should the LDS church lose it's tax excempt status

[prb]

The way that it works here is that any religious organization can apply for Charitable status. They then receive a 9 digit business number and a 6 character charitable account code (always RR0001).

This number, the phrase "Canada Revenue Agency" and "www.cra-arc.gc.ca" must be mentioned on receipts and this number printed on anything that asks for a donation.

They must, like all other charities, file a Registered Charity Information Return every year. This is made available to the public at the cra-arc.gc.ca website. Like any other entity, they can be audited and must retain records for 7 years from the date of filing the return.

[smileyeagle1021]

PRB, I think you have proven once again, that while more complex, the Canadian code may make more sense than the US code.

[PepperElf]

I will probably offend someone but... well that's why I'm posting this to fratching and NOT to cs

churches / religions are allowed to voice what they believe in general. Such as whether or not they feel homosexual relations are sinful or not.

However they are not allowed to say "go vote for candidate x" or specifics.



However... if the government feels the LDS should lose tax-exempt status for their stance on Prop 8. Then they need to pull tax-exempt status for EVERY SINGLE CHURCH that holds political rallies. And yes there are many of them who have held services just praising a specific candidate.

so that means, if lds can't voice their opinion on prop 8
then no more reverend joe shmo yelling at the top of his lungs at the pulpit "vote for candidate x"

the law is for everyone, not just to be used against people you disagree with.



as for pulling tax-free from all churches. i'm against that.
with the rising costs of fuel and such, it's getting more expensive to heat and light most churches. in my home town they've already closed one church of my religion (it's for sale if you wanna buy it!) and people have consolidated to another church.

it would be nice if all expenses were covered by donations, but they're not. where my family lives one church is actually in debt and is facing possible closings as well if they can't get enough funds

and some people who are against churches might say "good let them close" but... it also hurts people who are poor who can't afford to donate.
and church isn't just for the rich, it's for the poor, so to me... stripping away tax-free status will cause a lot more closings and .. it might not hurt the people woh can afford to go a few more miles (or furter) to get to church, but it will affect the people who can't afford to.

[anriana]

as for pulling tax-free from all churches. i'm against that.
with the rising costs of fuel and such, it's getting more expensive to heat and light most churches. in my home town they've already closed one church of my religion (it's for sale if you wanna buy it!) and people have consolidated to another church.

it would be nice if all expenses were covered by donations, but they're not. where my family lives one church is actually in debt and is facing possible closings as well if they can't get enough funds

and some people who are against churches might say "good let them close" but... it also hurts people who are poor who can't afford to donate.
and church isn't just for the rich, it's for the poor, so to me... stripping away tax-free status will cause a lot more closings and .. it might not hurt the people woh can afford to go a few more miles (or furter) to get to church, but it will affect the people who can't afford to.

Why should an organization be tax-exempt because it can't pay it's bills otherwise? Tax-exempt status is for non-political non-profit organizations, not political organizations who can't cover their operating costs.

[PepperElf]

because they are already tax exempt

i'm just pointing out that taking it away from a church will have negative effects to a community - in response to the notion that no church should get tax exempt status posted earlier

[bunnyboy]

Eh, even if they were threatened...

Again...

They would suddenly have a revelation about how they should ever be away from any politics.

You know just like they were all, no blacks in the priesthood, until they were threatened and had a sudden revelation on how blacks could now hold the priesthood.

yeah it's the Church that has sudden revelation when something threatens their ability to make major amounts of money.

Bitter bunny? No not at all.

And as for taking out the tax exempt status, hey I agree, seem to remember about giving something that belonged to some emperor to that emperor...

[PepperElf]

normally i'd say yes, when a church is specifically saying "vote for *specific name*" or "don't vote for *specific name*"

but over prop 8, that's some grey water right there...

a church is allowed to say whether or not they feel gay marriage is a sin or not.


but here's something else to consider

Were there any churches that publicly said "Vote against Prop 8"?

Because if the Mormon church loses tax-free status for taking an official stand for it... then the same will have to apply to churches who took official stands against it.


To me the question really is... is this latest issue about the law at all
or is it just an attempt to punish the Mormon church over their beliefs?


The way to tell is this... look at the organizations who are pushing the issue. see if they would press the same issues against any church that officially stood against Prop 8.

If they would treat both churches the same then yes, they're really concerned about the law.

If the answer is no... then it's not about the law, it's about fueling a grudge.

[smileyeagle1021]

If the answer is no... then it's not about the law, it's about fueling a grudge.[/color]

The LDS church didn't just say that they were against gay marriage... bishops stood up and said that you should support prop 8. And while I'll admit my bias on the issue and say I'd have less problem with a church publicly opposing prop 8 I still would have a problem with them telling people how they should vote.
I like how my church handled the common ground initiative, while it was an issue the pastor made a point of saying that official church policy is to be accepting of everyone and that everyone deserves equal protections, and if you'd like more information on the matter he would be happy to arrange for you to meet with one of equality utah's representatives... at no point though did he say that you must support the common ground initiative. My roommate saw at least one member of his ward who was practically forced out because he made the mistake of making it known that he opposed prop 8.

That said, the LDS church deserves every grudge against it that they have. Between massacring innocents in Mountain Meadows, to discrimination against blacks and homosexuals, to doing everything in their power to control the state of Utah. Every year the legislature holds a closed door meeting with LDS church officials, and every year all the LDS representatives vote damned near unamimously... and we are to believe this is a coincidence... I think not.
Let's not even go into the number of suicides of gay mormon teens who have been told they must chose between the church they love and who God made them to be. Oh, I don't care how hypocritical it is, that church deserves every punishment that we can find to throw at it.

ETA- and for the record, yes I am bitter over the fact that they promised me that all I had to do to be 'straight' and meet all my family's expectation was to have myself dunked in water and say prayers regularly... I'm bitter over the fact that the ward I was in while living in Logan was kind and accepting and honestly did try to help me with that (even though most of them didn't really know what they were helping me with), they would have failed, but at least they were helping, then I came to salt lake and I was told in so many words that I was not worthy of being an active member because I was not perfect enough... people didn't even know what it was that was wrong with me, they could just tell something was wrong with me and judged me for it. Then when I finally admitted that I couldn't be straight, rather than letting me leave with some shred of dignity they made me jump through hoops to have my name removed, a most tiring, and somewhat humiliating process to be honest. Because every correspondence needed to be done via certified mail, and every letter needed to be motorized to verify it was actually me writing it. So, I three times had to go to a complete stranger to have letters, giving out personal details that I shouldn't of been having to write out anyway, to have it notarized, just to convince the church that I did indeed want out. There truly is no love lost between me and the church.

[anriana]

The LDS didn't just say "vote for prop 8;" it poured non-taxed money into advertising in favor of prop 8.

[ladyneeva]

Unfortunately, distasteful as it is... I don't think their direct lobbying in favor of that bit of hateful legislation should constitute their loss of tax exempt status. Because, again distasteful as it is... organizations with 501(c)3 status are allowed to lobby in favor of or against legislation.

Due to their (in my opinion) extortionist tactics (mandatory tithing etc), the LDS have a LOT of money. So they can spend a relatively huge amount of money lobbying without it being considered a substantial amount for the purposes of deciding if they have exceeded the amount they're allowed to lobby.

So, unless we want to change things in such a way that groups devoted to say child welfare would not be able to support/oppose a bill or something that they feel would be in favor of or against their stated reason for being... we unfortunately can't prevent churches from supporting/opposing things that they feel are for/against their purpose.

That said... I don't believe churches, in general, should get tax exempt status across the board. Their employees should have to pay the same income taxes employees at any other job pay, they should be required to pay the relevant property and business taxes on the churches etc. Donations in excess of the amount spent in that year on charitable pursuits and reasonable operational expenses should be taxed... and NO forms of lobbying, advertisement, propaganda, etc should be considered "charitable pursuits". In order to qualify as a charitable pursuit, the activity should have to be undertaken with no expectation of or request for monetary repayment (requesting that in order to get assistance one would need to donate some form of reasonable labor or volunteer hours would be ok I think) and available to anyone regardless of church affiliation or lack thereof, gender, sexual orientation, etc, and with no requirement of conversion to the religion in question.

The sad thing is in order for that to work we really would need to define charity so rigidly.

[protege]

The LDS didn't just say "vote for prop 8;" it poured non-taxed money into advertising in favor of prop 8.

In that case, they shouldn't be tax-exempt. You want to play politics? Fine, pay the entrance fee like everyone else.

[Flyndaran]

...
yeah it's the Church that has sudden revelation when something threatens their ability to make major amounts of money.
......

That's all organizations, not just religious ones.
Get a group of people together, and greed will win out.

Personally I don't like tax exempt status for any religious organization. Every business, and that's what they are, should pay taxes.

[PepperElf]

so... what about churches that poured their funds into opposing prop 8?

as i mentioned before... the law has to apply to everyone

[smileyeagle1021]

PepperElf, I agree, the rules should apply to everyone. That said, I will give much more leeway to a church that gets involved in politics to protect their ability to free exercise to practice gay marriage than to a church that gets involved in politics to codify their bigotry.

[Flyndaran]

so... what about churches that poured their funds into opposing prop 8?

as i mentioned before... the law has to apply to everyone

I don't want any type of business, except pure charities, to get preferential treatment even when they agree with me.
Heck, I don't trust any group to consistently agree with me, so why should I give them special status on the rare occasions they do?