Churches as Charities? I think not.
How did mainstream churches ever gain charitable status?
Many churches hang tight to the ancient practice of tithing (compelling the parishioners to give 1/10th of their worldly goods to the church each week) and others have a less structured "collection", wherein some of the faithful give regular, calculated amounts, but others give undetermined sums.
If a church is being given donations of money, and if churches are charities, they should be bound by the same rules other charities face, namely: accountability. Where are the receipts for donations given? Where are the transparent and public bookkeeping practices? Where are the annual reports outlining income and the percentages actually spent in purely charitable activities?
And why are some people refused help, comfort and services from these "charities"?
If churches were considered privately run businesses, as they should be (churches are in the business of religion, and make no mistake, religion is BIG business, just look at Billy Graham Inc.) then they would enjoy the freedom to make their own rules. As long as they did not infringe upon any citizen's Charter rights, or break any laws regarding hate crimes, they would be welcome to pick and choose whom they served.
As charities, churches rely on the public tax system and are given special treatment by governments. If churches want to benefit from priviledges that other charities enjoy, they must be expected to stand up to the same scrutiny that other charities face.
Uh-Oh.
That means churches must marry any couple with the legal right to do so.
That means churches have to bury the dead, including suicides, the homeless, the disenfranchised.
That means church run schools must welcome any child, regardless of race, colour, creed or ability.
That means that churches cannot discriminate based on race, colour, ethnicity, financial status, health status, gender or sexual orientation.
Houston, we have a problem. Churches want it both ways. They want full financial public support, they want the protection of governments, they want freedom to take advantage of any and every program available to charities, but, on the other hand, they want to be able to discriminate, exclude, judge, and lobby for their own interests.
Churches simply can't have it both ways.
Are they political institutions with the right to force their agendas on the secular public or are they charities with a responsibility to serve the public?
In the name of God, pick one.
Many churches hang tight to the ancient practice of tithing (compelling the parishioners to give 1/10th of their worldly goods to the church each week) and others have a less structured "collection", wherein some of the faithful give regular, calculated amounts, but others give undetermined sums.
If a church is being given donations of money, and if churches are charities, they should be bound by the same rules other charities face, namely: accountability. Where are the receipts for donations given? Where are the transparent and public bookkeeping practices? Where are the annual reports outlining income and the percentages actually spent in purely charitable activities?
And why are some people refused help, comfort and services from these "charities"?
If churches were considered privately run businesses, as they should be (churches are in the business of religion, and make no mistake, religion is BIG business, just look at Billy Graham Inc.) then they would enjoy the freedom to make their own rules. As long as they did not infringe upon any citizen's Charter rights, or break any laws regarding hate crimes, they would be welcome to pick and choose whom they served.
As charities, churches rely on the public tax system and are given special treatment by governments. If churches want to benefit from priviledges that other charities enjoy, they must be expected to stand up to the same scrutiny that other charities face.
Uh-Oh.
That means churches must marry any couple with the legal right to do so.
That means churches have to bury the dead, including suicides, the homeless, the disenfranchised.
That means church run schools must welcome any child, regardless of race, colour, creed or ability.
That means that churches cannot discriminate based on race, colour, ethnicity, financial status, health status, gender or sexual orientation.
Houston, we have a problem. Churches want it both ways. They want full financial public support, they want the protection of governments, they want freedom to take advantage of any and every program available to charities, but, on the other hand, they want to be able to discriminate, exclude, judge, and lobby for their own interests.
Churches simply can't have it both ways.
Are they political institutions with the right to force their agendas on the secular public or are they charities with a responsibility to serve the public?
In the name of God, pick one.
posted by Alphamutt at 5:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home