Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting 99 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Friend,

    Believe me, I understand EXACTLY where you are going with your arguments. I have had NO trouble comprehending them. I feel that you are, however, ignoring the larger issue and concentrating on details that in my opinion are irrelevant.

    As you have told me, you care nothing about my opinion. You are here, instead, to help us "see" the important things. Have I stated this correctly?

    Each of my questions on this thread are for purposes of highlighting a critical point that
    appears to be ill-considered in someone’s conclusion or else is a request for clarification.
    When direct facts had already been likewise ill-considered then I proceeded to another
    mode to stir thinking about a detail that, to me, is/was critical to resolution. If there is
    something specific you have in mind let me know. I will be glad to redress it.

    I interpret the above quote to mean that whereas others' opinions are of no import to you, your opinions must be of import to us. Not so.

    This thread has revolved around the Society's filing a brief in support of Jimmy Swaggart's Ministry in order to support their own tax-exempt status.

    Your questions have, for the most part, revolved around whether or not we feel it was illegal or improper for them to do so. Of course it wasn't illegal, and it was also a very smart move on their part to safeguard their income.

    My point is, and has been all along, that the Society has for years condemned other organizations for seeking material riches. They have decried beautiful cathedrals and elegant churches. They have claimed to be above all this.

    And yet, when it comes down to a matter of taxes on the selling of literature (and like or not, we have always sold literature), the procedure is tweaked just sufficiently enough to scuttle past the tax laws.

    Good business....certainly. But for an organization that purports to strive for the highest ethical standards and which purports to be willing, nay eager, to pay whatever is rightfully due the government, this is a very sorry showing.

    I definitely agree with all your points, Friend. They are all true. However, that doesn't change the fact that I dislike what has been done, and I consider it sleazy.

  • waiting
    waiting

    Thank you, Red Horse, for saying what I have obviously not been getting across.

    But you've got to admit, that ol' Friend can sure make us speak good English! Your arguments are getting tighter and longer, or you've been holding out on us.....

  • Friend
    Friend

    RedhorseWoman

    Believe me, I understand EXACTLY where you are going with your arguments. I have had NO trouble comprehending them.

    I do not believe you on that point, but that is really beside the point anyway.

    You are here, instead, to help us "see" the important things. Have I stated this correctly?

    No.

    I interpret the above quote to mean that whereas others' opinions are of no import to you, your opinions must be of import to us.

    Your interpretation is quite wrong and quite presumptuous. In fact, this next assertion of yours epitomizes that you have not and do not properly comprehend or interpret what I have said. You said:

    This thread has revolved around the Society's filing a brief in support of Jimmy Swaggart's Ministry in order to support their own tax-exempt status.

    Your questions have, for the most part, revolved around whether or not we feel it was illegal or improper for them to do so. Of course it wasn't illegal, and it was also a very smart move on their part to safeguard their income.

    You just do not get it, do you? No matter what the facts speak you insist that the Society’s amicus curiae filing was "IN SUPPORT OF" Jimmy Swaggart Ministries. If that is not bad enough, you use that false premise to argue some reprehensibility on the part of the Society. I hardly have words to describe how frustrating it is to read something like that.

    As for my questions, they have not been pointedly about legalities but rather whether those legalities were corollary to any reprehensible connection between the Society and JSM. The facts say that no such corollary exists or existed. Again, you have totally missed the point.

    I definitely agree with all your points, Friend. They are all true. However, that doesn't change the fact that I dislike what has been done, and I consider it sleazy.

    Your latter expression I respect—I just don’t see how you draw it from the JSM issue; facts speak otherwise. The first part is a contradictive expression.

    Your
    Friend

    Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 23:31:4

  • Seven
    Seven

    Thank you, Obi-wan Kenobi.

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Friend,

    Why do you insist on arguing semantics when the issue is something else entirely?

    I don't really CARE if the case was "in support of" Jimmy Swaggart's Ministry (although I do think the issues were definitely linked...why else would the Society bother to get involved?). I'm sorry if the wording was improper.

    You just do not get it, do you? No matter what the facts speak you insist that the Society’s amicus curiae filing was "IN SUPPORT OF " Jimmy Swaggart Ministries. If that is not bad enough, you use that false premise to argue some reprehensibility on the part of the Society. I hardly have words to describe how frustrating it is to read something like that.

    As for my questions, they have not been pointedly about legalities but rather whether those legalities were corollary to any reprehensible connection between the Society and JSM. The facts say that no such corollary exists or existed. Again, you have totally missed the point.

    Perhaps you haven't read my posts, in which case I urge you to do so. I have NEVER said there was any "reprehensible connection between the Society and JSM". They simply found themselves in the same boat....tax payable on profits collected from the selling of literature, and other items.

    My point was, and still is, that the Society has always criticized other religious organizations for building up "material treasures" on earth.

    They have decried the ostentatious churches, the bingo halls, the contribution plates, the rummage sales.....whatever a church has used to raise money.

    They have always stated that the sales price of the literature (and it was always a sales price) was simply to cover printing costs and to allow the Society to print additional literature. (I have since checked further on other sites, and found that they have ALWAYS pulled a hefty profit from the sale of literature).

    They have always claimed that the Organization would gladly pay "Caesar's things to Caesar" without batting an eyelash. They have always said that the Organization was more interested in storing up treasures in Heaven than material riches on earth.

    So.....along comes a new tax regulation that says that literature that is sold is taxable. According to what has always been spouted, the Society should have acknowledged that although it was unfortunate, the tax was indeed due to Caesar, and they should have paid it. According to their previous rhetoric, that is.

    Not so. They immediately join in and object to the tax (which should be of NO import to an Organization not of this world, with no interest in material riches, and with an eye only on Jehovah's Kingdom).

    Consequently, the rules are changed just enough to squirm out of the tax. Money is still asked for the literature, but in a roundabout way so that it is now classified as a donation. Profits are assured, tax is avoided. Loophole is fully utilized.

    And in my opinion, it is hypocritical. I wouldn't even object at all if the Society had not for years criticized EVERY OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUP for the VERY SAME THING.

    This is my issue in this thread, this has always been my issue in this thread, and you have NEVER addressed this issue.

    As far as I'm concerned, JSM just happened to be the catalyst for this situation. The Society's actions towards the tax are their own, and seeing how important cash is to an organization that preached no need of such things....rather just what is sufficient to "further the Kingdom work"....disappoints me no end.

    Reprehensible, no. Greedy and intent on building up "material treasures on earth", you betcha!!

    Edited by - RedhorseWoman on 8 June 2000 11:24:12

  • Scorpion
    Scorpion

    RHW,

    Actually the Society made a very smart business move in filing the brief with Swaggart. Even though the brief was shot down, the Societies back up plan for free-will donations works pretty well and in the process do not have to deal with the tax man. The dumb thing the Society did was print in the April 1,1990 Watchtower on page 20 the words concerning Jehovah's Witnesses: "They do not dodge taxes or seek to evade inconvenient laws."

    Now I notice the words Jehovah's Witnesses. It does not say the WTBTS. According to the February 1989 issue of Our Kingdom Ministry page 3, JWs are not agents or representatives of the WTBTS.

    I guess we need to pay our taxes, but the WT does not have to.

    The WTBTS violates Scripture and shows very little concern for Gods word on this. Romans 13:6,7

    The WT also shows very little concern for us by saying we really are not representatives of the WTBTS. I say, who supports their rear-ends?

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    You've all made good points here. I like the stellar reference by our resident star traveler and I especially like SC's remark:

    The WT also shows very little concern for us by saying we really are not representatives of the WTBTS. I say, who supports their rear-ends?


    So true! They love to say "Jehovah's Witnesses believe..." But they should say, rather, "This is what we tell Jehovah's Witnesses to believe..."

  • Friend
    Friend

    WOW!

    If you people could just step aside from your prejudices and look objectively at your views based upon the facts; you would say, “WOW!”

    You appear to believe,

    1. That taking advantage of tax laws is somehow ungodly and/or hypocritical.

    2. That the Society questioning the legality of certain tax impositions by taking the matter to the duly appointed tribunal—like in France—is somehow ungodly and/or hypocritical.

    3. That presenting a legal argument potentially beneficial to the community at large is somehow ungodly and/or hypocritical just because a subject in the case is immoral—that despite the fact that the subject’s judgment is not determined by whether your argument is successful.

    4. That by changing procedures to better conform with laws relative to tax-exempt status that that is somehow ungodly and/or hypocritical.

    I’m glad like-minded ones have never prepared my tax returns.

    WOW!

    Friend

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    I see your point friend. No one wants to pay any more tax than is required, and it is not wrong to legally reduce the amount you are required to pay.

    I think the side-issues appear to have beclouded the main issues involved.

    If I only had one complaint, it would be that such changes (donation arrangement) should have been instituded long ago of our own volition, and not have been a response to financial pressures.

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    It's true that the Society has made a very wise business move as far as the tax issue is concerned. If I were a stockholder in the corporation, I would applaud them.

    Presumably, this entity has promoted itself, not as a business, but as God's representative on Earth. As such, it is held to somewhat higher standards.

    Criticism by the WTBTS of multitudes of other regligions has been ample through the years. Now they are engaging in exactly the types of dealings that they have always criticized. Why should they be immune from criticism?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit