Topic: Church of the Dorito...
Maikuru's photo
Sat 12/13/08 02:57 AM
we have got churches and temples dedicated to all sorts of things,,yeck nowdays most anything is made into a religion. Since religion is supposedly tax free and "non-profit" my friends and I have decided to start the Church of the Dorito. Heck with the tithes and "non-profit" income think of all the good that could be done in the name of the delicious snack product's name..seriously people is religion just another form of buisness and government that profits from the masses shoveling cash at it or there any legitamate reason we should pay such institutions any mind at all? Let me know what you think...:tongue:

SkyHook5652's photo
Sat 12/13/08 06:52 AM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Sat 12/13/08 06:53 AM
we have got churches and temples dedicated to all sorts of things,,yeck nowdays most anything is made into a religion. Since religion is supposedly tax free and "non-profit" my friends and I have decided to start the Church of the Dorito. Heck with the tithes and "non-profit" income think of all the good that could be done in the name of the delicious snack product's name..seriously people is religion just another form of buisness and government that profits from the masses shoveling cash at it or there any legitamate reason we should pay such institutions any mind at all? Let me know what you think...:tongue:

I think that people should definitely be allowed to contribute as much as they want to whatever they want. There are precious few true freedoms left to us. Contributing to the cause of our choice is one of those few things. Preventing, restricting or controlling that right would be the grossest infringemnet on personal liberties.

I think that addressing the issue of "non-profit" as if it were strictly a religious one is prejudicial. There are many more non-profit, non-religious organizations than there are religious ones. So when discussing the issue of "non-profit" one must take into account the reason why non-profit status is given to any organization and apply that reasoning to all non-profit organizations, not just the religious ones.

Additionally, there is the constitutional issue. Any laws that in any way affect the right of anyone to practice or contribute to whatever religion they choose, in any way they choose, would be up against one of the most basic founding documents of our country.

:smile:

Maikuru's photo
Sat 12/13/08 07:40 AM
Edited by Maikuru on Sat 12/13/08 07:45 AM

we have got churches and temples dedicated to all sorts of things,,yeck nowdays most anything is made into a religion. Since religion is supposedly tax free and "non-profit" my friends and I have decided to start the Church of the Dorito. Heck with the tithes and "non-profit" income think of all the good that could be done in the name of the delicious snack product's name..seriously people is religion just another form of buisness and government that profits from the masses shoveling cash at it or there any legitamate reason we should pay such institutions any mind at all? Let me know what you think...:tongue:

I think that people should definitely be allowed to contribute as much as they want to whatever they want. There are precious few true freedoms left to us. Contributing to the cause of our choice is one of those few things. Preventing, restricting or controlling that right would be the grossest infringemnet on personal liberties.

I think that addressing the issue of "non-profit" as if it were strictly a religious one is prejudicial. There are many more non-profit, non-religious organizations than there are religious ones. So when discussing the issue of "non-profit" one must take into account the reason why non-profit status is given to any organization and apply that reasoning to all non-profit organizations, not just the religious ones.

Additionally, there is the constitutional issue. Any laws that in any way affect the right of anyone to practice or contribute to whatever religion they choose, in any way they choose, would be up against one of the most basic founding documents of our country.

:smile:


I agree with you Skyhook, especially when it comes to protecting those basic rights. I myself am just of the opinion now that there should be more accountability in non-profit organizations for what they do with their donations. There is also the issue of such organizations selling products and merchandise to increase their funds. I tend to think that would fall under the heading of a business and not something which non-profit. Many of the people in these non-profit organizations are even taking an income from such donations. To me that constitutes a profit being made. I understand tax write offs for charitable services but to me the above activities constitutes fraud and tax evasion. I isolated religous non-profit organizations for this reason, not saying other organizations don't also abuse it, it has just been my experience that religious ones are some of the worst. If they offered things for free (charity) instead of selling them and took donations for the items then i would view it differently. A priest, minister, or preacher should not be earning a income for being a connection to the divine. In fact i know many honest ministers who have done their charitable religious work without said income and also had regular jobs. It is time to live up to some standards is all i am saying.spock

SkyHook5652's photo
Mon 12/15/08 01:03 AM
we have got churches and temples dedicated to all sorts of things,,yeck nowdays most anything is made into a religion. Since religion is supposedly tax free and "non-profit" my friends and I have decided to start the Church of the Dorito. Heck with the tithes and "non-profit" income think of all the good that could be done in the name of the delicious snack product's name..seriously people is religion just another form of buisness and government that profits from the masses shoveling cash at it or there any legitamate reason we should pay such institutions any mind at all? Let me know what you think...:tongue:

I think that people should definitely be allowed to contribute as much as they want to whatever they want. There are precious few true freedoms left to us. Contributing to the cause of our choice is one of those few things. Preventing, restricting or controlling that right would be the grossest infringemnet on personal liberties.

I think that addressing the issue of "non-profit" as if it were strictly a religious one is prejudicial. There are many more non-profit, non-religious organizations than there are religious ones. So when discussing the issue of "non-profit" one must take into account the reason why non-profit status is given to any organization and apply that reasoning to all non-profit organizations, not just the religious ones.

Additionally, there is the constitutional issue. Any laws that in any way affect the right of anyone to practice or contribute to whatever religion they choose, in any way they choose, would be up against one of the most basic founding documents of our country.

:smile:



I agree with you Skyhook, especially when it comes to protecting those basic rights. I myself am just of the opinion now that there should be more accountability in non-profit organizations for what they do with their donations.

Well since that is simply a statement of a political view, I can only reply that I hold a different political view.

There is also the issue of such organizations selling products and merchandise to increase their funds. I tend to think that would fall under the heading of a business and not something which non-profit.

Am I to assume then that you believe non-profit organizations should not be allowed to receive any exchange for any goods or services they provide? That they should not be allowed to receive any income whatsoever other than donations?

Many of the people in these non-profit organizations are even taking an income from such donations. To me that constitutes a profit being made. I understand tax write offs for charitable services but to me the above activities constitutes fraud and tax evasion. If they offered things for free (charity) instead of selling them and took donations for the items then i would view it differently. A priest, minister, or preacher should not be earning a income for being a connection to the divine. In fact i know many honest ministers who have done their charitable religious work without said income and also had regular jobs.

Should a church be able to pay a plumber to come and fix a broken pipe in the church building? Suppose it is a church member who fixes it. Should they be paid? Suppose it is the minister. Should he be paid?

As far as I’ve been able to extrapolate from your objections, there seem to be two basic rules that you think should apply to non-profit:
- Donations are the only type of income that should be allowed. (No money should be accepted for any goods or services provided.)
- All such donations must be distributed to non-members. (Distribution to members would constitute earned income for that member.)

Is that about it?


SkyHook5652's photo
Mon 12/15/08 01:06 AM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Mon 12/15/08 01:32 AM
we have got churches and temples dedicated to all sorts of things,,yeck nowdays most anything is made into a religion. Since religion is supposedly tax free and "non-profit" my friends and I have decided to start the Church of the Dorito. Heck with the tithes and "non-profit" income think of all the good that could be done in the name of the delicious snack product's name..seriously people is religion just another form of buisness and government that profits from the masses shoveling cash at it or there any legitamate reason we should pay such institutions any mind at all? Let me know what you think...:tongue:

I think that people should definitely be allowed to contribute as much as they want to whatever they want. There are precious few true freedoms left to us. Contributing to the cause of our choice is one of those few things. Preventing, restricting or controlling that right would be the grossest infringemnet on personal liberties.

I think that addressing the issue of "non-profit" as if it were strictly a religious one is prejudicial. There are many more non-profit, non-religious organizations than there are religious ones. So when discussing the issue of "non-profit" one must take into account the reason why non-profit status is given to any organization and apply that reasoning to all non-profit organizations, not just the religious ones.

Additionally, there is the constitutional issue. Any laws that in any way affect the right of anyone to practice or contribute to whatever religion they choose, in any way they choose, would be up against one of the most basic founding documents of our country.

:smile:



I agree with you Skyhook, especially when it comes to protecting those basic rights. I myself am just of the opinion now that there should be more accountability in non-profit organizations for what they do with their donations.

Well since that is simply a statement of a political view, I can only reply that I hold a different political view.

There is also the issue of such organizations selling products and merchandise to increase their funds. I tend to think that would fall under the heading of a business and not something which non-profit.

Am I to assume then that you believe non-profit organizations should not be allowed to receive any exchange for any goods or services they provide? That they should not be allowed to receive any income whatsoever other than donations?

Many of the people in these non-profit organizations are even taking an income from such donations. To me that constitutes a profit being made. I understand tax write offs for charitable services but to me the above activities constitutes fraud and tax evasion. If they offered things for free (charity) instead of selling them and took donations for the items then i would view it differently. A priest, minister, or preacher should not be earning a income for being a connection to the divine. In fact i know many honest ministers who have done their charitable religious work without said income and also had regular jobs.

Should a church be able to pay a plumber to come and fix a broken pipe in the church building? Suppose it is a church member who fixes it. Should they be paid? Suppose it is the minister. Should he be paid?

As far as I’ve been able to extrapolate from your objections, there seem to be two basic rules that you think should apply to non-profit:
- Donations are the only type of income that should be allowed. (No money should be accepted for any goods or services provided.)
- All such donations must be distributed to non-members. (Distribution to members would constitute earned income for that member.)

Is that about it?


Maikuru's photo
Tue 12/16/08 02:58 AM
Edited by Maikuru on Tue 12/16/08 02:59 AM

we have got churches and temples dedicated to all sorts of things,,yeck nowdays most anything is made into a religion. Since religion is supposedly tax free and "non-profit" my friends and I have decided to start the Church of the Dorito. Heck with the tithes and "non-profit" income think of all the good that could be done in the name of the delicious snack product's name..seriously people is religion just another form of buisness and government that profits from the masses shoveling cash at it or there any legitamate reason we should pay such institutions any mind at all? Let me know what you think...:tongue:

I think that people should definitely be allowed to contribute as much as they want to whatever they want. There are precious few true freedoms left to us. Contributing to the cause of our choice is one of those few things. Preventing, restricting or controlling that right would be the grossest infringemnet on personal liberties.

I think that addressing the issue of "non-profit" as if it were strictly a religious one is prejudicial. There are many more non-profit, non-religious organizations than there are religious ones. So when discussing the issue of "non-profit" one must take into account the reason why non-profit status is given to any organization and apply that reasoning to all non-profit organizations, not just the religious ones.

Additionally, there is the constitutional issue. Any laws that in any way affect the right of anyone to practice or contribute to whatever religion they choose, in any way they choose, would be up against one of the most basic founding documents of our country.

:smile:



I agree with you Skyhook, especially when it comes to protecting those basic rights. I myself am just of the opinion now that there should be more accountability in non-profit organizations for what they do with their donations.

Well since that is simply a statement of a political view, I can only reply that I hold a different political view.

There is also the issue of such organizations selling products and merchandise to increase their funds. I tend to think that would fall under the heading of a business and not something which non-profit.

Am I to assume then that you believe non-profit organizations should not be allowed to receive any exchange for any goods or services they provide? That they should not be allowed to receive any income whatsoever other than donations?

Many of the people in these non-profit organizations are even taking an income from such donations. To me that constitutes a profit being made. I understand tax write offs for charitable services but to me the above activities constitutes fraud and tax evasion. If they offered things for free (charity) instead of selling them and took donations for the items then i would view it differently. A priest, minister, or preacher should not be earning a income for being a connection to the divine. In fact i know many honest ministers who have done their charitable religious work without said income and also had regular jobs.

Should a church be able to pay a plumber to come and fix a broken pipe in the church building? Suppose it is a church member who fixes it. Should they be paid? Suppose it is the minister. Should he be paid?

As far as I’ve been able to extrapolate from your objections, there seem to be two basic rules that you think should apply to non-profit:
- Donations are the only type of income that should be allowed. (No money should be accepted for any goods or services provided.)
- All such donations must be distributed to non-members. (Distribution to members would constitute earned income for that member.)

Is that about it?



You would be correct. Donations are the only type of income any non-profit organiztion should be allowed. Goods and services as you describe them qualify as charitable acts and therefore the expenses can be written off in tax returns. Receieving profits for selling goods and services falls under the heading of a buisness and disqualifies any such organization from claiming "non-profit" status or benefits.
<slight correction if you don't mind>
All donations are to be used by the organization to promote improve charitable services. Anyone in the organization recieving payment for said charitable services disqualifies the organization from "non-profit" filing status.
To give you an idea of the reasoning for this and this post, let me illustrate an abuse of such status.: I once attended a church called "World Revival." One of those classic "Big" churches just to get my folks off my back about not attending such services. They preached the give unto the lord and it you will give double onto to you crap. They even turned the whole tithe and offering number into a grand standing event. Put the money in an enevelope then stand and shout to the lord about how you were giving him his cut. They would justify the "need" for such offers by saying they needed it to minister to as many people as possible. Later i found out that money donated that day was used to build a pinic area so that the bikers of the church would have a place to have BBQ..thousands of dollars so the preacher and his biker buddies could grill hot dogs and hamburgers. I was disgusted by it all and content to illustrate the hypocrisy, lies, and curruption to my parents and family members before they asked me not to attend. Needless to say i can not tolerate this in any charitable "non-profit" organization regardless of religion or not. Needless to say religious ones who do this disgust me the most.ill

splendidlife's photo
Tue 12/16/08 01:46 PM

we have got churches and temples dedicated to all sorts of things,,yeck nowdays most anything is made into a religion. Since religion is supposedly tax free and "non-profit" my friends and I have decided to start the Church of the Dorito. Heck with the tithes and "non-profit" income think of all the good that could be done in the name of the delicious snack product's name..seriously people is religion just another form of buisness and government that profits from the masses shoveling cash at it or there any legitamate reason we should pay such institutions any mind at all? Let me know what you think...:tongue:


Talk about Religion and Conspiracy Theories:

Did you know that some years ago the Frito-Lay Company gathered their Scientists to develop a way to chemically cause the Dorito to loose its flavor about a third of the way before its completely chewed and swallowed?

This way, consumers feel compelled to stuff more chips into their mouths before even finishing the previous mouthful. All their poor brains know is that they must have more and more of that powerful burst O' flavor that seems to elude them so.

Diabolical, I tells ya!

SkyHook5652's photo
Tue 12/16/08 03:11 PM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Tue 12/16/08 03:15 PM
Should a church be able to pay a plumber to come and fix a broken pipe in the church building? Suppose it is a church member who fixes it. Should they be paid? Suppose it is the minister. Should he be paid?

As far as I’ve been able to extrapolate from your objections, there seem to be two basic rules that you think should apply to non-profit:
- Donations are the only type of income that should be allowed. (No money should be accepted for any goods or services provided.)
- All such donations must be distributed to non-members. (Distribution to members would constitute earned income for that member.)

Is that about it?
You would be correct.

Donations are the only type of income any non-profit organization should be allowed.

Goods and services as you describe them qualify as charitable acts and therefore the expenses can be written off in tax returns.

Receieving profits for selling goods and services falls under the heading of a buisness and disqualifies any such organization from claiming "non-profit" status or benefits.

<slight correction if you don't mind>

All donations are to be used by the organization to promote improve charitable services. Anyone in the organization recieving payment for said charitable services disqualifies the organization from "non-profit" filing status.


If they spend it on themselves, they then become “for profit”.

Charitable – giving something to someone without getting an exchange.


Ok, I get where you’re trying to go with this line of logic, but it’s going to fall apart on you. Just a friendly warning. :tongue:

You’ve completely ignored the other end of the charitable exchange. There has to be someone who receives something without giving anything in exchange. (Your definition of charity.)

But by your rules, this is not allowed. Anything that is received in the spirit of charity (i.e. a donation) cannot be used by the person who received it. It must be given away. (Your definition of “for profit”.)

So essentially, your rules say that charity cannot really exist because no one can actually use a charitable donation. The simply fact of using it in any way turns it into “profit”.

Let’s try a practical example: A bunch of people get together who want to save the Gok (an imaginary endangered species) and they form an organization. They all donate money to the cause of saving the Goks and none of them receives any money back from the organization. They decide to use the donated money to hire someone to buy food, transport it, and feed it to the Goks in the wild.

Now, the two key questions here are:
1) Is this a non-profit organization?
2) Is the person who feeds the Goks allowed to join the organization?


MirrorMirror's photo
Tue 12/16/08 03:30 PM
:banana: As a direct descendent of yeti, I am a proper member of the Church of the Sub-Genius.:banana: We will rule the world again.:banana:

no photo
Tue 12/16/08 04:03 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 12/16/08 04:04 PM
Sky you sometimes get a little too caught up in what has been written to see what has been said.

I always get around this with specific examples with sky . . . Maikuru, you Must use examples with Sky, or you will always be defending words instead of intentions.

_____________

BTW I would join the Church of the Dorito as long I as get to write some tasty holy scriptures!

no photo
Tue 12/16/08 05:19 PM
The Church of the Dorito is incomplete without its Beandip its savior.

All hail the Bean Dip!laugh

splendidlife's photo
Wed 12/17/08 07:38 AM

The Church of the Dorito is incomplete without its Beandip its savior.

All hail the Bean Dip!laugh


The Bean Dip Spoiled For Our Sins!

Taste the Bean Dip!!!!

rant

splendidlife's photo
Wed 12/17/08 09:01 AM
Edited by splendidlife on Wed 12/17/08 09:03 AM


The Church of the Dorito is incomplete without its Beandip its savior.

All hail the Bean Dip!laugh


The Bean Dip Spoiled For Our Sins!

Taste the Bean Dip!!!!

rant


Instead of the priest using incense at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other ceremonies, alter boys could simply follow with their hindquarters aimed in the general direction of the congregation.
laugh

no photo
Wed 12/17/08 09:03 AM



The Church of the Dorito is incomplete without its Beandip its savior.

All hail the Bean Dip!laugh


The Bean Dip Spoiled For Our Sins!

Taste the Bean Dip!!!!

rant


Instead of the priest using incense at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other ceremonies, alter boys could simply follow with their hindquarters aimed in the direction of the congregation.
laugh


No problem, I am going in with a gas masklaugh

SkyHook5652's photo
Wed 12/17/08 02:23 PM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Wed 12/17/08 02:55 PM
Sky you sometimes get a little too caught up in what has been written to see what has been said.
Oh come on Billy! What means do I have of understanding intentions other than through the words? How would I even be able to know that a difference existed between what is written and what is said – let alone know what that difference was? If I may offer a counter suggestion, you sometimes get a little too caught up in what you think has been said to see what has actually been written.
So are we even on that score? Or are you still better than me? Or did I just prove your point for you? :wink: laugh

I always get around this with specific examples with sky . . . Maikuru, you Must use examples with Sky, or you will always be defending words instead of intentions.
On the contrary. Examples are of very limited use to me because they are necessariy highly specific and therefore cannot provide a situation that represents all possible ramifications of a principle. I prefer to discuss principles that can be broadly applied to a wide range of situations, not just one or two specific examples.

Although I will admit that using examples does afford the chance to "get around" having to deal with the broader and more far-reaching implications. :wink: