Linda_K
|
posted on February 25, 2001 03:47:11 PM
bobbysoxer - a Baptist church was raided because they owed taxes. One of the male leaders felt betrayed by Bush. Yeah right.
I read a short story on that church. One of the reasons they were closed down was because the leader/minister of that church wasn't withholding the required taxes from the church employees pay checks. He refused to do so.
To be honest, I don' know if churches pay taxes or not. I do know O'Reilly is currently having an attack about one of Jesse Jackson's churches (but it may be one of his foundations, rather than a church) filing a return showing $12 Billion collected, but only paying out $48,000.00 He's been screaming that Jackson hasn't been audited by the IRS for 16 years. And O'Reilly said who ever does Jacksons returns doesn't itemized...just takes a large deduction without stating how the money has been use.
I really don't see much changing with the way churches handle things now though....unless Toke starts a national uprising. (hehe) 
|
HJW
|
posted on February 25, 2001 03:49:21 PM
stigmatize
|
HJW
|
posted on February 25, 2001 03:51:08 PM
pulverize
|
MichelleG
|
posted on February 25, 2001 03:54:12 PM
Borillar
I'm sorry I managed to assist in derailing your thread  .
Maybe the unofficial AW spellcheckers might like to start a new thread where the "zee" debate can continue.
Michelle 
|
krs
|
posted on February 25, 2001 03:55:15 PM
LoL!
|
HJW
|
posted on February 25, 2001 03:55:44 PM
cauterize
|
krs
|
posted on February 25, 2001 03:58:10 PM
stigmatize
|
krs
|
posted on February 25, 2001 04:00:03 PM
Michelle,
the unofficial AW spellcheckers agree, on point.
|
HJW
|
posted on February 25, 2001 04:01:32 PM
last one...tantalize
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on February 25, 2001 04:02:35 PM
Hello Linda_K
The way I view the issue is that I don't want to see a unity between church and state (which church? Lutheran? LDS? Baptist? Catholic? ETC? or even non-Christian churchs?). Anyways I think that the church and state issue is one to attack Bush. I just thought it was interesting to see a person who thought Bush would be on his side and Bush wasn't.
I am a liberal. I would watch FOX news and think how "right wing" they were until a right-wing viewer response that was aired on O'Reilly's show, criticizing O'Reilly. In my opinion that told me that they -he- was "neutral." Since then I enjoy FOX news.
I don't mind differing opinions but lets be constructive in our exchanging of our opinions.
A year or so ago, the tax exempt churches were getting into hot water because they were endorsing candidates.
[ edited by bobbysoxer on Feb 25, 2001 04:14 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 25, 2001 04:19:01 PM
bobbysoxer - I understand what you're saying.
This new 'federal funding', if passed, of churches is going to be one big mess.
Corporations have always donated to the party they feel will best serve their interests, so it wouldn't surprise me if churches did/do the same.
Yesterday I was reading (I believe on MSNBC) where a public school was going to change it's school lunch menu because what they were serving was not acceptable to the huge percent of religious/ethnic children who attended that public school. They weren't supposed to be eating chicken, pig, etc. Didn't hear any protests coming about that yet.
I would like to believe that there are times when the government and the churches could work together to help the needy. How to put it together is a whole other ball game.
|
toke
|
posted on February 25, 2001 04:24:14 PM
humbuggerize
|
HJW
|
posted on February 25, 2001 04:27:35 PM
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on February 25, 2001 04:34:04 PM
Linda_K
Habitat for Humanity is one. It is a Christ-based organization that does have guidelines for giving individuals and families a "hand up" even though they are flexible such as there are affliates that help same-sex families while others don't (for different reasons) and unmarried heterosexual families. The income is not neccessarily important unless it is from unlawful sources and so on. So, even though there are guidelines they do allow Jesus to help his children.
For many years HfH did not accept or encourage government money they did however accept money from the federal government that then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
helped to pass both houses. There were board members across the nation that didn't like that but it happened anyways.
The receivers of the housing must fulfill 500 sweat equity hours (friends and others can help with about 150 hours) into their HfH affliate.
http://www.bushwatch.com/headlines.htm
http://www.io.com/~cjburke/clinton.html
|
toke
|
posted on February 25, 2001 04:34:16 PM
OT to Linda K...
Thanks! Your method of freezing those shredded potatoes was perfect...trouble is they were so good, we've eaten almost all of them...
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 25, 2001 04:50:53 PM
toke - Good, glad it worked for you. Now you'll just have to chase yesterday's birthday boy around the house to ware off those calories.
bobbysoxer - I've heard of HfH but wasn't aware they received any government funding. I thought they took the proceeds from the last few projects to fund the new housing. Good to know, thanks.
|
december3
|
posted on February 25, 2001 05:16:56 PM
vitalize
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on February 25, 2001 05:24:59 PM
Linda_K
Yes they do use "income" that they receive from the HfH homeowners (they do make regular payments on the houses -since the contract is a private one between the affliate and the homeowners they can set the amount to fit the family's need as well as the payment requirement ie escrow accounts).
However the affliates do rely on finacial donations (locally), grant money and volunteers on the building aspect of it. Oftentimes the land is donated but it is also purchased by the affliate.
The approximate average cost of a house through HfH in the USA is $45,000 coast to coast regardless of location, thanks to donations and volunteers. (BTW: If a family purchases a HfH house and turns around and sells it for a profit the amount owed to the HfH affliate is pro-rated or however else covered in the contract.)
Anyways the federal assistence was substantial in the range of about $500,000 to $1mil. I don't recall what the exact amount was and I don't know if HfH is still receiving the money. But I can do some research to find out that information.
One of the sales pitches to the general public for fundraising and to recruit volunteers was what the fact HfH didn't receive tax money then when congress under Newt's leadership and with Clinton signature, many board members throughout the organization was furious.
Anyways, I think that HfH is a good example for a joint venture of church and state helping the less privilege.
BTW even though HfH is Christ-centered, one doesn't need to be a Christian to own housing through HfH.
http://www.bushwatch.com/headlines.htm
http://www.io.com/~cjburke/clinton.html
[ edited by bobbysoxer on Feb 25, 2001 05:37 PM ]
|
HJW
|
posted on February 25, 2001 05:25:24 PM
trivialize
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 25, 2001 05:49:53 PM
Hmmm ... a few odd twists and turns that this thread turned out with.
Hello HJW! I distrust political blah-blah to the 'nth degree. When powerful politicians walk hand-in-hand with churches in this coutry of ours, and then tell everyone just how Warm and Fuzzy they'll feel when "God" finally gets to run this country of ours, I have my doubts. While I won't say that the point of it all is to start making church income taxable, I do see that Big Government will end up stepping into (onto?) the churches and start applying controls to church activities. You know, Seperation of Church and State IS a double-edged sword that cuts both ways! I sure wouldn't be too quick to overthrow our 225 year principle of the seperation just because some politicians and some high-visibility church leaders propagandize about just how wonderfull it would be for America to become a Theocracy.
Those were some odd "facts" that bobbysoxer mentioned. I can actually believe the one about dentistry: I've heard of a few really weird ones. I recall one where Queen Elizabeth, upon being made Queen and learning of homosexuality by advisors, she fully believed that Men were capable of such acts, but not women. She then made male homosexuality a crime, but female homosexuality was ignored and therefore, "legal". [Got that from my book: Sex In History, by Relay Tannahill: ISBN 0-8128-2580-2. Please don't make me go look up the chapter and page. ]
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 25, 2001 06:16:34 PM
Apology accepted, MichelleG. Afterall, there is nowhere in the CG's where derailing a thread is an offence, unless you concider, "Online conduct should be guided at all times by common sense and basic etiquette. This basic premise applies to all AuctionWatch.com members as well as the AuctionWatch.com staff. Abuse of or by any of our members and/or staff will not be permitted." to include such behavior. However, I'm a criminally tolerant type of person who does not easily take offence, accept at bull-fecal shoved my way. So, if certain regular AW users feel that it is necessary to take one of my threads and change the venue to some esoteric game, then I'm easy.
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on February 25, 2001 06:32:30 PM
To clarify myself the federal monies don't go directly into the house building but other areas such as administration and so on.
http://www.habitatbucks.org/faq.htm
http://www.bushwatch.com/headlines.htm
http://www.io.com/~cjburke/clinton.html
|
HJW
|
posted on February 25, 2001 06:45:22 PM
Borillar
......You are a good sport!!!
Thank you so very much for your reply and we
are sorry that your thread was disrupted.
I'll be looking for another one posted by you!
I don't think I'll check out that picture
tonight.
Best,
Helen
[ edited by HJW on Feb 25, 2001 06:47 PM ]
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on February 25, 2001 06:46:59 PM
The information about the founding Christian government killing gay men can be found in "Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition" by B.R. Burg ISBN 0-8147-1236-3.
http://www.bushwatch.com/headlines.htm
http://www.io.com/~cjburke/clinton.html
[ edited by bobbysoxer on Feb 25, 2001 06:57 PM ]
|
bobbysoxer
|
posted on February 25, 2001 07:30:35 PM
Borillar
During the dark ages anything that had to do with the medical field (of course we need to remember dentists were more than dentists...) was considered the work of the devil hence connected with witchcract therefore they were killed as witches/warlocks. Anything that was deemed "sinful" according to their interpretation of the Holy Bible was witchery.
I personally don't trust theocracy myself.
http://www.bushwatch.com/headlines.htm
http://www.io.com/~cjburke/clinton.html
|
krs
|
posted on February 25, 2001 07:52:19 PM
bull-fecalize
|
HJW
|
posted on February 25, 2001 08:28:02 PM
amen, amen, amen
|
Baduizm
|
posted on February 25, 2001 09:24:23 PM
Linda K: The church you and Bobbysoxer are referring to (the one shut down by the government) is the Indianapolis Baptist Temple. Linda K, you are quite correct in your description of the circumstances that surrounded the church's demise. I covered the story (part of it) here in Indy.
The pastors and church leadership waged a 15-year battle with the IRS and federal government over the church's refusal to withhold and pay federal income tax from its employees. The church used "Scripture" in explaining its stance. However, when pressed for the Biblical chapter and verse, church leaders were hard-pressed to deliver, instead favoring the argument "separation of church and state," etc.
The Bible says render unto Ceasar what is owed Ceasar, hence pay your taxes. Churches are 501C3 non-profits, which means they are exempt from the taxes assesed to private employers. However, like any employer, they still must withhold and pay employee taxes on earnings.
The Baptist Temple supporters, many times, delved into right-wing, militia-type, conspiracy theories that were at times, dubious.
*edited for typos*
[ edited by Baduizm on Feb 25, 2001 09:27 PM ]
|
stusi
|
posted on February 26, 2001 04:31:05 AM
krs- it's ostraCize, but let's not get off track. bobbysoxer- i heard through a reliable source(a friend) that Jeb Bush recently told some Planned Parenthood people that he would do nothing to get them additional funds because Florida is a Catholic state(Bush apparently converted to Catholicism). i think that would be a big surprise to the many Southern Baptists, Jews, and other Protestants in Florida. another example of the Bush's stand on separation?
|
gravid
|
posted on February 26, 2001 06:29:25 AM
About that Baptist church that refused to do withholding - you also have to file for recognition as a nonprofit so government already has a toe in the door there. Do they ever refuse the status? I have no idea. But if churches are exept because they are churches what has their profit/nonprofit status have to do with it? Some religions may
have a tradition of vows of poverty but that does not mean it is a test to determain religious nature.
In fact something HJW said caught my eye:
"All the churches and non churches~"
That is a huge problem right there. It is very normal for people to regard not-my-church as not a church. You are going to have a "test" of some sort to determaine what is a church. Right there
is the death of freedom if goverment makes a determination what is religion.
Are snake handlers and mushroom smokers and Vodoo practitioners a church? Are
Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormans? Are Lutherans and Catholics ? For the groups named the number of people who would agree probably go up as you go along - but
are we going to vote? Is the Congress going to vote?
|
