Do Churches Deserve Tax Breaks?

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

These certainly display why you are confused. You are concentrating on the "religion" issue, when, for both of your scenarios, religion matters nothing to your justification.

Yes, I'm one of those strange individuals who associate "churches" and "religion"... go figure

Sarcasm aside, I think I get your point: That tax breaks - being deserved or not - shouldn't rely so much on their nature as their behavior. If this be close to your point, then I'm with you.

Thanks

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Religion is what differentiates a church from any other organization or club, and so if a church gets special treatment, it would be because of its religious affiliation.

You are focusing on the typical tangential qualities of a church (charitable, community based) that can be fulfilled by any organization, while ignoring the necessary quality of a church (religion) that cannot be fulfilled by any organization.

Special treatment requires special qualities, and the only special quality a church possesses is that of religion. So to clear confusion, ask yourself if religion is a quality that deserves special consideration from government.

[Khethil]

Hey FTP, thanks for engaging,

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

You are focusing on the typical tangential qualities of a church (charitable, community based) that can be fulfilled by any organization, while ignoring the necessary quality of a church (religion) that cannot be fulfilled by any organization.

Yes, and purposefully so. Those aspects you point out (charity, support of a community) are - to me - the only real benefit such an entity could provide.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

So to clear confusion, ask yourself if religion is a quality that deserves special consideration from government.

Absolutely not, in my judgment.

Interesting perspective you have. I view the generic (and perhaps steriotypical) qualities of fellowship, support, charity, giving and community support as the only reason any such organizations could have any basis for consideration. Do you place worth in the religious teachings/reinforcements these places provide?

Thanks again, nice discussion.

-----

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Yes, and purposefully so. Those aspects you point out (charity, support of a community) are - to me - the only real benefit such an entity could provide.

Yes, me too.

Interesting perspective you have. I view the generic (and perhaps steriotypical) qualities of fellowship, support, charity, giving and community support as the only reason any such organizations could have any basis for consideration. Do you place worth in the religious teachings/reinforcements these places provide?

Many would like to say that these qualities you list are inherent and based in the religious attitudes of churches. It seems to me, however, that these qualities are inherent in humanity to begin with, and church is simply one (albeit the most prominent) manner in which these innate tendencies manifest themselves.

If religion and churches did not exist, they would be replaced by something similar, and the exploiters would be there to pounce all the same.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Yes, and purposefully so. Those aspects you point out (charity, support of a community) are - to me - the only real benefit such an entity could provide.

Interesting perspective you have. I view the generic (and perhaps steriotypical) qualities of fellowship, support, charity, giving and community support as the only reason any such organizations could have any basis for consideration. Do you place worth in the religious teachings/reinforcements these places provide?

Then considering those community services, and that churches do not go into business with the priority of turning profit, they could be tax-exempt as non-profit organizations. I do not know the tax codes, but I believe they would still pay more taxes as a NPO than they do under the current provisions; this would be fair, imo.

[Didymos Thomas]

Giving churches tax breaks violates the separation of church and state.

How so? The first amendment prohibits government from establishing an official religion, from preferring one religion over another, and from preferring religion to no religion. Giving churches and similar religious institutions tax breaks does not establish an official religion, does not make one religion preferred over another, nor do tax breaks to churches promote religion over no religion. I do not see the violation.

Can you really “rest easily” with that sort of activism? Surely you would not expect the PACs to acr independent of the pastors’ wishes. Don’t you think that Justin may have been on track when he said: “Churches may as well get into laundering money because that’s sort of what it is.”

What is wrong with a Pastor heading up a PAC? What's wrong with politically active ministers? Does anyone seriously think that Martin Luther King, Jr. was out of line by using the pulpit for political causes?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

How so? The first amendment prohibits government from establishing an official religion, from preferring one religion over another, and from preferring religion to no religion. Giving churches and similar religious institutions tax breaks does not establish an official religion, does not make one religion preferred over another, nor do tax breaks to churches promote religion over no religion. I do not see the violation.

Tax breaks for churches, simply because they are churches, transfers a greater tax burden on to all secular organizations that do not receive the tax exemption.

If we have two charitable social groups, say Kiwanis and First Baptist Church who perform the same community functions. Providing a tax break to the church but not the Kiwanis is preferential treatment based on religious affiliation.

And the Bill of Rights is neither a moral code nor a guideline for all government.

[Didymos Thomas]

MFtP - That's all well and fine, but I still do not see a First Amendment violation.

As it stands, charitable organizations receive tax exemptions depending upon how much of their income is spent on charitable activities. Most Kiwanis clubs have some measure of tax exempt status.

So, we have a system wherein religious organizations and secular charitable organizations can receive tax exempt status. The system is far from perfect, but the tax exempt status of churches does not seem to violate the First Amendment, even if said status does violate the political philosophy of some people - for example, the tax exempt status of many churches violates my philosophy of politics, even though I do not see a First Amendment violation involved.

Again, the First Amendment prohibits government from establishing an official religion, from preferring one religion over another, and from preferring religion to no religion. Giving churches and similar religious institutions tax breaks does not establish an official religion, does not make one religion preferred over another, nor do tax breaks to churches promote the practice religion over no religious practice.

[VideCorSpoon]

Personally, I think tax exemption for churches is fine. If there wasn’t some sort of tax break or break in particular, many churches would be forced to become for profit organizations.

However, there are some churches that abuse this benefit. The name that always comes to mind is Minister Creflo Dollar. He preaches the ”Gospel of Prosperity,” which from what I understand… if you don’t have a million dollar house, a few cars, and a airplane, you have yet to be blessed.

I found this news segment on him. It is hilariously ridiculous.

YouTube - Heretic Creflo Dollar's Excuses Versus the Truth!

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

MFtP - That's all well and fine, but I still do not see a First Amendment violation.

As it stands, charitable organizations receive tax exemptions depending upon how much of their income is spent on charitable activities. Most Kiwanis clubs have some measure of tax exempt status.

So, we have a system wherein religious organizations and secular charitable organizations can receive tax exempt status. The system is far from perfect, but the tax exempt status of churches does not seem to violate the First Amendment, even if said status does violate the political philosophy of some people - for example, the tax exempt status of many churches violates my philosophy of politics, even though I do not see a First Amendment violation involved.

Again, the First Amendment prohibits government from establishing an official religion, from preferring one religion over another, and from preferring religion to no religion. Giving churches and similar religious institutions tax breaks does not establish an official religion, does not make one religion preferred over another, nor do tax breaks to churches promote the practice religion over no religious practice.

I'm sorry, but if any organization can receive benefit from the government because of its religious affiliation alone, that is promotion of religious organizations over secular organizations.

I think it is an endorsement of religion, as it encourages religious establishments to start because all secular establishments cost more. I think it violates the separation of church of state and the first amendment. Even if it doesn't, however, I am opposed.