Gay advocates fight churches' charity status (Canada's culture war)

Ottawa Citizen - Canada ^ | Sunday, June 12, 2005 | Alex Hutchinson

[GMMAC]

OK, let's talk about 'democracy'.
Theology aside, the Churches give voice to the views of virtually all of their members and their adherents exclusively belong to them through free choice.
On the other hand, tax-exempt fat cat union bosses - who, tellingly, aren't under attack - don't care one iota about the political and/or social views of their rank and file members - many of whom wouldn't even belong to these outfits if they hadn't been openly coerced into joining as a condition of their employment.
Plus, let's take a hard look at the host of publicly-funded, tax-exempt, anti-majority special interest groups who've also quite blatantly taken sides.
Opposed to 'government funded bigotry' - no problem, let's shut down NAC! (Canada's equivalent of NOW)
Anyone still doubt this is culture war?
It's never been about alleged 'rights'.

[GMMAC]

PING!

[expatguy]

Looks like the homosexuals up north have now lubricated the Slippery Slope with Astro-Glide.

bu bye Canada.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[Firefigher NC]

Gay activists only seek to destroy. What good has come from gay activism? Churches on the other hand generally seek to benefit society in some fashion. All gay groups do is focus on themselves like a bunch of narcisists and try tearing down social structures they don't like.

[ellery]

Not paying taxes is not the same as recieving taxpayer dollars. One is an exemption, and the other is a subsidy.

[longtermmemmory]

This is what the homosexuals are doing to attack the boyscouts for not giving homosexuals access to recruiting young boys.

It seems to me that by demanding a religion comply with government endorsed morality, they have established a religion of the state.

IOW, approved religions must believe this, this and this or they will not be allowed to freely exercise.

[Para-Ord.45]

"We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."

EXCUSE ME !? AM I OR AM I NOT ALREADY SUBSIDIZING HOMO-SEX BECAUSE CIVIL UNIONS ARE LEGAL,THEREFORE TAX PAYER SPOUSAL BENEFITS ARE GOING INTO THEIR PCOKETS?

WANNA BUTT-SLAM YOUR BUDDY IN YOUR BEDROOM? GO AHEAD,JUST DON`T ASK ME TO SUBSIDIZE OR ACCEPT IT.

SICK HETEROPHOBES , THEY NEED THERAPY.

http://peoplecanchange.com/index.htm

[anniegetyourgun]

Welcome to FR today.

[Heartofsong83]

Those hypocrites should shut their mouth; they are a taxpayer-funded group and they are bigots themselves.

[Heartofsong83]

Sponsors of their parent group EGALE Canada: http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&item=113

#1 sponsor: Heritage Canada (federal taxpayers).

Status of Women Canada, Ontario Trillium Foundation and Canada's Digital Collections are also taxpayer-funded.

Besides, the conservative churches are NOT at all subsidized, instead they are just tax-exempt.

[Unam Sanctam]

No free speech for churches...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Not paying taxes is not the same as recieving taxpayer dollars. One is an exemption, and the other is a subsidy.

Isn't it funny how Leftist 501(c) tax-exempt corporations get both?

[GMMAC]

Assuming for a moment that - even if you only just showed-up - you're not yet another morally bankrupt Marxist troll.

Your statement "I don't fear homosexuals and don't know why so many do, yet I do fear increased government control in personal lives." leads me to believe:
1. you're not a parent ...
2. ... or one that somehow doesn't have a problem with the current state-sanctioned current imposition of 'all things homosexual' on your children ...
3. ... or someone who holds to an odd - and, dare I say, hypocritical - double standard when it comes the 'personal freedoms' of the roughly 98% of the population which happens to be heterosexual.

Although I must confess it wouldn't be the first time I mistook a libertarian for a troll.
BTW, 'fear' and a repugnance toward certain aberrant practices and related resentment of minorities aggressively determined to inflict their views, etc. on the majority, aren't precisely the same thing.

[so_real]

But religion demanding that government endorse their morality is OK?

Religious citizens in a "republic" form of government petitioning with their votes at the local, state, and federal level for governmental support of their religion is OK.

If the church decides that gun ownership is a sin, should the government be forced to comply?

The church doesn't decide what sin is; God already did that, and with authority. By the will of the people the government should comply. More power to will of the people who submit themselves to God's law.

I don't fear homosexuals and don't know why so many do,

Roll call! Who here fears homosexuals? Anybody? Anybody?

yet I do fear increased government control in personal lives. More regulation of personal lives means bigger government. And a slippery slope that allows for the decline of personal freedoms.

Finally, a statement citizens of a "republic" can understand. Welcome to FR.

[layman]

Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status

Why doesn't the gay community, instead of trying to destroy traditions which have evolved over many centuries, start up their own church and apply for tax exempt status. They could elect their own Grand Gay Guru, design their own gay wedding ceremonies, and maybe even come up with some traditions that the straight community never even thought of. The truth is that we're not all the same and the straight community isn't interested in denying rights to the gay community ... what we're interested in is protecting the institution of marriage. Start your own church ... leave us alone.

[Heartofsong83]

They already have that. It is called the United Church of Canada and the Metropolitan Community Church.

[GMMAC]

My, my, it most certainly appears as if
dancinginthedesert is no longer with us.
Wretched trolls ~ ever so tiresome.

[layman]

They already have that

Well, then they should give it a rest. I'm up to here with them. (pointing to my throat with my fingers extended out straight).

[GMMAC]

Churches losing their tax-exempt status really isn't the central point.
In fact, it might even be argued in the case of some the fatter and more smug ones, that it would compel them to re-adopt more historically authentic Christian attitudes and practices in a few areas.
However, the primary effect of losing this status would be to weaken them as a moral force and they're currently the main entities opposing the left's efforts to destroy the conventional family, impose its companion pro-decadence agenda and stifle our fundamental liberties.

Bottom line and theology aside: if you value your conventional family and your personal freedoms, back the traditional Churches.
It's no accident that the freedom-loving founding fathers of America were also all devout Christians.