SPARC has a duty to uphold

[nerd]

I have to remind you that SPARC is a business operating under a not for profit tax exemption status (at least this is what Brent said in his post) and like it or not SPARC must follow certain rules laid down by our government and bashing gender, race religion, etc by one of its moderators or personnel is not one of them, nor is mongering a purpose of any charitable organization.  Fortunately this site, as long as it continues to receive donations under IRC section 501 (c)(3) has certain responsibilities to uphold to the public in general and that includes all races, genders, and religions.  It no longer has the license to permit any bashing, mongering, or deliberately advocating for one gender, race, religion, etc. over another.  SPARC, as a receiver of the charitable organization tax exempt status must

 "To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3)"

"The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

And most importantly:  "The articles of organization must limit the organization's purposes to one or more of the exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and must not expressly empower it to engage, other than as an insubstantial part of its activities, in activities that are not in furtherance of one or more of those purposes."

Now, if someone can prove to me that bashing women,  or that the particular content of Brent's post is an activity that furthers the purposes of one of the above conditions of "purposes" that SPARC is receiving tax exemption under, then please, do so.  I doubt is anyone can convince me that most of his posts has anything to do with educating father's on their legal rights and helping them deal with matters concerning their children in a separate parenting situation, which is what the board is suppose to be doing right?   No one is asking that this board be censored, but that this board is held accountable in the same way that any other charitable organization receiving government consideration be held accountable.

Consider this:  The bulletin board at the local planned parenting center, or any charitable organization of your choice that receives benefits from our government under IRC 501(c)(3),  is also public and receives the same status under IRC that SPARC does, but if a member of it's organization posted material such as Brent's on it's board, the public would be outraged and indeed Planned Parenting would be in danger of losing it's tax status or worse sued by class action, if they allowed it to continue.  When you set yourself up receiving any kind of government and taxpayer consideration, you set yourself up for monitoring the conduct of your organization.   SPARC is a public site funded by donations and receiving tax exemption from the government.  It has a duty to uphold to the public.  

[doood]

you said: " that the particular content of Brent's post"


please post brent's exact words that's got you so outraged.

[nosonew]

Nerd, okay, gloves are off.  Being sweetie pie nice is over.  You can kiss my @ss and every one elses here. Are YOU NOT a member of SingleMomz.com?  That site should be called "DADHATERZ.com"  You are bashing dad's, your's inparticular there.  

Keep in mind, you are not even the bio parent here, you are the grandparent and guess what, you are giving all grandparents a bad name!  If you don't like this site, GO FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE, like Singlemomz- they will tell you all the gooey, sweetie, stuff you want to hear instead of the honest to God's truth.  

And actually Brent has been EDUCATING ME, yes me, a WOMAN, about the trials and tribulation men have in this world!  So don't even go there!

***Everone was so pleasant and nice on Father's Rights Board, trying to explain to you what is really going on here, and you just DON"T GET IT!

So BE GONE OLD LADY!

NOSONEW IS PISSED!

[SPARC Admin]

>It no longer has the license to permit any bashing, mongering, or
>deliberately advocating for one gender, race, religion, etc. over
>another. SPARC, as a receiver of the charitable organization tax
>exempt status must

Well, you're wrong. A tax-exempt group (TEG) can indeed work and advocate specifically for one gender or the other (like the ACFC the American Coalition of Fathers and Children). What TEGs are not allowed to do is withhold services on the basis of gender:

"501(c)(3) organizations must serve the good of the general public by making their work available on a nondiscriminatory basis."

Since we freely offer our services to everyone regardless of gender, this doesn't apply.

If you doubt this, please check your tax-exempt code more carefully. There are innumerable TEGs that advocate on behalf of one gender or the other. This is all academic, however, as SPARC advocates for non-custodial parents, who come in both genders. Overwhelmingly they are male, but there are female NCPs too.


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

Much of the material that Brent posts would fall under the "educational" category. Publishing articles about anti-male bias is part of what we do, it's in our mission statement, which was fully approved by the IRS:

Bullet point #3: "raising awareness of issues that fathers and non-custodial parents face."

I'm sorry if you don't like to see articles that detail abuses committed against men, or articles that might be critical of women, but they're legitimate educational materials totally in accordance with the above statement. Just because they rub you wrong does NOT mean SPARC is violating the TEG guidelines. Grow up.


"The articles of organization must limit the organization's purposes to one or more of the exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and must not expressly empower it to engage, other than as an insubstantial part of its activities, in activities that are not in furtherance of one or more of those purposes."

Nothing new here. What was your point? We qualify under both the "educational" category and the "prevention of cruelty to children" category. It's all we do.




"Now, if someone can prove to me that bashing women,"

Stop right there. First, no one has to prove anything to you, understand? We aren't required to do that. You aren't the IRS, and you don't make or enforce their rules, so whether or not it can be proved to you is irrelevant.

Second, your labeling of Brent's posts as "bashing women" doesn't magically make it so. You may consider it "bashing", but that's a subjective term picked by you to further your argument. What you refer to as "bashing women" may be found by others to be "interesting", "enlightening", or "educational". Again, you don't set the standards, okay? Your personal value judgments are not the law of the land and they are not in effect here.

Neither the IRS nor the courts will agree with you that Brent's publishing articles constitutes discrimination against women. Period. In fact, he could publish articles much more critical of women and it still wouldn't constitute discrimination against women.



>or that the particular content of Brent's post
>is an activity that furthers the purposes of one
>of the above conditions"

Nope, this won't fly either. Brent's not an employee, he isn't paid anything, and he's not on the Board of Directors. He's a volunteer and has no legal standing with regard to SPARC. Even if he was, however, Brent's activities could easily be demonstrated to be of an educational nature, no matter how you personally feel about them. I could line up hundreds of people who would state that this is exactly what he's been doing the whole time he's been here. He's under no obligation to meet your personal expectations.


>I doubt is anyone can convince me that most of
>his posts has anything to do with educating father's"

As Brent said (before I accidentally zapped the whole thread), "you're not the one that has to be convinced." That's true. It doesn't matter if you're "convinced" or not, it's irrelevant. It's not a requirement that you be convinced of anything one way or the other. Also, you seem to be hung up on "fathers". SPARC is advocates for non-custodial parents, not just fathers. And the proof of that is in the help SPARC gave you.


>on their legal rights and helping them deal with
>matters concerning their children in a separate
>parenting situation, which is what the board is
>suppose to be doing right?"

Get real. I could show you hundreds of posts where he is doing exactly this- educating parents on their rights. (On the old boards, I could have pointed to thousands of posts where he was helping to educate parents.) Look around the boards and see for yourself- he's usually the first one to post links to articles that people need. In short, your argument is without merit- you don't even have the basic facts correct. And if he posts some things you don't like, too bad. He's under no obligation to please you in any way, shape, or form.




"No one is asking that this board be censored, but that this board is held accountable in the same way that any other charitable organization receiving government consideration be held accountable."

Oh please- let me get out my Hypocrisy Boots. You are indeed asking that this board be censored; what else would you call it? It's just a shame you don't have the integrity to admit that this is exactly what you're asking. You want the content on this site removed because of something you don't like- that's censorship.

Unfortunately for you, the First Amendment to the Constitution is as far as I have to go with this argument, tax-exempt status or not. I regret to inform you that the SPARC site will not change anything to suit your personal preferences or prejudices. I am not going to instruct Brent to change the content of his posts. If you don't like them, don't read them.



"if a member of it's organization posted material such as Brent's on it's board, the public would be outraged and indeed Planned Parenting would be in danger of losing it's tax status or worse sued by class action,"

Ummm, no, they wouldn't. The public may or may not be outraged, but they wouldn't be in danger of losing their TEG status. Please check the IRS 501(c)3 requirements before making ignorant, unfounded statements like this. It's simply not true.


"When you set yourself up receiving any kind of government and taxpayer consideration, you set yourself up for monitoring the conduct of your organization. SPARC is a public site funded by donations and receiving tax exemption from the government."

Yes, but that doesn't mean that people like you get to run our site, censor our content, or decide what people can or can't post on the message boards. That's up to us and no one else. Someone like you will always be able to find something you don't like or something that's "unacceptable". Too bad. Don't come here if you don't want to. (Although I notice you had no problem coming here and accepting our help when you needed it for your daughter. There's a word for that kind of person.)


"It has a duty to uphold to the public."

And we do. We're proud of what we do and how we do it, and you won't tell us how to operate our organization. The fact that you may not like certain aspects of how we do it is a personal judgment of yours and has no bearing on our non-profit status or eligibility. I strongly advise you to grow up, and to stop trying to control everyone and everything that you don't agree with.

You had no qualms about accepting our assistance when you needed it- we were here for you and your daughter in your time of need.

If you find SPARC so distasteful, perhaps it would be best if you stayed away instead of threatening us or trying to tell us how to run our web site.

[oneandonly]

sure doesn't make much sense~
I am sure this took a lot of time to research and find something to justify your complaints about Brent. I have been a member for almost 4 yrs now and your "observations" are inaccurate, to say the least.
I believe Waylon addressed your issues quite profoundly and well, get off it already...
You will NEVER find another site like this on the net nor more supportive folks fighting for children.
Sadly, I do not think folks will be helpful to you any longer around here. I also suggest singlemomz.com for you....

PS-Waylon-sending our donation this Friday~

[Brent]

Personally, I'm sick of fascists like you trying to control this site and decide what is "acceptable" material to post here. Basically, you want SPARC to post only material that YOU approve of, and nothing else.

Well, that's too bad. I'll continue to post items I feel are of interest, whether you personally approve of them or not. It's not my job to deliver sanitized, politically correct news that doesn't offend you. As I said before, if you think SPARC is so awful, don't come back. It's not like anyone is forcing you to come here, is it?

The thing is, you got to state your case, and in response, everyone told you that they felt you were full of it. (Everyone except "charles", who by an amazing coincidence has the exact same IP address as you do.)

When that didn't work, you pretended you knew something about 501(c)3 eligibility requirements, and you posted it coupled with a bunch of thinly-veiled threats. Now that's really pathetic.

Also, you've stated that I've posted "offensive" material, but you won't say what it is and you refuse to give us a single example. Why is that?

You've been asked several times, so please tell us specifically: what content was so objectionable? If you won't tell us and provide at least one example, I'll just have to conclude that you're full of crap.

In closing, let me just say "Vescere bracis meis."

[MYSONSDAD]

!

[MYSONSDAD]

When I get on SPARC, Brent's posts are one of the first ones I read.

My Mom also comes to SPARC. She enjoys reading the posts Brent offers to all. She is in NO WAY offended. She loves Brent!

I am sure if you look, you'll find a nice, friendly Single-Minded Momz Board out there waiting for you.

But for me to read any more of this crap, is simply, a GOOD WASTE OF TIME!