Are Churches Really Non-Profit?


I was reading a story today which dealt with a bill attacking the Christian or rather, Catholic church in England. It’s author was concerned that the bill allowed non-church going citizens to challenge the beliefs and actions of the church in a court of law.

Now, I’m not saying that a bunch of saints authored this bill, nor that there is not a relentless attack on the church structure, meaning the thousands of individual churches which together represent the whole.

But… I’m so tired of this “attack on the church” type of story.

The Catholic, Mormon, Methodist, and all other “churches” are all huge multinational corporations.

That’s – FOR PROFIT – corporations.

Let’s look at the Mormon church: The Mormons (which is the for-profit corporation name of the company) has a sub-division in the form of a non-profit business entity called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”.

Note: All churches are set up in this corporate structure.

For those who don’t understand why the Mormons and the Christians of various faiths and supposedly non-profit churches can get away with giving huge amounts of money to political campaigns and support – though billions of dollars in political persuasion – campaigns against civil rights like the “Yes on Prop 8” media and advertising frenzy in California, and still keep their ‘non-profit’ status… it’s because the ‘for profit’ corporation that is the church is the one doing the dirty work, while forcing on their non-profit followers these so-called moral beliefs against minority lifestyles that the corporation frowns upon. That’s a lot of voters!

In other words… the church is a for-profit corporation, and it has every right to be involved in politics because it is a corporation. It’s non-profit sub corporation however, does not.

Now stop telling me the church is being attacked, for there is no separation of church and state when the church is a massive conglomerate corporation with millions or billions of blind donating followers.

You’re darn right I should be able to challenge the practices and actions of the corporate church!

And if the good people who belong to those corporate churches blindly BELIEVE that the church they attend is all love and charity and goodness, then yes, I also very much have the right to challenge their beliefs! I have financial reports on my side, so faith that the church is only a not for profit charity is not acceptable to me, and it shouldn’t be to you.

Now I grew up in church, and have a special place in my heart for the goings on of the small churches around the world who help the community. But these are the innocents, the blind parishioners.

Get rid of the corporation, and the churches have my full support in any ethical and moral individual venture they want to take on…

But only if the corporate “business” aspect is taken out of the equation. Only if the Vatican is shown for what it is… a rather huge and hurtful corporation.

It’s about time this happens, and that good Christians realize that they are not only supporting their individual churches, but also a very powerful and politically influential corporation when that gold or silver offering plate comes around. Only in this way, can the churches good name be restored, if it ever was good corporately speaking.

Morals and values without the fear of God is the truest test of ones character.

Please discuss this with your pastors or ministers and your congregation.

And if you need proof, just do a Google search for your faiths Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).

And visit here to see more: CAFR1.COM

Peace and love to all, faithful and not.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Tuesday, December 22, 2009

The Protection Of The Sanctity Of Marriage Act


“The Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage Act” is a proposal for a new bill to be voted on as a proposition for future elections in California.

Its basic clause is that divorce be banned from the law books and become illegal. This is to apply to all marriage contracts that are currently legal in California, as well as to all future marriage contracts. There will be a four month grace period before this law takes effect in order to allow for current divorce proceedings to be completed, as well as to allow for people currently in said contracts to opt out of these marriages (to be titled: The Opt-Out Period). This grace period will allow for divorce proceedings until this to-be-determined effective date. However, all divorce cases must be settled in court by this date or: they will become invalid, the marriage contract will remain intact, and the contractually bound “husband and wife” will continue to be happily married until the stated condition of “death” is met by one or more of the married parties in question. This act will also make out-of-state divorces non-recognizable in California, unless the original marriage contract was made in another state. The citizenry of the great state of California should not and will no longer tolerate the “Las Vegas” divorce.

We sincerely hope that this bill will inspire other states in the union to ratify similar laws in order to protect all of our children, and make the act of marriage wholesome once more. We believe that marriage is an act of love, and that love can only be guided through the heart when accompanied through state contract. Marriage is a contractual pledge of eternal love, which cannot and should not be allowed to be relinquished by the state. It is not a choice: It is forever.

Who would support this bill?

  • A. The church – How can the church possibly condone divorce? Marriage is a holy religious tradition with deep roots in the church itself. The ceremony is wrought with scripture and references to God of how the commitment is a holy and sanctimonious bond. For the church to come out in opposition of this act would essentially amount to blasphemy.
  • B. Gay men and women – Simply said, if the act of marriage is so extremely sanctimonious that it was made to exclude a group which is barely even referred to in the bible, then it should be protected against such subservient and deviant laws such as divorce and alimony. Simply put: homosexual couples cannot be married, and so heterosexual couples cannot be divorced. One must ask which if any minority group would fail to see this as a fair and equitable trade-off for the blatant persecution of their individual and group rights?
  • C. Mothers and children – This is really a bill for the children. It would protect and enforce the family structure, making it illegal for the father to leave the mother, therefore permanently preserving the family unit. After all, the vow says “Till death do us part”. No longer will children have to be torn between parents in psychologically damaging custody battles. Children should above all be protected from the horrible ordeal of divorce. Abusive spouses will of course be given the benefit of the doubt. We believe that a good spanking builds character. And a beating is good for the soul. After all, bruises heal eventually… don’t they?
  • D. Fathers – In an unjust court system the father always seems to get stuck with the child support, even if he wants the kids for himself. But he never seems to get custody of the kids. This will no longer be an issue – there will be no more drawn out custody battles. Also since no legal divorce would be allowed, no longer will men be treated as money machines, paying unfairly half of their estate to a woman who really only married him for that money in the first place. Gold-diggers will be a thing of the past. Pre-nuptials will no longer be needed. It’s wonderful, really!
  • E. Immigration – The easiest way for an immigrant to gain citizenship in this country is to get married to an American. Typically, there is a lot of money involved, usually given to the legal citizen. And more often than not there is a divorce proceeding once the minimum period of time by law for that marriage is reached in order to retain citizenship or green card status. “The Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage Act” would make Americans think twice about unlawfully marrying for money or citizenship, as the commitment would be binding for the rest of their lives. This would also mean they were responsible for that aliens well being and medical expenses for ever and ever and ever. This might slow or even stop what is actually considered illegal immigration into this country; meaning that getting married solely for the act of obtaining citizenship, and not out of love, is a crime.
  • F. The courts – This bill will potentially eliminate thousands of alimony and divorce cases each and every year, and would clear the courts and give them more time for other important litigation, while saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Just think of all the pending murder, theft, and other important cases that would actually have a speedy trial granted by the courts, as is supposed to be afforded according to the U.S. Constitution. Courts are no place for children. Parents, no matter how overbearing and abusive should certainly have custody of their children no matter what the circumstances.
  • G. Married and single people (everyone) – Essentially, it would be hypocritical for anyone in this country to vote no on this bill. Marriage is a contract which should not be nullified or destroyed simply because two people disagree about a few things or a little blood is spilled. It is a binding contract, meaning two people are bound in love whether they like it or not. They signed a contract! It’s time we bring civics back into this country. Imagine what Mrs. Smith would think of her husband if Mr. Smith voted against this bill… Would that mean that he wants the option of divorce to be on the table? Would it mean he didn’t love her anymore, or planned not to in the future? Could he be thinking of reneging on his part of the contract? You see… there is just no need for a divorce option. The aforementioned four-month grace period would all but take care of any reluctant marriages that exist today. And single (unmarried) people certainly wouldn’t be getting married if they weren’t in love, knowing that divorce is not an option anymore. So divorce would obviously not be needed in the future either.

Who would rightfully oppose this bill?

  • A. Divorce Lawyers.
  • B. Non-U.S. Citizens without voting rights.
  • C. Gold-diggers.
  • D. Con artists.

And so in conclusion, the passing of “The Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage Act” would ensure marriage to be a life-long commitment as it was always meant to be. Monetarily, we’ve shown that the savings would be substantial to the government, the judicial system, and the taxpayers, while only displacing an extremely small minority in the law profession, with the possibility of hurting or canceling some daytime television court shows. The pros far outweigh any cons. Also, we believe that the happiness that mandatory contractual marriage would bring to spouses and their children is incalculable. Happiness by rule of law is surely preferable to the auto determination of individuals being allowed the choice or right to shatter the holy, binding contract of marriage for reasons unworthy of such a separation.

We hope that you will see it in your hearts to make this idea come to fruition, bringing on its tails the love and happiness associated with mandatorily binding marriage. To any who might oppose this bill, we can only assume that your deviance must be far too ingrained into your psyche to possibly be qualified for a state granted marriage license in the first place. We believe that makes you un-American, and that the no-fly and terrorist watch lists should include people like you. We believe that you are purposely looking for love in all the wrong places, and we will not stand for the types of malicious anti-marriage activities listed here: dating, kissing, hand-holding in public, scary movies and chick-flicks, singles bars, dance halls, internet chatting, hay rides, and just plain unlicensed lollygagging.

May we all find it in our hearts to be spouses and parents. Thank you for your support.

.

Insincerely,

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
President/founder: Marriage Ain’t for Homos/Divorce Ain’t for Straights Foundation.

.

((For those who think less than others… this is sarcasm.))