Arnold is looking for new sources of income for the state. Maybe he should ask the IRS to change the LDS tax status? Then he can get them with CA state income tax too. I wonder if he could go after them for back taxes?
I can't proceed in demanding revocation of the tax-exempt status of LDS or Catholics or other Fundamentals--after all, my church, Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist, encouraged its members to work *against* Prop 8, as much as They enjoined their parishioners/members/congregants to work for it.
What happens now is that we *keep* talking about the issue, the point that equal rights belong to everyone--we can't harp on which church gave more money, or was against it, or which demographic voted for it, or whose ads were better. We need to keep talking, remain visible (I'm not taking down my sign, and my church is not taking down their sign, despite what the City of Pasadena may want); we can still make a difference as we move forward. Yes. We. Can.
I don't really expect this to succeed in revoking the LDS tax-exempt status. I do, however, expect it to create a nuisance factor. And to throw more light onto the actions of top Church people. I think everyone knowing what everyone else is doing is a good thing. That's pretty much why I signed it, and why I passed it along.
And by the way, how about the rights of puppies not be be bludgeoned until they are brain damaged, by a whacko fireman? That's a good cause, too.
Unfortunately, the LDS Church getting involved in the Marriage/Prop 8 amendment is not against the law.
I can't recall if it was the journal of twistedchick or kalimeg, but one of them had it in their journal that churches cannot back candidates, but can get involved in issues on ballots that are "moral issues."
I think they went wayyyyyyyyy beyond what is right in their involvement in Prop 8.
Comments 4
Arnold is looking for new sources of income for the state.
Maybe he should ask the IRS to change the LDS tax status?
Then he can get them with CA state income tax too.
I wonder if he could go after them for back taxes?
Reply
What happens now is that we *keep* talking about the issue, the point that equal rights belong to everyone--we can't harp on which church gave more money, or was against it, or which demographic voted for it, or whose ads were better. We need to keep talking, remain visible (I'm not taking down my sign, and my church is not taking down their sign, despite what the City of Pasadena may want); we can still make a difference as we move forward. Yes. We. Can.
Reply
I don't really expect this to succeed in revoking the LDS tax-exempt status. I do, however, expect it to create a nuisance factor. And to throw more light onto the actions of top Church people. I think everyone knowing what everyone else is doing is a good thing. That's pretty much why I signed it, and why I passed it along.
And by the way, how about the rights of puppies not be be bludgeoned until they are brain damaged, by a whacko fireman? That's a good cause, too.
Reply
Unfortunately, the LDS Church getting involved in the Marriage/Prop 8 amendment is not against the law.
I can't recall if it was the journal of twistedchick or kalimeg, but one of them had it in their journal that churches cannot back candidates, but can get involved in issues on ballots that are "moral issues."
I think they went wayyyyyyyyy beyond what is right in their involvement in Prop 8.
Simmie
Reply
Leave a comment