Big $$$ in the "War On Xmas"

[Tock]

Not much to be said about this . . . dunno why people get upset when capitalistic profit-oriented private companies say "Happy Holiday" instead of "Merry Xmas."
But I guess some folks have discovered a way to make a few bucks off the controversy . . . c'est la vie . . .

-------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

'War on Christmas' has a new jingle: money

Christian groups raise funds as they sell items to counter a perceived assault on the holiday.

By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
December 23, 2006


The "War on Christmas" has never been so profitable.

For the fourth year running, conservative Christian groups have spent much of December mobilizing against what they see as a liberal plot to censor Christmas.

But this year, it's more than a cause. It's a heck of a fundraiser.

The American Family Assn., a conservative activist group, has rung up more than $550,000 in sales of buttons and magnets stamped with the slogan "Merry Christmas: It's Worth Saying."

Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit law firm affiliated with the religious right, has taken in more than $300,000 with its Help Save Christmas Action Packs. The kits include two buttons, two bumper stickers and "The Memo that Saved Christmas," a guide to defending overt religious expression, such as a Nativity scene in a public school classroom.

Also for sale through conservative websites: Christmas bracelets, tree ornaments and lapel pins intended to send a defiant message to those who would turn December into a multicultural mush of "winter parties," "seasonal sales" and "Happy Holidays" greetings.

Christmas warriors can also download — for free — lists that rank retailers as either "naughty" or "nice," depending on how often their ads refer to Christmas rather than a generic holiday.

"You're seeing people really wanting to take this battle forward," said Mat Staver, the president of Liberty Counsel, based in Orlando, Fla.

With minimal advertising on Christian radio stations, Liberty Counsel rang up more than 12,000 orders for a glossy copy of the legal memo (which is also available online for free). The minimum donation to get an "action pack" was $25; many supporters kicked in more. Liberty Counsel also sold 8,000 buttons ($1 each), with slogans such as "I {heart} CHRISTmas."

Staver's conclusion: "A lot of people have strong feelings about Christmas."

Apparently so. A Zogby International poll conducted last month found that 46% of Americans are offended when a store clerk greets them with "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." More than a third of the 12,800 adults surveyed said they had walked out of a store or resolved to avoid it in the future because the clerks didn't show enough Christmas spirit.

"It's the whole peace-on-earth and goodwill-toward-man thing. It lifts us up when people can say 'Merry Christmas' without worrying about whether it's politically correct," said Jennifer Giroux, a Cincinnati entrepreneur.

She began marketing rubber bracelets urging "Just Say 'Merry Christmas' " last December; this season, she has sold more than 50,000, at $2 apiece. She plans to donate her profits to a Christian charity. "It's never been about the money," she said. "It's about the message."

But if the message can make money, so much the better.

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Assn., said he was delighted with the revenue from "War on Christmas" merchandise, which supplemented the ministry's $13-million annual budget. All 500,000 buttons and 125,000 magnets were sold out by early December. "It was very successful for us," Wildmon said.

Liberty Counsel too rated the sale a success. "It did help with donations, but more than anything else, it helped with exposure," said spokeswoman Robin Bryant. She said the group had added many names to its mailing list for future fund drives. "It just ballooned," Bryant said.

In fact, the fundraising went so well that the religious right plans to branch out. Next up: the War on Easter.

Scouts for the American Family Assn., which is based in Tupelo, Miss., will keep a keen eye out for stores that promote "spring baskets" or "spring bonnets" instead of celebrating the Resurrection. The group already has laid in a stash of Easter buttons, featuring three gold crosses and the words "He Lives." They'll go on sale in early January.

Critics call such fundraising a scam that feeds on lies that the atheist left has a plot to undermine Christianity. "It's too ridiculous," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. "They're raising money for a nonexistent war."

Those on the front line, however, insist the war is very real — and say wearing their Christmas buttons and bracelets is a morale boost in these last frantic shopping days. Strangers who spot the buttons flash smiles and thumbs-up, or approach to trade horror stories about chain stores that sell "holiday trees" and teachers who ban sacred songs from school concerts.

"I've hugged people I don't even know," said Dr. Sarah Brown, a physician in suburban Philadelphia.

Brown spent $200 this year for 100 lapel pins from the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. She put the pins, which declare "Merry Christmas — it's okay to say it," in an envelope on her office door and invited patients to help themselves. "No sooner would I fill up the envelope than it was empty," she said. "It must please God so much to see that there are still people who want to celebrate."

Those not so keen on Christmas have fewer options for self-expression.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., sells "Happy Heathen" and "Friendly Neighborhood Atheist" T-shirts as well as bumper stickers that taunt believers with slogans such as "Nothing Fails Like Prayer." But the only holiday-specific items are cards that proclaim: "Reason's Greetings."

"We put 'Bah, Humbug' on a card a few years ago, but it didn't sell too well," said Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "I think people were afraid to send it out."

[Carlos_E]

Too bad the money raised isn't going to a charity to actually help people. But people have a right to waste money on stupid causes. More power to them.

[alphaman]

Too bad the money raised isn't going to a charity to actually help people. But people have a right to waste money on stupid causes. More power to them.

I didn't read the article and I haven't seen any of these ministry's budgets, but FYI -- they are 501c3 orginizations which means they are not-for-profit, and most churches do quite a bit in the community to help people.

[Tock]

I didn't read the article and I haven't seen any of these ministry's budgets, but FYI -- they are 501c3 orginizations which means they are not-for-profit, and most churches do quite a bit in the community to help people.

The Salvation Army I kept books for (back in 1974-1975) spent 90% of its income on overhead (utilities, insurance, salaries, building repair, transportation, supplies, etc.) and 10% on $$$ to people. And most of that 10% came from the local United Way, and they audited us to make sure that we spent it on people and not on overhead. Most of the canned goods that people donated were used by the minister, his family, and church members (including me) at official church functions. And this was typical at the Salvation Army centers I was familiar with.
So while people were donating to the Salvation Army, not much was actually going to help people.

A friend of mine was a treasurer at a Church of Christ in Carrollton, Texas, and he showed me a copy of their books back in the early 1990's. Out of expenses totalling over several hundred thousand $$$, charity totalled less than $50. Everything else went to overhead, salaries, evangelism, etc.

Unless you want to consider "church services" a community benefit, then no, money going to churches are not doing much in the community to help people. What little does happen is certainly not worth the expense.


It seems to me that these tax-exempt charities should have to justify their tax exemptions every year. They should report their income, expenses, and give details of their charitable efforts. If they don't spend at least half of their income doing things that directly benefit the general public (feeding the poor, providing shelter to homeless, etc etc), then they shouldn't be given tax exempt status.

As far as I'm concerned, "most churches do quite a bit in the community to help people" doesn't include proselytizing (preaching from the Koran, Bible, Torah, works of L. Ron Hubbard, etc), and that's just about all that the vast majority of churches and religious organizations are set up to do. And that, IMHO, does not justify tax deductible status.

[alphaman]

The Salvation Army I kept books for (back in 1974-1975) spent 90% of its income on overhead (utilities, insurance, salaries, building repair, transportation, supplies, etc.) and 10% on $$$ to people. And most of that 10% came from the local United Way, and they audited us to make sure that we spent it on people and not on overhead. Most of the canned goods that people donated were used by the minister, his family, and church members (including me) at official church functions. And this was typical at the Salvation Army centers I was familiar with.
So while people were donating to the Salvation Army, not much was actually going to help people.

A friend of mine was a treasurer at a Church of Christ in Carrollton, Texas, and he showed me a copy of their books back in the early 1990's. Out of expenses totalling over several hundred thousand $$$, charity totalled less than $50. Everything else went to overhead, salaries, evangelism, etc.

Unless you want to consider "church services" a community benefit, then no, money going to churches are not doing much in the community to help people. What little does happen is certainly not worth the expense.


It seems to me that these tax-exempt charities should have to justify their tax exemptions every year. They should report their income, expenses, and give details of their charitable efforts. If they don't spend at least half of their income doing things that directly benefit the general public (feeding the poor, providing shelter to homeless, etc etc), then they shouldn't be given tax exempt status.

As far as I'm concerned, "most churches do quite a bit in the community to help people" doesn't include proselytizing (preaching from the Koran, Bible, Torah, works of L. Ron Hubbard, etc), and that's just about all that the vast majority of churches and religious organizations are set up to do. And that, IMHO, does not justify tax deductible status.

It's tax exempt, not tax deductible.


You just have too many of these stories for them to be true. You paint quite a false picture of the Chirstian world, and every day you further convince me that you somehow have this idea that the more of this crap you post, the more it validates your choices. Misery loves company.

I can tell you that my experiences aren't even close to what you describe as far as churches in the community. My church just donated a ton of presents and money to needy families, as we did last year. I and other people that go to my church lend a hand at the mission downtown on a regular basis and often meet other various needs in the community and guess who else is always there helping at these various events? That's right, other Christians. Never have I seen someone like yourself. Liberals do a lot of belly-aching, but they don't take any action.

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth."

"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=2

[Tock]

You just have too many of these stories for them to be true.

Not at all. I have a lot of experiences.
And I assure you, they are 100% true.

I can tell you that my experiences aren't even close to what you describe as far as churches in the community.

Well then, we have different experiences.
Try keeping books for a few churches. How they handle their money will tell you a lot about what they really beleive.

My church just donated a ton of presents and money to needy families, as we did last year.

Bully for your church. I'll bet that story made it in your local newspaper, too.

But let me ask you this -- as a % of your church's annual income, how much goes to charity -- and by charity, I mean money, goods, or services given to people not associated with your church, and given without expectation of anything in return, and given without any commercial message (like, "Here's this $$$ from our church that's located at 1234 Main Street -- aren't we being nice?).

I guess that question could be rephrased, "How much is given according to Biblical principles?"

Matthew Chapter 6
"1": Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

"2": Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

"3": But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

"4": That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.


My guess is that the Christians in your area give in order to be noticed of other people (are there any conspicuous placques thanking generous donors in your church? lots of 'em all over the place at 1st Babtist in downtown Dallas), and that whenever your church does something significant, someone sends a press release off to the local newspaper.
It's just the way things are done in commercialized religion. And, I would suppose, in your church as well.

I and other people that go to my church lend a hand at the mission downtown on a regular basis and often meet other various needs in the community and guess who else is always there helping at these various events? That's right, other Christians. Never have I seen someone like yourself. Liberals do a lot of belly-aching, but they don't take any action.

Once again, y'all were socializing at a religious institution -- a mission -- that has the primary objective of converting people to the Christian religion. Needy people have to at least listen to religious content while receiving help. What you are doing is not charity, but proselytizing. Y'all don't do what you do for the pure joy of transferring wealth. You do it with the hope that some people will end up beleiving the same things you do.
Ya, by all means, go ahead and do that if you like, but don't call it "charity."



On the question of who gives more to charity, liberals or conservatives --
Religious conservatives give to churches, which are institutions they themselves receive benefits from -- they provide a place to socialize, teach religious values to their children, etc. If you look at the list of the top 100 moneymaking charities at
http://www.nptimes.com/pdf/NPTTop1002006.pdf
you'll find that taxpayers gave more $$$ to organizations like Catholic Charities than Catholics did.
And $$$ that went to religious charities that focused on preserving heterosexual-only marriage or engaged in anti-abortion activities, well, I wouldn't really consider that so much as charity, as much as $$$ spent on purely religious activities. So those piles of cash don't really count for much of anything. Neither does $$$ given to TV evangelists like Benny Hinn. That's all, in his words, "money down the drain."

Tell you what . . . you come up with some good comparisons of who spends what on things that can be considered genuinely helpful to people like public health, education, etc, instead of politics or the spread of sectarian religious doctrine, and then we'll have a good talk. Until then, you can contribute your cash to Benny Hinn or whatever religious group you like, while I contribute to the ACLU and a gay rights group, and neither of us will have really done much for charity. We'll have supported our own special interest group, but not charity.

[alphaman]

Not at all. I have a lot of experiences.
And I assure you, they are 100% true.

Uh-huh.

Well then, we have different experiences.
Try keeping books for a few churches. How they handle their money will tell you a lot about what they really beleive.

Every church I know of is transparent with their budget. I can tell you that a good part of ours is for international missions, and ministries that are overseas. Spreading gospel is the most important community service possible. God's work.

Bully for your church. I'll bet that story made it in your local newspaper, too.

No, it wasn't Tock.

Matthew Chapter 6
"1": Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

"2": Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

"3": But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

"4": That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.


My guess is that the Christians in your area give in order to be noticed of other people (are there any conspicuous placques thanking generous donors in your church? lots of 'em all over the place at 1st Babtist in downtown Dallas), and that whenever your church does something significant, someone sends a press release off to the local newspaper.
It's just the way things are done in commercialized religion. And, I would suppose, in your church as well.

We've had one write-up in the paper about our new location in July.

Once again, y'all were socializing at a religious institution -- a mission -- that has the primary objective of converting people to the Christian religion. Needy people have to at least listen to religious content while receiving help. What you are doing is not charity, but proselytizing. Y'all don't do what you do for the pure joy of transferring wealth. You do it with the hope that some people will end up beleiving the same things you do.
Ya, by all means, go ahead and do that if you like, but don't call it "charity."

Witnessing is the best service one can provide. It's the main reason why I stick around here. Most people probably are annoyed by it, but I'm just trying to plant seeds.

When's the last time you fed a homeless person?

On the question of who gives more to charity, liberals or conservatives --
Religious conservatives give to churches, which are institutions they themselves receive benefits from -- they provide a place to socialize, teach religious values to their children, etc.

You didn't read the article. Religious conservatives give more money to ALL charities, not just faith-based charities.

Tell you what . . . you come up with some good comparisons of who spends what on things that can be considered genuinely helpful to people like public health, education, etc, instead of politics or the spread of sectarian religious doctrine, and then we'll have a good talk. Until then, you can contribute your cash to Benny Hinn or whatever religious group you like, while I contribute to the ACLU and a gay rights group, and neither of us will have really done much for charity. We'll have supported our own special interest group, but not charity.

I don't know why I bother with you. I don't even know what to say to this ridiculous statement.

[Tock]

Every church I know of is transparent with their budget. I can tell you that a good part of ours is for international missions, and ministries that are overseas.

Transparent, eh?

Well then . . . you should have this information at your fingertips:
1) What was your church's total income?
2) What % of the income went for non-religious charity in the local community?
3) Does the amount of non-religious charity spent exceed the amount of $$$ your organization would have had to pay if it was not tax-exempt?

If the answer to (3) is no, then why should your organization not have to pay taxes?

Spreading gospel is the most important community service possible. God's work.

You may think so, but people of different religions might not agree.

As far as I'm concerned, if that's what you want to do with your $$$, fine, go right ahead. But I see no reason why your church should get a tax-exempt status for telling a few Arabs or Hindus or atheists about Jesus. Your tax exempt status means that other folks in your community have to pay more out of their pockets to finance the police and fire protection for your buildings. Essentially, your wish to proselytize ends up costing your neighbors extra tax $$$, a situation I doubt you find particularly troubling.

[alphaman]

Transparent, eh?

Well then . . . you should have this information at your fingertips:
1) What was your church's total income?
2) What % of the income went for non-religious charity in the local community?
3) Does the amount of non-religious charity spent exceed the amount of $$$ your organization would have had to pay if it was not tax-exempt?

If the answer to (3) is no, then why should your organization not have to pay taxes?

Sorry, I didn't take notes in the annual business meeting.

You may think so, but people of different religions might not agree.

As far as I'm concerned, if that's what you want to do with your $$$, fine, go right ahead. But I see no reason why your church should get a tax-exempt status for telling a few Arabs or Hindus or atheists about Jesus.

You're statements about evangelism are put forth as though you're assuming I don't believe. Do you do that on pupose, or do you just not understand?

[Tock]

Originally Posted by alphaman
Spreading gospel is the most important community service possible. God's work.

You're statements about evangelism are put forth as though you're assuming I don't believe. Do you do that on pupose, or do you just not understand?

Makes no difference, really.
IMHO, any group of people should have the freedom to evangelize any way they like. They should also have the responsibility to pay their own expenses, and not claim tax-exempt status on their real estate property. Or, for that matter, they shouldn't claim tax-exempt status on the businesses they own. Ya, one of the big churches in downtown Dallas was in a legal battle with the IRS over income they got from a parking lot they rented to a company during the week -- they said it was God's $$, the IRS said it was income not related to religious activity. I didn't see the final outcome, but of course, I was rooting for the good guys . . .

Anyway, it seems to me that if church members think that evangelism is important, they ought to pay for their own expenses, and not shift their costs to other folks -- local taxpayers. Taking responsibility for your own expenses is a simple concept, but one that church members don't want to face up to.

[Tock]

Originally Posted by Tock
Transparent, eh?

Well then . . . you should have this information at your fingertips:
1) What was your church's total income?
2) What % of the income went for non-religious charity in the local community?
3) Does the amount of non-religious charity spent exceed the amount of $$$ your organization would have had to pay if it was not tax-exempt?

If the answer to (3) is no, then why should your organization not have to pay taxes?

Sorry, I didn't take notes in the annual business meeting.

Well, then, how are we going to find out if your church is performing enough charity to deserve its tax-exemption? You seem to be convinced that it is, but if you don't know what the actual numbers are, why should we think that it is?

[alphaman]

Originally Posted by Tock
Transparent, eh?

Well then . . . you should have this information at your fingertips:
1) What was your church's total income?
2) What % of the income went for non-religious charity in the local community?
3) Does the amount of non-religious charity spent exceed the amount of $$$ your organization would have had to pay if it was not tax-exempt?

If the answer to (3) is no, then why should your organization not have to pay taxes?



Well, then, how are we going to find out if your church is performing enough charity to deserve its tax-exemption? You seem to be convinced that it is, but if you don't know what the actual numbers are, why should we think that it is?

We're small, and the majority of our budget goes to operarting costs. BTW -- my pastor is paid 18k plus housing.

I already told you that the next largest portion goes to the most important community service there is.

[Tock]

We're small, and the majority of our budget goes to operarting costs. BTW -- my pastor is paid 18k plus housing.

I already told you that the next largest portion goes to the most important community service there is.

Makes no difference what you pay your preacher. Some preachers don't get paid at all, others get millions of $$$ and live like kings. Point is, that your tax-exempt organization does not return to the community more than it gets in tax exemptions.

As far as I'm concerned, your church can preach that Jesus and George Bush are one and the same, and your preacher can preach for or against of polygamy, drugs, and rock & roll, or steroid use on the sabbath. If you and your friends want to pay him to do that, that's your business. But there's no reason why your organization should get a tax exemption for doing that.
You may think that preaching is "an important community service," but it is essentially a religious activity.

Pay your own bills . . . is that such a terrible thing to ask?


When the local Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons come knocking on my door, I sure don't think what they're doing is "an important community service," nor does anyone else I know. Should the local Muslims go knocking door-to-door for converts (there are lots of 'em around here), how many people are going to consider that "an important community service" that deserves tax-exemptions? Not many.

If you or the Mormons or the Hindus down the street want to troll the neighborhoods for converts, go right ahead and do so. Just don't think that spreading your religion is sufficient reason to deserve special tax privileges.

Pay your own bills . . . sheesh . . .