How Would You Change Religious Protections

[camoguard]

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?

[Geoff]

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).

[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?

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.

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.

[Geoff]

I should probably answer this when more sober but, briefly, if they're charities, why are they so wealthy? What proportion of their income is actually devoted to charitable works, rather than enriching the organisation or the individual church leader?

Whether it's individual megachurch pastors with Gulfstream V personal jets, or the Catholic church as a whole, their incomes far exceed their contributions.

[Seth]

I should probably answer this when more sober but, briefly, if they're charities, why are they so wealthy?

Er...because parishoners give them lots and lots of money.

What proportion of their income is actually devoted to charitable works, rather than enriching the organisation or the individual church leader?

Depends on the specific organization. IRS regulations only require that they be "non-profit," which means that they must spend or distribute their income. When people give someone a lot of money as a part of religion, the person in charge decides how the money is spent. And it's up to the members of the organization to keep an eye on how the money is being spent. If they want to buy their pastor Rolls Royce automobiles and jets to enhance their leader's prestige, what business is it of yours?

Whether it's individual megachurch pastors with Gulfstream V personal jets, or the Catholic church as a whole, their incomes far exceed their contributions.

Sez you. But it's not up to you to decide how much a religious leader gets paid, it's up to the people who are members of the church. And if they don't mind, why should you?

[MrFungus420]

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.

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.

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?

What about the expense of having to defend science classes from religious indoctrination? What about the expense of millions of people being told that they are shit and deserve to be tortured forever? What about the expense of trying to prevent religions from legislating their views on everyone? What about the expense of the loss of knowledge due to the religiously motivated assault on science?

[Geoff]

I should probably answer this when more sober but, briefly, if they're charities, why are they so wealthy?

Er...because parishoners give them lots and lots of money.

What proportion of their income is actually devoted to charitable works, rather than enriching the organisation or the individual church leader?

Depends on the specific organization. IRS regulations only require that they be "non-profit," which means that they must spend or distribute their income. When people give someone a lot of money as a part of religion, the person in charge decides how the money is spent. And it's up to the members of the organization to keep an eye on how the money is being spent. If they want to buy their pastor Rolls Royce automobiles and jets to enhance their leader's prestige, what business is it of yours?

I was thinking primarily of UK charity laws (being unaware of the US ones). In our case: "Much of the income received by charities is exempt from Income Tax and Corporation Tax provided that the money is used for charitable purposes only."

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Pu ... 19.aspx#e3

]

Whether it's individual megachurch pastors with Gulfstream V personal jets, or the Catholic church as a whole, their incomes far exceed their contributions.

Sez you. But it's not up to you to decide how much a religious leader gets paid, it's up to the people who are members of the church. And if they don't mind, why should you?

I don't mind how much they get paid, I object to their income being tax-free. In the UK, a non-religious charity whose trustees were using the donations for their own personal use would have their charitable status withdrawn.

[Hermit]

I should probably answer this when more sober but, briefly, if they're charities, why are they so wealthy?

Er...because parishoners give them lots and lots of money.

Untaxed money well spent, one ought to add.

[Feck]

Tythes , Church taxes, Massive land and property holdings . TAX them

[Loki]

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

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

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

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

[MrJonno]

The whole concept of religious freedom should go and should be replaced with freedom of belief.

You can believe and say whatever you want without persecution (with a few limited exceptions) but thats completely different to thinking you have to take any action you want based on those beliefs. Which if I remember correctly from a previous posting is what the US supreme court said and most sensible constitutions explicitantly say these days

[Santa_Claus]

The whole concept of religious freedom should go and should be replaced with freedom of belief.

+1

[camoguard]

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?

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.

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.

There are several reasons why granting religious organizations tax exempt status is wrong, in my opinion. Immediately, I do not agree with any charitable service that also involves proselytizing. And I'll go so far as to say it's bullshit for Habitat for Humanity to give the new home recipients a Bible. That's probably the break even point though getting a house for being proselytized is a relatively good deal.

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?

Removing a tax exemption is not a form of religious expression. Treating all religions and secular institutes and absences of religion with the same tax code on income is impartial. You can argue about classism if you want then because poor people are more adversely put upon by any taxes they must endure and so poorer religious groups will also be more put upon without tax exemption. I say the tax exemption should have never happened.

Christianity has been involved as an inspiration for a lot of good developments. Many public universities sprung up on the hard effort of various Christian types who believed very strongly in a good education and strong values. Despite their loony religion (my opinion), they had a well developed sense of ethics and they made it possible for tons of other people to make it even farther in life more easily. And I'm talking about universities like Lynchburg College. I despise universities like Liberty University.

I expect believers to say that is why religion needs to be protected. But I believe religion came with mostly a huge cost and this is one of the few positive spin offs. Morality isn't a product of religion. Morality is a topic that every culture grapples with regardless of your religious or nonreligious status. Education is important regardless of your belief or lack of belief. I think we can take the few good things religions have brought to the forefront and incorporate them into secular society without the Ten Commandments.

Also, tax exempt status for people that create a hostile environment for homosexuals is a grievous thing. Religious institutions are the only safe haven for homophobia. If a Church believes that women are inferior or should submit to men, it should also lose it's status. It does no good for us to dehumanize anybody or to stand back and watch while bible thumpers get away with it while getting tax exemptions.

Pay your share or provide an even better service.

[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?

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.

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.

There are several reasons why granting religious organizations tax exempt status is wrong, in my opinion. Immediately, I do not agree with any charitable service that also involves proselytizing.

Then don't take advantage of their charitable programs. But why would you seek to deny others the ability to do so, if they don't mind proselytizing. By the way, which programs, precisely, "involve" proselytizing, how do they do so, under what circumstances, and to whom?

And I'll go so far as to say it's bullshit for Habitat for Humanity to give the new home recipients a Bible.

Why? Are you so afraid of a book that you'd ban people from giving it as a gift?

That's probably the break even point though getting a house for being proselytized is a relatively good deal.

I would say so, since you don't even need to submit to that. But even if it was a condition of the contract for the house that you had to erect a shrine to Mary and pray to her twice a day, what business is it of yours? The house belongs to the builders, and they can condition the gift in any way they prefer. If you don't like the conditions, don't move into the house.

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.

Removing a tax exemption is not a form of religious expression.

No, but it can be a form of religious oppression.

Treating all religions and secular institutes and absences of religion with the same tax code on income is impartial.

True enough. So what? What ever gave you the notion that tax policy has to treat everyone the same? Or are you arguing for a flat tax rather than a progressive income tax, in which case I'd agree with you.

You can argue about classism if you want then because poor people are more adversely put upon by any taxes they must endure and so poorer religious groups will also be more put upon without tax exemption. I say the tax exemption should have never happened.

Taxes are a reflection of public policy, and public policy favors religion for many reasons, and since it is the public that decides what public policy is, you can blame the public for offering tax exemptions to...well...most of themselves, since 80 percent of people have some form of religious belief.

If you atheists want to get in on the goodies, just admit that atheism is Atheism, the religion, and join the fun. I did.

Christianity has been involved as an inspiration for a lot of good developments. Many public universities sprung up on the hard effort of various Christian types who believed very strongly in a good education and strong values.

Thanks, a rare admission of fact from an atheist.

Despite their loony religion (my opinion), they had a well developed sense of ethics and they made it possible for tons of other people to make it even farther in life more easily. And I'm talking about universities like Lynchburg College. I despise universities like Liberty University.

Yeah, well I despise Brown and UCLA Berkely, so I guess we're even.

I expect believers to say that is why religion needs to be protected. But I believe religion came with mostly a huge cost and this is one of the few positive spin offs.

Society clearly disagrees. What "huge costs" are you referring to, pray tell? How are churches burdens on society? Do they not exist on private donations from members and not suck at the public teat like almost half of the current population. I'd say that the dependent class is a much larger cost to society than churches have ever been.

Morality isn't a product of religion.

Morality is almost completely a product of religion, and our moral laws are, generally speaking, codifications of the moral beliefs of the predominant religions of the society involved. You're speaking nonsense.

Morality is a topic that every culture grapples with regardless of your religious or nonreligious status.

True, and religion, particularly mainstream religions of the past, have highly evolved moral codes that have been tested and refined against literally thousands of years of human society and culture, which is why religion-based moral codes are the predominant moral codes on the planet, and always have been...and likely always will be.

Education is important regardless of your belief or lack of belief.

True, but entirely irrelevant in this context.

I think we can take the few good things religions have brought to the forefront and incorporate them into secular society without the Ten Commandments.

Interestingly, that's exactly what has happened. Equally interestingly, most of the Ten Commandments have ended up in our secular moral and legal codes in one form or another. Go figure.

Also, tax exempt status for people that create a hostile environment for homosexuals is a grievous thing.

Ah, the real reason for your ire becomes crystal clear.

Religious institutions are the only safe haven for homophobia.

There's plenty of anti-homosexual secular sentiment out there, trust me.

If a Church believes that women are inferior or should submit to men, it should also lose it's status.

Do you know what a "church" is? It's a group of people getting together in voluntary association who subscribe to a particular dogma by common, and individual consent. At least in the US and most civilized countries nobody is forced to be there who doesn't want to be there, and if one does not agree with the dogma, one leaves the church. Since all activities associated with a church are entirely voluntary, what business is it of anyone's, including the government's, what their beliefs are or how they choose to organize their lives to comport with those beliefs?

Also, I suspect you are pretty ignorant of Christian doctrine when it comes to the relationships between women and men.

It does no good for us to dehumanize anybody or to stand back and watch while bible thumpers get away with it while getting tax exemptions.

If they want to be dehumanized, what business is it of yours?

Pay your share or provide an even better service.

Pay their share of what?

[Seth]

The whole concept of religious freedom should go and should be replaced with freedom of belief.

Er, that's already the way it is around here. Evidently you don't understand how things actually work. Freedom of conscience is one of our founding principles

You can believe and say whatever you want without persecution (with a few limited exceptions)
but thats completely different to thinking you have to take any action you want based on those beliefs.

Too late. The Founders already made those principles part of our nation some 234 years ago.

Which if I remember correctly from a previous posting is what the US supreme court said and most sensible constitutions explicitantly say these days

Indeed. So, what's your beef?