Religious institutions should be taxed to the same extent that other businesses are.
IamFry said 03/12, 05:02 PM
Some people think that the Church of Scientology should be subject to the same taxation that, say, Burger King is subject to. You're half right - ALL religious institutions should be taxed. Who's to say that this one should be tax-free and that one shouldn't? The whole principle of letting religions off the hook goes against the separation of church and state to begin with.
Of course, non-profits are tax free, but there's a big difference between a non-profit and a religion. For one thing, non-profits take money from fortunate donors and spend it on unfortunate recipients, while religions take money from the very people they serve - just like at BK's.
The argument that religions provide spiritual support, which is essential to our well-being, is bs because, again, BK's provides food, which is ALSO essential to your well-being, and they have to pay taxes. If the government is going to spend our money on religious institutions because of the good they provide, then they should either cut a check to the rest of us who aren't religious, or stop the practice of tax exemption for religions.
I wouldn't mind a check, but it would make more sense to just end tax exemption.
MorgMcA said 03/12, 10:15 PM
To compare a religious institution to BK is absurd.
At BK where you are charged a specific dollar amount for a specific service (we???ll leave the debate over the quality of the service to someone else), everything is a simple cut and dry transaction, no concern as to anything other than; can you pay for it and am I getting an all beef flame broiled patty with lettuce, tomato, onion, pickles with special sauce on a sesame seed bun. That is the full extent of the transaction (unless your burger is burnt or undercooked). Meanwhile at a religious institution you are generally not required to pay for the service you receive, it is generally a true service(try telling BK that because they provide a service you shouldn???t be required to pay). No one will tell you that you can???t sit in the last pew and listen to the sermon because you have filled the coffers.
Many religious institutions also double as a local charity helping members and neighbors in times of need (spiritual or physical). Many have helped a struggling family with a recently unemployed father manage to have something to eat. In a far more efficient and effective manner than the welfare program I might add.
IamFry said 03/13, 11:49 AM
Comparing a religious institution to BK is NOT absurd. I mentioned the most important difference between charities and businesses - that the people paying are the same people receiving the service. You have a problem with the fact that customers at BK receive a specific thing in return for their money - let's use a casino then! People shuffle in with no certain idea what the will spend or what they will receive; they spend money for hope that it will return to them in dividends. That's essentially what people are asked to do in churches and what they are promised.
How about a television show? They are providing the world with free entertainment, and the audience is not required to purchase anything. They bank on the idea that, if enough people watch, enough people will buy something to sustain and grow the show.
Motivational speakers are taxed - that model is almost EXACTLY the same as a religion...
When religious institutions do charitable work, they should be subject to the same tax breaks that everyone gets for charitable work, but they should have to pay taxes otherwise, like the rest of us.
MorgMcA said 03/13, 02:48 PM
IamFry. People who use a business buy a specific product at a specific price. At casinos one knows exactly what is sold, chance. Every time they put in a quarter at the slots they know they cost of that chance, if they look it up theyll know the chance they are buying, often 48%. The audience of a motivational speaker has to buy a ticket to get in. You can donate money at a church, but you dont BUY anything.
TV studios dont sell a show they sell advertising time, or have you never seen a commercial. The audience rates the shows popularity thus the value of the ad slot.
Separation of church and state is; no particular religion is associated with the state, nor any one religion put above another. ie Maryland cant be only for Catholics as it was founded, Boston cant be only for fanatical Puritans, like wise Utah cant require residents to convert to Mormonism.
Nor can these states tax one religions members more than another.
Lets suppose we do tax religions. How? A flat tax, or based off membership numbers, or off of wealth, or off of charitable donations received, any way you roll the dice one religion gains, another loses thus violating the separation of church and state
IamFry said 03/13, 03:40 PM
I have no doubt that people will vote against me simply because they see my position as "anti-religion", and I'm not anti-religion; I'm just for fairness in taxation.
As things stand, self-help guru Tony Robins can buy a building and in it, give free motivational speeches on the same day of the week every week, and require no admission, but ask for and operate exclusively on donations, and he will have to report income and pay taxes. Should he call his organization "The Church of Tony Robins", he would NOT have to report income and pay taxes.
The difference between calling his business a "church" and not is the difference between having to pay taxes and not. The practice of exempting religions from taxation is a separation of church and state because taxes are being withheld from private enterprise because the STATE makes an exception for the organization that identifies itself as a CHURCH.
The first part of the First Amendment is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Exempting a religion from taxation is a law respecting an establishment of religion; I don't know how you can get any clearer of a violation of C&S than that.
MorgMcA said 03/13, 09:16 PM
And I have just as little doubt that people will vote for you because you appear ???anti-religion??? or ???pro-atheist/agnostic???.
As you have invoked the 1st amendment, lets take a look at some judicial interpretation of it. In 1971 the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman the US Supreme Court ruled that a law was deemed constitutional if it;
???1. Had a secular purpose
2. Neither advanced or inhibited religion
3. Did not foster and excessive government entanglement with religion???
Id love to listen to you state how you would avoid ???excessive government entanglement??? by taxing religion, remember to every tax there is a loophole. By the way do you remember how long it took to finish your tax return. It is such a highly complicated system in which we determine what is and isnt taxable and then how many deductions we make every time we file taxes, that many hire out professionals.
I would also like to see how you would address how exactly this taxation would ???neither advance nor inhibit religion??? (see previous arguement)
And perhaps you should tell Tony Robins to operate as youve outlined (highly doubt he???ll do that) or to start outlining the path to salvation, problem solved.
Comments
Add Your Comment
I firmly disagree with Iamfry and AD! A religion is not a buisness. Stop comparing it to a buisness. At BK you have to pay money to get the product, religion isn't that way. There is no church where you walk into that says you have to give the church money in order to be affiliated with the church. Granted, 300 years ago this might have been the case, but we are not living in that society anymore. My second arguement is thus, if your not religious, you don't pay any money to the churches and therefore shouldn't get any money back from them. Everyone buys food, therefore BK pays a tax back to the society. Not everyone is religious and only about 50% of all people that attend church on a regular bases DONATE money to the church. People don't pay for a good or a servise, they willingly give it. That is a charity! The red-cross is a charity and yet they only give about 55% of their money donated back to the community. So I really don't understand any of the arguements Iamfry has made.
shrek | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
I also forgot to combate Iamfry's unsupported claim that taxing churchs is exactly seperation between church and state. I don't understand this logic? If the Church and State are seperate shouldn't one have nothing to do with the other. And one have no control over the other? That is what seperation of church and state means. So I have no idea where your coming from with using that in your arguement?
shrek | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
Clearly, shrek, you didn't read the arguments. How does not taxing religions count as a violation of the separation of church and state? When the state makes an exception for taxation based solely on the fact that an entity is religious, that's a violation.
IamFry | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
If Tony Robins decides to go on a speaking tour, 'preaching' that if people adopt a certain mentality, then they can overcome all difficulties, and he doesn't charge entrance, but asks for donations to continue his operation, he still needs to report income and file. Religions do essentially this, but they don't have to file, solely because they are described as "religions". This is wrong.
IamFry | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
But if he decides to call himself "The Church of Tony Robins", then he's in the clear. That's bs.
IamFry | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
The state makes an exception because the state CAN'T have control of or have any part in a religion. If the state taxes churches, that gives the STATE power over the Churches-- which is the very principle behind seperation of church and state. The church has their laws, the state has it's. What the church does can not effect the state just as what the state does shouldn't effect the churches. The government needs to stay out and away from the churches and that is when the "seperation of church and state" will be truely followed.
shrek | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
Also, Iamfry, I did read the arguements above. What you stated in the comment was exactly what you stated above. In either one you don't explain any reason why a state not taking part in religious affairs is against separation of church and state. It sounds to me, and I'm sure the rest of the people who can read it, that the state seperating itself from the church is exactly what seperation of church and state means.
shrek | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
hej iamfry keep the debate to the forum not the comment posts or do you feel that unconfident with your arguement that you have to explain it using extra space.
MorgMcA | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
Religions are in no way non-profit organizations, the Catholic church has paid out billions in claims, and still we see bishops riding around in Cadillacs, and living quite well. The Constitution states that the government shall make now law endorsing or establishing religion, so while we give tax exempt status to certain religions and not others, that is an endorsement, albeit a multiple religious endorsement, but an endorsement nonetheless. These institutions should pay their fair share.
base89 | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
Exactly what religions does the United States Tax? Base89 said that 'we give tax exempt status to certain religions' I was just wondering what they were because as far as I know we tax no religion. And I'm not claiming that religions are non-profit organizations. My arguement is that the state, or US government, has no right involving itself in religious affairs. Just like everyone always argues how religious standpoints should be kept out of the government. It seems to me like you want the government to control religion. I am saying that government should control government and religion should control religion. Religion holds no water in Congress just like Congress should not tax a religion.
shrek | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
The Popemobile, the specialized car that the Pope is given for world tours, totals somewhere over $100,000. The Catholic Church takes in millions of dollars per year, yet the only return is a purely superficial one, based individually on the person who practices the faith. An institution, theological or not, should be judged on what it has contributed to humanity. However, the Church has contributed so little to humanity that they are in debt. From the older examples of the Inquisition, Witch Trials, and the Segregation of Science [Famed by Galileo], to newer examples such as Ignoring the Jewish Plight in World War II, the outspoken cry against stem-cell and genetic research, the Catholic Church owes humanity quite a deal. Let's not get Started on the current Pope's connection to the Nazi Youth. And don't get me started on Other religions. They should be taxed, just like every other organization in America.
J.A.B.C. | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
Looks like we have a real barn-burner! 6 vs.6 is a good turnout! Thanks, everyone, for voting, and welcome to the party, MorgMcA. Good first showing.
IamFry | 03/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
I wouldn't really call myself 'liberal' or 'conservative'. I just follow the old Heinlein philosophy that Shamans and Priests are guilty until proven innocent.
J.A.B.C. | 03/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
No, I know you wouldn't. But you're someone who IS pigeonholed as a liberal, whether you like it or not, by people with pigeon brains; am I wrong?
IamFry | 03/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
thanks for the invite and compliment IamFry. We certainly did get a lot of interest perked by this one, especially for a one day debate. in all fairness i thought you might win, when i went to sleep last night i was losing, tonight i see it's done.
MorgMcA | 03/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
The tax exemption is a discretionary perk offered by the government. There is a general understanding that providing a public service will be done more efficiently in the private sector. The tacit argument is that churches do sometimes provide public services that, in their absence, would have to be provided by a bloated bureaucracy. Unfortunately, there seems to be little or no public records that show us taxpayers what percentage of these monies go toward public services and and what percentage goes to prostheletizing. While I am non-believer, I think the argument of outsourcing services is valid. Monies spend on public services should be exempt. But until these churches open their books and show us what the service/preaching ratio. Until that is documented, the tax exemption seems a violation of the first amendment.
Mike (FVThinker) Burns | 05/19/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
I feel that so far, my casual inspection finds that MorgMcA has drawn a meaning from IamFry's Burger King analogy totally different from what IamFry drew or what anyone really can draw. Because this dissimilar analogy doesn't address the topic all that well, and if this is indicative of MorgMcA's future arguments, then my vote will stay with IamFry.
Accidental Democrat | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment