I am in the wrong business. Too bad I am not a completely amoral prick. Everytime I see something like this, I am torn between being overwhelmingly jealous that they are raking in the cash being perfectly legal conmen and and wanting to crush their skulls with an aluminum baseball bat. Instead, I grind away as a wage slave doing my hours barely making ends meet because its the “right thing to do” all the while, someone else gets rich off my work. TYLER DURDEN SAVE ME!
…
…
…
Man is it ever a Monday…
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem))says
indeed. That Oliver piece certainly planted the seed of rage in me, myself, and eye, aye, I. Normally I can just scoffingly laff at rubes sending bucks to televangles, but to see the story of a cancer-ite being sold a miracle cure if she sends in all her money to (essentially) “buy a miracle”: hits me as contradictory in its own terms. “Miracle”, means without cause, for unknowable reasons (not just reasons unknown; impossible to know), yet the telescammer is saying miracles can be bought with all one’s pennies; reducing Gawd to a simple sideshow huckster,
yes, it was “rage”, not just simple “anger”.
——–
aside: what was all the peesuteese kerfuffle that left only the corpse of that name lying around?
instances like this advocate the reactivation of TheDungeon, to put the name there with a brief summary of the the cause of the exile. however, The Dungeon is best left in nonexistence. just curious about the punny nym of peesuteese.
John Oliver is great. He took the time to really look at the issue of tax exemption and churches.
microraptorsays
aside: what was all the peesuteese kerfuffle that left only the corpse of that name lying around?
instances like this advocate the reactivation of TheDungeon, to put the name there with a brief summary of the the cause of the exile. however, The Dungeon is best left in nonexistence. just curious about the punny nym of peesuteese.
Just the usual troll cackling about the impending demise of FTB. If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.
As far as televangelists go, I think the high-water mark for scamming was reached way back when the one (whose name escapes me but I’m sure other people here remember) claimed that God would kill him unless people sent him enough money. After that was pulled off, it pretty much proved that they could use anything they wanted to fleece people.
dannysichelsays
Oral Roberts, wasn’t it?
robrosays
Religious con artist — the other oldest profession in the world. Even the Bible warns about it. Yet it goes on and on.
HolyPinkUnicornsays
Funny, for the all complaints from the right about the burdens of federal taxes, they don’t seem to talk much about the sheer generosity the IRS has in defining a church. Though you would think a gospeler with a name like Creflo Dollar would raise some suspicion, especially if his church can afford a private jet with the unholy price tag of 65 million (the lord may work in mysterious ways, but his choice of jet transport seems rather conspicuous).
Ultimately this is probably part of the cost of an open liberal society. Yes it’s terrible but the ‘cure” would be worse than the illness. I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to determine what is and is not a “real” religion.
Usernames! (╯°□°)╯︵ ʎuʎbosıɯsays
I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to determine what is and is not a “real” religion.
—Mike Smith (#9)
How about just not allowing “religious entities” to be Tax-Exempt, unless they meet the existing definition of a Secular Non-Profit?
chigau (違う)says
The point is not to let the Government decide what is a “real” religion.
The point is for the Government to stop giving tax exemptions to all “religions”.
I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to tax churches because obviously that power can be used to crush a particular (and poor) sect. One of the main reasons why churches should not be taxed is they ought to be free from as much as gov’t interference as possible, as obviously the liberty of conscience is paramount.
@usernames!
yes because it is impossible for 501c3’s to be corrupt.
Hairhead, whose head is entirely filled with Too Much Stuffsays
I sympathize deeply with Who Him @ #2. I was brought up in the (protestant) church, and my father had me reciting scripture in front of congregants at 4 years old. At 8 I could talk for 15 minutes in front of the whole church without notes. People who get to know me and see my rhetorical skills later in my atheist days have agreed with me that I could make a billion dollars, but for the fact that I am not an utter fucking scumbag.
In fact, that is why our society exists today, our reasonable, mostly-safe society — the VAST MAJORITY of people are not utter fucking scumbags.
aziraphalesays
Mike Smith #12
“One of the main reasons why churches should not be taxed is they ought to be free from as much as gov’t interference as possible”
How does that work? I have paid taxes all my life. The government has never interfered with my life except by passing laws that apply to everyone. If it wanted to (for instance, by conscripting me in wartime) it could do so irrespective of whether I paid tax,
latveriandiplomatsays
@12:
obviously that power can be used to crush a particular (and poor) sect.
Given the constitutional protections against laws targeting specific individuals, provisions for due process and equal protection, I don’t think that’s obvious at all.
Religious speech is not some fragile flower that needs more protection than any other form of speech. Trying to treat it that way gives you legal junk like RFRA that creates more problems than it solves.
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem))says
ugh, yeah, sticky.
How to decide what is a “legitimate” religion and a pseudo-religion for fraudulence.
tricky how to distinguish the two.
I’ll go with the SCOTUS defn of porno: “hard to define but I know it when I see it!”
IOW, when fraudsters are so obviously using religiosity as a blatant cover for their personal profffit; smack em. Don’t just let em getawaywithit.
specifically, in a case such as the cancer victim who was lured into avoiding medical attention with the assurance of miracle intervention: don’t we have laws about fraudulent medical impersonation?
Just don’t let them justify it with the slippery wiggle of, “didn’t _promise_ the cure, simply encouraged prayer, if she preferred prayer over medicine…*shrug*…”
When there are consequences from empty quasi-promises, the huckster needs to experience a consequence.
It’s okay if he talks pretty enough to seduce all the money holders to transfer that money to him, and let him spend it on private planes, expensive cars, women and song, etc. No_harm_done is the maxim. when money is given from people scraping those pennies together instead of on nourishment or medical attention: harm is being done.
Sure, it is tyrannic to sit in judgment of every org, to decide whether valid religion or not. That is not what is being advocated here. When a “religion” is obviously doing morbid damages, it is not unreasonable to examine them closely and hold them to a well defined set of standards, such as the “reasonable man” standard used in everyday jury trials.
First, there is also a constitution protection of separation of church and state. I would argue it is less mixing for both the churches and the state to not have them taxed. Second, while there are other protection that could prevent selective targeting it is not impossible for it to happen (it has happened in the past). Given how important the liberty of conscience is I think as many constitutional protections as possible is worthwhile.
I also agree that religious forms of the liberty of conscience are not unique from other comprehensive doctrines/forms of speech. But that is not an argument to bring religious expression under more interference from the state; it’s an argument to provide more protections to non-religious comprehensive doctrines/speech.
@aziraphale.
I don’t really like it when people play dumb or are dumb. People (or groups) having to pay a tax is interference with their life. It might be legitimate and justified interference but it is obviously, practically and conceptually, so. Here let me walk you through it.
A church (or person) takes in $100. The state than taxes that 100 at 5%, leaving the church with $95. This interferes with the church (or individual) two ways:
1) the external cost (i.e. time) of practically having the pay the tax.
2) the lost opportunity cost of what value that 5 bucks could have brought in.
aziraphalesays
Yes, taxes are an opportunity cost. On the other hand, I and the churches benefit from things that the taxes pay for, like policing, national defense and infrastructure. We want those things and have chosen, through the democratic system, to pay for them through taxation. How is it fair that I pay for those things while the churches do not?
And it seems to me that when people raise the specter of government interference with churches, they do not mean to suggest simple taxation. They mean the sort of direct government interference that we see in less free countries.
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem))says
@17:
A church (or person) takes in $100. The state than taxes that 100 at 5%, leaving the church with $95.
please note the embolded bit. I don’t actually see how making the church yield 5$ of the 100$ coming in, represents a burden to the church. yes, it is less than what came in, yet to wrap them selves up in ‘what if’s and ‘coulda’s is a burden they put on themselves. And, like @18 reminded us, taxes are not theft, but a fee for services actually being rendered, currently, not tithing for potential benefits.
Saadsays
Mike Smith, #12
I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to tax churches because obviously that power can be used to crush a particular (and poor) sect. One of the main reasons why churches should not be taxed is they ought to be free from as much as gov’t interference as possible, as obviously the liberty of conscience is paramount.
I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to tax people because obviously that power can be used to crush a particular (and poor) group of people. One of the main reasons why people should not be taxed is they ought to be free from as much as gov’t interference as possible, as obviously the liberty of conscience is paramount.
Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Ysays
First, there is also a constitution protection of separation of church and state. I would argue it is less mixing for both the churches and the state to not have them taxed.
On what conceivable grounds?
Saadsays
I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to tax businesses because obviously that power can be used to crush a particular (and poor) business. One of the main reasons why businesses should not be taxed is they ought to be free from as much gov’t interference as possible, as obviously the liberty of conscience is paramount.
woozysays
#17
First, there is also a constitution protection of separation of church and state. I would argue it is less mixing for both the churches and the state to not have them taxed.
That’s pretty astonishing double-speak. Separation = non-interference = lack of hard-ship = tax-exemption. I would argue giving churches a huge financial benefit which no other businesses or individuals can have is a huge endorsement and support. This is far more mixing then making them pay their fair share in taxes would be.
@Saad. I imaging Mike Smith would argue there is no explicit separation between businesses or individuals and state.
tulsesays
At the very least, tax-exempt status is the state supporting religion over non-belief. No secular charity that I know of gets to write off its CEO’s house.
robrosays
The issue of taxing religions is interesting, and there are many ways to dice that problem. For example, you could ask should the tax exemption cover any and every thing a church does, such as building multi-million dollar estates for some preachers? Providing them with a jet for free? Expensive clothes? And probably food on their table? Other non-profits have to show they are using the money they receive in legitimate ways and follow strict guidelines, such as limits on administrative expenses and so forth.
However, the tax issue is only part of the problem. The state has a responsibility to prosecute fraud. If Robert Tilton was selling the Brooklyn Bridge, they would be all over him. If he was selling snake oil that caused people to die, well, they would probably prosecute him unless he called it “herbal” or some such. But because he’s selling “faith,” it’s okay to take money from some sick person and give them nothing but false hopes in return. I suppose you could say “let the buyer beware” but that seems a shallow response from our society to people who clearly exploit ignorance and fear.
=8)-DXsays
What’s with all the pro-everyone-else-paying-churches-for-common-services-we-all-use wackos in here? Tax exemption is essentially giving people money. Churches provide a service like any other business and unless they are organised as nonprofits, there is no intrinsic reason they should be given a competitive advantage. Those tax exemptions are basically a public subsidy of religious professions over secular ones.
That being said everyone send your seed to John Oliver! No really the donation page says they’ll be scuttling the thing soon anyway and then the proceeds are going to MSF. Now those are seeds that provide miracles – as in actual lifesaving medical care for those in need!
Uh-oh. I seem to be having some ladybrainz troublezes.
The text of the First Amendment to the US constitution appears to apply just as equally to government non-intervention in the press as it does to religion. I cannot figure out why media corporations have to pay taxes, or why poor Rupert Murdoch’s residences aren’t 100% tax-free. HALP?
I’m afraid I need to see a diagram illustrating the direct relationship between “freedom of conscience” and the tax-exemption of organized religions as they exist in the United States. Try as I might, I cannot connect these dots. ?
It seems to me that the perfectly understandable desperation of very sick people that leads them into the gaping maws of these amoral shysters could be significantly reduced by single-payer universal healthcare. It occurred to me that this might be the very reason conservatives are so virulently opposed to it. But then I remembered something about this Jeezus character giving out free healthcare to all comers*, so obviously that can’t be it. Amirite?
woozy 23:
I would argue giving churches a huge financial benefit which no other businesses or individuals can have is a huge endorsement and support. This is far more mixing then making them pay their fair share in taxes would be.
QFMFT.
*Except for that one woman and her poor sick kid, tho. After after first ignoring her, then calling them “dogs” and refusing to do his super special magick and just cure the girl already, the mother groveled and begged until Jeezus was finally cajoled into helping them. What a dick.
aziraphalesays
She didn’t grovel or beg, she came straight back at him and he recognized that she had won the argument. Not something that men commonly did in those days. Matthew 15:
26 And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
27 But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once.
Here in the UK we have single-payer universal healthcare (though conservatives are continually trying to sell off bits of it) and I think we also have fewer religious shysters.
woozysays
@27 irisvanderpluym
I had never heard Mike Smith’s argument before and, I will admit, it sounded some-what intriguing. Not nail-tight but intriguing.
The text of the First Amendment to the US constitution appears to apply just as equally to government non-intervention in the press as it does to religion. I cannot figure out why media corporations have to pay taxes, or why poor Rupert Murdoch’s residences aren’t 100% tax-free. HALP?
That seems like the perfect response. I wish I had thought of that. Very nicely done. *Very* nicely done.
I was thinking, by this argument, that if something ubiquitous as taxes in “interference” then all laws are and no-one should be able to be persecuted for anything one does in church or for any religious beliefs. Then I realized people *do* argue just that. *sigh*.
Basically I can only see Mike Smith’s argument of “separation” = “outside financial and other jurisprudence” leading to churches being considered some outside “foreign soil” much as embassies are. And I just can’t see that as the meaning of separation.
antigone10says
Here in the UK we have single-payer universal healthcare (though conservatives are continually trying to sell off bits of it) and I think we also have fewer religious shysters.
I suspect that this is true, though I’ve never seen a study on it (though it would be interesting to compare rates of religious beliefs and poverty both internally and internationally).
I know personally when we couldn’t afford to go to the doctor because our copay was too high and we couldn’t have afforded any medication they gave us anyway, and especially not the surgery we knew they would recommend, I bought way more of those “essential oils” and looked up “foods that could cure”. It probably didn’t do a damn thing, and I didn’t even think then that they could do a damn thing. But I did believe in the placebo effect and I was hoping I could induce it with something. We couldn’t afford the 40 dollar copay to actually have his sinuses looked at. We couldn’t move out of our crummy basement apartment, nor induce the landlords to remove the black mold. But I could get a 6 dollar bottle of eucalyptus, peppermint and tea tree oil (the “respiratory blend”), put it in the humidifier and hope for the best. I could buy a little garlic and ginger from the dollar store, add it to the food at tell him that’s good for sinuses.
And when you KNOW that that 5 bucks isn’t going to be enough to actually do anything to get you out of debt, you start thinking what it CAN get you and start going for the long shots- the lotto tickets or the quick happiness boosts or religion.
The good news, if there is any, is that with the accelerating rise of the “Nones” there will be fewer people around in America’s future to fall for such nonsense. They will fall for other nonsense, of course, but if it’s not religion-based, then the government will be more inclined to step in.
There will still be enough believers for the Robert Tiltons and Kenneth Copeland’s of this world to become richer than the dreams of avarice, but I suspect we’ve either already seen “peak televangelist” or we’re close to it.
Here in the UK we have single-payer universal healthcare (though conservatives are continually trying to sell off bits of it) and I think we also have fewer religious shysters.
It’s hard to have religious scammers when there aren’t that many Christians around to be scammed. Also, until recently, televangelists had no outlets mass media outlets in the UK to peddle their nonsense. Unfortunately I see that religious channels are now popping up on Freeview, so that’s a bit of a bummer.
I believe there are also laws against begging for money on religious TV programs in the UK. That doesn’t stop them from selling crap at inflated prices, and I’m sure there are other ways around the prohibition — like TIlton-style mailings once they have your name — but they can’t be anywhere near as brazen about their thievery as they can be in the USA. There’s no separation of church and state in Britain…
microraptor@5, dannysichel@6 it was indeed Oral Roberts. It happened in 1987 and 1988, and Roberts managed to raise the 9 million dollars he claimed God had told him to raise, or be “called home.”
A lot of nonsense swirled around Roberts. In 1987 his son Richard claimed he saw his father raise a child from the dead. In 1977 he claimed a vision of a 900 foot tall Jesus told him to build a medical centre at Oral Roberts University, and that this would be a major success. Ultimately it wasn’t, and it ended up losing large sums of money, which is why Roberts asked his followers for that 9 million dollars. Ultimately the medical centre was sold and became CityPlex Towers in Tulsa.
Dallas based musician/rapper Mark Griffin took the stage name MC 900 Ft. Jesus, releasing 3 albums between 1989 and 1994 before becoming discouraged by the music industry and retiring the name.
aziraphale 28, did you read what I linked? Specifically:
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. [begging.]
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. [begging the disciples too.]
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [Jeezus tells her to fuck right off.]
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. [groveling and begging.]
Then he likens them to dogs. The woman apparently accepts Jeezus’s characterization of herself and her daughter as dogs, and grovels for the “crumbs which fall from the master’s table” that dogs eat.
You say “he recognized that she had won the argument. Not something that men commonly did in those days.”
That’s…that’s not really an argument. It’s begging and groveling and cajoling this fucking d00d until he’s finally satisfied with her “great faith”—or her groveling if you prefer, as I do—and relents and gives her kid some goddamn health care.
And men don’t commonly do that these days, either. But they can sometimes surprise me. ;)
I do not see any problems with taxing religions at least none that would prevent it. Actually writing the law would make “Obama Care” look like it just breezed through with out controversy.
I am also dumb founded by the difficulty of the conservatives to see government as supplying needed services nor do I understand how they think the services they do recognize and like are supposed to get paid for. They sure as hell are not in the habit of giving away their goods and services for free.
uncle frogy
Georgia Samsays
I know I’m late to the party, but at the risk of being the person who jumps into the middle of a discussion to bring up something nobody is talking about: That piece is the best thing John Oliver has ever done, IMO. And that’s saying a lot.
chigau (違う)says
Georgia Sam #37
I agree.
Saganite, a haunter of demonssays
It’s amazing how he can make me laugh despite by anger. That story of the cancer victim, pouring what little money she had left down the gullets of these charlatans, really makes my blood boil. Even worse, this is an entire system built upon exploitation like that: She’s just one example among many.
rietpluimsays
Oliver says that it’s not even illegal, but is that true? If I tell people to send me money and I’ll send them a sports car, I’d be sued for fraud if I don’t send the car. What’s the difference if someone promises Gods help and Gods help is not delivered? It would be an interesting test case.
unclefrogysays
trying to nail those kinds of creeps in court for fraud would be like nailing jello to the wall and expecting it to stay there
uncle frogy
Saganite, a haunter of demonssays
@#40 rietpluim
Dunno. I mean, they would probably rely on the idea that it was their “honestly held belief” or some such, that God would help in response. It’s not their fault it didn’t work out. Plus, maybe the seed just wasn’t big enough to cause that sort faith healing to occur, maybe it was the victim’s own fault! Don’t misunderstand, I agree with you. But I’m a bit cynical as to whether a court would, too. What would a court say to a case where a car was supposed to be delivered, you “honestly believed” that it would be delivered, but it didn’t happen due to a third-party contractor not delivering? I doubt the initial salesman would be considered a fraud then, right? I’d imagine that hucksters like these would simply claim “honest belief” and, therefore, no responsibility for failure. I know I wouldn’t let that justification slide, but I fear courts might.
Saadsays
rietplum, #40
Oliver says that it’s not even illegal, but is that true? If I tell people to send me money and I’ll send them a sports car, I’d be sued for fraud if I don’t send the car. What’s the difference if someone promises Gods help and Gods help is not delivered? It would be an interesting test case.
Frauds based on sufficiently popular superstitions are protected from prosecution in secular governments like the United States.
Saadsays
Oops, I just realized I’ve been misspelling your username the whole time. That should be rietpluim.
laurentweppesays
How about just not allowing “religious entities” to be Tax-Exempt, unless they meet the existing definition of a Secular Non-Profit?
But that would be, like, having the same laws as France
Why do you hate America so much (says the french guy)
rietpluimsays
@Saganite #42 – I don’t know either. In case of a third party, it may not be fraud but the car salesperson should still deliver the car or refund the money.
@Saad #43 – Are you sure about that? If the money is considered a donation it would go without service in return, but the evangelists are explicitly offering Gods help.
@Saad #44 – No problem. This is a rietpluim: link.
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem))says
re reitplum wrote @40:
Oliver says that it’s not even illegal, but is that true? If I tell people to send me money and I’ll send them a sports car, I’d be sued for fraud if I don’t send the car. What’s the difference if someone promises Gods help and Gods help is not delivered? It would be an interesting test case.
Yes, interesting test case; I’m sure the televangle will tell the court, they’ve got a good case, but suing the wrong person, the fraudster one who promised is Gawd, so sue him. (good luck with that. *smirk*)
rietpluimsays
Yes, we can already guess what excuses the evangelists will come up with. But what will the court decide? That would be interesting.
Off topic: the court in Colorado has gone against the baker who refused to deliver a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Courts do make the right decisions every now and then!
What a Maroon, oblivioussays
Religious people are subject to the laws of the US, regardless of how that clashes with their beliefs. You can believe that heretics should be burned at the stake, that men should have multiple wives, that slavery is God’s will, that peyote is the key to unlocking your spirituality, but if you act on those beliefs you are subject to prosecution under state and/or federal law. And as long as those laws are applied regardless of religious belief, they do not violate the first amendment.
So if laws that do not allow religions to practice their beliefs are not considered unduly restrictive of freedom of religion, why isn’t the same true of taxes?
The only difference between these guys and any other church or similar thing is one of degree.
Gregory Greenwoodsays
I just watched this episode in the UK today, and the sheer, cold blooded evil required to gull a cancer victim into sending you money in return for lies about a magical cure is enough to make one despair for humanity all over again. I know some will make the excuse that perhaps the televangelist genuinely believes that they can help, but you would think that the many, many examples of their repeated failures to help the desperately ill people who come to them for aid would dent that certainty in anyone who is remotely rational.
The far more parsimonious explanation is that these amoral huckster arseholes know full well that they are lying to the the vulnerable and seriously ill, and that those lies will result in some of their victims failing to get the medical care that might actually save their lives – they know that by their actions they are condemning innocent people to a heinous, drawn out and totally preventable death and they just don’t care. They have already decided that their tax free mansions, fast cars and private jets are worth more than other peoples’ lives, and they have the gall to pretend to be morally superior because that is what religion is all about, at its root; allowing the corrupt shysters at the top to dress up their greed and abuses as an unassailable moral good, and to have the very people they are conning kiss their feet even as they bilk them out of everything they own. It is utterly repellent.
That the state effectively conspires with these jerks by affording their temples of lies tax free status just makes it even worse.
aziraphalesays
What a Maroon @49:
I suspect that most of them are only mildly inconvenienced by not being allowed to burn heretics at the stake. But having to pay taxes – that would really hurt.
Sastrasays
Gregory Greenwood #51:
I know some will make the excuse that perhaps the televangelist genuinely believes that they can help, but you would think that the many, many examples of their repeated failures to help the desperately ill people who come to them for aid would dent that certainty in anyone who is remotely rational.
Maybe, but I suspect it’s still possible for televangelists to delude themselves at least a little into thinking they’re having a positive impact because of the constant, sincere, heartfelt feedback they get from the believers. This is a group of leaders and followers primed to see God’s blessing in virtually any and every result. I would be genuinely shocked if these famous preachers do not, on a regular basis, run into believers who want to stop them and tell them tearful tales of how it worked. They sent a seed out and received so much more back again!
Listen to this sort of testimonial over and over again for years and it would take a highly-trained rational skeptic to resist the lure of counting the hits and ignoring the misses … as well as the times you cheat. And that’s just what they’re not — neither skeptical nor trained to be.
Evil isn’t just in doing wrong and knowing you’re doing wrong. I think there’s a lot of evil involved in doing your very best for the “right” reasons — if you’ve previously abandoned all the standards of the world for better, higher ones. Once you’ve placed the responsibility for your actions onto God there’s a tendency to think your own accountability has been subsumed into humility. I have a Spiritual Teacher friend who attempts to “heal” people with serious illnesses by trying to convince them that all sickness is an illusion caused by guilt. She definitely means well. I can’t analyze what sort of harm she’s actually done because she refuses to discuss the topic with me. Her responses to hypotheticals, however, were chilling. And there’s no denting her certainty: she’s learned the True Reason behind criticism and it makes her life simple and satisfying. That’s a sign of understanding God and letting go of control, you see.
The prosperity gospel preachers might actually believe in their own hype just because doing so is easier.
Gregory Greenwoodsays
Sastra @ 53;
I see your point Sastra, and I agree that there is a great deal of evil in willfully closing your eyes to the suffering your actions cause because you find it easier to relinquish your ethical responsibilities to your sky fairy. That said, I also think that many of these televangelists are quite cynical enough to simply milk their congregations for cash knowing full well what they are doing. Just look at that preening arsehole with the two planes in the Last Week Tonight clip. That wasn’t the attitude of a man who thinks he is doing good, deep down. That is an unrepentant criminal enjoying lording it over his victims.
And of course for both types of televangelist (the willfully self-deluded and the outright malign), there is that other get of jail free card they love to wheel out – the one’s who didn’t recover obviously didn’t pray hard enough. The pastor can’t be held responsible for the paucity of other people’s faith…
Victim blaming; it’s not just for rape apologists.
All that about Robert Tilton and he didn’t mention the parody, Pastor Gas? I kept expecting it to show up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2H7Ja93Wg
I am in the wrong business. Too bad I am not a completely amoral prick. Everytime I see something like this, I am torn between being overwhelmingly jealous that they are raking in the cash being perfectly legal conmen and and wanting to crush their skulls with an aluminum baseball bat. Instead, I grind away as a wage slave doing my hours barely making ends meet because its the “right thing to do” all the while, someone else gets rich off my work. TYLER DURDEN SAVE ME!
…
…
…
Man is it ever a Monday…
indeed. That Oliver piece certainly planted the seed of rage in me, myself, and eye, aye, I. Normally I can just scoffingly laff at rubes sending bucks to televangles, but to see the story of a cancer-ite being sold a miracle cure if she sends in all her money to (essentially) “buy a miracle”: hits me as contradictory in its own terms. “Miracle”, means without cause, for unknowable reasons (not just reasons unknown; impossible to know), yet the telescammer is saying miracles can be bought with all one’s pennies; reducing Gawd to a simple sideshow huckster,
yes, it was “rage”, not just simple “anger”.
——–
aside: what was all the peesuteese kerfuffle that left only the corpse of that name lying around?
instances like this advocate the reactivation of TheDungeon, to put the name there with a brief summary of the the cause of the exile. however, The Dungeon is best left in nonexistence. just curious about the punny nym of peesuteese.
John Oliver is great. He took the time to really look at the issue of tax exemption and churches.
Just the usual troll cackling about the impending demise of FTB. If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.
As far as televangelists go, I think the high-water mark for scamming was reached way back when the one (whose name escapes me but I’m sure other people here remember) claimed that God would kill him unless people sent him enough money. After that was pulled off, it pretty much proved that they could use anything they wanted to fleece people.
Oral Roberts, wasn’t it?
Religious con artist — the other oldest profession in the world. Even the Bible warns about it. Yet it goes on and on.
Funny, for the all complaints from the right about the burdens of federal taxes, they don’t seem to talk much about the sheer generosity the IRS has in defining a church. Though you would think a gospeler with a name like Creflo Dollar would raise some suspicion, especially if his church can afford a private jet with the unholy price tag of 65 million (the lord may work in mysterious ways, but his choice of jet transport seems rather conspicuous).
Ultimately this is probably part of the cost of an open liberal society. Yes it’s terrible but the ‘cure” would be worse than the illness. I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to determine what is and is not a “real” religion.
How about just not allowing “religious entities” to be Tax-Exempt, unless they meet the existing definition of a Secular Non-Profit?
The point is not to let the Government decide what is a “real” religion.
The point is for the Government to stop giving tax exemptions to all “religions”.
At chiagu,
I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to tax churches because obviously that power can be used to crush a particular (and poor) sect. One of the main reasons why churches should not be taxed is they ought to be free from as much as gov’t interference as possible, as obviously the liberty of conscience is paramount.
@usernames!
yes because it is impossible for 501c3’s to be corrupt.
I sympathize deeply with Who Him @ #2. I was brought up in the (protestant) church, and my father had me reciting scripture in front of congregants at 4 years old. At 8 I could talk for 15 minutes in front of the whole church without notes. People who get to know me and see my rhetorical skills later in my atheist days have agreed with me that I could make a billion dollars, but for the fact that I am not an utter fucking scumbag.
In fact, that is why our society exists today, our reasonable, mostly-safe society — the VAST MAJORITY of people are not utter fucking scumbags.
Mike Smith #12
“One of the main reasons why churches should not be taxed is they ought to be free from as much as gov’t interference as possible”
How does that work? I have paid taxes all my life. The government has never interfered with my life except by passing laws that apply to everyone. If it wanted to (for instance, by conscripting me in wartime) it could do so irrespective of whether I paid tax,
@12:
Given the constitutional protections against laws targeting specific individuals, provisions for due process and equal protection, I don’t think that’s obvious at all.
Religious speech is not some fragile flower that needs more protection than any other form of speech. Trying to treat it that way gives you legal junk like RFRA that creates more problems than it solves.
ugh, yeah, sticky.
How to decide what is a “legitimate” religion and a pseudo-religion for fraudulence.
tricky how to distinguish the two.
I’ll go with the SCOTUS defn of porno: “hard to define but I know it when I see it!”
IOW, when fraudsters are so obviously using religiosity as a blatant cover for their personal profffit; smack em. Don’t just let em getawaywithit.
specifically, in a case such as the cancer victim who was lured into avoiding medical attention with the assurance of miracle intervention: don’t we have laws about fraudulent medical impersonation?
Just don’t let them justify it with the slippery wiggle of, “didn’t _promise_ the cure, simply encouraged prayer, if she preferred prayer over medicine…*shrug*…”
When there are consequences from empty quasi-promises, the huckster needs to experience a consequence.
It’s okay if he talks pretty enough to seduce all the money holders to transfer that money to him, and let him spend it on private planes, expensive cars, women and song, etc. No_harm_done is the maxim. when money is given from people scraping those pennies together instead of on nourishment or medical attention: harm is being done.
Sure, it is tyrannic to sit in judgment of every org, to decide whether valid religion or not. That is not what is being advocated here. When a “religion” is obviously doing morbid damages, it is not unreasonable to examine them closely and hold them to a well defined set of standards, such as the “reasonable man” standard used in everyday jury trials.
@latveriandiploment
First, there is also a constitution protection of separation of church and state. I would argue it is less mixing for both the churches and the state to not have them taxed. Second, while there are other protection that could prevent selective targeting it is not impossible for it to happen (it has happened in the past). Given how important the liberty of conscience is I think as many constitutional protections as possible is worthwhile.
I also agree that religious forms of the liberty of conscience are not unique from other comprehensive doctrines/forms of speech. But that is not an argument to bring religious expression under more interference from the state; it’s an argument to provide more protections to non-religious comprehensive doctrines/speech.
@aziraphale.
I don’t really like it when people play dumb or are dumb. People (or groups) having to pay a tax is interference with their life. It might be legitimate and justified interference but it is obviously, practically and conceptually, so. Here let me walk you through it.
A church (or person) takes in $100. The state than taxes that 100 at 5%, leaving the church with $95. This interferes with the church (or individual) two ways:
1) the external cost (i.e. time) of practically having the pay the tax.
2) the lost opportunity cost of what value that 5 bucks could have brought in.
Yes, taxes are an opportunity cost. On the other hand, I and the churches benefit from things that the taxes pay for, like policing, national defense and infrastructure. We want those things and have chosen, through the democratic system, to pay for them through taxation. How is it fair that I pay for those things while the churches do not?
And it seems to me that when people raise the specter of government interference with churches, they do not mean to suggest simple taxation. They mean the sort of direct government interference that we see in less free countries.
@17:
please note the embolded bit. I don’t actually see how making the church yield 5$ of the 100$ coming in, represents a burden to the church. yes, it is less than what came in, yet to wrap them selves up in ‘what if’s and ‘coulda’s is a burden they put on themselves. And, like @18 reminded us, taxes are not theft, but a fee for services actually being rendered, currently, not tithing for potential benefits.
Mike Smith, #12
I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to tax people because obviously that power can be used to crush a particular (and poor) group of people. One of the main reasons why people should not be taxed is they ought to be free from as much as gov’t interference as possible, as obviously the liberty of conscience is paramount.
On what conceivable grounds?
I certainly don’t want to give the gov’t the power to tax businesses because obviously that power can be used to crush a particular (and poor) business. One of the main reasons why businesses should not be taxed is they ought to be free from as much gov’t interference as possible, as obviously the liberty of conscience is paramount.
#17
That’s pretty astonishing double-speak. Separation = non-interference = lack of hard-ship = tax-exemption. I would argue giving churches a huge financial benefit which no other businesses or individuals can have is a huge endorsement and support. This is far more mixing then making them pay their fair share in taxes would be.
@Saad. I imaging Mike Smith would argue there is no explicit separation between businesses or individuals and state.
At the very least, tax-exempt status is the state supporting religion over non-belief. No secular charity that I know of gets to write off its CEO’s house.
The issue of taxing religions is interesting, and there are many ways to dice that problem. For example, you could ask should the tax exemption cover any and every thing a church does, such as building multi-million dollar estates for some preachers? Providing them with a jet for free? Expensive clothes? And probably food on their table? Other non-profits have to show they are using the money they receive in legitimate ways and follow strict guidelines, such as limits on administrative expenses and so forth.
However, the tax issue is only part of the problem. The state has a responsibility to prosecute fraud. If Robert Tilton was selling the Brooklyn Bridge, they would be all over him. If he was selling snake oil that caused people to die, well, they would probably prosecute him unless he called it “herbal” or some such. But because he’s selling “faith,” it’s okay to take money from some sick person and give them nothing but false hopes in return. I suppose you could say “let the buyer beware” but that seems a shallow response from our society to people who clearly exploit ignorance and fear.
What’s with all the pro-everyone-else-paying-churches-for-common-services-we-all-use wackos in here? Tax exemption is essentially giving people money. Churches provide a service like any other business and unless they are organised as nonprofits, there is no intrinsic reason they should be given a competitive advantage. Those tax exemptions are basically a public subsidy of religious professions over secular ones.
That being said everyone send your seed to John Oliver! No really the donation page says they’ll be scuttling the thing soon anyway and then the proceeds are going to MSF. Now those are seeds that provide miracles – as in actual lifesaving medical care for those in need!
Uh-oh. I seem to be having some ladybrainz troublezes.
The text of the First Amendment to the US constitution appears to apply just as equally to government non-intervention in the press as it does to religion. I cannot figure out why media corporations have to pay taxes, or why poor Rupert Murdoch’s residences aren’t 100% tax-free. HALP?
I’m afraid I need to see a diagram illustrating the direct relationship between “freedom of conscience” and the tax-exemption of organized religions as they exist in the United States. Try as I might, I cannot connect these dots. ?
It seems to me that the perfectly understandable desperation of very sick people that leads them into the gaping maws of these amoral shysters could be significantly reduced by single-payer universal healthcare. It occurred to me that this might be the very reason conservatives are so virulently opposed to it. But then I remembered something about this Jeezus character giving out free healthcare to all comers*, so obviously that can’t be it. Amirite?
woozy 23:
QFMFT.
*Except for that one woman and her poor sick kid, tho. After after first ignoring her, then calling them “dogs” and refusing to do his super special magick and just cure the girl already, the mother groveled and begged until Jeezus was finally cajoled into helping them. What a dick.
She didn’t grovel or beg, she came straight back at him and he recognized that she had won the argument. Not something that men commonly did in those days. Matthew 15:
26 And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
27 But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once.
Here in the UK we have single-payer universal healthcare (though conservatives are continually trying to sell off bits of it) and I think we also have fewer religious shysters.
@27 irisvanderpluym
I had never heard Mike Smith’s argument before and, I will admit, it sounded some-what intriguing. Not nail-tight but intriguing.
That seems like the perfect response. I wish I had thought of that. Very nicely done. *Very* nicely done.
I was thinking, by this argument, that if something ubiquitous as taxes in “interference” then all laws are and no-one should be able to be persecuted for anything one does in church or for any religious beliefs. Then I realized people *do* argue just that. *sigh*.
Basically I can only see Mike Smith’s argument of “separation” = “outside financial and other jurisprudence” leading to churches being considered some outside “foreign soil” much as embassies are. And I just can’t see that as the meaning of separation.
I suspect that this is true, though I’ve never seen a study on it (though it would be interesting to compare rates of religious beliefs and poverty both internally and internationally).
I know personally when we couldn’t afford to go to the doctor because our copay was too high and we couldn’t have afforded any medication they gave us anyway, and especially not the surgery we knew they would recommend, I bought way more of those “essential oils” and looked up “foods that could cure”. It probably didn’t do a damn thing, and I didn’t even think then that they could do a damn thing. But I did believe in the placebo effect and I was hoping I could induce it with something. We couldn’t afford the 40 dollar copay to actually have his sinuses looked at. We couldn’t move out of our crummy basement apartment, nor induce the landlords to remove the black mold. But I could get a 6 dollar bottle of eucalyptus, peppermint and tea tree oil (the “respiratory blend”), put it in the humidifier and hope for the best. I could buy a little garlic and ginger from the dollar store, add it to the food at tell him that’s good for sinuses.
And when you KNOW that that 5 bucks isn’t going to be enough to actually do anything to get you out of debt, you start thinking what it CAN get you and start going for the long shots- the lotto tickets or the quick happiness boosts or religion.
The good news, if there is any, is that with the accelerating rise of the “Nones” there will be fewer people around in America’s future to fall for such nonsense. They will fall for other nonsense, of course, but if it’s not religion-based, then the government will be more inclined to step in.
There will still be enough believers for the Robert Tiltons and Kenneth Copeland’s of this world to become richer than the dreams of avarice, but I suspect we’ve either already seen “peak televangelist” or we’re close to it.
It’s hard to have religious scammers when there aren’t that many Christians around to be scammed. Also, until recently, televangelists had no outlets mass media outlets in the UK to peddle their nonsense. Unfortunately I see that religious channels are now popping up on Freeview, so that’s a bit of a bummer.
I believe there are also laws against begging for money on religious TV programs in the UK. That doesn’t stop them from selling crap at inflated prices, and I’m sure there are other ways around the prohibition — like TIlton-style mailings once they have your name — but they can’t be anywhere near as brazen about their thievery as they can be in the USA. There’s no separation of church and state in Britain…
microraptor@5, dannysichel@6 it was indeed Oral Roberts. It happened in 1987 and 1988, and Roberts managed to raise the 9 million dollars he claimed God had told him to raise, or be “called home.”
A lot of nonsense swirled around Roberts. In 1987 his son Richard claimed he saw his father raise a child from the dead. In 1977 he claimed a vision of a 900 foot tall Jesus told him to build a medical centre at Oral Roberts University, and that this would be a major success. Ultimately it wasn’t, and it ended up losing large sums of money, which is why Roberts asked his followers for that 9 million dollars. Ultimately the medical centre was sold and became CityPlex Towers in Tulsa.
Dallas based musician/rapper Mark Griffin took the stage name MC 900 Ft. Jesus, releasing 3 albums between 1989 and 1994 before becoming discouraged by the music industry and retiring the name.
aziraphale 28, did you read what I linked? Specifically:
Then he likens them to dogs. The woman apparently accepts Jeezus’s characterization of herself and her daughter as dogs, and grovels for the “crumbs which fall from the master’s table” that dogs eat.
You say “he recognized that she had won the argument. Not something that men commonly did in those days.”
That’s…that’s not really an argument. It’s begging and groveling and cajoling this fucking d00d until he’s finally satisfied with her “great faith”—or her groveling if you prefer, as I do—and relents and gives her kid some goddamn health care.
And men don’t commonly do that these days, either. But they can sometimes surprise me. ;)
woozy 29 – thank you.
I do not see any problems with taxing religions at least none that would prevent it. Actually writing the law would make “Obama Care” look like it just breezed through with out controversy.
I am also dumb founded by the difficulty of the conservatives to see government as supplying needed services nor do I understand how they think the services they do recognize and like are supposed to get paid for. They sure as hell are not in the habit of giving away their goods and services for free.
uncle frogy
I know I’m late to the party, but at the risk of being the person who jumps into the middle of a discussion to bring up something nobody is talking about: That piece is the best thing John Oliver has ever done, IMO. And that’s saying a lot.
Georgia Sam #37
I agree.
It’s amazing how he can make me laugh despite by anger. That story of the cancer victim, pouring what little money she had left down the gullets of these charlatans, really makes my blood boil. Even worse, this is an entire system built upon exploitation like that: She’s just one example among many.
Oliver says that it’s not even illegal, but is that true? If I tell people to send me money and I’ll send them a sports car, I’d be sued for fraud if I don’t send the car. What’s the difference if someone promises Gods help and Gods help is not delivered? It would be an interesting test case.
trying to nail those kinds of creeps in court for fraud would be like nailing jello to the wall and expecting it to stay there
uncle frogy
@#40 rietpluim
Dunno. I mean, they would probably rely on the idea that it was their “honestly held belief” or some such, that God would help in response. It’s not their fault it didn’t work out. Plus, maybe the seed just wasn’t big enough to cause that sort faith healing to occur, maybe it was the victim’s own fault! Don’t misunderstand, I agree with you. But I’m a bit cynical as to whether a court would, too. What would a court say to a case where a car was supposed to be delivered, you “honestly believed” that it would be delivered, but it didn’t happen due to a third-party contractor not delivering? I doubt the initial salesman would be considered a fraud then, right? I’d imagine that hucksters like these would simply claim “honest belief” and, therefore, no responsibility for failure. I know I wouldn’t let that justification slide, but I fear courts might.
rietplum, #40
Frauds based on sufficiently popular superstitions are protected from prosecution in secular governments like the United States.
Oops, I just realized I’ve been misspelling your username the whole time. That should be rietpluim.
But that would be, like, having the same laws as France
Why do you hate America so much (says the french guy)
@Saganite #42 – I don’t know either. In case of a third party, it may not be fraud but the car salesperson should still deliver the car or refund the money.
@Saad #43 – Are you sure about that? If the money is considered a donation it would go without service in return, but the evangelists are explicitly offering Gods help.
@Saad #44 – No problem. This is a rietpluim: link.
re reitplum wrote @40:
Yes, interesting test case; I’m sure the televangle will tell the court,
Yes, we can already guess what excuses the evangelists will come up with. But what will the court decide? That would be interesting.
Off topic: the court in Colorado has gone against the baker who refused to deliver a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Courts do make the right decisions every now and then!
Religious people are subject to the laws of the US, regardless of how that clashes with their beliefs. You can believe that heretics should be burned at the stake, that men should have multiple wives, that slavery is God’s will, that peyote is the key to unlocking your spirituality, but if you act on those beliefs you are subject to prosecution under state and/or federal law. And as long as those laws are applied regardless of religious belief, they do not violate the first amendment.
So if laws that do not allow religions to practice their beliefs are not considered unduly restrictive of freedom of religion, why isn’t the same true of taxes?
The only difference between these guys and any other church or similar thing is one of degree.
I just watched this episode in the UK today, and the sheer, cold blooded evil required to gull a cancer victim into sending you money in return for lies about a magical cure is enough to make one despair for humanity all over again. I know some will make the excuse that perhaps the televangelist genuinely believes that they can help, but you would think that the many, many examples of their repeated failures to help the desperately ill people who come to them for aid would dent that certainty in anyone who is remotely rational.
The far more parsimonious explanation is that these amoral huckster arseholes know full well that they are lying to the the vulnerable and seriously ill, and that those lies will result in some of their victims failing to get the medical care that might actually save their lives – they know that by their actions they are condemning innocent people to a heinous, drawn out and totally preventable death and they just don’t care. They have already decided that their tax free mansions, fast cars and private jets are worth more than other peoples’ lives, and they have the gall to pretend to be morally superior because that is what religion is all about, at its root; allowing the corrupt shysters at the top to dress up their greed and abuses as an unassailable moral good, and to have the very people they are conning kiss their feet even as they bilk them out of everything they own. It is utterly repellent.
That the state effectively conspires with these jerks by affording their temples of lies tax free status just makes it even worse.
What a Maroon @49:
I suspect that most of them are only mildly inconvenienced by not being allowed to burn heretics at the stake. But having to pay taxes – that would really hurt.
Gregory Greenwood #51:
Maybe, but I suspect it’s still possible for televangelists to delude themselves at least a little into thinking they’re having a positive impact because of the constant, sincere, heartfelt feedback they get from the believers. This is a group of leaders and followers primed to see God’s blessing in virtually any and every result. I would be genuinely shocked if these famous preachers do not, on a regular basis, run into believers who want to stop them and tell them tearful tales of how it worked. They sent a seed out and received so much more back again!
Listen to this sort of testimonial over and over again for years and it would take a highly-trained rational skeptic to resist the lure of counting the hits and ignoring the misses … as well as the times you cheat. And that’s just what they’re not — neither skeptical nor trained to be.
Evil isn’t just in doing wrong and knowing you’re doing wrong. I think there’s a lot of evil involved in doing your very best for the “right” reasons — if you’ve previously abandoned all the standards of the world for better, higher ones. Once you’ve placed the responsibility for your actions onto God there’s a tendency to think your own accountability has been subsumed into humility. I have a Spiritual Teacher friend who attempts to “heal” people with serious illnesses by trying to convince them that all sickness is an illusion caused by guilt. She definitely means well. I can’t analyze what sort of harm she’s actually done because she refuses to discuss the topic with me. Her responses to hypotheticals, however, were chilling. And there’s no denting her certainty: she’s learned the True Reason behind criticism and it makes her life simple and satisfying. That’s a sign of understanding God and letting go of control, you see.
The prosperity gospel preachers might actually believe in their own hype just because doing so is easier.
Sastra @ 53;
I see your point Sastra, and I agree that there is a great deal of evil in willfully closing your eyes to the suffering your actions cause because you find it easier to relinquish your ethical responsibilities to your sky fairy. That said, I also think that many of these televangelists are quite cynical enough to simply milk their congregations for cash knowing full well what they are doing. Just look at that preening arsehole with the two planes in the Last Week Tonight clip. That wasn’t the attitude of a man who thinks he is doing good, deep down. That is an unrepentant criminal enjoying lording it over his victims.
And of course for both types of televangelist (the willfully self-deluded and the outright malign), there is that other get of jail free card they love to wheel out – the one’s who didn’t recover obviously didn’t pray hard enough. The pastor can’t be held responsible for the paucity of other people’s faith…
Victim blaming; it’s not just for rape apologists.