PinoyDVD: The Pinoy Digital Video & Devices Community
Community => Big Talk => Chit-Chat => Religion => Topic started by: Klaus Weasley on Sep 29, 2014 at 05:23 PM
-
Being a democratic country, we're supposed to have a separation of Church and State. Of course, this kind of thing is very much just a suggestion in our country since the Catholic Church pretty much meddles in politics and public policy all the time. But one thing they love about the separation of Church and State is the fact that they're exempted from paying taxes.
I personally don't mind churches not paying taxes....as long as they don't use ANY of their money to interfere with politics and public policy. They should NOT be allowed to publicly endorse or publicly condemn ANY political candidates or try to hire lawyers to fight public policy. Doing so makes their organization political and therefore SHOULD be taxed.
My personal stand is: Churches should be taxed if they spend their money on politics and interfering with public policy.
-
Pwede siguro i-tax if they use the funds for income generating projects. Di ba, kaya nga walang tax kasi non-profit organization? Tama ba ang pagkaka-intindi ko?
-
Being a democratic country, we're supposed to have a separation of Church and State. Of course, this kind of thing is very much just a suggestion in our country since the Catholic Church pretty much meddles in politics and public policy all the time. But one thing they love about the separation of Church and State is the fact that they're exempted from paying taxes.
I personally don't mind churches not paying taxes....as long as they don't use ANY of their money to interfere with politics and public policy. They should NOT be allowed to publicly endorse or publicly condemn ANY political candidates or try to hire lawyers to fight public policy. Doing so makes their organization political and therefore SHOULD be taxed.
My personal stand is: Churches should be taxed if they spend their money on politics and interfering with public policy.
Sounds more like a personal hate for the church than an objective suggestion. Tama si sir Nelson, you can tax the church for income generating projects which is basically what taxation means. You cannot tax them for using funds on politics and interfering with public policy. In essence you are taxing expenses. You only tax income.
-
agree or not, Religion is mostly, if not all, for profit.
-
NO
-
Paki-alamero kasi yang mga local churches sa state. If they act the way they do then YES they should be taxed.
You never hear news about the catholic church in other countries telling the govt what to do. They just keep quiet and preach about things in church and not in media.
-
The church is a business. The church charges money for services. Yes, they should be taxed.
(Definition of business: An organization or economic system where goods and services are exchanged for one another or for money) www.businessdictionary.com
-
You cannot tax them for using funds on politics and interfering with public policy. In essence you are taxing expenses. You only tax income.
In as much as I am not a fan of organized religion, I would still have to admit the post above is true. Let's not limit the discussion to just Christian religious groups, though, as we should be all-inclusive.
In my limited knowledge of the subject, I think a religious organization should be exempt from taxes provided that it is truly not-for-profit. As soon as that organization cannot prove non-profit status then it should be taxed like any business.
Doesn't the BIR review this tax exemption regularly?
-
The church is a business. The church charges money for services. Yes, they should be taxed.
(Definition of business: An organization or economic system where goods and services are exchanged for one another or for money) www.businessdictionary.com
be specific... not all church charge money for service...
TS should be more specific sa Title... it should be "Catholic Church"...
ang catholic church nagrerequire ng bayad kapag may ikakasal, binyag, patay at iba... (though tawag nila dito "donation" daw)...
if a church requires its member (make it mandatory - para hindi magmukhang mandatory sasabihin 'donation') to pay for its service then hindi totoo ang church na iyan... yan ang dapat na patawan ng tax...
sa pagkakaaalam ko.... if you dont have at least 22K hindi ka maaaring ikasal sa St. Agustin church...
-
paano magsusurvive ang isang relihiyon kung walang mag aabuloy na mga tagasunod nito? before i was irked by the way churches of diff religion interfere with the works of the state, its political nature and also in its economic affairs.....but church meddling on govt affairs was best describe by a jesuit, i dont recall if its bernas! " if it affects my flock, then i have every reason to be involve in order to protect their welfare"
-
one function of the church is to produce a law abiding citizen... but as of this day... ang napoproduce ng Catholic church ay corrupt politician...
sa pagkakaintindi ko kasi ng church separation is that there must be no law favoring a particular religion, or batas na ipagbawal ang religion... and that leader of the church must not intervene or dictate the government what to do... or church leader must not dictate their member who to vote and church as whole must not solicite, ask or even trade money from the government or any other insituttion.
pero walang sinasabi na ang mga member ay tumahimik na lamang at maging sunudsunuran sa government... mas safe kong sabihin na huwag dapat makilama ang mga church leaders ... especially "CBCP" sa mga affair ng government or even dictate its member who to vote tulad ng Iglesia ni Kristo...
to maintain purity of both institution... civil/state and church ... no church leader must seek government position vice versa...
at sa usaping pera... hindi dapat humihingi o nirerequire ng church leader ang kanilang members na magbigay... it should be voluntary (para naman majustify ang pagiging tax free nito)...
a church (especialy catholic church) should be tax base sa mga hinihingi nilang service fee - wedding, baptismal, burial etc...
-
agree or not, Religion is mostly, if not all, for profit.
I totally agree. All religious leaders wouldn't be there if not for money. Sino ba sa kanila ang hindi de kotse? Or magarang bahay, meron ba? It's all about money. People will do everything to buy their place in "heaven", religious leaders are there to make sure they pay for it. Sad but true.
-
I totally agree. All religious leaders wouldn't be there if not for money. Sino ba sa kanila ang hindi de kotse? Or magarang bahay, meron ba? It's all about money. People will do everything to buy their place in "heaven", religious leaders are there to make sure they pay for it. Sad but true.
Not "ALL"... some of them are with pure heart and mission and simply bless by God both spiritually and materially....
and "MOST" of them blessed by Satan... i think you mean by "ALL" are those who were blessed by Satan.... :)
-
I'm sure Mother Theresa (Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, M.C) didn't do her missionary work for profit. I'd caution some people from making sweeping statements, and generalizing ALL to be driven by money.
-
In as much as I am not a fan of organized religion, I would still have to admit the post above is true. Let's not limit the discussion to just Christian religious groups, though, as we should be all-inclusive.
In my limited knowledge of the subject, I think a religious organization should be exempt from taxes provided that it is truly not-for-profit. As soon as that organization cannot prove non-profit status then it should be taxed like any business.
Doesn't the BIR review this tax exemption regularly?
AFAIK bro... religious groups, charitable institutions, non-profit organizations, etc. would always be tax exempt unless proven otherwise. Inaaudit pa rin ang said groups every year and they are still required to file their ITR every year just like any business though yun taxes paid naman is zero. Meron sinusuggest si Kim Henares na instead of giving these groups/organizations tax-free exemptions for life, gusto niya every 3 years nirerenew yun tax-exempt status.
-
The church is a business. The church charges money for services. Yes, they should be taxed.
(Definition of business: An organization or economic system where goods and services are exchanged for one another or for money) www.businessdictionary.com
Exactly. Kung walang exchange of goods or services, wala ata dapat i-tax.
Question, yun mga pastors alam ko may allowance or salary. And alam ko, they are also taxed. What is your take?
-
Exactly. Kung walang exchange of goods or services, wala ata dapat i-tax.
Question, yun mga pastors alam ko may allowance or salary. And alam ko, they are also taxed. What is your take?
Even if may salary sir if papatak naman siya sa minimum wage, wala nang tax yan. About the exchange of goods and services, it doesn't necessarily follow dapat may tax. The exchange can still exist with the money received, used for paying the church's expenses.
Remember non-profit means it should not be run like your normal business. The non-profit organization may use garage sales, church donations or any other fund-raising endeavor...or yun sinasabi nga na exchange of goods and services for profit. But this so called profit is used to pay for the various expenses to maintain the church and pay the staff's salaries sa parish office.
-
anything that pertains to religion or any discussion about it is a polarazing exchage of opinions. but still here's my take on it.
i just dont believe the idea that we talk about the church as something as economics. kung ang isang nagsusuri o pumupuna sa isang simbahan ay hindi nito kasapi o walang anumang relihiyon, maaring ito ay may basehan pero hindi nagangahulugan na siya ay tama. at kung ikaw naman ay kasapi, mababaw ang iyong paniniwala sa dyos. alam natin na ang pangunahing serbisyo ng simbahan ay pagtulong sa mga kasapi nito sa pinansyal at spiritwal na pamamaraan. but the church are governed by people who are exposed to worldy sins too and they are just human to succumb to pressures in life. our faith are not based on the people the governed our church because if it is, ang tingin mo dito ay parang isang organisasyon lamang na ang iyong pagsangayon o pagsapi ay dineditermina ng mga namumuno dito. faith should transend the institution per se. the divinity of the lord that we believe in is beyond question, we may be indifferent with the way our church leader manage its flocks, but at the end of the day, we follow. if you dont, you just get out!
and also i dont like the idea that mentioning the "catholic chuch" producing corrupt politicians. unang una, ang simbahan ay hindi isang paaralan na may entrance exam para mapili mo ang mga papasok dito. it is open to everyone, preaches to everyone help those who ask for it. kasalanan ba ng simbahan kung hindi nila maalis ang sungay ng mga politiko?
-
Remember non-profit means it should not be run like your normal business. The non-profit organization may use garage sales, church donations or any other fund-raising endeavor...or yun sinasabi nga na exchange of goods and services for profit. But this so called profit is used to pay for the various expenses to maintain the church and pay the staff's salaries sa parish office.
The business is very profitable:
(http://i.imgur.com/36s7WDg.jpg)
More:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/226430/news/nation/bishop-who-got-pcso-funds-was-a-top-ayala-stockholder
-
Remember non-profit means it should not be run like your normal business. The non-profit organization may use garage sales, church donations or any other fund-raising endeavor...or yun sinasabi nga na exchange of goods and services for profit. But this so called profit is used to pay for the various expenses to maintain the church and pay the staff's salaries sa parish office.
Dito na nagiging broad ata ang description. Paano kung ang definition ng fund raising endeavor is:
(http://i.imgur.com/36s7WDg.jpg)
Investing on stocks so that the profit can be used to pay for future expenses etc?
-
Dito na nagiging broad ata ang description. Paano kung ang definition ng fund raising endeavor is:
Investing on stocks so that the profit can be used to pay for future expenses etc?
Wala naman gray area dyan sir. Profits from stocks can only be realized by selling those same stocks. And the profit is taxed and is called capital gains tax. Eventhough the church is tax free, the profit from the sale of those stocks will still be taxed.
-
Dito na nagiging broad ata ang description. Paano kung ang definition ng fund raising endeavor is:
Investing on stocks so that the profit can be used to pay for future expenses etc?
How about "greed"?
-
Wala naman gray area dyan sir. Profits from stocks can only be realized by selling those same stocks. And the profit is taxed and is called capital gains tax. Eventhough the church is tax free, the profit from the sale of those stocks will still be taxed.
Thanks for the info. Immediate ba ang payment ng capital gains upon sale?
-
How about "greed"?
Yan sir ang hindi ka masasabi because hindi ko alam kung saan nila ginagamit ang funds nila.
-
agree or not, Religion is mostly, if not all, for profit.
siksik, liglig at umaapaw... yan ang pangako ng relihiyon...
-
Thanks for the info. Immediate ba ang payment ng capital gains upon sale?
Yes sir. Bago matransfer yun stocks dun sa buyer, dapat bayaran muna yun tax.
-
Thanks for the info. Immediate ba ang payment ng capital gains upon sale?
bawas na agad ng tax yung mapupunta sa equity value after the sale of stocks. and its the broker who will then hand over the payment to BIR.
-
I'm sure Mother Theresa (Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, M.C) didn't do her missionary work for profit. I'd caution some people from making sweeping statements, and generalizing ALL to be driven by money.
sure about that? do you really know Mother Teresa?
from mic.com:
Furthermore, Mother Teresa seemed to favor the darkly wealthy while offering nothing but prayer to the poor. The study points out how she accepted honors and grants from Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, a man known for the severe mistreatment of his own people while living in a bubble of luxury. When asked to return donated money from the corrupt banker Charles Keating, she remained silent and she also accepted money from Robert Maxwell, later discovered as stolen money. She had millions of dollars transferred to secret accounts to which Larivée asked once again, “Given the parsimonious management of Mother Teresa's works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone?” When floods and chemical disaster hit her home of India, there were no financial relief efforts to be found.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
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
-
sure about that? do you really know Mother Teresa?
from mic.com:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
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
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.
-
Oh well money is bonded with religion, one cannot live without the other.
-
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
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
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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/
-
meron kaya mga gumawa ng religions para kumita?
not referring to any religions but parang madali kasi pagkakitaan and tax free pa..
-
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.
-
Are organized religions in other countries treated the same way as ours in terms of taxation?
-
In the US yes.
-
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.
-
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.......
-
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".
-
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.
-
your sarcasm doesn't really work.
I think it's working... blah, blah, blah...
-
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.
-
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 think it's working... blah, blah, blah...
Oh yeah I see it now.
-
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.
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
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
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.
-
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.
-
Their work does include some of Christopher Hitchens work but is certainly not just an extension.
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?
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
ayuz. popcorn mode... ;D ;D
-
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:
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
-
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/
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
this is what you said:
Or those so called evidence are merely of the circumstantial kind?
key word: MERELY
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:
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
"philosophy" at work hehehe ;D i may have poorly chosen the words but it shows in the way you structured your sentences. point is, you keep on downplaying it. but again as you point it out, it's MERELY and REMOTELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL AT BEST. ;) your words.
Kaya nga... In my conclusion they are merely and remotely circumstantial at best. I don't understand how one can come up with something that is not there. I'm not trying to be as you say philisopical here. That statement is as literal as they come. No hidden meaning... no read between the lines. Very straightforward. ;D
-
Ok if you say so bro. Back to topic na lang. ;D
-
Ok if you say so bro. Back to topic na lang. ;D
Thanks bro din for the constructive exchange. :)
-
Yeah it's nice to exercise the brain with debates once in a while. Hehe
-
tsk... di ako makasingint... puro english kasi .... :)
-
anything that pertains to religion or any discussion about it is a polarazing exchage of opinions. but still here's my take on it.
i just dont believe the idea that we talk about the church as something as economics. kung ang isang nagsusuri o pumupuna sa isang simbahan ay hindi nito kasapi o walang anumang relihiyon, maaring ito ay may basehan pero hindi nagangahulugan na siya ay tama. at kung ikaw naman ay kasapi, mababaw ang iyong paniniwala sa dyos. alam natin na ang pangunahing serbisyo ng simbahan ay pagtulong sa mga kasapi nito sa pinansyal at spiritwal na pamamaraan. but the church are governed by people who are exposed to worldy sins too and they are just human to succumb to pressures in life. our faith are not based on the people the governed our church because if it is, ang tingin mo dito ay parang isang organisasyon lamang na ang iyong pagsangayon o pagsapi ay dineditermina ng mga namumuno dito. faith should transend the institution per se. the divinity of the lord that we believe in is beyond question, we may be indifferent with the way our church leader manage its flocks, but at the end of the day, we follow. if you dont, you just get out!
and also i dont like the idea that mentioning the "catholic chuch" producing corrupt politicians. unang una, ang simbahan ay hindi isang paaralan na may entrance exam para mapili mo ang mga papasok dito. it is open to everyone, preaches to everyone help those who ask for it. kasalanan ba ng simbahan kung hindi nila maalis ang sungay ng mga politiko?
+1