|
Can We Please Stop Giving Organized Religion Tax Breaks?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
Diocese accused of creating 'straw corporation'
By GILLIAN FLACCUS
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - A lawyer for alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests alleged Wednesday that the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego used questionable financial tactics to secure a nearly $30 million bond to build three high schools.
A motion filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleges that the diocese created a ''straw corporation'' last year and gifted it with property worth between $30 million and $325 million. The property was used as collateral for a federal tax-exempt bond issued to the new corporation.
The motion alleges that the corporation was created to avoid disclosing sexual abuse lawsuits that would have disqualified the diocese from the bond.
It asks Judge Haley Fromholz to reverse the transfers and freeze the diocese's remaining assets, including property, bank accounts and investment portfolios. A hearing has not been scheduled on the motion.
Fromholz is the judge overseeing all Southern California clergy abuse cases.
Diocese officials said bond underwriters required them to form the new corporation to manage money dedicated to school construction. Chancellor Rodrigo Valdivia has said the diocese would be reimbursed for the properties' assessed value after the corporation had repaid the full amount of the 30-year bond.
''We don't try to do illegal things,'' he said when questions about the issue first arose last month.
Andrea Leavitt, the San Diego attorney who filed the motion, said there are about 145 claims of sexual abuse against the diocese and she was concerned that the transfer of assets threatened her clients' ability to collect on any future settlements.
''They were transferring away substantial amounts of property which could be used to settle the judgment for these victims who've been terribly, terribly hurt,'' said Leavitt.
, who represents about 10 plaintiffs. ''It becomes very important -- especially if they may not have insurance coverage to indemnify them -- that they preserve these properties.''
Calls to diocesan attorney Dan White and H.L. Hal Gardner, the diocesan finance officer whose signature appears on many of the bond application documents, did not return calls for comment Wednesday.
Catholic Secondary Education-Diocese of San Diego, Inc., was incorporated on April 9, 2003. The corporation shares the diocese's mailing address and processing agent, according to filings with the California secretary of state.
The corporation listed the diocese as an affiliate and guarantor during the application process for the bond, which was approved last fall.
In May 2003, the diocese transferred Carmel Valley property assessed at nearly $24 million into the new corporation, according to the San Diego County assessor's office. However, the motion contends that the assessments are out of date and the first property currently would be worth $213 million to $320 million.
On March 19, 2004, the diocese again transferred property assessed at nearly $4 million into the new corporation, the records show.
Mary Neale, an attorney for the California Statewide Community Development Authority, which issued the state bond, did not return repeated phone calls.
The diocese also hopes to raise $150 million in school construction donations under the Secondary Education Initiative. The money also will be placed in the corporation, said Steve Marietti, initiative director. About $75 million has been raised so far, he said.
|
I don't see how they're behaving any differentely from any other corporation. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
They are non profit, so they get tax status. So we should give money to museums who further the atheist cause (where some of our tax dollars go as well) but not religious schools because that's wrong...I sense a double standard
the abuse of young boys are wrong in every way and they have just bearly scratched the surface. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I don't see how they're behaving any differentely from any other corporation. |
How in the world can they avoid the IRS with this?
Actually, that's a rhetorical question. The IRS has rarely convicted any churches or church organizations of any tax evasion or related charges, so I doubt they'll do so in the future with this current president. Furthermore, this president has signed a buttload of executive orders for his faith-based policies behind the backs of legislatures, which was the only way to pass his faith-based initiatives considering their unpopularity in Congress (actually moreso in the Senate).
But what's more, Bush is also underfunding the annual IRS budget, further undermining their efforts to investigate and prosecute crud like this.
What disturbs me the most about this story you brought up was this:
| quote: | Andrea Leavitt, the San Diego attorney who filed the motion, said there are about 145 claims of sexual abuse against the diocese and she was concerned that the transfer of assets threatened her clients' ability to collect on any future settlements.
''They were transferring away substantial amounts of property which could be used to settle the judgment for these victims who've been terribly, terribly hurt,'' said Leavitt. |
I really wonder if these people ever truly ask themselves this very question:
"What would Jesus do?":D |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by torontotrance
They are non profit, so they get tax status. So we should give money to museums who further the atheist cause (where some of our tax dollars go as well) but not religious schools because that's wrong...I sense a double standard
the abuse of young boys are wrong in every way and they have just bearly scratched the surface. |
Please expound further as to the association of atheism with museums that further their cause. What museums do you speak of that furthers the cause of a disbelief in a god? |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| Museums get tax dollars to fund their exhibits and some have the dawn of man and most don't put on religious exhibits, so it leads me to conclude that they are not doing anything for religion. So if you question tax breaks to churches, it leads me to point out that our tax dollars fund museums who pay researchers to waste their time on evolution theories. So I say there is a double standard here, as a taxpayer, should'nt I be able to voice my opinion where my tax dollars go and should'nt go. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| Just because I may not believe in the tenets of a non-profit group, it does not give me the right to decide if they should or should not exist. There are several non-profit medical, environmental and scientific groups that I believe to be a complete waste of money to us all as they concentrate on putting forth their own slanted agenda, but I still do not have the right to pull the plug on them simply because they go against my beliefs. If we were to try to completely sterilize non-profit groups, so that we were left with no organization that would be seen as undeserving by at least some segment of the population, we would have no non-profit groups remaining. If we are to continue to give groups non-profit and tax exempt status, we must be willing to give that status to organizations we do not agree with. If the Catholic Church is guilty of a crime, that is one thing, but just because you may not agree with their cause, it does not give them any more or less of a right to be tax-exempt than any other non-profit group. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by torontotrance
Museums get tax dollars to fund their exhibits and some have the dawn of man and most don't put on religious exhibits, so it leads me to conclude that they are not doing anything for religion. |
I'm going to assume you are referring to natural history museums. Art museums exhibit religious material all the time, do they not?
But in terms of natural history museums, Why would they do anything for religion? If there's no archeological or scientific evidence to support the notions of a particular religion, why would they fund an exhibit for one? Religion of any sort implies or invokes a supernatural deity of sorts, which often invokes supernatural phenomena in order to explain historical events.
If these supernatural phenomena cannot be tested, verified, or observed in any manner directly or indirectly, why would we want to attempt to insert such phenemena wherever we choose within natural phenomena which can be tested, verified, observed? That really wouldn't be a very good natural history museum trying to explain natural history with supernatural events arbitrarily occurring in order to fit a given religious belief.
But let me take your argument a step further - let's grant the possibility of funding tax dollars for a religious natural history exhibit. Would you allow funding tax dollars for ALL religions and their given exhibits? Why or why not?
| quote: | | So if you question tax breaks to churches, it leads me to point out that our tax dollars fund museums who pay researchers to waste their time on evolution theories. |
That's quite insulting to the literally hundreds of thousands of researchers who've devoted their life to a sound scientific principle supported by a weight of evidence.
You want to fund my tax dollars to religious exhibits, then 2 things need to arise:
1. ALL religions need to be taken into consideration
2. Sound, verifiable, supporting archeological and scientific evidence needs to be produced for each and every given religious exhibit.
Are you willing to agree to these terms?
| quote: | | So I say there is a double standard here, |
I'm glad you say so, but it does not make your statement any more credible.
| quote: | | as a taxpayer, should'nt I be able to voice my opinion where my tax dollars go and should'nt go. |
Sure you can voice your opinion, but that does not necessitate your opinion being very sound. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Just because I may not believe in the tenets of a non-profit group, it does not give me the right to decide if they should or should not exist. There are several non-profit medical, environmental and scientific groups that I believe to be a complete waste of money to us all as they concentrate on putting forth their own slanted agenda, but I still do not have the right to pull the plug on them simply because they go against my beliefs. If we were to try to completely sterilize non-profit groups, so that we were left with no organization that would be seen as undeserving by at least some segment of the population, we would have no non-profit groups remaining. If we are to continue to give groups non-profit and tax exempt status, we must be willing to give that status to organizations we do not agree with. If the Catholic Church is guilty of a crime, that is one thing, but just because you may not agree with their cause, it does not give them any more or less of a right to be tax-exempt than any other non-profit group. |
They are guilty of a crime. And they're funneling money around in an effort to avoid payint out lawsuits. The very fact that they are engaging in practices designed to flirt the technicalities of finance law in an effort to reduce losses is somewhat disconcerting coming from a church. Meh, I wasn't really being seriious about removing their tax excempt status. Just revealing a gripe. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| [redneck accent]I reckon we should burn down all the museums. They're just spewin out all those damn atheist infidels all the time! Them fancy "knowledge" and "education" ain't Christian, their words are words of that old bastard Satan himself! I'm tellin yall, if we'd strip them naked, we'd sure find a Devil's mark on their body. We oughtta go and burn them all at stakes, or we'll too burn in hell for their blasphemous heretic sins.[/redneck accent] |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
[redneck accent]I reckon we should burn down all the museums. They're just spewin out all those damn atheist infidels all the time! Them fancy "knowledge" and "education" ain't Christian, their words are words of that old bastard Satan himself! I'm tellin yall, if we'd strip them naked, we'd sure find a Devil's mark on their body. We oughtta go and burn them all at stakes, or we'll too burn in hell for their blasphemous heretic sins.[/redneck accent] |
Bah. I agree with Andrew. Although I give praise to some of the merits evolutionary theory has brought, I believe that Creationism should get equal scientific and educational coverage. |
|
|
| nic01445 |
| quote: | Originally posted by torontotrance
Museums get tax dollars to fund their exhibits and some have the dawn of man and most don't put on religious exhibits, so it leads me to conclude that they are not doing anything for religion. So if you question tax breaks to churches, it leads me to point out that our tax dollars fund museums who pay researchers to waste their time on evolution theories.So I say there is a double standard here, as a taxpayer, should'nt I be able to voice my opinion where my tax dollars go and should'nt go. |
That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
How is it idiotic?
That people should be able to say where their tax dollars go and that religious people should be able to say that their tax dollars not go to atheists causes or things to do with them. I'm not saying that you should treat religious people with a broad stroke here, I'm saying that people should stfu about the tax status of churches and worship places because we do pay taxes that go to things that we don't accept. I'm for non profit status for all religions, if you have a worship place and you seat say over 50 people (which I believe is the Canadian Law) then you should be able to have a tax break. See most of you jumped on the bandwagon against this because a lot of problems with the Catholic church has come to light in the last decade. Yes some pedo priests did some horrific things to people and they should be charged but the entire catholic church is not like that, nor is any religion. In society, you have your abusers and non abusers. I don't get why someone just declared my argument as stupid, it's opinion here and there is no wrong answer, which some of you in these forums tend to forget. Some of you also tend to think that your reasoning proves you right, when there is no right answer to this question. Some of you can say my logic is flawed all you want, no one is right here, it is a debate, no right or wrong answer (within limits of free speech, but you know that anyway). That's the problem with this forum, you have people who don't agree then reason their way and conclude that the other person is wrong, so their point is null and void and that's pathetic and wrong and for you that do that, you know exactly who you are, it won't work. |
|
|
|
|
