But this is a vindictive choice. Poor people don’t suddenly stop being poor just because you don’t like gay marriage. This is punishing innocents for political purposes.
[/quote]
“The Catholic church is charitable. In fact, they do contract work with us, the state. However, they behave according to religious views we don’t like. So, we’ll introduce some requirements they’ll have to follow, using the poor as a weapon. See, we’ll try to break their will with the poor by trapping them in a quandry and a potential media relations nightmare. And, if they do call our bluff, OUR laity will point out how little they care for the poor, for us. I know, I know, some will question our own commitment to the poor. What with us using the poor as leverage to change the Catholic Church’s behavior and all. You know, instead of keeping the relationship between us the same, therefore, continuing the work.”
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Tell you what, you can tax my church when you stop taxing it’s members. When a government can confiscate wealth by force, redistributing it in some perverted act of charity, you can back off our private and traditional institutions through which we voluntarily do works, foster voluntary charity in others (in many instances, it’s a Christian duty), and come together as a community. You think you’d fill the gap we’d leave behind? You’re out of your minds.
Taxes are meant to pay for services and amenities provided by the government. If there was no tax, how would the government pay for those things?
The government has to make money somehow. The whole “confiscate wealth by force” is some cultish mantra. I bet you have a gun rack over your fireplace because you think that, any day now, a revolution is going to erupt and you’ll have to defend yourself against the government.[/quote]
Well, then you must feel obligated to defend a charitable and peaceful institution that relies on voluntary donations.
By the way, while I’m no militia member, I can at least respect the type of person you describe. They’re at least willing to take up arms to protect themselves. Respect, when compared to cowardly leftist creatures. They’d simply have armed men besides themselves, hired with publim monies, to enforce their own worldview.
Adoptions are a social service. From non-religious ethical grounds, it makes sense to allow adoptions to gay and lesbian couples – more children find homes. I am aware that the Catholic church is opposed to gay adoption. While it’s not my business to criticize other people’s religious beliefs, it seems that what they’ve done is to put a basically ritual concern (religious rules about sexual relations) over a basically humanitarian concern (providing charity.) I tend to believe that where strict observance and compassion conflict, compassion should win.
From the state’s perspective, there’s a possible church-and-state issue. You can’t really use taxpayer money to promote a religious agenda. You can contract out to religious organizations so long as what they’re doing isn’t specifically religious in nature. Enforcing religious strictures through their charity work (such as not arranging adoptions to gay couples) is potentially a religious function.
But basically I think the standoff is a great pity. I wish they could compromise somehow – perhaps leaving adoption out of it but keeping other, unrelated social services. Or maybe even let the Church win, if that’s what’s necessary. We’re in a recession.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Well, you’re looking at it strangely, Sloth.
[/quote]
Not at all, that’s how it went down. Your side decided to change the game, knowing the new arrangement could be intolerable for the Church. Don’t try to bully people with the state and then complain when they walk away. You mention a compromise, yet the previous relationship was the compromise.
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.[/quote]
I have to admit I was a bit slow catching on to the implications of this post. In Cockney’s world, where religious institutions are treated as businesses, the power of the state would be guaranteed. Workplace anti-discrimination laws and regulations could be fully employed to hammer religion into obedience. There would be no walking away, as in this case.
[quote]Chalky09Aus wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Well, Cockney has officially confirmed his status as a complete idiot.
“Let’s tax groups of people for being groups of people!”
I dont think he is a complete idiot, he makes a lot of good points, even if he could have used a little more tact.
I don’t think he means to merely tax people for ‘being a group’, it is to tax the significant amounts of currently tax free revenue churches acquire to bring some kind of equality into the situation. Now obviously the legislation would not be simple (I am not 100% sure on the nuances of your setup in the states), however a carefully considered system could be implemented to bring more accountability and honesty to the money earning of the church.
On the point of morality, I also agree that a person does not have to be religous to be ethical, I am in no way involved in religion or faith but I would adhere to many of the ‘rules’ as it is merely common sense.
The community doesn’t need the church anymore than the church organisation needs the community. Try having a religion with no people.[/quote]
Exactly, I am not saying there should be special tax laws for religious groups quite the reverse. A religious institution that turns a profit should be taxed on that profit in exactly the same way as any other organisation.
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Of course people are compelled by their religion but that doesn’t change who they are underneath, if they are a homicidal maniac they will find something in their religion to justify flying a plane into a building, if however they are a charitable person, this is the side of them that will be expressed.
Research suggests that Evangelical Christians in the UK give away on average nine times as much (as a proportion of income) as the general population.
You can slice and dice that many ways - and argue that a goodly part of it goes to the upkeep of churches not to the relief of suffering - but you have to concede it’s statistically significant, I think.
No one’s claiming a monopoly on altruism or charitable acts: just saying (to return to the OP’s general point) there’s a lot of it going on, and if lawmakers try to attach too many strings, its the needy who loose out. I happen to disagree with the church’s stance in the articles quoted by the OP, but that’s not really the point. There will always be more needy people in the world than charity can help: if you can’t help one group without compromising whatever principles you happen to have, you will find another group to help instead.[/quote]
Not sure that I would put too much weight on that survey, it was conducted by a church group and sponsored by a church run bank so it is hardly impartial it is also based solely on what people claim to donate.
Finally even if there was hard evidence that evangelical Christians give more that is not proof of cause, it could go the other way round, it could be that highly charitable people are attracted to the evangelical church.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Chalky09Aus wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Well, Cockney has officially confirmed his status as a complete idiot.
“Let’s tax groups of people for being groups of people!”
I dont think he is a complete idiot, he makes a lot of good points, even if he could have used a little more tact.
I don’t think he means to merely tax people for ‘being a group’, it is to tax the significant amounts of currently tax free revenue churches acquire to bring some kind of equality into the situation. Now obviously the legislation would not be simple (I am not 100% sure on the nuances of your setup in the states), however a carefully considered system could be implemented to bring more accountability and honesty to the money earning of the church.
On the point of morality, I also agree that a person does not have to be religous to be ethical, I am in no way involved in religion or faith but I would adhere to many of the ‘rules’ as it is merely common sense.
The community doesn’t need the church anymore than the church organisation needs the community. Try having a religion with no people.
Bring what equality into what situation? Churches are non-profit organizations. They exist solely as associations and any business they do is channeled back into the services provided by the organization for the community. There is no exclusivity and there is no owner. Churches make money almost entirely from the donations of their members.
Now, if you think that the government is going to bring any “accountability” to the earnings of the church, you would also think that their is accountability in the earnings of the government. This is not the case.[/quote]
Churches are a very long way from non-profit organisations.
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.
I have to admit I was a bit slow catching on to the implications of this post. In Cockney’s world, where religious institutions are treated as businesses, the power of the state would be guaranteed. Workplace anti-discrimination laws and regulations could be fully employed to hammer religion into obedience. There would be no walking away, as in this case.[/quote]
Religions should get no special treatment whatsoever, if that is what you are inferring from what I wrote then you are correct.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.
I have to admit I was a bit slow catching on to the implications of this post. In Cockney’s world, where religious institutions are treated as businesses, the power of the state would be guaranteed. Workplace anti-discrimination laws and regulations could be fully employed to hammer religion into obedience. There would be no walking away, as in this case.
Religions should get no special treatment whatsoever, if that is what you are inferring from what I wrote then you are correct.[/quote]
Heck, I actually want to thank you. I thought you might be reluctant to admit the direction your view would lead us. Really, I figured we’d end up trading posts, with me trying to convince you that the above would come to be. And maybe, maybe, dragging a confirmation from you that it was not only inevitable, but also, to you, desirable.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Churches are a very long way from non-profit organisations.
How is that exactly?
Because Cockney doesn’t actually understand what a non-profit is.[/quote]
But the Church doesn’t have a tax free status because it is not for profit, it has a tax free status because it is a religious institution. This means it avoids a lot of the auditing that any other not for profit business would have to go through, this is wrong.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Churches are a very long way from non-profit organisations.
How is that exactly?
Because Cockney doesn’t actually understand what a non-profit is.
But the Church doesn’t have a tax free status because it is not for profit, it has a tax free status because it is a religious institution. This means it avoids a lot of the auditing that any other not for profit business would have to go through, this is wrong.[/quote]
If you’re going to say something’s wrong, you best have an explanation as to why.
Sounds to me like you are completely alright with the one-way door in the wall between church and state that Sloth was talking about earlier.
Actually they are losing money in the states at the moment due to all the lawsuits about child abuse but that is besides the point.[/quote]
Setting aside that I am certain you made that up (churches’ current economic woes are a result of defending lawsuits), it doesn’t answer the question as to why a church is not like a non-profit.
So, again - per your statement, why is a church not like a non-profit?
But the Church doesn’t have a tax free status because it is not for profit, it has a tax free status because it is a religious institution. This means it avoids a lot of the auditing that any other not for profit business would have to go through, this is wrong.[/quote]
Actually they are losing money in the states at the moment due to all the lawsuits about child abuse but that is besides the point.
Setting aside that I am certain you made that up (churches’ current economic woes are a result of defending lawsuits), it doesn’t answer the question as to why a church is not like a non-profit.
So, again - per your statement, why is a church not like a non-profit?
[/quote]
It is a fact, in the past several dioces in the US passed large amounts of money to the Vatican each year, the last few years they have recieved money from the Vatican due to the legal bills. Seriously, if you doubt this pull the annual report for the dioces of New York or LA and read it.