Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 9:25AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Why did you put the new Telecom logo into "Cunts"?

Posted at 9:28AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

I'll thank you not to bring your dour Finnish obscurantism into the discussion. Feel free to keep cussing, though.

Posted at 9:35AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Why did you put the new Telecom logo into "Cunts"?

Especially when it so closely resembles a clenched arsehole -- which deserves some kind of award for truth in branding, but otherwise...

Posted at 9:41AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Tax Cu*ts Now!

Posted at 9:42AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Cuasterisknts is really hard to say after a few beers. Lucky I had coffee this morning instead.

Posted at 9:46AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

That well of creativity, Kurt Vonnegut, writes...

Posted at 9:49AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Ah, Breakfast of Champions!

Posted at 9:55AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Gifts may not ordinarily be taxable, but there is a wonderful case in NZ's tax history that goes by the title G v CIR. It's been over a year since I studied G, so my memory is a little rusty, but a quick precis of the facts (and surely subject to correction by our legal readers) is roughly as follows:

G was an itinerant preacher. He relied largely on donations from the groups to whom he preached in order to survive. Being donations, G did not declare them as income. These donations reached fairly significant proportions, as G's reputation grew and he spoke to ever-larger groups of people, to the point that G was able to acquire a house and raise a family.
Eventually the Revenue took a look at G's affairs and proceeded to chase him for unpaid tax. At the end of the legal wrangling, it was held that, because the donations were regular and expected and were given as thanks for his spiritual guidance, they were of the nature of income and must be declared as such. G was allowed to pass a few clear gifts (along the lines of Christmas and birthday presents) as untaxable, but most of the donations were deemed to have actually been income.

I wouldn't be too concerned about Pope Brian getting a huge increase in income that's right out of the reach of the IRD, to be honest. G fits so very nicely that you can be sure there are investigators at the Revenue who're busy sharpening their best HB pencils as I type. I imagine they're quite interested in that half-mil he got from the "first fruits" collection, too, since that sounds like it's a regular occurrence.

Posted at 10:00AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Thanks for that Matthew. I meant to say, but see now that I haven't, that for all I know, he may well be declaring it as income. However if he isn't, that case law, as you say, gives the IRD a pretty good foundation to work on.

Posted at 10:09AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

It took me a moment to register the silence; another to realise that he was waiting for me to apologise, and finally another in which I deduced that the apology was expected for uttering a profanity in the presence of a holy man.

Hehe, it was hilarious watching Brian Scamaki on Close Up.
I cant seen to find a working link at the TVNZ site tho'.

The man from Cu*twatch spoke for a solid 10 mins laying the scam bare.
Brians reply when he had finished talking.
"I didnt hear a word he said"
Cu*twatch man was two chairs to his right.
Now that is selective hearing par excellence.

Posted at 10:22AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Christianity and swearing can go together, powerboatfully as in this pictorial sermon.

Posted at 10:23AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Especially when it so closely resembles a clenched arsehole -- which deserves some kind of award for truth in branding, but otherwise...

I am reminded of an anagram for "information superhighway" coined during the Netscape age:

"Oh oh, wiring snafu. Empty air."

Posted at 10:27AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Tax Cu*ts Now!

Tee shirt gold.

Posted at 10:27AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Could you clarify what your gripe is, if you in fact have any, with the sign outside of that church in Carcassone?

Posted at 10:29AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

No gripe. I was just tickled that they gave it that tag. And then I thought: well maybe it is.

Posted at 10:35AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Ah, that. Yes, cult means worship/religion in Italian so by parentage I think probably in French as well. It's a word used in several official denominations - a priest is a minister of the cult, for instance.

I think you can quite safely put it down to the translation being done by a non native speaker of English.

Posted at 10:36AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Could you clarify what your gripe is, if you in fact have any, with the sign outside of that church in Carcassone?

Speaking for myself, the bit about no animals. Once you restrict the possibility of having a soul to the potentially monied, you reveal your religion for the racket it is.

Posted at 10:39AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

We all know that Saint Francis spoke to the animals, but few are aware that what he said to them was: "Nahhh-naaaa... you are not going to heaven..."

Posted at 10:40AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

So all those pigeons are part of the branding?

Posted at 10:49AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

I was really disappointed by Campbell's interview with the Destiny guy last week - he clearly hadn't done his homework, and made some charitable assumptions about the church (e.g. that they have open membership) which allowed the guy to avoid answering anything.

But, honestly, the fact that religious groups get away from tax on the presumption that all religious activity is charitable is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Pity no-one will touch it.

Posted at 10:56AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

David this post has really come in below what I normally see from you.
It's a bit of an Anti-Clerical whinge with little substance, so pointing fingers at Brian as being hollow, falls flat.

There is plenty wrong with both organisations, but an older middleage man who has quite a few pretensions not wanting a swear word said infront of him or his wife isn't an issue.

As for silence, its about respect for others & the sign so that those who are not familiar with church etique can move through without causing offence, as I'm sure they generally don't want to do.

St Francis & the blessing of animals happened last month, normally gets a human interest story on TV, pet lambs, dogs, etc. Anglicans & Catholics do this - great fun for the kids.

The gifts for Brian are gifts after all. It's the contracted tithings and there inforcement, along with the imposed excile to South Auckland that are of concern.

Posted at 10:57AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

religious groups get away from tax on the presumption that all religious activity is charitable

I thought it was something to do with separating church and state, historically. I agree it doesn't really stand up these days.

Posted at 11:03AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

It took me a moment to register the silence; another to realise that he was waiting for me to apologise,

nah, he was waiting for you to surprise him with a gift.

Posted at 11:04AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

rofflenui

Posted at 11:10AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

St Francis & the blessing of animals happened last month, normally gets a human interest story on TV, pet lambs, dogs, etc. Anglicans & Catholics do this - great fun for the kids.

In their arid and pitiably limited theology, orthodox Anglicans and Catholics deny the possibility of souls to animals. It's no surprise to have it confirmed that the 'blessing' of a few token creatures is little more than pandering to the media.

Posted at 11:10AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

It's not just churches, though. Charities in general are exempted from tax, churches are just the ones that people think of. The broad classes within which charity can be deemed to fall are the promotion of education, the promotion of religion, the alleviation of poverty, and the promotion of culture. The major churches come in under at least two of those grounds (religion, obviously, and also poverty), and arguably under eduction also for the ones that run schools. Potentially they're also promoters of culture, given that there are quite a few churches that are classified as heritage buildings and thus objects of cultural interest.
To try and strip churches of their tax-exempt status would require a complete overhaul of the entire structure of charities, revoking their tax-exempt status and making the country as a whole significantly poorer in the process.

I know it's distinctly unfashionable on PAS to not bag organised religion at every turn, but there's a saying involving babies and bath-water that springs to mind when people start agitating to remove the tax exemption on churches because they see the likes of Scientology and Pope Brian.

Posted at 11:10AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Uh, yeah, that sign is pretty obviously referring to the Cult of St Nazaire.

Posted at 11:15AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

The gifts for Brian are gifts after all. It's the contracted tithings and there inforcement, along with the imposed excile to South Auckland that are of concern.

They are "gifts" of cold, hard cash -- solicited from a position of power and rationalised with a cynical reading of scripture.

But it's actually the Proton companies that bug me. Tamaki and his wife are the sole owners of businesses that sell goods the church tells its followers they must buy. Tamaki is milking these people in so many ways.

Posted at 11:16AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Uh, yeah, that sign is pretty obviously referring to the Cult of St Nazaire.

No it's not.

Posted at 11:36AM on 2 Nov 09. Permalink.

Joe, yip it is for some, for others St Francis is a guiding light.
http://www.catholicworker.org.nz/cg/CG50-AGreenSaint.htm

Russell, sure Brian is fleecing the flock & his scripture reading is a crock.

Fundamentally what is the difference between Destiny & Proton as opposed to Global Plus/AA/Airpoints as a means of cornering a segment of the market?
The Church members see a value in their money is getting them their points to heavan rather than Fiji. Brian sees it as both.