Churches that play politics should pay taxes
Posted on Friday, June 10, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
35 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Violent attacks on gays in New York up 70 percent in 2013
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
Archives
Critics have seen it as a particularly blatant attempt to write Minnesota off President Obama's 2012 win column by offering a tempting carrot to draw out the evangelical vote - at the expense of an apparently disposable minority.
Remember that same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Minnesota by statute. So the truth is there's just no way to talk about this unnecessary amendment other than to call it what it is: a political ploy wrapped inside an anti-gay attack.
But the state's most prominent conservatives get very upset when you call it that.
Minnesota Archbishop John Nienstedt wrote a column this week defending the Catholic Church's decision to lobby for the amendment insisting that it's not 'anti-gay, mean-spirited and prejudicial.'
Really, Archbishop? You want to deny gay people the right to protect their relationships and their families under the law and you want the public to believe that's not anti-gay?
No one's buying it. If you try to limit someone's behavior without actually protecting them or anybody else from anything, it's an attack.
To justify his position Nienstedt echoed the sentiments of New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who claims if same-sex marriage is legalized, it could lead to polygamy and incest.
It could, I suppose, but it hasn't. Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for years, and no one has applied for a liscense to marry their mother - or multiple partners.
Untruths told in the name of religion are still untruths. If you plan to influence public policy shouldn't you at least make a special effort to be honest?
No one anywhere is advocating for polygamy or marrying their relatives, so Nienstedt must either be willfully misleading us or delusional.
Is anyone else becoming increasingly uncomfortable about the Catholic Church's deep involvement in this state issue in Minnesota, New York and elsewhere?
It's become clear church officials are using their influence to encourage citizens to vote a certain way, whilst retaining their tax exemptions. As it becomes obvious to all how deeply they're involved isn't it time we taxed them like any other PAC?
35 comments
seamusmac | Jun 10, 2011, 09:05 PM EDT
Churchs', promoting the delusion and keeping the sheep in line.
Report abuse
PatriciaMarya | Jun 10, 2011, 06:48 PM EDT
It is time for organized religion to be treated like any other non-profit organization and be audited to see if all of their activities are reliably non-profit and, thus, not subject to taxes. However when religions like LDS (the Mormons) and Scientology purchase entire blocks of cities and then deny those cities and municipalities property tax revenues because they now have become "religious properties" - then it is time to be reconsidered as tax-free. When organized religions do good and charitable works, then of course they can deduct those expenses from their taxes. I had to jump through hoops when we were trying to develop a children's theatre and had to support each expenditure; why can't religions be expected to do the same. Maybe the threat of being audited would bring that hideous family-members-only Westboro Baptist Church to term. Someone says they are a religion and they get off tax-scott-free? That "World is Ending" charlatan runs a radio station and gets high 9 figures tax-free? No. People try to call their apartments a religious center and not pay property taxes on them - No, no no more loopholes. Time to approach religions in a new light since they have decided to run themselves as PACs and businesses. How many businesses are in the stock portfolio of the Catholic Church, hmmm?
Report abuse
SCVMal | Jun 10, 2011, 06:27 PM EDT
Good article, but first page Headline Editor replaced "churches" with "church's". The Editor needs basic training between plurals and possessives. Begorrah!
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Jun 10, 2011, 04:24 PM EDT
That's right, Glorybe..."they don't do anything like a real church does"...I mean, the Catholic Church is only the SINGLE BIGGEST charitable organisation on the planet...it only runs more hospitals, schools, orphanages, universities, soup-kitchens than any other organisation in the world. Yes...a real Church wouldn't do anything like the good that the Catholic Church and majority of its priests, sisters, nuns, brothers, and laypersons do on a daily basis. I wonder if you are as vocal in your condemnation of the abuse and gross cover-up in the U.S. public school system - according to one reputable study, educators in the U.S. sexually victimised 290,000 children between 1991 and 2000. While nothing excuses abuse of any kind, compare that with the 11,000 alleged abuse cases by Catholic clergy dating back to 1950...methinks you are suffering from a gross and worrying case of double-standards.
Report abuse
glorybe1929 | Jun 10, 2011, 02:41 PM EDT
Absolutely they should be taxed and then shut down. They don't do anything like a real church does. They(priests, nuns and brothers)sexually abuse the marginalized, our precious little innocent childern , encluding our handicapped, all over the Catholic World. Every diocease, in every state and every country that has Roman Catholics. They should be shut down as being anything that resembles a loving place of safety to be for anyone.
Report abuse
GeorgeDillon | Jun 10, 2011, 02:23 PM EDT
I agree with this. We should start with the Churches who give aid and succour to illegal aliens and break the laws of our country.
Report abuse
cillowen | Jun 10, 2011, 02:08 PM EDT
these church properties eventually go to the wise who are financially astute - they be known by their bee like behaviour as one observes positioned around governing honeycombs.
Report abuse
cillowen | Jun 10, 2011, 02:07 PM EDT
these church properties eventually go to the
wise who are financially astute - they be known
by their bee like behaviour as one observes around governing honeycombs.
Report abuse
Nicomax | Jun 10, 2011, 01:56 PM EDT
The term "you socialists" as stated my many seems to indicate that this is some kind of a disease. There is nothing in our constitution that says we can't follow a socialist course, and since this is an economic term, I'm also not sure what it has to do with civil rights.
Report abuse
maloney | Jun 10, 2011, 01:53 PM EDT
The church is more worried about the loss of new members to milk than morals. This should be a two way street. All churches should be taxed, liberal or conservative if they are pushing voting agendas. John5319 and carroll09 are right. Cahir is pushing an agenda and not what he would have you believe. Your sex preference is your own business behind closed doors, don't flaunt it straight or gay. Marry who you want and have equality for all.
Report abuse
FastEddy | Jun 10, 2011, 01:04 PM EDT
Finally, you get it right! I'm amazed you socialists are just now wising up to this reality. Q&A: Why do you suppose the Vatican is a separate state within Italy? It is specifically to avoid paying those ridiculous Italian taxes. ... Duh? ... "It’s the Labour Government that have brought us record peace-time taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease — they’ve run out of other people’s money." - British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher - 10 October, 1975
Report abuse
Ms.Gail | Jun 10, 2011, 12:52 PM EDT
I'm straight but not narrow. In times past, people may have chosen to share a home and what went on inside was their business. But now things have to be documented and income is in part made up of benefits and people who want to include someone as part of their life have to "justify" that person as part of their family. It used to be that if a man said a woman was his wife his employer accepted that and his wife was coverd by his benefits.If two maiden women choose to live together and share expenses, so what but after World War II documentation began to be pervasive, paying income tax was no longer voluntary, payroll deduction became standard. Social security entered the scene and joined taxes as part of payroll deduction. Group rate health insurance entered the workforce as a benefit and generally was paid for through payroll decuction. All these things demanded the employee identify family members and the employee could not choose who to identify as a family member, the insurance company or the employer or the government determined who was an eligible family member to have access to benefits and who could be declared a family member for tax purposes.
This financial reason and not any moral reasons is the biggest element non straight people want documentation of who are their family members.
I leave to God to judge the morals and use the compassion God gave me to let people alone to support and protect their families. I do not care for public displays of sensuality irrespective of their choice of person of desire. What goes on in their home is between them and God and it's too bad the government, employers and insurance companies don't agree.
Report abuse
hollabackgurl | Jun 10, 2011, 12:31 PM EDT
They are not just moral issues, they are state issues and civil rights issues. We do not live in a theocracy, and we do not all believe gay people are immoral. Tolerance is the price that people like you pay are unwilling to pay for democracy. Gay people don't run an international and influential religion; they did not help create and bankroll an attack campaign like NOM's; the churches did. Gay marriage has not led to chaos in society or familes in any nation where it has been legal for years. You can't build your defense of marriage on the backs of untruths.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Jun 10, 2011, 11:06 AM EDT
Lovely reasoning - everyone has a right to state their views and teaching except the Catholic Church...or anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda which Mr O'Doherty and others are pushing. Yet...Mr O'Doherty would like to have us believe that he writes his articles to call for tolerance, yet it is precisely he himself who pushes an agenda which would silence those who do not agree with his opinions on marriage and sexuality.
Report abuse
Report abuse