I stopped giving to the one conglomerate charity when the head of the local chapter was revealed, in the mid '90s, to be raking in an lower/middle six-figure salary (and I believe the national leader was well into seven figures).
Honest question here. What exactly has religion done to get you upset? If you don’t go to church, I think the worst that happens is that sometimes people knock on your door and ask you to convert to their religion, at which point you can slam the door in their face. So what is the issue?
Are there some organizations not paying taxes that you believe should be paying taxes? How do others practicing religion make your life less enjoying in some ways such that we need to go with the old “not all rights are absolute” argument? (Which is typically followed by a proposal to gut the right in question)
I second the question. It seems OK nowadays to be a bigot towards the faithful.
Well, as for me, it fucked me up pretty good. A dozen years of my early life were steeped in indoctrination. It took a dozen more years to shake most of that off, but there remain scars that may never go away. It has cost me friendships, and every time the trees get wiped out for yet another house of bullshit, I have been trod upon. Most of the ways that it harms society do not affect me directly, but I live in society and do not enjoy seeing it harmed.
I’m sorry you had such a bad experience.
On the one hand, for that to turn you against religion seems a little like having an abusive parent turn you against parenthood, or having a shitty school turn you against education.
On the other hand, we do have systems in place to try to protect children from abusive parents or awful schools. I’m not sure what we have, or could have, to protect people, especially children, from abusive or destructive religion.
Honest question here. Do you believe taxes should be assessed based on how upset an entity makes someone?
Ending special tax treatment is not “being a bigot”. Churches want to be politically active like for-profit corporations? Fine. They can be taxed that way.
Unsurprising to see conservatives wheel out the canard about “it’s bigotry if I’m treated like everyone else.”
If this is just a debate on tax exempt status for churches, then this thread sure took the long way around to get there.
It’s right there in the OP. I’m not sure what other privileges are in question, but tax exempt status was put front and center from the beginning.
The phrase “the power to tax is the power to destroy” comes to mind. This came from a Supreme Court ruling against Maryland when they imposed a tax on a National Bank chartered by Congress. Chief Justice John Marshall said Maryland how no power to “retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress.”
Like it or not, religion is specifically protected in the United States in that Congress can’t do anything to establish one or prohibit it’s free exercise. Religious organizations are not the only ones who can qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. As for religious organizations being politically active, it’ll be interesting to see how that’s tested in court. So far as I know, it’s the tax codes that prohibit churches from being politically active but if this were ever seriously challenged in court I don’t know if it would stand. It could be argued that not being able to openly endorse a candidate is a violation of the free exercise of their religion.
Please forgive me. Like many others here, I did not understand we were ranting about tax policy.
I mentioned bigotry. I was recalling the sort of intolerance shown in discussions such as Why Do We Have to Put up with Religious People?
Perhaps we were miscommunicating. I no longer write very well.
You guys didn’t see this in the OP?
Thank you very much. How do you feel about taxing Masonic lodges, private schools and hospitals?
If they engage in political activity, then yes, tax them. Any organization that lobbies or campaigns or influences its community to vote a certain way ought to be taxed, regardless of their charitable activities.
Apart from that principle, I hadn’t thought much about taxing private schools. But now that you mention it, it seems like a good idea. I’m not going to derail this thread by getting into the weeds of whataboutism, but If you’re passionate about that topic, I’d be willing to discuss it in a different thread.
Well, if we are supposed to be talking about “Where do we draw the line?” I would have thought asking about other nonprofit would be useful. In fact it did seem to be a useful question and answer. If groups dare express a political opinion you want to tax them.
Got it.
Do you believe non-profits don’t engage in political activity? The ACLU is a non-profit corporation.
As are, for example, NARAL and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Lots of people who are against tax-exempt organizations being politically active really mean they are opposed to tax-exempt organizations with whom they disagree being politically active.
There’s a fairly broad spectrum of activity that might be called “political”. Is helping the poor and disadvantaged a political activity that religious groups should be barred from?
My understanding is that the line is drawn at supporting specific political candidates. They’re allowed to fight for certain issues, but not to endorse certain politicians. If you want to move the line elsewhere, talk to your representative.
Bingo.
Religious institutions are a unique case, though. They own the “truth”, and if you disagree with them, you are wrong – sometimes even evil. While not universally true, religion tends to enforce the practice of othering. Creating social division. The more prominent the institution, the more intense their push toward othering. They get away with this because it is religious SOP, but I guess if you consider divisiveness a good thing, then maybe it is merely a matter of opinion.
Lots of people? Can you name any in this thread? Please, do tell me what I really mean.