IMHO religion is important to freedom because it is another competing sovereign. Any institution that acts as an authority competes with other authorities, the more there are the less each authority has control (religions, federal, state, local government, along with the branches, educational, press, ect. all fall into this). In other words we have freedom not because of a piece of paper called the constitution (US centric example - but when did a piece of paper ever grant freedoms? it is the authority that respects that piece of paper that grants them, the reason that the authority respects it is if they don’t the other authorities will oppose them and remove them ), but because of each authority is set up against each other and our freedom in in the interplay between them. When a government bans religion, or religion becomes the government, one less authority is there and usually freedoms are less. In the case of religion is it a particularly powerful authority that bypasses fear of punishment in this world which is a challenge to conventional authority.
In my view, religion touches people in a special place (yeah, go ahead, smirk), by a route that is difficult (but not impossible) for secular contrivance to follow. It claims ownership of cosmic mystery and usually makes positive assertions about the singularity (being, “soul”) that tend to be deeply personal and affective. And, of course, there is a hoary tradition of indoctrination that has embedded parts of it in the local culture.
In that respect, it occupies a nearly unique province and, through its leaders and adherents, vigorously defends its borders. But the key thing about it is that, by existing in the realm of shade, it has been shown to be useful for leverage, to draw the power of shade upon the world at hand by readily convincing its believers in the righteousness of a cause.
Hence, it does need to be treated differently, because of the awesome, visceral power that it can wield.
It has been suggested that I am advocating for bans or regulation. This is really not the case. We have freedom of speech but not protection from the consequences that others may visit upon us because of our words. To me, it looks like freedom of religion is largely treated as freedom from consequences, and it do not believe that is proper. The original Constitutional protection was put in place not with an eye toward churches running amok, as they seem to be, but toward protecting believers from being persecuted for what they choose to believe. That is where I see we need the reform, to return to the basic principle that I believe was intended.
AMEN!
The IRS gives a pretty good breakdown of what they consider qualifies an organization to be exempt from federal taxes under 501(c)(3) in Publication 557. You can also find a list of the types of organizations that might qualify for tax exemption status with the IRS here. In short, a regular business can’t just declare themselves to be non-profit and be exempt from taxes.
What would you tax? Income? That would makes gifts taxable, which would open a really big can of worms. Not to mention, it would make all other charitable and non-profits have to pay taxes.
One reason why churches are tax exempt is because more of their income is tax exempt anyway.
Property? That is by state and sometimes by county and churches don’t always get a waiver on property tax.
Churches are not specially tax exempt.
I am not religious but I am a member of a number of communities. None of them, however, go around insisting people live the way they do. In fact a number of them get picked on by others and their “religious communities.”
Organizations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational, or other specified purposes and that meet certain other requirements are tax exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3).
Churches and Religious Organizations
Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, may qualify for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3).
Every organization that qualifies for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) is classified as a private foundation unless it meets one of the exceptions listed in Section 509(a). Private foundations typically have a single major source of funding (usually gifts from one family or corporation rather than funding from many sources) and most have as their primary activity the making of grants to other charitable organizations and to individuals, rather than the direct operation of charitable programs.
Interpreted very broadly, I think pretty much all communities insist that their members behave in certain ways (e.g. the SDMB community’s rules against being a jerk or insulting other posters outside the Pit). Interpreted more narrowly, there are some religious communities that don’t “go around insisting people live the way they do,” and some non-religious communities that do. Which I think demonstrates how hard it is to generalize about religion, or to draw a hard, clear line between what is and is not “religious.”
You’re right. Within any community there are certain expectations of behavior from the community’s members, “don’t be a dick” being common.
Amend to “None of them, however, go around insisting people outside the community live the way they do.”
But that doesn’t define religion either. There are religions that do NOT insist that outsiders need to convert. And there are non-religious groups that DO insist everyone should feel like them on specific issues.
I’m evoking Runyon’s Law here.
My thought is that all churches ought to receive no special tax treatment, that they should be taxed exactly as a corporation.
Now… for churches that believe community service and outreach are important to their ministry, they could form not-for-profit foundations to do that work. They would be able to raise money tax-free, so long as the money goes specifically to the community service work expenses, and that giving and receiving such service isn’t contingent on one’s practice or profession of religion. The foundation could operate under the name and oversight of the parent church, but absolutely no funds must ever flow back to it.
This way, it would become evident pretty quickly which churches are actually passionate about serving the community, and which ones are mainly concerned with enriching the church and clergy.
And how is that? How are corporations taxed?
I honestly don’t know, but a few minutes’ googling tells me that they are taxed on their profits? How would that work for a church or other non-profit organization?
Important to note here that “non-profit” organizations are more accurately characterized as “not-for-profit” organizations. Their mission isn’t to make a profit, but they often do.
So, if a business makes no profit, then (generally speaking) it pays no taxes. It would be the same with churches, but we’d need to think through what can reasonably be called a deductible expense. i.e. it shouldn’t be a deductible expense when the church buys the pastor a Lexus when a Camry would do just fine.
Are you going to apply the “Camry rule” to company cars of for-profit companies as well? Because I think you’d end up with an awful lot of pushback from corporate lobbyists…
Not to say that I think a church should be able to buy a pastor luxury items for their exclusive use either. Frankly, I’d tend to distrust any pastor who accepted such a gift, doubly so any who hinted as wanting such a thing.
But if you’re going to treat churches like businesses, it’s not going to make it any easier to regulate compensation and the like, or the businesses are going to squawk.
Depends on the circumstances. I, too, tend to distrust clergy who live lavish, opulent lifestyles. But what about a pastor who’s lived austerely for decades on the small salary his congregation has been able to pay him, until one day, his beater of an old car finally gives out; and the congregation, in appreciation for his years of faithful service, raises the money to buy him at least a borderline-luxury new car? or maybe they give him the Lexus that one of the congregation died and left to the church in her will?
“Shouldn’t” is one thing; “shouldn’t be able to” is another.
But if there is a “profit” it is not paid out to executives or shareholders. It is rolled back into the non-profit. And of course the “income” is primarily “gifts” which are tax exempt.
Note that in the Tax Code there is little difference between a Church and a Non-profit, such as the Sierra club. The idea of taxing (income) Churches (but not non-profits) is ludicrous.
That is not to say that in a State that makes churches- but not non-profits- property tax exempt- that you could not work to change that. That is a very reasonable thing to work for.
Quite right. And that was my intent - I should have edited the sentence I wrote accordingly.
You present two good counterexamples. Thanks for the correction.
Always? What’s to stop the nonprofit organization from rolling the “profit” into higher salaries for the executives and staff?
Higher salaries? None. Profit sharing? The law.