Jump to content

Joel Osteen is a fraud meta thread

BurntOrange&White

By BurntOrange&White
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

The Dog

The Dog 44025

Posted
Posted

IIRC his "church" was turning away people until they were called out on Twitter about it. He only did anything once it became a PR nightmare. 

Of course when so many people follow this guy it makes political sense to stay in good graces with him - and for his political donation$. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
phdhorn

phdhorn 6224

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Proving once again how gullible religious people much a buncha suckups politicians can be.

Yeah, but the City of Houston ain't a church, nor religious.  This is 100% pandering to the masses.  Which is worse than gullible religious people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurntOrange&White

BurntOrange&White 39931

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This charlatan was turning people away from his church saying it wasn't to be used.  Special place in hell for people like him.   

It was worse than that he was blaming the flood so people went there and took pictures of dry areas and space and the only part that had standing water was lower level of parking garage if I recall correctly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Newdoc

Newdoc 3439

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

salvation is the easiest get rich scheme to sell.

Osteen isn't selling salvation. He's selling a feel good about yourself prosperity gospel and these days, it's much more profitable than selling salvation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Murfdogg21

Murfdogg21 4412

Posted
Posted

“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

 

How many tens of millions has he racked up in the money bin over at his River Oaks mansion? A veritable mix of John the Baptist and Friar Tuck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Diablo

El Diablo 4232

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Newdoc said:

Osteen isn't selling salvation. He's selling a feel good about yourself prosperity gospel and these days, it's much more profitable than selling salvation.

Did anyone at city hall or involved with the emergency response to the storm refute Osteen's claim that his church wasn't initially a refuge per the emergency plan that was in place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21805

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

tax them like any other entity.  they should have no special treatment.

They can branch off their purely charitable activities (homeless outreach, etc.) under a 501(c)(3) umbrella subject to the same requirements.  But they should pay property tax at least and other taxes same as everyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crash_davis

crash_davis 23107

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They can branch off their purely charitable activities (homeless outreach, etc.) under a 501(c)(3) umbrella subject to the same requirements.  But they should pay property tax at least and other taxes same as everyone else. 

what about the millions in donations that he gets from the thousands of idiots in his flock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21805

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

what about the millions in donations that he gets from the thousands of idiots in his flock?

There will be some things to work out, but anything that comes in that results in his mansion and yacht are clearly taxable.  Fucking morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trey3216

Trey3216 15346

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Bevo VIII said:


It was worse than that he was blaming the flood so people went there and took pictures of dry areas and space and the only part that had standing water was lower level of parking garage if I recall correctly.

That's why I've never, and will never, attend a church stadium.  Churches with parking garages and shit?!?!?!  GTFOH

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85316

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

That's why I've never, and will never, attend a church stadium.  Churches with parking garages and shit?!?!?!  GTFOH

Actually, and I'm not really defending them, just clarifying, they share with the office complex next door to use their parking for the churchgoers after work hours and on weekends. 

I would know, I work and park here.  And fuck if you need to go into the office on Sunday, due the church crowds all day long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trey3216

Trey3216 15346

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Actually, and I'm not really defending them, just clarifying, they share with the office complex next door to use their parking for the churchgoers after work hours and on weekends. 

I would know, I work and park here.  And fuck if you need to go into the office on Sunday, due the church crowds all day long.

Ok, that makes partial sense.  It's still a church stadium.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
52-80

52-80 19151

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They can branch off their purely charitable activities (homeless outreach, etc.) under a 501(c)(3) umbrella subject to the same requirements.  But they should pay property tax at least and other taxes same as everyone else. 

You know the government will not do this.  On the grounds that it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patricio Swayze

Patricio Swayze 17058

Posted
Posted
Actually, and I'm not really defending them, just clarifying, they share with the office complex next door to use their parking for the churchgoers after work hours and on weekends. 
I would know, I work and park here.  And fuck if you need to go into the office on Sunday, due the church crowds all day long.

I used to work in Greenway Plaza. Sometimes overtime on the weekends. It did suck.

Oh yeah, and fuck this guy. What a piece of shit. I can’t believe people listen to him and give him money. I bet there are a few on this site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, staboner said:

yes we are, and that is why they need to be taxed like all other entities. 

Not really. In most cases, it seems that those with the "tax churches" viewpoint are all for keeping the church out of the government but not the other way around. It's not a matter of principle but hostility to religion; that's implicit in the call to tax churches rather than all non-profits, for instance.

The Supreme Court has held that tax exemption is not only constitutional, but it reinforces the desired separation of church and state, where taxing churches would break that down (Walz v. Tax Commission). Taxing churches creates a relationship - the government has to assign value to what is taxed, and now the church is paying to support the government. Neither of those things is good.

The wall either works both ways or not at all.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4969

Posted
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Not really. In most cases, it seems that those with the "tax churches" viewpoint are all for keeping the church out of the government but not the other way around. It's not a matter of principle but hostility to religion; that's implicit in the call to tax churches rather than all non-profits, for instance.

The Supreme Court has held that tax exemption is not only constitutional, but it reinforces the desired separation of church and state, where taxing churches would break that down (Walz v. Tax Commission). Taxing churches creates a relationship - the government has to assign value to what is taxed, and now the church is paying to support the government. Neither of those things is good.

The wall either works both ways or not at all.

I understand this argument, I just don't agree with it. 

A church is a property like others and by not taxing it the gov is treating the church differently than other parties, which in my mind violates the separation of church and state

if simply interacting with each other (as you note there "creates a relationship"), then what about a building code? a parking lot? special events with police working em..so what is an acceptable relationship then?

I don't have hostility to religion. On the contrary, I think the special treatment to date is holding religion practice back actually and limiting its ability to adapt and thrive. And its creating Osteens too. 

Edited by staboner
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shmitty

Shmitty 112

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, formermav43 said:

Not really. In most cases, it seems that those with the "tax churches" viewpoint are all for keeping the church out of the government but not the other way around. It's not a matter of principle but hostility to religion; that's implicit in the call to tax churches rather than all non-profits, for instance.

The Supreme Court has held that tax exemption is not only constitutional, but it reinforces the desired separation of church and state, where taxing churches would break that down (Walz v. Tax Commission). Taxing churches creates a relationship - the government has to assign value to what is taxed, and now the church is paying to support the government. Neither of those things is good.

The wall either works both ways or not at all.

The separation of church and state also applies to keeping church out of our government.  And if they try to influence our government like a PAC or any other organization then they should be taxed.    The biggest threat to our freedoms is when others try to legislate their beliefs upon others.  Have you ever lived in Utah?  I have and I've seen first hand how it creeps into the lives of everyone.  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Shmitty said:

The separation of church and state also applies to keeping church out of our government.  And if they try to influence our government like a PAC or any other organization then they should be taxed.    The biggest threat to our freedoms is when others try to legislate their beliefs upon others.  Have you ever lived in Utah?  I have and I've seen first hand how it creeps into the lives of everyone.  

Agree completely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31456

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Shmitty said:

The separation of church and state also applies to keeping church out of our government.  And if they try to influence our government like a PAC or any other organization then they should be taxed.    The biggest threat to our freedoms is when others try to legislate their beliefs upon others.  Have you ever lived in Utah?  I have and I've seen first hand how it creeps into the lives of everyone.  

Well, every piece of legislation reflects beliefs.  Some are more commonly held than others.  Some are more clearly identified with religious philosophy than others.

 

The other reasons churches aren't taxes is that 99% of them, the ones you never read about, are a net social good, both for their own congregation and broader interests.  I think they should be scrutinized carefully to make sure they aren't used as profiteering or political  vehicles, but the vast, vast majority are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...