Do you really believe that shady dealings do not occur before public judiciaries? There is no place shadier.
My meaning is that for the Society to go on public record is not evidence of shenaniganry. If someone want to make that claim then they must evidence it. So far on one has done that regarding the issue in question.
On the matter of the illustration I believe that you are losing the point in the details. The point is not whether I would do the work without the 'gift'. The point is what do I call the 'gift'? Is it truly a gift or is it really payment for services received.
Whether you will do the work without receiving the gift is exactly one of the fire tests the tax man will apply. It is this simple, if you only receive the gift by completing the paint job then you can call that trade whatever you want and the tax man will still call it commerce.
Now let's look at our illustration again. Do you go out and ask people for donations unless they 'accpet' literature? . No, you don't. So what happens is that you place literature in their hands and then you tell the m you would like a donation. You ask for a donation only when literature is 'placed' with the householder just like the painter will ask for his 'gift' only if he paints the house.
Your reasoning here is nothing but subterfuge. The real test is the same as I illustrated with the painter. If we only leave the literature for money then it might be construed as commerce. (I say might because several issues come to bear on that point that have not been addressed for our organization.) If we are willing to leave literature without charging for it then it is not commerce. It is just that simple. Here is the litmus test:
Do we require receipt of money (or trade of any valuable) to leave literature with people? Yes / No
If the answer is no then it is not commerce[/I]. If the answer is yes then it might[/I] be construed as commerce depending upon other circumstances.
How long do you think this distribution of literature would continue if no moneys were collected? Honestly, now. So, in effect, the collection of money is, indeed, 'part and parcel' of the literature distribution work.
For the same amount of time as it would for any other tax exempt organization, not long.
How long do you think the United Way could provide what it does without the collection of money? Does that make the United Way a commercial enterprise? How about the Red Cross? How about the Salvation Army? Should all those organizations be reclassified as commercial because their distribution efforts would be stymied "without the collection of money"?
Regarding the question of pressure, have you ever solicited for United Way contributions? What do you call it when the put that brochure in your line of site—you know, the one with the crippled sad faced child on the front cover—and ask, "Can you share a few dollars a month? A few pennies per day? Can you?" Should the fact of informing persons about their donation efforts compromise their tax exempt status? Should it?
You keep quoting publications from the Society. Surely you're not taking the stuff that we print out for the public to read at face value, are you? Certainly you know the difference between what is said and what in reality is really meant, do you not? Don't tell me that you actually believe, for instance, that JW's vote?
At least I have provided some measure of evidence for my claims on this and other threads, which is better than spouting sheer opinion. If you are implying in this instance that the Society has represented some dishonesty then I say, show your evidence! Otherwise your "Certainly you know the difference…" comment is no less than theatrical—it is an argument to the crowd.
As for voting, a lot of JWs are registered voters. Some of them vote. Are you just going by what happens in your locale? What do you know of various voting issues in lands around the world? Who says that some of those public votes are not completely within Christian ideals? Just what do you know of these things?
Have you read this very carefully? Please note, first of all, what it does not say: It does not say:
[Similar nonsense sniped]
One phrase answers all that type reasoning, argumentum ad ignorantiam.