This Calgary Herald editorial argues that gay activists have “tipped their hand”;
One might suppose gay marriage extremists would wait for the Liberals’ contentious same-sex legislation to pass before uttering triumphalist comments about the next round in their battle with the churches.
Apparently, some can’t, and Toronto gay rights activist Kevin Bourassa has confirmed the suspicions of religious opponents to same-sex marriage. A partner in one of Canada’s first same-sex wedding ceremonies, he said churches opposing same-sex marriage — while free to be “promoting bigotry” — should lose their tax exemption.
“If you’re at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers’ money, you should be following taxpayers’ laws.”
It is curious to think of tax exemption as a gift from taxpayers. In any case, churches have been equal opportunity promoters of bigotry against adulterers, thieves and bearers of false witness for thousands of years. Why should the gays complain?
The editorial also notes something that didn’t get much mention in our oh-so-sophisticated media last week – that Paul Martin is again making promises he’s not empowered to keep.
Prime Minister Paul Martin last week promised dissident Liberal MPs increased religious protections in Bill C- 38.
But, he promises what he cannot deliver. No politician can control how courts or commissions will rule in the future. Gay advocates are well aware of that. That’s what enables Bourassa to boldly articulate what amounts to an anti-church strategy, without even the reasonable caution of waiting for Martin’s bill to pass.
I suspect that activists like Bourassa are making a tactical error when working to remove tax-exempt status from churches. Although they proceed under a theory that such a change would result in weakening church finances, and by extension, religious opposition to their agenda – in practice, a tax-exempt church is a politically hobbled church.
There’s a saying about being careful what one wishes for.
Removing tax exempt status would untether organized religions to fully engage in the political process – and in so doing, the ability of churches to raise money to fund their new, more powerful position in the public policy debate would expand exponentially.
In today’s current political climate, it could be the best thing that ever happened to them.
I weighed in on this a few days ago. Bourassa’s agenda was crystal clear within minutes of its articulation.
With respect to Martin making promises…pfft.. same as his chest-beating over healthcare. A Liberal promise? Does anybody take such a thing seriously any longer?
I hadn’t thought of that… good call! Mind you, will Bourassa’s statements not also backfire if enough anti- and perhaps “on the fence” SSM MPs take note, hence tipping the House to kill the bill?
The Catholic Church has always been fully engaged in the political ‘process’. That’s one of the reasons why our political system is such an asshole magnet.
This is an example of the activist gay agenda that “hysterical” evangelicals and RC’s have been up in arms about.
We have been put down and derided about saying “their out to get us”.
What it comes down to is this: the radical activists (gay, feminist, atheist, marxist, ad nauseaum) are on a collision course with people of faith. It’s almost the way Jews were dehumanized in Nazi Germany leading up to the “final solution” making that more palatable with the general public.
I could not agree more.
I think of it as a prunning process were this to come to pass.
If you don’t prune your plants of deadwood to allow new growth, they will eventually wither and die.
It’s the same with the church. Removing the tax-free status may cause many parishes to fold, but the ones who actually mean something to their community will not only survive this event, but in the end will flourish.
Have a look at how vibrant the church is in the delveoping world (with little money), or in China where many Christians only have a Bible that’s smuggled into the country; no church building, no pastor. Despite the government’s best efforts, there are now millions of Christians in China, and it continues to rapidly grow.
A good kick in the pants is what the church in Canada needs. The removal of tax-free status might just do that.
Hey Pat O’Brien says he will vote against the government tonight unless he gets in writing a promise that the gay marriage bill be delayed. Go Pat.
Same Sex Marriage
First off I am anything but religious. In fact I am an atheist but I still believe that everyone has the right to believe in what every they want be it God, Allah, Buddha, Scientology or even the boogyman. Long…
One problem with Craig’s theory.
What happens after tax-exempt status is removed? Will the churches then be hit with over-restrictive zoning laws if they refuse to marry homosexuals? Will cities be able to ban non-marrying churches from city limits?
The tax-exemption issue may indeed free churches that survive to act more freely politically, but it will also be another step in the attempt to make them politically unviable in Canada. After all, numerous tax-paying businesses have found themselves in the cross-hairs on this issue, and in Canada, most of them have lost.
It bodes very, very, ill.
To echo MikeP… not just Pat O’Brien, but also another unnamed Liberal MP. They both will vote against the government unless they get a promise from PMPM before tonight.
Am sitting here clapping my hands in glee. (ok. not really, cuz hey, i’m at work and people would look at me funny) Just the thought of someone making PMPM sit up and take notice and possibly squirm a little is just too delicious.
A written promise from Paul Martin? Won’t be worth the paper it is written on….
do you think O’Brien will continued to be suckered by what a Paul Martin Liberal promises like the rest of us?
You might be right Craig, but just tax-wise I don’t see how it would have much of an effect on churches….
see, churches, are non-profit organizations; their purpose is not to increase shareholder wealther. Thus, if in one year, the church has a surplus of revenue, i.e. profits, these profits will generally be donated to their pet causes or saved for future building construction/repairs. The net result is that if a church has a net profit in one year, it will end up balancing that with losses in future years. Thus, the net corporate taxes that they would pay would be zero (or likely pretty close). The main difference in taxing churches would be higher costs for filing corporate tax returns, tax planning costs, and short term cash flow differences from profit years when they have to pay taxes and loss years when they can carry those losses backward against past profits.
A friend passed this bit of wisdom to me:
“Politics is supposed to be the world’s second oldest profession. Unfortunately, it bears a curious resemblance to the first…”
Has anybody noticed that the most intolerant people are those screaming tolerance???
It’s long been a beef of mine that Churches (and by extension, their many ‘affiliates’, such as the separate school systems) back off their essential teaching duties because they receive at the trough. As a Catholic, I want my Church leaders to enter the fray with clear teaching (as my own Bishop Henry has been doing)(note, not electioneering for particular candidates); if tax-exempt status is scaring them away from it, then get rid of tax-exempt status – heck, perhaps people of faith should be pushing for this change ourselves.
Clarification on “tax exemption”.
I believe the original quote of Bourassa had to do with revoking charitable society status not tax exemption. This is not to be confused with the land tax exemption given by local municipalities. Charities give receipts to donees that they may claim when they file their income tax form. This encourages donations towards organizations that are presumably doing something good in our society. Of course, that is contentious in itself, because not everyone would agree what organizations are doing things that deserves charitable status. Remember, we are speaking of a plethora of organizations, not just churches.
Meanwhile, church employees pay taxes, and churches pay local taxes on property that is not specifically used for church purposes.
Church officials, like myself, should refrain from politicking from the pulpit. However, when politics crosses the line and begins to weigh in on issues that are historically church issues (marriage, sexual immorality, lying, thieving, freedom) then why should we be silent?
“A friend passed this bit of wisdom to me”
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession.
I have learned that it bears a striking resemblence to the first.
– Ronal Reagan
Stupid, stupid Jay and his fumble fingers – obviously that should be “Ronald”.
“Removing tax exempt status would untether organized religions to fully engage in the political process – and in so doing, the ability of churches to raise money to fund their new, more powerful position in the public policy debate would expand exponentially.”
Which helps explain, in part, the limits on political spending during elections that the Libs put into place.
Jack: Very good points. It would definitely hit them in the “offering plate” if donors didn’t get receipts. Although, many would continue to give just as much, including my mother, who considered the tax credit she gets from her donations to the church as a “bonus” but far from being the main motivation for giving.
Spooky: Looks like the Liberals will win all their confidence votes whatever Pat O’Brien does. There are four missing from the conservatives and one from the Bloc also. CRAP.
Isn’t there one motion a day for the next few days? Is there any hope for a major surprise, like other Libs bringing down their own government? Or maybe the Tories can read between the lines and have heard how the Libs actually want an election now. This is going to be a long summer, and here’s hoping the Tories have a plan.
PM says Chretien unaware of mess
By COLIN PERKEL
Second ad exec attempts to rehabilitate his name
Tories accuse Chretien-Martin tandem of trying to delay Gomery
WINDSOR, Ont. (CP) – Prime Minister Paul Martin says anyone found culpable in the sponsorship scandal should be punished severely but he doesn’t believe his predecessor, Jean Chretien, knew anything about it. “I don’t believe that the former prime minister was knowledgeable,” Martin said Tuesday.
Martin also hit back at former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano, who has accused the embattled Liberal prime minister of mismanaging the country to the point where it could disintegrate.
“Mr. Gagliano, as I understand it, said (Monday) that he is not a Paul Martin Liberal,” Martin said. “He’s right.”
canoenews.ca
Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Who’s on first?
The best thing that could happen would be for the government to fall tonight. With the way the polls are looking, Stephen “I have no charisma” Harper would fall flat on his face.
As for the political thing and churches — I have no strong feelings. I don’t know what the rules are for lobby groups. If groups that lobby the government aren’t allowed tax exempt status and churches are lobbying the government, then I say they should be treated equal. But if there is some form of lobbying under Canada’s laws for non-profits and churches are following it, then they should be exempt as well. Similarly, I would assume that organizations like EGALE should have their shackles thrown off as well and be allowed to issue donation receipts if churches can.
More Gay Ranting
Agenda? What Agenda?
The Manifest Destiny of the Left
If you ever needed a better example of the manifest destiny of the secular left, I present these stories.
Rempeliaprime writes about the city of Calgary’s Pride Day Parade, whats that you missed the parade, don’t worry June is Pride Month in Calgary…
Kevin Bourassa is a moron who needs to shut up. He does not speak for any gay people I am friends with. I’ve said elsewhere, I think Kevin has a personal hatred for his religion and he needs to work it out alone.
I am a political conservative. I’m also 1/2 of a legally married lesbian couple. The reasons we got married were to secure property, legal rights of next-of-kin, and so my wife’s daughter could inherit my property without my mother being able to challenge it and take everything from my family if I die. The committment had been in place for 6 years prior to the wedding 2 years ago.
Now that I have equal rights, that’s the end of the fight. There is no reason to try and force anyone to like me or to embrace homosexuality.
And frankly, I wouldn’t waste the energy to try and give the churches that aren’t gay friendly a hard time.
We have much bigger issues in Canada to address. The “devil you know” in Ottawa has convinced the snivelling masses that any alternative to him is far scarier. People, we have to stand together and defeat the demon. That demon is the out of control government theft and waste of our money.
Someone needs to ask Kevin where he got the money to pull off his Charter challenge? Could it have been from… the gov’t (ie taxpayer funded) program that funds Charter challenges?!?
Who’s “at the public trough” again, Kevie baby?
Is Bourassa seriously arguing that churches and charities should be able to engage in political speech but only if it is in support of government policies? What a truly frightening and illiberal policy that would be.
I suppose churches preaching against graft and corruption will lose their status next. “Sorry Father, but the Commission for Appropriate Speech, Charities Division, has been reviewing this list of yours and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ has got to go.”
Bourassa should also keep in mind that gay marriage is currently not legal in all parts of Canada. Under the rules he is proposing, it would seem to me that churches would be on at least as solid ground as pro-gay marriage charities.
A quick search of the Charities database at CRA shows that Integrity Canada is a registered charity, as are several other gay and lesbian charitable organizations. Churches far outnumber them, so maybe it’s worth losing their own charities to knock down ours.
The bottom line is that a radical special interest political movement is pushing our Ottawa statists towards an act which is clearly selective taxation ( or punishment) in a discriminatory manner premised on breach of the charter right to freedom of religious expression.
This won’t fly in any liberal constitutional democracy….but do we still have one?
I think if this type of special interest prejudice is persued it will create the civil backlash needed to finally tank this militant sod movement….just as it killed the man-hating premise of sexist marxism that drove the radical feminist movement.
The whole “religious organizations should be stripped of charitable status” thing has been brewing for years. Several years ago, a couple of Federal Court cases illustrated the trend nicely – a religious pro-life group (“Human Life International”) was denied charitable status by the court on the basis abortion was a “political issue”, yet the same court a few years earlier allowed charitable registration of a pro-abortion group (“Everywoman’s Health Centre”). Go figure.
Speaking of charities getting into the political realm, isn’t it time to resurrect all those posts from a few months ago about support for the federal Lieberal party by various and sundry charities across the land like the SPCA? I suspect there will be no charities left once the secular crusade to purge the nation of registered charities that engage in “political” activities is completed, leaving, of course, our benevolent government dictators to pick up the slack.