Religion verses the Charter of Rights

[icarus]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I think we can safely say that the Charter is flawed. I think if its against someone's religion for example to marry two (fe)males then it should be their freedom without any type of special or unspecial treatment. (such as different tax exemptions). A limit on freedom isn't freedom at all.

I am nonplussed. Why is the Charter flawed?

[Calgaryborn]

Very interesting responses. Within my own religious community we
have expected to lose tax exempt status for some time. There is a
lot of organized hostility towards Christianity and Christian tradition
and dogma. I doubt the loss of tax exempt status would have a large
effect on giving but, would somewhat limit operations.

While the church I'm affiliated with doesn't participate in any organized
charity work most churches do. Don't get me wrong we do collect a food
hamper when we become aware of someone in need. We have opened
our homes and occasionally the church in order to provide lodging for hobos and folks who have found themselves stranded. We also collect moneys when special needs come to our attention. But none of this is tax exempt now so wouldn't be effected by a change of tax law.

I do however think that folks would be surprised at the amount of charity
work churches do. Many churches focus on the social gospel almost exclusively. These intuitions would be severely hampered by a change in status with the greatest harm being to the people they help.

Historically churches did all the charity work. The government did none.
The tax exempt status came about from the belief that ten percent of ones income belonged to God and to tax a tithe or an offering(giving other then the tithe) would be in essence taxing the Creator(God). Church property is tax exempt when it is in use for the purpose of the charity. Land owned by a church that isn't in use is taxable.

This is a little off topic but I think society would be a lot better off if
churches and other non-religious charities still did all the charity work. Governments do a poor job at it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok....I don't really get it....aren't all churches non-profit??? Meaning they don't make a profit....meaning income = expenditures....meaning no tax collected?

Like really....why do we need to make money off of organizations that generally do good things for the community.

Some churches and Christian organizations make huge profits. Just look at any of the big TV ministries, especially someone like Benny Hinn.

How about something where churches aren't tax exempt, but specific operations that benifit the community can operate tax free? So churches that have soup kitchens or whatever can still do those things tax free, but other things like sending missionaries to wherever aren't?

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This is a little off topic but I think society would be a lot better off if
churches and other non-religious charities still did all the charity work. Governments do a poor job at it.

That is ridiculous. There is no way that churches can build low cost housing for the poor, give financial support to the poor, unemployed and aged, or run hospitals and schools like the government can. I don't want to be like Quebec was in the 1940s and 50s where the Catholic Church was doing everything. Governments should be doing more for the poor and doing it better while encouraging Non-Profit/Not-for-Profit Organizations.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by photon

Some churches and Christian organizations make huge profits. Just look at any of the big TV ministries, especially someone like Benny Hinn.

How about something where churches aren't tax exempt, but specific operations that benifit the community can operate tax free? So churches that have soup kitchens or whatever can still do those things tax free, but other things like sending missionaries to wherever aren't?

Where does that money go? And isn't that more common in the USA?

[photon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Where does that money go? And isn't that more common in the USA?

Probably more common in the US yeah, but there's still Canadian groups that are similar.

As to where the money goes, some good organizations funnel the money back into the community, others use it to fund mission work to convert the lost, and a few corrupt ones (such as Benny Hinn) use it to rent $12,000/night hotel rooms and pay their baby sitters $4000 for an afternoon. The Fifth Estate did a thing on him recently and it was pretty eye opening; they had accounting records from inside his organization.

There's a reason this was setup: http://www.ecfa.org/?Page=Main

And that's the thing, I don't disagree that there are religious organizations out there doing good work in the community. I've got no problem giving that kind of activity a tax break.. but I don't know if I want taxes going towards all kinds of churches so they can try and convert each other.

Probably a nightmare to try and administrate though.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by icarus

I am nonplussed. Why is the Charter flawed?

Well say for example, the CCRF says that homosexual marriage is a person's right.

But, freedom of religion is a person's right.

Well, if a gay couple wishes to be married, in a Catholic church, and the preist won't do it because it's against his religion, then someone's right is being violated in order to solve the dilemma.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Well say for example, the CCRF says that homosexual marriage is a person's right.

But, freedom of religion is a person's right.

Well, if a gay couple wishes to be married, in a Catholic church, and the preist won't do it because it's against his religion, then someone's right is being violated in order to solve the dilemma.

Nobody's rights are being violated in that scenario.

The gay couple has the right to be married. The Catholic Church has the right to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. The gay couple does not have the right to be married in a church of their choosing.

[Frank the Tank]

Anything that forces the "Church" of Scientology to pay taxes is good in my books.

“How can we in Canada, in the name of religious freedom, continue furtively and silently to sanction discriminatory practices?”

Pretty good quote there.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Nobody's rights are being violated in that scenario.

The gay couple has the right to be married. The Catholic Church has the right to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. The gay couple does not have the right to be married in a church of their choosing.

Thats a really good point, but I've heard that the gay couple can file a lawsuit against that church, can they not?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Thats a really good point, but I've heard that the gay couple can file a lawsuit against that church, can they not?

You can file a lawsuit against anyone you want. However, as far as I know, I don't think anyone has been successful.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Thats a really good point, but I've heard that the gay couple can file a lawsuit against that church, can they not?

No they can't. The gay marriage bill that parliament passed specifically has a clause protecting religious organizations who refuse to recognize homosexual marriages.

As I said above:
Homosexuals have the right to be married by an agent of the state (such as a judge) or by a religious group that allows gay marriage (such as the United Church). Their marriage must be recognized by the state, and all spousal rights that are given to heterosexual couples must also be given to homosexual couples. Religious organizations have the right to refuse to perform and recognize homosexual marriages if it goes against the beliefs of their religion.

So the bottom line is that nobody's rights are being infringed upon. Homosexuals have the right to get married, and religious groups have the right to be bigoted.

[photon]

Just to argue from the other side, what if that same church that has a right to not perform homosexual weddings also wants to not perform weddings between black people?

Wouldn't the charter compel that church to do it? Or somehow sanction the church if they didn't? Or would the church be allowed to do that?

If the church isn't allowed to refuse to marry a black couple, but is allowed to refuse to marry a homosexual couple, doesn't that still mean homosexuals are being marginalized in society?

Honest question, I don't know the answer.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by photon

Just to argue from the other side, what if that same church that has a right to not perform homosexual weddings also wants to not perform weddings between black people?

Wouldn't the charter compel that church to do it? Or somehow sanction the church if they didn't? Or would the church be allowed to do that?

If the church isn't allowed to refuse to marry a black couple, but is allowed to refuse to marry a homosexual couple, doesn't that still mean homosexuals are being marginalized in society?

Honest question, I don't know the answer.

A church refusing to marry a black couple is racist. While a church could be considered discriminatory if they refused to marry a homosexual couple. Two different things, apples and oranges. Homosexuals are not a race.

[skins]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

There is no way that churches can build low cost housing for the poor, give financial support to the poor, unemployed and aged, or run hospitals and schools like the government can.

I dont think hospitals or schools are considered charities.

I agree with the argument made earlier, stating that many people aren't aware of how much charity work a lot of churches do, and this includes missionaries. Off the top of my head, I can think of missionaries supported by my church that are currently doing the following:
- Tsunami relief in Indonesia
- Running an orphanage in Germany
- Medical work in many countries, such as Thailand, Ivory Coast, and others

Also, here in Calgary, our church is actively involved in the following programs:
- In from the cold: our church provides housing, showers, and meals for the homeless.
- Volunteering/Funding for the Mustard Seed
- Volunteering/Donations/Funding for Habitat for humanity (low income housing)

I'm pretty sure that all of the above is currently tax exempt, and I think they should be. The church also pays the pastors salaries, but they in turn pay tax on their income, so their pay is not exempt.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Burninator

A church refusing to marry a black couple is racist. While a church could be considered discriminatory if they refused to marry a homosexual couple. Two different things, apples and oranges. Homosexuals are not a race.

Homosexuals aren't a race, but does that make the descrimination different?

Descrimination based on something that is out of the person's control (ie they didn't choose to be black or gay) is the point, right?

Just trying to understand the distinction between treating the two differently.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by photon

Homosexuals aren't a race, but does that make the descrimination different?

Descrimination based on something that is out of the person's control (ie they didn't choose to be black or gay) is the point, right?

Just trying to understand the distinction between treating the two differently.

I understand what your getting at, that if church's allow different races to marry it should be no different than homosexuals marrying. I agree with your logic, but trying to apply logic to religion is often quite difficult.

Alot of religions have only changed their policy on things because of public pressure. This includes race, polygamy, etc. I am predicting that eventually (next 20-30 years) churchs will be performing same sex marriages.

[MarchHare]

Didn't (some) churches refuse to perform inter-racial marriages several decades ago when that type of thing was frowned upon by society before people grew up and realized how inconsequential it was?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by photon

Homosexuals aren't a race, but does that make the descrimination different?

Descrimination based on something that is out of the person's control (ie they didn't choose to be black or gay) is the point, right?

Just trying to understand the distinction between treating the two differently.

I guess the answer would be that refusal of gay marriage has a bona fide religious basis, is therefore covered by the freedom of religion article, and hence is creditable as a competing charter value.

I guess the question would be more difficult if there was some religion that advocated racial discrimination, but I think it would be a question of fact that would have to be proven in court that racial discrimination is indeed a crucial tenet of that religion. I think that would be unlikely.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by icarus

I guess the answer would be that refusal of gay marriage has a bona fide religious basis, is therefore covered by the freedom of religion article, and hence is creditable as a competing charter value.

I guess the question would be more difficult if there was some religion that advocated racial discrimination, but I think it would be a question of fact that would have to be proven in court that racial discrimination is indeed a crucial tenet of that religion. I think that would be unlikely.

Mormonism is a good case for this as in their early years they were openly racist towards darker skinned people. Their is also lots of racism in the Book of Mormon. Link. Nowadays most mormons are not racist but if someone wanted they could make case for racial discrimination if so inclined.