Bill Maher and Romney's Mormon Charity

[_DrW]

On the latest Real Time episode, Bill Maher set the record straight with regard to Mitt Romney's "charitable contributions" to the Mormon Church. In the closing comments of his May 4 Episode 147, Maher gave it to Romney with both barrels. It was pretty hilarious.

The video clip is up on Huffpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/05/bill-maher-takes-aim-at-mormonism_n_1483942.html

Looks like it is going to be a rough campaign season for the Mormon Church.

[_angsty]

Just watched it, and ouch. I think Maher is a prick and I don't like his attitude, but I can't help but feel that he's obviously right on this. My poor mother. This is going to be a tough election cycle.

[_DrW]

Just watched it, and ouch. I think Maher is a prick and I don't like his attitude, but I can't help but feel that he's obviously right on this. My poor mother. This is going to be a tough election cycle.

Fair enough. Is Maher any more a prick for telling the truth in public (with an attitude), than folks like Joseph Smith or Jeffrey Holland, or Gordon B. Hinkley are for telling less than the truth in public (with an attitude)?

Maher may be a prick to some, but at least he is an honest prick, which is more than one can say about most of the LDS GAs.

[_Chap]

Just watched it, and ouch. I think Maher is a prick and I don't like his attitude, but I can't help but feel that he's obviously right on this. My poor mother. This is going to be a tough election cycle.

Fair enough. Is Maher any more a prick for telling the truth in public (with an attitude), than folks like Joseph Smith or Jeffrey Holland, or Gordon B. Hinkley are for telling less than the truth in public (with an attitude)?

Maher may be a prick to some, but at least he is an honest prick, which is more than one can say about most of the LDS GAs.

You know, I have never seen what is contributed to any discussion by statements like "X is a Y", where X is a person's name, and Y is a mere epithet that means no more than "person I happen to dislike".

What do I care who angsty dislikes? Not a bit. What does the fact that angsty dislikes someone tell us about that person? Nothing interesting.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Oh that was splendid.

Bill Maher is going to carpet bomb the Mormon media.

[_Bond James Bond]

Fair enough. Is Maher any more a prick for telling the truth in public (with an attitude), than folks like Joseph Smith or Jeffrey Holland, or Gordon B. Hinkley are for telling less than the truth in public (with an attitude)?

Maher may be a prick to some, but at least he is an honest prick, which is more than one can say about most of the LDS GAs.

I wish Maher was a little more informed (he tends to rely on stereotypes about Mormonism) but he does get to the core issue splendidly when he points out the insanity of calling something a charity, whether it's the LDS Church or the L.A. Symphony, when it has a CASTLE as it's home base.

[_Jason Bourne]

On the latest Real Time episode, Bill Maher set the record straight with regard to Mitt Romney's "charitable contributions" to the Mormon Church. In the closing comments of his May 4 Episode 147, Maher gave it to Romney with both barrels. It was pretty hilarious.

The video clip is up on Huffpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/05/bill-maher-takes-aim-at-mormonism_n_1483942.html

Looks like it is going to be a rough campaign season for the Mormon Church.

As I noted on the other thread on this same topic:

At least the Maher hates all tax deductions for things he views as not charity and a bad thing.

Mahar should simply lobby to get IRC Sec. 501(c)(3). For whatever reasons our political leaders have long felt giving a deduction and thus using lost revenue to benefit Church's, Universities, Arts, Medical Research an groups supporting medical issues such as the American Heart Association or the American Cancer Society, Benevolent Societies, Pure Charities as well as other organizations like Planned Parenthood, NPR, NY Bike Advocacy groups, AAA and on and on is a positive benefit for our society.

Maher however is seemingly in the minority on this. I wonder if he gives to any such organizations and takes the deduction?

I don't find Mahar particular brilliant. He can be funny. He seems rather narrow minded about most religions and based on what I have seen of him ( and yes I saw his movie) he is not well educated about religion in general.

I find the glee you all have about all the rather shabby treatment of the Church odd. Would you feel the same if such things were said about Jews, Catholics, blacks or some other group. Is distortion and half truths really funny and necessary?

[_Jason Bourne]

on B. Hinkley are for telling less than the truth in public (with an attitude)?

Maher may be a prick to some, but at least he is an honest prick, which is more than one can say about most of the LDS GAs.

Mahar is hardly honest.

[_Stormy Waters]

I disagree with the notion that charities should be limited to only providing basic necessities. For example, I think donating to a library is a worthy cause.

I agree with his point that an organization should not be considered a charity if the charitable aspect is not the main focus. If it were my call, I'd make a rule that at least some precent of donations have to make it towards a charitable cause. Moreover what I would argue is that any organization that does not disclose it finances should not be considered a charity.

[_angsty]

Fair enough. Is Maher any more a prick for telling the truth in public (with an attitude), than folks like Joseph Smith or Jeffrey Holland, or Gordon B. Hinkley are for telling less than the truth in public (with an attitude)?

I completely agree with your sentiments on this. My thinking Maher is a prick doesn't preclude me from recognizing overt prickishness displayed by others.

Maher may be a prick to some, but at least he is an honest prick, which is more than one can say about most of the LDS GAs.

You'll get no disagreement from me on this.