Do Churches Deserve Tax Breaks?

[Didymos Thomas]

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.

Okay, but that isn't the case. Churches do not receive these benefits simply because they are churches, but because they are not-for-profit 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.

It's fine to be opposed regardless of the First Amendment issue; I am opposed to the current incarnation of the system because of the megachurches and the sort of organizations Vide points out.

[Dewey]

[quote=Mr. Fight the Power;27284]

In my opinion there are no just "religious rights", rather all of these rights are simply guaranteed by other basic rights.

Originally Posted by Dewey

Do you think the other basic rights would bar the government from establishing a single state church? If so, please explain. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

It depends very much on how it goes about doing it. If this government church pays for itself and no one is compelled by the government or other entity to belong to this church then I see no issue.

Once we get into that realm, however, we are beginning to lose the qualities that make the government what it is.

Can we go over this again?

I understood you to say in effect that Amendment I was not necessary to protect religious rights because they are protected by the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I questionned you about that because I could not see how the other rights would prevent the government from establishing a single state church.

Please elucidate. Thanks.
.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Okay, but that isn't the case. Churches do not receive these benefits simply because they are churches, but because they are not-for-profit organizations.

The question was not whether not-for-profit organizations deserve tax breaks, it was whether churches deserve tax breaks.

I believe we are relatively on the same page here.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Dewey

Can we go over this again?

I understood you to say in effect that Amendment I was not necessary to protect religious rights because they are protected by the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I questionned you about that because I could not see how the other rights would prevent the government from establishing a single state church.

Please elucidate. Thanks.
.

To be clear, I would think that the religion clause of the first amendment is unnecessary due to the other rights guaranteed by the first, however, I don't really care for the constitution in the first place.

The way I look at a "freedom" provided by a right, is not just being allowed to choose, but being allowed to choose without influence. When I say that one should have freedom of speech, I mean that the government should not even try to influence into some sort of speech. If I say that people should have the freedom of assembly, then the government should in no way influence the way in which individuals assemble.

So, if government were to establish a church and grant benefits to those who belong to the church or tax those who do not belong, they are influencing the way in which people assemble and speak and believe. If government creates a church that is completely self-sustaining, then I don't really have a problem with it.

So as usual I don't really care about the religion or church issue, rather I concentrate on how that affects the other rights.

[Dewey]

Didymos Thomas has corrected the mistaken idea that many of us have had about the First Amendment. It does not, as I claimed at the outset of this discussion, draw any “boundary between government and church”. The term “separation of church and state” so commonly used to describe it now is a distortion, really a reversal, of what Thomas Jefferson meant when he used that phrase.

The amendment says exactly what the founders wanted and no more. They chose their words very carefully. They wanted Christian principles to run the nation but they did not want one denomination to run the nation. They wanted to place all sects and denominations of Christians on the same equal footing. The amendment does not provide one whit of support for the court decisions and laws excluding or limiting the churches’ political activities..

OK, the churches really do have the right to practice politics. (A move is afoot to challenge the constitutionality of the laws barring such practice.) Now that I understand that, do I still object to their tax exemptions (other than for their charitable operations)? The answer is that I object even more strenuously. Now, I don’t even have the satisfaction that I and other non-religious people had of getting something for our money. We were paying the churches to abstain from any direct injection of their faith-driven ideas into our political process. Now, or at least soon, they can inject to their hearts’ and souls’ content.

Heavy church involvement in politics was not so objectionable in the founders’ time. Everyone was religious. Everyone was a Christian. But the times have changed and are continuing to change. Religion is declining.. Secularism is growing. Americans identifying themselves as religious now comprise only about 70% of the adults. Some 14% of them are not even affiliated with an organized religion. The advances of science and research are eliminating the need for words from on high to guide our political behavior.

In the interests of fair and equal treatment of our fast-growing secular segment of society, I believe we should amend the Constitution. This time around we should intentionally and finally separate church from state.

PS: I nearly forgot the main question of this discussion. As you would expect from such an opinionated guy as me, my belief is that we should tax the churches’ non-charitable operations.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Dewey

Didymos Thomas has corrected the mistaken idea that many of us have had about the First Amendment. It does not, as I claimed at the outset of this discussion, draw any “boundary between government and church”. The term “separation of church and state” so commonly used to describe it now is a distortion, really a reversal, of what Thomas Jefferson meant when he used that phrase.

The amendment says exactly what the founders wanted and no more. They chose their words very carefully. They wanted Christian principles to run the nation but they did not want one denomination to run the nation. They wanted to place all sects and denominations of Christians on the same equal footing. The amendment does not provide one whit of support for the court decisions and laws excluding or limiting the churches’ political activities..

OK, the churches really do have the right to practice politics. (A move is afoot to challenge the constitutionality of the laws barring such practice.) Now that I understand that, do I still object to their tax exemptions (other than for their charitable operations)? The answer is that I object even more strenuously. Now, I don’t even have the satisfaction that I and other non-religious people had of getting something for our money. We were paying the churches to abstain from any direct injection of their faith-driven ideas into our political process. Now, or at least soon, they can inject to their hearts’ and souls’ content.

Heavy church involvement in politics was not so objectionable in the founders’ time. Everyone was religious. Everyone was a Christian. But the times have changed and are continuing to change. Religion is declining.. Secularism is growing. Americans identifying themselves as religious now comprise only about 70% of the adults. Some 14% of them are not even affiliated with an organized religion. The advances of science and research are eliminating the need for words from on high to guide our political behavior.

In the interests of fair and equal treatment of our fast-growing secular segment of society, I believe we should amend the Constitution. This time around we should intentionally and finally separate church from state.

PS: I nearly forgot the main question of this discussion. As you would expect from such an opinionated guy as me, my belief is that we should tax the churches’ non-charitable operations.

I apply a more dynamic interpretation to the first amendment.

It is true that nearly all were Christian in the day and the wall of separation was erected to protect minority denominations. I think the sentiment carries over though, to protect all minority religions, not just denominations. Binding the constitution to the conditions of the day it was written takes a flawed document and makes it worthless.

Jefferson, in his famous letter, makes the statement: "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions". This points to a moral forbearance on government to legislate in any manner that may influence the religious opinions and values of the people. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, a forbearance from influence requires a complete wall of separation.

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement.

[Dewey]

If we can agree that your "wall of separation" is a barrier only to the government -- more like a one-way door -- we are in complete agreement. I did not mean to imply that the First Amendment had become worthless. The problem is in its misinterpretation.

It's nice to have someone agree with me. Some days I don't even agree with me!

[Didymos Thomas]

Jefferson coined the term "wall of separation between church and state" in his Danbury Letter. I do not think his own words represent the antithesis of what he meant. Jefferson used "wall" as a way to suggest that Madison's "line of separation" was too weak.

As to the founders and religion, not all were Christian. At least 6 American presidents have been non-Christian, including Thomas Jefferson. These non-Christians, and their Christian peers, decided to separate church and state - as evidence all one needs to do is look to James Madison. Jefferson is further removed, having been in France when the constitution was drafted (though, through Madison, Jefferson was a force in spirit).

Non-profits are granted tax breaks and are also allowed to be politically active. Why should we treat churches any differently? They are non-profits just the same.

This idea that religious organizations should abstain from politics seems down right dangerous. Imagine a world wherein Martin Luther King Jr. remained politically inactive. Or Desmond Tut, or Thich Nhat Hahn, or any of the other great spiritual leaders who's political activism shaped the world.

Everyone should be allowed to take an active role in politics.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Dewey

If we can agree that your "wall of separation" is a barrier only to the government -- more like a one-way door -- we are in complete agreement. I did not mean to imply that the First Amendment had become worthless. The problem is in its misinterpretation.

To a certain degree. I do believe that the people possess the right to vote according to religion, but I cannot imagine what good it will do, since the government cannot legislate according to religion.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

This idea that religious organizations should abstain from politics seems down right dangerous. Imagine a world wherein Martin Luther King Jr. remained politically inactive. Or Desmond Tut, or Thich Nhat Hahn, or any of the other great spiritual leaders who's political activism shaped the world.

Everyone should be allowed to take an active role in politics.

Your examples and others I can think of reflect the good, even great, side of political activism by churches But history indicates a preponderence of bad results.

Kevin Phillips" book, "American Theocracy" describes how five world-dominating powers, from ancient Rome to the British Empire were brought down. Among the problems these nations had in common was a militant religion. He then turns to the surge of fundamentalist and evangelical religion in the United States, how, under President Bush, the Republicans have shaped domestic and foreign policy around religion. Phillips likens our present situation to that of Britain a century ago and points out that "evangelical religion, biblically stirred foreign policy, and a crusader mentality ill fitted a great power decreasingly able to bear the rising economic costs of strategic and energy supply failure." Unlike Britain, we do not have a state church; nevertheless, we have been in the grip of "a considerably more powerful religiosity, constituency pressure, and biblical worldview.

Wouldn't we all be better off if religious leaders would agree to serve their congregations by simply conveying the words of God to their congregations and helping individuals to live moral lives. They could take care of the spiritual matters and allow the politicians to handle the political matters. We might lose a few Reverend Kings -- and that's a big loss -- but wouldn't it be great to lose all those Reverend Falwells and Robertsons!