Can they claim business expenses like the operation of a church against their charitable purposes like any other non-profit would or would you single them out? After all churches serve as meeting places to advance charitable causes and the collection plate is passed around and some of that money goes to charity.
Considering the vast majority of churches are barely making ends meet, the idea that they are profiteering rackets is pretty ludicrous on its face. For someone who touts himself as the forum’s expert on religion, you say a lot of abject bullshit about it. It’s a tiny minority of churches that makes a profit off of the business model. Most churches rely on getting breaks from contractors who are amongst the congregation to fix leaky roofs.
Churches as profiteering rackets. It’s amazing how many otherwise smart people actually say this as though it has validity. Particularly when they are making arguments that would put restrictions on religious non-profits that secular non-profits don’t have to deal with.
It surely is tempting. I don’t see the problem with having churches pay taxes like everybody else, but maybe somebody can explain. What intertwining does that entail? That the government takes money from religions and can thus be influenced? What is the actual problem?
Whatever money doesn’t go directly to charitable purposes should be taxable.
I didn’t say they all are, I said too many of them are. The megachurches, for instance, and the televangelism rackets.
If some of them are having trouble making ends meet, that’s too bad for them. It shouldn’t be the government’s problem. Why should I be any more concerned with the ability of a struggling church to pay its taxes than a struggling strip joint? That’s capitalism. Sink or swim, and give the state its cut.
Yes. People in this country already complain that the government does too much to support religion. Imagine the Catholic Church pulling the “my taxes pay your salary” card with legislators.
So making them pay taxes is giving them *more *support? This makes no sense.
How would religion be any different from any other tax paying special interest group? And, more importantly, what is the justification for giving them tax breaks in the first place?
Fair enough, that was imprecise wording. Put it this way: the government already supports religion in a variety of ways ranging from the Pledge of Allegiance to voucher for private schools to faith-based initiatives. If the government accepts tax money from religions, it’s then directly accountable to religions the same way it is accountable to large groups of donors and other lobbying organizations. Currently, religions are not allowed to engage in some kinds of direct political activity, although I know they skirt the lines of what’s allowed. But that’ll go away if the government taxes them. Think of the NRA’s influence on the government, but much bigger.
Well, that’s a general problem with the way our country works. We tend to give lots of power to our State, because we trust it to do the right thing (or trust we can force it to), and when it does we want it to not have its hands overly tied. Which does lead to abuses of power sometimes. We think it’s worth it, I suppose.
As for the JW in particular, I won’t deny that there seems to be a bit of pettiness to it - the JW sued the State (and public organizations tied to it) a lot back in the 80s, thus the State declined to throw them a bone. There’s also injustice, in the sense that they were most probably singled out less for what they really did, but because letting them in the cultual club would have opened the door to any number of shadier operations.
But even so, it’s a far cry from persecution or restriction of individual freedom IMO. Again, they weren’t hunted down in the streets - they were only asked to pay their damn taxes like the rest of us. Render unto Caesar…
First, let me say I was wrong before : the JWs *did *recently get their coveted cultual status. Which torpedoes Kimmy’s argument But it’s true that the State fucked with them for 20 years, sometimes on shaky ethical ground, pour décourager les autres. So, let me try to answer to that anyway.
No circularity : the commission report on sects & cults has no legal value. It’s just that : a report on religious organizations which had weird, possibly criminal practices that should be followed more closely. It cannot, and has not been used as a reason for pulling the plug on tax breaks or any legal action for that matter. Besides, since it’s a 1995 report, and the beginning of the JW wrangling harks back to 1985…
It wasn’t about pacifism per se, but organized obstruction to State policy. I’ve yet to hear of a country which promoted draft dodging and conscientious objection - AFAIK, no matter where you hail from, it always entails running through an insane amount of philosophical and legal hoops. I should know, I would have filed for conscientious objection myself, had compulsory military service not been discontinued around the time I turned 18.
As for the “taking part in public life” item, Not sure. Could be just a vague notion that “they keep to themselves”, could be that the JWs don’t want to take their kids to public school… no idea, really - I was 4 at the time, so I didn’t follow that particular kerfluffle ;), and I don’t know much about the JW way of life besides the annoying door-to-door thing.
However, from what I read on the subject, I do think both that and conscientious objection bit were thrown in “for weight” in the 1985 jurisprudence (the one that denied them “cultual association” status), the major point of contention between State and JWs was always that they’d rather let themselves (and their children) die than accept a blood transfusion, and sued hospitals whenever they gave a member an emergency BT without first checking whether or not the guy was a JW. The consensus deemed those practices disruptive (and tantamount to child abuse). I tend to agree, but then I have a problem with litigious, ungrateful dicks in general :p. But do note that your concerns (not precisely defining the contention, and singling out the JWs) were raised back then, too, as well as during the long legal back-and-forth that followed.
Flash forward to 2002 : refusing a blood transfusion has just been recognized as a fundamental patient right and doesn’t qualify as “disruption of public order” anymore ; and since by then compulsory military service had long been discontinued, JW associations regain the cultual association status, and the privileges it entails (no land tax on churches and offices, donations non-taxable, tax deductible and not requiring notification to the local prefect). All is well, and the individual is free to mail all of his possessions to Bethel if he so wishes. Praise the Lawd, hallelujah.
Well, I (and the French gov, obviously) disagree - we grandfathered religious exceptions and privileges established religions had (in my own, unsubstantiated opinion, most probably because the RCC would have thrown one heck of a hissy fit if we hadn’t). And that does create something of a schyzophrenic legal envirronment. But I don’t see a problem with not handing out free money to any yokel who claims his pyramidal scheme is a religion, especially when the pyramidal scheme involves disrupting society or (in the case of scientology) outright crime and attempts to infiltrate the government.
@RedFury : thanks ! But I’m afraid I’m way, way less knowledgeable of French politics, laws and current events than **clairobscur **is. French I am, well-educated… not so much
As far as CA’s budget and the size of the scientology “church” in WeHo, the property taxes alone would put a dent in the bankruptcy. If we taxed all churches (especially the mega-churches DtC mentioned), bailout? What bailout? (Well, it’d be a start.)
It’s not the government’s problem. Lack of taxation =/= subsidy. They will sink or swim on their own, but as they provide support for communities we have deemed them as a social benefit.
As for megachurches, I’d be all for systematically auditing them to see if they are running as for-profit entities and changing the status of those who violate their sanction, but I don’t see why this requires any change in the law as it currently exists at all.
You have just been nominated for the annual “Get A Load Of This Fucking Moron” awards, presented by the CIA in conjunction with our Zionist Overlords, Coca-Cola, the Freemasons, and the D.A.R.
At first, I thought “brilliant parody”. But as you kept going it became apparent that you are the scientologist. Yes, your posts talking about the ridiculous extents scientology will go to in order to subvert the masses are there just to make us all associate secret sleeper scientologist theories with conspiracy-theory nutcases in tinfoil hats.
Bravo, Scientologist Agent 00Xenu. The only thing you forgot was that we, the Knights Templar, are aware of your activities. Please remain where you are, for your own safety. A reprogramming crew will be along shortly. Do not resist or you will be blackboxed.
SD POSTERS: BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR, INCLUDING:
QUESTIONING THE BOARD STATUS QUO
UNDERMINING CONSENSUS
GODWINIZING
HOLDING CONSERVATIVE VALUES
BEING A TAX ATTORNEY
SHUT THE FUCK UP
I’m not saying there is one, but I’m not in charge of what France does, and if they want to set the laws without exemptions for conscientious objection, it’s not my place to tell they they can’t.
Doesn’t the current situation give religions the choice? If they decided that they would benefit more from direct political activity than getting away tax-free, couldn’t they simply start engaging in said activity and laugh off the “penalty” of having to pay the same taxes as everyone else?
If the government let you get away with not paying taxes at the expense of refraining from direct political activity, with the option of violating that rule and receiving a penalty that makes you no worse off than if you hadn’t accepted at all, would you be complaining?
As I said, they skirt the rules, but there are restrictions on what a 501(c)(3) tax exempt group can do. If religions are taxed they won’t be subject to that. Remember the fuss about the Mormon Church funding proposition 8 in California? I think this leads to outcomes that people who strongly support the separation of church and state would not like.
Churches can’t keep their tax exempt status if they endorse candidates or tell their congregations who to vote for. I think that’s acually more of an entanglement than just removing the exemptions and letting them say whatever they want (which they do anyway) would be.
I am not so sure about this. If the 501(c)(3) restrictions were removed, it would be much easier to create institutional counteweights to oppose church-driven agendas. I am not entirely sure that the political equilibrium would be all that different than what we have now.
As an aside, my father is a JW, and not only does he vote, he volunteers at his polling place. Do you mean “JW’s don’t believe in passing judgement,” which means they don’t particapate in jury selections? JW’s belive that only God can judge man. Perhaps he just belongs to a progressive Fellowship. I really don’t know that much about it.
But it’s true that the State fucked with them for 20 years, sometimes on shaky ethical ground, pour décourager les autres. So, let me try to answer to that anyway.