Hope Media Group and WAY-FM to merge

[BamaTX]

I suppose the worst part is Bama TX is all for censorship and denying freedom of speech.

Where did I say this? Just because iHeart is taxed, doesn't mean the government is censoring them. Same rule applies to a church here.

If it gets done once, it happens again and again returning to bite the hand that launched the concept. Maybe that's because there's plenty of hate in this world already.

Hate? Against who exactly? Asking religious organizations to pay taxes isn't hate. It could be an atheist organization spreading anti-religious propaganda for all I care. Just pay your fair share.

Religious beliefs are not a service that our government forgot to spread. It is not a void that needs to be filled.

The real Christians don't walk around telling you they are, so it might surprise you to know who all subscribes to Christian teachings.

And they're welcome to continue doing what they're doing. I just ask their churches to pay their taxes.

 

[BamaTX]

That would affect the viability of religious stations across the country.

Would it though? KPFT, despite their fringe target audience, has managed to survive this long. Just like streamers on Twitch have done, I'm sure religious broadcasters can find people to bankroll their operations. After all, KSBJ isn't some lowly rated station.

That said, since religious organizations spend or keep in reserve all their income, there is no "profit" to be taxed, so the argument is moot unless we move to property tax exemptions as well.

That's the profit.

 

[2Speakers]

Again, I stand for denying tax exempt statuses based on being a religious institution. Tax the hell out of them. If they want to do actual public services that help people, then the congregation is welcomed to spin off an actual non-profit that focuses solely on that.

Ok. So this really isn't about taxes. What you're really arguing for here is censorship of speech you don't like, just so everyone is totally clear on that.

Pacifica is a 501(c)(3) - just like any on-air ministry as far as the IRS is concerned. You're fine with Pacifica's tax exempt status, but not KSBJ's, purely because you don't like what KSBJ's tax exempt free speech promotes.

Again, one heck of a slippery slope.

 

[BamaTX]

Ok. So this really isn't about taxes. What you're really arguing for here is censorship of speech you don't like, just so everyone is totally clear on that.

Nobody is getting censored. How do you jump to that conclusion?

Pacifica is a 501(c)(3) - just like any on-air ministry as far as the IRS is concerned.

Under the current rules, yes they are. And that's why I'm advocating for change.

You're fine with Pacifica's tax exempt status, but not KSBJ's, purely because you don't like what KSBJ's tax exempt free speech promotes.

Like I said earlier, the discussion of what Pacifica (or any other non religious non-profit for that matter) contributes to society or their effectiveness is of no concern to this discussion.

Let me put it to you this way...the IRS lists the following "purposes" that can be exempt as follows;

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.

All I'm simply advocating is for the government to remove "religious" from the list. That's all.

If an animal organization, whose goal is to prevent animal cruelty, is effective or not is not relevant to this discussion. Just like how KPFT being effective does not matter to me. Why? Because I'm not advocating against them at this time. But you're more than welcome to scrutinize the services they provide to society all you want. If anything, I encourage you to do so.

Again, one heck of a slippery slope.

It really isn't. Just remove religious exemptions. What's so slippery about that?

 

[2Speakers]

Nobody is getting censored. How do you jump to that conclusion?

Because that appears to be your intent. We're not reading one isolated comment from you in a vacuum here, we're reading everything you've written.

Do you think there would be more or fewer operations like KSBJ if the change you propose were enacted? Your intent is to stifle religious organizations through economic disincentives. That is tantamount to censorship.

Like I said earlier, the discussion of what Pacifica (or any other non religious non-profit for that matter) contributes to society or their effectiveness is of no concern to this discussion.

Sure it is.

We're talking about the benefit to the community each station provides. You said so yourself earlier in this thread.

They should still be taxed on the count that they're only promoting baseless beliefs that in no way benefits the community.

You brought how much "benefit" the community sees from each tax exempt entity into this discussion. KSBJ is the #2 station in Houston P6+ right now. Millions of people listen to them. Millions of people see at least some benefit KSBJ is providing them. They're being entertained, educated, informed and encouraged.

It really isn't. Just remove religious exemptions. What's so slippery about that?

Because we would be doing so based on your opinion of the value and benefit to society that religion provides and absolutely nothing else - unless your true goal here is, in fact, censorship. I personally have zero desire to start examining the relative value of every non-profit, and I really doubt you want that either.

You just want to censor one group. You want to stifle their ability to spread their message.

 

[b-turner]

Bama TX can say it is not censorship he advocates all day long but he refuses to admit his reason is he does not subscribe to the Christian belief referring it as "heresay" and "old gossip" and therefore it's not worth of tax exemption. In other words he dislikes Christianity and wants to create problems for those of the faith by removing tax exempt status. I suspect he will state examples of a few 'so called' Christians that cash in on the vulnerable. Those are a very tiny group and the typical Christian would not identify them as Christian. One can always come up with the few bad apples.

 

[BamaTX]

Because that appears to be your intent. We're not reading one isolated comment from you in a vacuum here, we're reading everything you've written.

Please explain? Companies like iHeart, Cumulus, Entercom, etc. all pay taxes and have no less (or more) freedom of speech than non-profits do

Do you think there would be more or fewer operations like KSBJ if the change you propose were enacted? Your intent is to stifle religious organizations through economic disincentives. That is tantamount to censorship.

Are you saying that religious content cannot survive without being exempt? Because Salem is proof that this isn't the case. Heck, national companies like iHeart and Urban1 have been able to commercialize gospel music. Furthermore, smaller regional broadcasters, such as Bryan Broadcasting, also run religious commercial operations.

My intent is to simply tax billions of dollars that move every year that have gone untaxed sinply because people think religion is a social necessity.

Sure it is.

We're talking about the benefit to the community each station provides. You said so yourself earlier in this thread.

You brought how much "benefit" the community sees from each tax exempt entity into this discussion. KSBJ is the #2 station in Houston P6+ right now. Millions of people listen to them. Millions of people see at least some benefit KSBJ is providing them. They're being entertained, educated, informed and encouraged.

By that logic, pornography can also entertain, educate, inform, and even educate people. But that alone is not a reason to tax exempt it.

Like I said earlier, spreading religious belief is not a need anyone truly needs for the betterment of our communities. If anything, you can make the case that religion has historically made things worse in society (but that's for another topic).

Religion isn't a void that our society needs filled. And thats supposed to be the spirit of non-profits.

Because we would be doing so based on your opinion of the value and benefit to society that religion provides and absolutely nothing else - unless your true goal here is, in fact, censorship.

Again, you keep failing to explain how it is censorship. Religion should have every right to continue operating like any other group.

I personally have zero desire to start examining the relative value of every non-profit, and I really doubt you want that either.

Why should we? Our argument is about religion being tax exempt.

You just want to censor one group. You want to stifle their ability to spread their message.

Which "one" group am I censoring? And how exactly is it censorship to expect for then to pay taxes?

 

[BamaTX]

Bama TX can say it is not censorship he advocates all day long but he refuses to admit his reason is he does not subscribe to the Christian belief referring it as "heresay" and "old gossip" and therefore it's not worth of tax exemption.

Yet, you keep refusing to explain how taxation is censorship.

Furthermore, I've made it clear it is not just "Christianity". As a matter of fact, I don't think I've even singled out Christianity. Y'all are the ones who assumed and went there, not me.

I'd also like to point out that the only religious groups/organization that I have actually named are atheist. If they want to organize an organization whose mission is to spread their views, then they should be taxed.

In other words he dislikes Christianity and wants to create problems for those of the faith by removing tax exempt status.

Like I said earlier, I have yet to even single out Christianity. I keep saying all religions.

I suspect he will state examples of a few 'so called' Christians that cash in on the vulnerable. Those are a very tiny group and the typical Christian would not identify them as Christian. One can always come up with the few bad apples.

Again, I have stated my reason as to why churches and other religious groups should not be taxed. It has nothing to do with the shady broadcasters we have discussed in other threads.

It is about the principle and the spirit of the services that tax exempt organization are supposed to fill. Nowhere in our constitution is there a clause that it is the duty of our government to promote religion(s).

The whole point of tax exemption is for a group of private individuals to provide services that improve their communities and the quality of life. Religion doesn't do that. The belief that something may or may not exist doesn't improve your life no more than knowing if Schrodinger's cat is actually alive or not.

 

[2Speakers]

Please explain? Companies like iHeart, Cumulus, Entercom, etc. all pay taxes and have no less (or more) freedom of speech than non-profits do

They're also set up on commercial frequencies. They are set up to be for-profit operations and have been for a very long time. KSBJ and hundreds of stations like it have been set up on the non-commercial model for a very long time. If they were suddenly forced to operate as for-profit entities on non-commercial frequencies, the impact would be catastrophic, unless you're also advocating for allowing them to operate as commercial stations in the non-comm band. That would still result in a catastrophic change, but one I suspect most could recover from.

Are you saying that religious content cannot survive without being exempt? Because Salem is proof that this isn't the case. Heck, national companies like iHeart and Urban1 have been able to commercialize gospel music. Furthermore, smaller regional broadcasters, such as Bryan Broadcasting, also run religious commercial operations.

Sure. They can - if that's the game plan from the start. The overwhelming majority of Christian stations are in the non-comm band.

My intent is to simply tax billions of dollars that move every year that have gone untaxed sinply because people think religion is a social necessity.

Thankfully, I the odds of that happening are slim to none. The last thing Washington needs is more money to waste, as David pointed out earlier in the thread.

Like I said earlier, spreading religious belief is not a need anyone truly needs for the betterment of our communities. If anything, you can make the case that religion has historically made things worse in society (but that's for another topic).

We'll have to agree to disagree. As others pointed out earlier in the thread, some of the least religious areas of the country have devolved in recent years into cesspools of crime, drug abuse and homelessness. Government clearly isn't stepping up to help with those issues, and apparently, nobody else is either. Some Christian outreach would likely help. Government appears to be failing them.

Religion isn't a void that our society needs filled. And thats supposed to be the spirit of non-profits.

Funny how our most obvious social ills are most prominently displayed in areas largely void of ministry.

Again, you keep failing to explain how it is censorship. Religion should have every right to continue operating like any other group.

Changing the rules of the game decades into it would create chaos. That appears to be your intent.

Why should we? Our argument is about religion being tax exempt.

Because you won't have the opportunity to enact your vision without debate, and any debate of the topic would include analysis of the other types of organizations that enjoy tax-exempt status.

Nobody is just going to give you what you want simply because you whined about it or because you said so. You're going to have to debate the merits of your position with people who take the opposing position if you want legislation.

Which "one" group am I censoring? And how exactly is it censorship to expect for then to pay taxes?

Religious non-profits. It's censorship for the reasons outlined above. Changing the rules of the game decades in is, in this case, de facto censorship.

But of course, you know that.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Religion isn't a void that our society needs filled. And thats supposed to be the spirit of non-profits.

who says.. you? are you the end all be all decision maker? Thank goodness no.

IT may not fill a void in your life but it fills a void in many other peoples lives. Just because its not your cup of tea doesnt mean it itsnt someone elses cup of tea anyways

you clearly have some quite strong opinions and a problem with religion.... just who are you and what is your background? You know some of mine (its in my signature and you can easily google my name to find more)... share yours.

 

[davideduardo]

And they're welcome to continue doing what they're doing. I just ask their churches to pay their taxes.

The point is that today's non-profits do not, as the name indicates, have profits. All monies received go back to run or expand the organization. So there can be no income tax if there is no taxable income.

 

[BamaTX]

They're also set up on commercial frequencies. They are set up to be for-profit operations and have been for a very long time. KSBJ and hundreds of stations like it have been set up on the non-commercial model for a very long time. If they were suddenly forced to operate as for-profit entities on non-commercial frequencies, the impact would be catastrophic, unless you're also advocating for allowing them to operate as commercial stations in the non-comm band. That would still result in a catastrophic change, but one I suspect most could recover from.

That's something every religious organization would have to figure out, not just religious broadcasters.

They've dodged taxes long enough. The market for religion is a lucrative one, so many won't suffer like you think they will.

Sure. They can - if that's the game plan from the start. The overwhelming majority of Christian stations are in the non-comm band.

They'll figure themselves out.

Thankfully, I the odds of that happening are slim to none. The last thing Washington needs is more money to waste, as David pointed out earlier in the thread.

It won't happen today.

But with the growing number of people who are religiously unaffiliated, there will at least be talks about for younger generations as they take over.

We'll have to agree to disagree. As others pointed out earlier in the thread, some of the least religious areas of the country have devolved in recent years into cesspools of crime, drug abuse and homelessness.

There's absolutely no correlation between the lack of religion and violence. Some of those areas are simply economic hubs that attract people of all backgrounds.

For example, the woman who lured a man to be killed with machetes by MS-13 gang members members was initially captured with a cross pendant on her necklace.

Government clearly isn't stepping up to help with those issues, and apparently, nobody else is either. Some Christian outreach would likely help. Government appears to be failing them.

And those christian groups can still help like some for-profit organizations do today. For example, Chevron, HEB, and United Airlines are all corporate partners of the Houston food bank.

Funny how our most obvious social ills are most prominently displayed in areas largely void of ministry.

Again, there's no proof of this. If anything, you can link religion to almost every war this world has seen.

But alas, nobody is talking about banning religion, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Changing the rules of the game decades into it would create chaos. That appears to be your intent.

You keep jumping to conclusions on what my intent is for some odd reason.

My real intent is for churches to pay their fair share so parks, roads, and schools can continue to be improved everywhere.

Because you won't have the opportunity to enact your vision without debate, and any debate of the topic would include analysis of the other types of organizations that enjoy tax-exempt status.

Well, I did say earlier that there were a lot of shady non profits that need to be further regulated.

But for the purpose of our argument, that is irrelt since the discussion really boils down to just religion.

Nobody is just going to give you what you want simply because you whined about it or because you said so. You're going to have to debate the merits of your position with people who take the opposing position if you want legislation.

That exactly how religion got its tax exempt status.

Religious non-profits. It's censorship for the reasons outlined above. Changing the rules of the game decades in is, in this case, de facto censorship.

But of course, you know that.

It's not censorship. Nobody right now is stopping you going out to the street and handing out Bibles, pamphlets, or even preaching with a loud megaphone (since apparently that's popular in some parts of town).

If taxes were a violation of freedom of speech, then that means every one of us is being censored.

And as a tax paying citizen, I don't feel censored. Do you feel censored right now?

 

[BamaTX]

who says.. you? are you the end all be all decision maker? Thank goodness no.

I've asked several times already, but no one has given me a direct answer.

What voids left behind by our government is religion filling? Or better yet, how is religion improving the quality of life?

IT may not fill a void in your life but it fills a void in many other peoples lives. Just because its not your cup of tea doesnt mean it itsnt someone elses cup of tea anyways.

Same argument can be made about drugs or pornography, yet we're not running out there to tax exempt those things.

you clearly have some quite strong opinions and a problem with religion....

Y'all keep assuming this, but completely skip over the fact that I even called out atheist non-profits whose goal is to spread atheism.

just who are you and what is your background?

We all have our reasons as to why we choose to remain anonymous.

I may or may have not said some negative things about former, current, and/or future employers and/or their partners.

I'm not about to reveal who I am just because you don't like my argument.

You know some of mine (its in my signature and you can easily google my name to find more)... share yours.

Well, with all due respect, I didn't really ask for yours. Just because you put yourself out there doesn't mean you should expect other to do so as well.

 

[2Speakers]

They've dodged taxes long enough. The market for religion is a lucrative one, so many won't suffer like you think they will.

As David pointed out, there is no profit in organizations like Hope Media.

Can you walk us through what this would look like to you? How exactly do you intend to tax an entity that generates no profit?

And as a tax paying citizen, I don't feel censored. Do you feel censored right now?

It depends on your definition of censored. Cancel culture is a thing. Take a look a the Joe Rogan situation. I've never listened to his podcast, but from accounts of the situation I've read and heard, it's my understanding that he's a slightly left of center guy who invites all points of view and has developed a large following. He recently interviewed some people who don't subscribe to the conventional guidance for COVID and a small but vocal mob is trying to de-platform him.

I worked at a non-religious commercial station when the Lauren Daigle song You Say was released. There was an individual who I'd describe as slightly unhinged who attempted to cancel the radio station because we were airing the song. She called a few key advertisers and attempted to get them to stop buying the station. I have no idea if her attempts were successful or not. I just heard about the attempts from an account executive.

People of a certain worldview have made it their business in recent years to attempt to ruin anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview. Not debate, not discuss - ruin - and given that, a lot of speech is suppressed these days.

This is why I personally believe you're less concerned with parks, schools, etc. than you are with censoring religion. You've made your animus toward religion quite clear in this thread. It makes it difficult to believe your true goal is to raise funds for underfunded schools and parks.

Attempting to curb religious activity through new taxation is just another vehicle for censorship.

Really looking forward to your explanation of how your proposed taxes on entities that don't generate profits would work.

 

[stan]

As David pointed out, there is no profit in organizations like Hope Media.

Can you walk us through what this would look like to you? How exactly do you intend to tax an entity that generates no profit?



It depends on your definition of censored. Cancel culture is a thing. Take a look a the Joe Rogan situation. I've never listened to his podcast, but from accounts of the situation I've read and heard, it's my understanding that he's a slightly left of center guy who invites all points of view and has developed a large following. He recently interviewed some people who don't subscribe to the conventional guidance for COVID and a small but vocal mob is trying to de-platform him.

I worked at a non-religious commercial station when the Lauren Daigle song You Say was released. There was an individual who I'd describe as slightly unhinged who attempted to cancel the radio station because we were airing the song. She called a few key advertisers and attempted to get them to stop buying the station. I have no idea if her attempts were successful or not. I just heard about the attempts from an account executive.

People of a certain worldview have made it their business in recent years to attempt to ruin anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview. Not debate, not discuss - ruin - and given that, a lot of speech is suppressed these days.

This is why I personally believe you're less concerned with parks, schools, etc. than you are with censoring religion. You've made your animus toward religion quite clear in this thread. It makes it difficult to believe your true goal is to raise funds for underfunded schools and parks.

Attempting to curb religious activity through new taxation is just another vehicle for censorship.

Really looking forward to your explanation of how your proposed taxes on entities that don't generate profits would work.

You tax them on the incoming cash flow.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Why has this thread not been closed? Mods? Mods???

 

[BamaTX]

As David pointed out, there is no profit in organizations like Hope Media.

Can you walk us through what this would look like to you? How exactly do you intend to tax an entity that generates no profit?

I already addressed that earlier.

It depends on your definition of censored. Cancel culture is a thing. Take a look a the Joe Rogan situation.

Joe Rogan pays his taxes.

I've never listened to his podcast, but from accounts of the situation I've read and heard, it's my understanding that he's a slightly left of center guy who invites all points of view and has developed a large following. He recently interviewed some people who don't subscribe to the conventional guidance for COVID and a small but vocal mob is trying to de-platform him.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic of taxing religious institutions (or for the purposes of this thread, the broadcasting wings of religious institutions).

I worked at a non-religious commercial station when the Lauren Daigle song You Say was released. There was an individual who I'd describe as slightly unhinged who attempted to cancel the radio station because we were airing the song. She called a few key advertisers and attempted to get them to stop buying the station. I have no idea if her attempts were successful or not. I just heard about the attempts from an account executive.

I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion. The owners are the ones who decide what content is broadcasted. The only censorship on over the air broadcasting is the seven dirty words (but seeing as how we're talking about religious broadcasters, I have to assume most take no issue with this).

People of a certain worldview have made it their business in recent years to attempt to ruin anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview. Not debate, not discuss - ruin - and given that, a lot of speech is suppressed these days.

Some would call that capitalism at work. You cater to as many individuals as possible while offending as fee as possible.

This is why I personally believe you're less concerned with parks, schools, etc. than you are with censoring religion. You've made your animus toward religion quite clear in this thread. It makes it difficult to believe your true goal is to raise funds for underfunded schools and parks.

For the last time, I've singled out atheist.

I don't care what religion you follow or don't follow. But if you want to start an organization that promotes your religious beliefs (or non beliefs), you should pay your tax.

Furthermore, you have yet to explain how taxation = censorship. Are you suggesting that taxation is illegal and goes against the protection afforded to us under the constitution?

Attempting to curb religious activity through new taxation is just another vehicle for censorship.

It's not. Taxation has not stopped advertising companies from operating. Salem does a ton of commercial religious programming with success.

Really looking forward to your explanation of how your proposed taxes on entities that don't generate profits would work.

Again, I've explained that already earlier in this thread. Money is generated by non-profits. It just isn't called "profit" due to their designation as a 501(c) organization.

The money is still there. Flowing without it being taxed.

 

[Delete My Account]

People of a certain worldview have made it their business in recent years to attempt to ruin anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview. Not debate, not discuss - ruin - and given that, a lot of speech is suppressed these days.

"People of a certain worldview" on the opposing side have tried to do the same. They've tried to remove books, edit school curriculums, and so on. Remember the American Family Association? One Million Moms? The attorney that pursued Howard Stern town to town, up and down the dial?

Joe Rogan has long had an open forum that developed an audience in part because he would have longform discussions, and bring on "fringe" characters like Alex Jones. Over time, the guest roster increasingly catered to fans of those sorts of personalities including an interview with Gavin McInnes, founder of the "Proud Boys" extremist organization which saw a dramatic increase in membership following his appearing with Rogan. Rogan may not have set out to be anything other than a comedian and interviewer, but words have impact, and the views he's giving a wide audience to may indeed be impacting people's health and decisions. Spotify has already "deplatformed" some of his content (mostly interviews with "alt right" figures, and episodes where Rogan used racially polarizing language.") But none of the musicians that pulled their music even expected him to be cancelled. They simply didn't want to share a platform with him, which is their right to free association in the marketplace.

The 1st Amendment issues relating to taxing religious groups make taxing religious groups and broadcasters a likely non starter. But the observation that some megachurches and "televangelists" use non profits and churches to live a lavish lifestyle, has been noted by many people of faith, not just secularists. It's understandable why someone would suggest it.

 

[2Speakers]

I already addressed that earlier.

Joe Rogan pays his taxes.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic of taxing religious institutions (or for the purposes of this thread, the broadcasting wings of religious institutions).

I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion. The owners are the ones who decide what content is broadcasted. The only censorship on over the air broadcasting is the seven dirty words (but seeing as how we're talking about religious broadcasters, I have to assume most take no issue with this).

Some would call that capitalism at work. You cater to as many individuals as possible while offending as fee as possible.

For the last time, I've singled out atheist.

I don't care what religion you follow or don't follow. But if you want to start an organization that promotes your religious beliefs (or non beliefs), you should pay your tax.

Furthermore, you have yet to explain how taxation = censorship. Are you suggesting that taxation is illegal and goes against the protection afforded to us under the constitution?

It's not. Taxation has not stopped advertising companies from operating. Salem does a ton of commercial religious programming with success.

Again, I've explained that already earlier in this thread. Money is generated by non-profits. It just isn't called "profit" due to their designation as a 501(c) organization.

The money is still there. Flowing without it being taxed.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out what this entire off-topic discussion of taxes has to do with radio, yet here we are.

It's doubly puzzling since the moderator has explained time and time again that there are no profits to be taxed at Hope Media.

 

[Mediafrog+]

I'm still having a hard time figuring out what this entire off-topic discussion of taxes has to do with radio, yet here we are.

Mods? MODS!!!!!!!