Proposition 8: The Musical
Oh, my stars and garters. We hatemongers get quite a lampooning with this one! Get ready to chortle, 'cause it's time for Proposition 8: The Musical!
What always amazes me with things like this is just how mindless they are. Do they really believe this is how religious people think and behave? The answer is yes. They do. Which demonstrates that they've made zero effort to understand the opposing point of view, which reflects either laziness or stupidity. Or malice.
I'm going with malice. (You know. Hate!)
If they can, why can't I? They've tarred any opposition to dismantling traditional marriage with the black brush of "hate," and so they've ended all discussion. These crazy religious nuts don't need to be understood; they just need to be vilified. You want to listen to what that stupid preacher boob John C. Reilly is playing has to say? Really? It's just hate. He's a hater! Don't bother to argue with him - just shut him down!
But they still need us to vote with them, so they bring out Neal Patrick Harris to appeal to our sense of greed. Gay marriage will make me money?! Why didn't I think of that! Because, see, everyone knows that Republicans are all frothing-at-the-mouth hater zealots who vote with their pocketbooks. So let your greed conquer your hate, haters!
It'd be funny if it weren't so condescendingly stupid.
Hate is mindless. Hate ignores facts to feed angry feelings. Isn't that EXACTLY what these people are doing? Aren't they vilifying a huge chunk of our society by assuming the absolute worst about them? As I watched this, I kept thinking how much I like Jack Black. I like Neal Patrick Harris - he was so great in Dr. Horrible. I really like that black guy who plays Daryl on The Office. Not so fond of the girl who plays Elliot on Scrubs, but her part wasn't very big - if you blinked, you missed her.
I now know that all these people hate me.
The guy at the piano who wrote this got a Mormon fired from his job for supporting Proposition 8. Why isn't he a hater? I didn't vote for Prop. 8, but I would have if I'd lived in California. I didn't donate to Prop. 8, but I could have. I'm certainly supportive of those who did.
So all of these people want me fired, too.
Here's the thing. I don't want any of these guys fired. (Except Rosie O'Donnell. But her show tanked, so I'm cool with that.) I certainly don't want any of them raped or imprisoned or lynched or sold into slavery. If they find love whenever and with whomever, I'm way cool with that. I just think there's tremendous societal value in preserving traditional marriage. I think there are reasoned, intelligent arguments that make that case that don't have anything to do with Jack Black in a Jesus outfit eating shellfish.
But nobody on that side wants to have a discussion that doesn't involve malice. I'm just a cartoon to them. They want to hate me instead.
That's their right, and there's nothing I can do to stop them. But what they're doing is far more hateful than the people they're attacking, and it's time people of good will stood up and said so.
What always amazes me with things like this is just how mindless they are. Do they really believe this is how religious people think and behave? The answer is yes. They do. Which demonstrates that they've made zero effort to understand the opposing point of view, which reflects either laziness or stupidity. Or malice.
I'm going with malice. (You know. Hate!)
If they can, why can't I? They've tarred any opposition to dismantling traditional marriage with the black brush of "hate," and so they've ended all discussion. These crazy religious nuts don't need to be understood; they just need to be vilified. You want to listen to what that stupid preacher boob John C. Reilly is playing has to say? Really? It's just hate. He's a hater! Don't bother to argue with him - just shut him down!
But they still need us to vote with them, so they bring out Neal Patrick Harris to appeal to our sense of greed. Gay marriage will make me money?! Why didn't I think of that! Because, see, everyone knows that Republicans are all frothing-at-the-mouth hater zealots who vote with their pocketbooks. So let your greed conquer your hate, haters!
It'd be funny if it weren't so condescendingly stupid.
Hate is mindless. Hate ignores facts to feed angry feelings. Isn't that EXACTLY what these people are doing? Aren't they vilifying a huge chunk of our society by assuming the absolute worst about them? As I watched this, I kept thinking how much I like Jack Black. I like Neal Patrick Harris - he was so great in Dr. Horrible. I really like that black guy who plays Daryl on The Office. Not so fond of the girl who plays Elliot on Scrubs, but her part wasn't very big - if you blinked, you missed her.
I now know that all these people hate me.
The guy at the piano who wrote this got a Mormon fired from his job for supporting Proposition 8. Why isn't he a hater? I didn't vote for Prop. 8, but I would have if I'd lived in California. I didn't donate to Prop. 8, but I could have. I'm certainly supportive of those who did.
So all of these people want me fired, too.
Here's the thing. I don't want any of these guys fired. (Except Rosie O'Donnell. But her show tanked, so I'm cool with that.) I certainly don't want any of them raped or imprisoned or lynched or sold into slavery. If they find love whenever and with whomever, I'm way cool with that. I just think there's tremendous societal value in preserving traditional marriage. I think there are reasoned, intelligent arguments that make that case that don't have anything to do with Jack Black in a Jesus outfit eating shellfish.
But nobody on that side wants to have a discussion that doesn't involve malice. I'm just a cartoon to them. They want to hate me instead.
That's their right, and there's nothing I can do to stop them. But what they're doing is far more hateful than the people they're attacking, and it's time people of good will stood up and said so.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 11:11 AM
47 Comments:
Why must you give this more publicity? WHY?
I HATE this debate, but I LOVE this musical! Something about seeing Jack Black as Jesus as Nacho Libre.
You also questioned why all of this people hate you...they don't hate you any more then the Mormons throughout the U.S. who gave more than $20,000,000 to the "Yes on Prop. 8" to take away the right to gay and lesbian marriage in California hate gays and lesbians.
I also note that when the Mormon church chose to enter the political sphere, the fact that they are a religious institution became irrelevant. They led non-Mormons in their political campaign, and they exhorted everyone – regardless of their religious affiliation — to vote "yes" on Prop. 8, which affected Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Mormon leaders were acting in their role as citizens in the democratic process. But as citizens leading a political campaign, they cannot escape public accountability for their public actions. After all that, the leadership of the LDS cannot suddenly change roles, toss up their hands and say, "You can't criticize us! We're a religion!" They forfeited that right when they threw themselves enthusiastically into a non-religious, political campaign.
This is not bigotry or discrimination against a religion. They are politicians now, and they deserve the same scrutiny and criticism due to any other political leader or movement.
Jeff, you're illustrating my point precisely.
I've never said the Mormon church should be immune from criticism. I'm saying that presuming that the only reason for voting yes on 8 is because you're a hateful bigot is, in itself, hateful.
This video depicts religious people as imbeciles who get behind gay marriage when their greed kicks in. In other words, it's "criticizing" Mormons and other religious people by creating a ludicrous straw man that bears no resemblance to reality. That's not intellectually honest; it's deliberately malicious.
You don't even begin to try to understand why we might believe that preserving traditional marriage is a good idea. You just tell everyone we hate gays, and so people should hate us. You have the right to do that, but it's a hateful thing to do.
Ugh! We already voted, right? And won? What am I missing?
I love how the Mormons get the credit for the Yes win. Mormons are only 2% of the 52% in CA who voted yes. Mormons have been persecuted wrongfully since the Church was only a population of 1 person. Somehow Mormons are now the second largest religion in the state next to Catholics. Bring it on.
Neal Patrick Harris is dreamy. I love his voice. I'm with Foodleking.
The "musical" is silly on its face. And it certainly couldn't be effective as a political tool.
The LDS (or any person or organization) is (and should be) free to support or oppose any political position. (And someone's motivation for their vote or contribution is their own business.)
The LEGITIMATE ISSUE IS whether the political involvement should jeopardize tax-free status. The current law says it should, but other churches have taken political positions over the years and not lost tax free status. In fact almost all African-American leaders ascended to political leadership positions through their churches (which openly fueled their campaigns... as well as the campaigns of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter).
For me it is simpler: just eliminate tax-free status for ALL churches. The idea that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" is an antiquated judicial view.
However, if there is ANY basis for maintaining tax-exempt status for ANY churches, it should ONLY be for religious affiliated functions. (e.g. the church buildings, religious schools, cemetaries, etc.) There is NO justification for tax-free status for church endeavors like owning parking lots (where you pay to park your car while you go shopping in Manhattan), or running Department Stores, owning groceries, etc.
The notion that someone else's contribution to THEIR church is a tax deduction demeans the charitable giving itself, and increases the relative tax burden on others. Totally inappropriate!!
Sign me,
POUNDS
That was funny.
And trust me, there's plenty of hate to go around - it's been distributed fairly evenly across the board.
I am
Dawg
POUNDS, I'd like to disagree with you, but only because my annual contributions to the LDS Church constitute my largest tax deduction. On principle, you're probably right.
I think the LDS Church's tax-exempt status will be gone before the next decade is out. The problem is that they're going to have to take down much bigger fish to make that happen - the Catholics spring to mind - so that may buy me some time to continue increasing your relative tax burden.
Stallion,
Who is this POUNDS anyway?
You should have "deduced" it by now since I gave you a good clue
(not on this site).
sign me,
POUNDS (NOT OUNCES)
I'm confident I know who POUNDS is, but I will let him remain ANONYMOUS POUNDS until he chooses to reveal himself.
And POUNDS, is not the separation of church/state maintained as long as the church doesn't financially contribute, despite having an official position on an issue? I understand your position that churches don't need tax-exempt status anymore, and you may be right. I'm also with Stallion in that I will enjoy it while it lasts.
Oh, I'm pretty sure I know who POUNDS is. I'm betting he's the guy who singlehandedly got George Bush elected in 2000 by causing a bunch of people to throw away their votes on an unregistered write-in in Florida.
foodleking,
Interesting question you ask.
Direct financial contributions of church funds would certainly violate any "separation" but it could also be argued that speech from the pulpit, or positions taken in church literature (e.g. newsletters, fliers, voter recommendation cards) or ads paid for directly by any non-profit organization, violates their qualifyng status as a tax emempt entity.
If a newspaper like the "Christian Science Monitor" (which is finally ceasing production after many decades, which is a real shame) ran stories and columns supporting (or opposing) a particular candidate, how is that much different than contributing to a candidate's campaign with cash.
Should the Christian Science Church lose its tax free status? I would prefer that they not have tax free status for a general circulation newspaper, in the first place. They used to provide free "reading rooms" all over the country. Certainly that was okay under current law (meaning it didn't jeopardize their non-taxable standing).
As always in these matters, it is a matter of degree (and to some extent, intent). Tough questions are always the best ones, intellectually speaking.
on that last anonymous post
Sign me
LBS (POUNDS)
monogram
You both cracked the code.... and my identity.
LOL
I always figured if I ever got around to writing MY book, that POUNDS was a natural "nom de plume"
We're still having fun after all these years!
foodleking,
some relevant examples:
The orgnization "People for the American Way" (PAW) is a liberal advocacy group arguing the other side of many issues on which churches take positions. PAW is not a tax exempt organization (neither is the ACLU, for that matter)
In 1999 the previously tax-exmpt status of the Christian Coalition was revoked because they distributed "voter guides" that were blatantly partisan
But I think any church should be able to express the church's official POSITION on an issue, even some that cross over in to the political sphere.
Good Night.
Jim,
Pardon me for saying this, the issue doesn't affect me one way or the other, but it seems you can't understand why people in the gay community are resorting to stuff like this.
To them, I'm theorising, Proposition 8 is like sticking a flaming upside down cross with the words "FAGGOT" emblazoned on it in their front garden.
I'm sure 8ers (pardon me) are going to say that wasn't the intention, but your reaction to their reaction is naive to say the least.
Stallion, don't forget those mega-churches around the country. Imagine what the property taxes would be, and good luck getting a tithe if it’s not tax deductable. I know some denominations are pretty militant about that (review of tax returns by your minister, etc) but still…
Peter, that's the problem. By any objective standard, this is NOTHING like sticking a huge flaming cross on someone's lawn. That's one of the reasons why African-Americans with a cultural history of real, non-metaphorical cross burnings voted overwhelmingly in FAVOR of Proposition 8.
You're right, though, that this is how a good number of Prop. 8 opponents FEEL. Which means they're reacting emotionally - i.e. hatefully - rather than rationally.
I don't think I'm being naive, either. This problem is not going to go away, and the divide is only going to grow wider unless people react to reason instead of outrage.
Robotonbthetoilet, you're right. It would devastate most churches financially, including mine. Not being able to deduct your tithing from your taxes would quickly separate the wheat from the chaff.
I still have a hard time arguing with POUNDS on the underlying principle.
I don't know, I think "the power to tax is the power to destroy" may not be that antiquated. I have heard how some social engineers want to use taxes to move their agenda's forward. Increase property taxes to force people back to the city. Auto mileage taxes to increase public transit etc.
Re: tax exempt status of religious organizations...
Tax exempt status was granted to religious churches by the government in order to foster their growth and development based on the generally accepted societal viewpoint that they are extremely beneficial to the group as a whole and provide needed services to society. PAW, to my knowledge, does not attempt that as their mission as an advocacy group. Other non-religious non-profit groups are granted tax exempt status for the same reasons.
Similarly, the government (supported by the people) has always had an interest in promoting those societal institutions which have been considered to be the best choices for the group as a whole over all else, which is why the privilege of marriage (with its special tax status) was granted to one man/one woman (within the broad category). If you choose to go outside what is considered to be the best choice for society, that is your privilege, but you would not receive the same benefits.
Sadly, this is rapidly changing. What have always been accepted as the best choices by society is under constant assault, and the line of what is considered beneficial to society only moves in one direction, never to return.
Sadly, very sadly. But this explains why Prop 8 will ever be polarizing. Unfortunately for WBPRaw and all of us, Prop 8 was only the beginning, not the end. As a mini-nation, California will be the battleground for some time.
It is hard not to see the validity in these comments from all sides on this one.
Regarding any change in the tax deduction for church donations, don't worry. The two UNTOUCHABLE tax deductions in this nation are charitable contributions and deduction for mortgage interest payments.
I remain concerned about the impact on the economy if unfair competiton results from tax exempt status. If the Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church (Reverend Moon) is competing with the Washington Post (privately owned) then it would be unfair for one to have tax-exempt status. (note: I am not sure what the current tax status of the Washington Times is).
As for prop 8. It will be interesting to see what the California State Supreme Court does with it. (Also, recent polling seems to indicate that it would fail if put to the voters again....... is this going to be on the ballot every election for a while? Egads and Yikes!)
Sign me,
POUNDS
The word "hate" is grossly overused and misapplied these days.
I hate when that happens
So, how come the enlightened Hollywood elite hasn't made any musicals mocking members of the African American community who voted against gay marriage?
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Guys, you are getting confused about what it means to be "tax exempt." There are two possible ways of understanding it. First, there are donations to an institution that are tax decutible on the donor's taxes. Second, there is the question of whether an institution has to pay income taxes on its revenue. These are seperate questions.
To my knowledge, the ACLU and PAW are "tax-exempt" in the second sense. That is they do not pay corporate income taxes. They are not tax exempt in the first sense. (Although I think that the ACLU has some tax-exempt research affliates, but I could be wrong on this.)
Churches are tax exempt in both senses. For them to lose tax exemption in the first sense, namely that the donations to them would no longer be tax deductible, would be a big hit to their ability to raise revenue but not debilitating. (Cf. the ACLU and PAW.) If they were to lose their tax exempt status in the second sense, on the other hand, it could be potentially devestating in that they would need to raise massive amounts of revenue to meet property taxes and the revenue that they did raise would be potentially taxable (although presumeably they would be able to deduct operating costs and other expenses like for-profit corporations.)
Finally, for-profit entities owned by tax-exempt non-profits pay taxes just like everyone else. The Washington Times is rather like the business whose stock is owned by a combination of the Harvard and Yale endowments. The endowments are tax exempt, but the businesses are not. Frankly, I am at a loss as to what Pounds is talking about when he talks about unfair competition between businesses on the basis of church tax exempt status. From what I have read, I think that Pounds doesn't know what he is talking about either.
Of course, one might object that it is wrong that tax-exempt organizations should be able to put their money into profit making ventures and reap the rewards. On the other hand, other than sticking the money under the mattress, it is hard to see where tax-exempt organizations COULD put their money other than into investments tied to the profit making sector of the economy. Finally, given that there are billions dollars tied up in the assets of tax-exempt organizations it would create really, really perverse investment incentives to in effect tax those organizations for investing their money. Such a tax would likely simply reduce the amount of capital available in economy.
Anonymous, it is worth pointing out that the ad did in fact make fun of black supporters of Prop. 8. Fortunately, Hollywood's political snipping is silly and stupid enough as it is mockable without ascribing to it vices that it doesn't have.
Anonoymous, it is equally worth pointing out that including a few token blacks in the group of Mormons, does not equate a lampooning of the African American community as a group.
Why not reverse it?
Why not have the evil anti Prop 8 singers be primarily an African American group, with only one or two Mormons peppered in?
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
hi law geek,
I certainly do not profess to be an expert on tax law (I assume you think you are).
However, since you said you didn't understand to what I was referring, allow me to explain.
First, here is a link about LDS owned businesses. (I am not picking on the LDS, I assume it works the same for virtually all church owned entities.)
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/business/Church_EOM.htm
In the third or fourth paragraph it states: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint Foundation receives from church businesses contributions from their PRE-TAX EARNINGS (emphasis mine), which in turn are given to the community . . ."
(it goes on to state that) "The Church does not publish financial data regarding its privately owned businesses. . ."
You seem very intelligent so I assume you can see how easy it is to transfer the "would be taxable profits" to the tax exempt church owned foundation. And there is NO WAY to know the exact numbers since they don't publish their data.
If you think the IRS is going to seriously audit and investigate the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, or any other churches with multi-billion dollar holdings, then YOU don't understand how the government works.
There are "games" that many churches have used for years to transfer funds around. One of the more frequent methods used by televangelists is to take the tax deductible donations made to their tax-exempt church and then spend the money for the publishing of religious texts (usually bibles, but also other materials). It turns out that the evangelists (or friends or family members) own the publishing companies (as private individuals. Thus the use of church funds to pay excessive amounts that are way over the normal publishing costs transfer it legally. The big profits are thus transferred to the evangelist's wife, brother, friend or whomever. (Granted, THAT profit would be taxable).
60 Minutes ran programs on this years ago.
Anyway, I don't intend to get in to a pissing contest with you. But, we can if that amuses you.
Have a great day law geek.
of course the previous post was from
Sign me,
POUNDS
Complete link failed to print in above post.
When I got around to re-checking the link I provided above, I noticed that it got cut off short of completion. (Serves me right for use a "cut and paste" instead of typing it in longhand.)
here is the complete link:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/business/Church_EOM.htm
sorry about that.
Sign me,
POUNDS
It just did it again!
I will try breaking it in to two segments, nut connect the to visit the linked site.
http://wwwlightplanet.com/mormons/
daily/business/Church_EOM.htm
(hoping this will work)
Some computer geek can tell us why the thing wouldn't accept it in one piece.
This NOT my fault. (LOL)
I will try again. It is broken in to two segments but you must connect them to make one address.
http://lightplanet.com/mormons/
daily/business/Church_EOM.htm
If it doesn't work this time, you will have to google it and find it that way.
Good Night,
POUNDS
Why do the gay posts on this blog always receive the most comments?
Pounds,
Few if any privately held companies publish financial data. That is one of the things that distinguishes privately held from publically held companies. In other words, there is nothing to see here, move on.
As for the "PRE-TAX" donations of corporate income, so what? All this means is that the corporation takes a tax deduction for its donations. The same is true when Mobile Corporation makes a donation to Masterpiece Theater. Again, I'm at a loss as to how this gives these businesses some sort of a competitive benefit vis-a-vis non-church owned businesses.
As for the televangelist reference, I am not sure what to make of it. The sceme that you point out is a method of using tax-advantaged donations to produce large amounts of personal income for church leaders. It is a potentially slimy practice, especially if the publishing contracts, etc. are ultimately shams or else if they are for more than reasonable value. I agree with you to the extent that I think skimming off charitable donations for immense personal gain is wrong. I am also against torturing babies and puppies.
Finally, I am thankfully NOT an expert on tax law. On the other hand, at this level the tax stuff isn't rocket science.
law geek,
Correct me if I am wrong..... but for your analogy about Mobile (sic) Corporation and Masterpiece Theatre to be comparable, then MASTERPIECE THEATRE WOULD HAVE TO OWN MOBILE (MOBIL) CORPORATION. That is why it is different!!
When a Church owns a business. and that business donates to the Church(taking tax deductions) the money is avoiding taxation by recycling it among Church controlled entities.
Non-profits which do not qualify for tax deductible contributions are NOT in the same situation.
The point in mentioning that the "books" are not open to scrutiny is to point out we can not know how much the Church owned business is "donating" to the Church controlled foundation.
Surely you see the conflict, and the potential (and actuality!) of abuse.
Your serve.
POUNDS
Come’ on blogboy you’re slipping here.
Well, let's see.
1) I agree with Peter, Jim, I think that your reaction to their reaction is naive. I know you don't want to believe it is, but that's the way it strikes me.
2) I think the fact of the matter is if "gay marriage" were allowed nationwide it would only effect the lives of gays; my marriage, you marriage, everyone else's marriage won't be efffected in the slightest.
3) The idea struck me a while back that it's surprising that the government hasn't allowed gay marriage simply because they would be able to apply the marriage tax to married gays. So the stuff about lawyers and money and all didn't surprise me in the video.
I've yet to see a non-religious reason for not allowing same sex marriages.
Ikarus:
1) I don't understand what you mean when you say my reaction is "naive." Do you think I'm underestimating the political fallout?
2) My individual marriage would not be affected, no. Changing the definition, however, would dilute the uniqueness of marriage as a societal institution.
Imagine, for instance, you got a college degree from a reputable university, only, ten years later, to have the university water down its entry requirements. Your individual degree remains the same, but the institution's reputation lessens its societal value.
3) I've written umpteen posts about this, and I have yet to cite a religious argument to justify my opposition to gay marriage. So if you have "yet to see a non-religious argument," perhaps I can refer you to my previous articles on the subject.
Blogboy is working on it, anonymous.
Poundsy (do you mind if I call you poundsy)
You are right that if a corporation owned by a non-profit makes donations to a foundation controlled by that non-profit, then the income of the corporation is distributed to the residual owner of the corporation out of pre-tax income. On the other hand, the same is true of a distribution by a corporation to an owner under say a management contract. In that case the distribution would be treated as an expense and would therefore be tax deductible. The only kind of distribution to an owner that would come out of the after-tax income of a corporation would be a dividend. Not surprisingly, given the double taxation to which dividends are subject, there are big incentives not to distribute income of corporations via this method. Indeed, it would be really dumb for a non-S-corp to distibute income to a closely held shareholder via a dividend and in practice it seldom happens. The real difference is not that the distribution to the owner is untaxed in the case of a non-profit but rather that the INCOME of the non-profit is untaxed.
I am not sure what the potential for abuse here is. Normally we would worry about a corporation distributing income to a shareholder in a case where there are minority shareholders whose equity claim is being disappaited in favor of the majority shareholder. Of course, even in a non-publically traded corporation the minority shareholder WOULD have the right to examine all of the company's books, could bring a dervitive suit, etc. On the other hand, in the case of a wholly owned corporation, it is hard to see how there is any abuse associated with a distribution of income to the owner of the corporation. One might worry about avoidance of taxes in the distribution, but so-long as the distribution does not take the form of a dividend payment any distribution will come out of the pre-tax income of the corporation anyway. It is a simple matter for a for profit corporation to distribute pre-tax income to an owner. This happens regularlly.
I do think that there is an argument to be made that non-profits ought to make some sort of public disclosure of its sources of income and the distribution of its money. This is what, for example, UK law requires. (Indeed, you can find the LDS Church's financial disclosure statement under UK law on the internet someplace.) Requiring this would be tricky for constitutional reasons in the United States. There are a number of Supreme Court decisions suggesting that non-profit entities have a right to keep their donor and other financial information secret as part of their right to freedom of association under the First Amendment. (If I remember right, the cases arose in the context of state legislation during the 1950s and 1960s that was designed to force the NAACP to disclose its donor lists and other financial information.) It's a hard call, as I do think that there are some constitutional values served by confidential association. Even so, I wouldn't weep were we to require non-profits to make some sort of broad brush disclosure a la the UK.
A final note: strictly speaking there is not such legal entity as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather, as a legal matter "The Mormon Church" consists of two corporations sole -- The Corporation of the First Presidency and the The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop -- and several corporations charged with holding particular kinds of assets -- Intellectual Reserve, Deseret Managment Corporation, etc. -- and a whole bunch corporate entities created to comply with local laws in the United States and abroad. (There is a long and glorious tradition of laws restricting the holding of property by churches -- called mortmain laws -- that go back to Henry VIII dispossession of the Catholic monastaries that make property holding quite difficult for churches in some states.) I only note the absence of any corporate entity corresponding to "The Mormon Church" because it is a mistake to think that every income stream controlled by the LDS hierarchy goes into the general fund of the church with tithing offerings and it is also a mistake to think that every expenditure by an entity controlled by the LDS hierarchy ultimately comes out of tithing finds. For legal and practical reasons the financial operations of various aspects of "The Mormon Church" are segregated from one another.
Best,
law geek
PS -- please be good enough to go through this and fix my typos and spelling errors. The comment is already too long and I need to go read Stallion's new post.
Law Geek,
I have enjoyed our dialogue.
Thanks,
POUNDS
Pounds,
Likewise.
Law Geek.
Frankly, I don't care if the college I went to dilutes the standards for the degree or not; it doesn't change what I accomplished or what I continue to accomplish in my life.
Ditto for "marriage", although I've posted elsewhere that I think the actual solution is what Neuro has proposed, and the government should just get out of meddling in "marriage" and concentrate on civil unions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home