Did a pagan really quit the Charity Commission after giving tips on how to damage Evangelical groups?

Question

According to the site pagan-network.org/forums/showthread. (as at 20 June 2006) this person stated that 'the best approach is to complain that this [charity's] activity cannot be in the public benefit.' This person apparently used a website to offer advice on how to complain to the Commission against an evangelical Christian charity. He suggested methods for wasting its resources by inundating it with fake requests for help.

This is all tied up with The Charities Act 2006 removing the presumption that groups existing for the advancement of education, religion or relief of poverty provide public benefit. From early 2008 onwards such groups must prove their public benefit to obtain / maintain charitable status. This will put huge pressure on Christian groups to conform to ever-shifting values and public opinion, and to degrade their proselytising work.

I've nothing against pagans but wonder what's happening to British law. Why is freedom to spread the gospel so hated in a democracy

a1 - Edward Leer would beg to differ!

bry - Charity status needs regulating, yes, but why pick on genuinely non-profit-making groups that base charitable acts on religious beliefs?

David C - This isn't about tax exemption really - it's about using the law to control (i.e. stifle) freedom of speech. Wait till it starts happening to you!

Princess - No, this Act covers all religious groups claiming charity status, and educational and poverty-eradicating groups (which most religious charities also undertake).

And could somone now kindly address my question about the pagan?

Oh, and David C, if religious charities that help lots of people CANNOT perpetuate themselves, those poor people will suffer when that group folds up. Taxing such charities that exist on a wing and a prayer will cripple them. Consider also the RC Adoption Agencies now on the brink due to political pressure. If they fold, how many babies / children will not find adoptive parents? What will that then cost the State and you, the tax-payer?

Woops - Edward LEAR (!)

Answer 1

This is interesting.

Someone or something deeply offended or a person was not able to manipulate, blackmail, or line their pockets.

As there is on a place like Y!Q&A there is trolls that join charity oranizations.

There are con artists of various types.

I wonder sometimes how many decent and upright charities have been used and stolen from by these folks?

Of course they use different names and so forth. Often churches or the leadership cover the losses, embezzelment, and so forth from their own pockets rather than allow the GOOD that is done to be tainted by such a person.

A church that has, by the membership, put money aside to help others are doing good and that is none of the government's business until they begin to solicit donations outside of the membership then there is regulation.

If honest members donate their time to the control of funds both the gain and disbursement then there should not be any difficulties.

As soon as an outside person is "hired" then there can be a fox in the hen house.

If a church is doing this it is none of the governments business.

If there is a charity organization set up to help then all financial statements should be on public record.

There have been charity organizations in which 60 - 80% of donations in any particular quarter are actually spent on administration of the charity.

How do you feel if 8 of 10 quid you donate is not given to the destitute but to a fat cat or that would be "inside man"?

for example many believe that PTL leader Jim Bakker resigned after sex scandal with Jessica Hahn but really he charged with illegally taking some $4 million in bonuses out of the PTL trough.

Answer 2

Why is freedom to spread the gospel so hated in a democracy? Because the ruler of this world hates the gospel and is hell-bent on stopping it. But you're right to ask what is happening to British law.

Tell me, is this new act aimed at purely Evangelical groups? Or does it embrace any religious group, like the Church of England, or Catholicism?

To all those persons out there who would deny charitable status to Evangelical groups, might I just remind them that tax payers do not support them. That they are self-funding. That they do a whole lot of practical good out there in society, taking care of the dispossessed and the needy. That, without them, thousands of people would be left bereft of comfort and help by a greedy, self-seeking and materialistic society who turns its back on those less well-off than they.

Thumbs up to don s - he gets my vote! And shame on those who think more of money than they do of helping others.

Answer 3

As it should be. Tax-exemption should be given only to organizations that serve to help society. Evangialism is Not helping society, it only serves to help the organization. It is basically advertisement.

If a great deal of funds to a religious organization go to helping people, I have no problem with it being tax-exempt (ie Star of Hope, Salvation Army) but if it primarily exists to perpetuate itself, then no.

Answer 4

Take one look at the answers and you will see the answer to your question is no more than foolish pride and ignorance to the truth.There is a lot of this going on right here on RS and other sites as well.They twist the scriptures and make up all sorts of stuff.What can you expect though,If your not serving God,who are you serving?

Answer 5

Lots of fundies hate lots of people, but Southern Baptists have hate down to a science.

Answer 6

I don't know the answer to your question, but I like the way British goverment is clamping down on tax statuses of religious institutions.

Answer 7

what if the pagan has at last found the acid truth? but do not try to destroy what you leave behind. Think on it?

Answer 8

Why should anyone be allowed to freely spread nonsense?