Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Ray A

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _Ray A »

It's a traditional lifestyle they believe is now at risk. That's why the Pattersons recently made a huge financial sacrifice – they withdrew $50,000 from their savings and donated it to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, the ballot measure that seeks to ban same-sex marriage.

"It was a decision we made very prayerfully and carefully," said Pam Patterson, 48. "Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children."


And one comment about the article:

The dire effects or Prop 8 will not be felt by my generation, but future generations will be taught otherwise. And our lessons about the sanctity of traditional marriage at church and at home will be undermined. That's exactly what has happened in states and countries that have legalized gay marriage.


Maybe people should do some study before making such comments or decisions. A 2004 study of Scandinavian countries which legalised same-sex marriage showed quite the contrary:

* "There is no evidence that giving partnership rights to same-sex couples had any impact on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. Marriage rates, divorce rates, and non-marital birth rates have been changing in Scandinavia, Europe and the United States for the past thirty years. But those changes have occurred in all countries, regardless of whether or not they adopted same-sex partnership laws, and these trends were underway well before the passage of laws that gave same-sex couples rights."
* "Divorce rates (in Scandinavia) have not risen since the passage of partnership laws and marriage rates have remained stable or actually increased."
* "Non-marital birth rates have not risen faster in Scandinavia or the Netherlands since the passage of partnership laws. Although there has been a long-term trend toward the separation of sex, reproduction, and marriage in the industrialized west, this trend is unrelated to the legal recognition of same-sex couples."
* "Non-marital birth rates changed just as much in countries without partnership laws as in countries that legally recognize same-sex couples' partnerships."
* "The legal and cultural context in the United States gives many more incentives for heterosexual couples to marry than in Europe and those incentives will still exist even if same-sex couples can marry. Giving same-sex couples marriage or marriage-like rights has not undermined heterosexual marriage in Europe, and it is not likely to do so in the United States."


The full Study (pdf)

And also from Wiki:

Internationally, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.


Mr. Patterson's $50,000 might as well have been flushed down the toilet.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:If that is the best you can do it would be contrary to tax law. A church may lose its tax exempt status if the majority (more than 50%) of its assets and efforts (I'm paraphrasing) are dedicated to political lobbying. The IRS looks to the Church as a whole, not a particular congregation.

So, you would have to have a change in tax law.

It is interesting that that is the only "remedy" offered here. Scratch is afraid to answer because his arguments are purely sophistry -- take always the opposite position and "raise questions". Questions are not evidence.

Whether it is contrary to law or not, the Church is nervous enough about it to mention the tax exempt 'golden calf' several times in the CHI. For example, in the CHI leaders are instructed that "[f]acilities are not to be used for political ... purposes ...," because "[t]o do so violates laws that permit tax exemption of Church property." The CHI goes on: "It is important that stake and ward leaders follow these guidelines to preserve the Church's tax-exempt status. If one stake or ward misuses the Church's tax-exempt status, other Church units could be affected." Even if the activities in CA do not implicate the tax-exempt status of the entire U.S. Church, it certainly may affect CA units that violate tax laws.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_rcrocket

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _rcrocket »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
rcrocket wrote:If that is the best you can do it would be contrary to tax law. A church may lose its tax exempt status if the majority (more than 50%) of its assets and efforts (I'm paraphrasing) are dedicated to political lobbying. The IRS looks to the Church as a whole, not a particular congregation.

So, you would have to have a change in tax law.

It is interesting that that is the only "remedy" offered here. Scratch is afraid to answer because his arguments are purely sophistry -- take always the opposite position and "raise questions". Questions are not evidence.

Whether it is contrary to law or not, the Church is nervous enough about it to mention the tax exempt 'golden calf' several times in the CHI. For example, in the CHI leaders are instructed that "[f]acilities are not to be used for political ... purposes ...," because "[t]o do so violates laws that permit tax exemption of Church property." The CHI goes on: "It is important that stake and ward leaders follow these guidelines to preserve the Church's tax-exempt status. If one stake or ward misuses the Church's tax-exempt status, other Church units could be affected." Even if the activities in CA do not implicate the tax-exempt status of the entire U.S. Church, it certainly may affect CA units that violate tax laws.


Are you thus advocating that the government should strip the church of its tax exempt status even if the law does not require it?
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:Are you thus advocating that the government should strip the church of its tax exempt status even if the law does not require it?

No, only if it's done according to the law. I just think that the Church's very heavy involvment (or at least that by particular Church units) in this issue puts its tax-exempt 'golden calf' at risk (or at least justifies examination by the IRS).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _Mister Scratch »

rcrocket wrote:I still want a response to my question from Scratch, or maybe Rollo.

The "wake up call" and the revelation of the Church's involvement to raise money from its members is rather revealing, I would agree. I also agree with Scratch's comment (as I paraphrase) that it is disingenuous to say that the Church isn't behind the encouragement (or pressure) put upon members.

But, I ask, so what? You find it shocking, revealing, troublesome.


I find it both troublesome and revealing.

What is the remedy?


I didn't say that there was one. I said, rather, that it was understandable that folks might be alarmed at the Church's somewhat sneaky involvement with and funding of this. I suppose the "solution" or "remedy" would be more transparency on the part of the Church.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _Jason Bourne »

rcrocket wrote:The "wake up call" and the revelation of the Church's involvement to raise money from its members is rather revealing, I would agree. I also agree with Scratch's comment (as I paraphrase) that it is disingenuous to say that the Church isn't behind the encouragement (or pressure) put upon members.

.


I never said that the Church was not encouraging this I said they are not the ones giving the money.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _Jason Bourne »

rcrocket wrote:If that is the best you can do it would be contrary to tax law. A church may lose its tax exempt status if the majority (more than 50%) of its assets and efforts (I'm paraphrasing) are dedicated to political lobbying. The IRS looks to the Church as a whole, not a particular congregation.



Are you sure there is a 50% requirment? I thought IRC 501(c)(3) said a such an organization cannot support candidates or attempt to influence legislation. Maybe the 50% thing is in the tax regs and not the code.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

PP wrote:brainless . . . idiot . . . dumbass! . . . fools

And what's more, says PP, they're full of hate.
_collegeterrace
_Emeritus
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:28 am

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _collegeterrace »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
PP wrote:brainless . . . idiot . . . dumbass! . . . fools

And what's more, says PP, they're full of hate.
They don't know any better.
... our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, ... Please don't tell on me. ~maklelan
_rcrocket

Re: Brainless LDS family dumps life savings into prop 8

Post by _rcrocket »

Mister Scratch wrote:
What is the remedy?


I didn't say that there was one. I said, rather, that it was understandable that folks might be alarmed at the Church's somewhat sneaky involvement with and funding of this. I suppose the "solution" or "remedy" would be more transparency on the part of the Church.


Raise questions as if questions alone were evidence, and propose no solutions except what?

More transparency? The Church's website is not enough? http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... position-8 Plainly and clearly the Church is behind the push.

I don't think "more transparency" is what the Gay and Lesbian Alliance have in mind.

So, I reask -- people complain about what the Church is doing to "pressure" its members to contribute, but what is the remedy?

How can you assert a wrong exists without suggesting what might be done about it? [Hint, at least in the law if there is no remedy then it is likely there is no wrong.]
Post Reply