Skip to comments.Ignorant Maher: Romney Only Gives to Mormons - 'His Cult'; 'That's Not a Charity
Posted on 04/28/2012 11:50:39 AM PDT by KaslinEdited on 04/28/2012 1:37:33 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Bill Maher on Friday evening once again displayed a level of ignorance and intolerance that should completely disqualify him as a political commentator.
On HBO's Real Time, the vulgar anti-theist said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney doesn't give to charity. "All his charitable donations are to Mormons. He gives to his cult. That’s not a charity. They're not poor people" (video follows with transcript and commentary, serious vulgarity warning):
S.E. CUPP: Let's make the distinguish though, just real quick, between Mitt Romney the person and Mitt Romney the politician, because Mitt Romney the person has donated millions of dollars to poor people.
BILL MAHER: To Mormons.
CUPP: To poor people.
MAHER: Not poor people. No, no, no. Wait, wait, I gotta call El Toro Poo Poo on that one.
MAHER: All his charitable donations are to Mormons. He gives to his cult.
CUPP: So what?
MAHER: So what? That’s not a charity. That’s not a charity.
CUPP: So we can’t help certain poor people.
MAHER: They're not poor people.
CUPP: Yes, they are.
MAHER: Name one poor Mormon. Alright, I’ve got to move on.
Now watch one of the most shameless liberal shills in the nation - someone completely comfortable with lying on television without batting an eye to promote his agenda! - actually disagree with Maher and agree with Cupp:
PAUL BEGALA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST AND CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The church does do a lot of good. The church does a lot of good for a lot of poor people.
MAHER: That is some serious El Toro Poo Poo. That is some El Toro Poo Poo.
CUPP: So we're judging charity now based on religion?
MAHER: I don't really think you should judge charity. I dont think giving to opera is charity either, or giving to Cornell which has plenty of Uncouth Sexual Reference money and never needs any
CUPP (Who also went to Cornell University): Plenty of our money.
Now watch another liberal expose Maher as being a selfish, greedy millionaire:
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, NEW YORK TIMES: Are you a giver?
SORKIN: Never. Okay.
MAHER: Why should I be? They have a giant endowment - as does President Obama.
Yes, they have a giant endowment because people give money to them. That's how you get an endowment.
But Maher as usual was demonstrating that his ignorance on a variety of subjects knows no bounds.
Observe Romney's charitable giving as reported by the Christian Science Monitor in January:
While Romney is not thought of as a great philanthropist, his rate of giving is considered high. For example, in 2010 he gave $2.9 million or 14 percent of his income to charity. A typical person gives 2 to 3 percent of their income. And people who made $10 million or more typically gave 6.5 percent to charity, according to Roberton Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.
“Romney’s rate is very high,” says Mr. Williams.
Part of the reason for the high rate of giving is Romney’s contributions to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church. According to the church, members are expected to tithe 10 percent of their income. In Romney’s case, in 2010 he gave $1.5 million, closer to 7 percent of his adjusted gross income. In 2011, he gave $2.6 million, or 12.4 percent of his income.
But Romney and his wife also gave a considerable amount of money – some $1.5 million in 2010 and $500,000 in 2011 – to other charities, mainly through the Tyler Charitable Foundation, apparently named for a street Romney and his wife lived on in Belmont, Mass. In 2010, the foundation had more than $10 million in assets.
In 2010, the largest beneficiaries of the Tyler Charitable Foundation included the Mormon Church ($145,000), the Friends of George W. Bush Library ($100,000), and the Center for Treatment of Pediatric MS ($75,000). However, the foundation also made contributions to organizations including the US Equestrian Team Foundation ($10,000), Harvard Business School ($10,000), and Homes for Our Troops ($20,000).
As is plainly evident, Romney doesn't only give to the Mormon Church as Maher ignorantly claimed. But even if he had, like most churches, Latter-day Saint Charities gives substantially to the poor:
Latter-day Saint Charities helps people become self-reliant and improve their quality of life through initiatives such as clean water, health, and food production. Latter-day Saint Charities also relieves suffering by providing life sustaining support during emergencies...100 percent of all donations go to help those in need. No administrative costs are deducted by LDS Philanthropies or our affiliated charities
LDS Charities actually has six charitable categories:
Click on any of those links and you'll find tremendous services for the poor.
Much of what is done in the Church is to bless and help those who are not Mormon. The Mormon Church has donated more than $1 billion in cash and material assistance to 167 different countries in need of humanitarian aid since it started keeping track in 1985. Many of these countries have few to no Mormons, but are also non-Christian. More than 53,000 Mormon missionaries serve through the world today. All of their service is to help those who are not Mormon. Joseph Smith himself taught that we are "to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all."
As such, Maher was 100 percent wrong - AGAIN!
My mom used to give my dog saltine crackers that had been dipped in coffee.
OK, I’ll say it! Lucky Dog!
Yes, you are correct here (notsomuch in your other posts)...
The latest Lds General Conference shows there are over 20,000 such "service missionaries" -- most retired and all of them paying their own way...oft' used as almost "slave labor."
And you made a proper distinction with these service missionaries compared to the propagandish Mormon.org citation referenced within the article of this thread:
Mormon.org elaborates: ...More than 53,000 Mormon missionaries serve through the world today. All of their service is to help those who are not Mormon. Joseph Smith himself taught that we are "to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan..."
It's the service missionaries oft' doing the hard laborious work...not the 53,000 Mormon missionaries referenced in conjunction with the poor @ Mormon.org. (I mean, c'mon...it's not like we white shirt-and-tie Lds missionaries in poor areas digging wells, right? That'd be a sight!)
Kabar, could you possibly stay "on the level" here instead of engaging in personal religious attacks vs. Elsie?
Why is it you hypocritically defend Mormon religious expression, but not Elsie's religious expression? Why is one sanctioned by you -- and the First Amendment -- but apparently Elsie's religious comments are to be shut up as accused-by-you "obsessive hatred?"
Do you always go around and judge and psycho-analyze the inward motivations of complete strangers?
Why can't we do what you do -- and claim that your religious attacks upon Elsie are based upon your obsessive hatred of Elsie or his religious views? Would that be a fair conclusion for us to draw -- when we don't know much about you?
Do you realize that some people have consistently posted online concerns about the homosexual agenda?
Do you reallize some of them have loved ones who are homosexuals?
Does it = if somebody consistently speaks out vs. the homosexual agenda that they automatically have an "obsessive hatred" vs. homosexuals? (In case, you couldn't discern the answer from the possible liberal education you've had, the answer to that Q is "no")
Why then do you engage in similar liberal tactics of slander?
Can we not distinguish loving the person -- be it the homosexual or loved ones like my Lds relatives -- and the ideological or theological or worldviews they embrace?
Do we have to have kum-bah-yah sessions ordered by you for all minority religious views?
Do you make the online circuit and fend off all critiques vs. Scientology, or Hare Krishna, or radical jihadist Islam? If not, Why not? Are those religious expressions entitled to your same Amendment-based arguments of defense?
If not, why have you singled out Mormonism as the base of your defense?
Have you attended public schools & a public college that has taught you this post-modernist liberal multi-culturalism? (That all beliefs are equal and deserve some kind of equal treatment as "truth"...EXCEPT, OF COURSE, those religious views that happen to critique some of those views as falsehoods?)
That's why you have refuted yourself in your own post. We don't know whether to believe your keyboard promotion of the First Amendment, and religious tolerance -- or your verbal-condemnation practice of disrespecting Elsie's practice of the First Amendment and Elsie's practice of religious ideation expression.
So ANSWER: If you preach tolerance, why are you so intolerant of Elsie?
If tolerance is the bottom line, then you should be practicing tolerance toward Elsie's religious views and exercise of the First Amendment.
But you don't.
That makes you a certified, genuine dual-faced religious hypocrite...And of all the people Jesus roundly & soundly condemned most...'twas religious hypocrites.
What is this? Some bigoted veiled attack vs. all Muslims. (If you got something vs. Islam, come right out & say it)
And then please proceed to explain exactly why your arguments in post #75...: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I believe in our Constitution and the right of people to exercise their right of the free exercise of religion ... somehow deserves your apparent failure to carry water for the Muslims.
Sorry, but all of your arguments doesn't translate into failing to oppose Mormonism...just like Islam is to be opposed.
Btw, I am consistent with Eph. 6:12 ("we do not fight against flesh and blood")...meaning neither Mormons nor Muslims from a Biblical perspective are not our enemy, either. But we are to oppose both radical political Islam and the tenets of Islam itself.
As for your terrorism comment, only a fool thinks the "brush fire" here on earth is the three-alarm, city-wide meltdown that hell represents.
We Christians happen to take our cultural cue from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ. Right? Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or This I Wonder?
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)
Does Jesus say "fear the Islamic terrorists?" (No)
Does Jesus say "fear the religious persecutors who disagree with you?" (No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.
As for "uniting" behind an anti-Islamic, anti-terrorist cause, I could probably guess that the folks who the apostle Paul warned the church @ Ephesus about had the bulk in common with the sheep there. Both groups were "religious." So, did Paul play the "allies"-game-don't-divide-us-you're playing? (No)
As Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)
Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)
Tell me something, Kabar: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"
I'll take Paul's and Jesus' already-revealed priorities to your guesswork based upon bashing those willing to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)
Besides, we know how to multi-task...
I'm being ATTACKED?
I'll have to pay more attention!
Yup; you're right.
Personal? Explain. I am not attacking his/her religion or the Mormon religion. I don't view LDS as evil or a cult. I think you need to review what the subject of this thread is, i.e., the claim made by that idiot Maher that, "Romney Only Gives to Mormons - 'His Cult'; 'That's Not a Charity." Besides being factually wrong, Maher smears a religious group that does good works around the globe. Some of the remarks made on this thread about the Church of the LDS go beyond the pale. I consider that to be religious bigotry, which is prohibited on FR.
“I believe in our Constitution and the right of people to exercise their right of the free exercise of religion”
Do you? What if my religion makes it a sin for me to remain silent while some false teacher expounds a lie (hint: mine does)? Christians will be held to account before God for refusing to speak up when those around them are being led away into death. See Proverbs 24:11-12. See also Jesus telling us to NOT hide our lamps under a bushel.
But for traditional Christians, this is old news. What is curious is how many moderns do not understand this. Why do you suppose the first Christians were thrown to lions and otherwise abused by the Roman Empire? Because they refused to align themselves with the theology of Caesar, who also claimed to be a god. Who then was the more intolerant? Christian men woman and children who would rather to die than to bend the knee to yet another deity wannnabe? Or Caesar, who was so incensed at Christian “intolerance” of his claim to divinity he tried to simply eliminate the refuseniks by executive order?
Now, your claim that the Constitution somehow prohibits the free discussion of the pros and cons of various religions, especially as they affect political life, is ridiculous on its face. I am an attorney who has substantial exposure to constitutional law, and I can tell you with 100% confidence that the Constitution does not limit the discourse of private citizens on matters of religion and politics. It only prevents the federal government from using religion to prevent citizen participation in the political process.
But what is more interesting to me is how this argument is being used as the expression of the new “civil religion” of the left to suppress free speech. God can be tolerated, as long as he is safely tucked away in the stain-glass confines of church buildings on Sundays. Heaven forbid (pardon the expression) that either he or those who strongly believe in him should be allowed to actually have a voice in the public square. Question the fitness for office of yet another “god in embryo?” Oh my, we can’t have that, because that’s against our new religion of “tolerance of all things except stuff we don’t like.”
So please realize, you may think of yourself as a conservative, but by deploying the “tolerance defense” to shore up support for Romney, you are playing one of the left’s favorite cards. I wouldn’t deny you your right to do so. First Amendment and all that. But I think you deserve to know. Golden rule. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. It just works.
Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.
IMO some of the statements on this thread go beyond discussing the merits of one religion versus another. They smack of religious bigotry and hatred. Mormons are not inherently evil nor is their religion. It can be demonstrated conclusively that they have done good works around the globe helping the poor, sick, and those in need.
As far as I know, FR does not harbor any animus towards the Church of Latter Day Saints and the free exercise of that religion. Mitt Romney is not the Mormon church or vice versa. Condeming Romney does not equate to condemnation of the Mormon Church. That is my point.
“refrain from posting ... religious bigotry”
Well and good, but please do define religious bigotry. By the implicit definition I have seen in your posts, no sincere follower of Jesus can escape the charge, and that does not make sense, because I do not think FR’s policy was ever intended be contrued as against legitimate Christian expression.
Then the problem becomes, what is legitimate Christian expression in connection with Mormonism or any other competing faith system? If Jesus and the Apostles routinely exposed errors in the false teachings of their day, why are modern Christians prohibited from doing so?
I have read this entire thread, and you have not made a case to show why false teachings should not be publically exposed as falsehoods. Instead, you consistently fall back to your hideout position that Mormons do some good in the world, therefore expressing firm opposition to their misguided system of belief is somehow bigotry.
What you are doing, perhaps inadvertently, is relying on the negative emotional charge in the word “bigotry.” It is like a talisman, a magic wand you can wave to condemn an expression you don’t like. Fine. Just be aware that such a device doesn’t reach a thinking individual. It is transparent that you have no rational, defensible basis for your position, or you would have used it by now. Instead, as I said before, you always retreat to charged words, essentially an emotive argument, not a logical one.
Therefore, I ask again, can you reconcile your extremely broad definition of “bigotry” with the clear teaching of Scripture that Christians are obligated to publically confess only the true Christ and only the true teaching of Christ and his Apostles? For example, both Mormonism and Islam have falsified representations of who Jesus is. Which misrepresentation, here on FR, are we allowed to expound and expose? If one but not the other, on what rational basis?
Because what you are doing is redefining good and evil on your own terms, and without offering a rational basis for doing so. Just out of thin air. Again, it’s a free country, and you’re free to do so. Just don’t expect to get a lot of buy-in from people who define good and evil both in terms of natural law and Christian Scripture. Because while natural law may teach us, for example, that murder is a fundamental evil, both Christ and the Apostles clearly consider false teachers evil as well, and on issues that come very close to home for the Mormon religion, such as proclamations of self-deification.
My theory on how you rationalize this is you do not consider Biblical teaching on such things a legitimate aspect of determining good versus evil. Instead, you seems to define good almost entirely in terms of humanitarian kindness, in the spirit of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” That, BTW, is the essence of the new, post-Christian civil religion, and I understand you are free to believe it, but you may expect resistance if you attempt to impose it on those who take their religious framework from the actual words and examples of Jesus and the Apostles, both of whom were more than willing to come down hard on false teachers as evil, simply for teaching falsehoods about God and Christ, in addition to the evil of lacking brotherly love.
Moderns try to compartmentalize love and truth as two separable things, but those early believers who delivered this faith to us made no such artificial separation. Believers love God and each other because they love truth. And they love truth because all true truth points to reality, to the one and only true Savior, and exposes all counterfeits for the frauds they are. And they are not ashamed of either him or the truth that exalts him over all other pretenders to the crown.
So label us however you like. You will find we are not in violation of the FR policy simply for being convinced of the truth of Scripture. But if it makes you feel good to say it, have at it. We can tolerate it.
Yes, you did...Elsie has made numerous religious commentaries...to the point to which you referenced him as an obsessive hater.
Some of the remarks made on this thread about the Church of the LDS go beyond the pale. I consider that to be religious bigotry...
Which words "go beyond the pale?" (as you attempt to place boundaries on the First Amendment...imagine that...others' religious expression is defended by you...with Elsie's religious expression, you don't cite which words are "bigoted" -- only launch a generic slander & slime attack).
Bottom line: You're labeling of "Obsession" = psycho-analyzing a complete stranger & your reference of "hatred" either = judging inward motives or, it demands that you cite which words are actual "hate" words. (I didn't see any on this thread.)
That would seem to mean you're simply intolerant of the religious expressions & commentaries he's keyboarded.
Either stop the personal-attack inward judging -- or prove specific words are hate-filled.
If you're a parent, you wouldn't go around disciplining your kid & then not telling him/her what the discipline is for, would you?
Your generic slandering & accusing is tantamount to that poor parental example... Stop it. Either be specific in your crits; or stop judging with your personal attacks of labeling complete strangers as "obsessive" and "hateful." You don't know the motivations of a stranger -- unless he tells you...God says He alone knows the inward person; man looks only @ the outer part (1 Samuel 16:7).
“It can be demonstrated conclusively that they have done good works around the globe helping the poor, sick, and those in need.”
So what. Jim Jones was at one time lauded for good deeds. His followers ended up drinking Cyanide in Koolaid.
Goodness, I’m certain even the NAZI party in its early days “helped the poor, sick, and those in need.”
Your point is lame. I wouldn’t be inclined to vote for Romney even without his staunce Mormonism. However, there is NO WAY I’m going to help put a cultist in the White House. Mr. Obama is a clear cut evil and easy to recognize. Mr. Romney is just as evil, but in an insidious way. Chocolate coverd poison!
This a LIE straight from HELL!
Enough with the vague allusions; give the EVIDENCE!
I'll call it out each time I see it!
The Kabars consisted of three Khazar tribes who rebelled against the Khazar Khaganate some time in the ninth century; the rebellion was notable enough to be described in Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s work De Administrando Imperio.