As Bill Maher once pointed out in his new rules segment...donating money so that Bryce and Spencer can peddle around africa and spread the news of JS, is NOT charity.
For that matter, NO religion is a charity. They are all in it to make money. Sending ambitious young people from any religion to live in a foriegn country for a few years, to preach superstition is NOT charity. Sure they may help locals with stuff here and there, but again....that's NOT charity. A clinic that treats homeless people, or a group who helps animals shelters...those are charities.
When Mitt Romney donates millions to the Morg, it's not charity, and it takes tax money away from the country and adds the tax burden to the rest of us.
The religious tax exemption needs to stop. Religions are NOT charities!
I have complete agreement that the Mormon church is not a charity. There are examples of charity in the SF Bay Area organized, funded, and done by the Catholics and Methodists.
Drug addicts, unwed mothers, street people, people with HIV, teenagers kicked out of their homes by Mormon parents can received unencumbered support and charity from charity groups run by these religions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2014 08:22PM by gentlestrength.
I think it depends on each church separately. Most have a budget that you can see where money goes. One church I occasion has a lady who lives in a third world country as a midwife. I think she does a lot to help the mothers.
Another I occasion feeds the homeless at least once a week. They do a little sermon before it but I think they should leave that out.
I know some people who one church sponsored to build wells over seas were suppose to also give a message about Jesus. They decided not to because "it didn't feel right."
I wish all church service was like that. Doing good for the sake of doing it but respecting the customs of the land. Unless someone asks about religion. Otherwise it seems like an obligation to the recipient.
....(and I am able to see it AND comment on it) has amounts set aside for local homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that the congregation chooses to support.
I do have to respect Huntsman. He does not drink the mormon kool aid.
“They require 10 percent tithing. I don’t consider that to be philanthropy and I don’t consider it to be part of my philanthropic giving. I consider it as club dues. People who put money in the church basket and people who go to church and pay the pastor: that isn’t real philanthropy, that’s just like you belong to a country club.”
Yes they do require it and it is club dues. Stoopid cult.
Huntsman certainly recognizes that TSCC does not do real charitable work in the world. That he takes it one step further and compares TSCC to a country club - where dues are required to be members - is telling. I also doubt that he pays 10% on this *gross* income. Hinkley was always sucking up to Huntsman and used Hunstmans private jet for church use. I wonder if Hunstman considered the cost of paying for Hinkley's travel as part of his club dues?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2014 05:39PM by braindead.
I started referring to tithing as the cost of getting your "magic kingdom club card". It is much easier to explain the temple dues that way to my never-mo fiance.
Didn't the church claim in their defense to the lawsuit by Tom Phillips, that tithing is optional? We're getting mixed messages here. Which is it...? Tithing is optional or not optional? More doublespeak from the church. No wonder people are leaving this morally corrupt organization.
John Huntsman is a slimebag. "Be like me... pay tithing and give a lot to other charities". That's easy to say when you're wealthy to begin with. How many people are physically capable of giving away 80% of their income? Even after he gives away 80% of his income, he is still left with more than most of us here have. You're a coward John. You should give away 99% of your income. Where more is given, more is expected. I won't respect this guy's charitable gifts until he is at risk of not being able to pay his bills and has to cut back and make real sacrifices, just to feed his family and keep the electricity turned on.
His philanthropic gifts, including the Huntsman Cancer Center at the U of U, make a profound difference in the world. That's more important than the percentage of his money he donates.
And if Huntsman buys the SLTribune which he is rumored to be considering, he will rise even further in my estimation.
If Huntsman buys the SL Trinune, that's just empire building for him. It has nothing to say about his philanthropy. If he really wants to do good in the world because he cares about people, he will just donate to charities without needing other people to think he is great because he donates to charities. He can make anonymous donations if he wants to and not talk about it publicly. Although the percentage of income donated alone doesn't matter so much (unless you're the morg and want ten percent of everyone's income), what does matter is that Huntsman is not an example to average people of what they should do when it comes to them donating their money. I donate more to charity than many of my co-workers because I make more than some of them. I only know that I donate more because only a handfull of us are invited to the United Way luncheons at work each year. Should people who work at McDonalds be told that they should donate to charity as much as I do (percentage or amount)? Answer: No. Huntsman should keep his mouth shut about his donations and simply encourage people to give what they can. If you count only donations that take away from money that is likely to be needed by the donor some day, Huntsman donates less than most of us do.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2014 11:32PM by azsteve.