Evangelical pastor to his followers: Jesus hasn't come back because you haven't given me enough money - DeadState
By: Sky Palma
tax these thumper scam artists as religious money laundering businesses that they have become.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
During a recent Victorython on the Victory channel, evangelical pastor Jesse Duplantis said that the reason Jesus hasn't come back yet is because people aren't donating to their churches generously enough.
"I honestly believe this — the reason why Jesus hasn't come is because people are not giving the way God told them to give," he said.
"I realized that I will not move people emotionally to give," he said later in the segment. "I'm gonna have people move according to the word of God. What is God saying to you? … If people would call this number and put this victory all over the world, every available voice, every available outlet, God the Father would say, 'Jesus, go get 'em.' Because, you see, he wants to see us as much as we want to see him. … And so what is hindering all these things is because people are not doing in the financial realm — because we're living in an economic world — what God's called them to do."
"So I don't have a problem with giving, I don't have a problem with receiving. It doesn't make any difference," he continued. "I just made up my mind, I want Jesus to come."
Watch the religious extortion video by going to seeded content.
trolling, taunting, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
apparently the teavangelical's savior now has a personal appearance fee and a trip charge...
please help keep christo-fascism and white supremacy off the NT front page by commenting and voting up seeds like this one - thank you
Praise the Lord and pass the platter.
he knows how much you have and how much you gave...
He works for the IRS?
Yep, the Income Removal Service...
Does this twatwaffle even remember when Jesus attacked the evil moneychangers by overturning their table?
The core problem is not these disgusting con-men but rather the abundance of gullible people (the faithful). If these 'faithful' had half a mind to think critically these thieving Jesus peddlers would disappear.
one of my set of cousin's maternal grandfather was a hellfire and damnation traveling preacher in texas and oklahoma during the depression. drove a new cadillac every year. paid cash for his retirement home with the proceeds of jars of gold coins he had saved from the collection plates he lived high on the hog off of.
I used to be one of the gullible.
I even supported the 700 Club for a year in the early 80s.
But at least I knew that Oral Roberts' faith healing was a sham.
This is why I often want to save the saved from themselves.
(Shaking head with amusement and disgust at the roads I have traveled in life.)
Isn't Roberts the one who claimed that if he did not receive 4 million by the next day that God would kill him. Well one fool actually sent him the money....IDIOT!
I think so. Several have done similar things when their time in the spotlight fades and they need a large cash inflow before a new charlatan takes center stage.
Roberts used to be on local tv on Sunday mornings in the 60s in my area. This was revolting then and even more so today.
Actually, Robert's words were that "God would call him home." Same difference I guess. My best friend always said that anytime he heard the name Oral Roberts, it reminded him of a disease of the mouth. To me, he and these other megachurch evangelists just have a disease of the soul.
In my opinion, in that moment of rage Jesus violated the unwritten Lou Piniella Rule: No flipping the postgame spread because the umps cost you the game in that 16-2 loss to the Brewers.
In this case, I believe Jesus would most certainly flip this pastor's spread, and Lou Piniella might as well. Rules be damned!
So the faithful open up their checkbooks and give...
"A fool and his money are soon parted." ---Thomas Tussler
"A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place."---Gordon Gecko
Too bad it doesn't seem to last.
Jessie should change his last name from Duplantis to Duplicity.
One would think that an all-powerful god could manage without money.
The ones who can think do think that.
maybe he left his wallet in his other pants...
And he left those at his girlfriend's house.
He needs a lot of one dollar bills for when he visits the angel strip clubs.
Well, that would explain what happened to his other pants...
Ask any contractor... building all of heaven and earth in 6 days is going to cost you handsomely in up-front fast-track charges. The expedited delivery charges on the materials alone would be staggering, and that was before Fed Ex! Also, imagine the change orders on a job like that! And forget about a surety bond on such a project, who'd come in to finish the job if He failed? We'll be paying God off for that work for millennia, even with no interest....
True, I suppose. If we weren't funding him handsomely, god would probably have torn the walls off of the garden of Eden and covered it with a tarp before disappearing for 3 millennia to go work on the Himalayas or something.
I think he subbed that part out, and the sub-contractor went WAY overboard with Everest in my opinion.
Conspicuous consumption?
The gullible never cease to amaze me.
This is the typical shit from Duplantis. This is an hour long sales pitch to send him money. He has the Bible claiming that God wants you to send him money. Here he is taking advantage of the devastation from hurricane Ida. He brings new meaning to the phrase 'has no shame'.
If you watch the first 5 minutes and then the last 5 minutes you will see everything.
he's teaching the gospel to his flock... ... of morons with credit cards...
Get yours today!
make sure you have on clean underwear and nothing embarrassing in your pockets...
People are drawn to religion because it starts out as ALL about them - why they were created, the purpose they were created for, why they are so special and loved.
They are pumped up by their earthly leader/advisor/savior/con man to be very egotistical before they are told how flawed they are and all of the hoops they must jump to be truly saved and re-united with their loving creator.
Religion seems to be largely headed by people who don't have conscience preying on the people who do.
Maybe he should hit Joel Olestein up? He seems to have plenty to spread around....I mean, spend on himself.
What he spreads could fertilize crops.
CPS should investigate every one of these donors along with a forensic accountant to see if these morons are depriving their own children to send these assholes money.
What else could one expect from somebody that is good buds with fellow greedy megachurch evangelist crook Kenneth Copeland. Two peas in a pod those two.
Ever see this disgusting display, Ed?:
Yep. Disgusting is too mild a term for this scumbag!
You know, I feel sorry for these guys' victims sometimes, but when I hear the audience laughing along with him at a woman who had the nerve to question him, I don't feel quite so sorry for them. They're a bully's willing sidekicks. They support and willingly give their lunch money to the bully.
That is how I view contemporary Trump supporters. It is one thing for people to hold their noses and support Trump for his policies. This is what I think quite a few people did in both 2016 and 2020. I understand why they would do that; they hold policies as a priority over character, integrity and presidential demeanor.
But after Trump revealed to the world in no uncertain terms the depth of his abysmal character, the degree to which he would lie (limitless it seems) and his willingness to harm the nation to cope with his bruised ego (never admitting defeat to avoid people labeling him a loser as he did to so many others) there is no excuse for continued support of this malignant narcissist, pathological liar.
Those who continue to prop up Trump rather than seek at least a marginally decent human being to lead the party are now absolutely to blame for the damage they do to the R party and to the nation. There is no excuse, in my mind, for anyone to support Trump given how clearly he has shown the depths of his abysmal character since losing the election.
Whatever bizarre twist of human reason that perpetuates Trump supporters is, I suspect, the same phenomenon that perpetuates the sycophantic following of these slimy prosperity gospel snakes.
Sad thing is, that most of them have children. So it is not just their lunch money they are giving to the bully.
They're all evil scum.
Duplantis is obviously a successful swindling con man, but I really have trouble taking his religious shtick seriously.
Apparently and inexplicably, many people do not and buy into his BS, both figuratively and literally. It boggles the mind as to how people cannot see him for what he is and even may defend him. It's religious delusion on full display.
I wish more people could see through him, but the existence of his (and Copeland's, and Osteen's, etc.) megachurches based on prosperity gospel is evidence that many fall for it.
Worse, legitimate churches and their supporters provide cover for these con-artists. They apparently fear that the government exercising proper oversight on anything defined as an IRS 'church' would be a slippery slope that would cause the government to violate the 1st amendment. Another argument is that it is just too difficult for the government to find legal wrongdoings in these organizations because they are too sophisticated. As if the government was so inept that it could not pierce the veil of a scam as obvious as Copeland, Duplantis, Dollar, etc. whose owners are magically filthy rich and live exorbitant lifestyles. There are IRS guidelines on how much compensation is 'reasonable' for executives of non-profit organizations. Copeland lives in a $6.5 million 'parsonage' on property with its own airport, own fuel supply, two jets and two planes.
But the political backlash is too high a cost to even do a real investigation, so for the most part these con-artists are treated with kid gloves and are allowed to continue to enjoy the protection and privileges of a legitimate church. Worse, every day they operate, they tarnish the reputation of the legitimate churches who (with their members) ironically provide the political cover that protects them from oversight.
One would think that would provide enough motivation for legitimate churches' congregations to call the con artists to account for their sins, but it seems they won't. I remember when everybody was pissed off at Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, but Jim has a TV show again, and there's a new biopic about Tammy Faye that, from the reviews, paints her in a favorable light.
No doubt that they want these con-artists to stop but they hold back (and even defend them) because they are recognized by the IRS as 'churches'.
It is irrational, but they appear to think that just because they meet the IRS definition of 'church' that this means any action taken against these con-artists opens a slippery slope to take down legitimate churches.
The Bakkers are an example of why this is irrational. Did the government go on a witch hunt taking down legitimate churches after Bakker was investigated and found guilty of mail / wire fraud and conspiracy? Our government is very careful to steer waaaay clear of anything that smells like a violation of the 1st.
Not at all. Nor do I recall any fear at the time that they would. The Bakkers were pretty much universally condemned by religious leaders and lay people as shysters. His fraud was judged to have been committed by him, not by a church.
I am convinced that Copeland is possessed by Satan.
The descriptor 'evil incarnate' might apply.
Yep to both you and Frost. Like I said previously, they suffer from a disease of the soul. That's if they had any to begin with that is.
And they have "Take me I'm yours" written all oiver their ignorant faces.
Another appropriate idiom..."Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
That fits very well too, Buzz.
Good song also.
Do all of you see these Prosperity Gospel preachers as different from the mainstream of Christianity or simply the most egregious examples of what you consider the whole to be?
Does mainstream christianity do anything about these gospel preachers? Or do they just let them continue with their fleecing the gullible and ignorant? Many seem to follow them. If so, then they are enabling them and complicit in their actions.
What do you suggest?
Christians taking responsibility for their own for starters.
then they'd alienate the majority of their voting block, and their votes, and their cash. without enough time for reconciliation before the next election. same thing would happen with the white supremacist xtians if they got called out.
How? Specifically. I'm not even sure what that means.
These televangelists are usually not part of any denomination, as identifying with one denomination makes you less likely to get money from members of others.
They're not Methodists or Baptists or Presbyterians or Lutherans or any other group who could disown them or discipline them. They do that on purpose. They're not stupid.
So what actions, specifically, do you want to see taken and by whom?
That's for Christians to decide, as they're the ones likely being conned and being made to look bad. I'm neither a Christian nor gullible enough to fall for their BS so I have no stake in it.
Well, I think you've answered your question.
The reason they don't "do something" is that there really isn't anything they can do.
They can stop supporting or sending money to them. They can stop listening to them or attending their services. They can point out their scams or correct their lies and misinformation. ect..
The overwhelming majority of them are already doing that.
Apparently not enough.
Don't expect the head guy (Pope) to step up. His silence regarding these con artists says it all.
the only differences are the methods and the math.
Perhaps they're both the same? It's only the scale of it that is different.
The RC's are worth $15B with as much as $2B invested in the Italian stock market (20%). They have successfully avoided all sorts of taxes or just refused to pay them (dividends).
The Vatican has it's own army of priest lawyers, accountants, realtors and investors.
They recently revealed ownership of 5,000 "properties", 1,000 in London alone.
But they don't concentrate the wealth in the hands of one or two people, lol, and the vast majority of priests & nuns do not live lives of luxury.
I suspect that total is a fraction of their assets. it even sounds light for their real estate holdings.
The treasures hidden in the Vatican basement alone most likely more than top that amount, much less all the other treasures snd assets they have around the world.
The Vatican even has its own bank.
Yes, they are quite different in the extremes and their motivations.
Prosperity gospel 'preachers' are pure con-men. They purposely and knowingly target the most gullible and then shamelessly exploit them to enhance their own wealth and power.
Then we have 'preachers' who are on power trips and are not strictly greedy like the above. I place the likes of Ken Ham in this category. Ham must know that he is full of shit given all the crazy contortions (e.g. dinosaurs on the Ark) he goes through to discredit science so as to hold to his textually literal interpretation of the King James Bible. Thus Ham is a slimy con-artist but seems to be motivated more by power than wealth.
That stated, most of the preachers are, in my estimation, true believers who honestly think they are doing good.
I've regularly seen conservatives here try and paint all liberals and progressives with the ANTIFA extremist brush, seeding article after article as if they represent everyone on the left. Jesse Duplantis has tens of thousands of conservative followers who have given him tens of millions of dollars, he is far more representative of conservative Christians than any left wing extremists are of liberals and progressives in general.
Why quote the question if you weren't going to answer it?
Those with decent reading comprehension understood my answer which was that the tens of thousands of followers of such a "Prosperity Gospel preacher" clearly represents at least a good portion of "mainstream" Christianity. The others still do all the same things and welcome the millions poured into their Churches by the believers they've bamboozled, they're just not as open about what they spend those millions on or shameless enough to blame their followers for Christ not yet appearing due to their lack of religious charity.
Why do some only show up to prove that they're whiny little bitches with absolutely nothing to offer other than deflection, projection and or denial?
Their comments, etc etc ain't worth 2cents
[deleted]
*poof*
The difference between Prosperity Gospel preachers and those who support them, and real Christians
gee, I was hoping for a more documentary type of format. couldn't make it all the way to the end, where I assume a few bible verses explain why the good christians don't have to deal with all the bad chri$tians, before the next last crusade starts. FYI - post production probably could have gotten the run time down to 3+ minutes of the subject matter by trimming out all the bible verses and proselytizing.
You're not the first person to suggest we have some responsibility for "dealing with the bad Christians". What do you think we can do about it other than what we already do? Is there some ecclesiastical court somewhere they can be brought to trial? Has there been some sort of Constitutional action that I have missed that recognizes some specific Christian body as official and been endowed with the power to prosecute apostates?
As for the proselytizing charge, this video is primarily made for other Christians in order to show them why people like Duplantis are distorting Christianity. But even if the target audience were non-believers, how does Inspiring Philosophy make the point it is making without including what a real Christian is about? While I can certainly understand why you think it's proselytizing, it's hardly fair that all of you can drag Christianity in general through the mud because of what these Prosperity Gospel types are doing but not allow a rebuttal that is intended to show the difference between them and real Christians and what they believe. Had I posted this with the intent of offering any of you salvation, your charge would be applicable. Since that isn't the intent, it's spurious and simply petty.
What is it that you do to counteract, humiliate, and embarass the conartists?
I continue to wonder why our society allows these con-artists to freely scam their audiences. The answer appears to be that nobody wants to touch the 'separation of church and state'. So all Copeland, et. al. need do to establish a perfectly legal scam operation is to register as a church.
This is a glaring loophole that continues because of the super-majority of people in our nation who categorically hold religious organizations as privileged and would object to any legal imposition.
In short, our culture allows religious organizations to freely scam the gullible.
Organized religion is always susceptible to abuse by those who want to take personal advantage, because religions are all human creations of cultural expression.
In olden days, individual citizens were held more ignorant because many of them could not read or write, or have reading materials available to them.
Today very few people have such excuses.
I identify as Catholic because I like overall message of catholicism, but I do not blindly accept every thing ecclesiastical leaders and teachers say. Some of it is not appealing.
religion is a business, a tax exempt business, that for the last 40+ years has operated as a money laundering business benefiting one party over another, in defiance of the US Constitution. tax them as a business
no need, that posted video did it for you.
We don't allow proselytizing in this group
Tell the truth about the Gospel and what the Bible says to those who will listen. Others, like the creator of this video put stuff like this out. Others write articles and books. All of it is there to explain why these Prosperity Gospel types are wolves in sheep's clothing. But more importantly, anyone seriously seeking God will read the Bible and, if they do so for the purpose of learning what the Bible says in truth, rather than what they want it to say, they will see these wolves for what they are without much outside help.
Perhaps, though, what you have in mind is more along the lines of the sort of activism we see today? Picketing those "churches", shouting how awful they all are and how they are all going to Hell, maybe? Whatever it is you imagine, why should we Christians, if we were to take that route, limit it to just these preachers and their congregation? None of the rest of you are following the word of God, either. Why shouldn't we do the same to you?
Here's the deal, Trout Giggles. As much as you guys like to believe we are trying to make everyone believe what we do, it simply isn't true. Sure, there are examples of those who do try to force it on others, but like these Prosperity Gospel types, they are outliers. They aren't the norm. I'm not any more responsible for your soul than I am for those who listen to wolves. I would no more force you, counteract you, humiliate or embarrass you any more than I would them. I can't make you go to God any more than I can make them.
Yes, I know. That's why I didn't do it.
I assume you are a proponent of the separation clause, as am I. Why, then, do you want to work against that by taxing churches? There's that "no taxation without representation" thing to think about, you know? So, if you take away the tax exempt status from churches you are not only saying you want them to be involved in politics more than they already are but you are also making the argument that no entity, no matter how charitable, should be tax exempt, since the same argument can be made for them as well.
As much as you guys like to imagine that churches are really just businesses, they aren't, with notable exceptions like Copeland and his like. Churches don't just magically exist. They cost money to run, like any other charity does.
One would do it in an attempt to mitigate the success of those who get rich by exploiting the god factor. That is, to help the gullible break free from these con-artists.
No, I don't want protesters outside the Assembly of God church in my town. They would get in the way of my Sunday morning IHOP visit.
What I want...is that tax exempt status yanked from all these con artists. The ones who are living in 50M dollar mansions and have 100M jet planes
I think the majority of the churches (and that means small to medium sized) are as you describe.
But we know there are plenty of churches that are indeed successfully acquiring and abusing (not for charity) their revenues. The Catholic church (as an institution) has amassed absurd levels of wealth. If genuinely altruistic much of that wealth would have been used to help people.
The trick is how to separate the true, altruistic, charitable organizations from those that clearly are not. Let's just start with the extremes and find a way to put Copeland, et. al. out of business.
But we will not even address the extremes like Copeland and Duplantis.
It is not in any way a loophole. It is, in fact, exactly what it was intended to be. Although the government is now doing what it can to tell you what to believe it was exactly that sort of thing the framers were trying to prevent. Who are you, or who am I, to tell others what they can and can't do with their money and time? Who are you, or who am I, to tell another what constitutes a valid religion? And, once we start down that road, where will it end? Look at what China does to it's religious population. Is that where you want us to end up? Would that be acceptable to you?
As sad as the Prosperity Gospel situation may be, it's vastly preferable to the government telling me what I can and can't believe, religiously. What if the government acted with prejudice against atheists? That wouldn't sit well with you, I imagine.
It's fairly clear that most here believe all of religion is a con and those who participate in it are gullible. Why, then, should I not fear that I and my beliefs would be next, for my own good, of course?
Interesting phrasing. "Let's just start with.."
They did at one time and in some states they still do. Atheists can't hold public office in some states. I think Arkansas is one of them
Why should what you want be a factor? Why is it that what you want justifies intruding into the life of another because you don't approve of what they are voluntarily doing? No one is forcing anyone to follow these wolves. They are doing it of their own free will. Why should I not be concerned about what you want or don't want about what I am doing with my own life? Why should I not be concerned that, someday, you may just decide that Christians are a major problem and that gives you the right to determine what I can and can't do, simply because of what you want or don't want?
Do you see the problem?
they are over represented in all branches of our government without paying any taxes now.
Considering my world view, atheists are one of the most egregious cons out there. They are working to deprive people of God and their souls, whether they see it that way or not. In spite of my view, I wouldn't dream of supporting discriminatory practices against them. Why? Well, that's the whole point. I don't have the right to force people to believe what I believe. I don't have the right to tell them what to believe at all. That's their choice to make, not mine.
People in government don't pay taxes? I wasn't aware of that.
Wholeheartedly disagree. There are too many believers in other Gods plus those who believe in the absence of one.
1000% in agreement.
The loophole is that which allows the likes of Copeland and Duplantis to operate.
The problem is positions like yours which include Copeland and Duplantis, et. al. within the religious organization umbrella and provide them the benefits when they are actually doing the opposite of what a genuine church should do.
You do not think it is right for society to distinguish which organizations are allowed privileges? You think it is sensible that merely declaring oneself a church means they should get the benefits of legitimate religious organizations?
Society most definitely has the right to make the distinction.
Now that is a screwed up view. Atheists, if anything, are encouraging people to break free of religious dogma and think for themselves. To not simply believe something because another human being (even ancient ones) simply claim it is true. To question mere claims and seek supporting evidence and reason.
Here is something to ponder. You clearly understand that Ken Ham is full of shit. You know that he spends all of his time trying to dumb people down to reject evolution, reject all scientific methods of dating, etc. and to believe that the planet is but 6,000 years old and dinosaurs had two seats on the ark. If you were to encourage any YEC who believes such nonsense to question the dogma and investigate the science with an open mind, would you consider yourself to be engaging in an egregious con because it goes against a religious belief?
I suggested going after the extremes — those who are clearly (to any sane mind) engaging in a massive con. You are unwilling to even do that. That attitude is precisely why the likes of Copeland continue to thrive.
No, I don't think it would be right.
It doesn't have anything to do with what is sensible, or it shouldn't. What it has to do with is freedom of conscience, freedom of belief. Copeland is an unavoidable side effect of having those freedoms.
Only if it significantly impacts society. Sheep giving their money to wolves doesn't significantly affect society. It only significantly affects the sheep. Rather, what has a bee in your bonnet over these wolves is the sheer magnitude of of these wolves lack of conscience in their predation of others and getting away with it. I, also feel that way but even more than that, I am incensed over the abuse of God's word to deceive others for their own benefit. That is the true horror of the situation as far as I am concerned.
As horrifying as I find it, however, it can't be any other way unless we toss the separation clause out the window and just start regulating religion, which would be exactly what we'd be doing.
Yes, I'm aware of your view, even the mischaracterization I put in italics. Not relevant, nor am I going to engage you in an argument about atheism. The point is, how I feel about it doesn't justify my working to limit what you can and can't do as an atheist, even if I think atheism is harmful to the well being of the country.
Then no church should be allowed privileges since it is society that distinguished churches from other organizations to grant said privileges.
See, if society has the right to grant privilege it (logically) has the right to NOT grant privilege.
How about setting stricter requirements to qualify as a church? Here is a thought, how about limiting the percentage of donations that can go to the owners of a church? Certainly a church should not have its donations used to make a $54 million private jet available to its ' preacher '. Especially if the ' preacher ' already effectively owns his own private airport and three jets:
Categorically including all organizations that declare themselves to be churches in the umbrella that was intended to protect legitimate faith-based organizations allows these con-artists to continue.
Why? Does this surprise you? It shouldn't. You know I believe in God and what the Bible has to say about Him. It would therefore follow that I would see atheism as a deception.
In any case, it's irrelevant. The point was that, even though I consider atheism to be a con, it doesn't give me license to impose what I think or what I want onto you. End point.
Religions encourage the faithful to believe in what they merely claim as truth. That is no mischaracterization, it is an obvious fact.
The reason American society has defended against this "right" you wish you claim is that the power associated with such a "right" would be abused within the first 15 seconds and that abuse would then accelerate exponentially.
People who send money to televangelists do not need your protection. They are not asking for your protection, they do not want your protection, and they will do everything they can to defend themselves from your protection.
They believe what they believe. Fine. They are certainly not the only Americans who believe utter nonsense and who donate money to peddlers of foolish pipe dreams.
You deem atheism to be an egregious con. That does surprise me. I thought you understood atheism better than that. There is no 'con'. Even the most outspoken atheists speak of that which is evidenced and logical. They do not put forth unsubstantiated claims (as a rule) and pocket $$$ gained by promising benefits and never delivering. They challenge grand claims which directly influence the lives of billions and have zero supporting evidence.
What, exactly, is the con? What is the deception? Challenging mere claims is a con??
I don't see how this follows from my comment. I said it would not be right to allow society to make distinctions. The reason is the constitution, not society, grants rights.
Again, no. It is the congregation's job to hold the preacher accountable, not the government. If the congregation won't hold the preacher accountable then, in my opinion, they deserve what they get. Anyone who reads the Bible exegetically knows the Copeland's of the world are wolves. Therefore, Copeland's flock, for the most part, are probably just as greedy and mistreat the word for the same reasons Copeland does. They see Copeland and think "That's what I want" rather than God.
Then society should never change any of its granted rights because doing so would accelerate exponentially.
Society granted the right for con-artists like Copeland to have the rights of a church by mere declaration. You do not want to go after such extremes for fear that it would harm legit churches. In result, that attitude keeps Copeland, et. al. in business.
Okay, then let's abolish the FDA. We do not need a government agency's protection. Clearly the individuals in society are perfectly capable of protecting themselves from dangerous substances without the government stepping in.
Prove it, then. Prove that what I believe is true I only believe because someone told me it was.
The CotUS is part of what constitutes our society. Society is an all encompassing term. Society is the governing authority over the CotUS. In theory, the members of our society (who are eligible to vote) could amend the CotUS.
Society has the right to make laws to protect itself. Fraud is against the law. I am suggesting, for example, that the legal definition of fraud should include extremes like Copeland.
I wrote:
You translated the above ⇡ into: "Religions force people to believe what they merely claim as truth." and "The only reason people believe in god is because a religion made them do so.".
Neither of the above represents what I actually wrote.
What I actually wrote is obvious fact. If you do not see this then I suspect you would reject all evidence to the contrary.
Yes, start with the extremes like Copeland and keep ridding out the con-men after him.
I have no interest in getting rid of legitimate churches. Presume less.
Maybe you cannot see the difference, but I clearly see the difference between a religious organization engaging in worship vs. one (in name only) that is engaging in fraud to line the pockets of the owners.
And your inability to make the distinction and/or lack of desire to take action is why (given you are not alone) the Copeland's of the world persist. This type of thinking is what protects these miserable sacks of shit.
No, I didn't. I responded to exactly what you said.
I'm not presuming anything. I'm simply quoting what you stated. The point was not about you specifically, which I think you know, but that "Let's just start with.." is how the snowball starts off and why I am against what you are proposing. It isn't all about you, TiG. There are others out there who would love to take it a lot farther. For instance, I've heard it countless times that putting children in Sunday School is indoctrination, brainwashing and child abuse. So, why shouldn't the government, in the interest of society, nix that as well?
My comment:
States a common position of atheists. The position is that people should not believe something simply because a religious authority claims it is true. And that people should question such claims from authorities and seek supporting evidence and reason.
It does not state ALL religious people ONLY hold their beliefs because they were told to do so.
Presume less; read more carefully.
Drakk, you routinely presume with me in spite of what I write. This thread provides examples of this.
Yeah but you presume that is my intent (since you replied to me and quoted me). So I am going to correct your presumption.
And now you play this game again. If I challenge your misrepresentation of my words you claim that I am making this about me. You are playing games.
So wait until someone states that. I am not interested in defending positions I did not make. It is not my position that the government should interfere in genuine faith-based (legal) practices like Sunday School.
In short, if you intend to challenge me then at least challenge me on what I wrote and not engage in wild speculation on what I might be thinking (and you are often wrong here).
And that right there is the attitude that enables and protects the Copeland's of the world. You refuse to take any action against the extremes for fear that it might snowball into the legitimate religious organizations.
In result, Copeland is looking to buy his fourth jet for $54 million so that he can ' continue his ministries in spite of the coronavirus '.
He's obviously only here to shit on atheists and non believers and elevate all christians small c and otherwise including the scumbag scammers, which the majority of the evangelicals are
Utterly ridiculous. Which is out of character for you, frankly.
Copeland et al are still in business because they're very good at convincing stupid people to send them money. My attitude has nothing to do with it.
The declaration in question protects Americans from having to justify their religious beliefs to the government. I cannot imagine how the value of that liberty is somehow in question.
What metrics do you suggest should be used to differentiate "legit" churches from others? Or will this just be a subjective call? That couldn't possibly go wrong 18 million different ways or anything.
Really? Do you hear yourself?
I dunno TiG, maybe we should ask ourselves if we really think that sending $100 to Copeland carries the same hazard as contracting salmonella or eating tuna with metal shards in it.
Or maybe we should ask ourselves why sending money to a televangelist is so different than spending it on aromatherapy or essential oils or lottery tickets or CBD or healing crystals or Bernie for President campaigns or Dogecoins any of the other thousands of bullshit things Americans waste money on because they believe it has some sort of future value despite all evidence to the contrary. None of that shit is any different, and we don't "protect" people from their own stupidity there.
Or maybe we should remember that we don't "protect" Americans from blowing their money on all the other things that do nothing more than make them feel a little better, like music or movies or football tickets or festivals or whiskey or even giving it to the homeless panhandler on the corner to feed his meth habit. We don't stop them blowing money on the new Callaway driver, despite the fact we ALL know they're not going to hit a golf ball 1 inch farther than they already do.
Spending stupid money is something Americans do in vast quantities every day of our lives.
So what's the specific hard-on for televangelists that is worth risking thousands of actual churches?
Well since it is out of character, did it occur to you that I was making a point by illustrating a ridiculous principle? That your stated principle of abolishing the right of the extreme to legally engage in fraud of millions of people would necessarily, within 15 seconds, accelerate exponentially into abuse is what is ridiculous: ⇣
The fear of a snowball effect can be used then in any situation. It is, IMO, an irrational fear. Every situation is different and while the snowball effect does occur, applying it as an excuse for inaction is a weak argument. I was illustrating that. Yes, ridiculous is correct.
I reject the idea that it is not possible to go after slimy con-men like Copeland who are peddling their hyped-up influence with God to get people to send them money which they then accept while their underlings deliver canned responses to the faithful without attacking the legitimate religious organizations that I have stated earlier make up the majority in the USA.
Sure it does. And it is not your attitude that matters but the fact that the attitude you expressed is apparently held by the majority. If the attitude of the electorate was to go after slimy con-men like Copeland, our politicians and officials would not be so gun-shy of religious organizations. The arguments you and Drakk are making here illustrate why Copeland, et.al. continue. These arguments (given it is obviously not just you two making them) protect these con-artists.
So where then do you draw the line Jack? Clearly you see a need in some cases for the government to protect the people from themselves. Why is it that con-men like Copeland can freely run a religious scam organization in the USA that, according to Copeland, has 122 million followers? Your opinion, it would seem, is that Copeland et. al. are not causing sufficient harm and should be allowed to legally defraud people.
Any significant level of public fraud should be illegal. Is your argument in the quoted paragraph that because we allow fraud in other venues that we should allow it here? That we cannot go after all fraud so do not bother with religious fraud?
You phrase this as 'protecting people from their own stupidity' and in doing so shift from the point I am making. I am not arguing to protect people from their own stupidity as the primary focus; my primary focus is on fraud. If Copeland was making his money selling books and videos that are true to advertising then that is one thing. That is, IMO, people being stupid. But contrast that with Copeland making promises to intercede with God on behalf of those donating and Copeland claiming that God will deliver prosperity to you if you sow the seed by sending him money. This is fraud. He is selling that which he clearly does not deliver — not even remotely close.
Fraud should be against the law even when 'religious' organizations perpetrate the fraud.
Drakk, seems to me, thinks that anyone who encourages others to question religion is harming those individuals in the worst possible way. Try to imagine believing that the Christian God is real and that all human beings need to be as close to God as possible for their eternal good. If that is what you truly believe then any atheist message is the worst possible thing that can be done.
Maybe but, personally, I find it doubtful. Trying to write a tax code to preclude a specific thing like a Copeland usually doesn't end well. Unforeseen consequences and all that. I believe it's just about impossible to legislate correct, moral behavior into people. I think Jack put it about as well as it could be put back in 16.1.33 when he said...
Same : )
That is too specific. How about a tax code wherein religious organization tax exempt status is forfeited for organizations bringing in $1m or more per year if more than 10% of church donations benefit the owners (directly as in paychecks or indirectly as in access to a fleet of private jets)? Pick your numbers, I just supplied examples.
But beyond tax code, how about we stop giving these clearly fraudulent organizations a pass so that officials will actually investigate organizations such as Copeland's and Duplantis' and maybe engage in an audit?
It is not as though we are devoid of ideas on how to expose these con-jobs and, in so doing, enhance the reputations of those that are true churches:
Imagine the level of fraud that exists in the Copeland 'ministry' and how scam artists like Copeland and Duplantis would be reduced if the people did not dissuade normal government forces from auditing these over-the-top and obvious exceptions.
The framer's of the Constitution held a different view. With good reason.
I reject the idea that you can codify the difference in such a way that any government employee charged with enforcing your rule will not run roughshod over the religious freedoms of large numbers of "legitimate" religious followers.
I noticed you didn't answer the metric question. How do you intend to differentiate between what you see as "legitimate" churches and those you intend to prosecute?
Yes. Exactly. That's the problem.
As much as you and I may think these people are con-artists, there are other people who believe they are anointed of God. It is not the place of politicians and officials...or you... to decide who is allowed to believe what.
You draw the line in such a way as to stay out of issues that are wholly subjective to begin with. You certainly don't ignore the fact that almost every religion regards every other religion as a fraud, and you recognize that by allowing some religious practices and outlawing others, you establish state sponsored religions.
My argument is that I don't trust non-believers to decide what constitutes religious "fraud" and what doesn't.
What does Copeland tell his viewers that is any more outlandish than the virgin birth? Or raising Lazarus from the dead? Or Jesus rising from the grave? Or Joseph Smith and his magic eyeglasses? Muhammed ascending into heaven to get instructions? Moses parting the Red Sea? Noah and the Ark?
Copeland promises to intercede with God on your behalf if you donate. This was standard practice in Catholicism for centuries.
Mainstream Christians have been promising that Jesus will return for 2000 years. At what point does the government declare that such a promise constitutes fraud and they have to stop saying it? We don't want anybody being "gun-shy" about these slimy con-men, now do we?
The framers of the Constitution did not call for inaction for fear of the snowball effect.
How about we start with massive fraud? See @16.1.52 for a hint as to how even a 'religious' organization can be evaluated for fraud on purely secular criteria.
So what? There are plenty of criminals who believe their actions are justified. It is up to a society to draw such boundaries, not the criminals. So should we turn our heads when a religious practice such as honor killings is committed? After all, the murderers believe they are following the will of Allah.
This reads as though you do not distinguish the fraud committed by Copeland, et. al. from a religious practice. Religions in the USA are all allowed to believe as they wish and engage in practices as they wish as long as they abide by the law of the land. Having and enforcing laws does not, in any way, mean that we have established state sponsored religions. If so, you would have to consider our current laws which prevent churches from engaging in blood sacrifices as establishing state sponsored religions.
Copeland Ministries, for example, was exposed years ago as running a machine that opens letters from the faithful containing donations with the expectation that Copeland himself would intervene with God on their behalf. The letters were never seen by Copeland; he does not read and does not act on the letters. Underlings collect the checks and provide largely canned responses to the victims.
You wish to equate this with a normal religious practice such as the forgiveness of sins? I see a clear, secular, legal difference.
The term 'religious fraud' is misleading. I am talking about fraud (no qualification). Fraud has a legal definition and substantial precedent. Your argument would deem any designation of fraud by any organization that deems itself religious to be null and void.
This is exactly what I mean by an attitude that enables the Copelands of the world. This attitude is held by so many people in the USA that it gives cover to any organization that deems itself religious. Even in the most extreme cases like we discuss, our government is afraid to take any action because every organization that identifies as religious is ipso facto privileged in the USA.
In result, Copeland, et.al. rake in billions through good old fashioned fraud because they are, in a very real sense, allowed to operate above the law.
Why should I not be concerned that, someday, you may decide that Non-Christians are a major problem and that gives you the right to determine what I can and can't do, simply because of what you want or don't want?
And if you think about my statement...that's pretty much what has happened in this country for the last 250 years
So you think it's fine that states discriminate against atheists?
Thank-you for the link. Very enlightening. I knew I didn't like John Locke for a reason
I haven't read all of the comments on this seed, but I do hope that someone here is aware that not only are churches exempt, the churches have been being supported by taxpayers since GW Bush's faith based initiative that was never voted on. It was enacted into law by executive order.
I don't know how many billions of tax dollars have been funneled to various Christian sects, but I have read that the Roman Catholic Church has received the lion's share. For those who want to do the research and post the actual figures, I wish them luck. This seems to be a close guarded secret because evidently the RCC has more power than the press or the FOIA.
Our government is actively promoting "partnerships" with churches. Why is this being allowed?
For the people who want to expand the US Supreme Court - do you really want more Roman Catholics on the US Supreme Court?
The US government is actually asking the church(es) to be in charge of counseling women who are victims of domestic violence. I believe that most of us know what that kind of counseling involves. For those who don't, then feel extremely fortunate that you have not been conditioned to believe that you must accept and forgive abuse if you want to escape the fires of Hell.
THIS MUST STOP!!!!!!!!!
The framers of the Constitution made sure to curb the power of government with regard to religion. This is because they weren't naive enough to think it would not be misused.
We're not talking about criminals, though, are we? We're talking about people who send money to televangelists.
No, it reads as though I do not trust government, or you, to make that distinction.
You keep referring to Copeland's "fraud". What "fraud" has he committed?
What law has Copeland broken?
Having a law where the government decides which are legitimate religions and which are not does exactly that.
Does Copeland engage in blood sacrifices?
If Copeland says a single prayer asking for God to bless "all those who have given", he has intervened with God on their behalf. So you'll need more rigorous criteria. Do you see where this leads?
As little as I think of Copeland and his ilk, they represent FAR FAR less danger to religious liberty than people who want to regulate religion despite the fact they don't participate in it and have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
I think that's more than an "attitude".
The framers of the CotUS did not prevent the government from investigating and prosecuting illegal activity ... even in churches.
The criminals are those committing the illegal activity. That is who I am talking about. Seriously, Jack, that was not clear to you?
I have not suggested that I be the one to make the distinction. Keep me (personally) out of this.
So who should make the distinction of illegal activity (e.g. fraud) from a religious practice? The ' churches ' themselves?? So, again, if a ' church ' determined that honor killings is a religious practice does the government and our laws have no say in the matter?
I gave you an example from an expose years ago. But why did I even need to do that? Is it your position that Copeland, et. al. are not doing anything illegal? That would be quite a change of focus to move from slippery slope fear into condoning their activities.
I did not state such a law and that is not my focus , but since you keep bringing this up, I will address it. Note that there exist established criteria for legally being considered a church. At the center are the IRS criteria:
Copeland, Duplantis likely follow the rules to be legally considered churches. I have not investigated that but I would expect they would not be so sloppy as to fail to hit these easy checkpoints. So I have no basis to deem them as technically illegal churches and thus I have not made such an allegation.
This criteria, however, should illustrate that it is society that determines what is a legal church (per your earlier question). Further, the criteria can, has and likely will change over time. ( Personally, I would like stricter criteria so the the likes of Copeland cannot even maintain status as a legal church if too much (some threshold) of direct or indirect church revenues are funneled to the owners. That is, I would like it to be much more difficult to engage in a legal con-job because you are are a 'church'. ) Bottom line: you may not like it but the official designation of church is already a function of government.
But, again, that is not what I have been arguing. I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I am talking about the government investigating and holding accountable 'religious' organizations for unlawful activities such as fraud.
Stated differently to be even clearer, I am against allowing organizations like Copeland's to operate above the law because government forces are dissuaded to hold them accountable for illegal operations due to a legal status ' church '.
These organizations are operating because so much of the public holds attitudes such as yours which resist government investigations for fear that it would be a slippery slope that would ( somehow ) violate the 1st amendment and go after genuine churches.
My argument, for the most part, nets down to a very basic question:
Should society refrain from investigating/prosecuting an organization that breaks its laws and/or regulations if the organization can legally deem itself a ' church '?
If 'no' (the correct answer) then organizations like Copeland's should not be allowed to operate above the law because of slippery slope fears.
You have yet to demonstrate anything remotely approaching illegal activity. I know you think you have, but if you understood churches, you would realize.
You responded to my description of Copeland's supporters with a reference to criminals. They are not. We're going to reiterate that they very much do not want your protection.
Let's be very clear. I'm not condoning them, I'm telling you that you don't begin to understand what you're talking about. Let's not lose sight of the difference.
As much as you clearly despise the man, you can't show where Copeland has committed a criminal act. You claim you gave an example, but you have zero proof that he didn't actually pray for those people, and you could never produce such proof in a million years. Which is another reason why these guys never get prosecuted. How are you going to prove somebody didn't pray about something. That oughtta be fun.
The slippery slope in question is the one you will cascade down as you attempt ever more restrictive measures in your futile attempts to stop people like Copeland while oblivious to the massive collateral damage you inflict.
It's like the guy in the middle of a crowd trying to shoot a housefly with a shotgun. Everybody is much more scared of him than the fly, and rightfully so.
You just said you want the laws to change in such a way as to remove the legal status of churches you deem "illegitimate"....a word you've already used about a half dozen times. Here, let's double check that....
OK then. But wait... what was your criteria? Oh yeah....
And you imagine that Copeland's organization isn't some series of nested LLCs owned by offshore partnerships embedded in 85 layers of secrecy and tax avoidance. Riiiight.
On the other hand, it's not uncommon for new churches to start on a shoestring. Often they find a local person who will donate office or retail or even warehouse space they're not using on Sundays. Here in Dallas, one of the Jewish Temples rents out rooms to tiny startup Christian churches on Sunday morning until they get big enough to fund their own space. You may have a church with 25 members meeting in a borrowed room where the pastor's $30k salary is 80% of the budget. Congratulations. You found another illegitimate church to shut down.
In Oklahoma, something like 50% of Baptist pastors have a part time job because the churches are so small the congregation can't afford full time ministers. Definitely gotta get rid of these illegitimate operations.
Is it sinking in yet that any criteria you set is going to hurt legitimate churches more than a wealthy con-man with a legal team?
Society is doing just that. You're the one who's complaining about it. You're the one who wants the rules to change to outlaw what you deem as illegitimate religious practices. Yet you ignore the fact that one of the reasons these guys are successful is that what they do is designed to mimic what goes on in traditional churches, and you won't be able to codify the difference.
Stated again to drive home the point. You have yet to produce any proof they are operating "above the law". The nature of faith means you'll almost surely never be able to produce that proof. You don't understand any of this well enough to attempt to regulate it and your ideas would end up doing much, much, much more harm than good.
Good grief man, your ignore my questions and put forth the requirement that I must deliver iron clad proof of criminal activity. My post is not designed to make a legal case against Copeland; I have used Copeland as an example of a con-operation operating as a 'church'. If you want to take the position that Copeland is a legitimate church (not a con-operation) that should not be investigated then that pretty much illustrates the attitude that I have described. You are here defending Copeland (of all organizations) against government investigation. That attitude, given it is all too common, provides cover for these con-operations.
My point, as I have stated repeatedly, is that society should investigate / prosecute organizations engaging in illegal operations even if they meet the criteria of 'church'. Amazing that you are trying to argue against that.
We should not hold illegal operations accountable if it is too hard to unravel their operations???
You invent a specific scenario, attribute it to me and declare that I have made a proposal to shut down legitimate churches. I did not author specific rules for the IRS to follow. I suggested that the IRS (legally) could (and should) have criteria better than what they have so that con operations like Copeland's do not enjoy the tax benefits of legitimate churches.
Your response, in effect, is that there is no way to change the rules to apply to organizations like Copeland's without taking out legitimate churches. Earlier you, in effect, argued that it is too difficult to investigate Copeland (so we should not try) and now you argue that our lawmakers are incapable of adjusting IRS rules without affecting legitimate churches:
≈ It is too difficult to investigate large organizations and lawyers are simply not smart enough to distinguish an organization like Copeland's con-machine from a legitimate church so we just will not try. ≈
Your it's too difficult argument is not persuasive.
Again, the question you continue to ignore:
Should society refrain from investigating/prosecuting an organization that breaks its laws and/or regulations if the organization can legally deem itself a 'church '?
From your latest response, it seems as though you do think society should refrain from investigating (much less prosecuting) any organization that deems itself a 'church'. That, again, is the attitude that has allowed the Copeland's of the nation to continue. If not, then be clear and state what we should do with an organization that is a 'church' that is engaging in unlawful activity.
By the way, another question I have asked you:
Although not important, I am curious as to your answer. You do not 'trust' lawmakers to define laws that distinguish illegal activities from a religious practice (even though the laws exist today: e.g. murder cannot be condoned as a religious practice) so who makes the distinction in your mind?
*sigh*
Didn't say that.
Didn't say that either.
Haven't argued against that.
Never even implied that.
It was your scenario based on rule changes you advocated.
Specifically these rule changes.
Not what I said.
OK, since you seem determined to misrepresent my views and ignore any and all points you find inconvenient, I'll go over some highlights in a more direct fashion:
Your questions are based on extreme examples of a premise that does not actually exist in reality. I have ignored them because they're so ridiculous I assumed you couldn't possibly be serious.
Given your game playing (dancing around my questions, straw-man arguments, claiming I am misrepresenting your views, etc.) increases with each comment I am going to ask one more time for you to address my focus question:
Should society refrain from investigating/prosecuting an organization that breaks its laws and/or regulations if the organization can legally deem itself a ' church '?
I will take the above as an implicit ' no ' answer to my question. Thus you apparently agree with my key point and have demonstrated exactly why these con-men get away with their practices due to support from those who hold your attitude.
They are not prosecuted because those responsible for doing so are dissuaded from it by the very attitude you have illustrated in this thread. They push a little and then back off (as if spooked) declaring that they do not have enough evidence to pursue and thus letting these con-artists continue:
I have stated the reason they are not seriously investigated / prosecuted the entire thread.
The following John Oliver segment, though a few years old, is pertinent to the topic at hand and quite the hoot, as well.
What law, specifically, is Copeland breaking? How is he breaking it? How are you going to prove he's breaking it? You can't do any of these things. What you are operating on is that because he takes so many donations for his own use he must be guilty of something but what, exactly? If there is some evidence someone possesses that can prove Copeland is cooking his books, that's one thing. That is prosecutable. But to just assume that there's a crime here somewhere and proceeding on that basis is unconstitutional. Further, even if you get whatever law you propose written and enacted, we now have the government entrenched in religion, because now they are going to monitor churches for compliance with whatever law you come up with, something that isn't supposed to happen under the 1st Amendment.
It's as simple as this, TiG. The supporters of the Copelands of the world know what Copeland is doing and apparently approve of it. The government doesn't have the right to tell them they can't do what they are doing. Not without violating the 1st. Nor is it right to take responsibility for oneself from the individual and make it the government's job. That leads to totalitarianism. These people are responsible for their own fleecing. No one else.
Lastly, there's no way to predict what effect whatever law you imagine will solve this problem will have going forward. Look at how mangled the Commerce clause in the constitution has become. They try to use it as justification for just about everything. They once tried to use it to make it illegal to carry a weapon within a certain distance of a school. How does that have anything to do with commerce?
Nope. As much as I don't like Copeland and his ilk, I like the government being involved in church affairs even less, thank you.
"When you can operate with so little oversight it is amazing what you can do" -- John Oliver
It is not difficult to distinguish the low-hanging fruit exploitation organizations from legitimate churches. It is not beyond our capabilities to engage these con-artists with artists and discover use of funds that should disqualify them as tax-exempt, etc. organizations. And, further, it is well within our capabilities to enact legislation that closes massive loopholes which allow 'preachers' to become multi-millionaires by exploiting the gullible.
We, as a nation, allow these slimy sacks of shit to operate because of an irrational fear that going after organizations that pretend to be churches would mean that somehow our religious-rich society would also start seeking to go after legitimate houses of worship.
I have already described one of his frauds: promising to intercede with God on behalf of an individual based on their letter. You can look at my links and see what the Senate Finance Committee had uncovered even in their superficial investigation. (They treated these organizations with kid gloves.)
But my point has NEVER been about Copeland Ministries, they are simply my chosen example of a con-organization — an illustration to reify my point. And if you do not see that these are con-artists then you are blind to reality. Further, if every one of these con-organizations pretending to be churches are all smart enough to be 100% legal (purely hypothetical statement now) then my other point is that we, as a society, should revise our laws and regulations so that these con-artists are not able to pretend to be churches so as to engage in their game.
Do you hold that these con-artists are absolutely NOT breaking laws and thus should not even be investigated?
Do you think that our laws should allow these con-artists to use the protection of legitimate churches to run their scams?
I keep repeating this. My point is that the government absolutely has the right to investigate and prosecute these organizations if they are breaking the laws of the land. Nothing in my comments suggest that the government would tell these organizations what they can worship, etc. So a church like that of Scientology can legally be a church and the government cannot tell them that L. Ron. Hubbard was simply a madman and should not be revered as a prophet. But if this organization engages in kidnapping, etc. to keep their members intact then the government most definitely has the right to step in and that does not, in any constitutional sense, violate the 1st.
No organization, not even a 'church', has the right to break the laws of the land. And our society has every constitutional right to create new laws as we see fit as long as the laws are inherently secular and do not favor one religion over the other.
The snowball fear. That is a general excuse to do nothing in any situation. Everything we do has unseen consequences. Do we do nothing? Do we shy away from every initiative because it might cause some bad consequence?
Drakk, we most definitely could curtail these con-artists if we wanted to without harming legitimate churches. I doubt that anyone in this thread has the slightest difficulty seeing the difference between the Copeland Ministries of the world and a genuine religious organization. If we can draw such a clear line then the law can do likewise.
And that is the attitude the enables these con-artists to thrive (and tarnish the reputation of genuine churches by the way).
Odd. Why did you label Copeland Ministries a church? Do you personally recognize them as a church?
Hardly. What I hold to is that unless someone has evidence they are actually breaking an actual law then going after them just because you don't like what they're doing isn't any more right.
I think the government doesn't have any business in deciding what is religious activity and what isn't, short of human sacrifice or some similar thing.
And no one disagrees with you. If you have evidence of one of these guys embezzling funds then I'm right behind you in prosecuting them. But how much a pastor gets in salary? Not the governments business. It is the church's. No one is forcing them to donate money. Apparently they are happy as pigs in slop to see their "pastor" living as he does.
But it doesn't have the right to create a law to stop some religious activity simply because they don't like it. That is a violation of church and state, plain and simple. What goes on in those churches doesn't affect you. It doesn't affect society. It doesn't affect government. What you propose, however, does affect private citizens in the exercise of their freedoms. Just like someone has the right to waste their money in a casino, these people have the right to waste their money on people like this. And casinos have a lot greater effect on society than these people do.
You and I both agree that these people are con men. But that's our opinion and nothing but opinion. You're never going to get me to agree that the government has the right to restrict what a person believes. If these people choose to believe what these con men tell them, that's their right.
It's not an irrational fear. There's tons of precedent for it and you know it. Just look how the Dems are trying to abuse reconciliation to pass legislation on illegal aliens for the most recent example. Further, religion is a special category and you know it. You may think it's all make believe but most of the rest of us don't, whether they be someone from Christianity to Wicca and everything in between.
You absolutely do not know that. On the other hand, there's historical proof that once the government sticks its nose into something, they don't stop sticking it in further. That's a plain fact.
What these con artists are doing is hateful to me, but societally, they are insignificant compared to real problems like alcoholism. Why not go after that? Make alcohol illegal again. That would have orders of magnitude better results society wise than a few people we consider, in our own opinions, to be con men. You hate these guys because they are bilking millions from people. I don't like that either, but it is insignificant compared to the distortion of God's word. That's what really bothers me. Yet, even so, it isn't my right to deny them their beliefs any more than it is my right to deny atheists theirs. So, sorry, I can't support what you propose.
Please. Even if you got your wish and shut these people down it wouldn't change anyone's opinions about churches. Most of them would just consider it a good first step and only a first step.
No, the constitution does.
In the end, you're asking me to support secular power regulating religion. That's never going to happen. That is a violation of the establishment clause no matter how you look at it. I think these guys are con men but their followers obviously don't. They get to make that choice for themselves. It's that simple and I will never support taking that away from anyone.
That is NOT what I have argued ... ever! My comments are all based on disallowing organizations to engage in illegal activities simply because they meet the IRS criteria of church. I have also stated that if these con-artists are (hypothetically) 100% legal by current rules then we should revisit the rules so that con-artists cannot abuse the church privilege. That means, produce legislation that makes cons like these illegal. And that does not mean deciding what is a religious practice but rather what is legal and illegal (for every organization).
Thing is, there are already plenty of laws on the books to catch these con-men in illegal activities. The distribution of revenue and perks to owners alone would give the IRS a decent option to remove the 'church' privilege. But, if you read my links, you will see clearly that the government steers clear of this ... they do not want to touch the 'church' issue because of the protective attitude such as yours that is replete in the population.
I have multiple times now explicitly stated that government has no right to define what is a religious activity. I have stated explicitly that the government would deal with illegal activities. If a religious activity is illegal then it should be investigated / prosecuted because it is illegal, not because the government deems it to not be a religious practice. I have given the example of honor killings as an example of a religious practice that is illegal.
Read what I write before you reply. I should not have to repeat the same thing over and over.
Yet you just argued ⇡ that the government does not have any business in deciding what is a religious activity. You reply to me with that implying that I have argued otherwise. So what is the problem here Drakk? If you agree then why do you pretend as though I hold the opposite position?
The IRS regulations for a non-profit compensation require that they be 'reasonable'. They have guidelines on what is reasonable and the IRS must make the case that the compensation is unreasonable. There is nothing unusual about this practice. And in the case of con-jobs like Copeland where the 'parsonage' is a $6.5 million estate with its own airport, fuel supply and a small fleet of jets and planes which are used by Copeland, et. al. for private vacations (not exclusively church business) it would seem to me that the IRS could, if they had the will, see that this organization violates the intent of the church privilege. Also, Copeland is simply my example; others like Duplantis, Dollar, etc. will have the same basic characteristics.
So is it not the government's business to provide oversight on non-profits in general ... or is it just churches for you?
The gullibility of members has nothing to do with this. Obviously these gullible/stupid people think Copeland, et. al. are just wonderful. Not the point. The point is holding the IRS provided privileges of a church to engage in a con.
Again you totally misrepresent what I have written. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DEFINE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY; BUT IT DOES DEFINE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
Try to read the above Drakk, I am sick of repeating myself endlessly in these 'debates'.
If a charity were taking donations intended to help starving children and use it instead to line the pockets of the owners, do you think this illegal activity should be allowed by the government because the donors are too stupid or gullible to realize that their money is being taken and the promised service is not delivered? The focus is and has been (by me) on ILLEGAL activities. I have stated this dozens of times.
Unfuckingbelievable Drakk. I am so sick of intellectual dishonesty in these forums. No matter what I write you come back with shit like this pretending that this is what I have argued even when I have explicitly stated that this is NOT what I am arguing.
I think it is. I have stated that I am quite aware of the snowball effect and the slippery slope and that this phenomenon does indeed occur. But I have noted that we necessarily deal with this every day. In this case, I reject the idea that investigating (and removing if possible) the legal designation of 'church' from con-job organizations like Copeland's would cause a witch hunt on legitimate churches. We are talking about ILLEGAL activities. Legitimate churches do not exist to enrich the preachers; they engage in LEGAL activities.
Copeland, et. al. are visibly excessive; if the IRS were to seriously investigate these con-jobs their rules guiding reasonable compensation would almost certainly be violated. If so, do you want the IRS to turn a blind eye and allow Copeland, et. al. to continue as a tax-exempt 'church'?
The CotUS does not do that. They are recognized as a church because they have not been shown to violate the IRS guidelines for 'church'. And that is because the government is afraid to pursue these organizations.
And yet again you ignore what I have written and declare what I have explicitly stated that I am not proposing.
I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT GOVERNMENT REGULATE RELIGION. I HAVE SUGGESTED THAT GOVERNMENT NOT CONTINUE TO ALLOW CON-OPERATIONS TO HAVE THE IRS PRIVILEGES OF A LEGITIMATE CHURCH. AND I HAVE SUGGESTED THAT ANY ORGANIZATION (INCLUDING 'CHURCHES') THAT ENGAGES IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES BE INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED.
Your entire post was one big strawman argument. Do you truly not recognize this Drakk? Go back and read what I actually wrote and do not insert whatever bizarre presumptions you have. Just read the words that I wrote. I have repeated myself endlessly with paraphrases so my position should be crystal clear.
If you did that (objectively, honestly) you would see why I am so disgusted at this point.
My point (from the beginning): con-operations engaging in illegal activities while hiding under the protection of 'church' status should be disallowed. But because of attitudes such as yours, our government treats any organization that declares itself a 'church' with kid gloves because they are afraid of the backlash from people with your attitude (and there are countless millions of them).
Thus, in the end, attitudes such as yours is the reason the Copeland's of the world continue to run their cons as 'churches' with all the privileges of same.
Well if you're going to cling this tightly to this utterly moronic question, OK.
Yes. We should. And we do. There. Feel better?
Now I have some questions for you.
No, you've stated what you think. But you very obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
I am clinging to the point I have made. The point you have side-stepped this entire time.
And here you go again with the side-stepping. None of this has anything to do with the point I made. In fact, my point applies to any organization and, in particular, any non-profit given special tax exemptions. The fact that these con-men use the 'church' loophole is irrelevant. If they were using a secular loophole my point would be identical.
This is exactly why I 'cling' to the point I made. It is necessary when others, like you, seek to play games to try to change the point and introduce strawman arguments.
Answered multiple times. Fraud and the funneling of funds in a manner that is not considered reasonable by the IRS (and thus would question their privilege as a church to be in question). Read the links I supplied.
Amazing that you continue to defend / run interference for these con-artists. This is the attitude that keeps them afloat.
You are trolling.
Note my point:
My answer to this problem is for the government to not allow con-artists to use legal loopholes to operate their scams. Unfortunately, the people freak out on any government action because these organizations are 'churches' and they have an irrational fear that exposing / prosecuting the scam-artist-churches would infringe upon the 1st amendment.
Thus, these con-artists enjoy great flexibility to perform their scams under the protection intended for genuine churches.
Before we go further, please understand that I have spent the last 40 years actively involved in evangelical Christian churches. I've served in various leadership and governance roles in churches for nearly 25 years. I'm currently the finance chair and treasurer of a large evangelical church in the heart of the Bible Belt.
I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Also understand that televangelists as a group are a complete pain in the ass for regular churches. We have no love for these assholes, save the love Christians are commanded to have for all God's children. These guys give church a bad name, which makes everything we do much harder. We would love to see all of them disappear tomorrow, if not sooner.
No. You haven't. I know you THINK you have identified a fraud. But you haven't.
"Interceding with God" is simply praying for someone. How do you know he didn't pray for those people? More importantly, how would a prosecutor PROVE that he didn't?
Actual crimes happen in churches far more often than they should. When they are discovered, they are prosecuted. The most common crimes are probably embezzlement and sexual abuse. "Fraud" most commonly happens in a church when people are told they're giving money for one cause (like missions) and the money is spent on something else (utilities, maintenance, salaries, new building, etc). Usually that happens because the church in question is short of cash and needs to keep the lights on, but it's still fraud. Copeland and ilk are far too sophisticated to make such a rookie mistake.
We all get that. You're using Copeland because he is a perfect illustration. But if you're going to talk about him as an example, so should we.
Another irrelevant question, but OK. Before you throw another red-letter tantrum, I'll answer it: How would we possibly know?
It doesn't matter. What matters is what can be proven in court. To prove something in court, you'll need evidence.
In the case of your Copeland example, you'll need evidence that he didn't actually pray for any of these people who sent him money, and that he doesn't actually intend to. Such evidence is impossible to gather. Note...I did not say "difficult", as you incorrectly inferred earlier. Impossible.
There is no way to prove somebody has or has not prayed for someone. If you had video surveillance on this asshole 24/7/365 for a decade, you STILL couldn't prove he did or didn't pray for those people. It's the equivalent of trying to prove somebody didn't think about something.
Let's use another example. Let's say that Joel Osteen promises that if you send him $100, God will bestow a special blessing upon you. How, exactly, do you suggest a prosecutor PROVE that such a promise is fraudulent?
They can't. They know they can't. Osteen knows they can't. I know they can't, Drak knows, everybody with church experience knows they can't. It's impossible. Not difficult....impossible. Because literally anything that happens or any emotion that person has could be declared a "special blessing". If they give the $100 and die later that day, the "blessing" would be that they've "gone home to meet Jesus". If nothing happens, the "special blessing" would be that "God has put a hedge of protection around you and sent a guardian angel to protect you from harm".
There is no way to win this. You are trying to lasso the wind.
That's where you are missing the point entirely. It is emphatically deciding what is religious practice. You are saying that people should not be able to do something because you disapprove of what they are doing. You, who are not religious, think you have the right to decide what is religious and what isn't for a whole bunch of other people rather than letting them make that decision for themselves.
In other words, if you can't prove they are breaking an existing law, create one so that they are. And don't tell me that is a misrepresentation. That is exactly what you'd be doing.
Worse, you're putting the government in the position of making laws respecting religion. The government would be in the position of saying "these are not legitimate churches", giving government backing to the one's it does think are legitimate.
Further, have you considered what your revisited rules would mean to the Catholic church? Those guys make the Copelands of the world look positively homeless! How would your new rules affect them?
Funny. From my perspective it's you who is doing all this. Just because you state that it isn't deciding what is religious and what isn't but, rather, what's legal and illegal doesn't mean that's a true statement. I have repeatedly told you that I think it is very much deciding what is religious and what isn't. But because you don't think that's true you just keep repeating the same stuff as if the lack of understanding is on my part. Nope. You just continue to refuse to acknowledge that some of us don't see it the way you do. That's not on me.
Here's an idea. How about you post the full quote rather than just the portion that you think supports what you want to say?
You see, what I said no one disagrees with you about would be issues like embezzling. There is no religious command in any religion I know of that states embezzling is a religious duty. That is not a religious issue. IF you have evidence for such, no one would oppose going after these guys for such things.
That is a different kettle of fish than how much a pastor makes, however. That is church business, not the government's. If these congregations are fine with what their pastor is doing, no one has any right to say boo about it. It's their money. No need to pretend you hold the opposite position on this part of the issue because you do.
Let's deal with this, first. Let's agree to just use Copeland as the place holder for the the type of preachers we are both talking about. That way, you don't have to keep explaining what I was never confused about in the first place. Okay???
Are they regulations or are they guidelines? In any case, the problem is going to be deciding what is "reasonable". What would be reasonable for an organization of that size and who gets to decide it? Further, suppose the IRS does go after them. What will the IRS claim Copland is if not a church? A business? If so, what distinguishes every other church that takes in money from Copeland's? Amount? Where's the line for that? And back to the Catholic church on that one, who take in a lot more money than all the Copelands combined. Don't even attempt to tell me the religion haters wouldn't use whatever you come up with to go after them.
I'd have to give it some thought, but off the top of my head, just churches. This would undeniably be because religion is a special classification. Well, that is, to any thinking person. Of course the religion haters will just call it just another business so, not special to them. And why I'm against creating some new law to go after the Copelands because the more secularized this country becomes, the more they will use government to interfere with religion. They're already doing it.
A con according to whom? Don't you see that's the problem? While you and I may consider them a con, the people who support them obviously don't think so. So, how does the IRS prove it's a con?
Now, if there are established regulations, not simply guidelines, and Copeland is violating them, then I'm totally on board with the IRS doing something about it. More than likely, all it will result in will be restructuring on Copeland's part to make it fit, but who knows. But, even if the IRS happened to win, what do you think would happen? Do you think Copeland's empire would collapse? Do you think people will still not continue right on sending him money? He might take a financial hit but he's still going to be very wealthy. He will still keep right on as he has. He would lose his tax exempt status over all or perhaps a portion of his operation, but he'll still be there doing the same thing.
No, I don't. You said....
Is this going to be yet another case of you claiming what you said doesn't mean what you said? How is this not legislating until they're guilty?
And how are you going to prove it's a con? What witnesses are you going to employ? The Bible? A book you believe was written by ignorant sheep herders, contradicts itself and that anyone can interpret any way they want to? Are you going to appeal to God? Just how are you going to prove it's a con? Most of your side of the isle believe all of religion is a con for the purpose of subjugating the ignorant so, where does the con argument stop? Common sense? Don't make me laugh.
Specify the illegal activity. And don't simply state he's conning these people. If I were a federal judge, what would be the summation of the case?
Well maybe, if for once in your life, you realized that you aren't the only person in this discussion you might see that I'm not pretending any such thing but, instead, understand that this is how I see what you are proposing. That while you see it in terms of what should be legal and illegal, I see it in terms of what is allowed, religiously. You seem incapable of understanding that others may have the audacity to not agree with you. So, the reality is that what you call me trying to intentionally misunderstand what you say I see as you not having a clue that I am presenting my own argument concerning what I see you as trying to do. I don't have to see it the way you do, TiG. Get used to it or don't bother talking to me.
Oh, please! Now you are the one pretending. You know damn well most of the people right here in NT would love to strip every single church of their charitable status. And I've read countless articles out there that advocate for the same thing. All of you think religion is a con and a con is the basis for your wanting to go after Copeland. So, spare me if your assurances don't hold much water for me. We've already got dozens of atheist organizations out there trying to twist the establishment clause to restrict public expression of religion to the extent possible. They sue everything in sight that doesn't fit their own religion.
To be honest, if the IRS has evidence they've actually broken tax laws, not suspects but knows, I have no problem with it. However, I don't really care that much about secular authorities in this issue, since this is a religious issue in my mind. The court that applies as far as I am concerned is God's. The correct way to stop Copeland, in my view, is to try to reach is supporters and show them the truth and turn them towards the real God, not the one Copeland presents them. That matters a hell of a lot more than the money. Copeland will get his if he doesn't repent. The secular issue isn't that important to me.
Yes, actually, it does and explains the reluctance for the IRS to actually do something about it. It's called the separation clause. Look up entanglement. SCOTUS actively tries to avoid entanglement and you can bet this is where this would end up. And all of the Copelands would work together to ensure it does.
And yet again you think you're the only one presenting an argument. Once again you don't seem to realize others may see what you are trying to do differently than you do. That if you just explain it enough we're just going to change our minds. The one who is ignoring stuff is you, TiG.
More of the same. To correct you, you don't see yourself as suggesting that government regulate religion. I see it as you do. Further, you're just assuming it's a con. I mean, I'm convinced it is but we aren't dealing with an objective fact here. We're dealing with what people believe. And good luck trying to win that one in court. For all I know, Copeland sincerely believes his own crap and his followers certainly do. They believe God is blessing Copeland and they want to be blessed in the same manner. That is the center of their religion. The foundation of it. They are certainly going to see it as persecution. They are going to view it as an issue of faith and nothing else. So how, exactly, is the government going to do what you suggest without squashing their religious liberty? That's how it will go in court. That the government is trying to interpose itself between God and His obvious blessing of a man of God and their church. How do you do that without blowing the separation clause right out of the water?
Also, it's been repeatedly agreed that if you find them doing some illegal activity, go for it. I don't mean suspected illegal activity or rummaging around in their affairs until you find one. I mean proof of actual illegal activity.
So, one last time. You aren't the only one in this discussion, TiG. You argue as if anyone says anything that disagrees with what you say they are trying to put words in your mouth. No. We're just presenting our own argument against yours. That may include not seeing what you are attempting in the same light as you do. Now, you can call that a strawman if you wish, but to my mind, it's just you having a tizzy because we aren't swooning at the brilliance of your argument.
I'll give this opinion all the consideration it is due.
Why do you think this matters? You have been involved with genuine churches and I am talking about con-artists. Hello?
I have never suggested you do not understand churches. In fact, I am not the one being insulting here. Again, note Jack, I am talking about con-artists and not genuine churches.
Of course they are. But irrelevant. The level of pain does not make any difference. These con-artists should not be allowed to enjoy the protections provided to legitimate churches.
And again you continue to run interference for this con-artists.
Did you not read my scenario Jack? This was from an insider in an expose done by Inside Edition in (I believe, 2015) who stated that the Copelands never read any of the letters and never pray for the senders. That they process the donations (extract the checks) and then staff preachers pray over the batch. The Copelands (those special people who have a direct line with God) never see the letters.
The Copelands are an example. Yet you dwell on the example. Why is it that you constantly try to defend these con-artists? Do you not recognize them as con-artists??
Here we go again with side-stepping. I have never claimed that churches are never prosecuted. We know this is done. Hell, we have seen televangelists like Bakker even who was prosecuted as well as less-dangerous people like Kent Hovind.
We will not know because the IRS will not investigate them because of the fear of backlash from those who share your attitude.
See, Jack, this is more bullshit. I used him as an example of a con-artist. Unless you disagree and think Copeland is not an exemplar for con-artists pretending to be churches we should be done. But instead, you ask me to deliver proof of their crimes as if a detailed investigation has actually been done. Well I have provided links to articles and Grassley's Finance committee investigation (which, itself, was not intended to be an audit of Copeland, et. al. but rather a review to see if laws need to be adjusted).
If you were engaging honestly you would acknowledge that I used Copeland to reify the concept of a con-artist pretending to be a church. Instead, you engage in this bullshit tactic of challenging me to prove that they are indeed breaking the law. You are running interference for them. You are nit-picking on an example and side-stepping the point.
Thus I have asked you repeatedly: "Should society refrain from investigating/prosecuting an organization that breaks its laws and/or regulations if the organization can legally deem itself a ' church '?" because your argument reads as a defense of Copeland, et. al.
So what? I have made it clear that the government is not investigating these organizations. So what is the point of you introducing yet another sidebar about court? Of course the truth (as it were) will have to be decided in court.
Your 'it is too difficult' argument is bullshit.
Try to pay attention Jack. There are all sorts of scenarios that I could invent that are impossible to adjudicate. What I offered was a scenario where the Copelands themselves promised to intercede with God. If they never even read the letters (the allegation by the witness) then they could not possibly intercede. This has nothing to do with faith but everything to do with process.
What a defeatist attitude. Big bad Ken Copeland is so smart and so powerful that our government is incapable of finding anything at all that they have done that breaks existing laws and/or brings their 'church' status in question.
Give me a break. As I noted in my opening comment on this thread, Copeland, et. al. exist because of the millions of Americans with your attitude give them cover.
Why do you do run interference for these slimy con-artists?
No it is not. It is deciding what constitutes the legal status of 'church' per the IRS. It is also deciding if an organization, church or otherwise, is engaging in illegal activities.
Nowhere do I suggest the government decide if a practice is religious our not.
No, wrong. I am saying that organizations breaking the law or violating regulations should not be allowed to do that.
No, I am saying that if an organization is using loopholes then close the loophole. Did you even bother to read the Grassley link I provided? That is what Grassley's committee was intending to do (so they say). They were reviewing the televangelists to see if they should adjust their rules to close loopholes. They backed off and never did anything, but that was their stated intent. And that is exactly what I am talking about. Our laws are often revised based on changing circumstances and to close loopholes.
Now, simply, try to remember 'to close loopholes'. Don't spin my words.
No matter what I write you just keep coming back with the same allegation. You are not trying to engage me honestly, this is pure bullshit. I have stated explicitly that this is not about the 1st amendment but rather about society enforcing its laws and closing loopholes.
Are you not aware that there are already laws on the books that apply to churches? Are you not aware that the non-profit status of churches per the IRS is already in existence? Are these laws and regulations the government making laws respecting religion???
Irrelevant. If the Catholic church is breaking the laws of the land they should not be immune to investigation / prosecution. All organizations, religious or otherwise should not be allowed to break the laws of the land. Do you want the Catholic church be above the law??
The Grassley report raised a number of red flags along these lines. But they did not investigate. So if you would not object to going after Copeland, et. al. for embezzling then why are you trying to twist my point into: government deciding what is a religious practice? My example of fraud is not a religious practice, it is a process that is fraudulent: promise to intercede based on a letter that is never even read by the individual who has promised to use their special influence with God. Nobody else has Copeland's 'power' and nobody else is Copeland, so underlings batch processing letters is fraudulant.
For someone who would not oppose going after organizations that break the law or who are abusing the law through loopholes (which is the point I have made throughout) you sure are making a lot of noise.
I have spent almost all of my time in this thread addressing points that I have never made. Repeatedly. Why is that Drakk? You now tell me you agree with the principle of holding these con-artists accountable as if not realizing that this has been my point.
It is closing loopholes. You seem to find a way to find the most extreme and utterly stupid interpretation of my words and accept that as the most likely interpretation. The closing of loopholes starts with identifying practices that go against the spirit of the law / regulation. Once identified, legislation would be crafted to close the loopholes. You take this to mean: 'legislate until they are guilty'.
If you do not comprehend loopholes and the process by which they are addressed then go do some research on the topic. But cease with the extreme and ridiculous spin you apply to my words.
I will never get used to clearly stating my position, repeatedly, only to have you come back and pretend that you have never read my position or to mangle it into something that often is the opposite of what I wrote. And if this is the best you can do then I do not want to talk with you. I am sick to death of intellectually dishonesty tactics.
Where do you see me suggesting the legitimate churches be stripped of their charitable status? Give me a quote. I can deliver at least one quote in this very thread where I have stated the opposite. How could you possibly miss this?
Well good. But the IRS cannot have hard evidence unless they engage in an audit. Now, part of my point offers a reason for why the IRS does not do this. Do you know what I have stated in this regard?
Then this is you misunderstanding the separation clause. You are interpreting it to mean that a government entity cannot investigate a church to ensure it is following the law and regulations that apply to it. That is flat out not true. But you are half right, it is the superficial understanding of the 1st that cause people with your attitude to treat any negative interaction of the government with a church as a violation of the constitution.
Congress can make all sorts of laws that apply to religious organizations. But the laws must be secular in nature and, critically, cannot favor one religion over the other. Nothing I have suggested counters this.
Agreement from you is never my objective (although it amazes me that anyone would disagree with holding all organizations accountable to the law).
What I do care about is you misrepresenting (or ignoring) what I write. This game is constantly played in forums. The reason I keep pointing heads back to the point I made is because you are engaging in strawman practices ... rebutting points I have not made (and even points that I have already explicitly stated the opposite). Key here is your insistence that I have argued for government to decide which are legitimate religious practices. Utter bullshit.
I think that organizations hiding behind the IRS 'church' protections and privileges should be held accountable for illegal / violating actions. And that loopholes that allows con-artists to continue with church protections should be closed. That pretty obvious position has turned into a lengthy thread because my interlocutors have chosen to create positions for me rather than read and honestly respond to what I wrote.
If my interlocutors agree that organizations hiding behind the IRS 'church' protections and privileges should be held accountable for illegal / violating actions then there would be no need for this thread. This thread exists because my position, no matter how many times I state it / explain it is intentionally being replaced with strawman arguments.
Why do you defend these con-artists? So you think they are engaging in a con yet you want me to deliver hard evidence (proof) that they are? This is a fucking forum Drakk, not a court of law. I have no power to investigate and gather this kind of hard evidence. I am limited like everyone else to go by what we have. So I supplied the closest the US government has come to Copeland, et. al. based on my research.
Per your logic, until the government musters the balls to seriously investigate these organizations and deliver hard evidence, people like me should not hold the position that Copeland Ministries is a con. And how dare I suggest that it is proper for any organization that is breaking the law (or the spirit of the law ... bringing in the loophole concept) to be investigated / prosecuted even if they are considered to be a 'church'.
You keep writing this. So what am I supposed to do when you claim I have stated or that I mean something that I have not stated and do not mean? I must just quietly listen to that crap and not rebut?
Okay Drakk, if that were true then what is your argument for why it is wrong for the government to investigate / prosecute any organization that is breaking the law (or the spirit of the law ... bringing in the loophole concept) to be investigated / prosecuted even if they are considered to be a 'church'?
Because that is my point. I think they should not be above the law and they should not be immune from audits and other investigations pursuant to the law, regulations and spirit of same.
So give me your argument on that. Don't go back into strawman crap. Don't merely declare that the above means that government is favoring a religion or make up other nonsense. Go by what I just articulated (since it is what I have stating all along) and make your rebuttal.
I read the scenario the first time. I keep telling you that you haven't found fraud.
Churchgoers with 40 years experience understand they don't need to see the letters to pray for those people.
All they need to do is pray for "all those who have given". Less than 5 seconds. Job done. Fraud avoided. Wanna hear the best part? They don't even need to say it out loud. (although they get more revenue if they say it on television) They can just think it. It's up to a prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they haven't thought it.
And you are apparently determined that government agencies should spend resources investigating what televangelists are thinking and that the reason they don't investigate that has something to do with my "attitude".
Let me introduce you to a new concept, TiG. Sometimes, when somebody disagrees with you, they actually know a helluva lot more about a subject than you do, and you're the one who should pay attention.
And you said you weren't being insulting......
You've repeatedly claimed that they don't even get investigated. Like here, for example......
How...exactly....were Bakker, Hovind, Coontz, Alamo, etc convicted if they were never investigated? Did God speak to the judge in a vision? Did a prophet appear at IRS headquarters?
No, you used him as an example of a televangelist who commits fraud and should be stopped You've used the word several times. I'm using him as an example of why that type of fraud is actually impossible to prove, at least until you have the technology to read his mind.
It misreads, you mean. You infer that, and many other things, incorrectly and sometimes offensively.
Still struggling with the difference between difficult and impossible, I see.
But none, as of yet, that would be possible.
It may just be that you're not the only person who would like to see these people go away, and that if there were a way to do that without screwing over traditional churches...it would have happened by now.
Note my opening comment:
That means: We should not allow con artists to use loopholes to get the legal protections of a 'church'. And that people are causing our government to fail to engage in proper oversight because they treat any government action on a church as a violation of the 1st.
If you think that government should not engage in proper oversight if the organization is registered as an IRS 'church' then explain why. If not then you are objecting to points I have not made.
How would you know? To know if this is fraud or not requires adjudication. All we can do at this point is look at available information and opine. From what I see, this could very well be determined to be fraud. But without the formal legal process we can only opine. So I think this is fraud and you do not. We disagree. Move on.
You are ignoring the scenario I stated with Copeland promising to intercede but never even reading the letters.
And here you go again with ridiculous allegations.
I am not talking about how churches work Jack. You present yourself as an expert in churches. Well that is wonderful for you, but my position is not about how churches work. So your self-touted expertise is irrelevant.
My question insulted you? You have spent considerable effort challenging me to prove that my exemplar con of Copeland Ministries has engaged in fraud and you are insulted if I ask you if you think they are con-artists.
I will assume you do indeed recognize that they are con-artists. So you (maybe) agree that organizations are using loopholes to gain the protections and privileges of legitimate churches to engage in fraud and/or other illegal activity. But for some reason you disagree with my position that these organizations should be investigated and prosecuted (if warranted) and that loopholes in the law / regulations that allow the spirit of the law to be violated should be closed.
Amazing.
And if you come back and tell me that you do agree with the above but that you do not think it is possible to do this (too hard) or that it is too dangerous (slippery slope) then that is your opinion. I have told you that I disagree with your opinion; that I think it is defeatist and damaging. So we disagree.
Context Jack. The context was the current gospel con-artists like Copeland and Duplantis who have escaped investigation for decades. That is the they in that statement. Sometimes it is good to use common sense and maybe apply knowledge of your interlocutor. How could you reasonably think that I was declaring that no 'church' has ever been investigated? Another example of you just playing games.
Defeatist. I don't buy it. Looking at this thread it is obvious why the government uses kid gloves with these organizations. They do not want to be accused of violating the 1st. They do not want to deal with the backlash of religious people who will run interference for fear that any actions on these outliers —these con-artists— will cause legitimate churches to be under fire. That attitude protects these con-artists and allows them to continue.
I freaking already have but you're so busy feeling misunderstood and persecuted you can't bother to try to understand what I'm saying. So, once again, here's what the government will face in court, because that is where it will end up.
You, Jack and I all think Copeland is a scam. That doesn't mean it is, whether we like it or not. It's possible that Copeland actually believes wholeheartedly in the crap he spews. It is for certain his followers do. The core of Copeland's ministry, the very foundation of it is that God wants to bless us all financially. His congregation sees him as evidence that God has richly blessed Copeland. They want to be blessed, too, and they believe, really believe that what they are doing is what God wants them to do. Maybe you just can't comprehend that but it's true. The congregation literally approves of what Copeland is doing because they his wealth as vindication of Copeland's faith and therefore, theirs.
Now, what the government would have to do in a court of law is prove that Copeland himself does not believe any of this. The government would have to prove that Copeland knows what he is doing is not in fact what God wants and is just using this to enrich himself. In short, the government would have to prove that Copeland is in fact knowingly perpetrating a scam.
The alternative is a non-starter under any circumstances. That alternative is that the government would have to prove that the Bible does not in any way support Copelands message of the Bible, which would mean the secular government would be establishing a particular interpretation of the Bible, which is so far out of bounds it may as well be another universe.
What you are arguing is that none of that is relevant. You believe the only thing that matters is your secular understanding of what the church exemption is designed to be. Belief doesn't enter into it for you. That's fine. You get to have an opinion. But please stop whining because we don't see it the way you do. We see it from the perspective of religious faith. What will it mean or might it mean to the rest of us? If the government can tell the Copelands they are not a church then what stops them from telling others they aren't churches, either?
Now, if you can't understand this or you don't think it is relevant, that's fine, but we have nothing further to talk about if so.
Good grief, you answer my question tactically rather than as a principle (stay tuned; I will even explain this)
So you think the government ought not pursue this because it is too difficult. If you have comprehended what I wrote, I have opined that the government typically does not pursue cons like Copeland because they face a very strong uphill battle based on the backlash and running interference from religious organizations (misguided IMO). That is, I think they see it as too much of an uphill battle (too great a political cost for the benefit) and thus are dissuaded. I do not buy the notion that the government is incapable of engaging in a successful investigation but have repeatedly posited (starting with my first post in this thread) that they are unwilling to pay the political costs.
But my question used the word 'should' (as in: the right thing to do) because I was asking a question of principle and ethics.
Now, "SHOULD the government engage in proper oversight even if the organization is registered as an IRS 'church'" is not a tactical question, it is a question of principle. To be clearer:
Do you hold that it is the right thing to do (aka 'should') for the government to engage in proper oversight even if the organization is registered as an IRS 'church'?
I have already stated that I am confident Copeland's followers believe the guy. Of course they believe him. If not, they would not be following him and sending him money. This is obvious.
I have also noted that their approval is entirely irrelevant. Their approval does not change whether or not Copeland is violating the law / regulations or the spirit of same. Again (and again) I have not posed a religious test here. The fact that we are talking about churches (per the IRS) is simply because these con-artists chose to use the protections of churches to host their scam. If they were using the protection of any other non-profit or specially-treated organizational framework my comments would be identical.
My argument (and opinion) is strictly secular. Viewing this from the perspective of religious faith is a major distortion. That is probably why you keep bizarrely insisting that I am suggesting the government rule on religious practices. There is no religious faith concept at play in my argument. It is about law, regulations and the spirit of same.
No, I don't think that. I think the government has no business deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't unless it can present actual legally actionable evidence the particular entity is a scam. I don't know how to make that clearer than that. It simply isn't possible for the government to say that Copeland isn't a real religious position and is instead a scam because the government doesn't decide what constitutes a real religion. I also don't believe the government has the right to go sniffing through an entity's files, books or whatever else simply because of how an organization looks.
No argument from me. You're entitled to your own opinion on the matter. My belief, though, is that it isn't about being unwilling. It is about the very things I'm talking about. The government tossing the establishment clause and going into the business of deciding who's legitimate or who isn't. There isn't a lawmaker out there who believes they could get that one by the SCOTUS and for obvious reasons. It would be "difficult" as you put it precisely because they'd be stomping all over the establishment clause. That's my opinion as to why they don't do what you think should be done.
And no one faults you for that. My opinion of Copeland is he's a snake, ethically, but I don't think that's sufficient grounds for prosecuting him any more than simply "I believe her" suffices when a woman accuses a man of rape is reason enough to put him in jail or smear him in public or otherwise attempt to ruin his life. And, obviously, we don't agree on what the right thing to do would be. You see the problem from a purely secular point of view. I see it from a religious point of view. The solutions will not be the same because the concerns are not the same. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
That is an unanswerable question without defining what constitutes "proper oversight". That's pretty much the issue we've been arguing over this whole time, is it not?
What you mean is, you consider it entirely irrelevant. That doesn't mean that it is and it is for sure a court of law would disagree with you.
No, it doesn't, but absent of evidence of an actual violation of the law this point is irrelevant. You have yet to produce any evidence or even listed a specific, actionable crime, except to say you think it violates the spirit of the IRS regulations. So???
And absolutely why I don't trust what you want to do. Not even a little bit. The very last pair of hands I want this issue to rest in is one's that don't believe religious faith is a factor in this, let alone the major one.
Show me where I have suggested that government should decide what is a legitimate religion or not. You keep stating this in reply to me to give the impression that this is what I have argued.
That is not what I have argued. Again, is it possible that you simply cannot comprehend my words? I doubt that. Seriously. So why is it that no matter what I write you cannot get this idea out of your head?
If an organization has credible signs that it is engaging in illegal behavior the government should (the right thing to do) investigate. So right off the bat, consider a non-profit organization where the owner lives in a $6.5 million mansion, has his own airport, his own natural gas supply system and a fleet of four planes (two jets), and a personal wealth estimated as high as $750 million. Imagine further that even superficial investigations raised red flags on proper use of revenue as per IRS guidelines for non-profit. Nothing? So then what must happen, per you, for the government to call for an audit? Must the offending organization call for the audit?
Not what I have argued. Not even remotely close.
Where do you see me calling for Copeland to be prosecuted because he is a snake (or any other equivalent words you wish)? I have not argued that Copeland is a lying sack of shit therefore he must be prosecuted. He is a lying sack of shit, but that is simply a fact (and a flag). My position is that organizations like Copeland's should not be able to hide behind the protections and enjoy the privileges of legitimate churches.
The position I articulated in my very first post and in every post since.
Uh huh. Proper oversight means that the government would engage in periodic requests for information and (potentially) audits for the express purpose of ensuring that special privileges granted are going only to eligible participants. It also means that when there are flags indicating a potential illegal activity that it investigates same as it would for any other organization.
In the spirit of my question, 'proper oversight' means fair, consistent oversight following established precedent that has been used the past century in USA organizations.
Just unbelievable.
In this topical area that I defined, the beliefs of the members does not in any way determine if an organization broke the law. If they believe Copeland is 100% honest and always does what he promised that does not change whether or not he broke an IRS regulation or a law.
I did not put forth a scenario where, for example, Copeland promises that if they seed $100 they will get a tenfold return. That is probably the most core claim that Copeland makes in his prosperity gospel. Nowhere have I even suggested that this is something that the IRS should investigate. Too abstract and tied to belief. If I had posited something like this, your comment would apply.
But I have not. I have explicitly talked about legal (legal as it would apply to any non-profit organization or one with special privileges).
First I gave you the Grassley link which apparently you categorically dismiss. Second, you are back to this nonsense ploy of claiming that I must somehow (on my own) present hard evidence of a crime for my principled point to be valid. I must do this on the example I use as a tool to reify the principled position I have articulated. And you do not see how this is an intellectually dishonest tactic on your part?
Where do you get the idea that I have anything to do with the disposition of Copeland, et. al.?
The fact that you continue to insist that faith is a factor in a secular legal position just shows that you simply cannot bring yourself to objectively read what I wrote. You are determined to portray mine as a faith-based position and clearly no matter what I state you just stubbornly stick to your fantasy.
Why? You cannot deliver a quote from me where I have suggested that the government should decide what is a legitimate religion or not. Nowhere have I suggested that the government should state that Copeland Ministries is not a religion.
The IRS can find that the Copeland Ministries organization does not qualify as a 'church' per its guidelines. This can be done today because the guidelines already exist. So do you consider the IRS defining a 'church' to qualify which organizations get the associated privileges to be the IRS deciding about the legitimacy of a religion?
If so then in your mind the IRS is violating the 1st by simply defining 'church' and granting privileges.
I'm sure you think so.
I addressed it. I explained it thoroughly. You just don't like the answer, so you're ignoring it. I suspect that will continue.
The allegations are accurate representations of your claims. If they are ridiculous, it is because your claims are.
You are talking about regulating organizations that closely mimic the behavior of churches. (A fact you would know if you attended.) You claim you intend to do so without damaging regular churches, yet you obviously have zero idea how they work. You're talking about faith and in this particular instance prayer. You participate in neither, yet somehow doubt the guidance of people who have practiced both for decades.
Your accusation that I defend them is insulting. Correcting your wildly misguided suppositions does not in any way constitute a defense of unethical behavior. Just because you're clueless doesn't mean I approve of what they do.
You don't buy it because you don't get it. You don't get it because you don't want to.
But, it's a free country and you are entitled to be as mistaken as you like.
Does this sound familiar:
Explain how the government is going to do this without deciding what a "legitimate church" is.
Clarify for me why you posted the IRS regulations if not to argue that we already had a method for deciding what is a "legitimate church".
So why this "proper oversight" involving periodic requests for information unless the government is going to decide whether a church was legitimate or not, and then periodically review and decide again?
And decided it does not count. I decided that it does count. Further, since this has not been subjected to our legal system we can only opine from afar. We disagree. Fine, drop it.
Exactly how do you know that I have zero knowledge of how a church works?
Did Jim Bakker and Kent Hovind's convictions cause legitimate churches to have an increase in audits or anything else measurable? When actual pastors are caught embezzling would you hold that their convictions inappropriately harm all churches?
Oh, well that is a problem. Easy solution: do not defend them. Do not take a position (mine) that con-artists should not be allowed to operate under the protection and privilege of a church and translate it into government going after legitimate churches or (as is clearly pushed by Drakk) that government will be determining what is and is not a religion.
Do not dismiss even attempting to exercise oversight on these con-artists because they are too sophisticated for the IRS/government to prevail or raise the concern that the government actions will be a slippery slope.
Don't do that and I will have no reason to see you as providing them cover.
Lame. What was the fallout on legit churches when Bakker went down? Still operating?
I asked you this question (which you quoted):
You then wrote this:
First here is the quote from me you provided as your 'evidence':"
Do you not understand the difference between legitimate CHURCH (per IRS) and legitimate RELIGION?
In your mind do you think that the word 'religion' means 'church as defined by the IRS'?
You must, otherwise you would not have posted your comment.
So now you ask a decent question. Note that here you did not state 'legitimate religion' so that is a start. The other part is that the legitimacy of the church is regarding IRS regulations. That is, does this organization meet our IRS criteria to allow us to grant it special privileges and protections?
Answer: the IRS would in my scenario determine if the organization continues to meet the criteria that the IRS has outlined in order to be qualified by the IRS as a church and thus gain its privileges and protections.
The IRS would not, however, have anything to say on whether or not the organization is a legitimate religion (unqualified). The IRS does not concern itself with such matters (because that would likely be seen as a violation of the 1st).
I cannot make this any clearer.
Also the IRS today defines the word 'church' and has criteria (which I posted days ago) that must be met to qualify. Do you consider this a violation of the 1st?
Why? Geeze, TiG. I'm running out of creative ways to try to explain it. Why in the hell would I want to deliver a quote from you for something you haven't said and is obviously not your position??? I totally understand what your position is and why you hold it. What appears to entirely escape you is that someone else may see your proposed actions, regardless of what your personal reasoning and motives may be for them, in a different light. And when someone explains what light they see your proposal in, you somehow think they are twisting what you say or that they don't understand what you're talking about because, obviously (in your mind) they couldn't possibly disagree with you if they did understand. So, therefore, they must be twisting your words because only your argument exists. You know, pretty much like always.
You stated that I am suggesting government determine the criteria for what is or is not a legitimate religion.
That is wrong. Not even close. You are completely off base.
That is why I asked you to deliver a quote. Maybe, in the process, you will figure out that you are wrong.
Or, maybe, you will deliver the quote and I will illustrate the flaws in your reading.
You choose to not even try and simply pretend that you are correct.
You just can't wrap your head around it, can you? I am stating that is my view of what your proposals entail. You take issue with what Copeland is doing and you give your reasons why something should be done about it. I give you my reasons why I do not believe that is an acceptable solution. Somehow, my doing that means I'm putting words in your mouth when I'm not even talking about your reasons for what you want done. I'm talking about my reasons why I oppose what you want done.
You think it's just some secular issue. I do not. Why is it you can't grasp that???? I disagree with your view of this issue and explain why. Why can't you grasp that? I think there are issues more important at stake than the issues you list. Why can't you understand that? I am not twisting anything you say. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I am telling you how I see what you are trying to do. Why can't you understand that?????????????? My view of this issue is not your view. I have a different view of what is involved in this issue. How much plainer can I possibly make it, TiG? So...
No, I didn't. If you think you can prove me wrong, provide the quote. In the mean time, what I actually did was tell you that I believe your proposed solution is the government deciding what counts as a real religion and what doesn't. That in no way suggests anything like that's your argument. It is MY argument about what your solution means. It's what's called a dissenting opinion, TiG. You think it's just the closing of a loophole. I think it is government overreach.
It doesn't seem to be something you can grasp, though, that I might actually have an argument that is different than yours. Since you can't all you're left with, apparently, is thinking my argument somehow derives from yours and so I must be putting words in your mouth or twisting what you say. You just can't imagine that someone may have a completely separate argument that does not derive from yours.
Easy enough, here is the most recent in this thread. Do you need more?
I asked you :
In that context you answered:
In your head, you translated my question on legitimate church per IRS into one on legitimate religion and answered that different question. Nowhere have I ever suggested that the government should decide what is a legitimate religion or not. Yet here you are substituting my 'legitimate church per IRS' as 'legitimate religion'.
See? ChurchIRS ≠ Religion
Now look at this:
The establishment clause speaks of religion; it does not speak of defining the criteria for church to enable special IRS privileges (or denying same). You again conflate religion with ChurchIRS and in your mind apparently think that is what I wrote. Well, that is not what I wrote and that is not anything close to what I mean and I have explicitly stated this multiple times so you have no excuse.
Need more? We have an entire thread of your comments.
My 'view' of the issue is that no organization should be able to freely violate our laws / regulations or spirit of same. This is especially true for organizations that have qualified for a privileged status in our society.
So do you or do you not share this view? This is the view I established in my first post and continued throughout.
Okay, TiG. I'm just going to quietly back away and leave you to it. You apparently don't need anyone to explain anything to you as you seem to have it all figured out to your satisfaction.
You challenged, I delivered and now you pretend that I am wrong. Classy.
So the Gotti's could have just defined themselves a "church" and gotten away with organized crime?
To be clear, you were quoting Drakk @16.1.86, not me. I know you know this but I want anyone reading to understand that those are not my words.
That said, I agree. I do not buy the argument that the government does not have the sophistication to investigate an organization suspected of illegal activity even if it meets the IRS definition of church and do not buy the notion that the IRS is too inept to recognize and properly deal with a non-profit organization whose use of compensatory funds does not meet their criteria for 'reasonable'.
Nor do I buy the concept of letting any organization operate above the law with no oversight simply because it is defined as an IRS church.
Is this a serious question or did you just not read most of this thread?
I think the spirit of his question is to challenge the notion that simply because an organization meets the IRS criteria of 'church' that the government should have no right to "... go sniffing through an entity's files, books or whatever else ...".
That IRS designation should not make an organization immune from proper oversight. If special privileges are given to an organization because of certain criteria, the government has the right of oversight. They have the right to, for example, engage in audits based on their guidelines for doing so. And if they find suspicious activity, per their guidelines, they have the right (and obligation) to pursue the suspicions.
And if the organization does not cooperate, then the IRS should have the right to deny them the special privileges. The burden of meeting the IRS criteria should be held by the organization seeking the protections and privileges.
( continuing )
To wit, organizations like Copeland Ministries should be, at the very least, subject to an audit. If you read the links I have repeatedly provided to you it is clear there are plenty of red flags ( nothing whatsoever to do with religious practices or beliefs ) to justify an audit. Plus the fact that Copeland refused to fully cooperate with even Grassley (a very mild information gathering investigation) should be justification to investigate.
No investigation ensued and I am convinced it is because of a reluctance to deal with the protective backlash from people who think like you and fear that any government action on a 'church' (as defined by the IRS) is ipso facto a violation of the 1st amendment or will, at the least, trigger a slippery slope that will enable the government to go on a witch hunt on legit churches.
That fear is demonstrably irrational given even con-artists like Copeland, Duplantis, Dollar, etc. continue to thrive and operate without even significant oversight actions much less formal investigations such as a serious audit. If these con-artists do not even have oversight why would anyone be concerned about legitimate churches?
Correct. My apologies.
Not necessary but thanks.
Was your posit that governments shouldn't look into religious organizations books serious? Yes, it's a little flippant, but tell me the difference between the Coplands and Gottis of the world. Other than one threatening physical torment in the physical world while the other threatens enteral torment in the next, I mean.
Do you really need it explained why there's a difference? One is organized religion, the other, organized crime. (Yes, yes. Go ahead and say something witty about there not being a difference) Nor does being labeled as a church protect any organization from the consequences of committing crimes, as Jim Bakker found out for the crimes he committed.
This, of course, tells us that there's not much point in explaining further, since this sort of comment indicates your lack of objectivity concerning the issue.
thank you. you're getting much too close to the edge.
Interesting, you deem Copeland's organization "organized religion". I would have expected you to see them as a sham that is tarnishing the name of organized religion and not a genuine organized religion.
Was that a mistake or do you actually hold this to be true?
Personally, I see Copeland as a con-artist using the protections and privileges that our society provides to churches to run his scam.
Jim Bakker (convicted in 1989 on numerous fraud charges; served only 5 years) is a rather rare exception. You must believe then that Copeland, et. al. have done nothing that would even warrant an audit. Is that your position?
Don't forget the rape allegations too.
Right you are. Good grief is this what a 'religious' con-artist has to do to get the attention of our government? Copeland is already 84 so at least the women are safe ...
Really? Well God told me, by virtue of instilling in me the faculty of reason, not to give you or other crooks like you any money whatsoever. So one could say I have given God precisely what he wants. What do you have to say about that Mr. Duplantis?
So let me get this straight... Jesus is holding out for contract negotiations and you are his agent? He has you on the phone and he's screaming, "Show me da Money!!!", and you are his Ambassador of Quan? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
My advice to anyone who has considered giving money to this guy, or guys like him, give it to St. Judes Children's Hospital instead. That will make Jesus smile, and make you feel so much better about yourself.
when I was very troubled about starting a teavangelical killing spree when the next civil war starts, geezus told me in my dreams not to sweat it because he didn't know them and the 6th commandment didn't apply. /s
Why do people seek to control other people?
Why do people allow them to do it in the first place?
I have read that not all narcissists are psychopaths, but that all psychopaths are narcissist. Seems logical to me.
People, outside of a religion, often wonder why the congregation doesn't practice what they preach. They may well be getting their message from a narcissist or psychopath.
Whew! I don't see electrical engineer on the list.... so you guys don't have to worry about me!
I'd be happy to have you for dinner some night and we can discuss.
Most people want to help people instead of themselves.
Might be an interesting conversation.
I read for meaning and usually skip the literal translation, but I really hope that I am not the intended entree.
If your religious or non-religious leader is a narcissist, then to their way of thinking they own their followers and all their possessions. IOW, the followers are a tool, an appliance.
Who would willingly ever allow this kind of control of their life if they knew what they were dealing with?
Where are the "real" Christians denouncing the psychopaths and narcissists? Could it be that the "real" Christians have been indoctrinated or raised since childhood to accept this kind of control of their life?
Here's an oldie, but a goody. I have never seen someone's eyes turn demonic so quickly. In that one instant, it was like he was imagining the reporter's death and dismemberment.
He has a great scam going and thus far the government has let him do so. They have only superficially investigated him and when Copeland refused to provide them information they let him get away with it. They poke a little and then move on to (presumably) more politically safe endeavors.
Not to harp on it, but Copeland's scary demeanor reminds me of this guy:
I think Jim Jones looked more or less normal compared to Copeland , who in some photos and videos looks possessed.
Copeland definitely makes some eerie facial expressions. And that maniacal laugh regarding Trump's loss was surprising. Then again, I was surprised when his wife Gloria announced that Copeland has control over the weather. So I suppose I should not be surprised by anything from this slimy organization.
Luckily Copeland is simply a greedy narcissist and does not appear to be insane.
I vote both.
Lol, Christianity in a nut shell. “Just give me a LITTLE bit more money and all your wildest dreams will come true.” And then when you give that little bit more it’s “ahh sry man, Jesus needs just a few more bucks, just a 10% increase and I swear this time he’ll make good.”
I mean, at what point do people recognize the racket or what it is? If you took your car to a mechanic and they quoted you at $1500, you pay, and then when you show up to pick it up they say “ahh sry man, it’s actually gonna be $2000, come pick it up next week” would you just say “yeah okay, sounds good” ?
Fuck no, you would say “what the hell? Why is it gonna cost me another $500 and what did my $1500 get me?” Why religion gets a pass on this is beyond me.
The problem is, people don't recognize the scam. They buy into it, support it, and even defend it because religion.
And it seems that many who recognize the scam give cover to the con-artist organizations for fear that the government will go on a witch hunt into legitimate organizations who meet the IRS criteria to be considered a 'church'. As if the government has any desire to touch the 1st amendment rail.
It's defense based on irrational fear or possibly personal bias.
I can see irrational fear; I do not see the bias part. I can also see people thinking so simplistically that they do not realize that 'church' is simply an IRS designation for a set of criteria and benefits for those who meet the criteria.
There is nothing in our constitution that states churches (using the conventional meaning of the word now) must be tax-exempt organizations. We added that after-the-fact as a way to make a very clear separation from churches. That is, if the IRS considers churches exempt then they clearly are well buffered from allegations of violating the 1st. And, if you think about it, we really should not have even done that. By defining the criteria for which organizations get tax-free benefits (and labeling them 'churches'), we have provided favoritism to organizations that meet the criteria over those that do not and that favoritism could be argued as a violation of the 1st.
I think the only reason that has not surfaced is because the IRS criteria is rather general and easy to meet and because the IRS (and other government agencies) steer very clear of churches and grant them an excessive (IMO) leeway. Ergo the lucrative environment for con-artists.
Oh, and then there are those who think 'religion' and IRS 'church' are synonyms. And thus, they must think that the existing IRS criteria is not talking about qualifications for privileges for certain organization but actually defining what is a legitimate religion.
I think some religious individuals tend to be (possibly reflexively) defensive of anything religious, possibly to the point where they see little to nothing wrong with what religious organizations or authorities do. Challenging or calling out these organizations and individuals may be viewed as an "attack" on them or their beliefs. They may not fully analyze the situation.
I can see that too.
Agreed.
A good point.
I also think there would be significant social, legal, and political backlash too if the IRS was viewed as "targeting" churches.
Exactly.
Yes, I most definitely agree with that.
Although a comedy sketch, this is how god and/or god's representatives on Earth are all things to all people. I hope you enjoy.