Sorry, to be clear: being willing to fight for religious freedom is not evil. Invoking it in response to this specific situation, would be.
If churches were taxable, they would essentially become for-profit enterprises with the chief shareholder being the government.
That would be wrong.
Separation of church and state requires a TOTAL separation of church and state: the financial entanglements and obligations that would exist between religion and government would be unsurmountable and hugely damaging to both secular society and religion.
It’s a very, very, VERY bad idea.
But by granting tax exempt status to churches you are entangling government and religion more than would be if there was no exempt status. A church faces enormous financial pressure to not speak out against a war and advocate ousting politicans that support it. Churches can’t tell their paritioners to refrain from voting for politicans than support abortions rights or any number of other issues. Their silence is basically being paid for by the government in return for the exempt status. By giving churchs tax emempt status you give the government a big crowbard to leverage against the churches. The exempt status also generates a list of basically government endorsed churches. Why do we ever want to get into a situation where the government judges the validity of different religions?
MIller, the whole argument that “no church tax == subsidised religion” is pretty weak for several reason.
- Not taking money from people is not the same as giving them money. Therefore it’s not really subsidisation.
- Different people pay different amounts of tax. Taxation in western countries is not really based on “fairness”, but on what people are able to contribute. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. Non-profit organisations are given tax-exempt status because since they have no profit they have nothing to contribute with taxation-wise. However non-profits are deemed to benefit the community in other ways.
Claiming that you are somehow subsidising churches because you are not getting tax off them is silly in the wider taxation system. Someone who earns $1,000,000 a year pays (or at least should pay
) way more tax than someone earning $20,000 a year. People who earn $0 a year pay no tax. Are you going to complain that you are subsidising them too? The reality is that unless everyone pays a flat tax of $x then someone is going to inherently subsidise someone else. - Churches are essentially made up of people who do pay tax (leader included) so laiming that the hypothetical “church” pays no tax is pretty weak when many of the members of the church clearly do.
- The logic of “subsidisation” works for all non-profit organisations as well, not just churches. If you are unwilling to make every organisation pay tax regardless of secular/non-secular and profit/non-profit status then you are just being hypocritical. And besides selecting groups for taxation on the basis of religion is against the anti-establishment clause and unconstitutional.
The other problem in your post is that you assert
There are some religions (and I am not part of any of them, but they do exist) that quite definitly DO rquire some sort of sacred building in which to worship God. And if you set taxes that prohibit groups from owning property you very definitely ARE stopping them from worshipping God in the way they would like.
And since people are always complaining about the “Right-wing, religious neo-cons” in the SDMB, then I would assume that it is in your best interests to not set ant sort of precedent for the government being able to use taxation to enforce particular religous viewpoints.
Fry.
This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Please show your work.
In theory taxes, especially property taxes, are paid in return for government services. Churches recieve these government services for free despite their ability to pay.
But don’t you see by granting churches tax exempt status the government has more power over churches than if they treated them like any other organization. The tax exempt status of churches gives the government a big hammer to whack over the head of churches. Look at the example that spawned this thread, preachers can’t criticize any politicians nor can they advocate for a politician. If not for these tax rules don’t you think we would see all major churches sponsoring politicians and pastors using the pulpit to comment on elections? What if tommorow the government decides that any commenting on abortion is a de facto endorsement of a political position. Churches will have to decide between preaching its core values or millions (in aggregate) of dollars. If we didn’t have tax exemptions the churches could tell the government to go F itself but with tax exemptions can it?
In addition to that power the government has now de facto control of determing which religions are real religions and which aren’t. The government recognizing a religion can do a great deal to change its perception from wacky cult to legitimate religion. The opposite is true also, the government decling to recognize a religion as real religion does a great deal to push its image towards wacky cult. The list of religions that the government gives tax exempts status becomes the list of religions that the government considers legitimate. Isn’t that more entanglement than collecting the taxes that every other piece of property has to pay?
The problem though is in the details. Once you allow the government to tax religions you get into the whole problem of how to do it fairly. Because while taxing all the goverment can set the taxes to definitely discriminate against one or a set of religions. It would be a relatively simple thing for a government to tax a religion out of existence. So for instance no-one has really answered the problem that setting a land tax disadvantages those religions that favour large worship buildings over those that favour smaller or no worship buildings.
An actually allowing the government to tax religious orgainisations actually does nothing to stop government control over religions. Under the current system a religion has to spend the majority of its time in political matters before it can be taxed. And if the government gets over-zelous then the church can fight the ruling in the courts. This makes specific government control unlikely.
If the government is able to tax religions though then a government can simply discriminate against any religious group they want by how they construct the tax law. And here the religion does not have to even do anything remotely “political” to be discriminated against. The government can act against any religion they want for any reason that they want.
Also the issue of which religions are “real” and which ones are fake is actually pretty simple. The rules generally are that any apolitical, non-profit, law abiding group can be considered a religion for tax purposes. Besides it is not like there are huge groups of people at the moment that are lamenting that their religion is not granted tax-free status. While the government in theory may discriminate against particular religions, do you have any evidence that they actually are?
So in summary while trying to protect religions your solution would actually give the state a much larger piece of leverage to hold over churches. Once the state is able to tax churches then it can start the whole “Do as we say or we will change the tax law in a way you won’t like” type game.
Fry.
I disagree. Churches get certain social services for free. The money to pay for those services has to come from somewhere, and it comes out of my pay check. If the churches that were getting those services for free did not exsist, my tax burden would be that much lighter. Similarly, if those churches paid their share of taxes, my tax burden would also be that much lighter. The government is giving them money, and that money is being taken from me. That is absolutely subsidation.
Also, you should really use “therefore” when you’re presenting a conclusion, not when you’re merely restating your premise.
I don’t have a problem with tax breaks for charitable organizations, and I don’t have a problem with churches receiving tax breaks for their charitable works. I do have a problem with a church receiving a tax break simply for being a church.
I don’t disagree. I have no problem with a situation where everyone pays their fair share, and for some people, their fair share is zero. I just want churches to be included in that situation. If, under the same tax law that operates for everyone else, charities included, they pay no taxes, fine. But a specific exemption for a church, just for being a church, bothers me.
You just shot down your first point. Thanks for that, makes my job here easier.
Yes, exactly my point. That’s why churches should not get special tax breaks just for being churches.
No, I’m merely not facilitating them from worshipping in the manner they would like. The government can’t prevent, but it’s not required to provide, either. If a religious group requires a specific building in which to worship is too poor to build their temple in the first place, is the government required to build it for them?
My problem is that the government is doing just that under the current arrangement.
The government in this case is not out to punish religions that favor large worship buildings over those that do not. The government is (theoretically) passing tax laws blind to how it affects different religions. The law favoring small decentralized religions is simply a byproduct of the tax laws. For example the current marijuana laws ignore that some religions use it in their ceremonies but were not intended to have any affect on the religion.
A tax law for the sole purpose of discriminating against a religion is blatantly unconstitutional. While the same is true for granting exempt status it is much easier to justify denying a religion status or classifying something as political speech and having it pass judicial review than to say justify a tax law having seperate rates for different religions.
Really? What do you think the chances of treis’ church of football that gets together, drinks beer and watches football on saturday getting exempt status? Obviously thats a facetious example but I think it illustrates my point. Fringe religions might face a difficult time gaining exempt status depending on how far out their beliefs are.
After a few minutes of googling I found this example of Unitarian Universalists being denied exempt status but that decision was later reversed. My google-fu is weak tonight but it does happen but I will admit that it does so rarely.
We are already playing that game and the tool to use it is the exempt status. Its pretty easy to charge a religion with political speech. For example any sermon on abortion, gay marriage, war, taxes, the death penalty etc. close to the election could be construed as political speech. It would be tough to show that there is discrimination going on in those cases. It would be pretty easy to show that there is discrimination going on if the tax laws are made in a way that makes religions pay more taxes than a comparable organization.
What specific services do you see being provided to a church that would not be provided to the church members who already pay tax? This is what is behind points 1 and 4. Say someone robs a person at a church. If the police come to help is that a service to the church, or to the person that was robbed?
Churches that get tax-exempt status are by definition non-profit organisations. If profit is involved then they are not considered a church for taxation purposes. Since they are non-profit, then out of what do you think they should pay tax?
In the context of the argument this is clearly wrong. A goverment is not required to provide a place of worship. However if the government makes churches pay land tax that can prohibit people from owning property. Once the government starts adding extra fees into property ownership then those fees can be prohibitve.
One church is hardly a basis for making a drastic changes in the law that would drastically affect all churches.
Fry.
Treis
First off, the whole issue of getting a church tax-exempted is not as easy as you think. According to the IRS guidelines a majority of what a church does has to be political for it to loose its tax exempt status. A single sermon or whatever won’t cut it. And even then it has to be directed at specific laws or elections to count. At the moment saying something like “abortion is evil” is apolitical, where as saying something like “vote against abortion by voting no on proposition 451” is political. A church would have to almost go out of their way to loose tax exempt status. And until it is clear that the government is actually discriminating against religions then I think there is no real reason to change the law. Lots of bad things MAY happen under the current law, but until they do then there is little reason to change it.
Secondly allowing taxation of churches gives far more power to government, and it is power that is far less obvious. Currently the goverment has to prove that a church was doing something specific (ie: being political) before the government can do anything to them. Under a law where the government can tax churches they can do lots of evil things that are very hard to prove that they are specifically against a religion.
So for instance you might have two main religions in your city, one of which you don’t like. Then you notice that the church that you don’t like, because it is an inner city church, tends to have churches on more valuable land than others. So you institute a church land tax, which is indexed to the value of the property. You know full well that it will drive the church you don’t like to the wall, while leaving the other one relatively unaffected. But hey, since the law is the same for all churches you can always claim that it is fair.
And this is the problem. Since legislators have access to information about all the religions in their area, how do you prove that any tax law that even slightly disadvantages one group over others is not designed that way? And good luck coming up with a tax law that would effect all equally. There are many more devious and underhanded ways to descriminate against churches when they can be taxed.
Fry.
That would be a service to the person who was robbed, obviously. But what if the church itself if burgled? Or vandalized? Or just catches fire? The response from police or firemen would be a service to the church itself - a service the church isn’t paying for.
You’re telling me that Jerry Falwell runs a non-profit organization? I don’t buy that for a minute. But he still gets his tax exemption, because he calls his business a church. Like I said, I have no problem treating churches that do charitable work the same as other charities. But that’s not the situation we have now.
Just buying the land itself can be prohibitive. Should the government put price controls on land if a religious organization is trying to buy it to build a church? Building a house of worship can be prohibitive. Should the government provide refunds on construction costs for putting up a new church? Paying for the general upkeep and maintenance of the property can be prohibitive. Should the government help pay for all that, too?
“One” church? I’m not talking about any one church: I’m talking about all of them. Synagogues, mosques, ashrams, and whatever else you’ve got, too.
Not in the law. If God allows us free will, that includes the freedom to make our own states and laws, with or without reference to Him.
Certainly. However it is impossible for the state to trump God. God is the state, God is me, God is you, God is teh rocks you are standing on, the air you are breathing. God is your thoughts, your sexual arousal, the Stars, the Angels, God is everything. Of course God trumps the state.
I do seriously dispute that the US is a godless system however. It doesn’t favor one religion over another, but it’s very clear to anyone who examines our government at all that’s it’s very deist in nature. Washington DC is layed out like a temple. Our money is laden with mystical symbols. It’s a representative republic where the vast majority is religious.
Atheists are fond of claiming that they aren’t a religion. So the religion clause in the first amendment does not apply to their beliefs. It’s about not making a law respecting one religion over another. Atheism isn’t factored in there, though atheists as always should be treated with respect as human beings, they are just irreligious so any discussion of religion doesn’t need to take into account their opinions, as they have liked to tell me, they don’t have religious opinions.
Erek
I was just thinking I need to clear out the barn and lay in fresh bedding to begin the winter. Do you think that I could have the insides of your effigy when you are done swinging that strawman around?
Atheists express the view that they do not have a religious belief, or, more particularly, that they do not share some religious belief “as atheists.” Your claim that they have no “religious opinions” (as in, opinions regarding or in reference to religious beiefs, actions, culture, etc.) is a mischaracterization of the views expressed by atheists.
Hey, I am only repeating what was told to me when I was arguing that they were in a religious debate and they told me that it wasn’t a religious debate that atheism wasn’t a religious opinion, it was the lack of one. If there is a strawman, I’m not the one that created it, I’m only the one beating the stuffing out of it. However, if you want to take that and make an effigy, be my guest.
In my opinion the candor of this debate has been an implicit atheistic agenda, and that atheists are trying to propose an agenda while saying their agenda isn’t religious in nature. They claim that atheists are not a monolithic group, but for that matter, religious people or even people of a particular religion are not a monolithic group. I have yet to see anything that shows me that atheism is not a religion. There is a standardized dogma, there are prepackaged arguments. The only thing missing is the church. The rub here is that they don’t WANT a church, and because they don’t want it, then other people shouldn’t be tax-exempt who do want it. That is clearly pushing a religious agenda, and they are using semantic tricks in order to make it seem like there is no unified agenda. They do not respect any of the examples given as to the benefit of churches, because as Der Trihs would say “They are all insane nutcases, and we need to rid society of this abomination like we did slavery.”, now of course Der Trihs is on the Jack Chick end of the spectrum amongst his religious brethren, but what I am trying to argue is that they are not arguing for secularism, but for trying to get all religions to conform to their views.
There are even “strong atheists” and “weak atheists”. The weak atheists would be analogous to the Christians that go to church because it’s part of their culture, and the strong atheists would be analogous to the Evangelicals. It’s a religion pure and simple, they claim rationality in their rhetoric all the time, while not practicing it, so if I need to toy with the straw man in order to show it for what it is, then I will.
I’ve seen a greater divergence of opinion between different Christians than I have seen between different atheists. Generally in an atheist debate, you’ll see a few atheists cluster trying to make the non-atheist look like an idiot. That is groupthink in support of mutual dogma.
Having said that, I’d like to give a shout out to Voyager for being a voice of dissent amongst his party. I’d also like to give a shoutout to other atheists that don’t get involved in the debate, though if rationality really was that important to them, they’d take to task the atheists who are being irrational, but usually they don’t.
If they want to hold religious people to some sort of ideal of rational consistency, I want to see it from them first. I’m just looking for a little bit of honesty in their agenda pushing.
Erek
Pantheism renders the concept of “God” meaningless, mswas. If everything is really blue, then “blue” means nothing, and we still need a new set of terms to distinguish various kinds of blue.
This is pure nonsense. Atheists agree on one thing : There is no God. That’s it, that’s all. There is no dogma ( how could there be ? About what ? ), there are no prepackaged arguements.
Blast you have seen through my argument and figured out the exact damn thing I have been arguing. I absolutely want the government to be athiestic, i.e. express no belief in God. I don’t want to government to declare that there is no God. I don’t want the government to declare that there is a God. I don’t want the government to declare anything at all about anything tangentially related to religion. Let the Churches handle religion and let the goverment handle government.
This is becuase you won’t open your eyes and see that atheists aren’t a monolithic group. Jeez even in this thread you have 3 completely different types of athiests. Der Trihs is a militant God doesn’t exist and religion is bullshit atheist. Diogenes doesn’t believe there is a God but respects that some people believe it. And I, while I don’t believe there is a God, merely find religion fascinating and don’t try to argue that religion is bullshit at all. I just want the government to keep its nose out of religion and religion to keep its nose out of government.
Thats not true at all. I don’t want churches to be tax-exempt becuase I simply don’t want to pay to support churches. I apply that logic regardless of my personal feelings about the subject. For example I enjoy having a NBA team in my city but I would never ever support tax dollars going to build an arena for a NBA team.
The honesty and rational debate is there. You are the one unilaterially declaring athiests this and that, declaring your beliefs as absolute truth and ascribing motives to people that they don’t hold.
Thats not true, from the 3rd post in this thread citing an IRS document:
It says that the churches may not intervene in political campagins nor can a substantial part of its activity attempt to influence legislation.
This discussion started on the premise that taxing religions would give the government more power over them. Just becuase the government isn’t currently exercising the power doesn’t mean it does not have that power.
No, a church land tax would definately violate the first amendment. The 1st amendment says that the government can not make any laws respecting the establishment of a religion, making a church tax establishes something as a religion.
I guess I fail to see how this could be accomplished. Unless you pass a tax law specifiying one religions churches, blantantly unconstitutional I might add, how are you going to target a specific church? Even if you target the area that the church is in you re going to have a bunch of pissed off people that live around the church.