[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Religions take in far more than they put out.

lol...what "religions" are you talking about? 4/5 christian churches in America can't give a single staff member a living wage*, if any. 4/5 of those that are left over can only afford to give one staff member a living wage (yes, those are actual statistics, feel free to look it up). There are a few standouts...Prestonwood, Saddleback, etc...which are bringing in large donations...you can find Prestonwood's financial statements online...huge sums of money, but hardly profiting. Its all going out in sum form or another. Regardless, those are not the norm. I can't speak for other religions...maybe all those Buddhists are banking it.

Past that, the church/government relationship is one that the government is perfectly willing to exploit if they need it. Hurricane? Send in the churches. Floods? Send in the churches. Hatti? Send in the churches. And, whether you're talking about the left or the right, neither side has any real qualms about churches organizing for them (despite IRS regulations).

If anything, churches are a money saver for the US Government. A tax exemption is a small thing to give back. On the federal level it's more for those who donate to the church than the church itself...most churches would owe nothing anyway. On a local level, it is beneficial to the church itself. But again, local governments are more than willing to use churches to their advantage too.



(*living wage => poverty line)

Some guy in the revenue-generating portion of NPR (which, in the tape, he clearly explains to the "muslims" is firewalled from the news organization) says that the Tea Party is xenophobic. (Have you looked at the party affiliation of the guy holding anti-muslim-community congressional hearings? Which groups is vocal on getting illegal immigrants? Which is vocal on restricting legal immigration? )

Protecting the boarder is xenophobic? Knowing who is in the country is xenophobic? Anit-muslim-community... seriously? This almost sounds like hate speech.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

lol...what "religions" are you talking about?

Catholicism comes to mind. The LDSF has considerable funds to spend too (look, for example, at the millions they threw at prop 8). The Scientologists seem to be doing well also. Christianity has its own channel (or three)

The Mosques and reformist churches aren't as consolidated: but I welcome statistics if you have any. I'm sure we can both come up with both super-wealthy mega-churches and impoverished buildings that shut down (though personally I see far more people attending the former).

Protecting the boarder is xenophobic? Knowing who is in the country is xenophobic? Anit-muslim-community... seriously?

Xenophobes don't care about borders? Xenophobes don't want to know who is in the US? Non-Muslim xenophobes don't oppose mosques?

This almost sounds like hate speech.

Then you have no idea what hate-speech is. I didn't even use a phrase as harsh as "exposing their true agenda" (which was used in the OP about NPR). Quit trolling.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Catholicism comes to mind. The LDSF has considerable funds to spend too (look, for example, at the millions they threw at prop 8). The Scientologists seem to be doing well also. Christianity has its own channel (or three)

Can you show were any of those are profiting? Or how any of those examples would be considered normal for religion in America? Catholicism, certainly mainstream, but profiting? Not really. In America, they're doing worse than Evangelicals financially.... Scientologists? All 45 thousand of them? Not exactly a standard by which to compare others to.

I'm concerned that you have an unhealthy understanding about religion in America. Churches are having hard times paying water bills.

The Mosques and reformist churches aren't as consolidated: but I welcome statistics if you have any. I'm sure we can both come up with both super-wealthy mega-churches and impoverished buildings that shut down (though personally I see far more people attending the former).

Then you're not paying attention. Please, do some research before making wild assumptions. Of protestant churches, the majority in America, 59% of church goers attend churches that avg <99 in weekly attendance. 94% attend churches that have less than 500. So, 6% of weekly attenders go to larger churches, with only around .4% attending a mega-church (defined by nearly everyone as +2000 in weekly attendance).

Of course, those are just numbers of attenders, not the amount of money that is being profited. Of the 300K protestant churches in America, only 7% can make their budget on any given month. Over half of those are sub 100 in attendance churches who don't have large overheads.

The rest survive by making cuts. There's no profit being made in the vast majority.

Can you show that the remaining 7% are bringing in more than they're giving back? Can you show that they are profiting more than the government is giving them in tax relief?

Xenophobes don't care about borders? Xenophobes don't want to know who is in the US? Non-Muslim xenophobes don't oppose mosques?

Then you have no idea what hate-speech is. I didn't even use a phrase as harsh as "exposing their true agenda" (which was used in the OP about NPR). Quit trolling.

I'm making a valid point about your argument. You're promoting hate by referring to them as xenophobes. Hate speech. But, I'd suppose that if one is so used to trolling that it would be easy to be confused when you're called out on it.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Can you show were any of those are profiting? Or how any of those examples would be considered normal for religion in America? Catholicism, certainly mainstream, but profiting? Not really. In America, they're doing worse than Evangelicals financially.... Scientologists? All 45 thousand of them? Not exactly a standard by which to compare others to.

Fine. I'll do one to prove my anecdote. After that: feel free to come up with statistics... don't forget to make sure they are somehow relevant to the topic (see next response).

The 2001 revenue for the Catholic Church in the US alone was $102 billion (the site discusses fiscal problems... based on expected sex-abuse pay-outs heading towards a billion dollars, and looking at specific diocese incomes)(After scandal, fiscal troubles deepen for US Catholic Church - The Boston Globe)

Let's just look at one US arch-diocese:
"In a statement published in connection with a bond prospectus, the Boston archdiocese listed its assets at Six Hundred and Thirty-five Million ($635,891,004), which is 9.9 times its liabilities. This leaves a net worth of Five Hundred and Seventy-one million dollars ($571,704,953). It is not difficult to discover the truly astonishing wealth of the church, once we add the riches of the twenty-eight archdioceses and 122 dioceses of the U.S.A., some of which are even wealthier than that of Boston.

I'm concerned that you have an unhealthy understanding about religion in America. Churches are having hard times paying water bills.

So are a lot of people and businesses which are not tax exempt.

Then you're not paying attention. Please, do some research before making wild assumptions. Of protestant churches, the majority in America, 59% of church goers attend churches that avg <99 in weekly attendance. 94% attend churches that have less than 500. So, 6% of weekly attenders go to larger churches, with only around .4% attending a mega-church (defined by nearly everyone as +2000 in weekly attendance).

Of course, those are just numbers of attenders, not the amount of money that is being profited. Of the 300K protestant churches in America, only 7% can make their budget on any given month. Over half of those are sub 100 in attendance churches who don't have large overheads.

The rest survive by making cuts. There's no profit being made in the vast majority.

Can you show that the remaining 7% are bringing in more than they're giving back? Can you show that they are profiting more than the government is giving them in tax relief?

I see claims but not cites... nor do I see how this is different from millions of other businesses and individuals in America.

I'm making a valid point about your argument. You're promoting hate by referring to them as xenophobes. Hate speech. But, I'd suppose that if one is so used to trolling that it would be easy to be confused when you're called out on it.

Calling a xenophobe xenophobic is hate-speech? How so?

If I follow that logic, your hate speech is calling me a troll. Are you admitting that you are using hate-speech to refer to another poster on CGR?

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Fine. I'll do one to prove my anecdote. After that: feel free to come up with statistics... don't forget to make sure they are somehow relevant to the topic (see next response).

The 2001 revenue for the Catholic Church in the US alone was $102 billion (the site discusses fiscal problems... based on expected sex-abuse pay-outs heading towards a billion dollars, and looking at specific diocese incomes)(After scandal, fiscal troubles deepen for US Catholic Church - The Boston Globe)

Let's just look at one US arch-diocese:
"In a statement published in connection with a bond prospectus, the Boston archdiocese listed its assets at Six Hundred and Thirty-five Million ($635,891,004), which is 9.9 times its liabilities. This leaves a net worth of Five Hundred and Seventy-one million dollars ($571,704,953). It is not difficult to discover the truly astonishing wealth of the church, once we add the riches of the twenty-eight archdioceses and 122 dioceses of the U.S.A., some of which are even wealthier than that of Boston.

Assets are not income.

Further more, you've FAILED to prove your premise that they've taken in far more than the government has given them. That was your point, remember?

So are a lot of people and businesses which are not tax exempt.

Not all of which are in the business of helping people, or so needed by the government (as per my previous post). You can't compare churches to Kroger.

But, if that's your point, then you agree that churches are not profiting, by and large. Thanks. We can move on now.

I see claims but not cites... nor do I see how this is different from millions of other businesses and individuals in America.

If you don't believe me, and my very specific numbers, by all means, DO SOME RESEARCH. 2 seconds on google will help.

Research to your hearts content...
Welcome to the National Congregations Study site
U.S. Congregations

Calling a xenophobe xenophobic is hate-speech? How so?

You've yet to prove that anyone is xenophobic. So, you're spreading gossip, rumors, and hate. Please, stop.

If I follow that logic, your hate speech is calling me a troll. Are you admitting that you are using hate-speech to refer to another poster on CGR?

I call you a troll because you are a troll. You're tolerated for some reason or another, but you only come here to troll. If calling you a troll is hate speech, then the mods can ban me. I welcome it. (of course, you'd get banned too for calling me and a dozen others a troll at some time or another.)

On the other hand, you generalizing about the tea party, King, and probably about half of the members in this forum and saying hateful things about them IS hate speech. At the very least, it's also trolling, but no one seems to care.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Assets are not income.

Further more, you've FAILED to prove your premise that they've taken in far more than the government has given them. That was your point, remember?

That wasn't my premise nor my statement. My statement was that they take in more than the put out (that revenue, over the life of the church, exceeds expenses).

In this case: assets would be an example of something which was taken in, and not given back out. In the case of operational assets (the church itself for example) you might be able to make an analogy with non-profits.

Let's tie this back into the point at hand. You don't feel that the government should be involved in funding an organization (the CPB). I am willing to agree with you for the sake of argument if you are willing to apply the exact same logic to other organizations (Churches).

Not all of which are in the business of helping people, or so needed by the government (as per my previous post). You can't compare churches to Kroger.

Huh? So businesses which "help people" should be subsidized (by tax exempt status, or grants, or whatever: we can argue the semantics of how if you really want)?

OK... that's the logic under which the government provides funds to the CPB... to help people.

You've yet to prove that anyone is xenophobic. So, you're spreading gossip, rumors, and hate. Please, stop.

So if it's true it's not hate speech, but if it's a held belief which turns out to be false it is hate speech?

Also: I didn't assert that calling someone a troll (or xenophobe) was hate speech. You did. I'm just attempting to see if you will hold yourself to the same standard you assert for others. Obviously not.

On the other hand, you generalizing about the tea party, King, and probably about half of the members in this forum and saying hateful things about them IS hate speech. At the very least, it's also trolling, but no one seems to care.

There are significant xenophobic tendencies in the policies of the Tea Party. Whether the other are "the liberals", as this thread shows, or "the Muslims" as the thread on the Congressional hearings show, or "the Mexicans" as the fervor over immigration shows. Appealing to the fears or prejudice of someone is more effective at "motivating the base" than appealing to a higher nature.

But whether the tea party is full of xenophobes or not is not the issue. Unless you can show cause to believe that the person interviewed knew his statements to be wrong: then he was repeating a held belief that, in my opinion, is less hateful than "troll". It is therefore not hate speech. (note as well that the OP didn't even call it hate speech)

Which brings us back one of the two topics at hand: the nature of the revelations from this little stunt. We discovered that someone at an executive level of NPR, and not anywhere in the news chain, believes that xenophobia is a factor in the tea-party fervor.

So what?

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Let's tie this back into the point at hand. You don't feel that the government should be involved in funding an organization (the CPB). I am willing to agree with you for the sake of argument if you are willing to apply the exact same logic to other organizations (Churches).

I personally have no problem with any of these companies or churches being subsidized as long as everyone is held to the same standard. This is a great example of how they're not. This NPR exec was forced out basically by public opinion. If I teach politics to my students, I risk losing the church's 501(c).

My personal feeling, as stated way back on page one of this thread, is that churches loosing their non-profit status wouldn't be a necessarily bad thing. The freedom would be nice, though the hit taken in giving would probably be brutal. Most churches wouldn't owe the federal government a cent. Sales tax would hurt.

Huh? So businesses which "help people" should be subsidized (by tax exempt status, or grants, or whatever: we can argue the semantics of how if you really want)?

Most of them are. Shelters, healthcare, food producers. In some form or another. Not all are non-profit though. Do you know why churches are non-profit in America?

So if it's true it's not hate speech, but if it's a held belief which turns out to be false it is hate speech?

Hate speech takes prejudice. Which you are showing in this thread.

[quote]
Also: I didn't assert that calling someone a troll (or xenophobe) was hate speech. You did. I'm just attempting to see if you will hold yourself to the same standard you assert for others. Obviously not.

You certainly did make that accusation. A couple of times now. Don't back out now. In fact, you did so right here, in the same post...

There are significant xenophobic tendencies in the policies of the Tea Party

Seriously. You need to stop spreading your hate.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

I personally have no problem with any of these companies or churches being subsidized as long as everyone is held to the same standard. This is a great example of how they're not. This NPR exec was forced out basically by public opinion. If I teach politics to my students, I risk losing the church's 501(c).

I have no idea why the guy quit: but it's a separate discussion.

Hate speech takes prejudice. Which you are showing in this thread.

You mean like accusing someone of "prejudice"? Come to think of it: "xenophobic" is merely a specific prejudice.

You certainly did make that accusation. A couple of times now. Don't back out now. In fact, you did so right here, in the same post...

Nah uh.
Uh huh.
Nah unh.
Uh huh.

So despite the entrapment: is there anything really illuminating said by our NPR fund-raiser? Nope. In fact: there's a lot to be said to the contrary (like the statements of careful vetting).

Is there anything here that should single out NPR in a discussion of public funding? No again.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I have no idea why the guy quit: but it's a separate discussion.

Just answering your question as to whether or not the government should be funding organizations.

You mean like accusing someone of "prejudice"? Come to think of it: "xenophobic" is merely a specific prejudice.

So you admit to using hate speech in this forum? Interesting...I'd still be willing to bet no one will care.

Is there anything here that should single out NPR in a discussion of public funding? No again.

Only the original post, in which the discussion was public funding of NPR...

An NPR exec preaching politics to donaters is no different than a Pastor using the pulpit to do the same. Which was the point of my previous post.

[adamwagg]

I think we've moved a bit off topic and there's too much comment directed at other poster's and not enough at each persons argument. So I'm going to close it.

The forum has been very friendly of late and I would ask everyone to keep it like that. Especially by focusing on commenting on peoples arguments and thoughts rather than on the actual poster. Thanks all!