posted on December 4, 2004 08:48:26 PM new
As you all know, I have posted many threads and comments about the scandal involving the priest in the cathlick church raping young boys, and sometimes, but less often girls.
The church is a 501,(c)3 non profit organization under Internal Revenue Service standards. Here is a paragraph from the IRS relating to this.
The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
Now, the church has done everything in it's power to maintain a traditional society with it's condemnation of issues suck as gay marriage and abortion.
The church also has it's own problem in relation to the problem of the priests raping children. They have a strong history of protecting, hiding and transferring the rapist. They use the laws of the United States to protect their assets through bankruptcy protection.
Is raping young children associated with the advancement of religion? Why does any diocese continue to have the tax exempt status of the 501 c 3 under the IRS rules?
If I failed to underpay my federal taxes, the IRS would have the right to audit my taxes and penalize me for this.
If I owned a restaurant and failed the health inspection, the health department would have the ability to take action against me.
If I owned a gas station and rigged my pumps to short the customer, the government would fine me.
If I was a securities dealer and cheated the public, the government would take my license.
So here is the question. Why does the IRS continually allow the diocese of any church to keep their tax exempt status?
posted on December 4, 2004 10:25:16 PM new
I think you came to the wrong place to ask your question. Contact your lawyer as he should know the answer to that one.
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 5, 2004 02:55:43 AM new
How would my lawyer have an answer to such a question? Why should the church be allowed to have the tax exempt status when the people involved break the law?
When people or organizations break the law, there is usually a penalty for it. For some reason, this does not seem to be the case when it comes to the church. Why is the church any different? I think it might be political suicide for any politician to even speak the thought of this. The religious right would have a field day with them.
The government does take action against churches that break the law concerning the promoting or demoting of a political candidate, such as in this situation.
On Oct. 30, 1992, four days before a presidential election, Daniel J. Little's Branch Ministries, Inc., doing business as the Church at Pierce Creek, expressed its concern about the moral character of presidential candidate Bill Clinton in a full page advertisement in the Washington Times and in USA Today. And the IRS subsequently did revoke BMI's 501 (c)(3) nonprofit status.
The Binghamton, N.Y.-based church, in a landmark case, Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, went to the United States Court of Appeals Court for the District of Columbia -- and lost again.
So the IRS has demonstrated its ability and willingness to strip religious institutions of their tax-exempt privileges for violating the law.
So when an official of the church commits a horrible crime such as the rape of a child, why can't the church loose it's tax exempt status?
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 5, 2004 05:08:49 AM new
yeager-
I'm at a loss...
What law did the church break when placing an ad regarding an election? Obviously, Bill Clinton's "moral character" was lacking, so it wasn't slander. (The sexual harassment allegations are why I wouldn't vote for him-turned out my gut feeling was correct.) Seperation of church and state?
Churches are not allowed to endorse a candidate. Nor are they allowed to suppress a candidate in any election. Taking a stand on any candidate, either pro or con, can cause them to loose the tax exempt status.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 5, 2004 05:28:33 AM new
I understand you have a problem with the Catholic church. (I'm not Catholic, so I don't understand it much.)
I do know you cannot condemn the "many" for the actions of the "few".
posted on December 5, 2004 08:48:02 AM new
Consider the words or and includes in the original paragraph.
Doesn't sound like each organization has to do all of those things, but merely if they do some of them they qualify -- as long as their primary existance is for one or more of those purposes.
posted on December 5, 2004 09:01:41 AM new
I think the point you missed in the OP is WHO did the crime. The fact is the Church, as an organization has not committed a crime. Only, as you say, it's EMPLOYEES did, and it certainly wasn't an approved "company" activity.
"If I owned a restaurant ...'
"If I owned a gas station..."
If you owned a restaurant or gas station and one of your employees was a pedophile, should the IRS investigate YOU or your business? Of course not. They have nothing to do with the employees crime.
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
"defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
You think the churches don't work very hard to advance these issues? I know mine does! But then again, I'm not Catholic either.
--------------------------------------
Brian S. - "God's own emissary to the Vendio heathens"
posted on December 5, 2004 09:04:59 AM new
Yes, yeager has a problem with the Catholic Church and many other things in here. Why does he come in and ask a question and when someone tries to answer he seems to have more answers or he questions yours. Get a life yeager. When you have legal questions why come in here and ask us peons as I am sure you feel we are dumber than nails. Go to where you can get some advice. Where else but a lawyer he should know most of the answers.
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on December 5, 2004 12:20:34 PM new
Libra, why do Yeager's questions about religion bother you enough to tell him to get a life? I think his questions are appropriate. These meatheads should NOT enjoy tax exemption when they're running a sham church. By continuing to get this exemption, the government is more or less condoning their sick behaviour. Maybe the bulk of you can turn a blind eye to all this, but Yeager won't, so get use to it, or don't read his threads.
posted on December 5, 2004 12:41:27 PM new
1) The RC church is not a "sham" organization.
2) "turn a blind eye"
To what??? Pedophilia is bad? Oh yeah, we get it. We just don't get the endless "Rev. Cornwiliger exhorts flock to paint gays orange" posts, etc., as if they are suppose to have any point.
If I started cutting and pasting endless "Gay rapes greyhound in Fl park" stories from the local Inquirer, would you sit there and contemplate the complexities?
posted on December 5, 2004 12:53:40 PM new
ANY church affiliate or church leader that is privy to ANY information regarding these kinds of sins within a church and does nothing about it, is the lowest form of scum. They should all be asking God for forgiveness while they sit in jail for very long terms.
Bush said that any country or group of people that sides with the terrorists were to be considered terrorists themselves. That's the way I see this matter. And to be given tax exemption to boot is a slap on the face to society.
I don't have a problem with the cathlick church, I have a problem with ANY church, and it's officials that professes to be moral and then turn out to be the horrible slobs that they are.
desquirrel,
"I'll GUARANTEE there are more homosexuals raping young boys than RC priests"
Really, since you can GUARANTEE this, you must have some solid statistics to back this. Where do you get these "facts" from anyway. If you can't provide the facts, then I would consider you statement to be empty.
replay says,
"Only, as you say, it's EMPLOYEES did, and it certainly wasn't an approved "company" activity."
Oh really? Apparently you aren't quite familiar with the fact the cathlick church, has did it's best to protect these priest by moving (hiding) them in another church in another city. This of course provides them with a new crop of victims. If that is not an approval of the activity, then I don't know what is.
And replay, If I owned a restaurant or gas station and one of my employees was a pedophile, should the IRS investigate YOU or your business? "Of course not. They have nothing to do with the employees crime."
A gas station and a restaurant ARE NOT TAX EXEMPT. The point there was that if I violated the law concerning these businesses, then action could be taken against me. Why is it that a private business can be held accountable, and not a church concerning tax laws? A pedophile is a pedophile, regardless of where he/she works. It could be a gas station, or a church.
libra says,
"yeager has a problem with the Catholic Church and many other things in here."
I have a problem with the fact they want to control society while they have a major problem controlling themselves. You are the one of the many here that seem to want to enable them by continuing to support what they stand for.
If I was a convicted child molester and was paroled and moved into your neighborhood, you would HAVE A FIT. I think in your mind it's OK to support a church that rapes children. This is a perfect example of the blind faith that many of your kind has.
Also libra, if you don't like my post, then don't click on them. I thought that you said you were going to put me on ignore. Please do that if you feel necessary. It's cool with me.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 5, 2004 02:26:14 PM new
Just ask any cop.
But you'd have to be delusional to think there are more priests (based on percentages) than gays doing time for pedophilia. This does have the additional complication of gay priests, but I would be willing to put them solely in the "priest" category. LOL
posted on December 5, 2004 02:32:16 PM new
Using google "homosexuals convicted pedophilia",
The first thing that comes up is a research study of sexual surveys by some psychologist.
posted on December 5, 2004 02:43:05 PM new
Wow! You must be a true defender of the cathlick pervert rapists when you ask me to view a web page that is operated by the cathlick family organization. How much more blind can you be? I really like the conclusion they provided. This is very interesting that they, the cathlick church would even have the gall to make such a statement when they have more baggage than any other church in the county.
Conclusion
Not only is the gay rights movement upfront in its desire to legitimize sex with children, but whether indexed by population reports of molestation, pedophile convictions, or teacher-pupil assaults, there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality. Ann Landers claim that homosexuals molest children at no higher a rate than heterosexuals do is untrue. The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false.
So, is your position that the church is within it's right to do this?
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 5, 2004 02:48:46 PM new
Also, you must truly be delusional if you think.......
Not only is the gay rights movement upfront in its desire to legitimize sex with children.....
The gay rights movement is about gays and lesbians having recognition and the same legal rights as everybody else. Nowhere in their goals is it their desire to have sex with children. If you think otherwise, you need to rethink your position.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 5, 2004 02:52:16 PM new
Whatever organization it was didn't invent the study, just printed it. Tell us the numbers which are incorrect. Like I said, this was the 1st item in the google search, feel free to go down the list and choose another study.
I don't know what you define as the "gay rights movement", but NAMBLA certainly describes themselves as a "gay rights movement". Consider the broadness of the statement as the writer's version of another "priest rapes boy in Kansas" yeager post.
PS: I really don't care about Ann Lander's opinion anymore than I would consult a haberdasher about building a nuclear reactor.
[ edited by desquirrel on Dec 5, 2004 02:58 PM ]
posted on December 5, 2004 03:04:13 PM new
So, if like you say Desquirrel, there are more homosexuals out there raping children then there are priests raping children, does that dismiss what these church phonies are doing? Also, if this dirty secret has been going on for decades in the church (possibly longer) how can statistics be accuarate?
posted on December 5, 2004 03:21:23 PM new
"Whatever organization it was didn't invent the study, just printed it. Tell us the numbers which are incorrect."
Well, if they print the study, then they must agree to it too. And if you link to it, then you must agree to it also. As far as me telling you "the numbers which are incorrect", you are the one who made the GUARANTEE on the numbers, not me. In the fact the gay population is about 10 percent, or according to the page you provided only 2.3 percent of the population is gay. Now, with that in mind, wouldn't it be fair to say that more of the people in prison for molesting children are heterosexual than homosexual? that would leave 97.7 percent of the population to be straight, thus having the majority of molestation convictions.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 5, 2004 03:58:26 PM newWhy does the IRS continually allow the diocese of any church to keep their tax exempt status?
Because of the separation of church and state that you sooooo support. lol
I just love that the tax-exempt status issue is really bothering you yeager, and that there's absolutely nothing YOU can do about it. [except complain, of course.]
-------------------------------------
And kerry was campaigning in churches too. He obviously wasn't worried about those churches loosing their tax exempt status. It's always gone on...on both sides.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 5, 2004 04:22:57 PM new
Yes linda,
There is separation of church and state. Again, you failed to read the thread. It's not about government interference of religion, or the state sponsoring a religion, but with the tax status of the church. Any one can form a church. I could form one held in an chicken coop if I wanted to. Of course, I would hire you for clean up duties!
No linda,
A church has to apply for tax exempt status and then it's granted. This allows members to deduct their donations to the church from their income tax at the end of the year. Once the tax exempt status is revoked, then the donations are no longer tax deductible for the members, and any income that the church realizes from donations or investments in now taxable.
As far as Kerry campaigning in churches, you are right on that too.
Wednesday October 13, 2004
American's United today asked the IRS to investigate the Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, which hosted a Sunday service that became a rally featuring speeches by Kerry, former Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton and other prominent Democrats.
Americans United Executive Director Rev. Barry W. Lynn said the church-based partisan rally seems to be a clear violation of federal tax law that bars houses of worship and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups from intervening in political campaigns.
So linda, in your opinion, should the church be allowed to keep it's 501 c 3 status if it's officials rape children?
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
I have a 501(c)(3) corporation and the rules are very, very specific when it comes to political affiliation. However, there is a website that tells the churches how to get away with it. If I can locate it again, I'll post it. Charitable and religious organizations which receive a 501(c)(3) tax exemption have a clear and simple choice to make: they can engage in religious activities and retain their exemption, or they can engage in political activity and lose it, but they cannot engage in political activity and retain their exemption. A pastor may not ask the congregation to support any political candidate, but he may say that “he personally” supports A, B, or C. A church may spend no more than 5% of it’s annual income, and no more than 5% of it’s time on political issues.
Currently the IRS is investigating 60 tax-exempt groups 20 of which are churches. You can read about it here:
How Jerry Falwell gets away with it, I'll never know. He is constantly pushing the political button. There are, however, many, many churches (a good portion of them African American) that choose not to be 501(c)(3) entities because they are heavily involved in politics.
Cheryl
"Success in almost any field depends more on energy and drive than it does on intelligence. This explains why we have so many stupid leaders."
-Sloan Wilson
posted on December 5, 2004 05:06:07 PM new
Yeager,
Can you possibly be this dumb?? So you say more straights molest kids than gays. Was this even the question???? No.
Like was stated, the percentage of these crimes committed is MANY times higher PER gay person than straight person.
The POINT is if you are on a crusade to save young boys from pedophiles, you could be 10-20 times more effective going after gays than priests, dog trainers, or anything else. But of course, that is not the particular crusade you're on.
This denial by the politically correct crowd is what causes people to roll their eyes (then vote for Bush). What really surprises me is that I would expect the lefties here to say the percentage of gays jailed IS much higher, but because of a right wing conspiracy, not a genetic or psychic defect.
Kind of like the "let's see, 15% of the population is black, more than that % of jail populations equals racism."
Denying facts because they don't fit a political philosophy is what Creationists do with Evolution.
posted on December 5, 2004 05:28:09 PM new
Dr. Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, studied 269 sexual abused children examined during one year at Denver Children's Hospital. Investigation shows:
80% of girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child s mother or another relative.
75% of boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.
Only 1 of 219 girls was molested by a lesbian; 1 out of 50 boys by a gay male. This is a much lower percentage than the likely 6-10% of the population that is homosexual, therefore the incidence of gays molesting is much lower than the rate for heterosexuals.
Cheryl
"Success in almost any field depends more on energy and drive than it does on intelligence. This explains why we have so many stupid leaders."
-Sloan Wilson
posted on December 5, 2004 08:13:37 PM new
desquirrel,
Is it your defense of the cathlick church that gay men molest young boys more so than priest?
If you read Cheryl's post, it said....
studied 269 sexual abused children examined during one year at Denver Children's Hospital. Investigation shows:
That should tell you they were taken to the hospital due to the sexual assault. I really don't know why you would have to ask Did they define "sexual abuse?".
Does that question demonstrate another defense for the cathlick church?
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
Prevent Bigotry through Education.
