Personally, I think that some of what passes for charitable activity seems to be a bit of a racket - see the S Times article this weekend about trusts claiming to do charitable work but in reality being a money laundering scam, but that is by the by.
I don't think that was remotely charitable - it was effectively passing off by misusing the charities' names (without permission and without compensation).
Siblings shouldn't be allowed sexual activity or marriage on health grounds.
There's a reason why incest is illegal.
Causes all sorts of deformities in the kids.
What if they're gay? There would be no procreation, so it shouldn't matter. Perhaps gay marriage should be allowed between siblings, but not between heteros.
The next point is then if older siblings are living together and they want to pass over the inheritance like a married couple can do, it would only be allowed if they were the same sex.
Siblings shouldn't be allowed sexual activity or marriage on health grounds.
There's a reason why incest is illegal.
Causes all sorts of deformities in the kids.
What if they're gay? There would be no procreation, so it shouldn't matter. Perhaps gay marriage should be allowed between siblings, but not between heteros.
The next point is then if older siblings are living together and they want to pass over the inheritance like a married couple can do, it would only be allowed if they were the same sex.
@Cyclefree Charities get tax breaks because they are private bodies doing public good. It's reasonable for the state to tell those private bodies that if they want the tax breaks, they have to do the public good in a way of which the state approves.
Charities are already regulated. This would be one more regulation.
"if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple why would a gay couple want to get married somewhere they aren't welcome?"
Because they are members of that church like any other members, and feel that they should be welcome?
But if you are not welcome in a club then using the law to enforce "welcome" seems like an odd way of going about it? You can stay & try and change the organisation from within, but an external mandated blessing surely is going to be half-hearted at best?
@Cyclefree Charities get tax breaks because they are private bodies doing public good. It's reasonable for the state to tell those private bodies that if they want the tax breaks, they have to do the public good in a way of which the state approves.
Charities are already regulated. This would be one more regulation.
Charity regulation doesn't encompass what they *believe* though.
It just lays out what procedures need to be followed to qualify for charitable status. State intervention in belief is a very worry principle you are laying out.
"But if you are not welcome in a club then using the law to enforce "welcome" seems like an odd way of going about it? You can stay & try and change the organisation from within, but an external mandated blessing surely is going to be half-hearted at best?"
Try this example - would you have said the same about any trade union reformers in the 1980s who welcomed externally-imposed Thatcherite reforms?
But what kind of church would make anyone unwelcome? The Christian church was founded by a man who in his life had close companions that included a prostitute and a tax collector (tax collectors were famously corrupt at that time). Shouldn't his followers be welcoming of everyone?
"if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple why would a gay couple want to get married somewhere they aren't welcome?"
Because they are members of that church like any other members, and feel that they should be welcome?
But if you are not welcome in a club then using the law to enforce "welcome" seems like an odd way of going about it? You can stay & try and change the organisation from within, but an external mandated blessing surely is going to be half-hearted at best?
There's also the minor issue of what being a member of a church entails. Is it anyone ? Those on the Church roll ? Those who have been baptised or confirmed ? The Roman catholic church asks non- catholics to refrain from taking the Eucharist should we ban it for not being welcoming ? Same applies to reformed churches where some ministers won't marry divorcees.
@Charles It's not state intervention in belief. It's state intervention in how that belief is practised, if that charity is to retain its tax advantages.
I see that the Telegraph blogs have found yet another writer who is conveniently proving very supportive of the Conservative campaign against UKIP. Where did they find this Sean Thomas chap from?
"But if you are not welcome in a club then using the law to enforce "welcome" seems like an odd way of going about it? You can stay & try and change the organisation from within, but an external mandated blessing surely is going to be half-hearted at best?"
Try this example - would you have said the same about any trade union reformers in the 1980s who welcomed externally-imposed Thatcherite reforms?
You're missing the point. Trade union laws are a matter of politics and within the realm of the state. Religious beliefs - as with colour, ethnicity, sexuality, sex, etc - have a higher status than that.
But what kind of church would make anyone unwelcome? The Christian church was founded by a man who in his life had close companions that included a prostitute and a tax collector (tax collectors were famously corrupt at that time). Shouldn't his followers be welcoming of everyone?
I agree, personally. But there is a difference between personal belief and using the apparatus of the state to enforce your personal beliefs in matters of morality.
@Charles It's not state intervention in belief. It's state intervention in how that belief is practised, if that charity is to retain its tax advantages.
No: you are requiring the religious to perform a Sacrament, a fundamental expression of their religious beliefs. And if they don't you will take away their tax breaks.
If, for instance, they were refusing to serve homosexuals (or blacks or women or whatever) at their food kitchens that would be a valid reason for the State to intervene. But performance or not of a Sacrament? Definitely not.
"Trade union laws are a matter of politics and within the realm of the state. Religious beliefs - as with colour, ethnicity, sexuality, sex, etc - have a higher status than that."
You're shifting the goalposts here. We weren't discussing the rights and wrongs of state intervention, but whether someone who isn't "welcome" in an organisation should leave rather than taking advantage of externally-imposed change. On that count, trade union reform is indeed analogous.
I'm not particularly militant, but I do believe that the right for gay people to get married should override the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs and to retain the benefit of the very generous tax breaks that they receive. If it means that much to them and they wish to stay outside the modern social consensus, they should not expect state subsidy."
It's pretty well-established, though, that to qualify for charitable status, an organisation does not need to serve society as a whole, but only a seciton of society. I wouldn't expect a synagogue, for example, to be required to marry Jewish members to non-Jewish members, or a Catholic church to marry divorcees, in order to qualify for charitable status. It would be concering if organisations only got charitable status if they were in agreement with the government of the day.
Well, I've got through two-and-a-half minutes of the Miliband interview without being too shocked, so for this to live up to its PB Tory billing I can only assume the remaining twelve-and-a-half minutes consists of him breaking into song, declaring himself a Leninist and trying to seduce Martha Kearney. Should be good.
I see that the Telegraph blogs have found yet another writer who is conveniently proving very supportive of the Conservative campaign against UKIP. Where did they find this Sean Thomas chap from?
I fear SeanT has become a Gaylording Ponceyboots Cameroon.
I see that the Telegraph blogs have found yet another writer who is conveniently proving very supportive of the Conservative campaign against UKIP. Where did they find this Sean Thomas chap from?
I fear SeanT has become a Gaylording Ponceyboots Cameroon.
maybe we need some PB support for SeanT, helpful comments on his blog like "what a remarkably accurate article from one of our leading authors I was just thinking the same myself". I sure that kind of remark would help calm the DT folks down and add to an air of reasonable debate. cough cough.
'It’s not actually a bad video. But the problem is it’s got Ed Miliband in it. And Ed Miliband isn’t an asset to his party at the moment, he’s a liability.
The polls are quite clear. Ed Miliband’s approval ratings are sliding. Indeed, the most recent ICM poll recorded the worst ratings since he was elected Labour leader.
So why is Labour putting Ed at the heart of the Labour’s campaign? Whatever you think of him, no one can plausibly argue he’s a political asset at this point in time.'.
What a load of sanctimonious waffle, even for you, SeanT. Despite a tip of the hat to UKIP, this was a dreadful piece, quite unbecoming of your writing talents. Of course Telegraph readers may lap it up but even they can tell the difference between cream and curds.
@Antifrank: "It's reasonable for the state to tell those private bodies that if they want the tax breaks, they have to do the public good in a way of which the state approves. "
Telling charities that what they do must comply with the land is fine. Telling people what they must think is not. If a charitable organisation believes that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman (let's make it a Jewish organisation) there is no reason why its work providing a soup kitchen to the homeless should not benefit from a tax break (if that is what the law permits). Providing food to the homeless is the activity for which the tax break is provided. Their view of what marriage means is irrelevant.
@SeanT This comment after your article is a keeper. minerva Today 02:22 PM
Since Sean Thomas only looks about thirty, he's hardly qualified to have a valid opinion about Britain 'back in the day'; as he would no doubt say in the Americanised argot of his (young) generation.
I think that the announcement of the cutting of aid to South Africa has been done in a very shabby manner. The timing, just before the local elections was intended to show that the government can be tough on foreigners.Furthermore it was done without giving prior notice to South African officials.
Is the government so afraid of UKIP that it resorts to panic measures to show a tough approach to other nations.
Comments
Perhaps gay marriage should be allowed between siblings, but not between heteros.
The next point is then if older siblings are living together and they want to pass over the inheritance like
a married couple can do, it would only be allowed if they were the same sex.
Tricky area this...
Because they are members of that church like any other members, and feel that they should be welcome?
Charities are already regulated. This would be one more regulation.
It just lays out what procedures need to be followed to qualify for charitable status. State intervention in belief is a very worry principle you are laying out.
Try this example - would you have said the same about any trade union reformers in the 1980s who welcomed externally-imposed Thatcherite reforms?
But what kind of church would make anyone unwelcome? The Christian church was founded by a man who in his life had close companions that included a prostitute and a tax collector (tax collectors were famously corrupt at that time). Shouldn't his followers be welcoming of everyone?
"Nigel Farage has brilliantly tunnelled into the bullion reserves of British discontent"
Well, of English discontent anyway, which is doubtless what you meant without consciously realising it.
We won't pay house property tax in June.
8 times. That's how many times Ed Miliband refused to admit that Labour would borrow more on Wato
getting close to Paxo Vs Howard levels...
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 1m
Ed Miliband's been Labour leader for over two years. He wants to be Prime Minister. His WATO interview was a disgrace.
Dan Hodges"
Surely you can do better than just you and Dan Hodges?
If, for instance, they were refusing to serve homosexuals (or blacks or women or whatever) at their food kitchens that would be a valid reason for the State to intervene. But performance or not of a Sacrament? Definitely not.
You're shifting the goalposts here. We weren't discussing the rights and wrongs of state intervention, but whether someone who isn't "welcome" in an organisation should leave rather than taking advantage of externally-imposed change. On that count, trade union reform is indeed analogous.
I've realised, Ed Miliband only has two weaknesses, everything he says, and everything he does.
Apart from that he's brilliant.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/harold-wilsons-son-railing-against-1123913
600= par.
http://www.gwsr.com/news/2012/january/opposition-takes-control-on-the-gwr!.aspx
It's pretty well-established, though, that to qualify for charitable status, an organisation does not need to serve society as a whole, but only a seciton of society. I wouldn't expect a synagogue, for example, to be required to marry Jewish members to non-Jewish members, or a Catholic church to marry divorcees, in order to qualify for charitable status. It would be concering if organisations only got charitable status if they were in agreement with the government of the day.
You should do a piece on why Cameron is the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever had, better than Churchill or Thatcher.
Perhaps you could mention the time Cameron's government gave you the horn.
2. Count to 3
3. Throw grenade
4. Get popcorn
Ed Miliband crashes on The World at One. Voters have decided they don't like him, so why is Labour pushing him just before the elections?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100214450/ed-miliband-crashes-on-the-world-at-one-voters-have-decided-they-dont-like-him-so-why-is-labour-pushing-him-just-before-the-elections/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
But for us political saddos, it is great fun
More comedy.
'It’s not actually a bad video. But the problem is it’s got Ed Miliband in it. And Ed Miliband isn’t an asset to his party at the moment, he’s a liability.
The polls are quite clear. Ed Miliband’s approval ratings are sliding. Indeed, the most recent ICM poll recorded the worst ratings since he was elected Labour leader.
So why is Labour putting Ed at the heart of the Labour’s campaign? Whatever you think of him, no one can plausibly argue he’s a political asset at this point in time.'.
Telling charities that what they do must comply with the land is fine. Telling people what they must think is not. If a charitable organisation believes that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman (let's make it a Jewish organisation) there is no reason why its work providing a soup kitchen to the homeless should not benefit from a tax break (if that is what the law permits). Providing food to the homeless is the activity for which the tax break is provided. Their view of what marriage means is irrelevant.
This comment after your article is a keeper.
minerva
Today 02:22 PM
Since Sean Thomas only looks about thirty, he's hardly qualified to have a valid opinion about Britain 'back in the day'; as he would no doubt say in the Americanised argot of his (young) generation.
Vote UKIP! (from a disillusioned Scottish Tory)
Is the government so afraid of UKIP that it resorts to panic measures to show a tough approach to other nations.