agencies that are doing the work that the government should, but does not, do need our support. Until the government takes care of the poorest and most marginalized, we can not afford to dismiss or denigrate the agencies that do.

I think you and I are on the same page on this.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Only the hardest of the hard-core objectivists frame charity as sacrifice that is an immoral waste

of resources. (Rand-roid cultists)

Most libertarians that I know believe quite strongly in private/privatized charity and do give willingly. They view it as free exercise of their right to do what they please with their money.


I don't believe removing tax exempt status supports their agenda. In fact, most of them want either a flat tax for everything, or to remove ALL taxes period, as the ultimate expression of 'starve the beast', WRT government funding. I can ask around at work tomorrow (seems like a high propensity of libertarians in nice air conditioned offices, imagine that) and see what they think of it. I expect the idea will be soundly panned.

But you never know. People surprise me sometimes. I'll have to be careful how I word the question, so as not to bias the outcome.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I've asked three libertarians this morning.

two 'small-l', one 'large L', and all three were horrified by the suggestion we tax private charities as if they were any other corporation.

Absolutely horrified. Looking at me like I'd sprouted horns.

All three advocated NO taxes period, and no government safety nets period.

[cbayer]

55. That makes sense. I understand that would be their bottom line.

They do take it a step further than you do.

[trotsky]

56. It could also be said they only take it a step further than you do, too.

You agree with them that charities shouldn't be taxed, and you share their cynicism in the ability of government to meet the needs of individuals. Whereas you think the government can play a role of some sort, they just go one extra step and want it out of the picture entirely.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. I see absolutely no relation between what I recommend, and what they desire.

Pretty much the 100% opposite.

They are for privatization, I am for the absolute opposite for critical social services.
I am still waiting for some evidence that United Way (one example) would fail under even the outrageously over-sized tax burden I suggested (which is farm more than how much such an entity would be taxed at all)

[cbayer]

60. Privatization is not the same as non-governmental agencies providing

services as non-profits. Privatization is about profit.

What they did say, and why I made the libertarian comment, is that they thought all social safety net services should be eliminated.

That is essentially what would happen, imo, if incentives to provide them outside the government were removed.

I don't think we necessarily disagree about some of the issues surrounding taxation. Where we may disagree is how to go about having badly needed services supplied by governmental agencies before we pull the plug.

As our elected leaders appear to have no incentive to make that happen, and in many areas appear to be ratcheting down what little is available, I think it's way premature to talk about changing the tax code.

I don't have data to show you, but it is probably out there, so you can stop beating that drum. It is the smallest organizations that would be hurt the most. You can take that or leave it. But what you can't dispute is that if these organizations are taxed that means less money for services. If it were guaranteed that the government would use them to provide the services that would be lost, that might be reasonable.

But I don't think that's going to happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Some charites are also about personal profit.

The CEO of United Way doesn't work for free. So I think this is a 'grey area' sort of thing, or small-'p' privatization.

I don't believe that taxing these orgs like any business would break them. I just don't. I need to see some evidence that it would.

[cbayer]

65. If a charity is for personal profit, then it is not technically a 501(c)3.

If they are violating IRS rules concerning non-profits, they are taking their chances.

It's not a grey area. Privatization is about handing government services over to for profit companies.


I have never seen anyone try and make the case that all non-profits should lose their tax exempt status. Could you point me towards any sites that promote this so I could take a close look at it?

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I cannot point you to any sites

as I am not aware of any. This is my conclusion.

Do you know how much the CEO of United Way makes? (Just the American chapter of it)

[cleanhippie]

8. Considering how YOU labeled Creationists as "dumbasses", you really have no room to criticize.

Careful now. What you are doing here does not look nice at all.

[xfundy]

15. Here's another one

http://gawker.com/miracle-weeping-tree-outside-church-is-actually-cryin-1111958556

A tree that cries "tears of God" turns out to have lots of bugs who excrete the substance as bodily waste.

[rug]

16. Do you see anybody collecting money on this?

[xfundy]

17. There's always the potential.

Though I made no mention of money.

[rug]

18. Your OP did.

[xfundy]

19. Yes it did.

Surely you can summon the brain power to see that the OP is different from a reply to a question you raised about an entirely different occurrence.

But, since you brought up money, I'm sure there's been no money made among all the crying statues, religious figures spotted in greasy windows, grilled sandwiches, cheetos, toast, tortillas, bathtub scum, fresh or rotting fruits and vegetables, refrigerator mold, etc., etc. Right?

pffft.

[rug]

20. Speaking of brain power, when you say "here's another one", you must mean "here's something else".

[xfundy]

21. I see what you did there.

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Pffft.

Actually, it's another example.

pffffffft.

[xfundy]

22. Perhaps you should conjure up a little more

Or are you just building up your post count with one-liners and self-appreciating pomposity?

[rug]

23. You came back to the post to say that?

[xfundy]

24. Sure.

I was expecting you to blather on about your many fixations and was disappointed that you did not.

Ever watched a cat playing with a roach? It's so cute!

Disclaimer: illustrative explanation compared neither party to a feline or an insect. Poster merely expected pomposity and claims of "high ground," From anywhere or anyone, whether in op or elsewhere.