Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 August
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
My Links
MY HEART,MY MIND, MY SOUL
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| **** THE FRAUDS **** PART - 1 of 2 |
| 05.04.08 (4:13 pm) [edit] |
Since today is Sunday I think I will address my topic towards those "fun-loving" enthusiasts of the Lord.....television evangelists and their "followers".
Back in the early 1980's when these television "preachers" were coming out of the "woodwork" literally, they were received with open arms by a vast majority of the population as the saviors of potentially millions of unsuspecting souls and little did we know then the chaos and confusion that would follow some of these "Judas'"! Such prominant TV evangelists as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Oral Roberts and lest we forget that honky tonk tearjerking whiz on the piano "Jimmy Swaggart"
First let us take a look at the "PTL"Club and their theme park created by these two (Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker). These two had a mass appeal with not only "shut-ins" and the elderly but also to a large extent the youth of their day also. As they sat daily on a beautifully prepared stage spewing quotes from the Bible and saying Amen in the Lord's name, they tactics of coertion, manipulation, and playing on the guilt of people in general and in particular the elderly were drawing in donations from viewers to the tune of millions of dollars each week. All of the money brought in by people pledging so much a month or years or one time huge donations, afforded the Bakkers such a luxurious lifestyle, that even the Kennedys and Rockerfellers would have been hard pressed to match their elitist way of living.
It was even rumored at one time that the Bakkers had a Rolls Royce for evey day of the week which ultimately became true. Of course as what happens to most charlatans like the Bakkers they and in this case it was literally true, were caught with their pant down with Jim having an affair with one Jessica Hahn and having to pay Mrs. Hahn a substancial price to keep her silence, which in the end she did neither!
You see, it is these kinds of individuals who have forsaken the truly lost and have only enhanced the believe that all tele-evangalists are nothing more than frauds and parasites living off the kindness of the infirmed and weak who essentially are elderly people who are the major base of income for these "fly by night ministries". Supposedly these ministries are to be a non-profit organization who because of this status also become tax exempt.
PART - 2 to be written at a later date!
& nbsp; &n bsp; &nb sp; &nbs p; ; & nbsp; &n bsp; Timm17 |
posted by: auntconi (reply)
post date: 05.04.08 (2:56 pm)
...to be continued!
:)
posted by: barnabus1 (reply)
post date: 05.04.08 (3:04 pm)
A couple I really enjoy and admire now...Pastor Jeremiah!! He's super!!!! and Adrian Rogers most of the time!! Jeremiah is absolutely the greatest...ever!!!!
posted by: inkspector (reply)
post date: 05.04.08 (3:16 pm)
My cousin lost a bundle to swindler church people like the Bakkers. She also lost her sense of self in the process which when that happens it equals "cult". So one must beware of what they are getting into.
posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 05.04.08 (6:49 pm)
Personally, I see no justification for ANY religious organization being "tax free" unless it can meet some sort of "non-profit" test such as a minimum percentage of their budget going toward providing charitable services. That would get rid of a lot of the abuse.
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 05.06.08 (9:29 am)
Reply to: kurtmaddox
It has to do with what is valued. You do not value the ministry and presence of a church, nor the work of the pastor. I'm thankful that enough people in America still see value to such and therefore think it is worthy of tax free status. The money given for the support of the church has already been taxed. Thus, to tax the church is in essence a double-taxation. In reality, it would be a statement of lack of respect for what the church represents.
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 05.06.08 (9:31 am)
Jim and Tammy and Swaggart are representative of the old-time charlatans. We've a whole new bunch out there now. I'd like to see you turn your attention to their glitzy, multi-media shenanigans.
posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 05.06.08 (4:50 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
No, it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with what I "value" at all -- it has to do with governments promoting one type of citizen activity over another thereby lending a tacit credibility to institutions like the millions of local churches that absorb billions of dollars from America's citizens in the name of doing "God's work" when most of the money goes toward things like staff salaries and big buildings that sit mostly empty most all the time. Speaking as an economist, churches represent possibly the worst mis-allocation of capital in American society. As with all mis-allocations of capital - it will eventually self-correct. We already see this happening, of course, with the massive decline of church attendance and the dwindling ranks of "brick and mortar Christians". I'm all for true "ministry" -- but very little of the money that folks give their local church actually goes toward what I would consider true "ministry".
For the record, I'd eliminate all tax favoritism for any and all contributions to any and all organizations that perform any services whatsoever. If people want to give you money, they should be able to do so. The government just should not provide incentives to anyone to give it to you instead of to me or to the local movie theatre or randomly to some needy person walking down the street.
Also, you're "double-taxation" argument is plain silly. You could say that about any money that a person spends. The only entities in America that are truly "double-taxed" are investors and corporations. If you take into account that investors in public companies who use after-tax dollars to make investments have already paid tax on their income before investing it, then the company they invest in has to pay taxes on the profit before they make their distributions to shareholders and then the shareholder pays taxes again on the backside as a capital gains tax. (I don't agree with my man Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax because it will likely produce less revenue instead of more. It will have the somewhat positive effect of decreasing public market volatility since it will make it more costly to sell stock when you've made a profit.)
As for me, I'd actually support getting rid of all taxes other than a national sales tax so I'm not at all picking on the tax status of religious organizations.
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 05.06.08 (7:37 pm)
Reply to: kurtmaddox
It seems to me the tax code is filled with tax breaks of a dubious nature. There's so much that can be deducted, so why choose to pick on those who choose to give to their place of worship?
I challenge your assumption that my church and my ministry offer little of value. For the people of my church, the most important thing in their lives is their faith. Through their church and my ministry, they receive guidance and instruction and help to be better persons- even better citizens. Of a more practical nature, I'll list a few items: We regularly minister to a group of over twenty kids, most of whom come from tough family situations. We are modeling for them a better life, and I believe will make a difference in what they grow up to become. If you can put a monetary value upon the positive impact, I think it will be substantial. My ministry I believe has had a direct impact to salvage marriages, prevent abuse, and encourage honesty in such areas as the work force and paying of taxes, etc. The church, when it is done right, has a positive impact on society. I think our government is wise to recognize and foster such.
posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 05.06.08 (8:35 pm)
Well, if the value proposition is so clear and the return on investment so abundant, then no one would really need a government subsidy to as an inticement. I've not doubted once that YOUR church does good work or that YOUR ministry isn't above average or that YOUR clients don't feel like they are getting a good return on their investment. I'm simply stating that in my view, the ecomomics of the situation aren't compelling and that ALL parties would be better without the government attempting to influence our charity via favored tax treatment for being charitable in specific institutional ways.
Of course, those currently on welfare of any type don't usually lead to charge to eliminate a benefit in their favor, do they? lol!
There's also the obvious humor inherent in the fact that God needs a government subsidy to get his people to do his work ;-)