Election 2020 Beto O'Rourke says churches should be taxed if they refuse to support gay marriage

Salvation army isn't exactly the best example here but I get your meaning.

At the same time there's something fucked up about joel osteen not paying taxes on his millions.
Unfortunately, no system is perfect; and there will always be people like Joel Osteen around to take advantage of the imperfections. The answer is not to tear down the system and start over from scratch though, but rather to find the loopholes they're exploiting, and figure out how to close them.
 
Unfortunately, no system is perfect; and there will always be people like Joel Osteen around to take advantage of the imperfections. The answer is not to tear down the system and start over from scratch though, but rather to find the loopholes they're exploiting, and figure out how to close them.
Then give them tax brackets like everyone else has and set them up so that the poor churches can keep their doors open while the hyper mega sized stadium prosperity gospel fucks like osteen get what's coming to them.
 
Salvation army isn't exactly the best example here but I get your meaning.

At the same time there's something fucked up about joel osteen not paying taxes on his millions.
Except... he does?

Pastors still have to pay income tax as far as I'm aware. Now the organization he heads doesn't have to pay taxes, sure, but that's true of numerous charitable organizations even beyond religious ones.
 
Except... he does?

Pastors still have to pay income tax as far as I'm aware. Now the organization he heads doesn't have to pay taxes, sure, but that's true of numerous charitable organizations even beyond religious ones.
Joel Osteen's organization isn't actually charitable though, it's a vehicle for wealth generation.

If you'll recall during hurricane harvey he wasn't letting people take shelter in his massive stadium church.

Real stand up guy, real stand up organization.
 
Too many churches are for profit and not actually praising the deity of their proclaimed worship.

What fucking church do you go to? Every church I have ever been in, across the country, loudly proclaims their praise for God--it in fact, happens every Sunday. With multiple services lasting about an hour, some longer. And each of those churches have multiple programs from helping the poor, the unfortunate, and raising children with the belief that you should help others.
 
What fucking church do you go to? Every church I have ever been in, across the country, loudly proclaims their praise for God--it in fact, happens every Sunday. With multiple services lasting about an hour, some longer. And each of those churches have multiple programs from helping the poor, the unfortunate, and raising children with the belief that you should help others.

Ones in Hollywood Fiction that are meant to take a stab at the “Religious Right” who are NEVER shown doing charity

Wonder how the hell he managed to travel into the worlds inside the television screen
 
Other special interest groups shouldn't have disproportionate influence in the first place, but it would be completely unrealistic to want them gone as well.

Why? Well religion itself has had a very bloody history in politics. Anything that removes undue influence is a plus in my book.

Define undue influence. Because plenty of Catholics don't believe the Church has undue influence, they in fact, probably believe it doesn't have enough. Same for the Muslims. And I don't get where in the hell you think religious institutions are somehow responsible for bloody history, especially in politics. Politics is bloody. Period.

Note that I am rather religious myself, I just realize that people use religion as a weapon when it shouldn't.

Oh, I'm sure you are.

Source: Me, a Mormon. A jack mormon admittedly, but still one by choice.

Translation: You hate your own faith.

There is a difference between hearing a sermon for the crowd and speaking privately about what laws to attempt to enact to win the religious vote for example.

...So you're angry that the political leadership is organizing their followers to support religious inspired laws that their followers all agree with and believe in? What's the hustle?
 
If you'll recall during hurricane harvey he wasn't letting people take shelter in his massive stadium church.
Yeeaaah. So, I ain't a fan of Olsteen or anything but even Snopes shows it's a lot more complicated than that and that they DID, in fact, take in folks in the aftermath of Harvey. However, the initial claims were reported much more widely and vividly than the actual details of what was going on, so folks remember those headlines over the real events.
 
Joel Osteen's organization isn't actually charitable though, it's a vehicle for wealth generation.

If you'll recall during hurricane harvey he wasn't letting people take shelter in his massive stadium church.

Real stand up guy, real stand up organization.

While I have questions and issues with Osteen's theology, That's not entirely fair to him. He doesn't makes any money from the church directly, whatever funds they take in stay with the church. Osteen is rich because he writes a ton of feel good coffee table books that sell well. No doubt his high profile position within that church helps those books sales immensely, but he doesn't take money from the church itself.

I also don't think it's fair to say the church is generating much wealth itself. Looking at it's budget, it certainly spends very little on charity, and the rest is seemingly spent just to maintain the church organization and spread it's message. I'm not sure what you mean by "wealth" in this context, but that usually refers to amassing property or cash stockpiles, and the church is doing neither.
 
So are a lot of secular charities. Many suck at actually helping people. Why the focus on the religious ones?
Because that’s who we’re talking about right now I suppose. Upthread I called Salvation Army bad also. Goodwill is also shit.
Yeeaaah. So, I ain't a fan of Olsteen or anything but even Snopes shows it's a lot more complicated than that and that they DID, in fact, take in folks in the aftermath of Harvey. However, the initial claims were reported much more widely and vividly than the actual details of what was going on, so folks remember those headlines over the real events.
I was actually down there with my manager and his pals in his bass boat helping evacuate people so I’m a little biased in my opinion that the Osteen wasn’t doing enough.
 
Because that’s who we’re talking about right now I suppose. Upthread I called Salvation Army bad also. Goodwill is also shit.

It's my understanding that goodwill mostly works at job training and and helping people who might otherwise struggle in the workforce to build a resume and gain necessary experience, and that salvation army does something similar (though not as thier only thing). They don't donate much because that's not what they're trying to do, they're trying to help people directly. I'm not seeing how that's a negative?
 
I was actually down there with my manager and his pals in his bass boat helping evacuate people so I’m a little biased in my opinion that the Osteen wasn’t doing enough.
Oh, that's an entirely fair criticism to have, don't get me wrong. I just like people to be accurate in the criticism, which should be that Osteen's Church had a delayed effort to open up to people only after a public outcry, not that they failed to do so entirely.

I would also say that one should not let their actions color the perceptions of ALL Churches and definitely not let antipathy to a single megachurch skew you perception of how the law impacts churches. They were an outlier in how Churches reacted to that disaster.See this report and this one for numerous examples of Churches stepping up and reacting WITHOUT the public outcry.

In fact, one of the reasons the Osteen story went as viral and got as loud as it did was because of the unspoken expectation that churches WOULD serve as emergency shelters. We don't typically write stories about when a church acts as an emergency shelter in a disaster, it's a "Dog bites man" story... it's just expected and thus not newsworthy. But when the unexpected happens, when it's a "Man bites dog" story, THAT gets reported BECAUSE its irregular and thus... is newsworthy. Unfortunately, that can have the effect of skewing people's perceptions more negative because when people are acting as they are expected to do... it never gets reported, so stories about them failing to act properly make it SEEM like people fail to act properly more often than they do...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top