Joel Osteen is a fraud meta thread

[Johnny Sack 8397]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's more that if the churches are being used as a profit centered business and participating in politics, they probably shouldn't qualify for tax-exempt

Profit centered?  They don’t make profits.  They don’t have shareholders who get paid dividends   What profits are you talking about?

And the main churches that engage in politics are the black churches, which are effectively a get out the vote entity of the Democrat party   

my church has Democrats and republicans.  So the pastor knows better than to politic for either side.  Black churches don’t have that constraint.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Zoos and Museums offer real tangible benefits. There is no god. There is a panda. There were dinosaurs.

So do churches to their members and the public.  Whether God is real or not.  

You can’t discriminate against the tax treatment of nonprofits due to religion.  

Nor can you start debating real tangible benefits or nonprofits on a case by case basis.  Quite a few people hate zoos because they think animals shouldn’t be be caged up and living on concrete.  Pretty much every nonprofit out there is going to have a sizable percent of the public who believes the entity doesn’t do any good. 

So you either exempt them all from property tax.  Or none.  You do the latter and sayonara to pretty much all of them.  

[Pimphand 5831]

On 11/23/2019 at 6:48 AM, HenryJames said:

 

 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Profit centered?  They don’t make profits.  They don’t have shareholders who get paid dividends   What profits are you talking about?

And the main churches that engage in politics are the black churches, which are effectively a get out the vote entity of the Democrat party   

my church has Democrats and republicans.  So the pastor knows better than to politic for either side.  Black churches don’t have that constraint.  

Y'know why I don't go to a Baptist church any more? It's not because I stopped believing. It's not because I wanted to search for a new religion. 

It's because of shit like this.

This is how I wound up on the phone with Robert Jeffress on Monday afternoon, to find out what he meant when he went on the Fox News Channel on Sunday night and fretted that "if the Democrats are successful in removing the president from office, I'm afraid it will cause a Civil War-like fracture in this nation from which this country will never heal."

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/01/what-robert-jeffress-meant-when-he-said-removing-trump-would-cause-civil-war-like-fracture/

Now, tell me again that it's the black people in churches that are politicking in the pulpit.

Wanna talk about Franklin Graham?

Kenneth Copeland? Jesse Duplantis? Creflo Dollar?

or Bennie Hinn? Oral Roberts?

WA Criswell absolutely preached politics. 

I fully expect a competent preacher, priest, monk, or any religious speaker to inject politics into their sermons. What I won't abide is them telling me how I have to vote if I am a real Christian. 

So, yeah let's talk about politics and the pulpit. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Go drive around the Summit on Sunday morning.  It’s pretty much all lower income folks.  Rich people don’t go to Lakewood.  They go to St  Luke’s, St Johns, St Martins, etc   

I’ve lived pretty close to that place for 15 years now and am pretty familiar with the demographics of the place.  

OK, point of clarification, I attended Lamar and Lanier, I know the area well. I wasn't talking about rich people at all. More just middle class folks, even lower middle. People who have hope of moving up. If it's high school dropouts, I'd be surprised, but I was gone soon after he bought the Summit and I never attended, so maybe it is. 

 

[Captainant 27722]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Profit centered?  They don’t make profits.  They don’t have shareholders who get paid dividends   What profits are you talking about?

And the main churches that engage in politics are the black churches, which are effectively a get out the vote entity of the Democrat party   

1) I guess Joel Osteens private jets and mansions are just part of his gospel of wealth then? It's called profiteering and grift, my dude

2) mUh ClOaK rOoM iN dAiLy TeXaN!!11!!!one!!! Also, of course it's specifically the black churches you have a problem with lol. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

More from Wilonsky on Jeffress.

He's not one bit better than Osteen.

It's funny how these conversations only ever involve one religion. There are plenty of charlatans in every one of them. Lots of good people too. Just don't pretend that it's only one kind of person that politics from their position as a religious leader. 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Y'know why I don't go to a Baptist church any more? It's not because I stopped believing. It's not because I wanted to search for a new religion. 

It's because of shit like this.

This is how I wound up on the phone with Robert Jeffress on Monday afternoon, to find out what he meant when he went on the Fox News Channel on Sunday night and fretted that "if the Democrats are successful in removing the president from office, I'm afraid it will cause a Civil War-like fracture in this nation from which this country will never heal."

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/01/what-robert-jeffress-meant-when-he-said-removing-trump-would-cause-civil-war-like-fracture/

Now, tell me again that it's the black people in churches that are politicking in the pulpit.

Wanna talk about Franklin Graham?

Kenneth Copeland? Jesse Duplantis? Creflo Dollar?

or Bennie Hinn? Oral Roberts?

WA Criswell absolutely preached politics. 

I fully expect a competent preacher, priest, monk, or any religious speaker to inject politics into their sermons. What I won't abide is them telling me how I have to vote if I am a real Christian. 

So, yeah let's talk about politics and the pulpit. 

So your big example is Jeffress giving a comment to Fox News?

That isn’t a pulpit and thus isn’t illegal.  

Black churches are, by far, the most political of churches.  Because 95 percent of their members all vote the same.  And the other 5 percent wouldn’t admit to the way they vote.   You simply don’t see that any other churches anywhere.  

[Helobious 9464]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So your big example is Jeffress giving a comment to Fox News?

That isn’t a pulpit and thus isn’t illegal.  

Black churches are, by far, the most political of churches.  Because 95 percent of their members all vote the same.  And the other 5 percent wouldn’t admit to the way they vote.   You simply don’t see that any other churches anywhere.  

This is true. I’m sure if you went to an all white southern baptist church in Alabama or a Mormon church in Utah the congregation would be split 50/50 politically. 
 

Also how many services have you attended at black churches? Does the preacher just get up there and list democratic candidates to vote for and then tell everyone to go home? Honest question. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

24 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So your big example is Jeffress giving a comment to Fox News?

That isn’t a pulpit and thus isn’t illegal.  

Black churches are, by far, the most political of churches.  Because 95 percent of their members all vote the same.  And the other 5 percent wouldn’t admit to the way they vote.   You simply don’t see that any other churches anywhere.  

Doubling down. 

I'm game.

Edit: You're sure you want to go there?

@immamac please move the thread to CR. I'm about to go off.

Edited November 24, 2019 by cactusflinthead
CR move

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 11/23/2019 at 1:11 PM, Johnny Sack said:

You’d have to do that for all nonprofits and not discriminate against religious nonprofits in violation of the First Amendment.   So goodbye to most of them in any city.  Because they can’t afford the property taxes.  Churches gone.  Museums gone.  Zoos gone.  Planned parenthood gone. Symphonies gone.  Dog shelters gone.  Every private school in every city - gone   

My church has a budget of around $1 million a year.  The dirt and facilities we sit on are easily worth $300 million if sold to a developer.  There are all sorts of worthwhile charities of a secular and non secular nature that have a similar standing.  Condo and commercial developers would like it I guess.  Would suck for HISD to have to take on 900 more students with zero additional revenue   

 

So put a revenue cap on non profit tax exempt status. Problem solved. 

[MissingInAction 25156]

Someone check Johnny Sack's ears for worms. 

[Guest Lobo]

27 minutes ago, Helobious said:

This is true. I’m sure if you went to an all white southern baptist church in Alabama or a Mormon church in Utah the congregation would be split 50/50 politically. 
 

Also how many services have you attended at black churches? Does the preacher just get up there and list democratic candidates to vote for and then tell everyone to go home? Honest question. 

I'm guessing he doesn't make it to many black churches.  And yes, they can be overly political but you also literally picked the one segment of organized Christianity that's not overtly into grift (Save for Al Sharpton, but is he really a pastor?)  

[JimmyJames 12271]

54 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So your big example is Jeffress giving a comment to Fox News?

That isn’t a pulpit and thus isn’t illegal.  

Black churches are, by far, the most political of churches.  Because 95 percent of their members all vote the same.  And the other 5 percent wouldn’t admit to the way they vote.   You simply don’t see that any other churches anywhere.  

Why are black churches more political than white churches? Is there some study showing that or did you just pull that out of your ass? 

[Player 4575]

It would be easier for Osteen to drive his Lamborghini through the eye of a needle, than it would be for him to convince me to give a nickel to Lakewood. Fuck that dude.

[immamac 42894]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

Doubling down. 

I'm game.

Edit: You're sure you want to go there?

@immamac please move the thread to CR. I'm about to go off.

Create a CR version if you'd like.

[TwiceHorn 31519]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

Doubling down. 

I'm game.

Edit: You're sure you want to go there?

@immamac please move the thread to CR. I'm about to go off.

Look, I have most unChristian sentiments about Jeffress and you're about to make me defend him.

For every Jeffress, or OSteen, or Franklin Graham, there are dozens or hundreds of pastors, representing dozens of churches and thousands of church members, whom you've never heard of and never will, politically or any other way unless its for the church's good works (or maybe the odd sex scandal).

To tax churches because you think a relative handful of pastors are assholes is not sound policy.  When Jeffress is being an asshole, he's not representing FBCD. HIs fame is due to FBCD and his assholishness, but Robert Jeffress is not FBCD.  I'll let you speak to whether FBCD is 100% Jeffress-style assholes, but I rather doubt that it is.

But even if Jeffress was FBCD, that ignores the hundreds of other churches in Dallas that aren't chock full of assholes and led by one.  In fact, quite a number of them are  hotbeds of liberalism and progressivism, and most of them distribute most of their revenue to charity, after paying their staff a barely living wage.

Picking the worst examples of a certain type of organization and from there extrapolating that all of that type of organization should lose tax exempt status is foolish bad policy.  If the bad examples are violating the tax exemption laws, revoke that tax exemption, don't punish the good ones too.  

And if you think there aren't loads of examples of good churches, well you can join Bob Jeffress in asshole hell (the royal you, not you cactusflinthead).

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

6 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Profit centered?  They don’t make profits.  They don’t have shareholders who get paid dividends   What profits are you talking about?

And the main churches that engage in politics are the black churches, which are effectively a get out the vote entity of the Democrat party   

my church has Democrats and republicans.  So the pastor knows better than to politic for either side.  Black churches don’t have that constraint.  

[TexArcher 38000]

6 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Profit centered?  They don’t make profits.  They don’t have shareholders who get paid dividends   What profits are you talking about?

And the main churches that engage in politics are the black churches, which are effectively a get out the vote entity of the Democrat party   

my church has Democrats and republicans.  So the pastor knows better than to politic for either side.  Black churches don’t have that constraint.  

I'm not sure which is dumber: believing that churches don't make a profit (and making that argument in a Joel Osteen thread, for extra irony) or believing that white Christian churches aren't active in American politics.

These might actually be the two dumbest things ever said on the internet, and you got them both into one post.  Congrats, I guess?

 

[Pimphand 5831]

Religion is dumb this thread is living proof

[TexArcher 38000]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To tax churches because you think a relative handful of pastors are assholes is not sound policy.

That isn't why.  Churches should be taxed because:

1. The are, and have always been, businesses.  Churches have accumulated more wealth than most countries throughout history.  See: the Vatican, etc.

2. We have separation of church and state in this country.  Giving a tax break to a church is in direct contradiction to this.  

Now, re: 2 above, if your church wants to set up a charity in the church's name, subject to standard 501(c)3 oversight, and that charity wants tax exemption, I have no problem with that.  But the church itself, i.e. the general operating fund used to build a bigger church or collect from a tv contract, absolutely should be taxed like any other business.  People want a tax break?  They can donate to the church's charity.  People are stupid enough to want to help Joel Osteen buy another private plane?  They can do it with after-tax dollars and he can pay taxes on his multi-million dollar earnings and housing allowance and whatever other scams he's got going.

[TwiceHorn 31519]

I'd be interested to know how Osteen and his ilk "make money."  If if really is through book sales outside the "corporate confines" of the church, then that's beyond the reach of the tax exemption laws, as it probably should be.

If significant portions of church revenue are directed to Osteen personally, that's no bueno.

[TwiceHorn 31519]

Just now, TexArcher said:

That isn't why.  Churches should be taxed because:

1. The are, and have always been, businesses.  Churches have accumulated more wealth than most countries throughout history.  See: the Vatican, etc.

2. We have separation of church and state in this country.  Giving a tax break to a church is in direct contradiction to this.  

Now, re: 2 above, if your church wants to set up a charity in the church's name, subject to standard 501(c)3 oversight, and that charity wants tax exemption, I have no problem with that.  But the church itself, i.e. the general operating fund used to build a bigger church or collect from a tv contract, absolutely should be taxed like any other business.  People want a tax break?  They can donate to the church's charity.  People are stupid enough to want to help Joel Osteen buy another private plane?  They can do it with after-tax dollars and he can pay taxes on his multi-million dollar earnings and housing allowance and whatever other scams he's got going.

You give one historical example and ignore the thousands of churches in existence today that are not businesses, never have been and have no Vatican. 

Why should a charity be able to lease or build a building and pay its executives and staff salaries (sometimes lavish), while churches can't?

If a church meets the same requirements as a secular charity for tax exemption, then it should be tax exempt.  To deny it the exemption because of it's non-secular nature is a violation of the First Amendment.  

[TexArcher 38000]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You give one historical example and ignore the thousands of churches in existence today that are not businesses, never have been and have no Vatican. 

Why should a charity be able to lease or build a building and pay its executives and staff salaries (sometimes lavish), while churches can't?

If a church meets the same requirements as a secular charity for tax exemption, then it should be tax exempt.  To deny it the exemption because of it's non-secular nature is a violation of the First Amendment.  

But a church doesn't meet the same requirements.  Secular charities are required to report earnings.  Churches are not.  

And, again, we have separation of church and state in this country.  

And, again, I have no problem with a church establishing a tax-exempt charity, subject to reporting like any other charity.  But the church itself should absolutely be taxed like any other business.  Because that's what it is.

And you think taxing churches is a violation of the First Amendment?  As if people couldn't practice religion without a tax exemption?  Holy shit.

Edited November 24, 2019 by TexArcher

[South Austin 52546]

42 minutes ago, Pimphand said:

Religion is dumb this thread is living proof

Jesus thinks you’re dumb!

[TwiceHorn 31519]

11 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

But a church doesn't meet the same requirements.  Secular charities are required to report earnings.  Churches are not.  

And, again, we have separation of church and state in this country.

And, again, I have no problem with a church establishing a tax-exempt charity, subject to reporting like any other charity.  But the church itself should absolutely be taxed like any other business.  Because that's what it is.

They have to meet the requirements of qualification.  

Your third paragraph is entirely conclusory and just your opinion.

Because some churches have operated as businesses does not mean that all churches are businesses. 

We dont' have "separation of church and state."  What we do have is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  To the extent granting a tax exemption establishes religion (it doesn't), denial on the basis of being religious prohibits the free exercise thereof.

[TexArcher 38000]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They have to meet the requirements of qualification.

They don't have to open their books.  Every other charity does.  That is, indisputably, granting special tax treatment to organized religion.  

And we don't have separation of church and state in this country?  That phrase and concept came from Thomas Jefferson and it's been dealt with in multiple Supreme Court cases.  This country was founded by a mix of people: Deist, Christian, atheist, and others.  The one thing they all agreed on was that they were founding a secular nation.  Of course we have separation of church and state in this country.  

Look, if you don't see that the federal government giving special tax treatment to religious organizations under different rules than those that apply to every other charity is a problem, then there's no point in this discussion going any further.  So I'll bow out.  

[Errestaurants 2570]

 

[TwiceHorn 31519]

23 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

They don't have to open their books.  Every other charity does.  That is, indisputably, granting special tax treatment to organized religion.  

And we don't have separation of church and state in this country?  That phrase and concept came from Thomas Jefferson and it's been dealt with in multiple Supreme Court cases.  This country was founded by a mix of people: Deist, Christian, atheist, and others.  The one thing they all agreed on was that they were founding a secular nation.  Of course we have separation of church and state in this country.  

Look, if you don't see that the federal government giving special tax treatment to religious organizations under different rules than those that apply to every other charity is a problem, then there's no point in this discussion going any further.  So I'll bow out.  

We have the First Amendment, which I quoted.  Jefferson's paraphrase is a restatement of it, but it's not the law.  And it's useless analytically for whether tax exemptions violate the First Amendment.  And "different rules" is not the test. 

And inasmuch as a 50 year old Supreme Court decision holds that the tax exemption scheme does not violate the First Amendment, I'm not going to concede that.

I am as or more disgusted by financial abuses by the Osteens of the world as anyone on this thread.  But I disagree that forming the law entirely around a few dozen abusers, to the detriment of hundreds or thousands, is a good idea, as a general proposition.

In fact, I wouldn't be averse to changing the reporting requirements for churches.

In this country we have a bad habit of creating laws to ensnare bad guys that have horrendous effects on the innocent and mostly innocent.  We legislate emotionally, not rationally.

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Johnny Sack 8397]

18 hours ago, TexArcher said:

I'm not sure which is dumber: believing that churches don't make a profit (and making that argument in a Joel Osteen thread, for extra irony) or believing that white Christian churches aren't active in American politics.

These might actually be the two dumbest things ever said on the internet, and you got them both into one post.  Congrats, I guess?

 

How does a church make a profit?  And who gets the distribution?  I am on the board of two non profits.  One religious and one secular.  They do not distribute profits.  They do pay salaries to staff.  Like all other non profits.  And that is taxed at ordinary income.  If there is a surplus at the end of the year, it goes into reserves and used for programs or additional cap ex.

Osteen makes a ton of money.  Because he sells a shitload of books to rubes.  He gets taxed on that income just like anyone else does.  I don't think he even takes a salary from Lakewood.  He does not need it.  What do you want to do to Osteen tax wise?  Tax him at a higher rate?  Double tax him?  Bump his property taxes up because we don't like him?  He's slime.  But he is acting legally and is certainly not avoiding any taxes because he runs a church.

If churches are making all these profits, someone must be pocketing the cash.  Maybe there are some mega churches that distribute huge salaries to the pastor/preacher.  That is distasteful.  I don't see it much different than the 7 figure salaries raked in by large secular non-profits.

[TwiceHorn 31519]

One thing that's awkward, a lot of churches are quite property rich in Dallas, for example.  I'm thinking specifically of the churches in central Dallas, but it might also apply to very suburban churches in say, Plano for example.

But many of them been in the same spots for nearly a century.  It's not like they went out and bought prime real estate for their premises from the outset.  They located to serve their congregation and that property appreciated massively in the interim.  Even the churches in Plano bought a field 25-30 years ago that is now worth millions.

You can't call them Osteens or Copelands or Hinns or whathaveyou because of that.

The tax burden on that property would be insane today.  To tax them would force them to move periodically for no other reason, and ultimately to move away from the congregation they serve.

If you stop and think about it for just a minute or two, you realize what a bad idea this would be.  Unless your real motive is simply to tax churches out of existence.

Edited November 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Johnny Sack 8397]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing that's awkward, a lot of churches are quite property rich in Dallas, for example.  I'm thinking specifically of the churches in central Dallas, but it might also apply to very suburban churches in say, Plano for example.

But many of them been in the same spots for nearly a century.  It's not like they went out and bought prime real estate for their premises from the outset.  They located to serve their congregation and that property appreciated massively in the interim.  Even the churches in Plano bought a field 25-30 years ago that is now worth millions.

You can't call them Osteens or Copelands or Hinns or whathaveyou because of that.

The tax burden on that property would be insane today.  To tax them would force them to move periodically for no other reason, and ultimately to move away from the congregation they serve.

If you stop and think about it for just a minute or two, you realize what a bad idea this would be.  Unless your real motive is simply to tax churches out of existence.

That also applies to most any lnonprofit that owns their premises in any town.  You tax their property, and most will be history.

[TwiceHorn 31519]

And of course most non-profits are simply able to lease office space because many aspects of their operation are no different from any other, wait for it, business.

So many of them avoid the appearance of being property rich.

[crash_davis 23114]

what's more profitable?  selling drugs or salvation? which clientele are bigger idiots?

[formermav43 4606]

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Taxing churches would violate the separation of church and state.

[Guest Lobo]

17 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Taxing churches would violate the separation of church and state.

Da Fuh?

[formermav43 4606]

Well, as  SCOTUS held, the tax exemption “restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” Taxing churches doesn’t promote separation-it places the government in a position of power over churches.

Of course, that’s only problematic if you REALLY believe in separation, whereas most of those banging the drum for it on these sorts of threads are all about the “wall” only working in one direction.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

58 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Da Fuh?

Take it up with the First Amendment and the Supreme Court.

On May 4, 1970, the US Supreme Court upheld property tax exemptions for churches, declaring them to be in accordance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the Court stated in its 8-1 decision that the exemptions did not equate with “the ‘establishment’ of a religion [that] connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity,” all of which are prohibited. The Court also defended the tax benefit on the basis that churches “foster [the community’s] ‘moral or mental improvement.'” Furthermore, the court warned that taxing churches would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which bars government interference in religious affairs. 

[Brisketexan 105196]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Furthermore, the court warned that taxing churches would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which bars government interference in religious affairs. 

That won't last.  See the recent history of "ecclesiastical abstention" -- the doctrine that says the gov't and courts won't get involved in inherently ecclesiastical disputes.*

* Which has effectively been amended to state "unless the gov't thinks it's chosen wing of a faith might lose, in which case they'll totally step in and rule."

There's literally books written on the subject, telling fundamentalists how to successfully litigate their church disputes (these days, all of those disputes are over the "God insists that we cast out the queers" variety).  And the courts just can't help but get involved to help their friends.

[Guest Lobo]

Thanks guys.  I went to law school I understand the legal argument. 
 

my question was regarding the first half of his post where he said the power to tax is the power to destroy.  If that were the case there would be no administration at any church because they all fall under ordinary taxable income.  I’m trying to marry together the myriad hypocrisies That Comprise our text system under what every organized religion cult member calls the separation clause

[Samson's Wig 3194]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you stop and think about it for just a minute or two, you realize what a bad idea this would be.  Unless your real motive is simply to tax churches out of existence.

Churches are handling that on their own without any interference on the tax front, so he'll get his wish soon enough anyway.  

What Osteen, et al, do for a living is disgusting and unethical, but if he were dodging taxes he would have been busted I would think.  Guys like that must have huge targets on their back.  

As the nation becomes less and less religious with the passing of time, the only churches left might be these mega churches which exist to feed the back pocket of guys like Osteen.  If we want it to stop we would need to find a way to criminalize the behavior, but the tax code isn't the place to do it (although I'm all for forcing them to report earnings/revenue/donations/etc.)

[formermav43 4606]

21 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Thanks guys.  I went to law school I understand the legal argument. 
 

my question was regarding the first half of his post where he said the power to tax is the power to destroy.  If that were the case there would be no administration at any church because they all fall under ordinary taxable income.  I’m trying to marry together the myriad hypocrisies That Comprise our text system under what every organized religion cult member calls the separation clause

You went to law school and don’t recognize an allusion to McCulloch v. Maryland?

More to the point, I think my response already addressed how that applies. Despite “da fuh” not being a terribly specific question.

[Brisketexan 105196]

2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

You went to law school and don’t recognize an allusion to McCulloch v. Maryland?

More to the point, I think my response already addressed how that applies. Despite “da fuh” not being a terribly specific question.

Dude.  On Surly, THIS is a specific question:

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

On 11/24/2019 at 7:15 AM, Johnny Sack said:

Profit centered?  They don’t make profits.  They don’t have shareholders who get paid dividends   What profits are you talking about?

And the main churches that engage in politics are the black churches, which are effectively a get out the vote entity of the Democrat party   

my church has Democrats and republicans.  So the pastor knows better than to politic for either side.  Black churches don’t have that constraint.  

So Johnny, a couple of people have asked already, but any chance you have actual evidence of this, beyond what Fox tells you about Jeremiah Wright? Do Southern Baptist churches "engage in politics"? What about Mormon churches?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

26 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

So Johnny, a couple of people have asked already, but any chance you have actual evidence of this, beyond what Fox tells you about Jeremiah Wright? Do Southern Baptist churches "engage in politics"? What about Mormon churches?

Neither of those churches have 99% of the people all voting the same way.  So they are naturally constrained by church members and their contributions by staying quiet about politics while up on the pulpit.  Even the Baptist church in the reddest county in America is going to have 20-25% percent of its contributions from democrats (think the local attorneys and such)  Black churches do not have that constraint at all.  No group votes in lock step like black Americans do.  Just the way it is.  They can do Souls to the Polls and no one bats an eye. 

Church leaders of any faith can politic when they are not in the pulpit.  They are citizens just like any other citizen.  What they cannot do is preach politics from the pulpit.  I have been attending a Southern Baptist church for a long time.  Serve as a deacon.  You just don't hear politics from the pulpit.  Ever.  I have been in churches in Houston, Dallas, East Texas, South Texas, etc.  Not once.

If you have attended a church and heard political lobbying from the pulpit, please advise where it was.  The IRS won't go after black churches.  It's a sacred cow.

[F250 28809]

I've heard politics from the pulpit at a Southern Baptist Church more times than I can count. I assume "politics" means different things to different people so if you don't hear it then you are maybe waiting to hear a pastor say "Vote Quimby" before you consider it political speech.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

58 minutes ago, F250 said:

I've heard politics from the pulpit at a Southern Baptist Church more times than I can count. I assume "politics" means different things to different people so if you don't hear it then you are maybe waiting to hear a pastor say "Vote Quimby" before you consider it political speech.

 

You should report it since it is so ubiquitous.  Record it and send to the IRS.

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

On 11/24/2019 at 11:43 AM, Johnny Sack said:

So your big example is Jeffress giving a comment to Fox News?

That isn’t a pulpit and thus isn’t illegal.  

Black churches are, by far, the most political of churches.  Because 95 percent of their members all vote the same.  And the other 5 percent wouldn’t admit to the way they vote.   You simply don’t see that any other churches anywhere.  

 

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Neither of those churches have 99% of the people all voting the same way.  So they are naturally constrained by church members and their contributions by staying quiet about politics while up on the pulpit.  Even the Baptist church in the reddest county in America is going to have 20-25% percent of its contributions from democrats (think the local attorneys and such)  Black churches do not have that constraint at all.  No group votes in lock step like black Americans do.  Just the way it is.  They can do Souls to the Polls and no one bats an eye. 

Church leaders of any faith can politic when they are not in the pulpit.  They are citizens just like any other citizen.  What they cannot do is preach politics from the pulpit.  I have been attending a Southern Baptist church for a long time.  Serve as a deacon.  You just don't hear politics from the pulpit.  Ever.  I have been in churches in Houston, Dallas, East Texas, South Texas, etc.  Not once.

If you have attended a church and heard political lobbying from the pulpit, please advise where it was.  The IRS won't go after black churches.  It's a sacred cow.

Again, any statistical evidence to back this up? Is 99.99% next? One poor lonely black person in a black church who doesn't vote Democrat? And even if this were completely true and not pulled out of your ass, what does this "Political Engagement" mean? The church I go to is a sanctuary church, takes part in social justice, works with local immigrants, etc. We have even <gasp> offered transportation assistance to homeless, infirm, elderly, etc. for voting (among other needs). There may be a few Republicans in church, but not many (and no, I am not Surly black mafia). Was this political engagement?

So, please, tell us how black churches are the most political, how you determined this, and how you define that (other than by being black).

[crash_davis 23114]

Black churches, white churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, what-ever-the-fuck, tax them all. The wealth that this Osteen asshole flaunts in the name of his god is perverted and ungodly. The fact that he has any defenders shows how far from the teachings of Christ Christianity has strayed.

[F250 28809]

22 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You should report it since it is so ubiquitous.  Record it and send to the IRS.

I'm not a fucking snitch. What kind of asshole reports people to the IRS?