Author Topic: Should churches be taxed?  (Read 9705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DVD_Freak

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,702
  • Life is a Blessing
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #30 on: Sep 30, 2014 at 09:15 PM »
The writers/authors/sources are not exactly credible to pass themselves off as authorities on the subject.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
Quote
There was nothing witty, cute, or endearing about the late Christopher Hitchens, a racist to the core whose association with the Left served only to discredit it. “Beneath his mutterings against ‘Islamofascism’ he was nothing more than an angry white guy who wanted brown people to be conquered or dead.” A man of many prejudices but no real loyalties or principles, he flowed with the money. “Why toil away as a left winger known only within that smaller group, when more money and media attention awaited a cheer leader for pax Americana and white supremacy?”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/mother-teresa-myth_n_2805697.html
http://mic.com/articles/28746/mother-teresa-not-a-saint-new-study-suggests-she-was-a-fraud
Quote
The Canadian journal, Studies in Religion, published an article on Mother Teresa by Serge Larivée et al. in its March issue.

The article was a rehash of a book written by the late atheist, Christopher Hitchens, The Missionary Position. Indeed, throughout the article no one is cited more than Hitchens. Not surprisingly, the lead author, Serge Larivée, is a devout atheist, as is at least one of the co-authors.


Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #31 on: Sep 30, 2014 at 09:45 PM »
It's sad someone actually believes that.  There are much easier ways to commit fraud than committing your entire life serving the poor.  Living where they live, eating what they eat, selflessly exposing one's self to the poverty day-in, day-out.

No, I don't know Mother Theresa personally.  I'm assuming you know the writers of those articles personally.  I must really be naive.

of course i do not know them and your sarcasm doesn't really work. those are articles from reputable news sites that are free from influences of conventional media outlets. these people have studied their subjects extensively to know more about them than you do. and yes you are really naive to believe that she is all that.  there are evidences that point to her wrongdoings. it's bad enough if you get your name involved in scandals and worse if there are evidences to prove it.

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #32 on: Sep 30, 2014 at 09:56 PM »
Excerpts from a 2010 article:

Pointing Fingers At Mother Teresa's Heirs

Money Matters

It is good news about some of the changes. Unfortunately, we are still in the dark when it comes to their financial records,” says Gonzalez. The donation issue first came up in the early 1990s when it was revealed that Charles Keating, an American banker known for the infamous “saving and loan scandal,” had donated up to $1.25 million to Missionaries of Charity. Amidst calls to return the money, Mother Teresa controversially chose to remain silent, an incident that is still sited by her critics who demand transparency.

In early 2000, Susan Shields, a former Missionaries sister who left the organization “unhappy”, created a furor by saying she herself had “written receipts of $50,000? in donation but there was no sign of the “flood of money.” Forbes India talked to a volunteer in the Los Angeles office of Missionaries of Charity who admitted that “even when bread was over at the soup kitchens, none was bought unless donated.” A report in German magazine Stern, revealed that in 1991 only seven percent of the donation received at Missionaries of Charity was used for charity. Former volunteers and people close to the Mother House revealed that the Vatican, home to the Pope, has control over the “monetary matters” ever since Missionaries of Charity came under its fold in 1965. The control got stronger after Mother Teresa died in 1997.

When asked about how much money the Charity gets annually, the then superior general Sister Nirmala in a rare media interview a few years ago remarked “Countless.” When asked how much it was, she answered, “God knows. He is our banker.” Forbes India’s request for details was turned down at the Mother House. Sister Mary Prema, the present superior general, did not agree to a meeting.


http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #33 on: Sep 30, 2014 at 10:12 PM »
Perhaps the most lucrative branch of the organisation is the “Holy Ghost” House in New York’s Bronx. Susan Shields served the order there for a total of nine and a half years as Sister Virgin. “We spent a large part of each day writing thank you letters and processing cheques,” she says. “Every night around 25 sisters had to spend many hours preparing receipts for donations. It was a conveyor belt process: some sisters typed, others made lists of the amounts, stuffed letters into envelopes, or sorted the cheques. Values were between $5 and $100.000. Donors often dropped their envelopes filled with money at the door. Before Christmas the flow of donations was often totally out of control. The postman brought sackfuls of letters — cheques for $50000 were no rarity.” Sister Virgin remebers that one year there was about $50 million in a New York bank account. $50 million in one year! — in a predominantly non-Catholic country. How much then, were they collecting in Europe or the world? It is estimated that worldwide they collected at least $100 million per year — and that has been going on for many many years.

http://www.srai.org/mother-teresa-where-are-her-millions/

Offline AC

  • Trade Count: (+84)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,319
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #34 on: Sep 30, 2014 at 11:01 PM »
meron kaya mga gumawa ng religions para kumita?
not referring to any religions but parang madali kasi pagkakitaan and tax free pa..

Offline DVD_Freak

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,702
  • Life is a Blessing
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #35 on: Sep 30, 2014 at 11:04 PM »
meron kaya mga gumawa ng religions para kumita?
not referring to any religions but parang madali kasi pagkakitaan and tax free pa..

Meron sumusubok siguro.  But you have to be certified probably by the BIR and backed up by some other certified religious groups to even qualify.  Pero misnomer siguro yun tax free kasi hindi naman lahat tax free talaga.

Offline Timithekid

  • Trade Count: (+26)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,642
  • Peace out! :)
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #36 on: Sep 30, 2014 at 11:16 PM »
Are organized religions in other countries treated the same way as ours in terms of taxation?
PS51E550
BD5500
Marantz 5007/DV500
B&W/Klipsch/SVS
Audio: AMX/Klipsch

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #37 on: Sep 30, 2014 at 11:43 PM »
In the US yes.

Online paolorenzo

  • Trade Count: (+684)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,975
  • Triple Double Monster!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #38 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:45 AM »
of course i do not know them and your sarcasm doesn't really work. those are articles from reputable news sites that are free from influences of conventional media outlets. these people have studied their subjects extensively to know more about them than you do. and yes you are really naive to believe that she is all that.  there are evidences that point to her wrongdoings. it's bad enough if you get your name involved in scandals and worse if there are evidences to prove it.

These reputable news sites are where you get your "Bible Truth" eh?  Good for you.
« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:45 AM by paolorenzo »

Offline dodie

  • Trade Count: (+36)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,600
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #39 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 09:27 AM »
as ive said before, basta talaga usaping simbahan, there will always be a clash of opinions. add to that are there are people who are vocal about their dislike sa catholics and others naman hindi naniniwala sa relihiyon. but since i became interested about the threads regarding religion, sa dinami dami ng opinionated na myembro ng forum, wala akong nakita na bumatikos sa INC, only a handful. lagi na lang katoliko, born again, protestante. are they afraid of a religion that can get back at them somehow? just asking.......
« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2014 at 09:52 AM by Dodie »
WCH CM U?

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #40 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 11:08 AM »
These reputable news sites are where you get your "Bible Truth" eh?  Good for you.

bible truth? no. i gather evidences from multiple sources and base my decisions on them. not like those who get their "truth" on only one "book". i like to keep my eyes open. if you can refute with evidences then you can change my mind. otherwise, all i see from you is "blah, blah, blah".

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #41 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 11:25 AM »
The writers/authors/sources are not exactly credible to pass themselves off as authorities on the subject.



i call them reputable because they are not influenced by big media companies. find an article where it says they are not credible source materials then i'll agree. whether it is written originally by Hitchens is besides the point. i think you're focusing too much on who wrote it originally and you didn't even respond on the evidence presented.

Online paolorenzo

  • Trade Count: (+684)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,975
  • Triple Double Monster!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #42 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 11:39 AM »
your sarcasm doesn't really work.

I think it's working...  blah, blah, blah...

Offline DVD_Freak

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,702
  • Life is a Blessing
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #43 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 11:39 AM »
i call them reputable because they are not influenced by big media companies. find an article where it says they are not credible source materials then i'll agree. whether it is written originally by Hitchens is besides the point. i think you're focusing too much on who wrote it originally and you didn't even respond on the evidence presented.

I was not talking about The Huffington Post. I am referring to the writers.  Where in the article did Huffington Post pass off the article as the absolute truth?  They merely forwarded what Hitchens published.  The writers are the ones I mentioned as not credible....Hitchens and Serge Larivée. Thus the quotes I posted above that says they are not credible.  And that is exactly the point.  How can you pass off a racist and devout atheists as the absolute experts on MT?  As for the evidence? Evidences from a racist and atheist are remotely circumstancial at best.  There wasn't even a shred of documentary evidence presented.  I am not discounting there might be anomalies. But I wouldn't take the word of both writers above as credible basis.
« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2014 at 11:58 AM by DVD_Freak »

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #44 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 12:16 PM »
Why are you passing Christopher Hitchens off as racist? He is a secular humanist. He is an antitheist but that is far from being a racist. Larivée is an academic so I don't see why he is not credible. And he is also not alone in the study that was conducted. There were two other academics that collaborated with him so you're saying they're not credible as well?

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #45 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 12:22 PM »

I think it's working...  blah, blah, blah...

Oh yeah I see it now.

Offline DVD_Freak

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,702
  • Life is a Blessing
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #46 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 12:38 PM »
Why are you passing Christopher Hitchens off as racist? He is a secular humanist. He is an antitheist but that is far from being a racist. Larivée is an academic so I don't see why he is not credible. And he is also not alone in the study that was conducted. There were two other academics that collaborated with him so you're saying they're not credible as well?

I am not passing him off as racist.  I don't know the guy.  But that is his reputation.  As for the others... is credibility automatically given.  Doesn't reputation count as well to establish credibility?  Basically the foundation of Larivée and the others' study is said to be merely an extension of Christopher Hitchens, The Missionary Position.
Quote
The article was a rehash of a book written by the late atheist, Christopher Hitchens, The Missionary Position. Indeed, throughout the article no one is cited more than Hitchens. Not surprisingly, the lead author, Serge Larivée, is a devout atheist, as is at least one of the co-author

So in essence we only have to tackle tha man himself.....Christopher Hitchens.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/media-media-justice-and-media-reform/christopher-hitchens-racist
Quote
There was nothing witty, cute, or endearing about the late Christopher Hitchens, a racist to the core whose association with the Left served only to discredit it. “Beneath his mutterings against ‘Islamofascism’ he was nothing more than an angry white guy who wanted brown people to be conquered or dead.” A man of many prejudices but no real loyalties or principles, he flowed with the money. “Why toil away as a left winger known only within that smaller group, when more money and media attention awaited a cheer leader for pax Americana and white supremacy?”

http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/17217591322/christopher-hitchens
Quote
Then, I saw a post that talked of his racism and sexism. This couldn’t be the same guy though. The Christopher Hitchens I just met was a really cool, Liberal, thinking genius. Surely, it must be some other Christopher Hitchens. It wasn’t. Not only was it not someone different, this guy was a DICK! Racist, sexist and homophobic. A real f***ing peach.

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #47 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 01:21 PM »
Their work does include some of Christopher Hitchens work but is certainly not just an extension.

I also read that article above regarding Hitchens but that just shows someone's opinion on him regarding his approval on the war on Iraq. He is against the religion not the race so that is not racist but I do agree that he is somewhat sexist.

Those are not valid points to say that he is not credible, though, to say that he is not credible. We may disagree with him on his views on feminism but that doesn't make him not credible specially when what we are talking about doesn't have anything to do with racism or sexism.

Offline DVD_Freak

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,702
  • Life is a Blessing
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #48 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 01:35 PM »
Their work does include some of Christopher Hitchens work but is certainly not just an extension.
Quote
The article was a rehash of a book written by the late atheist, Christopher Hitchens, The Missionary Position. Indeed, throughout the article no one is cited more than Hitchens. Not surprisingly, the lead author, Serge Larivée, is a devout atheist, as is at least one of the co-author
As the quote says.... it's a rehash.  It also says... "throughout the article no one is cited more than Hitchens."

I also read that article above regarding Hitchens but that just shows someone's opinion on him regarding his approval on the war on Iraq. He is against the religion not the race so that is not racist but I do agree that he is somewhat sexist.

Those are not valid points to say that he is not credible, though, to say that he is not credible. We may disagree with him on his views on feminism but that doesn't make him not credible specially when what we are talking about doesn't have anything to do with racism or sexism.

Hindi ba yun ang best kind...most credible kind?  Someone's opinion of him .... who knows him.  You and I admit naman we don't know him.  What better characterization is there than from someone who actually knew him. 

There are numerous links on the net accusing him of being a racist, sexist, etc.  Too many issues and controversies to be credible.  How can a person with such accusations be credible?  His very person is questionable at best.  If his very character is questionable, then we are left with the evidence mentioned.  Was there any concrete evidence given by him with corresponding documentary proof? Or those so called evidence are merely of the circumstantial kind?
« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2014 at 02:18 PM by DVD_Freak »

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #49 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 06:22 PM »
As the quote says.... it's a rehash.  It also says... "throughout the article no one is cited more than Hitchens."

Hindi ba yun ang best kind...most credible kind?  Someone's opinion of him .... who knows him.  You and I admit naman we don't know him.  What better characterization is there than from someone who actually knew him. 

There are numerous links on the net accusing him of being a racist, sexist, etc.  Too many issues and controversies to be credible.  How can a person with such accusations be credible?  His very person is questionable at best.  If his very character is questionable, then we are left with the evidence mentioned.  Was there any concrete evidence given by him with corresponding documentary proof? Or those so called evidence are merely of the circumstantial kind?

other than his, as you say, dubious character, were the things he divulged about Mother Teresa false? as RU9 pointed out in a column from Forbes Magazine, her charity got an estimated amount of $100 million per year and yet you don't see any of it at work other than seeing nuns and other volunteers at work. Did she build clinics to help those who are in need? no. you know what the volunteers in charity call her place of refuge? "Home of the Dying". What she did was not to help cure those who are in pain. Rather, what she did was let them stay in pain and administer to them when they are about to die.  she was not interested in curing people. she's only interested in the dying for her own selfish pleasure in getting off on playing the ministering angel.

Yet when it was time for her to get sick, she took herself straight to the best heart specialist in New York. There is nothing wrong with that! It was right for her to spend that money on curing herself, but it was wrong of her not to find a few dollars for a course of antibiotics to save a sick child with whom she had developed a relationship. She is a hypocrite, a saint, she is not.

This an excerpt from this article: http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

Quote
One of the prosecutors in the trial wrote her telling her “of 17,000 individuals from whom Mr. Keating stole $252,000,000.” He added, “You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart--as he sentences Charles Keating--and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience.” The prosecutor asked her to return the money, and offered to put her “in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.” This supposed paragon of virtue never replied to his letter.

you can say whatever criticisms you can throw at Hitchens and i myself don't agree with him all the time and not 100% but you haven't even tried to refute what he has pointed out. all you're saying is he has a questionable character. you're diverting the discussion to someone who is not originally in question.

I remember your post in the "Binay" thread where you said "how you love to audit his SALN" and compare it with his ITR. It's the same here with MT. Where has the estimated $100 Million per year of donations to MT's charity has gone? Where has the "blood" money donation had gone? With regards to her handling of the donation money the evidence may be circumstantial but it doesn't mean that it won't hold in court as is in the impeachment case of former CJ Corona but the evidence on how she took "care" of the sick is direct as there are a lot of accounts from volunteers in her charity. MT herself calls poverty and suffering "beautiful". Reflect on that for a second.

here is an interview from someone who has first hand accounts on what's going on on MT's so called "Charity" works and certainly not influenced by Hitchens: http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/hemley-gonzalez-the-truth-about-mother-teresa

try to refute that.


Offline DVD_Freak

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,702
  • Life is a Blessing
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #50 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 07:45 PM »
other than his, as you say, dubious character, were the things he divulged about Mother Teresa false?
Were the things he divulged true as it is backed up concrete evidence?  With his as you said, dubious character... you can only take what he says with a grain of salt unless he does have documentary evidence.

as RU9 pointed out in a column from Forbes Magazine, her charity got an estimated amount of $100 million per year and yet you don't see any of it at work other than seeing nuns and other volunteers at work. Did she build clinics to help those who are in need? no. you know what the volunteers in charity call her place of refuge? "Home of the Dying". What she did was not to help cure those who are in pain. Rather, what she did was let them stay in pain and administer to them when they are about to die.  she was not interested in curing people. she's only interested in the dying for her own selfish pleasure in getting off on playing the ministering angel.
Was there any document that accounted for those $100 million per year?  Whose account was used to deposit the money?  Was there a document that presented the disbursements?  Who accounted for all the money?  Was it MT herself?  Weren't all those testaments by the so called volunteers, someone's own opinions as well?

Yet when it was time for her to get sick, she took herself straight to the best heart specialist in New York. There is nothing wrong with that! It was right for her to spend that money on curing herself, but it was wrong of her not to find a few dollars for a course of antibiotics to save a sick child with whom she had developed a relationship. She is a hypocrite, a saint, she is not.
Was she the one who decided to get treated in New York?  Who decided for her to be brought to New York?  Who paid the bills?  Whose account the money was taken from to pay the medical bills?  Were there documentary proof to prove those?  Who was approving or allotting money and where should it go?  Or are these simply assumptions that MT took care of every accounting stage of finances as well as running the whole financial stages of her charity? 

This an excerpt from this article: http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

you can say whatever criticisms you can throw at Hitchens and i myself don't agree with him all the time and not 100% but you haven't even tried to refute what he has pointed out. all you're saying is he has a questionable character. you're diverting the discussion to someone who is not originally in question.
How can you refute something which was not concretely proven in the first place.  Like I said, I am not discounting the possibility of anomalies.  But what Hitchens wrote is not the utmost authority on MT. 

I remember your post in the "Binay" thread where you said "how you love to audit his SALN" and compare it with his ITR. It's the same here with MT. Where has the estimated $100 Million per year of donations to MT's charity has gone? Where has the "blood" money donation had gone? With regards to her handling of the donation money the evidence may be circumstantial but it doesn't mean that it won't hold in court as is in the impeachment case of former CJ Corona but the evidence on how she took "care" of the sick is direct as there are a lot of accounts from volunteers in her charity. MT herself calls poverty and suffering "beautiful". Reflect on that for a second.
Di ba yun din ang question ko......san din napunta yun money?  Was there a document which accounted for all of them?  Whose account was used to deposit the money?  San nga napupunta yun $100 million per year?  Wala nga maipakita di ba?  So ang assumption there was malversation.  Kaso no documentary evidence to prove that... eh di circumstantial nga.  All it does is create doubt at best and not make him the utmost authority on MT.  Yun kay exCJ Corona....hindi circumstantial yun.  He was impeached using his own testimony in admitting he did not declare millions in his dollar account.  Direct admission yun not circumstantial evidence.

here is an interview from someone who has first hand accounts on what's going on on MT's so called "Charity" works and certainly not influenced by Hitchens: http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/hemley-gonzalez-the-truth-about-mother-teresa

try to refute that.
I repeat.... I am not discounting the possibility of anomalies.  But what Hitchens wrote is not the utmost authority on MT.   The link you provided actually came from a volunteer with Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity.  He had first hand experience.  He witnessed what was happening first hand which makes him definitely more credible that Christopher Hitchens  And as I bring up my initial post again...
The writers/authors/sources are not exactly credible to pass themselves off as authorities on the subject.

Maybe you should have used this to begin with?   ;D  But you went with Christopher Hitchens.  So I stand by my post.
« Last Edit: Oct 02, 2014 at 12:11 AM by DVD_Freak »

Offline dodie

  • Trade Count: (+36)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,600
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #51 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 07:58 PM »
ayuz. popcorn mode... ;D ;D
WCH CM U?

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #52 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 07:59 PM »
Were the things he divulged true as it is backed up concrete evidence?  With his as you said, dubious character... you can only take what he says with a grain of salt unless he does have documentary evidence.
Was there any document that accounted for those $100 million per year?  Whose account was used to deposit the money?  Was there a document that presented the disbursements?  Who accounted for all the money?  Was it MT herself?  Weren't all those testaments by the so called volunteers, someone's own opinions as well?
Was she the one who decided to get treated in New York?  Who decided for her to be brought to New York?  Who paid the bills?  Whose account the money was taken from to pay the medical bills?  Were there documentary proof to prove those?  Who was approving or allotting money and where should it go?  Or are these simply assumptions that MT took care of every accounting stage of finances as well as running the whole financial stages of her charity? 
How can you refute something which was not concretely proven in the first place.  Like I said, I am not discounting the possibility of anomalies.  But what Hitchens wrote is not the utmost authority on MT. 
Di ba yun din ang question ko......san din napunta yun money?  Was there a document which accounted for all of them?  Whose account was used to deposit the money?  San nga napupunta yun $100 million per year?  Wala nga maipakita di ba?  So ang assumption there was malversation.  Kaso no documentary evidence to prove that... eh di circumstantial nga.  All it does is create doubt at best and not make him the utmost authority on MT.  Yun kay exCJ Corona....hindi circumstancial yun.  He was impeached using his own testimony in admitting he did not declare millions in his dollar account.  Direct admission yun not circumstantial evidence.
I repeat.... I am not discounting the possibility of anomalies.  But what Hitchens wrote is not the utmost authority on MT.   The link you provided actually came from a volunteer with Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity.  He had first hand experience.  He witnessed what was happening first hand which makes him definitely more credible that Christopher Hitchens  And as I bring up my initial post again...
Maybe you should have used this to begin with?   ;D  But you went with Christopher Hitchens.  So I stand by my post.

i didn't use Christopher Hitchen. it just so happened that the articles posted used Hitchen. but my main point is still as is about MT. Na-divert lang sa usapang Hitchen which as i've said already before that is besides the point.

medyo out of topic lang uli and this is about your view on circumstantial evidence:

Quote
Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

this nullifies your view that circumstantial evidence does not hold in court or shouldn't be used as basis. ;)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence
« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:02 PM by leomarley »

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #53 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:21 PM »
here are other articles about volunteers' accounts on what's going on in the MoC "charity".

http://humanizzm.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/new-stories-of-abuse/

Quote
I too volunteered at Mother Theresa’s Orphanage in Pondicherry – St. Terese Street. What I found there was appalling. Babies who were brain damaged were force-fed by filling their mouths with some kind of food and holding of their noses so that they either had to choke or swallow. Some of these babies were blind and deaf and only a few weeks old. When I complained bitterly to the sister in charge, she said that she knew these things were going on. They were also fed very hot food and very hot milk. They were left in soiled clothing the entire day and feces and urine ran from the mattresses and mats on which they lie , all day long. I actually rescued one child from their grip. seven children died whilst I was there, for 6 weeks.

The sister in charge was a materialistic torturer and cared nothing for the children under her care. The other sisters did nothing to stop what was going on.

I am still in India ten years later. But NOT with the MOC.

Offline DVD_Freak

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,702
  • Life is a Blessing
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #54 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:21 PM »
i didn't use Christopher Hitchen. it just so happened that the articles posted used Hitchen. but my main point is still as is about MT. Na-divert lang sa usapang Hitchen which as i've said already before that is besides the point.

But the article/link you posted centered on Christopher Hitchens.  And thus my reply.  How can you use the article in any other way and not use Christopher Hitchens

medyo out of topic lang uli and this is about your view on circumstantial evidence:

this nullifies your view that circumstantial evidence does not hold in court or shouldn't be used as basis. ;)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

I'm confused...I never said circumstantial evidence does not hold in court.  I've read my posts again and did not see it.  Could you specifically point it out to me?  As for circumstantial evidence shouldn't be used as basis.... where is that again?  Binalikan ko posts ko, wala naman dun.
« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:23 PM by DVD_Freak »

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #55 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:22 PM »
But the article/link you posted centered on Christopher Hitchens.  And thus my reply.  How can you use the article in any other way and not use Christopher Hitchens

I'm confused...I never said circumstantial evidence does not hold in court.  I've read my posts again and did not see it.  Could you specifically point it out to me?  As for circumstantial evidence shouldn't be used as basis.... where is that again?  Binalikan ko posts ko, wala naman dun.

you did not directly said that but you're undermining the use of it. circumstantial, ika nga.

« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:31 PM by leomarley »

Offline DVD_Freak

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,702
  • Life is a Blessing
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #56 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:28 PM »
you did not directly said that but your undermining the use of it. circumstantial, ika nga.

I did not directly say?  So hindi ko nga sinabi.  I don't even recall "undermining the use of it."   ;D  Nalito tuloy ako as I've never said anything of that nature.   :o

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #57 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:31 PM »
this is what you said:
Quote
Or those so called evidence are merely of the circumstantial kind?

key word: MERELY

Quote
Evidences from a racist and atheist are remotely circumstancial at best.


Key phrase: remotely circumstantal at best

you keep on downplaying it as not as important as direct evidence. so again from the legal dictionary:

Quote
In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime.

but again, this is besides the point.

Offline DVD_Freak

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,702
  • Life is a Blessing
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #58 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:41 PM »
this is what you said:
key word: MERELY
 

Key phrase: remotely circumstantal at best

you keep on downplaying it as not as important as direct evidence. so again from the legal dictionary:

but again, this is besides the point.

What?  Hahaha!  That was very presumptuous on your part. 
Quote
Or those so called evidence are merely of the circumstantial kind?
I was asking if circumstantial lang yun binring up ni Hitchens.  "Circumstantial evidence does not hold in court" or "shouldn't use circumstantial evidence as a basis" is not there....not even a hint.

Quote
Evidences from a racist and atheist are remotely circumstancial at best.
That was my conclusion... wala pa rin yun "Circumstantial evidence does not hold in court" or "shouldn't use circumstantial evidence as a basis" 

Circumstantial at best meaning....the so called evidence can only be considered at most.....circumstantial.  Circumstantial at best..... does not mean CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT THE BEST FORM OF EVIDENCE.   ;D  OR NOT AS IMPORTANT.
« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:43 PM by DVD_Freak »

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Should churches be taxed?
« Reply #59 on: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:47 PM »
What?  Hahaha!  That was very presumptuous on your part.  I was asking if circumstantial lang yun binring up ni Hitchens.  "Circumstantial evidence does not hold in court" or "shouldn't use circumstantial evidence as a basis" is not there....not even a hint.
That was my conclusion... wala pa rin yun "Circumstantial evidence does not hold in court" or "shouldn't use circumstantial evidence as a basis" 

Circumstantial at best meaning....the so called evidence can only be considered at most.....circumstantial.  Circumstantial at best..... does not mean CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT THE BEST FORM OF EVIDENCE.   ;D  OR NOT AS IMPORTANT.


"philosophy" at work hehehe ;D i may have poorly chosen the words but it clearly shows in the way you structured your sentences. point is, you keep on downplaying it. but again as you will insistingly point out, it's MERELY and REMOTELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL AT BEST. ;) your words.
« Last Edit: Oct 01, 2014 at 08:49 PM by leomarley »