Mormon Church negotiates for Italian Welfare!

[_Pahoran]

what are your feelings on the Mormons wanting tax payer money in Italy??

Interesting information, Vegasdon. Do you have any online sources that we could go to in order to check this claim out?

Of course he doesn't. It's a fabrication.

All I can say is that the LDS Church is accustomed to being subsidized by all of the people in this country who do pay taxes in the form of tithes, offerings, and their tax-exempt status.

Since "all you can say" is false, you might actually be better off saying nothing.

Obviously, they get their own form of handouts in this country, so it would not be surprising to me at all to find them approaching the Italian government with their hands out waiting for their cut of those tax dollars.

Tell us, Kish: are you really ignorant enough to believe that undiluted wastewater from a swine cleaning facility, or do you just like it because it is false?

If you don't want your vacuous prejudices to be challenged in any way, then I suggest you stop reading at this point. Because here are three relevant facts you'd prefer not to know.

First: Tax is not a way for the government to subsidise anything; it is a way in which citizens are forced to subsidise the government. It is not a "subsidy" to not tax an organisation. Certain kinds of organisations and activities are traditionally not taxed, either because they are outside of the government's purview, or because they relieve the state of a burden that it would otherwise have to shoulder.

Churches in particular are not taxed primarily because, in any ostensibly free country, they are not subject to the authority of the state. Anyone who claims to believe in "separation of church and state" but who advocates the taxing of churches is a liar.

Second: A number of years ago, when the "W" administration was talking about setting up its "faith-based initiatives," your fellow-haters -- the Kishkumen clique -- were smugly predicting that the Church would be first in line to get the government handouts.

I disagreed.

In the event, I was right, and the oinkers were wrong. Hardly surprising, really.

Third: In this country, the Church ran a high school for over fifty years. Two thirds of the students boarded on campus. The parents -- of both day and boarding students -- paid virtually peppercorn fees. The New Zealand government was obligated by law to provide a considerable subsidy to the school, based upon the fact that it was educating students who would otherwise have to be catered for by the public educational system. So, each year the government sent the school a state aid cheque, and every year the school returned it.

That's because -- contrary to your vast and utterly fact-free prejudices, the Church does not want government money.

In a way, the LDS Church is like any other corporation, except that it is managed by men who are less savvy than your average CEO and who are unlikely to be fired for screwing up. In this country, corporations and banks get billions of dollars in taxpayer welfare. It is in that mode of doing business that the LDS Church has its hands outstretched to feed on the labors of the Italian worker.

What a pity the premise for your spiteful remarks is false.

Clearly, Kish, having your prejudices untrammelled by any actual facts makes life easier for you. They tell me you're a professor in real life. What chair is it you hold, again? The Christopher Hitchens/Richard Dawkins Chair of Religious Understanding at Imsomuchsmarterthan U?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I think this article might be what Vegasdon is referring to:

http://lds-law.org/2009/10/06/lds-church-hires-lobbying-firm-to-help-gain-status-in-italy/

[Guest]

Hey, Pahoran!

It's great to see you again. I see you are still the same old vicious attack dog you've always been. It is a real comfort to see that in the midst of the many changes in the world, you remain constant.

Of course he doesn't. It's a fabrication.

It may very well be. Since I don't generally conclude that something is the case without some evidence to support one view or the other, I remain open to the possibility that such a thing could happen. Is there some reason you think it isn't possible?

Since "all you can say" is false, you might actually be better off saying nothing.

Wrong.

Tell us, Kish: are you really ignorant enough to believe that undiluted wastewater from a swine cleaning facility, or do you just like it because it is false?

I know you are eager to pronounce the claim false based on the fact that it is not flattering of the LDS Church. I asked a question because I was doubtful, but at the same time it did not seem impossible. I opined on why I thought it was not impossible.

Are you pigheaded and jingoistic enough to assume that every negative claim about the LDS Church is automatically false?

First: Tax is not a way for the government to subsidise anything; it is a way in which citizens are forced to subsidise the government. It is not a "subsidy" to not tax an organisation. Certain kinds of organisations and activities are traditionally not taxed, either because they are outside of the government's purview, or because they relieve the state of a burden that it would otherwise have to shoulder.

As you crap out the usual ideological talking points, tax academics are tackling these very issues as things that are not simply givens because Pahoran and his ilk say so.

Churches in particular are not taxed primarily because, in any ostensibly free country, they are not subject to the authority of the state. Anyone who claims to believe in "separation of church and state" but who advocates the taxing of churches is a liar.

That absolute position simply holds no water. Nations regularly pass laws that impact the functioning of religious organizations. The choice of whether to tax religious organizations or not is an issue that is, like practically any other, up for debate. Your statement that "religious organizations are not subject to the authority of the state" is laughably erroneous.

If you are maintaining that they should not be, because you say so, or you believe that this should be the case, then that is one thing. None of this stuff is self evident. I don't care how many revelations you have received affirming the truth of your ideas.

In the event, I was right, and the oinkers were wrong. Hardly surprising, really.

I know you have every confidence that you are always right. So?

That's because -- contrary to your vast and utterly fact-free prejudices, the Church does not want government money.

That's a wonderful anecdote about New Zealand. It says nothing about what is happening in Italy, if anything is happening in Italy. And, even in the New Zealand case, you have no insider understanding of what motivated the Church's decision. Your evidence is of limited value.

I'll give you this, you offered more than Vegasdon, but that really isn't saying much, is it?

What a pity the premise for your spiteful remarks is false.

Because you say so, which is generally the authority you rely on.

Clearly, Kish, having your prejudices untrammelled by any actual facts makes life easier for you.

Well, Pahoran, other than sharing a fun little anecdote about one high school in New Zealand, which, last time I checked, is neither Italy nor the United States, I don't see that you've done much of anything here. And frankly, I am not going to waste my time having a non-argument, slam-fest with an ignorant jackass who brings a single story about a single high school in New Zealand to the table, oh, and his risible, ignorant notions of the absolute sovereignty of religious organizations.

Thanks for playing.

[_Kishkumen]

The intesa sought by the LDS Church would actually entitle the Church to public funds, but Zackrison says the proposed draft agreement promises that the Mormon Church would never accept such funds.

I doubt Vegasdon saw this article, or read it closely, but this obviously closes the matter. The LDS Church says that it will never accept the public funds to which it would be entitled under this form of official state recognition. I'm impressed.

[_Pahoran]

I think this article might be what Vegasdon is referring to:

http://lds-law.org/2009/10/06/lds-church-hires-lobbying-firm-to-help-gain-status-in-italy/

Thank you.

From the article:

According to John Zackrison, former in-house counsel for the Mormon Church and now outside counsel working at Kirton & McConkie, the intesa the Church seeks would provide benefits such as a streamlined process to license Mormon ecclesiastical leaders to perform civil marriages and easier missionary visa renewals. There are also significant tax benefits, such as easier property tax exemptions and some charitable contribution deductions for individual Mormons. The intesa sought by the LDS Church would actually entitle the Church to public funds, but Zackrison says the proposed draft agreement promises that the Mormon Church would never accept such funds.

Note the highlighted portions.

On the strength of this information, I must revise my earlier opinion. This is not merely a fabrication in the sense that the OP makes up a story out of whole cloth; rather, it is an explicit assertion contrary to fact.

No wonder it's so popular in this sty.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kishkumen]

On the strength of this information, I must revise my earlier opinion. This is not merely a fabrication in the sense that the OP makes up a story out of whole cloth; rather, it is an explicit assertion contrary to fact.

No wonder it's so popular in this sty.

Pahoran is an excellent mind reader. From a single post he knows exactly what motivated Vegasdon, and it could only be really, really, evil.

For Pahoran, it isn't possible that Vegasdon was ignorant of some of the facts.

And, Vegasdon's post was "so popular" that it racked up a flurry of responses. Everyone on the board rushed here to get their licks in. Right?

Wrong. Instead, it obviously turned into a very weak thread, largely because Vegasdon did not back up his claim. You see, absent any evidence, the claim was dying on the vine with most people on the board refraining from saying anything. And, granted that what I said was unkind and unfair, I did ask for evidence.

Pahoran is happy to speak in direct contradiction of the evidence, as we can see in his characterization of this board based on this thread. Way to go, Pahoran!

You are one of the worst apologists around. You should do the LDS Church a favor and find a new hobby. You suck at this one.

[_Pahoran]

Of course he doesn't. It's a fabrication.

It may very well be. Since I don't generally conclude that something is the case without some evidence to support one view or the other, I remain open to the possibility that such a thing could happen. Is there some reason you think it isn't possible?

Yes: because I understand how the Church works.

I know you are eager to pronounce the claim false based on the fact that it is not flattering of the LDS Church.

Nearly right; that's actually why you and the rest of the oink chorus find it so attractive.

I asked a question because I was doubtful, but at the same time it did not seem impossible. I opined on why I thought it was not impossible.

Oh, so then you wouldn't have written anything like this:

It is in that mode of doing business that the LDS Church has its hands outstretched to feed on the labors of the Italian worker.

Except you did.

In the event, I was right, and the oinkers were wrong. Hardly surprising, really.

I know you have every confidence that you are always right. So?

So the events proved me right. The Church publicly stated that it was not interested in participating in GWB's faith-based initiatives, as I predicted, leaving the swine who so readily assumed it would be eager to "feed on the labors of the worker" with egg all over their snouts.

Which vastly improved their looks.

The LDS Church says that it will never accept the public funds to which it would be entitled under this form of official state recognition. I'm impressed.

No need to be. As I already told you, that is SOP for the Church.

As you would know, if you were one tenth as qualified to pontificate about Mormon things as you regularly pretend to be.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

According to John Zackrison, former in-house counsel for the Mormon Church and now outside counsel working at Kirton & McConkie, the intesa the Church seeks would provide benefits such as a streamlined process to license Mormon ecclesiastical leaders to perform civil marriages and easier missionary visa renewals. There are also significant tax benefits, such as easier property tax exemptions and some charitable contribution deductions for individual Mormons. The intesa sought by the LDS Church would actually entitle the Church to public funds, but Zackrison says the proposed draft agreement promises that the Mormon Church would never accept such funds.

Note the highlighted portions.

On the strength of this information, I must revise my earlier opinion. This is not merely a fabrication in the sense that the OP makes up a story out of whole cloth; rather, it is an explicit assertion contrary to fact.

No wonder it's so popular in this sty.

Regards,
Pahoran

Why is one of the Church's PR people is being treated like a reliable and authoritative source here? At best, it seems to me that this is going to entail a "wait and see" attitude. Sure: maybe the Church will stand by it's "promise," but the only way to know for certain is to wait until all the paperwork has been squared away.

Plus, what's the deal with Zackrison's weirdly shifting affiliation? First he's "in-house" counsel, and now he's "outside" counsel with a law firm known for aggressively going after the Church's "enemies"? What's up with that?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Welcome to the cutting edge of Mopologetics.

[_Pahoran]

Why is one of the Church's PR people is being treated like a reliable and authoritative source here? At best, it seems to me that this is going to entail a "wait and see" attitude. Sure: maybe the Church will stand by it's "promise," but the only way to know for certain is to wait until all the paperwork has been squared away.

I'm certainly prepared to "wait and see" what kind of convoluted theory the scumbag-in-chief is going to come up with. I'm guessing that your alters, I mean "informants," will start whispering into your brain that there is some "faction" within the Church that is really trying to squeeze a few lire out of the Italian government; every bit of data that runs counter to that idiotic notion will be treated as if it supported it; and in the end, when the Church really does enter into an agreement that gets it no dosh, you will either assert that some competing "faction" stopped the first "faction" from getting its way, or else that the Church was somehow "defeated" and had to accept a deal in which it got only what it really wanted in the first place.

Or perhaps both.

Plus, what's the deal with Zackrison's weirdly shifting affiliation? First he's "in-house" counsel, and now he's "outside" counsel with a law firm known for aggressively going after the Church's "enemies"? What's up with that?

It's called "changing employment." Professional people often do that as their careers progress, as you would know if you actually knew any professional people.

Regards,
Pahoran