David Barton was given a PhD by Glenn Beck and was sorta called “America’s Historian” in a World Net Daily article and speaks for over 400 (600?) groups per year. Barton has also added NCAA Division One basketball player and translator for the Russian gymnastics team. Now, he can add winner of cases at the Supreme Court. Watch this invitation to hear Barton speak at an Assembly of God church in Texarkana, TX (full video here):
Barton has filed some amicus briefs (friend of the court) which anyone can do (e.g., here) but he is not an attorney and hasn’t argued before the court. Of course, I realize Barton didn’t say this but I wonder if he will correct it. He has some responsibility for it since he says in his bio that he has “participated” in Supreme Court cases. The minister took the word “participated” and made it into “argued and won.” He also made Barton into a “Constitutional scholar.”
My point isn’t that Barton is responsible for the false things people say about him (although in Beck’s case, he should have corrected the misinformation). Rather, I am focusing my attention more on the social and cognitive factors that operate in the evangelical environment that elevate Barton to expert status. Here is one. This minister gave Barton a superhuman build up, using false information to do it. Since the minister wants Barton to motivate his congregation, he fails to tell his people about Barton’s misleading stories, his disgraced book about Jefferson and the general negative associations Barton has among actual experts, Christian and otherwise. And this minister, who probably did not intend to speak falsely, adds the stuff of legends.
Month: July 2015
Tony Anthony: Reframing the Tiger
Remember Kung Fu Kristian Tony Anthony? He’s back with a recycled book. Mark Woods at Christian Today is on the case.
The Guardian called Anthony a “serial fantasist.” I can think of a couple of other folks described by that phrase.
Well, he’s back with an edited book which he says is substantially the same. Buyer beware.
What's Next for Mark Driscoll?
The first thing will be another video appearance.
This week Brian Houston plans to show his interview with Mark Driscoll to the audience at Hillsong’s London conference. Protesters will be there as well.
The transcript of the interview to be shown at the London conference is posted at the ChurchwatchCentral blog.
Driscoll’s next moves are unknown to him according to this interview with Houston. However, the Driscolls did enjoy a farewell party about 10 days ago in Seattle. Where could they be going? Some say Phoenix. In fact, several people say the Driscolls have been seen frequently around the Phoenix area this summer. I understand North Scottsdale is a beautiful part of Maricopa County in the Phoenix area.
In any case, much unfinished business remains at Mars Hill including how Global Fund dollars were spent and the results of the elders’ investigations.
Indian Tax Court on Gospel for Asia and Believers' Church: "Substantial Income" Not Used for Intended Purposes
In 2014, an Indian tax court considered a claim against Gospel for Asia and Believers’ Church. According to a court filing dated December 12, 2014, Gospel for Asia and Believers Church spent more of their income than allowed on purposes not related to the reason they were formed. Doing so made that income taxable. Gospel for Asia and Believers’ Church together appealed the assessment of tax, saying that the use of the funds were given to related organizations which had charitable purposes. The court found that funds were still being used for unintended purposes and remanded the matter back to the tax assessor. I have been unable to find any documentation of how much GFA and BC had to pay or if the matter has been resolved.
You can read the whole thing at this Indian site where public records are archived. I have pulled out the relevant portions below:
Shri M Anil Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that both the assessees are registered as charitable trust u/s 12AA of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessing officer found that both the assessees have given loan to other trusts from the unutilised portion of the income which exceeded more than 15%. Referring to section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee trust invested its funds in the form/mode otherwise than prescribed in section 11(5) of the Act. Therefore, according to the ld.DR, there was violation of section 11(2) r.w.s. 13(2)(d) of the Act. According to the ld.DR, the assessee is not entitled for any exemption.
Assessees refer to Believers’ Church and Gospel for Asia. Both are registered as charitable trusts. Both groups had income during the 2010-2011 tax year and loaned more than the allowed 15% to other charitable trusts related to GFA and BC. Originally, the tax assessor considered those loans improper investments which meant that the income invested was not exempted from tax. The original complaint of the tax assessor was eventually set aside in favor of another interpretation by the tax court and remanded back to the tax assessor for reassessment of tax.
GFA and BC had the following interpretation of tax law. The “ld.representative for the assessee” refers to GFA’s and BC’s representative.
On the contrary, Shri Venkitachalam, the ld.representative for the assessee submitted that both the assessees advanced funds to other registered trusts which have similar objects. According to the ld.representative, the assessee advanced funds to BCMET for construction of hospital building. BCMET is also a registered trust u/s 12AA of the Act. The ld.representative further submitted that Carmel Education Trust also a registered charitable trust u/s 12A of the Act was given funds by the assessee to carry out their charitable activities. According to the ld.representative, when the funds were advanced to other similarly placed charitable trusts, amounts to application of income; therefore, the provisions of section 11(2) are not applicable. The ld.representative further submitted that advancing money to similarly placed charitable trusts does not amount to investment or deposit. Therefore, there is no violation of section 11(5) of the Act also.
GFA and BC “advanced funds” to related trusts, one involved in building Believers Church Medical College Hospital and the other an educational trust which operates various schools. I don’t know for certain, but it sounds like the educational trust was given funds to help fund operating expenses. The BC’s hospital was given money for construction of the state of the art facility. Thus, BC and GFA took income on donor money and used it to fund the hospital and engineering school.
The court considered both sides and concluded that “substantial income” of GFA and BC was not used for “the purposes for which they were formed.”
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that substantial income of the assessee trust was not used by both the assessees for the purposes for which they were formed. (emphasis added)
The court said there is no question that GFA and BC misused the funds. The main question was about how to treat those funds for tax purposes. After going through an evaluation of Indian law relating to the facts of the case, the court ruled as follows:
Therefore, in view of the latest development of law with effect from 01-04-2003 if the income is paid or credited to another trust or institution even though they are registered u/s 12AA or approved u/s 10(23C) of the Act, the same has to be treated as income of the assessee.
Since GFA and BC loaned/advanced more than allowed by law, that income has to be treated as income of the two organizations. The court then sent the matter back to the tax assessor to figure out what GFA and BC owed.
I can’t find any additional cases or appeals so the matter might still be active. I asked GFA what happened in the case but, as usual, received no answers.
Donors have questions but all they are getting are assurances that their donations are going for the purposes intended. This case provides one more basis to question that claim.
This case adds one more item to the growing list of concerns about GFA’s financial affairs.
Crushed
That word haunted me as I watched the undercover video of Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Services Deborah Nucatola describe the care taken by abortion providers when they decide where to crush a fetus.
Under different circumstances, a physician would take similar care not to crush the baby anywhere but in this case, care is taken to avoid damaging tissue which might have market value.
This is hard to process.
Nucatola says, “I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
Kermit Gosnell missed an opportunity. He kept body parts in jars. Apparently, there is a market for them.
Of course, this video should lead to a legal and Congressional investigation. This video, even though heavily edited as Planned Parenthood points out in their rebuttal, raises enough questions and concerns that an investigation is warranted. Perhaps, we will find everything PP did was legal. Even if so, we may decide that some things should not be legal.
The video reminds us about what happens in an abortion. I remember interviewing Hillary Clinton’s Arkansas physician William Harrison who told me:
Anyone who has delivered as many babies as I have, and has seen hundreds of living and dead embryos and fetuses being spontaneously aborted as have I, knows exactly what we are doing when we provide an elective abortion for our patient. We are ending the life of an embryo or a fetus. Not the life of a person, but certainly a creature that might have become a person under other circumstances.
Crushed.
This video (see below) may lead to an investigation and discovery of wrongdoing. But it will almost certainly lead others to reflect about what happens in an abortion. I doubt any laws will change but I suspect some minds might.
The full version is here.
UPDATE: Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards apologized for Dr. Nucatola’s “tone and statements.”