How Would You Change Religious Protections

[Seth]

As a spin off from So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?, what do you like or dislike about religious protections?

I think nonbelief is shoehorned into religious protections. In the above mentioned thread, Charlou asked if protected choices needed to be defined as religious. I don't think they do, but we need to define those protections somehow.

Thoughts?

It's not so much the protections I object to as the special treatments, such as charity status. Freedom to follow a particular religion should be no different from, say, freedom to follow a particular political party (or be apolitical, of course).

Charity status is granted because they are charities. What's wrong with that? If you remove charity status, you will lose the massive financial benefits that charitable religious organizations provide to society and to the communities they serve. Do you really want to pay tax to fund all the shelters and soup kitchens that religion supplies free of charge to society?

We already do. We have to make up the lost tax monies.

Typical liberal doublethink, classifying taxes not collected as "lost tax monies." What you really mean is "I'm pissed that we don't have MORE tax money that we got by oppressing religion."

Here's a clue: Money in the pockets of the public, including churches, does not belong to the government. It's not a grant of government that they hold that money, it's theirs because they earned it, or someone who did earn it gave it to them. The People do not exist as funding sources for government, government exists as a servant of the People, who grant to it limited amounts of their hard-earned money in order to fund the necessary operations of their public servants.

There are two other reasons not to tax religion. The most important is that historically, taxation as been the method of suppressing and oppressing disfavored religion by government. We, the United States, have decided not to go down that path.

There's no problem. Treat them just like any other business. They have to keep track of their income, report it and pay taxes on it. They can deduct the charitable work.

That's pretty much exactly how it works already. You just don't know that because you're ignorant of how the system actually works because you've been drinking the liberal progressive Kool-Aid for so long.

Second, many taxes that might apply are foregone simply because the benefits to the society offered by the religion, by way of charity and other services to the community that are beneficial, far outweigh the amount of taxes they would provide, and so an honest and rational appraisal of the benefits of religion versus the costs requires us to make churches tax exempt. It's not much different from granting tax benefits to corporations to locate in the community when the tangible and intangible benefits of having the employer support it.

What benefits of religion? The charity work is negligible, usually the local church soup-kitchens are constantly asking for donations and doing (non-church related) food drives. The churches aren't paying for it. And what other services might you be talking about?

This is complete mendacious and ignorant horseshit. The Catholic church alone is one of the top providers of charitable assistance to people worldwide, right up there with the United States.

What about the expense of having to defend science classes from religious indoctrination?

What expense? How much? Who pays for it?

What about the expense of millions of people being told that they are shit and deserve to be tortured forever?

What expense? How much? Who pays it? It's an opinion. If you don't like it, ignore it. It doesn't take religion to have an opinion.

What about the expense of trying to prevent religions from legislating their views on everyone?

You mean "what about suppressing the right of freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, and the right to petition government for redress of grievances?" You seem to be a democracy-loving kind of guy, so here's a little clue for you: Live by the democratic vote, die by the democratic vote. If the majority wants their society to reflect religious ideals, who are you to object...you're a minority loser, that's who. Or are you now arguing for a representative Constitutional Republic that uses only limited democratic processes and provides protection for individual rights against the tyranny of the majority?

What about the expense of the loss of knowledge due to the religiously motivated assault on science?

What scientific knowledge, exactly and precisely, has been "lost" due to religious activity?

Hyperbole doesn't cut it, give us some facts and figures to prove your allegations.

[Seth]

It's a tad rich to lump all money donated to religion as charity.

Why?

That which is used for provision of services to the community like for example health and education may well be.

Yup.

Donations used for the maintenance and "advancement" of religion are not charity and should attract the same tax arrangements as any other business.

Why? Even secular charities have management and advertising expenses. Remember, what you do to one, you do to all. As I said, donations to religious organizations are tax exempt for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the lack of a profit motive. Churches, as charities, must account for their expenditures, and the IRS rules are quite specific about which expenditures are tax-deductible and which are not, and the non-profit regulations are just as detailed.

Churches are merely groups of individuals banding together for non-profit-making private activities. Any group, secular or religious, that wishes to be tax-exempt merely has to file the paperwork and follow the rules. From the Veterans of Foreign Wars to your local kid's hockey club, there are millions of groups who collect money from participants for use to forward the private, non-commercial objectives of the organization, and all of them are tax exempt. Churches are just another group in the same situation. Why should they be treated any differently than any secular organization that enjoys exemptions because they are a private, non-profit group?

Churches, you see, are not "businesses," any more than your amateur football or bird watching club is.

Having the privilege of seeing my own taxes used to support prosetylyzation (of myself and others) is guaranteed to give me the shits.

I guess that's a problem in the UK and Australia, but that's your problem, not mine. In the US, tax money CANNOT be used to support religious proselytization of others...although it is often used for political proselytization, which gives me the shits.

You want to build a nice spiffy new church and send some missionaries to third-world countries to harass the natives, well fucking well pay for it yourself.

Around here, they do. Completely. Every fucking dime. If you have a problem in the UK, have a revolution and borrow a copy of our Constitution. Oh wait, you don't have any guns, so you can't have a revolution.

Pity about that. Just desserts I suppose.

[MrJonno]

This is complete mendacious and ignorant horseshit. The Catholic church alone is one of the top providers of charitable assistance to people worldwide, right up there with the United States.

Never let facts get in the way while some US citizens are quite generous the % of GDP that is spent on foreign aid is quite simply one of the lowest in the world

[Hermit]

This is complete mendacious and ignorant horseshit. The Catholic church alone is one of the top providers of charitable assistance to people worldwide, right up there with the United States.

Never let facts get in the way while some US citizens are quite generous the % of GDP that is spent on foreign aid is quite simply one of the lowest in the world

Be fair. The US is Israel's biggest donor by far. Somewhere in the vicinity of a billion dollars worth of weapons per year. That is big time charity all on its own.

[Loki]

I guess that's a problem in the UK and Australia, but that's your problem, not mine. In the US, tax money CANNOT be used to support religious proselytization of others...although it is often used for political proselytization, which gives me the shits.

Then I guess Ken Ham mustn't be getting tax breaks to build his fake ark after all then.

[Geoff]

Scientology absolutely DOES enjoy religious tax exemption.

Not here in the UK it doesn't, and not in most European countries.

[Hermit]

Scientology absolutely DOES enjoy religious tax exemption.

Not here in the UK it doesn't, and not in most European countries.

Seth is one of those citizens for whom nothing outside his nation's borders matters unless it affects him. 'Nough said?

[Geoff]

Scientology absolutely DOES enjoy religious tax exemption.

Not here in the UK it doesn't, and not in most European countries.

Seth is one of those citizens for whom nothing outside his nation's borders matters unless it affects him. 'Nough said?

I know, I'm trying a bit of gentle edumacation... (it's not working, is it?)

[Hermit]

Scientology absolutely DOES enjoy religious tax exemption.

Not here in the UK it doesn't, and not in most European countries.

Seth is one of those citizens for whom nothing outside his nation's borders matters unless it affects him. 'Nough said?

I know, I'm trying a bit of gentle edumacation... (it's not working, is it?)

Afraid not. Expect a fusillade of evasion, obfuscation, distortion and unacknowledged backpedalling instead, featuring words like "mendacious" and "estopple" (sic).

[camoguard]

I'm officially considering foeing Seth. I don't mind a debate but we simply can't argue about every single detail at once. It's not an approach that bears fruit. The most specific example of not being able to communicate is this:

Secondly, there are way more religions than Christians like to think there are. What makes Christianity worthy of tax exempt status when I think Scientology most assuredly does not deserve such status?

Scientology absolutely DOES enjoy religious tax exemption. There were several notorious court cases which established Scientology as a "legitimate" religion for tax purposes, and the IRS had to eat serious crow.

The reason I think this is an example of a failure to communicate is that my point was Scientology is a religion that does not deserve protections. And you responded that Scientology does deserve protections. Christianity has been entangled in western societies for awhile and so there are reasonable arguments to be made for religiously inspired universal benefits. Scientology is currently preying on people right now. The founder's intentions are clear to all but the members of the religion. There is no way I can reasonably discuss religion with a person that would suggest protecting Scientology is a good idea. And I add that I think you think it's a good idea because those protections are also secured in spirit for Christianity.

Don't be so selfish.

The point of this post is to provide an opportunity to gain some common ground which we can use to establish good will enough to actually sustain the many many differences in our points of view during future debates and the remainder of this one.

Your move.

[Seth]

This is complete mendacious and ignorant horseshit. The Catholic church alone is one of the top providers of charitable assistance to people worldwide, right up there with the United States.

Never let facts get in the way while some US citizens are quite generous the % of GDP that is spent on foreign aid is quite simply one of the lowest in the world

And yet the absolute amount exceeds that given by any other country, and pretty much by all other countries combined. That's all that counts, how many actual dollars go to actual people to prevent actual starvation and death, and in that regard, we rule, and we have ruled for a long, long time.

Fuck your "percentage of GDP" trash. That's just socialist redistributionist blather. Americans are the most generous people on the face of the earth, and have been for nearly 200 years, so I don't want to hear any carping from the selfish twats elsewhere until they step up to the plate.

[Seth]

I'm officially considering foeing Seth. I don't mind a debate but we simply can't argue about every single detail at once. It's not an approach that bears fruit. The most specific example of not being able to communicate is this:

Secondly, there are way more religions than Christians like to think there are. What makes Christianity worthy of tax exempt status when I think Scientology most assuredly does not deserve such status?

Scientology absolutely DOES enjoy religious tax exemption. There were several notorious court cases which established Scientology as a "legitimate" religion for tax purposes, and the IRS had to eat serious crow.

The reason I think this is an example of a failure to communicate is that my point was Scientology is a religion that does not deserve protections. And you responded that Scientology does deserve protections. Christianity has been entangled in western societies for awhile and so there are reasonable arguments to be made for religiously inspired universal benefits. Scientology is currently preying on people right now. The founder's intentions are clear to all but the members of the religion. There is no way I can reasonably discuss religion with a person that would suggest protecting Scientology is a good idea. And I add that I think you think it's a good idea because those protections are also secured in spirit for Christianity.

It's not about whether Scientology or any other religion is a "good idea." It, like all religion, deserves tax exemptions because it's not up to the IRS or any other government bureaucrat to examine and judge religious belief before granting religious tax exemptions. You should have figured that out. In fact, you should KNOW this if you have any understanding of the First Amendment. Our Constitution PROHIBITS government from assessing the claims or validity or utility of ANY religion, period. It has no authority to say either "this is not a proper religion" or "this is a proper religion." It must remain strictly neutral and may not either advance or inhibit any religious practice or belief.

The reason for this is that when government gets to pick and choose which religions are "deserving" and which are not, it inevitably leans towards a state religion, or at least preferential treatment of the majority religion as a function of vote-getting. And that is why Scientology is a tax-exempt religion. It matters not that Scientology is preying upon people, so long as they are there voluntarily. They have a right to choose to be preyed upon, just as sexual masochists have a right to choose to be strung up by the wrists and flogged till they are bloody as a part of their sexual preferences.

Now, it appears that Scientology may have stepped over the line into actual involuntary servitude, theft and fraud, and the Justice Department is investigation allegations of this sort. But that's a criminal matter, not one of religious propriety. Even Catholic priests are not absolved of criminal culpability for their misdeeds merely because they are priests.

Your arguments are simplistic and not well reasoned and indicate a substantial ignorance of Constitutional concepts, law and political reality. You don't think religion should get tax exemptions because you don't like religion, and I'm going to great pains to explain to you that the very reason that religions enjoy tax exemptions is precisely because of people like you, who would, and historically have, used taxation to oppress religion merely because the don't like one religion or another, or any religion. This antipathy towards religion is quite frequently deadly. From Joseph Stalin's purges of religion to the ongoing war between Islam and the West, political and anti-religious bigotry have killed millions. For those, and other reasons, the US eschews political control, including by taxation, of religious expression.

Religion plays an extremely important part in the lives of more than 80 percent of the population, and they, as the majority, have a right to protect their religious practice from such oppression at the behest of the extremely small minority of intolerant atheists who dislike religion. Welcome to democracy.

As for Scientology, I can easily defend it because, except for any possible criminal conduct, it's a voluntary association of people who voluntarily give their money to the church, and evidently receive fair value in return. It's nobody's business if Scientology is in fact ripping people off and is passing off bogus "science" and quack science-fiction philosophy as religion if that's what the people who are getting ripped off and lied to want. If and when Scientology crosses the line into illegal conduct, the state will be there to slap them down. Until then, as P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute," and it's no more my concern that people give money to Scientology than it is that they give money to carnival barkers at the ring toss. It's their money, and they are fools. Thus, they and their money are soon parted, and all the better for it as an object lesson to them and others not to be fools.

The point of this post is to provide an opportunity to gain some common ground which we can use to establish good will enough to actually sustain the many many differences in our points of view during future debates and the remainder of this one.

Fine by me, but put a little more thought into it please.

[Seth]

Scientology absolutely DOES enjoy religious tax exemption.

Not here in the UK it doesn't, and not in most European countries.

Seth is one of those citizens for whom nothing outside his nation's borders matters unless it affects him. 'Nough said?

Wrong. Nothing outside my nation's borders changes how I may exercise my liberties and freedoms within my country.

As for Scientology, our treatment of it as a religion is far more advanced than yours because it recognizes the grave danger of allowing government to determine the legitimacy of religious belief and practice. In the UK, you have a state religion, the Church of England, which for hundreds of years suppressed Catholicism and other religions, often quite brutally.

We've never had that in the US, nor can we, because our Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in religion.

[Geoff]

As for Scientology, our treatment of it as a religion is far more advanced than yours because it recognizes the grave danger of allowing government to determine the legitimacy of religious belief and practice. In the UK, you have a state religion, the Church of England, which for hundreds of years suppressed Catholicism and other religions, often quite brutally.

We've never had that in the US, nor can we, because our Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in religion.

Your country's treatment of it is primarily because of "Operation Snow White" and subsequent events.

In a nutshell, your IRS folded (in defiance of a US court ruling the previous year), rather than defend hundreds of lawsuits.

You fought Scientology, for 25 years. And you lost.

[Seth]

As for Scientology, our treatment of it as a religion is far more advanced than yours because it recognizes the grave danger of allowing government to determine the legitimacy of religious belief and practice. In the UK, you have a state religion, the Church of England, which for hundreds of years suppressed Catholicism and other religions, often quite brutally.

We've never had that in the US, nor can we, because our Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in religion.

Your country's treatment of it is primarily because of "Operation Snow White" and subsequent events.

In a nutshell, your IRS folded (in defiance of a US court ruling the previous year), rather than defend hundreds of lawsuits.

You fought Scientology, for 25 years. And you lost.

No, Scientology fought for its religious rights against the IRS and won. It was a victory for religious freedom in this country. The very essence of the First Amendment is that we, as a nation, are required to tolerate not only offensive speech, but offensive religion as well. That is the essence of liberty. It is a vindication of our liberties against a government that would presume to tell us how we may and may not practice religion.