Jump to content

Questions Surround Senate Inquiry Of Televangelists


Recommended Posts

I'll save my comments/thoughts for a little bit later, but I was curious to hear your ideas on this situation - how it does or does not fall into seperation of chruch and state, and where this may or may not be leading, and finnaly, your thoughts on spirituality as governed by the state here America.

have at it folks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_...angelists_probe

Steven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a separation of church and state issue in any way. This seems to be a legit investigation of so-called religious organizations and their leaders. It seems pretty damn convenient to have a ministry that has as a central tenet that it's members should get rich. What a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, the way the laws are written... I hope these Church's tell the government to take a flying leap. The senate has no business investigating citizens, not matter the reason. Let the IRS do their own dirty work. We don;t need the feds trying to regulate faith.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prosperity is fine. Greed isn't. Taking advantage of people isn't. Co-opting religion and spirituality isn't.

Co-opting what religion? Who's spirituality? If their brand of religion teaches that God wants people to be rich and to do everything they can to get to that point... What gives you or anyone else a right to say that it's wrong?

I have major issues with the Unitarian Church but that doesn't mean I want to make it illegal or have government oversight for it.

We have the Bill of Rights thing. It protects everybody, not just liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Co-opting what religion? Who's spirituality? If their brand of religion teaches that God wants people to be rich and to do everything they can to get to that point... What gives you or anyone else a right to say that it's wrong?

I have major issues with the Unitarian Church but that doesn't mean I want to make it illegal or have government oversight for it.

We have the Bill of Rights thing. It protects everybody, not just liberals.

This not about liberalism Mark, so stop generalizing with that brush. This is about me thinking that these televangelists are con artists using religion and "god" as a way to make a buck. If they operated as a business but otherwise did the exact same thing I would have less of a problem with it. I don't think legislating religion is the answer. I think you're right that the IRS should be the ones making the inquiries... but sometimes they need a little leadership, ya know? And yeah... people let themselves be duped into this... but some people aren't very bright and some are in vulnerable emotional states. So they should be allowed to be taken advantage of for the sake of freedom of religion? I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched a few minutes of Joyce Meyer now and again. She's definitely charismatic.

I like s straight shooter....its the language that I understand the most. She's been included in this investigation on prosperity ministries but I dont beleive she fits the bill - Benny Hinn definately does, but she's much more of an "let's equip ourselsve sto live this life" kind of gal, which I like.

Incidently I was once in a Xtian rock band that was endorsed by TBN/channel 40. We played some high profile gigs for that scene - and the church who was doing the majority of the funding wanted Benny Hinn to come out in white and introduce us - on Television. I told them if they did that that I'd walk right up to the mic and tell the television crowd that Benny Hinn was a false prophet.

it didint go over well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't you think it should be answered BEFORE the investigations start?

I'm not entirely sure it's answerable. No matter where you draw the line a lot of people will be unhappy. They should be conducting these hearings with respect to tax law and if these guys are using religion as a cover for what's really a business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure it's answerable. No matter where you draw the line a lot of people will be unhappy. They should be conducting these hearings with respect to tax law and if these guys are using religion as a cover for what's really a business.

And then this leads you into HOW to determine if these religions are jsut money making schemes, therefore some standard must be written and set into law, and some agency of enforcement must represent that standard and so on, and so on, and so on....

I hate corruption too....but the tragedy is that were treading upon certain founding national ideals.....

and so it would seem to me that once we begin to flirt with this dangerous area - we end up making a sweeping mandate for acceptable state recognized spirituality......

and im quite sure this will one day happen, as I ve said before....I beleive that a man like me will be outlawed for the good of the republic...perhaps even in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're such a martyr... =P

hmmmm, I'm not afraid of it and thats not meant to be said in the romantic sense....

besides, take a look around at some other countries here in the modern era, what I'm thinking is really not that far fetched at all, and this democracy of ours is ripe for the pickens historically speaking ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is: warning that the investigation could be unconstitutional.

the groups are not legally required to disclose financial information to the Senate.

"This has nothing to do with church doctrine," said Grassley, who has been investigating nonprofit compliance with the tax code for years. "This has everything to do with the tax exemption of an organization

They are exempt from what I understand....so.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Forum Statistics

    38.9k
    Total Topics
    820.5k
    Total Posts
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 110 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I am currently floored.   FedEx did a massive 6 box delivery to the wrong address.  I had an autoship order scheduled to arrive before this past weekend.  Nothing showed up.  I contacted the order site and they had a link for the order...a photo of all my boxes thrown in the snow and up the sidewalk of a residence that was not mine.   You would think that at some point, the driver would have looked at the delivery address after they kept throwing box upon box at this location with no shelter from the elements.  They didn't even knock on the door to inform the residents that massive 65+ pound boxes were left all over their walkway.  Nope.  Just dumped them, took a photo as they were walking away and left.   I wonder what the person who found all of those misdelivered boxes must have been thinking when they saw them.  Maybe they kept everything to use, distribute or sell.  No idea.  No claim was filed on that end as of yet.   Fortunately for me, one of the sites that I ordered from, replaced everything at no extra cost.   Unfortunately, now I'm concerned for the other items yet to be delivered.   Needless to say, I'll be watching my notifications like a hawk.
    • 12:00am - Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 47 Guests (See full list) TronRP
    • 12:00am - Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 60 Guests (See full list) TronRP
    • 11:13pm - Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 69 Guests (See full list) TronRP
    • ~~~~~ Yeah, thank you for the check-in.   Happy to say it was all a misunderstanding.  But she pulled out her "ghetto" and that's when things went South.  I get very professional minded when I enter into situations like that because when someone starts bring the court into conversations, I'm in court 2 times a year, every year, so don't go there with me because I will get legal all over you.   She did try to change what she thought she might have said, but I had to call her on it because it's all in written text.  Then she apologized and we were able to have a decent conversation.   I know I joke about me talking so much that people don't hear what I say except for keywords that they are looking for, but that is exactly what happened here.  She heard "payment", "money" and "help out".  It was crazy.  I literally had to have the entire conversation all over again, but I definitely condensed it to only address those 3 words.   Things are back on track, but I emphasized that if she every needed clarification for anything, please say something first instead of jumping to conclusions, then questioning that conclusion, then answering that conclusion, then getting upset at the answer and taking it out on someone who doesn't have a clue what the San Juan Hill just happened.   But this is exactly the reason I do everything with a paper trail. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.