That’s actually not correct. Separate church and state actually implies something very different with regards to relative power structure between institutions.
Okay, so what religiously based laws would you advocate for?
Again separation doesn’t mean institution A has 100% of societal power. It means that to some extent institutions are shielded from each other.
Concerning laws based on religion? All sorts of laws are derived from ancient moral codes. Even the idea of intrinsic, natural rights to a large degree is based on an appeal to the divine.
Most of those ancient moral codes precede most existing religions. Possibly all of all of them. You cannot base a law on a religious principle unless that principle is unique to a given religion. Which does not leave much. If you have religion-based laws, they should be specific to that one religion and its adherents and not apply to anyone else.
Why does it have to be unique to that religion? And if it has to be unique to be considered religious and not from a general, traditional, moral code and there isn’t that much uniqueness as you claim then what is the worry?
The exemption given to religious groups is not primarily financial. The true exemption, the one that really counts and is what drives the relatively minor financial perks, is that they are socially exempted from having to justify their beliefs and statements. U.S. Christians are automatically treated with the kind of deference that Muslims vocally demanded from French and Danish cartoonists (who quite rightly stood their ground).
American cartoonists aren’t publishing pictures of God with his head up his holy ass ignoring the troubles of the world, and there’s a lot wrong with that fact.
I’ve always thought that the appeal to natural rights was a bit of an odd one, anyway. That only works if there is a divine that will protect your rights. Otherwise, it is just a social convention where we agree to respect each other’s rights. So, I don’t really see that as a good justification to base secular codes on religious texts.
Religious codes are arbitrary. In the same set of commandments that tells us not to kill, we are also told that we have to take saturdays (later arbitrarily changed to sundays) off. A secular law is one that can be shown to have a reason for existing. We have laws against harming others because we don’t want to be harmed ourselves. We can justify those laws secualry.
When you make laws based on religion, they don’t need to be justified. “It says so in the bible” is all the justification that is needed to impose religious laws.
The point of shielding is to allow people to worship, or not, as they like, and not to have someone else’s religion forced upon them. As such, yes, religion should have 0 input into secular affairs.
Not familiar with the work of Gary Larson?
All I’ll say is that a simple Google image search (search term: anti-christian political cartoon) proves that this isn’t the case at all.
And if God was here, He’d tell you to your face, “Man, you’re some kinda sinner.”
Just churches and other religious organisations. There’s a clear category difference between churches and other 501( c)(3) organisations, as the legislative framework itself makes clear by having some separate operating conditions, as well as registration requirements, for churches. IMO, if churches want their charitable or educational work to be tax exempt, they should incorporate and register those as separate organisations which should meet all the conditions for tax exemption.
That would be a violation of the First Amendment, so it is a non-starter.
Regards,
Shodan
It would be holding churches to the same standard as any other organization. How is that a violation of the First Amendment?
That is not so, as evidenced by the responses here. Religion is not even remotely shielded from criticism in this country. As with anything, the limit of what you’re willing to say is dictated by the heat you’re going to generate and your willingness to endure the criticism you get from the people exercising their right to free speech while criticizing yours.
Have at it. Go as far as you dare. Just don’t pretend you didn’t provoke the response you’re going to get.
OK, with that further explanation it makes more sense. The original way you framed it made it sound like they should not be allowed tax exempt status at all.
I’m not so sure about that. It just treats Churches like any other organization.
Because singling out one kind of non-profit for special treatment because it is religious is a violation of the free exercise clause.
Regards,
Shodan
What are the precedent cases establishing that?
.
Would it? Where does the First Amendment say “Churches shall pay no taxes”? “Free exercise” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does.
You’d have an argument if it was the First that established non-profits in the first place. But that was separate law, and it’s easy enough to say “No, actually, we now realise churches and non-profits are, in fact, separate classes of things altogether, and this law should apply only to the latter” and have that be perfectly within both the letter and the spirit of the First. Your argument amounts to “churches should be non-profits just because they have been non-profits” and that’s a weak argument.
They are “singled out” by treating them like everyone else? Ok…