501(c) corporations “… do not have a blanket exemption from sales and use taxes,” straight from the relevent State of California website. Some municipalities offer tax abatement to some nonprofits, but it isn’t the blanket appeasement that religious institutions enjoy.
When any “church” can automatically receive an exemption merely by being declaring itself a place of worship church, then yes, that point is valid.
Public infrastructure is not a “possible transaction”; they are municipal benefits enjoyed by all parties, to wit streets and other public right-of-ways, police and fire protection services, et cetera, that would otherwise be unaffordable or unworkable as a “pay as you go” service. I don’t want my house to burn down because the guy next door didn’t pay his “fire service premium” and his fire spreads to my roof. Even services, like public education, that may not be directly utilized by all members of a municipality provide tangible benefits in the form of an educated and employable population.
For which it is being subsidized in a manner not automatically awarded to other nonsecular institutions. And it is offered this benefit
I understand the legal difference. I also understand that the Catholic church, the Moonies, the Church of Scientology, et cetera own billions of dollars of tax-exempt property that is rented or leased out for profit.
Not true. You owe property taxes regardless of your profitability. Depending on the type of business, you can end up posting a net loss and still owe taxes on revenue as well.
Churches enjoy special protection because of the political power the collectively leverage. They enjoy the same benefits and protections from municipal services as businesses and secular charities. There is no special reason they should be exempt from taxation.
So, you’ve never actually heard of a hypothetical before, have you?
You’re arguing theology. I’m arguing civics. Try to keep up. God may be all powerful and all knowing, but he doesn’t seem to get directly involved when an individual nation enacts laws against his followers. For example, there seems to be a distinct lack of smiting going on over in communist China, despite the wide-spread persecution of Christians in that country. (Which, incidentally, is another good example of what happens when the state takes an interest in religious matters.) God may have the ability to interfere in government, but he clearly has decided not to do so, leaving it up to us to sort out how to incorporate him into our civic affairs. Trial and error seems to indicate that its best not to do so at all, which is why I oppose tax exempt status for churches. The government has no place in the church, and the church has no place in the government. From the government’s point of view, religious institutions should be treated no differently than any other institution. You can insist that God has the ultimate veto power over this arrangement, but to date he has yet to exercise it. So stop trying to use him to shore up your argument. Let it stand on its own merits, without appeals to an entity who has, at the very best, decided to remain mum on the subject.
Really ? The state is an objective fact; there is no evidence that religion is anything but delusion. Even if a god exists, there’s certainly no evidence it cares about anyone or does anything. How can a thing like that trump something ?
I have, I think the hypothetical is dull and uninteresting as it is asking me how I’d react if my entire way of life were completely altered. I don’t feel like I can really answer that question.
Removing tax exempt status will make it so that only the wealthy may have churches. So the tax-exempt status promotes freedom of religion, because churches can minister to the poor.
I wasn’t using God to shore up my argument. I was merely stating that I believe the state is secondary, and act accordingly. A system that benefits capitalism to the detriment of other ways of doing things is tyrannical and should be resisted, by violence if need be. I’m not asking God to shore up anything for me. I believe that I am God, and that I freely choose to participate in the state apparatus, I do not need to. I know what you’re going to say next, you are going to talk about how the army would take me out if I chose to resist the state. What I would say next is that I wouldn’t be alone, I’d have a lot of people, including people who went AWOL taking their weapons with them.
Basically my argument against removing tax-exemption is that it would foment a civil war. I think that’s as good a reason as any not to do it. But of course the atheists who think their standard is more rigorous will be like “How unreasonable are those religious folks for not wanting us to remove that status!”, then there are the religious folk who will say “They are trying to impose atheism on this country, we must resist!”, and both sides would think the other is evil, and the atheists would lose because they are the minority, it would draw lines of division amongst bleeding heart moderates who feel for both sides, some of them would get killed, but it would create a new seed of hatred that we’d be resolving for generations to come.
It’s not a simple as antiseptic of an issue as people would like to believe.
It’s not “just a civic issue”. Taxation isn’t about morality, it’s about maintaining a functioning state. There is no right or wrong, there is what works and what doesn’t. Arguing some ethical absolutist stance, no matter what ideology you derive the stance from is ridiculous.
I like presenting worst case scenarios for people, and watching them flip out, and show their true colors. In reality, I am very moderate, I’m not all that upset with the state as it exists currently, I don’t hate atheists, but it’s very telling to what lengths people will go with their extremist stance, and it’s amusing how much you can piss someone off by simply arguing for a peaceful coexistance.
So, only the rich have supermarkets? Restaurants? Movie theaters? Bookstores? How do the poor have anything at all, if taxing something automatically removes it from their grasp?
You’d actually be willing to kill people if someone tried to tax your church? That’s one hell of a Christian attitude you’ve got going there, dude.
I’m sorry, did I miss the place where atheists were arguing for some sort of violent overthrow of the government in order to implement their “tax the churches” plan? As you are so found of repeating, we do live in a democracy, and a change of this sort is only going to come around through a democratic change in the laws. The point of this thread is to illustrate why people should support such a change. If our arguments are sufficiently persuasive to convince a majority of the country that we are correct, will there still be a civil war? Oh, right, I forgot: God always trumps country. Good to know that you only support democracy so long as it agrees with your social agenda. People like you are exactly the reason the seperation of church and state is so vitally important to the health of this nation.
And the difference between that and trolling is what, precisely?
Of course you are, because the state as it currently exists favors your world view. We already know what you’d do if our positions were reversed: armed insurrection.
We’re extremists? We’re not the ones arguing for civil war just because we don’t like the government’s tax structure. Heck, Texas just altered its constitution to specifically discriminate against people like me, but you don’t see me stockpiling weapons. I’m still trying to work through the democratic process to achieve my ends. I’m not abandoning it just because it’s working against me in the short term.
Who in this thread is arguing against peaceful coexsistance? You’re the only one who has mentioned violence as an outcome if things don’t go your way. How does that make us the extremists in this conversation?
You guys are missing the most important argument for governments not taxing churches. Although the arguments about the effect it would have on the poor, ect, are good ones, the most important reason that the goverment should not tax churches is that it restricts religious freedom.
In essence once the goverment taxes something, the goverment effectively controls that thing, and can either grant or deny people the ability to do something based on the level of tax.
In terms of property taxes on churches, there are some religions that are convinced that in order to properly worship God you need a purpose-built location to do so, something like a temple, and it is impossible to worship God outside that space. There are some religions (protestant Christianity is one) that believe that you can worship God anywhere, but it is nice to have purpose-built places to do it. There are also religions that think that all worship-buildings are inherently limiting to God, and that God can only be worshipped in “nature” or something.
If you tax property ownership you are effectivly creating a state-enforced barrier for the first group of people building the temple or whatever their faith demands. And since the U.S. constitution says that the government can not prohibit the free worship of its people, then such a tax is probably unconstitutional. It also raises the problem of state support for those of the third group who do not want buildings, because they go essentially untaxed. The government cannot tax religions unequally and claim to be not supporting one, and by taxing propery the government is giving indirect support to those religions that do not seek to own property.
So for instance if it is OK for the church to tax property, is it OK for the church to tax communion? How about Friday prayers? How about not going to Friday prayers? Would it be OK for the government to tax only religious properties that had minnarets?
In terms of churches being “paracites” as Der Trihs insists, this is blantantly wrong for several reasons.
Many churches do pay taxes on the economic activities that they engage in. So for instance rent gained from church properties is often taxed. So its not like churches are getting a complete free ride. The whole idea of churches existing in a tax vacuum is false
Churches are the largest provider of non-governmental aid to the poor and disadvantaged in nearly all western nations. It is certainly true here in Australia. For the church to be giving so much money to the poor, and then for the government to turn around and demand they pay property tax based on the idea of “fairness” is the height of stingyness and mean-spiritedness. If “fairness” really was the concern, then the church should be able to in turn bill the government for all of the charity work that they do. I’m not sure that the government would come out ahead.
As others have alluded to, taxing the church will only result in bad outcomes. While many churches do a lot of charity work, in the mindset of a lot of churches these are not “central” activities when compared to the relgious functioning of the church. This means that if you take money from churches, this is the first thing that many churches will stop doing in order to pay the bills. So a large proportion of the money that the goverment gets will probably have to be spent in providing the services that were once provided by the church. And since the church functions a lot on volunteer or semi-volunteer (ie: people working for a lot less than what they are really worth) then it would undoubtably cost the government a lot more to replicate those services. So much so that the goverment may actually come out behind on the whole deal.
Taxing the church will not necessarily relieve the tax burden on the poor. The rich pay the most tax percentage-wise. Historically most tax cuts are relatively insignificant for the poor while greatly favouring the rich, since they have the most to gain from slight tax adjustments. In fact in taxing churches there is no guarantee that the state would lower the taxation of everyone else anyway.
In summary:
Governments don’t just control the populace by laws, they do so by taxation as well. If we are interested in maintaining a society that has religious freedom then we need to prohibit the taxation of religious groups, because taxation is control.
You didn’t get warned; you got admonished for calling names.
I was getting a post ready to tell a bunch of you–especially mswas and Der Trihs–to exercise more control in expressing your hostility when I came across your more explicit rule violation.
(And mswas has not been trolling: I’m pretty sure he actually believes the stuff he posts.)
Secular and non-secular organisations are not the same. If I were to call to book an event at my local non-secular community organisation, they’d be happy to have me (as long as I paid). Likewise, i’d imagine, for secular community organsiations. However, if I wanted to book a religious event at a secular community centre that is not the same as their religion, I would be turned down. Thus, a section of the population do not have the same access to that centre that another section does. Ergo, a non-secular community centre’s “rights” top those of a secular one; they provide a wider service.
I am an agnostic; where is my community centre? If I were religious, say catholic, I would be welcome both at my church, and at a non-secular centre. I could use both of these places to fulfil my needs, whether they be spiritual or otherwise. As an agnostic, I cannot use a place of worship to fulfil my spiritual needs. Yet I pay money towards keeping them active.
It is argued that a secular organisation provides care for other people; this is true. As do non-secular organisations. However, whereas a secular organisation may also pay for missionaries, holy books, etc to go to people in need, a non-secular organisation will put the whole of their aid into providing food, water, etc. Thus I would suggest a non-secular organisation provides aid to a very similar, if not in some cases higher, degree.
mswas argues that God trumps state. This is not the case. God trumps the individual. In your life, God is the first thing that must be considered; this is not so in my life. It does not matter whether or not God exists, for this debate, the fact is that, for many people God is not the first priority, whether this be because they beleive in a different religion, whether they are uncertain, or whether they are firmly against it. The state must make laws and regulations that emanate from the majority of people, this is true. However, this does not mean the minority have no say whatsoever.
For an example, let’s say we have a state consisting of three people. Two of those people have the same religious beliefs. The third does not. To rule the state based purely on the beliefs of those two people is to disenfranchise the third. The third person will not be a happy bunny. Thus, comprimise is reached between the three people. This is the case (or at least, should be the case) in a state of millions.
In reference to the OP, I would say that a place of worship should be considered as the same as a non-secular community centre if that place of worship does not discriminate between how it used by people. When a jewish person may use a catholic church to worship, or any combination such as this, then that place should be considered the same as a non-secular centre. If not, then no tax exemption.
Secular == non-religious, non-secular == religious. I think you have the two mixed up.
One of the problems with your position is that churches are in effect private proerty. You don’t pay for the building or upkeep of them, that is paid for by the church itself. And not-taxing something is not the same as paying for it. Therefore any assertion that you have some sort of “right” to use religious buildings regardless of faith is tenuous at best. And I would say the same for secular tax-free non-profit organisations as well. Ultimately if you own the building you get to set access rights. I agree that if the community center is built and maintained by the state then all should get access regardless of religion, because ultimately all paid for the building and upkeep.
Your position also does not respect the freedom of religion. What it boils down to is effectively saying “Do what we say, or pay us money!”.
So for instance what do you do if I want to use a religious building for something legal that is against the religion of the owners? So for instance in many mosques and other temple type buildings there are specific areas that are deemed “holy” that have particular access rules, like having to purify yourself in a particular way, or actually being of that particular religion. For you to access those areas without doing so renders them “unholy” and therefore useless for the religious community that actually owns the building. So what would you say in this situation. If the owners of the building can’t say what it is used for how do they stop people from defiling it? Should they have to pay tax to maintain the holiness of their building? And if so, how is that not government endorsement of religions that do not have “sacred” buildings, since not all do? Churches/temples are not the same as community centres and it is nieve to suggest so.
You do realize a huge number of soup kitchens actually operate out of churches? Anyways, I’d actually be surprised if most non-secular homeless shelters have to pay property taxes. I’ve seen soup kitchens in big cities, and unless they’re sponsored by a major corporation there is no way they could afford the property taxes for the buildings they’re in.
Yes, but owning property isn’t a transaction. We have property rights in this country, they’re actually in the Constitution. I know a lot of people dislike the idea of property rights. Property taxes are a violation of property rights. It’s sort of like taxing speech, or, hey, religion.
I’ve never insisted they pay themselves. I’ve suggested they get their funding via municipal income taxes, tolls, whatever, property taxes aren’t the only method a municipality has of taxing it’s citizens.
Different animals. They have a revenue model, and corporate backing in most cases. It’s different from a church that operates until the property values jump up suddenly when white people start moving into a neighborhood, and suddenly the church can’t afford it anymore. Most churches barely make ends meet without being taxed. This would do nothing other than close down poor churches. While you all are on some idea of intellectual fairness, I am talking about one of the few things that actually redistributes wealth in this country. I could easily be asking what gives conoco the drilling rights to parts of Texas.
I already think the state needs to be completely reworked. If the ability of the poor to worship were removed I would definitely consider violent revolution, yes.
BTW, I’m not a Christian.
Well I never said you were advocating a violent overthrow, but the reality is that nonbelievers are in the vast minority. Also, I do not go to church, I do not benefit from tax-exempt status. I belong to no organized religion, so it’s kind of amusing that you would think that I’m the kind of person that the seperation of church and state applies to. I’m the smallest minority possible, as I am the only member of my religion.
Presenting the worst case scenario as an example to illustrate your point is not trolling. It would be trolling if I were just saying shit to get a rise out of people with no further point to it. I am arguing as to why this is a really bad idea, and I am giving you examples of why, and one of those examples is that it would promote domestic terrorism. Whether or not I would seriously be an advocate of domestic terrorism is irrelevant. The first time they evict a baptist congregation in Brooklyn for being unable to pay their property tax, I hope you’re the one to serve the warrant. I’m not sure you’d make it back out the door.
My worldview is to promote liberty, you all are in support of a tyranny where because you don’t engage in a certain behavior, you think it’s unfair for the majority of the populace who do, to get tax-exempt status for it. There is nothing at all stopping ANY of you from joining a church other than you don’t want to. It’s hardly unfair. There is no reason you couldn’t start and agnostic church and say that while you believe the ineffable is essentially unknowable, you are there to seek communion with like minded people, if you got enough people together, you could claim it was a church. You simply do not desire to do this, so you think that others should adhere to your ideals.
If you hadn’t noticed the tax structure is the way I want it to be currently. I am against Texas discriminating against you. I just don’t believe that tax-exempt status for churches discriminates against you. Yes, if the poor were unable to worship because they couldn’t afford it, I would most definitely advocate civil war, it’s that simple. Our society is decadent and materialistic, and I think that people have the right to be decadent and materialistic, but not at the expense of people’s ability to have a place of communion with each other and God.
You are the one advocating a system where the poor cannot afford their own churches.
Our system gives corporations mining rights, it supports landlords who own lots of land, and generally disenfranchises many people over property rights. You are advocating removing one of the FEW benefits the poor get from the protection of property rights in this country, and I find that repugnant simply because of a philisophical fetishizing of your plight, I can’t put it any simpler than that.
Everyone has the right to be atheists, if you want to form an atheist church then go ahead, but I disagree that you have any right to take away the people’s right to worship. The people’s right to worship is more sacrosanct to me than commerce. I know it’s difficult for you to understand because as atheists you live in a world of pure materialism and think that spirituality is a flight of fancy, but you are simply advocating the destruction of something you cannot understand.
Also, if people can call me insane for believing in God, I don’t think it’s so harsh for me to tell them they are incapable of comprehending what I mean by God. I think it’s insane to try and debunk a metaphor you don’t even comprehend.
If churches being closed bothers you so much, why don’t you pay to keep them open? You keep talking about how you’re part of such a vast majority of Americans, surely it would be trivially easy for you to organize to pay these onerous property taxes that are going to drive all these poor churches out of buisness. Why should you take the money for them out of my pocket?
You also have been pretty fuzzy on exactly why churches, as organizations, are going to cease to exsist if they don’t have churches as buildings to work out of. What is it about needing a specialized building that motivates religious folks to donate money to the poor? Do you guys never get a charitable impulse outside of a house of worship?
Except that taxing churches would do nothing of the sort. That’s a patently stupid strawman.
No shit, sherlock. That’s why this is - here’s that word again - a hypothetical situation. Religion is huge in this country right now. Fifty years from now, that might not be the case. Societies change, and the church isn’t always on top. We’re talking, in this thread, about wether this is a change society should embrace. It’s not going to do it now, which is why we’re only talking about it. But going on and on and on about how you’ve got the majority behind you doesn’t prove anything (aside from the weaknesses of your other arguments), it’s just restating one of the parameters of the debate that we’re all perfectly aware of already.
And yet, despite having no church, has your ability to worship been in anyway harmed? No? Then what the hell is your problem?
Well, I guess the fact that belief in a higher power doesn’t prevent one from becoming a murderous thug isn’t exactly news, but I wouldn’t expect such an ardent pro-religionist as yourself to argue that it’s such an immoral influence that it would turn an entire congregation into savages. I mean, I’ve not got much use for God, but I generally assume that people who believe in him are no more or less evil than people who don’t. Odd that you seem to disagree.
Hey, I’m not asking you to subsidize my hobbies. You’ve got a really huge sense of entitlement, don’t you?
Hardly the point.
Yeah, I don’t want to do it, so I don’t want to pay for it. I don’t care if other people do it. Hell, I encourage other people to do it. If it makes them happy, great. I just want to be left out of it. Why do you have such a problem with that?
When did I ever say it discrimintes against me?
That’s evil.
Great. I don’t think people should have a place to commune with God at the expense of me being decadent and materialistic. I’m not asking you to subsidize my lifestyle. Why are you forcing me to subsidize yours?
No, I’m not. I’m advocating a system where those who want churches pay for them themselves. Again, if your such a huge minority, why is it such a problem for you people to pay for these churches yourselves?
You want to talk repugnant? I’m not the one in here advocating the murder of people who disagree with me.
An atheist church? Do you even understand why that entire concept makes absolutely no sense?
You don’t know anything about what I understand about God, or religion. Because I haven’t said anything about either. Don’t make assumptions about what I do or do not know because you can attach a label me. I’m bigger than your labels.
I haven’t said you’re insane for believing in God. I don’t think you’re stupid for believing in God, either. I think you’ve got a lot of stupid ideas, and I think you’re seriously lacking in some important moral areas, but your religious beliefs have nothing to do with either.