The Charities Commission in NZ is now using charitable status as a weapon against those charities it doesn't agree with. First it was Greenpeace which was deemed to be too political, a decision I admit I wasn't too disturbed about at the time. Then it was the Sensible Sentencing Trust, a decision that did worry me. But now the commission has ruled against an international organisation that helps those who struggle with same-sex attraction leave the homosexual lifestyle.
I've seen this come up again and again, the idea that if someone disapproves of a person's choice to be this, that or the other, then it harms that person. Except, it only seems to apply to homosexuality. A heck of a whole lot of people disapprove of me being Catholic, but rather than their disapproval harming me, it just helps me be more resolved to be a better Catholic. So I don't understand this thinking at all.
Wouldn't the benefit be that those who want help with same-sex attraction, are able to get that help? That decision surely would have to be left to the individual, not to the commission to determine. That the commission sees itself as the arbitor of what is and isn't helpful to the person and to society must mean that the NZ Government officially endorses that individuals feel they are trapped in a harmful lifestyle should stay there.
Related links: Charitable Status Revoked from New Zealand Homosexual Reorientation Group ~ LifeSiteNews
Charity rejection splits Sensible Sentencing Trust ~ Stuff
Team NZ among charity casualties ~ NZ Herald
Exodus International Stories
In defending its own charitable status, Exodus Ministries Trust Board told the Charities Commission that, as a Christian organization that offers "non-judgmental support and advice to anyone wishing to leave the homosexual lifestyle ... We believe the activities (and purposes) of Exodus are exclusively charitable."
The organization pointed out that “no one receives any pecuniary benefit of any kind from its activities which are religious, educational and beneficial to the community."
The Charities Commission countered, however, that in its view Exodus is not performing any activity of public benefit. It also noted that the American Psychological Association (APA) had deleted homosexuality from its listing of mental disorders and has stated that homosexual reorientation therapy might be harmful to homosexuals.
I've seen this come up again and again, the idea that if someone disapproves of a person's choice to be this, that or the other, then it harms that person. Except, it only seems to apply to homosexuality. A heck of a whole lot of people disapprove of me being Catholic, but rather than their disapproval harming me, it just helps me be more resolved to be a better Catholic. So I don't understand this thinking at all.
The Charities Commission stated in its decision that Exodus did not meet the criteria for a charitable group based on its own descriptions of its work: "The Applicant [Exodus] has a main purpose of promoting a particular point of view," including the claims that "homosexuality is morally wrong, that people can change from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that people are not born homosexual."
"In light of the above, the Commission considers that it is not able to determine whether the Applicant will, or will not, provide a benefit to the public that will outweigh any harm caused by the Applicant’s purposes."
Wouldn't the benefit be that those who want help with same-sex attraction, are able to get that help? That decision surely would have to be left to the individual, not to the commission to determine. That the commission sees itself as the arbitor of what is and isn't helpful to the person and to society must mean that the NZ Government officially endorses that individuals feel they are trapped in a harmful lifestyle should stay there.
Related links: Charitable Status Revoked from New Zealand Homosexual Reorientation Group ~ LifeSiteNews
Charity rejection splits Sensible Sentencing Trust ~ Stuff
Team NZ among charity casualties ~ NZ Herald
Exodus International Stories
I've seen this come up again and again, the idea that if someone disapproves of a person's choice to be this, that or the other, then it harms that person. Except, it only seems to apply to homosexuality. A heck of a whole lot of people disapprove of me being Catholic, but rather than their disapproval harming me, it just helps me be more resolved to be a better Catholic. So I don't understand this thinking at all.
ReplyDeleteI wish to set up a charitable foundation to encourage people to leave catholocism and join humnaity.
Should I be able to claim charitable status for that?
LRO,
ReplyDeleteThese groups already exist, and they have charitable status. They are not explicit in this aim, but that ends up being the effect.
It also noted that the American Psychological Association (APA) had deleted homosexuality from its listing of mental disorders
ReplyDeleteAnd why do we think that is? Did they find new scientific evidence that proved homosexuality wasn't a disorder? No, they were bullied into it by gay activists. Purely political.
Also, I have read elsewhere that "all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association" are gay. So, the APA is biased, and so is the Charities Commission.
To me, it looks like the Commission was told by Key and co. to take a knife to the number of groups having charity status. It's a money-saving drive.
Sounds like LRO agrees - let's shut down all the anti-religious "charities" first. And many pro-gay charities are more political than charitable.
ReplyDeleteThen we might be able to have a sensible conversation over mutual concerns about freedom.
When Charity Commission took over the management of charitable trusts, it removed the merit that renders charities social and moral values. Now it is a mechanism for social control and tax revenue collection.
ReplyDeleteThe current Local Government Amendment Bill also proposes to remove the term well-being from social, economic, environmental, and political organisations of society. Those are all the objective binds that weave the fabric of society. Their removal and in turn the disestablishment of society is supposed to strengthen the authority of the few individuals who own society’s wealth.
They have been trying for centuries to enslave, impoverish, imprison and in underclass establishment but the spirit lives on. The current psycho social engineering of subjective materialism is only transforming the soul to emerge the spirit.
It is a phenomenon beyond the parameters of material science and political force. If they should open their eyes they could save a lot of time by developing beings of economic prosperity. But I think they are more into power struggles than prosperity. And with all their wealth and powerful force, they simply can't kill the spirit.
Meantime, the spiral descends to no end in sight...
ZenTiger said...
ReplyDeleteSounds like LRO agrees - let's shut down all the anti-religious "charities" first. And many pro-gay charities are more political than charitable.
That is not, and never has been my position. When the Charites Act was revised the government did a good job in almost all areas, what it should have done was removed the advancement of religion as a charitable purpose.
If you have any evidence that pro-gay charities are more political than charitable then you can make a complaint to the charities commission.
Their contact details can be found at http://www.charities.govt.nz/about/contact-the-department-of-internal-affairs-charities/
They take abuse of charitable status quite seriously, Just ask Garth McVicar.