# Are you sure you know who God is? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422 "2013-07-13T20:24:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/241 "2013-07-24T23:21:33Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > How exactly does the first amendment allow religions to be tax exempt? The establishment clause. Anyway, that’s how I was taught. If there are cites to the contrary, I’ll happily look at them. > [@](#): > > The original point that started this was about religion posing a minor acceptable cost to society. I don’t think it is. While creationist laws get struck down on a regular basis, the still have to be fought on a regular basis because they get proposed on a regular basis. Religious organizations own quite a lot of tax free property, and are pretty tight lipped when it comes to finding out exactly how much. Religion is on our money, in our courtrooms, and in the voices of a large chunk of the people in charge of the country. This is not a little thing. > > All of the things I mentioned look silly when applied to smoking, but when applied to religion a lot of people just nod. I definitely agree that the peril exists in the abstract, and that there are a small handful of theocrats who are trying to expand the power of the church to interfere in ours lives. I just believe that, at this point in time, the secular power of the church to interfere is fairly minor. They have not come to agree to leave the rest of us alone. If they could, they’d re-institute many of the old “blue laws” that were such a burden and imposition. If they could, they’d compel you and me to kneel on prayer mats and acknowledge how great Jesus/Moses/Mohammed/Llandru is. But…right now…they can’t. Some might say this is the time to press our advantage and hobble them even more. I say no, because this would make us little better than they are. In a way, this is a no-win situation. It’s like dealing with fire. When the conflagration is out of control and destroying entire city blocks, it’s too late to institute reasonable controls. But when the fire is fully under control and limited to wood-stoves and fireplaces, there isn’t any need for further restrictions. Tyranny is like that. > [@Telemark](#): > > I believe all qualified charities and/or non-profits are tax exempt. Religious organizations are just a subset of that, not a special case. I think this is incorrect, and that religious organizations get the break out of the spirit of the establishment clause. [Here is a cite](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tax-exemptions) which gives me at least a little support in my interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/242 "2013-07-25T13:38:13Z")
> [@](#): > > **Kable** : Why so secretive? You’ve been here around a year. I’ve been here for ten years and have not been secretive about my religious beliefs. Why do you want to know when I choose not to answer? > [@](#): > > **Der Trihs** : Someone who thinks he has the creator of the universe in his corner tends to be ruthless, amoral and selfish; ( **cite**?) (Beyond _some_ Westboro members) Besides, who thinks that he has the creator of the universe in his corner? ( **cite**?) > [@](#): > > …they do as they please to whomever they please with complete self righteousness. ( **cite**?) (Beyond Westboro) > [@](#): > > Because since God loves them, everything they do is by definition right; they are just doing their god’s will, which is “by definition” the right thing to do even if it means burning the occasional city. Generally, Christians are aware that they continue to do things wrong on a daily basis. That’s why they admit that they are “sinners.” And it doesn’t mean that they do hateful things on the level of the Westboro Church. Which cities have been burned in the name of Christianity? ( **cite**?) > [@](#): > > **Der Trihs** : Religion is “calm and peaceful” when it’s weak and generally on the verge of dying out. When religion is strong it is aggressive and tyrannical. When most religions are aggressive and tyrannical, they are at their weakest. When they are calm and peaceful, they are at their strongest. Could it be that you see tyranny as strength and peacefulness as weak? > [@](#): > > **Czarcasm** : But “better understanding” other beliefs doesn’t equal “learning from” other beliefs-it is more akin to "learning about other beliefs. When you say that you have learned from other beliefs but refuse to say what they provided that your own religion didn’t provide, it gives no incentive to others to do the same. I learned more “about” other religions from reading when I was a teenager – and still do when I keep my ears open. And I began college as a religious education major. (Changed to liberal arts because of an excellent professor.) But it has been for the last 47 or so years that I have learned _from_ other faiths directly. Who said that I wanted to give others incentive to do the same? Let them learn to “Inquire Within” if they wish. My path is not their path. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/243 "2013-07-25T14:27:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The establishment clause. Anyway, that’s how I was taught. If there are cites to the contrary, I’ll happily look at them. The establishment says that the country cannot establish a specific religion, or infringe on the practice of a religion. It says nothing about religion get tax breaks. > [@](#): > > I definitely agree that the peril exists in the abstract, and that there are a small handful of theocrats who are trying to expand the power of the church to interfere in ours lives. But these theocrats are quite powerful, some of them hold office in this country. > [@](#): > > But…right now…they can’t. The only reason this is in any way true is because they are constantly being fought as they try to do so, yet another cost to bear. > [@](#): > > Some might say this is the time to press our advantage and hobble them even more. I say no, because this would make us little better than they are. It isn’t a matter of hobbling them, it’s more a matter of not giving them special privileges anymore. I think that this costs society more than it benefits it. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/244 "2013-07-25T14:45:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I think this is incorrect, and that religious organizations get the break out of the spirit of the establishment clause. [Here is a cite](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tax-exemptions) which gives me at least a little support in my interpretation. From that link: > [@](#): > > In order to maintain tax-exempt status, churches, like other 501(c)(3) > charitable organizations, must forego certain activities. Specifically, > 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from engaging in excessive political > lobbying and any political campaigning. According to the IRS, Sec. 501(c) of the IRS Code requires that a tax-exempt religious organization “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political > candidates.” While there is some play around what tasks religious organizations do, they seem to fall under the same tax code as all 501 (c) groups. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/245 "2013-07-25T20:44:16Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The establishment clause. Anyway, that’s how I was taught. If there are cites to the contrary, I’ll happily look at them. > > [snip] > I think this is incorrect, and that religious organizations get the break out of the spirit of the establishment clause. [Here is a cite](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tax-exemptions) which gives me at least a little support in my interpretation. Thank you for the link. It is informative. It appears you are looking especially at this part: > [@](#): > > The reasoning behind making churches tax-exempt and unburdened by IRS procedures stems from a First Amendment-based concern to prevent government involvement with religion. By avoiding initial inquiries into churches’ validity as houses of worship, government avoids violating the churches’ free-exercise right to define and regulate themselves. The theory seems to be that by having the IRS scrutinize the financial dealings of churches, they are imposing judgement on what constitutes a religious belief. However, we do have the IRS scrutinize some aspects of church activities, such as political lobbying and political campaigning. So there is some grounds that the government can scrutinize the activities of churches, especially if these are criteria established for other non-taxed organizations. Yet > [@](#): > > Churches and religious organizations receive these and some other benefits. For example, churches are not required to file tax returns or apply for tax-exempt status. The Internal Revenue Service automatically considers churches exempt (though many churches file anyway in an effort to assuage concerns of donors.) Here is a privilege extended to religious organizations not given to other non-taxed organizations. So the argument can be made that the nature of this privilege is biased in favor of religion over non-religion, and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause. I will also note your cite says below this part: > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court has made clear that a tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment’s free-exercise and establishment clauses. The _Walz_ Court said that the long history of tax exemption for religious organizations in no way creates an entitlement to any such exemption. So there does not appear to be any reason for churches to have a privileged tax-exempt status over any other non-taxed organization. > [@](#): > > In a way, this is a no-win situation. It’s like dealing with fire. When the conflagration is out of control and destroying entire city blocks, it’s too late to institute reasonable controls. But when the fire is fully under control and limited to wood-stoves and fireplaces, there isn’t any need for further restrictions. Tyranny is like that. Some might argue that the current situation, to extend the analogy, has fires mostly contained to wood-stoves and fireplaces, except for the occassional house fire let burn free to appease the arsonists. For example, it was just on the local news about a local city government that opens City Council meetings with a prayer. While in the grand scheme of things, a prayer in itself is pretty benign and does not constitute a significant threat to anyone’s liberty, the impression it creates is an attitude of exclusion and hostility for those not of the particular sect. Even if the prayers are generic christian in nature, that still creates an environment where alternative faiths and non-believers are not welcome. And while the First Amendment cannot guarantee members of the community, even the elected officials, will not hold those attitudes, the fact that the City Government sponsors that prayer makes that exclusion and hostility a Government attitude toward some of its citizens. The very idea of a prayer to start the meeting is certainly not neutral with respect to religion. Similarly, putting a slogan on our currency “In God We Trust” and displaying that slogan in court rooms, and having testimony in courts sworn “so help me God”, contribute to that oppressive environment of “you are not one of us”. I know there are work arounds for “so help me God”. The matter still exists that the default position is use of that phrase, and avoiding it takes an effort on the part of the person who does not wish to use it. The Supreme Court has ruled those slogans and such are allowed because they are ceremonial in nature and do not constitute a statement of belief. This seems odd, given the very claims the statements make, but essentially the Supreme Court is saying those statements are meaningless formalities, sort of like writing the date as 2013 A.D. They don’t feel meaningless. The problem is to decide which of these intrusions are really worth attacking, and which are trivial enough that going after them will just stir up a backlash rather than a sympathetic publicity. Yeah, that’s definitely far afield of tax-exemption. > [@Telemark](#): > > While there is some play around what tasks religious organizations do, they seem to fall under the same tax code as all 501 (c) groups. Hmm, I thought churches were organized under a different level of 501c, but it appears I am mistaken. Searching links, all indicate they fall under 501c3. Nevertheless, Churches get special exemption in that they are not required to file to be recognized for status (unlike other 501c3 organizations). There are also special rules limiting IRS authority to audit a church, that do not apply to other 501c3 organizations. The rationale for these special privileges appears to be the idea that because religious beliefs hold a special position, there have to be extra restrictions to prevent government meddling in churches to preclude aspects of supporting or opposing organizations based upon their beliefs rather than their actions. I can see this is a complex situation. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/246 "2013-07-25T22:55:09Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Besides, who thinks that he has the creator of the universe in his corner? Anyone with the motto “_Gott mit uns_”? 🙂 Or the same thing in some other language. (Only semi-facetious - claiming that god has your back when going to war is pretty common). ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/247 "2013-07-26T00:27:22Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > The establishment says that the country cannot establish a specific religion, or infringe on the practice of a religion. It says nothing about religion get tax breaks. . . . It forbids laws regarding an establishment of religion. This is a bit stronger than merely forbidden the establishment of an official religion. It points in the direction of “Separation of Church and State,” and is the essential basis for not taxing religions. > [@Irishman](#): > > . . . Here is a privilege extended to religious organizations not given to other non-taxed organizations. So the argument can be made that the nature of this privilege is biased in favor of religion over non-religion, and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . That’s rather a stretch. The Constitution doesn’t grant this same protection to, say, golf courses or barber shops. It specifies non-interference with religion. Taxation has been ruled to be a form of interference (“The power to tax is the power to destroy”) and thus the Constitution advises (many people interpret it as making a rule) that churches not be taxed. The Constitution also discriminates against people under 18 years of age: it doesn’t forbid them to vote, but it doesn’t guarantee them the right to vote either. You seem to be trying to interpret a new “right” in the document, saying “Churches must be treated exactly the same as every other institution.” But that isn’t what it says. The Constitution specifically and explicitly categorizes religion as being different from other institutions, not least for religion’s own protection. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/248 "2013-07-26T03:00:51Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Presbyterian > Unitarian > Unity > Spiritual > New Age > > to name a few > > and the ones you names are not Christian. I didn’t name any specific denominations. I attended several types of churches growing up, ranging from Presbyterian to Baptist, and every one of them taught that if you aren’t a Christian you are going to Hell. In the encounters I’ve had with you on these boards, **Lekatt** , you’ve talked about your belief in a whole lot of things that I was taught good Christians shouldn’t believe in – “witchcraft” like ouija boards. I’ve referred to you before as one of the most credulous people I’ve ever talked to, believing in everything from ghosts to dousing. I don’t think you have much standing to speak as an authority on Christianity. > [@Zoe](#): > > At each church I have attended regularly, there has been no teaching about Wiccans and Pagans. (That’s three different denominations.) I have been taught in all three that I’m in no position to judge someone else’s redemptive status or personhood. So none of those churches taught the ten commandments, where God specifically says [QUOTE=God] “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” [/QUOTE] 'Cause I’m pretty sure that Wiccans and Pagans have another god before him. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/249 "2013-07-26T03:15:04Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > At each church I have attended regularly, there has been no teaching about Wiccans and Pagans. . . . [quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:248, topic:663422”] . . . So none of those churches taught the ten commandments, where God specifically says [“You shall have no other gods before me.”] 'Cause I’m pretty sure that Wiccans and Pagans have another god before him. [/QUOTE] There is a mild logical fallacy here. **Zoe** ’s church could very well have taught that commandment, without going into detail about the specific faiths that violate it, and easily have done so without naming Wicca. They might never have mentioned the Hindu gods, or the Norse gods. It’s harder to teach the Bible without mentioning the Greek and Roman gods, but it isn’t impossible. It’s harder yet to teach the Bible without mentioning Baal (Samson, Gideon, etc.) but, again, it isn’t impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/250 "2013-07-26T05:02:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There is a mild logical fallacy here. **Zoe** ’s church could very well have taught that commandment, without going into detail about the specific faiths that violate it, and easily have done so without naming Wicca. They might never have mentioned the Hindu gods, or the Norse gods. It’s harder to teach the Bible without mentioning the Greek and Roman gods, but it isn’t impossible. It’s harder yet to teach the Bible without mentioning Baal (Samson, Gideon, etc.) but, again, it isn’t impossible. If I say “everyone who eats a four-legged animal is bad,” do I specifically have to mention every single four-legged animal, or would it just be assumed that I’ve just said people who eat goats are bad? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/251 "2013-07-26T05:24:27Z")
Er, that’s my point. **Zoe** ’s church could have taught the Commandment of the Lord without naming the Wiccan faith as being a violation of it. This contradicts your declaration that “So none of those churches taught the ten commandments.” ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/252 "2013-07-26T05:59:58Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:250, topic:663422”] If I say “everyone who eats a four-legged animal is bad,” do I specifically have to mention every single four-legged animal, or would it just be assumed that I’ve just said people who eat goats are bad? [/QUOTE] How do you fell about those who only \*stare \*at goats? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/253 "2013-07-26T13:02:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It forbids laws regarding an establishment of religion. This is a bit stronger than merely forbidden the establishment of an official religion. It points in the direction of “Separation of Church and State,” and is the essential basis for not taxing religions. Not really. The majority opinion of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York: > [@](#): > > The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its ‘moral or mental improvement,’ should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. The State has an affirmative policy that considers these groups as beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life and finds this classification useful, desirable, and in the public interest. Qualification for tax exemption is not perpetual or immutable; some tax-exempt groups lose that status when their activities take them outside the classification and new entities can come into being and qualify for exemption. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/254 "2013-07-26T18:12:13Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > 😉 Funny! But, Truth cannot be added to or subtracted from, if it is is is no longer truth. Truth is what is! ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/255 "2013-07-26T18:46:33Z")
That depends upon what the definition of “is” is. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/256 "2013-07-26T19:31:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That’s rather a stretch. The Constitution doesn’t grant this same protection to, say, golf courses or barber shops. It specifies non-interference with religion. Taxation has been ruled to be a form of interference (“The power to tax is the power to destroy”) and thus the Constitution advises (many people interpret it as making a rule) that churches not be taxed. > > [snip] > You seem to be trying to interpret a new “right” in the document, saying “Churches must be treated exactly the same as every other institution.” But that isn’t what it says. The Constitution specifically and explicitly categorizes religion as being different from other institutions, not least for religion’s own protection. As I said, it is a complex situation, but your reading seems in disagreement with the Supreme Court. In _[Employment Division v. Smith](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith),_ \* > [@](#): > > The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Scalia. The First Amendment forbids government from prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion. This means, of course, that government may not regulate beliefs as such, either by compelling certain beliefs or forbidding them. Religious belief frequently entails the performance of physical acts—assembling for worship, consumption of bread and wine, abstaining from certain foods or behaviors. Government could no more ban the performance of these physical acts when engaged in for religious reasons than it could ban the religious beliefs that compel those actions in the first place. “It would doubtless be unconstitutional, for example, to ban the casting of statues that are to be used for worship purposes or to prohibit bowing down before a golden calf.” > > But Oregon’s ban on the possession of peyote is not a law specifically aimed at a physical act engaged in for a religious reason. Rather, it is a law that applies to everyone who might possess peyote, for whatever reason—a “neutral law of general applicability,” in the Court’s phrasing. The Court characterized Smith’s and Black’s argument as an attempt to use their religious motivation to use peyote in order to place themselves beyond the reach of Oregon’s neutral, generally applicable ban on the possession of peyote. The Court held that the First Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for [Selective Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service), and laws requiring the payment of [Social Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)) taxes. Underlining added. Income tax legislation is a neutral law of general applicability, not applied only to religions, but equally across the board to all activities, organizations, as well as individuals. Similarly, the 501c3 tax exemption status is enacted generally as a neutral law, applying to many various groups for a variety of purposes, with religion only being one of those purposes. In theory, then, treating churches the exact same as any other organization qualifying for 501c3 tax exempt status would be the most neutral application of that law. However, churches get certain loopholes in qualifying (they do not have to apply for status, but are assumed valid unless proven otherwise) and in monitoring (there are explicit special restrictions on the IRS for monitoring church tax exemptions that do not apply to other organizations). The effect of those special privileges is to treat religion different from non-religious organizations, and privileges by their very nature are promotionary. Ergo, religion is being supported above non-religion. I realize the Supreme Court has not explicitly weighed in on my line of argument here. However, I feel my line of argument is directly supported by prior Court rulings. The flipside argument is that because religious beliefs are specially protected, the privileges granted to churches are reasonable attempts to limit the power of the government to de facto discriminate about religious beliefs by evaluating the beliefs as part of their evaluation of the church’s status for tax exemption, as opposed to evaluating the churches by the same criteria as other organizations, i.e. their fiscal _behaviors_. While this is an understandable concern, it seems to me that the rules evaluating other organizations only speak to their behaviors, not their beliefs, so the existing rules should be adequate. Also, you said: > [@](#): > > thus the Constitution advises (many people interpret it as making a rule) that churches not be taxed. This is false. The Constitution says nothing directly about taxation of Churches. _Walz v. Tax Commission_ has already been cited, starting with the very page you used as your support, where they said that there is no entitlement to tax exemption. * * * \*It should be noted that subsequently, peyote use for religious purposes has had explicit legislation inacted to protect it. This does not invalidate the rationale displayed by the Supreme Court above. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/257 "2013-07-26T23:06:38Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > As I said, it is a complex situation, but your reading seems in disagreement with the Supreme Court. . . . > The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Scalia. . . . I certainly spend a lot of my time disagreeing with Scalia. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/258 "2013-07-27T01:19:57Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Er, that’s my point. **Zoe** ’s church could have taught the Commandment of the Lord without naming the Wiccan faith as being a violation of it. This contradicts your declaration that “So none of those churches taught the ten commandments.” No, it doesn’t contradict my declaration. The word “taught” implies more than just reading those paragraphs out loud. It implies explaining them. If their pastor/preacher/minister quoted “You shall have no other gods before me,” but didn’t explain what that _means_, then he didn’t actually teach it. Are there Christians who think that Pagans and Wiccans worship the same god that they do? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/259 "2013-07-27T03:24:29Z")
The preacher could have explained the lesson by alluding to the Greek and Roman gods. Not mentioning the Wiccan religion is not a sign that the lesson wasn’t taught. “My church never mentioned John Wilkes Booth.” “Then your church never taught the Ten Commandments, ‘Thou shall not kill.’” “My church never mentioned the reclining Buddha of Ushiku.” “Then your church never taught the Ten Commandments, ‘Thou shall make no graven images.’” You fell into this error. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422/260 "2013-07-27T12:12:36Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > That depends upon what the definition of “is” is. 😉 In this case it means all that is existing. Like if you say today in the USA it “IS” a Saturday. What ever isn’t is!:o). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-sure-you-know-who-god-is/663422.md?page=14)