Nor does it give religious institutions freedom from government intervention. It gives them freedom from viewpoint discrimination. Churches still have to follow ADA, OSHA, and fire codes. You know why? Because it is a blanket requirement that does not in anyway abridge the free exercise of religion. It just means you can't build deathtraps because they're for Jesus.
curiously, religious organizations are able to discriminate in their hiring practices. they can say "no people of other religions need apply" and get away with it. Even for administrative staff.
curiously, religious organizations are able to discriminate in their hiring practices. they can say "no people of other religions need apply" and get away with it.
Its actually reasonable if you think about it. Casting directors can refuse to hire a white guy for Othello because he's white, as its places a restriction on his ability to perform the task.
Same thing with religion, you can probably assume that being a muslim is going to interfere with your ability to operate in a catholic church.
Granted that is abused when churches refuse to hire other religions to do things like yard work etc....
Restricting free speech? Possibly. But allowing churches to engage in political advocacy and bank roll legislative efforts is a violation of separation.
But that's all irrelevant. He asked why religion gets a special treatment, and I said its because its religion. The first amendment doesn't give secular and nonreligious charities freedom from government intervention.
As was said earlier, the power to tax is the power to crush, and its not something governments should wield over religions.
Freedom of the press is in there, too; same amendment, even. Should government not have the power to tax news organizations?
Different articles of the same amendment.
There is no guarantee of separation of state and press.
So... because there's a separation of church and state, it's okay to give churches extra-super-special rights that nobody else gets, but because there's no separation of press and state, it's okay to tax news organizations like everyone else?
In Virginia, at least, the origins of this problem was the precedent of the Anglican church, which was not only tax-exempt but tax-payer funded and also had land appropriated to it by the government. Other religions and Christian denominations were neither tax-exempt nor tax-payer funded, although their members were required to contribute to the taxes which established the Anglican church.
As the Baptist and Methodist churches began to grow in size, there was a simultaneous push to end the taxes that provided for the Anglican church and also a push to grant alternative religions and denominations the same land and tax benefits of that church (and the Episcopal church which replaced it after the revolution).
I don't know what the other 12 colonies' excuse was, but at least in Virginia there's been a long-standing Common Law precedent for not taxing recognized religious organizations whereas there's no such precedent for the Press (indeed, the Stamp Act which precipitated the Revolution largely dealt with the publication of documents, including broadsheets and pamphlets).
Yeah, I think the OP is missing the point of the first amendment. If we make laws punishing politicians for openly spouting religious beliefs, isn't that a violation of the first amendment? Free exercise thereof?
Also, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" from Article VI of the main body of the Big C.
Seems like a promise to uphold the values of secularism and/or atheism would fall afoul of that.
Are you saying that the values of secularism and/or atheism is of a religious nature or am I missing something?
Removing elected representatives from office or preventing them from being sworn in due to their religious beliefs is just as much of a "religious test" as it would be to legally prevent atheists from holding elected office.
This. For 1st Amendment purposes, atheism has the same protections and limitations as theism.
Whether or not a politician is too religious or not religious enough is a question for the electorate. An atheist isn't going to get elected in rural Alabama, and a Christian fundamentalist isn't getting elected in Manhattan. But, in both cases, the Constitution does not have any real relevance.
So an atheist organization can be granted the same status as a tax-exempted religious organization?
I doubt that, but it certainly would be neat.
Justice Brennan along with Justice Thurgood Marshall and Justice Stevens based their opinion in the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As had been decided in earlier cases, not only could Congress not establish a religion, but it could not pass a law with the purpose of advancing religion in respect to non-religion. The lack of a sales tax on religious literature was in effect a subsidy to these religious writers. If the religious writers did not pay a tax, then a secular writer would have to. This would in essence force tax payers, whether religious or not to pay for a subsidy to religions. They held that had the statute been more broad, including charities for example, then it would have been constitutional. Brennan recognized the argument of the state that taxing the publications may inhibit their ability to function to some extent thereby going against the Free Exercise Clause which states continuing from the above clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However Brennan argued that if all American people were required to pay the tax it did not unduly burden religion to pay the tax nor "prohibit" them from exercising as they wished.
So why is other religious shit not OK to tax?
I said the power to tax is the power to crush, yes. I did not saying using the power to tax is always crushing the taxed.
You're misrepresenting my statement.
So why would not allowing them to essentially say it is immoral to vote for a person who supports abortion or else they have to pay taxes just like any other charity that does political shit crushing them?
curiously, religious organizations are able to discriminate in their hiring practices. they can say "no people of other religions need apply" and get away with it.
Its actually reasonable if you think about it. Casting directors can refuse to hire a white guy for Othello because he's white, as its places a restriction on his ability to perform the task.
Same thing with religion, you can probably assume that being a muslim is going to interfere with your ability to operate in a catholic church.
Granted that is abused when churches refuse to hire other religions to do things like yard work etc....
Yeah, I know it makes sense, it is just worth pointing out since it is an instance of religious organizations being exempt from generally applicable statutes merely because they are a religion. It would be interesting to see a 'death traps for Jesus' case, if some religion believed, I don't know, that places of worship should only have one entrance/exit.
Also, I'm curious how the government's ability to revoke 501(c)(3) status based on what a religion says and a government's ability to tax religions differ in practice...?
If a religion operates as a political force then it has violated its end of the separation and can be treated as a political entity. Essentially the barrier works both ways, the government can't meddle in the church and the church can't meddle in the government. If one side breaks it then the deal is off.
So, treating a religion like any other group, and giving them the freedom to advocate whatever the fuck they want to is too much government interference; but having the IRS be the speech police, keeping a careful eye on what they say, with the threat of losing their tax-exempt status hanging over their head, that is what "separation of church and state" looks like?
Yeah, I think the OP is missing the point of the first amendment. If we make laws punishing politicians for openly spouting religious beliefs, isn't that a violation of the first amendment? Free exercise thereof?
Also, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" from Article VI of the main body of the Big C.
Seems like a promise to uphold the values of secularism and/or atheism would fall afoul of that.
Are you saying that the values of secularism and/or atheism is of a religious nature or am I missing something?
Removing elected representatives from office or preventing them from being sworn in due to their religious beliefs is just as much of a "religious test" as it would be to legally prevent atheists from holding elected office.
This. For 1st Amendment purposes, atheism has the same protections and limitations as theism.
Whether or not a politician is too religious or not religious enough is a question for the electorate. An atheist isn't going to get elected in rural Alabama, and a Christian fundamentalist isn't getting elected in Manhattan. But, in both cases, the Constitution does not have any real relevance.
So an atheist organization can be granted the same status as a tax-exempted religious organization?
I doubt that, but it certainly would be neat.
a charity that doesn't have a religious backing can easily be given a 501(c)(3) exemption. Non-religious charities are also exempt from property taxes in my state, just like religious charities.
I'm not sure what type of atheist organization you're envisioning here. This organization of atheists, for example, claims that donations made to them are tax deductable.
Also, I'm curious how the government's ability to revoke 501(c)(3) status based on what a religion says and a government's ability to tax religions differ in practice...?
If a religion operates as a political force then it has violated its end of the separation and can be treated as a political entity. Essentially the barrier works both ways, the government can't meddle in the church and the church can't meddle in the government. If one side breaks it then the deal is off.
So, treating a religion like any other group, and giving them the freedom to advocate whatever the fuck they want to is too much government interference; but having the IRS be the speech police, keeping a careful eye on what they say, with the threat of losing their tax-exempt status hanging over their head, that is what "separation of church and state" looks like?
If you want to phrase it in a way that makes it look bad, yes.
Being a religion comes with advantages and disadvantages. You can't directly influence government, but government is pretty limited in how it can fuck with you as well.
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", thats a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Also, I'm curious how the government's ability to revoke 501(c)(3) status based on what a religion says and a government's ability to tax religions differ in practice...?
If a religion operates as a political force then it has violated its end of the separation and can be treated as a political entity. Essentially the barrier works both ways, the government can't meddle in the church and the church can't meddle in the government. If one side breaks it then the deal is off.
So, treating a religion like any other group, and giving them the freedom to advocate whatever the fuck they want to is too much government interference; but having the IRS be the speech police, keeping a careful eye on what they say, with the threat of losing their tax-exempt status hanging over their head, that is what "separation of church and state" looks like?
Yes, Than. Because the point is that neither side gets to meddle with the other.
If you want to phrase it in a way that makes it look bad, yes.
Being a religion comes with advantages and disadvantages. You can't directly influence government, but government is pretty limited in how it can fuck with you as well.
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", thats a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Right, the IRS aren't going to act as speech police, even though according to the law that's what they're supposed to be fucking doing. They just don't have the funding or the clout to do it. So what ends up happening is that the most effective political advocacy groups are religions, which is fucking ridiculous.
This is why I say that mere religiosity should not qualify a group as a 501(c)(3). And if the government decides that there's a special tax just for particular kind of churches, well then the Supreme Court can step in and overturn that on three or four different grounds.
So, treating a religion like any other group, and giving them the freedom to advocate whatever the fuck they want to is too much government interference; but having the IRS be the speech police, keeping a careful eye on what they say, with the threat of losing their tax-exempt status hanging over their head, that is what "separation of church and state" looks like?
Yes, Than. Because the point is that neither side gets to meddle with the other.
I honestly can't tell whether or not you're joking.
If you want to phrase it in a way that makes it look bad, yes.
Being a religion comes with advantages and disadvantages. You can't directly influence government, but government is pretty limited in how it can fuck with you as well.
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", thats a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Right, the IRS aren't going to act as speech police, even though according to the law that's what they're supposed to be fucking doing. They just don't have the funding or the clout to do it. So what ends up happening is that the most effective political advocacy groups are religions, which is fucking ridiculous.
This is why I say that mere religiosity should not qualify a group as a 501(c)(3). And if the government decides that there's a special tax just for particular kind of churches, well then the Supreme Court can step in and overturn that on three or four different grounds.
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
So, treating a religion like any other group, and giving them the freedom to advocate whatever the fuck they want to is too much government interference; but having the IRS be the speech police, keeping a careful eye on what they say, with the threat of losing their tax-exempt status hanging over their head, that is what "separation of church and state" looks like?
Yes, Than. Because the point is that neither side gets to meddle with the other.
I honestly can't tell whether or not you're joking.
Then perhaps you should ask him to clarify what has you confused.
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
Why is saying "there shouldn't be abortions because I hate women" treated differently from "there shouldn't be abortions because Jesus hates women?" What makes the latter so special? Where in the Constitution does it say "religious speech is extra-special, and should be government-subsidized?"
Before the 2004 presidential election, Catholic Answers published the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics. It was produced both in pamphlet form and as an insert to the newspaper USA Today. This publication promoted five "non-negotiable" issues that were also major political questions in the election cycle. The five non-negotiable issues explained and discussed were abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage and human cloning. The term "non-negotiable" is used by Catholic Answers to describe issues that are "intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by law." [4] Catholic Answers maintains that there are many more "non-negotiable" issues but these were "selected because they involve principles that never admit of exceptions and because they are currently being debated in U.S. politics."[4]
"The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics" was criticized for correlating with a Republican agenda. Critics argued that the publication did not take into account the full breadth of Catholic Social Teaching, including economic, social justice, or other life issues. Catholic Answers responded that political candidates can have a range of policy stances on issues that are not "non-negotiable" and still be in line with Church teaching. On the other hand, Catholics must not vote for candidates who take the wrong stance on "non-negotiable" issues.
While "The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics" made no endorsements of any candidate or political party, the organization came under strong attack by liberal organizations and Democratic Party candidates as a partisan publication. In 2004 complaints were filed by Catholics for a Free Choice with the IRS claiming that it was in "blatant violation of its charitable status"[5] in an attempt to revoke Catholic Answers tax exempt status.
An IRS investigation resulted in no action against Catholic Answers, the IRS ruled that the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics could be safely distributed by religious organizations because it did not comprise political intervention:
"[Catholic Answers, Inc.] created, published and distributed the "Voters Guide for Serious Catholics" ("VGSC"). The VGSC asserts that it is intended to help the reader vote for candidates for public office in a manner consistent with Catholic moral teachings. The VGSC identifies five issues it deems to be "non-negotiable" issues and instructs the reader on how to narrow down the list of candidates to those who are acceptable based on the non-negotiable issues. The VGSC does not directly or indirectly make reference to any specific candidate, political party or election. Therefore, the content of the VGSC, standing alone, is not political campaign intervention because the VGSC does not support
or oppose any specific candidate for public office [Addendum to Letter 3609P, May 2, 2008]."[6]
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
Why is saying "there shouldn't be abortions because I hate women" treated differently from "there shouldn't be abortions because Jesus hates women?" What makes the latter so special? Where in the Constitution does it say "religious speech is extra-special, and should be government-subsidized?"
Religion isn't government subsidized and no one is saying those things.
That you interpret what they say that way kind of just shows you're coming at this from the perspective of hating religion which doesn't really allow for a good faith discussion. No pun intended.
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
Why is saying "there shouldn't be abortions because I hate women" treated differently from "there shouldn't be abortions because Jesus hates women?" What makes the latter so special? Where in the Constitution does it say "religious speech is extra-special, and should be government-subsidized?"
Religion isn't government subsidized and no one is saying those things.
That you interpret what they say that way kind of just shows you're coming at this from the perspective of hating religion which doesn't really allow for a good faith discussion. No pun intended.
...religion is government subsidized. So are, say, scientific organizations for instance. The difference is that one of them gets it automatically by convincing the State that they're a religion while the other does not and has to meet more objective measures. That's the entire basis for this disagreement.
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", that's a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Tell that to the Church of Scientology circa 1992.
Pretty sure that isn't what I was talking about.
I'm pretty sure it is. So would you mind addressing it?
I'd rather it be clarified first. What exactly happened that is thought to be relevant? I can't claim to know.
he. hehehehHAHAHAHA
Dude, you don't know about even the most basic history and real world effects of the policies you are arguing about?
The Scientology thing is basic required reading kind of info about this subject.
Than is correct here: the way things stand right now it falls to the IRS to be the arbiter of what is a "real" religion and what is a nasty evil tax dodging "cult".
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", that's a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Tell that to the Church of Scientology circa 1992.
Pretty sure that isn't what I was talking about.
I'm pretty sure it is. So would you mind addressing it?
I'd rather it be clarified first. What exactly happened that is thought to be relevant? I can't claim to know.
In 1992 the religion of Scientology was obligated to pay taxes. In 1993 the religion of Scientology was not obligated to pay taxes. This is solely on the basis that the IRS changed its mind.
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
Why is saying "there shouldn't be abortions because I hate women" treated differently from "there shouldn't be abortions because Jesus hates women?" What makes the latter so special? Where in the Constitution does it say "religious speech is extra-special, and should be government-subsidized?"
Religion isn't government subsidized and no one is saying those things.
That you interpret what they say that way kind of just shows you're coming at this from the perspective of hating religion which doesn't really allow for a good faith discussion. No pun intended.
...religion is government subsidized. So are, say, scientific organizations for instance. The difference is that one of them gets it automatically by convincing the State that they're a religion while the other does not and has to meet more objective measures. That's the entire basis for this disagreement.
Being tax exempt isn't the same thing as being government subsidized.
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
Why is saying "there shouldn't be abortions because I hate women" treated differently from "there shouldn't be abortions because Jesus hates women?" What makes the latter so special? Where in the Constitution does it say "religious speech is extra-special, and should be government-subsidized?"
Religion isn't government subsidized and no one is saying those things.
That you interpret what they say that way kind of just shows you're coming at this from the perspective of hating religion which doesn't really allow for a good faith discussion. No pun intended.
...religion is government subsidized. So are, say, scientific organizations for instance. The difference is that one of them gets it automatically by convincing the State that they're a religion while the other does not and has to meet more objective measures. That's the entire basis for this disagreement.
Being tax exempt isn't the same thing as being government subsidized.
It very much is. Most of what people decry as "subsidies" are in the form of tax exemptions.
edit: especially since the result of subsidising religions in this way (which is what is really going on) is that it then falls to the government to decide which is a Real Religion (and therefore subsidised) and which is a Fake Tax Dodge Religion.
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", that's a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Tell that to the Church of Scientology circa 1992.
Pretty sure that isn't what I was talking about.
I'm pretty sure it is. So would you mind addressing it?
I'd rather it be clarified first. What exactly happened that is thought to be relevant? I can't claim to know.
he. hehehehHAHAHAHA
Dude, you don't know about even the most basic history and real world effects of the policies you are arguing about?
The Scientology thing is basic required reading kind of info about this subject.
Than is correct here: the way things stand right now it falls to the IRS to be the arbiter of what is a "real" religion and what is a nasty evil tax dodging "cult".
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", that's a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Tell that to the Church of Scientology circa 1992.
Pretty sure that isn't what I was talking about.
I'm pretty sure it is. So would you mind addressing it?
I'd rather it be clarified first. What exactly happened that is thought to be relevant? I can't claim to know.
In 1992 the religion of Scientology was obligated to pay taxes. In 1993 the religion of Scientology was not obligated to pay taxes. This is solely on the basis that the IRS changed its mind.
I'd have a hard time agreeing that Scientology is a legitimate religion rather than a financial scam as well. I'm not sure how its relevant to the argument that religions should be tax exempt though, that human judgment is required to make the determination? I'm fine with that.
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", that's a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Tell that to the Church of Scientology circa 1992.
Pretty sure that isn't what I was talking about.
I'm pretty sure it is. So would you mind addressing it?
I'd rather it be clarified first. What exactly happened that is thought to be relevant? I can't claim to know.
30 seconds of googling seems to indicated that when the IRS was trying to decide if the CoS was actually a religion, the CoS got a little bit miffed about how the IRS was going about it. But then again, I didn't look for very long, or very hard.
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
Why is saying "there shouldn't be abortions because I hate women" treated differently from "there shouldn't be abortions because Jesus hates women?" What makes the latter so special? Where in the Constitution does it say "religious speech is extra-special, and should be government-subsidized?"
Religion isn't government subsidized and no one is saying those things.
That you interpret what they say that way kind of just shows you're coming at this from the perspective of hating religion which doesn't really allow for a good faith discussion. No pun intended.
...religion is government subsidized. So are, say, scientific organizations for instance. The difference is that one of them gets it automatically by convincing the State that they're a religion while the other does not and has to meet more objective measures. That's the entire basis for this disagreement.
Being tax exempt isn't the same thing as being government subsidized.
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
Why is saying "there shouldn't be abortions because I hate women" treated differently from "there shouldn't be abortions because Jesus hates women?" What makes the latter so special? Where in the Constitution does it say "religious speech is extra-special, and should be government-subsidized?"
Religion isn't government subsidized and no one is saying those things.
Were you not paying attention during the prop 8 campaign in California in 2008? The Mormons and Catholics were saying "God hates gays, and we have to make California pass this; get out there and tell everyone that! Here's your airfare!" How is that not advocacy? And the fact that the money contributed towards it was tax-deductible is a de facto government subsidy, whether you like it or not. If the government says "oh, we aren't going to tax Verizon, but we are going to tax AT&T," that's a fucking subsidy, whether or not that's how it's phrased.
That you interpret what they say that way kind of just shows you're coming at this from the perspective of hating religion which doesn't really allow for a good faith discussion. No pun intended.
I do hate religion. I don't see how that makes what I'm saying any less right, though.
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
Why is saying "there shouldn't be abortions because I hate women" treated differently from "there shouldn't be abortions because Jesus hates women?" What makes the latter so special? Where in the Constitution does it say "religious speech is extra-special, and should be government-subsidized?"
Religion isn't government subsidized and no one is saying those things.
Were you not paying attention during the prop 8 campaign in California in 2008? The Mormons and Catholics were saying "God hates gays, and we have to make California pass this; get out there and tell everyone that! Here's your airfare!" How is that not advocacy? And the fact that the money contributed towards it was tax-deductible is a de facto government subsidy, whether you like it or not. If the government says "oh, we aren't going to tax Verizon, but we are going to tax AT&T," that's a fucking subsidy, whether or not that's how it's phrased.
That you interpret what they say that way kind of just shows you're coming at this from the perspective of hating religion which doesn't really allow for a good faith discussion. No pun intended.
I do hate religion. I don't see how that makes what I'm saying any less right, though.
I quite clearly stated multiple times in this thread that the Mormon church was out of line and should have its tax exempt status revoked.
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", that's a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Tell that to the Church of Scientology circa 1992.
Pretty sure that isn't what I was talking about.
I'm pretty sure it is. So would you mind addressing it?
I'd rather it be clarified first. What exactly happened that is thought to be relevant? I can't claim to know.
In 1992 the religion of Scientology was obligated to pay taxes. In 1993 the religion of Scientology was not obligated to pay taxes. This is solely on the basis that the IRS changed its mind.
I'd have a hard time agreeing that Scientology is a legitimate religion rather than a financial scam as well. I'm not sure how its relevant to the argument that religions should be tax exempt though, that human judgment is required to make the determination? I'm fine with that.
Well, I am not fine with the IRS making its determinations on tax exempt status on the basis of theology rather than accounting. In point of fact it seems akin to subjectively establishing what is and is not a "true" religion rather than simply measuring objective standards.
Posts
I said the power to tax is the power to crush, yes. I did not saying using the power to tax is always crushing the taxed.
You're misrepresenting my statement.
curiously, religious organizations are able to discriminate in their hiring practices. they can say "no people of other religions need apply" and get away with it. Even for administrative staff.
Its actually reasonable if you think about it. Casting directors can refuse to hire a white guy for Othello because he's white, as its places a restriction on his ability to perform the task.
Same thing with religion, you can probably assume that being a muslim is going to interfere with your ability to operate in a catholic church.
Granted that is abused when churches refuse to hire other religions to do things like yard work etc....
In Virginia, at least, the origins of this problem was the precedent of the Anglican church, which was not only tax-exempt but tax-payer funded and also had land appropriated to it by the government. Other religions and Christian denominations were neither tax-exempt nor tax-payer funded, although their members were required to contribute to the taxes which established the Anglican church.
As the Baptist and Methodist churches began to grow in size, there was a simultaneous push to end the taxes that provided for the Anglican church and also a push to grant alternative religions and denominations the same land and tax benefits of that church (and the Episcopal church which replaced it after the revolution).
I don't know what the other 12 colonies' excuse was, but at least in Virginia there's been a long-standing Common Law precedent for not taxing recognized religious organizations whereas there's no such precedent for the Press (indeed, the Stamp Act which precipitated the Revolution largely dealt with the publication of documents, including broadsheets and pamphlets).
So an atheist organization can be granted the same status as a tax-exempted religious organization?
I doubt that, but it certainly would be neat.
So why would not allowing them to essentially say it is immoral to vote for a person who supports abortion or else they have to pay taxes just like any other charity that does political shit crushing them?
Yeah, I know it makes sense, it is just worth pointing out since it is an instance of religious organizations being exempt from generally applicable statutes merely because they are a religion. It would be interesting to see a 'death traps for Jesus' case, if some religion believed, I don't know, that places of worship should only have one entrance/exit.
a charity that doesn't have a religious backing can easily be given a 501(c)(3) exemption. Non-religious charities are also exempt from property taxes in my state, just like religious charities.
I'm not sure what type of atheist organization you're envisioning here. This organization of atheists, for example, claims that donations made to them are tax deductable.
Edit: WTF? I before E except after C, my ass.
If you want to phrase it in a way that makes it look bad, yes.
Being a religion comes with advantages and disadvantages. You can't directly influence government, but government is pretty limited in how it can fuck with you as well.
And its not like the IRS are going to act as "speech police", thats a pretty bad strawman there duder.
Yes, Than. Because the point is that neither side gets to meddle with the other.
This is why I say that mere religiosity should not qualify a group as a 501(c)(3). And if the government decides that there's a special tax just for particular kind of churches, well then the Supreme Court can step in and overturn that on three or four different grounds.
Religions are effective advocacy groups because the people there believe whats being said with religious conviction, not because they don't have to pay taxes.
And if "Speech Police" you mean investigating claims of tax code violations then yeah sure.
Then perhaps you should ask him to clarify what has you confused.
Tell that to the Church of Scientology circa 1992.
Pretty sure that isn't what I was talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Answers#The_Voter.27s_Guides_controversy
Religion isn't government subsidized and no one is saying those things.
That you interpret what they say that way kind of just shows you're coming at this from the perspective of hating religion which doesn't really allow for a good faith discussion. No pun intended.
I'm pretty sure it is. So would you mind addressing it?
I'd rather it be clarified first. What exactly happened that is thought to be relevant? I can't claim to know.
...religion is government subsidized. So are, say, scientific organizations for instance. The difference is that one of them gets it automatically by convincing the State that they're a religion while the other does not and has to meet more objective measures. That's the entire basis for this disagreement.
he. hehehehHAHAHAHA
Dude, you don't know about even the most basic history and real world effects of the policies you are arguing about?
The Scientology thing is basic required reading kind of info about this subject.
Than is correct here: the way things stand right now it falls to the IRS to be the arbiter of what is a "real" religion and what is a nasty evil tax dodging "cult".
In 1992 the religion of Scientology was obligated to pay taxes. In 1993 the religion of Scientology was not obligated to pay taxes. This is solely on the basis that the IRS changed its mind.
Being tax exempt isn't the same thing as being government subsidized.
It very much is. Most of what people decry as "subsidies" are in the form of tax exemptions.
edit: especially since the result of subsidising religions in this way (which is what is really going on) is that it then falls to the government to decide which is a Real Religion (and therefore subsidised) and which is a Fake Tax Dodge Religion.
I am not Patrick Warburton, I'm Yuri Gagarin!
I'd have a hard time agreeing that Scientology is a legitimate religion rather than a financial scam as well. I'm not sure how its relevant to the argument that religions should be tax exempt though, that human judgment is required to make the determination? I'm fine with that.
30 seconds of googling seems to indicated that when the IRS was trying to decide if the CoS was actually a religion, the CoS got a little bit miffed about how the IRS was going about it. But then again, I didn't look for very long, or very hard.
It quite literally is.
I do hate religion. I don't see how that makes what I'm saying any less right, though.
then they're being silly or hyperbolic.
No they, very much unlike you, are being factually correct.
And how many times in a row are you going to respond to actual arguments with lame ass one liners? You are on quite a streak here.
I quite clearly stated multiple times in this thread that the Mormon church was out of line and should have its tax exempt status revoked.
Well, I am not fine with the IRS making its determinations on tax exempt status on the basis of theology rather than accounting. In point of fact it seems akin to subjectively establishing what is and is not a "true" religion rather than simply measuring objective standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Monthly,_Inc._v._Bullock
The amount of time I can spend on a post decreases as the number of people jumping on me increases.
Feel free to sit out if you want me to spend more time on them.