2010KonaBlueGT Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Actually, who dertermines what is a bonafide religion? I have NO idea. But I don't think anyone can or will try to argue that Islam is not a religion...and in fact, from what I understand, the *largest* religion in the world. My point remains: Would someone be okay with WWP taking money from a Religious Foundation such as The Taliban or Al Queda? I mean, if you're going to cite one religion (Christianity) as a parameter, why should WWP differentiate between what is or is not a acceptable religion. Which is why *I* think they're smart to omit ALL religious foundations. Whether it be the Catholic Church, the Church of Latter Day Saints, The Taliban or Al Queda...Kind'a hard to say you won't take it from one but you will take it from the other (and be fair). Phill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrzycobra Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Somehow I don't think WWP will have to worry about islamists donating to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010KonaBlueGT Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Somehow I don't think WWP will have to worry about islamists donating to them. LMAO...Good point! Well, at least not the extremist factions of Islam. I only use them as a example. I could have used a Jewish foundation which would inflame some Christians (for example) but Islam seems to be generally hated due to a few crazies in their ranks so I used them as examples. The fact remains, if they take donations from religious foundations, do they discriminate? (EDIT: For example, The West borough<sp?> Baptist Church) Phill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrzycobra Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 I think it's stupid of them not to take donations from anyone who'll give. If they have to have rules as to who can & can't donate, then it sort of gives the impression they don't need the money that bad. For crying out loud, they're wounded veterans! The whole "rule" thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 I have NO idea. But I don't think anyone can or will try to argue that Islam is not a religion...and in fact, from what I understand, the *largest* religion in the world. My point remains: Would someone be okay with WWP taking money from a Religious Foundation such as The Taliban or Al Queda? I mean, if you're going to cite one religion (Christianity) as a parameter, why should WWP differentiate between what is or is not a acceptable religion. Which is why *I* think they're smart to omit ALL religious foundations. Whether it be the Catholic Church, the Church of Latter Day Saints, The Taliban or Al Queda...Kind'a hard to say you won't take it from one but you will take it from the other (and be fair). Phill Pretty sure I already indicated they should take money from Muslims as well as Christians. The Taliban and Al Queda are not religions, they are terorist groups within a religion. And TesGT350, We are not talking about sponsoring, we are talking about donations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
07SGT Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 I think they can accept monies from whomever they wish and decline from whomever this wish if they feel it is a problem. For example they can accept money from a Catholic or Baptist church as few people would object to that (screw those that object). Or any other mainstream religion. But if they feel it is a problem to accept money from Islamists, or al-Qaeda, etc, then they can decline. It can be on a case by case basis. You can't please everyone but you can accept with the vast majority. Can they accept cash? After all, it is inscribed "In God we trust" which is still bound to upset some. It all comes down to that most uncommon trait, common sense. You can't possibly satisfy every nut case 1% that will object to anything. Hell, I would even accept money from Mr. Bloombergs committee against 24 oz. softdrinks if it would help our troops. But I might decline monies from Islamists if I felt they may try to use it for their own purpose later. BTW- I doubt Saudia Arabia is donating any monies to WWP or other similar funds, or other rich persian gulf nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Boss Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Actually, who dertermines what is a bonafide religion? I'm pretty sure the determining body is the I.R.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twobjshelbys Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 (EDIT: For example, The West borough<sp?> Baptist Church) Phill I very nearly replied with exactly them as an example. An endorsement from them would be deadly and nothing but press for that kind of raving lunatic fringe. They are right in avoiding the precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 I have NO idea. But I don't think anyone can or will try to argue that Islam is not a religion...and in fact, from what I understand, the *largest* religion in the world. My point remains: Would someone be okay with WWP taking money from a Religious Foundation such as The Taliban or Al Queda? I mean, if you're going to cite one religion (Christianity) as a parameter, why should WWP differentiate between what is or is not a acceptable religion. Which is why *I* think they're smart to omit ALL religious foundations. Whether it be the Catholic Church, the Church of Latter Day Saints, The Taliban or Al Queda...Kind'a hard to say you won't take it from one but you will take it from the other (and be fair). Phill +1000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Somehow I don't think WWP will have to worry about islamists donating to them. You never know, it COULD happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 I think it's stupid of them not to take donations from anyone who'll give. If they have to have rules as to who can & can't donate, then it sort of gives the impression they don't need the money that bad. For crying out loud, they're wounded veterans! The whole "rule" thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They are NOT declining Donations from the People, just the Church. They will accept Donations from any Members of a Church, just NOT the Church, there is a big difference between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 They are NOT declining Donations from the People, just the Church. They will accept Donations from any Members of a Church, just NOT the Church, there is a big difference between the two. I disagree and that is where the rub is. The church IS the people. Its the organization of the church that would have allowed for a larger donation. From what I read, I saw no request from that church to be recognized for thier donation. No sponsorships no advertising ect. Churches are probably the largest contributors to charities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug_GT350 Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 I disagree and that is where the rub is. The church IS the people. Its the organization of the church that would have allowed for a larger donation. From what I read, I saw no request from that church to be recognized for thier donation. No sponsorships no advertising ect. Churches are probably the largest contributors to charities. very good point Tim, as one who is on a committee at the church that decides where contributions go..... this has ruffled my feathers. There are a lot of big charities that are happy we as a church give to them. If the church feels it's right to give to that charity, so will I on a personal level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrzycobra Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 They are NOT declining Donations from the People, just the Church. They will accept Donations from any Members of a Church, just NOT the Church, there is a big difference between the two. I totally understand that, but the church is a group of individuals using their community to put together the biggest amount they can. By the church promoting the charity, it reaches out to people and businesses in the community that otherwise might not have thought of donating. I think the thing to remember is that this is for wounded vets, not a politician or special interest group. I'll bet a lot of wounded warriors would be really let down to hear of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
07SGT Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 If WWP, or any other group for that matter, would turn down all monies from any group they would probably have very little left. For every group out there, there is probably an individual or a group that is against them. So you accept the money from the main stream groups and avoid the radical fringe groups. And you try to remember that the purpose of the money is to help the wounded vet, not just an image you are trying to create or maintain. In the end you say, yea, I accepted the money. They are not a radical group and we appreciate their trying to help wounded vets. End of story. Unfortunately I received another solicitation from WWP today and for the first time I am going to send back an empty envelope and tell them why. My hope is they will realize their ridiculous stance and change. That would be better for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.