IRS and the NAACP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

it's not the loss of charitable status more the loss of tax exempt status... Absolutetly they should lose it if the don't abide by the rules. The religious side was raised by Ruthie because the IRS is going after the NAACP but seem to be ignoring religious groups that are openly breaking the rules

---

Thanks, vidcc. It just seems to me that there has been more enthusiasm of government agencies to go after anything not pro-Bush, and ignore the rest. They might give lip service to churches and such, but it goes no further..with the churches.

Well said, JP

Quote:

---

I also am uncomfortable with the whole thing. I suspect that a group dedicated to the advancement of White Americans would not be considered politically correct. Or perhaps I have misunderstood their raison d'etre.

---

You mean like the Church Of The Creator; 14 Word Press; Aryan Nations (Church Of Jesus Christ Christian); Mountain Church; The Identity Church Movement; Aryan Preservation Society; Carolinian Lords of The Caucasus; Knights Of The Ku Klux Klan; Posse Comitatus ("power of the county); Volksfront; The Covenant Sword, Arm Of The Lord; Christian Patriots Defense League; Skinheads; The Order; National Association For The Advancement Of White People; White Aryan Resistance (WAR); Christian National Socialist; Neo Supreme White Power....?

These groups claim to be for the advancement of white Americans. Most of them are also tax exempt, except for the Skinheads and a few others I'm not sure of.

Just a comment... a point of interest if you will...

I feel that there never could be a group that worked to further the white race, as it would be immediatly be deemed racist (no matter how anti-racist the group was). But on the flip side if said group was for the advancement of blacks, latinos, koreans, cubans, ect, ect, they would be praised for their work.

the theory behind the term "advancement" is to advance to "equality" although it also it a group that likes to aid those that are disadvantaged because of circumstances... poor families etc. that can't afford futher education.
they are not touting "supremacy"

I don't agree with positive discrimination as i think one should advance on merit not race or gender

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler

I feel that there never could be a group that worked to further the white race, as it would be immediatly be deemed racist (no matter how anti-racist the group was). But on the flip side if said group was for the advancement of blacks, latinos, koreans, cubans, ect, ect, they would be praised for their work.

---

well. thing is, people who posit such an idea seem to be implying that the founding of an explicitly pro-caucasian group in the u.s. is equivalent to the founding of the NAACP. it certainly is not. one could argue that starting the NAACP would be less necessary in 2004 than it was in the early 20th century. but the fact of the matter is that the group was started in 1909 when there was not --by ANY stretch of the imagination-- even a pretense of equal rights in the laws, institutions and society of the u.s.

perhaps the NAACP is growing less useful with each passing year. at one time it had been quite a necessary and reasonable thing because the u.s. had such ridiculous views on race scratched into its foundations. but do you realize what it sounds like, to hear white americans complain about such a thing? it's not a flattering picture and often involves absurd reasoning, as is the case with what you've said in your post: "if Group A must form a club to achieve equal rights, then all groups should do the same. therefore Group B should have a club to seek more rights for itself, even though said group already has more than equal rights."

so, no, if there were a group for the advancement of whites that started in 1909 and still existed today, i would not praise their work nor would i hold them in the same regard as the NAACP... as arbitrary as that may sound. i just don't think one is the ethical equivalent of the other. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

perhaps the NAACP is growing less useful with each passing year. at one time it had been quite a necessary and reasonable thing because the u.s. had such ridiculous views on race scratched into its foundations. but do you realize what it sounds like, to hear white americans complain about such a thing? it's not a flattering picture and often involves absurd reasoning, as is the case with what you've said in your post: "if Group A must form a club to achieve equal rights, then all groups should do the same. therefore Group B should have a club to seek more rights for itself, even though said group already has more than equal rights."

---

Thank you for just assuming I am white........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler

I feel that there never could be a group that worked to further the white race, as it would be immediatly be deemed racist (no matter how anti-racist the group was). But on the flip side if said group was for the advancement of blacks, latinos, koreans, cubans, ect, ect, they would be praised for their work.

---

Then we agree.

My points do relate to items mentioned further back in the thread but I feel that if this particular organisation has broken the rules set down by the IRS then it should lose any benefits it gets as a charity.

I still don't agree that all charities should not enjoy these benefits. It was cited earlier that current regulations are being abused by certain charitable organisations and that some 'official' religeons are little more than a joke, or an excuse to get around paying Business Rates.

I quite agree - but to strip the tax-free privileges from ALL charities looks like letting a few rotten apples spoil the barrel. There are mumerous small charitable organisations that depend on not having to pay rates or use the non-profit net profit threshold as a means to ensure all available funds go to worthy causes.

Also if charities were treated as normal businesses then how would one check to see if they were donating all available funds to the good causes? A family run charity could be making huge profits without having to disclose it. OK the income would be taxed but the donators would be none the wiser to what was going on.

If the organisers were already unscrupulous then they will continue to be so under the regular business rules - but this would be perpetuated as the charity would no longer be subject to such rigourous checks.

It's all well and good to cite a particular charity that shouldn't receive the benefits of tax free status but if this status was taken away from all charities then it could only mean that less money, overall, was going to the places the donators intended.