07 Nov 07
Originally posted by kirksey957I just hope Benny can afford good legal council. 😛
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TELEVANGELIST_PROBE?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This doesn't sound good. The thought of Benny Hinn facing Barbara Boxer in congressional hearings would just be too much.
07 Nov 07
Why is a government official worried about the finances of religious organizations, doesn't he have something better to do? I question the financial dealings of religious organizations myself, but I don't take it to Congress.
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe that the organizations need to be policed from within the organization not from Congress.
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by SourJaxTrust me, when there is that much money involved the government shows an active interest every time.
Why is a government official worried about the finances of religious organizations, doesn't he have something better to do? I question the financial dealings of religious organizations myself, but I don't take it to Congress.
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [b]prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...[text shortened]... ieve that the organizations need to be policed from within the organization not from Congress.[/b]
07 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by SourJaxLOL. Do you take that to mean that anything at all is lawful provided it is done in the name of religion? Were the Muslims who blew up New York City that one time lawfully exercising their freedom of religion?
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [b]prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[/b]
07 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo not at all, if the church we using the finances to fund illegal drug, porn, or dog fighting rings, then I wouldn't have a problem with the government looking into the organizations. But if the government is looking into the organizations for buying an expensive table or commode, then I have a problem. The government wastes more money on luxury than anyone, obviously they aren't going to look into where our tax dollars are going. They already know our tax dollars are in their pockets, table, and commodes.
LOL. Do you take that to mean that anything at all is lawful provided it is done in the name of religion? Were the Muslims who blew up New York City that one time lawfully exercising their freedom of religion?
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by kirksey957Nobody pays 23,000 for a toilet. I wonder what hidden expense lies therein.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TELEVANGELIST_PROBE?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This doesn't sound good. The thought of Benny Hinn facing Barbara Boxer in congressional hearings would just be too much.
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by SourJaxI think the point of investigating the astronomically expensive commode is the possibility that the true expense might actually be less than 1,000. Where did the other 22,000 go?
No not at all, if the church we using the finances to fund illegal drug, porn, or dog fighting rings, then I wouldn't have a problem with the government looking into the organizations. But if the government is looking into the organizations for buying an expensive table or commode, then I have a problem. The government wastes more money on luxury than anyone ...[text shortened]... ollars are going. They already know our tax dollars are in their pockets, table, and commodes.
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by SourJaxThe government looks into all non-profit 501(c)(3) agencies if it believes the agencies aren't meeting the criteria for non-profit. If it looks like the agency is indeed for profit, government wants it to pay the same taxes as other for-profit agencies. Churches do face regulations. A church can't rent out a piece of property to a person and collect rents because that makes it for-profit. It has no connection at all to the exercise of religion.
No not at all, if the church we using the finances to fund illegal drug, porn, or dog fighting rings, then I wouldn't have a problem with the government looking into the organizations. But if the government is looking into the organizations for buying an expensive table or commode, then I have a problem. The government wastes more money on luxury than anyone ...[text shortened]... ollars are going. They already know our tax dollars are in their pockets, table, and commodes.
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerI understand all that, I'm all for keeping those organizations that relegate themselves to government regulation regulated. I simply question the real motive behind this. If he is really on a "fact finding" mission then have at it, however if he is on a "witch-hunt", he needs to mind his own business.
The government looks into all non-profit 501(c)(3) agencies if it believes the agencies aren't meeting the criteria for non-profit. If it looks like the agency is indeed for profit, government wants it to pay the same taxes as other for-profit agencies. Churches do face regulations. A church can't rent out a piece of property to a person and collect r ...[text shortened]... ts because that makes it for-profit. It has no connection at all to the exercise of religion.
Myself, I don't understand why any organization would put themselves under regulation in the first place. Tax breaks aren't on my to do list when it comes to serving the Lord, discipleship is. All I can say is, May the Lord's will be done.
07 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957My wife and I were watching Paula White once (for kicks). She was sermonizing about the need to get rid of all the clutter in the mind in order to live for the Lord. On stage she had a huge wardrobe full of clothes which she used as a prop, grabbing handfuls of clothes and throwing them out in synch with her message. People in the audience were nodding and wiping tears from their eyes. I remember we couldn't believe how goofy it all was.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TELEVANGELIST_PROBE?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This doesn't sound good. The thought of Benny Hinn facing Barbara Boxer in congressional hearings would just be too much.
That is, until I read this article to my wife, and she recalled being shocked when she noticed Paula tossing Louis Vuitton purses out of her prop-closet (apparently LV purses run $1500 and up). Were the LV purses seriously a church expense, or a shopping spree disguised as a church expense? If it is the latter, I have seriously underestimated Paula White's ingenuity.
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI say this in all Christian kindness, but Paula White is a whore. She is an absolutely vapid dingbat who has gotten by on her good looks. Instead of holding up "the lamp post" she has taken her begging charms to TV to feed off of insecure emotional wrecks who found her looks to be much more appealing that Tammy Faye.
My wife and I were watching Paula White once (for kicks). She was sermonizing about the need to get rid of all the clutter in the mind in order to live for the Lord. On stage she had a huge wardrobe full of clothes which she used as a prop, grabbing handfuls of clothes and throwing them out in synch with her message. People in the audience were noddin ...[text shortened]... church expense? If it is the latter, I have seriously underestimated Paula White's ingenuity.
Tammy Faye was an emotional wreck too, but she loved people like porn stars and homosexuals. She didn't care, she just loved them. Paula White, on the other hand, would tell people that God wouldn't love you until you sent her some money. She would tell you how to have a wonderful relationship with your spouse and then get a divorce herself. Of course she never got any legitimate counseling. Why do that when you listen to God all the time. What a dumb ass.