quote:Gay advocates fight churches' charity status Institutions fear losing tax breaks if they oppose same-sex unions; Rightly so, gay-rights group says
Alex Hutchinson The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning.
"If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings, and is behind www.equalmarriage.ca.
"We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."
Why am I not surprised? Is anyone surprised? All this time we were being scoffed at and denounced as extremists, alarmists and bigots for warning that the gay "marriage" lobby was a barely-veiled, direct attack on churches. Only a few weeks ago, at the pro-marriage rally on Parliament Hill (in Ottawa), the small group of pro-gay activists were vociferously shouting that it had "nothing to do with religion."
posted
That's odd...I am not gay, but I understand their point...
These chruches are fighting their right, as it stands now, to marry.....and recieveing public funds at the same time?
Sounds like they might have a point, don't you think? Why is it OK for the Church to attack their rights, but if they in return fight the Church they are persecuting that Church?
posted
I was not aware of any churches in Canada that received government funding. To my knowledge, they have tax free status as religious organizations as long as they do not make a profit.
Now, for religious organizations to lose their tax free status because they oppose gay marriage - that I have a problem with.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I don't see why they should be taxed.
Well, why shouldn't they? To the extent that they own land and are businesses, why should they be treated any differently than any other organisation? Of course, a church doesn't usually have much income, or so I assume, but property is usually taxable, right?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, yes, that makes sense. Still, since the reasons for the rule are now gone, time for the rule to go.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Churches do not recieve tax money. They are exempt from paying taxes on income because most of that income is directed towards charity work (I believe this only applies to income taxes, not property taxes.) They are not the only organizations that do not pay taxes.
The assertion that religious organizations are a thinly-veiled attack on human rights of homosexuals is idiotic at best. Changing the definition of marriage is not a human right. No rights are being denied. To suggest withdrawing charitable organization status from churches who disagree with the politically correct radical left-wing view is a direct attack on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In effect, if you take away that tax-free status, you are no longer recognizing them as a religious organization.
Also, the debate about gay "marriage" is in no way a partisan political issue, it's a very controversial social issue that spans party lines. Churches are forbidden from using their tax-free status from engaging in partisan politics; but this is not a question of politics, it's a question of values. To reduce it to a simple political question is to show utter contempt for any semblance of reason and honesty.
Of course, that seems to be a very popular trend in Canadian politics.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Churches do not recieve tax money. They are exempt from paying taxes on income because most of that income is directed towards charity work (I believe this only applies to income taxes, not property taxes.) They are not the only organizations that do not pay taxes.
Not sure about Canada, in the US churches are not subject to much tax. It varies by state. In Georgia churches and other non-profits are exempt from property taxes. Ga. code listingPosts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I don't see why they should be taxed.
Well, why shouldn't they? To the extent that they own land and are businesses, why should they be treated any differently than any other organisation? Of course, a church doesn't usually have much income, or so I assume, but property is usually taxable, right?
Because a very, VERY large percentage of charity work and humanitarian aid programs are run through religious institutions. Without tax exemption, most of those institutions would not have the money required to operate most of those charities. As the money then goes into the hands of the government, which does not have many specific organizations currently set up to perform charity work or administer humanitarian aid. To say that religions don't have a right to be tax exempt is the exact same thing as saying that no non-religious charities and humanitarian aid groups have that right either. Churches receive NO aid whatsoever from the government aside from Tax Exempt Status. Non-Profit organizations are always eligible to receive grants from the government. This particular scenario is basically one group attempting to use government intervention to influence the beliefs of all religions. Perhaps you should start thinking about the other end of the seperation of church and state. The government has no right whatsoever to influence the beliefs of any religion as long as those religions do not directly attempt to influence the political choices of their members. The one thread a few months back that talked about the congregation that kicked several members out of the church for voting for Kerry is a glaring example of religion influencing political choice. The opposite of this situation is what is happening now, with gay rights activists attempting to force religions to believe a certain way if they want to continue operating without government interference.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dh: To suggest withdrawing charitable organization status from churches who disagree with the politically correct radical left-wing view is a direct attack on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Although I agree that it is an attack on freedom of religion, I'm curious as to how supporting gay marriages is a radical left-wing view.
Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you'll recall, the church whose pastor excommunicated anyone that voted for Kerry was apparently in danger of losing its tax exemption also. The point being that churches are not political institutions, so if they step outside the role of religious institution, and into the political arena, they aren't functioning within the guidelines that gave them tax exempt status in the first place.
quote: Under current rules, donations to religious groups are tax-privileged as long as the church refrains from partisan political activity.
I don't think this is grounds for removing religious tax exemptions as a whole, but any particular church that crosses certain borders puts itself at risk of being declared a political action group rather than a church.
That could operated on a per church level, as it did with that one particular pastor, but it could also work on a higher level if an entire denomination refuses to obey the law.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm against taking away churches' tax exempt status, for the most part, but churches use government all the time to try and influence the political and social process--this is both [url= http://hhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22religious+lobbyists%22&btnG=Search]liberal and conservative[/url] groups. It's extremely silly to claim otherwise.
It's not persecution when the worm turns.
edit: Let me rephrase that, as it is inaccurate. It is persecution, but it is of a type that seems to be part and parcel of politics.
posted
Take away the space between url and the url maybe?
That said, I don't think that churches should be involved in politics at all. Which means that they shouldn't be able to protest Gay marriage as long as they aren't obligated to perform marriages to homosexuals.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Canada, political organizations have the same tax-free status (and those who donate to the political organizations receive the same tax breaks) as religious organizations and those who donate to them.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that churches which tell people to vote for specific candidates or not to vote for other specific candidates (or parties) by name could safely be termed politically active.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, when you excommunicate the democratic party I think that's pretty obvious.
As to the Gay Marriage thing, I think that's a much grayer area. It would depend on how they opposed it.
I think the Catholic church has refused to perform marriage for divorced people, even though the law allows remarriage, so what's the difference between that and refusing to perform gay marriage?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Bush paved the way for select religious institutions to receive money from the government.
"with gay rights activists attempting to force religions to believe a certain way if they want to continue operating without government interference."
I don't think most gay rights activists are trying to force religions to believe anything in particular. I think they are trying to stop those religions from making their views the law of the land.
I also think that when a religious institution starts using its money and influence to try and change the law, it becomes a PAC, and needs to be treated as such when it comes to tax status. If they want to keep their tax exempt status, let them create their own PAC like other interest groups do and they can fund it according to finance rules. They shouldn't get a bottomless well to spend from, tax exempt, in a playing field with groups who do not share the same luxury.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think the Catholic church has refused to perform marriage for divorced people, even though the law allows remarriage, so what's the difference between that and refusing to perform gay marriage? "
You don't see the Catholic Church setting up a campaign to get the government to outlaw remarrying divorced people do you?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there is a rather large coalition of churches working to remake marriage law such that it is harder to get divorced. I wouldn't be suprised if the Catholic Church was in there somewhere.
If you look through some of the links in my screwed up Google search, you'll see that pretty much every 'major' church in the U.S. uses lobbyists to get laws passed, defeated, etc.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And just to repeat, I am against churches being taxed. However, I think they shouldn't be taxed for the same reason any non-profit group shouldn't, not based on whether or not a church is 'political'. Let's face it, they are.
Churches should be able to endorse or not endorse whatever candidate they want, just like the Red Cross or UNICEF or any other American person or organization should. To say otherwise is ridiculous, imho.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I despise it when one or two fanatics on either side are taken as proof that the whole side. These guys are mad because their marriages are being denied because it interfers with the religious beliefs of another group of people. When your religion starts effecting my life, it is political. Hence they throw the only card they can think of, the "Tax Exempt Status" card.
Not bright and not productive.
I still don't understand how two men wanting to get married is an attack on your church, any more than two people not of your faith, or of mixed faith, or previously divorced, getting married, is an attack on your church. As long as they don't ask for the ceremony to be done by your ministers, in your church, what is the difference?
My wife was Catholic. When we went to get married, they refused to hold the ceremony outside. They didn't recognize any marriage not done in the church. We married with a minister from a different denomination. To the Catholic church, my wife and I are adulterers despite 16 years of monogomy. Further, neither of us plans to quit commiting those acts of adultery. Yet the Catholic church is not frothing at the mouth demanding that our marriage is immoral or a sin. Nor has our marriage led to an assault on the Catholic church with lawsuits demanding that they recognize our marriage as valid and surrender thier beliefs.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You don't see the Catholic Church setting up a campaign to get the government to outlaw remarrying divorced people do you?
I simply offered two examples at opposite ends of the spectrum. If the church refuses to perform a marriage, that's different than if a church funds television commercials to affect a vote on a gay marriage law (for a different example).
BTW, I happen to think that churches get an extra sweet deal on the tax exemptions. While churches that operate on a not for profit level may deserve tax exempt status, there are a lot of religious businesses (like televangelists with rolex watches) that are clearly set up for the purpose of lining their own pockets, but they can simply claim tax exempt status because they are "religous organizations." Something's not right there.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
My wife is still an active member of the Catholic chruch, despite being married by a presbyterian minister and to an atheist. I don't know that she's ever heard any whispers about her adultery.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:To say that religions don't have a right to be tax exempt is the exact same thing as saying that no non-religious charities and humanitarian aid groups have that right either.
An eminently sensible approach. It's time we cleaned up our tax codes; they're so full of exmeptions that they must surely cost more to administer than anyone saves on them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do humanitarian aid groups and non religious charities really have legislative agendas though?
I can't remember the last time UNICEF or LAF tried to get the government to change the law about anything. They might have been trying to wring more money out for funding, but there's nothing new there. Sure they have agendas, they want funding for their projects, but they aren't trying to change the law, they aren't trying to influence domestic politics like many religious tax-exempt groups are.
I don't think there should be a blanket order to take back the tax exempt status of every religious group, but I think ones that cross the line should be given a warning or something.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of right or wrong, this is a just a stupid fight for gay rights activists to be picking. It's not actually important at all in the grand scheme of things, and all they can possibly achieve by doing so is to alienate people.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well it seems silly to make any judgement or rule about what someone CAN do. I could commit murder, but I don't, should I be detained of my freedom ahead of time?
I think it should be just like breaking any law, if you break the rules, you lose the benefits you enjoyed by following the rules.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Scott- who decides if the church is being "political" or protesting on religious grounds?
Abortion is legal, should a church lose its tax exempt status if it funds anti-abortion groups with some of its donation money?
If homosexual unions are opposed on religious grounds, then why is a church speaking out against it "political?" No one tells churches they can't speak out against abortion, or adultery, or divorced people remarrying, and says that's political. Why is gay marriage treated any differently?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are exempt from paying taxes on income because most of that income is directed towards charity work (I believe this only applies to income taxes, not property taxes.) They are not the only organizations that do not pay taxes.
I remember reading that churches recieve 75% of the charitable donations that Americans give, but only 3% of what they give is donated to charity and the vast majority of what's actually going to charity goes only to chuch members.
Let me find the references....
Okay, the Barna group reported that in 2003, 3 out of every four dollars donated to charity in the US went to churches.
And the three percent figure came from Newsweek. Here's the reference: “social programs attract an average of less than 3 percent of a congregation’s annual budget” (“Of God and Mammon,” Feb. 12, 2001, page 25)
So, if the rationale for making churches tax exempt is that they are basically charities, it would seem that it wouldn't really hold up more than to make them three or maybe even five percent tax exempt.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So charity given to members of the church isn't charity? Does that 3-5% "donated to charity" mean only 3-5% was given to ANOTHER charity to administer?
If they define charity as help given to people who are NOT members of the church, no wonder it's such a low percentage. Weird definition, though.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, if the rationale for making churches tax exempt is that they are basically charities, it would seem that it wouldn't really hold up more than to make them three or maybe even five percent tax exempt.
Only if you don't count spiritual and religious guidance as charity, which seems a specious distinction to make. Most churches I've come across will let anyone in during most services, with some particular exceptions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know my pastor is very careful about what he says from the pulpit out of fear of loosing the tax exempt status. Mostly along the political lines of endorsing a candidate. He’ll certainly mention issues and talk about what side the bible takes on an issue. But for example he had me set up a registration table before elections last year at the church and warned me not to even say anything political while doing it. Very strange. I know of another area church that doesn’t take the tax exempt status so the pastor doesn’t have to worry about losing it so he does what he feels lead to do and even had candidates speak at some services. To put my two cents in, we seem to allow many groups to get the 501c3 non profit status. I don’t understand why it’s only churches who get scrutinized so hard on what they say. Seems to be a double standard on the whole supposed “separation of church and state” issue.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the three percent is charity overall, with most of the three percent going to members.
I don't really count spiritual or religious guidance as charity. I don't see why you would. Charity is aid for the poor. I mean, if I run a museum where people can come in and see the paintings with only a donation, that doesn't mean that I'm offering charity. I may not be a for-profit organization, but allowing poor people to look at the paintings just like anyone else isn't precisely my idea of the spirit of charity, even if they're grateful for the opportunity to get in from the outdoors or grateful to expand their horizons by looking at some paintings.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you sure? I'd really like to see the source for that number - where Newsweek got it, I mean. Newsweek is not infallible.
It's like that study that showed how "stingy" Southerners really were, because they donated so little to charity. If you don't count churches as charity, of course it gets lower. Talk about selective reporting.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll look when I get back from lunch, but at the time I read it originally, I looked for a rebuttal in the editors' section for a couple of months afterward. No one seemed to factually dispute the numbers. However, since most churches do not release their financial numbers, it's hard to be one hundred percent sure where your money is going.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't really count spiritual or religious guidance as charity. I don't see why you would. Charity is aid for the poor.
That's a rather limited definition of the word "charity," and certainly not the one referenced when using the word "charity" while discussing tax policy.
quote:I mean, if I run a museum where people can come in and see the paintings with only a donation, that doesn't mean that I'm offering charity.
So do you propse revoking museums tax-deductible status, then?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify Hobbes's post a little, the therapist can be paid, but the customer can't be charged (or must be charged below the prevalent rate) for it qualify as a charity. And if the lowered charges were enough to tip the organization into profitability, they'd have to do something charitable with the money to keep the tax exemption.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Abortion is legal, should a church lose its tax exempt status if it funds anti-abortion groups with some of its donation money?
If homosexual unions are opposed on religious grounds, then why is a church speaking out against it "political?" No one tells churches they can't speak out against abortion, or adultery, or divorced people remarrying, and says that's political. Why is gay marriage treated any differently?"
According to that logic, every political organization in the country should be tax exempt. After all, they are only trying to support their beliefs. Again, I have no problem with religious institutions speaking out against whatever they want, it's when they use tax exempt dollars to fight a cause against people who don't share that same benefit where I start to have a problem with it. What you're saying there is just because they have a religious conflict with the issue at hand, they are more important than someone with a mere moral argument, and I don't buy that as important enough.
Free speech all the way, but if they want to get involved in the money game, they need to play by the rules any other PAC plays by.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
