by nicolaou 21 Replies latest social current
He defended the Brethren saying : "the brethren’s services were open to all and that they conducted other charitable work, including distributing free Bibles, giving food and other support to vulnerable people, and preaching in the community."
If this doesn't qualify, what does?
Splash
An interesting summary of the decision on an ex brethren website http://peebs.net/forums/news-room/charities-exclusive-brethren-and-house-of-commons-committee
Recording of the parliament committee meeting
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11642
I found a reference in an old thread (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/215119/1/Is-the-IBSAs-charitable-status-in-the-UK-vulnerable) which links to a government memo from July 2004 which mentions Jehovah's Witnesses along with the Brethren. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtchar/167/4061625.htm).
I think ....
Yesteryear's JW Organization would have given an implied DAMN YOU to the world governments and relished in the accompanying persecution ... I see today's JW Organization walking whatever fine line they can to keep their money, be it opening the Hall up for use by the public (I see local churches allow their facilities to be used to hold meetings such as AA or piano recitals, etc.) ... or some other form of charitable work defined by the government ... they will find a way to compromise enough to keep their money.
Bump...
This might impact the United States as well. It certainly is always argued here when tax exemption is discussed. We have no freedom from religion here. The First Amendment may have been innovative when it was ratified but it old news today. The Supreme Court conservatives are changing the law by ruling that the government can accomodate religion. When I grew up, there was a strict dividing line. In public school, I heard how we tried not to replicate the English establishment of the Church of England. Unless Obama appoints some more progressive justices, I can see school prayer returning in the states.
I don't know the charity commission is selected and what its powers are. It is refreshing to read that a government can acknowledge that not every org. posing as a religion benefits the public. Research showed me that in the United States, religious groups provided most of relief work until FDR and the New Deal when the function of government changed. It made sense to allow religion in public roles and finance it b/c no one else was offering help.
Today, govt serves this function. Since the finance was tied to a charitable purpose and the purpose may no longer exist, should tax exemption continue. We all know the WT does no charitable work, In contrast, I am very impressed with how Catholic Charities helps all the poor with no reference to religion. Catholicism may press a lot of trigges in me but the work of these groups is very moving. They deserve tax exemption.
Way To Go UK!
It would be ironic if a secular group managed to dictate what actions a religious organization needed to take in order to qualify as being a charity. Supposedly charity is a cornerstone of all religions, not just western, Christian religions. For the sake of clarity they should have to all submit annual reports to the commission to prove that their actions are indeed charitable enough. Perhaps by showing a ten percent contribution of net income to third-world poverty by means of a cash contribution which would pay for hospitals and the like. Also, they should clearly state that religions can't weasel their way out of performing real charitable actions by simply claiming that they give away free bibles and literature.
It's time that the charities commission got out it's moral rudder to guide all these clueless religions. I'd like to see all the rich churches sell off their gold crucifixes and priceless artworks, and I'd like to see the Dubs dishing out soup to tramps. It's time the secularists showed religion what charity really is.
