The ACLU have taken cases that benefit the KKK and Nazis. They care about the restrictions of rights on either side.
Are they not involved in political activity? Because as a card carrying member, they like to inform me about their lobbying efforts (for which I am appreciative).
Public Policy | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)
And aren’t both those cases in benefit of their political view of the value of the 1st Amendment?
Not to mention, the Catholic Church, for instance, lobbies for more open immigration policies as well as more restrictive abortion policies. So aren’t they lobbying for both sides as well?
They’re not taking sides as in free speech for some but not for others based on content.
Those are two different issues.
What relevance does that have?
Is the ACLU engaging in political activity or not? It doesn’t matter if their political activity benefits some members of both sides.
“Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation.”
Are you reading the thread? Churches get very little in the way of special tax treatment. For almost all purposes they are treated just like any other Non-profit org.
Not to mention most of their income is from “Gifts” and making those taxable would open a huge writhing can of worms…
And finally, taxes are on profits, not GR, and they would not have any.
Read the thread, please.
And those of us with some tax background have explained it. Several times.
The Sierra Club?
Almost every environmental group?
Women’s groups?
And again, there would be no taxes anyway.
Geez.
I didn’t say anything about you, or what you mean.
But if you want an example, you don’t have to look any further than the OP.
You are basically sitting there doing the same thing you complain about others (supposedly) doing. You’ve already admitted that you have a pretty deep and inherent bias against religious ; you have made them your other, and are bent on harming them because they disagree with you. You have, a priori, decided that you have the “Truth” and seem pretty bound and determined to insist upon it.
Huh. Odd. I am having a hard time understanding what you mean here. Maybe you can clarify.
Um, what? Where?
I am not all that upset about religion in general. There are versions of religion that bring comfort to many good people, and significant good things have been done and are being done in its name.
However – that is in no way the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen, even aside from the possibility of some religious zealot setting off a nuclear war, is along the lines of torture and execution for heresy. – oh, you meant in the modern USA, where you think such things can’t happen? Nobody in living memory has tried to torture children out of being gay, because their religion says that homosexual relations are wrong? Or, to be slightly less drastic about it though sometimes with equally bad results, tried and sometimes succeeded to prevent access to birth control? Or tried and sometimes succeeded to stop teaching science in public schools? Or refused to take covid precautions because “God will protect his church” (actual quote from a conversation I had last year)?
If the worst thing that ever happened in the name of religion was people inviting others to church and taking no for an answer when turned down, human history, and a lot of individual people’s lives, would be a whole lot different.
Churches are also exempt from property taxes. And some of them have quite a bit of property.
Sounds like you think there should be some sort of government body who will decide which religions will be tolerated, and which will not. Perhaps you will serve on this body. Or at least appoint the members.
And the government will grant privileges, in the form of tax exemptions and perhaps other privileges, to those churches or faiths, presumably “small-scale operations” that are “doing genuine good” (as defined by you, or your select committee), and withhold such tax exemptions and privileges from those churches who are not doing sufficient good, by your standards.
Sounds awfully like you’re arguing for an established church.
Which isn’t, of course, a new idea. You’re not exactly pushing the envelope here.
But it’s an idea specifically rejected by the founders of this nation, fortunately.
Actually, it sounds like you’ve got a strawman you plan on hugging to death.
Already addressed:
Not at all. The OP is quite specific about proposing a metric by which we can decide which religious organizations are worthy of privilege and tax exemption. And he/she quite clearly believes we should do this as soon as possible.
I don’t see anything unique about religion here. I think it applies equally well to political parties.
(Maybe sports team fan clubs too. Not the actual team, they’re just playing a game. I mean the fans who are convinced that “My team is the absolute best” and are upset that others disagree.)
Religious institutions do a lot of charity work and give many donations to people in need, so they need that tax except status.
Some do, some don’t. How about we give tax exemptions to those that do?
Charity does not require religion and religion, as it is practiced, does not seem to demand charity. The two things appear to be entirely severable.