LordReed:


I am asking you if it is ok for them to use the money for non charitable uses.

You keep bringing up taxing charities, who said anything about taxing charities or religious organisations?

You keep changing the context. Everyman to his conscience, until the day we must all give account. When a religious organisation engages in a profit making venture and makes profit, then they should pay tax.

But when all revenue comes from already taxed members the purpose for which is charity, taxation wouldn't make sense, because it amounts to double taxation, and it kills social responsibility.

MrPresident1:


You keep changing the context. Everyman to his conscience, until the day we must all give account. When a religious organisation engages in a profit making venture and makes profit, then they should pay tax.

But when all revenue comes from already taxed members the purpose for which is charity, taxation wouldn't make sense, because it amounts to double taxation, and it kills social responsibility.

You are the one changing context, I said nothing about taxing charities or religious institutions. I asked a pointed question which you have refused to answer and instead keep diverting. Do you think it is ok for them to use money for non charitable activity while keeping a tax exempt status? Very direct question you have refused to answer.

LordReed:


You are the one changing context, I said nothing about taxing charities or religious institutions. I asked a pointed question which you have refused to answer and instead keep diverting. Do you think it is ok for them to use money for non charitable activity while keeping a tax exempt status? Very direct question you have refused to answer.

Eh! Na wa o! See how people reason!

You're asking me if I think it is ok for them to use money for non charitable activity while keeping a tax exempt status?

Who made me a judge advocate over this matter? I will answer this question like one among the myriad of context swinging questions you've asked and that i have given answers to previously, if you promise me that my opinion will be your truth.

MrPresident1:


Eh! Na wa o! See how people reason!

You're asking me if I think it is ok for them to use money for non charitable activity while keeping a tax exempt status?

Who made me a judge advocate over this matter? I will answer this question like one among the myriad of context swinging questions you've asked and that i have given answers to previously, if you promise me that my opinion will be your truth.

When a person starts saying stuff like this it is usually because they don't want to be straight forward. You readily spoke your opinion on why they shouldn't be taxed even though nobody asked that question, the question on ground is now making you give preamble. LMFAO!

LordReed:


When a person starts saying stuff like this it is usually because they don't want to be straight forward. You readily spoke your opinion on why they shouldn't be taxed even though nobody asked that question, the question on ground is now making you give preamble. LMFAO!

What is the question on ground? You are asking me if it is ok for them to use the money for non charitable uses?

The use, is it for profit, have they set up a business venture yielding profit? Then they have to pay tax on all profits earned.

MrPresident1:


What is the question on ground? You are asking you if it is ok for them to use the money for non charitable uses?

The use, is it for profit, have they set up a business venture yielding profit? Then they have to pay tax on all profits earned.

You just can't answer straight forward can you? SMH. LMFAO!

LordReed:


You just can't answer straight forward can you? SMH. LMFAO!

We will try to give you an answer today. If my answers do not satisfy you, then you need to define or explain what you mean by non charitable uses

MrPresident1:


We will try to give you an answer today. If my answers do not satisfy you, then you need to define or explain what you mean by non charitable uses

I gave examples already, showing you did not even read what you were responding to.

LordReed:


And your logic is religious institutions which aren't being taxed anyway should be exempt from tax because the people who "donate" to them are already taxed. I am asking you how it becomes double taxation if a tax payer paying for goods and services that already get taxed is not double taxation. Unless you say it is then your point is moot.

Besides religious organisations do not get audited to know whether or not their money is being spent on charity. So if they are spending it buying jets and houses no one knows and can do all of that activity tax free. Is that ok to you?

LordReed:


I gave examples already, showing you did not even read what you were responding to.

The jets and the houses, are to what purpose, you have an idea?

MrPresident1:


The jets and the houses, are to what purpose, you have an idea?

Certainly not for charity.

LordReed:


Certainly not for charity.

As defined by you or what law?

If they have not broken any law, who are you to say they have?

MrPresident1:


As defined by you or what law?

If they have not broken any law, who are you to say they have?

So it's ok to ostensibly use funds meant for charity for non charitable uses? Good, that's all I wanted to know. LMFAO!

LordReed:


So it's ok to ostensibly use funds meant for charity for non charitable uses? Good, that's all I wanted to know. LMFAO!

Chairman, who determines whether use is for charity purposes or profit, is it you or the law?

MrPresident1:


Chairman, who determines whether a use is for charity purposes or profit, is it you or the law?

You keep mentioning profit, a concept that has no basis in this matter. It is either charitable use or non charitable use, nobody speaks of profit in this context so either you don't know what you are talking about or you need to rephrase your thoughts.

Such organisations activities are guided by law but if they are never obligated to disclose their activities who knows what is going on? What you see are things like I gave example of.

LordReed:


You keep mentioning profit, a concept that has no basis in this matter. It is either charitable use or non charitable use, nobody speaks of profit in this context so either you don't know what you are talking about or you need to rephrase your thoughts.

Such organisations activities are guided by law but if they are never obligated to disclose their activities who knows what is going on? What you see are things like I gave example of.

A link I think you will find useful.
Save yourself

MrPresident1:


A link I think you will find useful.
Save yourself

And it counters what I have said how? You should try reading through it since it seems you like gloss over stuff without reading.

LordReed:


Fake news carrier does it remove the Johnson Amendment? No. Stop carrying fake news.

Trolls are not welcome on this thread. If you don't like the fact that President Trump signed the Religious Liberty Order then take your moaning/whining and crying to the non Christian sticky thread.

OLAADEGBU:


Trolls are not welcome on this thread. If you don't like the fact that President Trump signed the Religious Liberty Order then take your moaning/whining and crying to the non Christian sticky thread.

Fake news carrier is that what I said? You came saying the Johnson Amendment was repealed now you want to act outraged after being exposed as a fake news carrier. LMFAO!

'As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.'

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11

LordReed:


Fake news carrier is that what I said? You came saying the Johnson Amendment was repealed now you want to act outraged after being exposed as a fake news carrier. LMFAO!

Have you heard that your hero, sleepy Joe Biden intends to reverse Trump's religious freedom order if he wins?

OLAADEGBU:


Have you heard that your hero, sleepy Joe Biden intends to reverse Trump's religious freedom order if he wins?

More fake news. Where did you Joe Biden is my hero?

LordReed:


More fake news. Where did you Joe Biden is my hero?

Don't you share the same ideologies? Don't you both hate Trump?

Check it out here --> https://www.nairaland.com/5744294/biden-unveils-vast-lgbt-plan

OLAADEGBU:


Don't you share the same ideologies? Don't you both hate Trump?

Check it out here --> https://www.nairaland.com/5744294/biden-unveils-vast-lgbt-plan

Can see how fake news has warped your ability to reason? How does having similar views with someone make them your hero? SMH

LordReed:


Can see how fake news has warped your ability to reason? How does having similar views with someone make them your hero? SMH

Atheists, Muslims and liberals all have one thing in common - hatred for Donald Trump.

OLAADEGBU:


Atheists, Muslims and liberals all have one thing in common - hatred for Donald Trump.

Dullness just radiates from this statement like the smell of feces.

LordReed:


Dullness just radiates from this statement like the smell of feces.

Why wouldn't you be smelling faeces when you place your face where the sun is not shining?

OLAADEGBU:


Why wouldn't you be smelling faeces when you place your face where the sun is not shining?

And yet more dullness.

OLAADEGBU:


https://answersingenesis.org/culture/america/separation-of-christianity-and-state/

The United States Bill of Rights, First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

My free expression of my religion is 'supposed' to be guaranteed. Yet, homoSEXuality has gained such politically correct, legal power that the First Amendment is, in my opinion, largely being ignored. The "separation of church and state" phrase so often used by the liberal oligarchy to minimize religious participation in society, is missing in action when it comes to the clash between homoSEXuality and religious freedom. MY religious freedom, my FREE exercise of it and my freedom of speech are NOT free when it comes to homoSEXuality. I MUST be quiet and bake a cake for homoSEXual weddings (which I consider a great sin) or be penalized if I try and freely exercise of my religion and abstain from participation.

I MUST be quiet and photograph a homoSEXual wedding (which I consider a great sin) or be penalized if I try and freely exercise of my religion and abstain from participation. I MUST be quiet and officiate at a homoSEXual wedding (which I consider a great sin) or be penalized if I try and freely exercise my religion and abstain from participation. I MUST speak well of homoSEXuality (which I consider a great sin) or be called a bigot, a homophobe, an idiot, an antiquated Bible thumper, etc., if I try to freely exercise my religion and abstain from approval.

I must NOT voice my free speech OPINION on social media from my own home, away from work, about the sinfulness of homoSEXuality, or risk being fired from my job. In short, I MUST submit. I MUST march, lockstep with the politically correct and raise a salute to the rainbow flag of homoSEXuality or face condemnation. And, if I don't submit, I'll be interred among the walls of censure, fines, reproof, and boycott.

When those who have a biblically moral conscience accept a back-of-the-bus mentality, then we are saying to the liberals, "It's okay to marginalize and penalize us for what we believe. We'll sit idly by and let it happen." I say don't let it happen.

Stand up for your right to express your moral convictions and don't let homosexual behavior undermine your religious freedom. If you don't stand strong, then those walls will become more constricting as time goes on and will eventually lead to a more sinister place.

https://www.facebook.com/Carm.org/ 1 April 2015 at 02:04 ·

OLAADEGBU:




https://www.facebook.com/Carm.org/ 1 April 2015 at 02:04 ·

I am pretty sure this person has coworkers who take smoke breaks, does he go preaching at them how smoking is a sin? No he probably doesn't but wants to go preaching at homosexuals, something that is clearly not your business and doesn't affect yo in any way. In fact smokers are more dangerous than homosexuals but naa let's spread hateful bigotry instead.

LordReed:


I am pretty sure this person has coworkers who take smoke breaks, does he go preaching at them how smoking is a sin? No he probably doesn't but wants to go preaching at homosexuals, something that is clearly not your business and doesn't affect yo in any way. In fact smokers are more dangerous than homosexuals but naa let's spread hateful bigotry instead.

Who said homosexuals are exempt from hearing the good news?

OLAADEGBU:


Who said homosexuals are exempted from hearing the good news?

Harassment is not good news.

LordReed:


Harassment is not good news.

Harassment is when you are forced to do what is against your religious belief. Preaching the gospel is exercising one's fundamental human right of free speech. Why should free speech always become hate speech when it comes to preaching the good news to homosexuals?