Do Churches Deserve Tax Breaks?

[Didymos Thomas]

Dewey - Human history indicates a preponderance of bad results, in religion and everything else imaginable.

Yes, losing the Falwells would be great, but losing the Dr. King's would be a far greater loss. We will always have the Falwells; even if we restricted ministers as you suggest, the Falwells of the world will still drag us down. We need the Dr. Kings to bring us back up and help us climb above. Imagine the civil rights movement of the 60's without King.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Dewey - Human history indicates a preponderance of bad results, in religion and everything else imaginable.

Yes, losing the Falwells would be great, but losing the Dr. King's would be a far greater loss. We will always have the Falwells; even if we restricted ministers as you suggest, the Falwells of the world will still drag us down. We need the Dr. Kings to bring us back up and help us climb above. Imagine the civil rights movement of the 60's without King.

I get your point, but I would hate to think that the civil rights movement of the 60s would have not occurred without religious involvement in government. I think it more likely that it would have occurred earlier or not been necessary at all without religious involvement.

[Didymos Thomas]

I get your point, but I would hate to think that the civil rights movement of the 60s would have not occurred without religious involvement in government. I think it more likely that it would have occurred earlier or not been necessary at all without religious involvement.

Sorry, but you'll have to hate what you think or slip into delusion. Even if we take out Dr. King and the many other Christian religious leaders who played such a prominent role in the movement, the other half of the movement was led my Muslim leaders. Even the more radical and less blatantly religious civil rights leaders, like Malcom X, were heavily influenced by religious teaching.

I have no idea why you think the civil rights movement would have occurred earlier without religious leadership; doesn't make much sense to suggest that the movement would have occurred earlier if we remove all (well, most) of the movement's prominent leaders.

As a matter of history, the religious involvement is irreplaceable. This is not limited to the 60's movement. Abolition in the 1800's was motivated by religious ideas and spiritual leaders. Or we can look at Gandhi's movement in India; not blatantly religious, and Gandhi was certainly influenced by essentially secular thinkers like Jefferson and Thoreau (though, Thoreau took his ideas from Eastern religion, go figure), but Gandhi also drew a great deal from Hindu teaching and relied on his personal spiritual practice. Desmund Tutu in South Africa is another great example.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Sorry, but you'll have to hate what you think or slip into delusion. Even if we take out Dr. King and the many other Christian religious leaders who played such a prominent role in the movement, the other half of the movement was led my Muslim leaders. Even the more radical and less blatantly religious civil rights leaders, like Malcom X, were heavily influenced by religious teaching.

I have no idea why you think the civil rights movement would have occurred earlier without religious leadership; doesn't make much sense to suggest that the movement would have occurred earlier if we remove all (well, most) of the movement's prominent leaders.

As a matter of history, the religious involvement is irreplaceable. This is not limited to the 60's movement. Abolition in the 1800's was motivated by religious ideas and spiritual leaders. Or we can look at Gandhi's movement in India; not blatantly religious, and Gandhi was certainly influenced by essentially secular thinkers like Jefferson and Thoreau (though, Thoreau took his ideas from Eastern religion, go figure), but Gandhi also drew a great deal from Hindu teaching and relied on his personal spiritual practice. Desmund Tutu in South Africa is another great example.

Can you point to any grand religious awakening that triggered these events? None of these religions underwent any major changes, yet the political climate shifted dramatically.

[Didymos Thomas]

Can you point to any grand religious awakening that triggered these events? None of these religions underwent any major changes, yet the political climate shifted dramatically.

"Grand religious awakening" is a broad term. I would call the Christian opposition to slavery a great religious awakening; these people looked at chattel slavery and then at their scripture and realized the institution was without any justification.

But something must be understood - you say the political climate shifted. And that's exactly right. These religious leaders were at the front of the changing political landscape - they lead the charge for change. That's the value of the politically active minister. Often times we see the spiritual leader become the political leader. The Buddha was very much like this; he lead a reform of Hinduism which was primarily a political response to the brutal caste system. That's why, in addition to his wisdom, the Buddha became such a figure with such a following. Jesus, by preaching a faith that appealed to slaves and the poor, also helped move along political unrest in those populations.

[Dewey]

Up to now, Didymos Thomas and I have not reconciled our views on the involvement of religious leaders in politics. I have deplored such involvement and pointed to the role of the leaders in religion-motivated wars, genocides, and terrorism. Didymos Thomas has supported the involvement and pointed to such leaders as King, Gandhi, Tutu, and other spiritual leaders who have greatly advanced the cause of mankind.

But maybe these views can be reconciled. Professor Marc Gopin appears to have done it.

Gopin is a foremost expert on world religion and conflict resolution. From the little I have read of his books and essays, I gather that he sees a paradox in the current status of religion. On the one hand, he sees “patterns at work that indicate that religion is one of the most salient phenomena that will cause massive violence in this century.” On the other hand, he sees “other indicators from our current experience that suggest that religion will play a critical role in constructing a global community of shared moral commitments and vision”.

I would have to write a lot, lot more to more fully convey these ideas of Gopin. However, I believe he acknowledges the leadership dangers I see but nevertheless proposes a big role for the leaders in the constructive processes. He does stress the need to “include clerics as teachers only with no political or martial authority.” He views this globalization effort as a peacemaking project bringing together the conflicting parties and involving the use of non-political forums, institutions, and funding mechanisms.

Peace!

[Khethil]

This has bloomed into much more of a productive discussion than I feared it would; three-cheers for those who work for civility!

I'm wondering if I could toss in another aspect of rationale here. Is this a valid line of reasoning?

• Assumption: It is in the best interest of any government to provide for consideration of all sects of their population (to one extent or another)

• Premise: Many nations (not "goys") are comprised of multiple religious orientations

• Assumption: Some of these orientations either don't work with any money or haven't sufficient infrastructure to warrant any tax-or-not consideration.

• Conclusion: If such governments were to extend monetary consideration to any of those that do have an income, such a consideration could not be enjoyed by those that do not, thus violating premise 1.

• Answer: It is therefore not in the best interest of governments that have a population of multiple religious orientations to give any tax-break indulgences to any religious sect.

I'm actually still deciding wherein best I fit in this issue (see my previous post), but this is one line of reasoning that I've seen used. I think it has some worth - but how much I submit for your consideration.

Thanks, I look forward to responses.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

"Grand religious awakening" is a broad term. I would call the Christian opposition to slavery a great religious awakening; these people looked at chattel slavery and then at their scripture and realized the institution was without any justification.

And of course a great many religious leaders pointed to the part of the bible that dealt with the ethical treatment of slaves and called slaveholding just.

My point is this, at what point did the scripture change?

If the scripture has not changed (which it obviously has not), then we can suppose interpretation of the scripture has changed, and this points to evolving moral norms manipulating how religion is practiced rather than how religion is practiced effecting moral norms.

[Didymos Thomas]

My point is this, at what point did the scripture change?

If the scripture has not changed (which it obviously has not), then we can suppose interpretation of the scripture has changed, and this points to evolving moral norms manipulating how religion is practiced rather than how religion is practiced effecting moral norms.

What you've missed is that the religious arguments for and against slavery were being used at the same time. They evolve simultaneously.

But you do have a good point, moral norms influence the practice of religion, but we also have to understand that religion influences those moral norms. It's a two way street.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Answer: It is therefore not in the best interest of governments that have a population of multiple religious orientations to give any tax-break indulgences to any religious sect.

Hi Khethil,

It's a little hard for me to visualize a religious group so small as to escape all taxation but so powerful as to wield significent political influence. But your conclusion may be right.

This, indeed, would provide further reason to withhold the preferential treatment of religious entities.