truth dancer wrote:How does the law distinguish between "the church" and the men who run the church?
In other words, it is the men who run the church who wrote the letter read in Sac Marjorie Taylor-Greene, men who run the church who organized the movement to support Prop 8, men who run the church (SPs) who called members in to their offices to "ask" them to donate various amounts of money to the cause, and men who who run the church who designed the whole plan to get members to work together to remove the rights of a group of people in California.
Some members did what they were told, and were not physically forced to donate and work for the cause, still the leaders of the LDS church developed, organized, and promoted the plan that was implemented by members.
What is the church if not the leaders/members of the church?
~td~
Sure
All this was part of the effort by those who run the Church. SPs and Bishop included. But members going out on their own, driving people to places to assist and so on is not the Church per say. There is a line there somewhere. But the real question as far as tax exemption goes is the one I already noted above.
All this was part of the effort by those who run the Church. SPs and Bishop included. But members going out on their own, driving people to places to assist and so on is not the Church per say. There is a line there somewhere.
So Jason, in your opinion, if proven to be true would this cross the line?
From the sworn complaint:
News reports said that students at BYU – Idaho in Rexburg, Idaho were using a call center in that town every Thursday evening to call voters in California. This type of interstate phone network requires a lot of setup, supervision, voter sheets, scripts, training and the price of the calls. Call centers are used to communicate with nonmembers. Phone centers in place to contact nonmembers would constitute a contribution. No contribution was reported
But the real question as far as tax exemption goes is the one I already noted above.
truth dancer wrote:... What is the church if not the leaders/members of the church? ~td~
It must be something different.
You know,
the church is perfect, the leaders/members are not
Didn't You hear this phrase many, many times? After members or leaders, especially prophets do/say something er .. um .. not doctrinal at that time?
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
The whole issue of tax exemption, regardless of whether they interfere with politics or not, needs to be overhauled. Deductions for charity are one thing, but deductions that specifically allow churches to grow fat and wealthy are obscene.
It is absurd that tax deductions are allowed for tithing, when tithing is specifically NOT for charity work.
...despite undiminishing poverty and growing secularisation – many churches and religious groups sit on a largely undisclosed stash of property holdings, investment funds and trading revenues as part of a valuable portfolio made all the more valuable by their tax-exempt status as charitable organisations.
“Why should a non-religious taxpayer subsidise these churches to become exponentially richer? It’s a mechanism for proselytisation, a massive shift from public money to religious organisations. True charity work is providing relief from poverty.”
... Should the state, on behalf of believers and non-believers alike, support religious proselytisation?
Wallace [Author of The Purple Economy] says no. “Supernatural charities can have their belief systems and proselytise to their hearts’ content. What they should not have is unqualified tax-exempt income to promote these beliefs at the expense of that nominally secular democracy comprising an increasing number of citizens who have no interest in the ideational culture of religions.”
...
Paul Morris, professor of religious studies at Victoria University, agrees – a tremendous amount of grassroots work is undertaken by the voluntary sector, including religious groups – but if organisations receive a subsidy from the state in terms of tax exemptions, they should open their books.
“If you’re not paying tax that’s a privilege and everyone should have transparent and audited accounts. All their public expenditure should be publicly available. There’s no earthly reason why there shouldn’t be complete transparency.” ...
As he writes in The Purple Economy, tax exemptions for religious groups do not come from an abstract god. They come from taxpayers. As such, he says, giving up on his now stone-cold coffee, “religious charities should be fiscally accountable for the income they earn. Questions do need to be raised. The whole issue needs to be reviewed.”
The whole issue of tax exemption, regardless of whether they interfere with politics or not, needs to be overhauled. Deductions for charity are one thing, but deductions that specifically allow churches to grow fat and wealthy are obscene.
For whatever reason our government believes Church's are one of the organizations that should qualify for tax exemption. If you disagree start lobbying congress to change the law.
It is absurd that tax deductions are allowed for tithing, when tithing is specifically NOT for charity work.
The LDS Church does lot's of charity work but that misses the point. There are many organizations that qualify for tax exemption that are not charitable in their activity. And you can get tax deduction for supporting a number of those. Universities would top the list there. Contribute to Harvard and you get a charitable tax deduction. Contribute to the American Legion you do as well.
Danna wrote: True charity work is providing relief from poverty.”
Not so. There is a lot more to charity work than only providing relief from poverty. There is a lot moe to charity work than that done by churches. And who gets to decide what is "true" charity work and what is, by definition, "untrue"?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
RAJ wrote:And on that score, I was part of a group working before the election to identify as many individual Mormon donors as possible.
And your work was quite effective, publicly "outing" the private religious affiliations of donors. (Had the government done what you did, it would have been a privacy rights violation. The government is prohibited from violating the First Amendment by "exposing" private affiliations of citizens, especially those relating to religion.) Your work has done well to serve as the basis of personal attacks at homes and places of business, including my own. I have had to do a lot of backfilling to keep my job.
I wonder what might have happened if the pro-Prop 8 formed a "group working before the election to identify as many individual [gay] donors as possible?"
I will survive what you have done, but I question the need to personally attack donors who have done nothing but exercise their constitutional rights.
Last edited by _rcrocket on Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.
rcrocket wrote:I have had to do a lot of backfilling to keep my job.
That's being a bit over-dramatic, don't ya think? You're a senior partner at a major law firm (with plenty of LDS lawyers). They can't purge the firm for donating to "Yes on 8."
"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)
And your work was quite effective, publicly "outing" the private religious affiliations of donors. (Had the government done what you did, it would have been a privacy rights violation. The government is prohibited from violating the First Amendment by "exposing" private affiliations of citizens, especially those relating to religion.) Your work has done well to serve as the basis of personal attacks at homes and places of business, including my own. I have had to do a lot of backfilling to keep my job.
Not too happy about having the deceptive tactics of the LDS Church exposed? Tough. Since the identifications were not done under any color of authority there is nothing illegal about them. Isn't that what Mormons like to stress?, "what we've done is completely legal".
When a small group of geriatric gentlemen from the Inter-Mountain west reach into California and seek to implement a plan that is COMPLETELY top-down, but is meant, on its face, to look completely grassroots, I have no problem participating in an effort to expose such a plan. If the Church is going to behave like a Political Action Committee, they're going to be treated like one. All individual members who want to do the Church leadership's bidding need to understand that. You know what they say, If you can't stand the heat...
Not too happy about having the deceptive tactics of the LDS Church exposed? Tough. Since the identifications were not done under any color of authority there is nothing illegal about them. Isn't that what Mormons like to stress?, "what we've done is completely legal".
When a small group of geriatric gentlemen from the Inter-Mountain west reach into California and seek to implement a plan that is COMPLETELY top-down, but is meant, on its face, to look completely grassroots, I have no problem participating in an effort to expose such a plan. If the Church is going to behave like a Political Action Committee, they're going to be treated like one. All individual members who want to do the Church leadership's bidding need to understand that.
Deceptive? Hiding the top down approach? I think the Church was fairly public about what it was saying and doing about this.
You know what they say, If you can't stand the heat...
Ah, another person who condones violence, hatred and vandalism against those they disagree with even though those they disagree with operated within the law. And those with whom they disagree seem to be to some extent operating outside the law. Disagree with what the Mormons and others in favor of Prop 8 did. That is fine. But it is interesting that the Prop 8 supporters did nothing like what we see from the religionphobes now.