posted on February 26, 2001 06:36:20 AM
I probably should not say this from memory because someone will challenge me to document it - but I do remember dissection was forbidden by the church so doctors were not allowed to use a body for study or to gain medical knowledge for many years.
posted on February 26, 2001 07:16:45 AM
Morning gravid - Good points. What I'm going to share are not my personal beliefs but what I've heard/read when these questions have been brought up. I too, have big doubts this will work, but have been open to listening to what others have shared they think.
From the people who argue it can work. They're saying that it is documented that private/religious organizations have done more for helping the needy than have government run ones. Government ones spend way too much money in the administration process, while private/religious ones are usually aided by volunteers.
Then they share that when any group applies for this 'special status' they will have to abide by certain rules. The biggest being that they can support (on paper - with proof) how many people have been helped, and how much money has been spent to do so.
What I've also heard on the subject of who shall quality to receive these funds, that determination would be made by the achievements those organizations have made.
I've stated it simply, as is my way, but so far that's the general 'take' I've heard.
I personally think it's a great idea, but don't think it would work in a million years. The government will be tied up in law suits for years and years, and the people who were to benefit from these programs won't get the help they need.
posted on February 26, 2001 07:27:55 AM
Baduizm - Want to say thanks for filling in the details/facts on that church. A Hoosier and a journalist? Great combination. ::me singing:: 'Back home in Indiana'
I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask you about, but they would only further take this thread off topic, so I won't.
posted on February 26, 2001 07:35:00 AM
If anyone cares to go to the city newspaper and get all the back information on that church raid they will find that this was already well in progress before Bush got into office. The Feds were already there laying in wait. Possibly they thought at the church that now that a Republican President was in office it wouldn't be done..but it was a "dump" as I call it. Ex President Bush had the Waco thing in the works and being investigated well before Clinton took office then he "dumped" it in his lap. Dirty Tricks reign supreme and if they don't win the election they will try to make the new President look as bad as possible during the first 100 days by leaving something on hold to dump on them. Look how bad that whole Waco fiasco made Janet Reno and Clinton look!! We will never know for sure how Bush would have handled it..he may have done the same thing only sooner. Bush now gets the whole blame for the church raid. Personally, I think both parties stink because of these tactics. It shows an incredible lack of caring for the people of the United States.
I also don't think churches should be taxed when the government doesn't allow them to have anything to do with THEIR business. For crying out loud the government is even going into the Amish communities and sticking their noses in. It should be all or nothing...
That is interesting about Jeb. If my governor declared my state to be of any religion I would vote for his opponent no matter how religious right he/she may be.
BTW a little birdie told me Jeb won't be re-elected.
Speaking of Ventura (Minnesota gov) when he made his famous comment about religious peeps my first thought was that he had become over confident, pretty cocky and has been ever since. Another one that won't be re-elected. Can you imagine if your gov was a reporter for the xfl football games? I couldn't believe that when I first tuned in, but with xfl being owned by wwf what would I expect?
posted on February 26, 2001 04:10:35 PM
bobbysoxer-the people who told me about the Jeb Bush statement are thinking about going to the press-i'll keep you informed. p.s.- remember folks, that non-profit does not mean that people do not draw salaries, sometimes huge ones. boards of directors are supposed to keep that in check but who knows whether or not they are on the payroll as well!
posted on February 26, 2001 09:11:24 PM
Non-profit merely assures that entities with that status are not assessed the same tax paid by for-profit private corporations or businesses.
However, all employers who pay wages to workers are required to pay federal withholding taxes to the government. The amount they pay is the same amount withheld from workers paychecks, annual FICA and other federal taxes. If a company, church etc. doesn't pay their share of employee withholding, that would diminish what the employee can draw in Social Security when he or she retires.
::me singing:: 'Back home in Indiana'