There are many reasons that the Reformation was touched off by the printing press, and why the Puritans strove for universal literacy.

We do implore the Church to honor the States’ prerogative to authorize civil marriages for our gay and lesbian family and friends.”

This is great, especially if “We do implore the Church ...” is translated to “We do resolve to withhold tithes from the Church unless they ...” The Church hierarchy and toadies like Father Eichmann of Denver don’t give a Ratzi’s arse about the wishes of the American flock, but they do care big-time about about all those greenbacks placed on the collection plate every Sunday.

I still want Italy to abrogate the Lateran Treaty and send a bunch of carabinieri in to put the Vatican under Italian law. Don’t break up the church; just force it to behave. (And maybe get a few Irish and American victims of the church to help decide what to do…)

Thank you for giving credit where credit is due. I consider myself a secular Christian (came across the term recently, and it fits quite well). Attending the Anglican Church in Canada, our local bishop got into trouble with the national and international leadership back in 2002 or so for pushing forward on blessing same-sex marriages.

I know it’s quite popular amongst progressives to call for ends to tax-exempt status for churches, and seeing the behaviour of some I can certainly understand it, but many churches spend all the money they can afford (sometimes more than they can afford, going heavily into debt) to run various social programs. When I think about how, when I was on parish council and helping decide budget matters, we were totally strapped for cash all the time because we were running things like food banks for single parents, then come on progressive websites and see people calling for reforms that would leave all those people hungry… well, not so good.

There are people out there who profess to be Christians and really are advocating for social justice, and out there doing real good with their money and their time. Like this group of Catholics, apparently. So bravo to them, and thank you Pam for acknowledging them.

So, Dana’s going to sign up, right?

I know it’s quite popular amongst progressives to call for ends to tax-exempt status for churches, and seeing the behaviour of some I can certainly understand it, but many churches spend all the money they can afford (sometimes more than they can afford, going heavily into debt) to run various social programs. When I think about how, when I was on parish council and helping decide budget matters, we were totally strapped for cash all the time because we were running things like food banks for single parents, then come on progressive websites and see people calling for reforms that would leave all those people hungry… well, not so good.

So if they’re actually doing good, instead of preaching some crap like the prosperity gospel or paying attorneys to defend pedophiles and amassing lucre then they can apply fro a 501c3 like every other charity and non-profit has to (and be accountable for it)  not “just” because they profess belief in some sky fairy.

@St. Matthew: The problem I have with that is that it’s not the food bank that’s tax-exempt, but the entire church. In the same vein, donations to religious organizations are tax-deductible, even if those donations go towards perpetuating the religion and not to actual charity work, and I have a problem with that.

The problem I have with that is that it’s not the food bank that’s tax-exempt, but the entire church. In the same vein, donations to religious organizations are tax-deductible, even if those donations go towards perpetuating the religion and not to actual charity work, and I have a problem with that.

Rebecca, as phylosopher points out, it’s as tax exempt as any other non profit organization, including the Heritage Foundation and Center for American Progress. Generally, you can be a tax exempt organization for any reason whatsoever, except for the purpose of enriching a specific person or to engage in partisan political advocacy.

I have to echo Tommykey—where’s our local right wing Catholic Dana to chime in here?

Rebecca, as phylosopher points out, it’s as tax exempt as any other non profit organization, including the Heritage Foundation and Center for American Progress. Generally, you can be a tax exempt organization for any reason whatsoever, except for the purpose of enriching a specific person or to engage in partisan political advocacy.

Ah, I was extrapolating from tax-deductibility. Thanks.

The Church hierarchy and toadies like Father Eichmann of Denver don’t give a Ratzi’s arse about the wishes of the American flock, but they do care big-time about about all those greenbacks placed on the collection plate every Sunday.

Oh the stories I can tell you of the rich, liberal parish in the Chicagoland suburbs and Francis <strike>Asshole </strike>Cardinal George who was going to teach them a lesson.  When their parish priest retired, they asked for another liberal priest.  He sent them a Corrector who was also a pervert.  So they asked again for a liberal priest.  He sent them another Corrector who was an embezzler and looted the church.  This time, not only did the parish request a liberal priest, they threatened to go public with the embezzling.  Rome was royally pissed off b/c the collections had dropped precipitously.  So a poor Southside parish lost their awesome liberal priest to the rich liberal Northside suburb.

The poor parish doesn’t have the money, so they’ll get stuck with <strike>Asshole</strike> Cardinal George’s next Corrector friend, whether a pervert or embezzler is left to be seen.

——————
These Catholics?  The ones who love their neighbors and believe in separation of Church and state?  Those are the ones I grew up with, and the ones that made leaving so hard.  They are also being marginalized by a hierarchy that really doesn’t care about keeping them in the flock.  The hierarchy wants collections money and “reverence”.  The fact that serving the laity and dealing with reality results in larger parishes and higher donations is irrelevant.  The men in the red beanies want to make the rules and be worshipped.  They’ll only honor the V2 reforms when it hurts their pocketbooks too much.

Oh, so it isn’t possible to run a food bank or a charity and get a tax exempt status ... really.  NOT - it’s all 501(c)3 regardless.  You don’t need God for that.

Tyro wrote:

I have to echo Tommykey—where’s our local right wing Catholic Dana to chime in here?

Dana is at work, and doesn’t have a lot of time to write a lengthy answer—and we all know that I’d never use three words when fourteen would do just as well—but my primary concern has always been that the Church be protected from civil or criminal liability if the Church refuses to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

Whenever I’ve mentioned this point, most people here have assured me that such could never happen, due to the First Amendment, but there have been several instances where state regulations and laws have had negative impacts on the Church. 

I put up an article on this subject on my site on Saturday; I get far more long-winded there.

@St. Matthew: The problem I have with that is that it’s not the food bank that’s tax-exempt, but the entire church. In the same vein, donations to religious organizations are tax-deductible, even if those donations go towards perpetuating the religion and not to actual charity work, and I have a problem with that.

But without the church, complete with building and (most importantly in this case) kitchen, it would not exist. Beyond the brick and mortar, churches do tend to be… well, their own communities. Thankfully most of them use the funds to maintain the building, hold their meetings, pay a couple (usually small) salaries and (in the only case I have intimate knowledge of), the bulk of the funds go to charity work.

Would that charity work be done without the church? I don’t pretend to be able to answer that question. I have found it easiest for myself to do such work through the church, though. Without it I don’t get involved. It’s the community I grew up in, and the easiest way for me to get together with like-minded people to provide food and shelter for them what need it. I also like the ceremony, and the moral education/discussion promoted (as a liberal guy, I go to a quite liberal church).

Oh, so it isn’t possible to run a food bank or a charity and get a tax exempt status ... really.  NOT - it’s all 501(c)3 regardless.  You don’t need God for that.

Uh… yeah. First of all, never said it wasn’t. I see plenty of secular charities too. Secondly, Canada. No idea what those numbers mean. As for the rest, see above (and in fact, I recently came across the term ‘secular Christian,’ which suits me pretty well… I don’t actually even believe in God either, it’s just the community I grew up in and still like to be part of).

Why should the RCC be entitled to open an adoption agency in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when it refuses to engage with the state’s primary concern: the church refuses to put the interests of children first. It’s ideological position on the fitness of gay and lesbian parents puts it in such a position that it would rather harm them than put them in a quality home. If the church can’t adequately care about children and their welfare, why should it be given control over their welfare?

And I’m not going to our theofascist’s site, but I’ll put money the fucker is lying about a certain New Jersey court decision regarding a gazebo. Somehow, it always escapes the notice of the bigots that that particular church group was receiving tax benefits in exchange for making the gazebo and park available as a public accommodation. As usual, when the bigots bring this up, what they are actually arguing for are special benefits for the religiously-based bigotry.

Actually, Jeff, I didn’t mention that particular incident; you could easily have checked.  I was pointing out the recent decision by Catholic Charities in Washington, DC, to stop offering health benefits to new spousal beneficiaries because the DC City Council legalized same-sex marriage in the District, and the Church does not and will not recognize same sex marriages as legitimate. 

How much money was it that you wanted to bet? 

Actually, Jeff, I didn’t mention that particular incident; you could easily have checked.  I was pointing out the recent decision by Catholic Charities in Washington, DC, to stop offering health benefits to new spousal beneficiaries because the DC City Council legalized same-sex marriage in the District, and the Church does not and will not recognize same sex marriages as legitimate.

Catholic Charities employs people. It is required to comply with employment law. This is not difficult.

Or I could just be ignorant - tell me, did Catholic Charities formerly deny benefits to people married in Protestant churches?

@self

Catholic Charities employs people. It is required to comply with employment law. This is not difficult.

I’m sure there are laws saying that churches can discriminate as much as they like - this is the church that has employment discrimination as a tenet, after all - but Catholic Charities =/= church.

Dana, you are using that example as a defense? If anything, you should be outraged at this blackmail on the part of an ostensibly charitable organization? Seriously, denying people health coverage in a country with a relatively threadbare health coverage system? Damn.

Tyro, the point is that the Church felt compelled to do something it clearly did not like to do—stop offering spousal health insurance to new employees—to avoid having to do something it clearly could not do.  Had there been a common sense exemption for religious organizations, this never would have happened.

If clear exemptions for religious organizations are put in place, ones which actually do protect the Church from these types of things, then the goals of the organization Pam is touting become realistic and reasonable.  But time and again we’ve seen the laws interpreted in a very narrow fashion, such as happened to Catholic Charities in California.

The real kicker is a Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, delivering the opinion of the Court, said:

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

The Employment Division case held that a religious exception—in that case, the use of peyote by certain Indian religions—was not allowed if peyote was outlawed for a governmentally valid and religiously neutral reason.

Got to give Dana credit, he actually did answer the challenge, eventually, albeit indirectly.

Tyro, the point is that the Church felt compelled to do something it clearly did not like to do—stop offering spousal health insurance to new employees—to avoid having to do something it clearly could not do.  Had there been a common sense exemption for religious organizations, this never would have happened.

Except it clearly could give benefits to married same-sex couples. You haven’t answered my question - did they refuse to give benefits to Protestant couples whose marriages were not Catholically valid? Perhaps couples who had been divorced were out of luck?

I also don’t know why you keep referring to Catholic Charities as “the Church.”

Tyro, the point is that the Church felt compelled to do something it clearly did not like to do—stop offering spousal health insurance to new employees—to avoid having to do something it clearly could not do.

Bullshit. It easily could have done so, just as it provides benefits to previously married folks, etc.

Your church is a hate group. The only purpose this decision serves, the only purpose for it, is to harm gay folks (and to have the married straight folks blame the gay folks)

You really are a despicable person, and neither you nor your church has anything of value to say to LGBT people.  The only thing it is working to do with regard to these groups is harm them. That’s the only thing. Any claims about “love”  or “respect” or “dignity” that the church feels or shares for LGBT people are worthless lies. We’ve seen the steps to which the church will go. It’ll harm kids and other families in order to harm gay folks.

Dana, employment law is to be interpreted narrowly. Likewise, some theologians in my church would argue that your marriage is not valid, having been performed within what is a church that is in a state of theological heresy. I would argue that charity agencies run by my church that employ you, or any catholics, be obligated to not discriminate between those married within the sacramental bosom of the church and those who, unfortunately, were not. I guess I am wondering what makes your civil marriage more worthy of recognition than anyone else’s? And how would you feel if an employer discriminated against catholic couples because those marriages weren’t considered valid?

I am happy, at least, that you stopped your dishonest fearmongering with the dishonest claims that “Catholic priests would be forced to marry gay couples!” which you were doing before. As well as being dishonest, it demonstrated a certain moral unwillingness on your part to condemn that demagoguery and instead showed a rather disturbing penchant for mindlessly following along with whatever dishonest talking points you were fed in service to “the cause.” the problem is that once you were called out on that, you moved on to the next set. If anything, you should be outraged at an organization that would deny health coverage to legally married families, especially in a country where this is one of the only cost effective methods of getting health coverage.

I’m wondering just what parts of employment law religiously-based secular organization should be allowed to ignore. OSHA? Wage-and-hour rules are right out, of course. And I’m sure there’s something against equal pay in the bible…

Oh, wait. Toilers in the vineyard. nevermind.