posted
I figure that this may as well be as good a place to ask this question as any.
I've always been a little confused about the relationship between tax-exempt status and tax deductible donations. There may also be differences between the US system and the Canadian making it messy....who knows.
But, AFAIK, the system is that certain entities such as charities, churches, military personnel, and so forth are tax exempt. That is, the income that they raise is exempt from income tax, corporate tax, or whatever equivalents.
You can also make donations to charities and claim these as a deduction (or credit?) on your taxes, reducing the taxes that you end up paying. It seems clear that not all donations to tax exempt entities are deductible, you cannot randomly pick a guy in the military, give him money, and then claim a deduction. Rather, at least in Canada they give you a receipt saying that they are a registered charity which you have to include with your tax return.
This leads to my questions: 1) You cannot donate to any random tax-exempt entity and expect to claim a tax deduction. However, can you assume that all valid tax deductible donations go to tax-exempt entities? 2) Not all non-profits are charities. However, are all charities non-profits? 3) What are churches? Are they non-profits? Are they charities? Are alms tax-deductible donations? How about tithes?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and here's one additional question. What we seem to be talking about in this thread is tax-exempt status and whether these churches would lose that.
Theoretically, if they lost tax-exempt status would they also lose their ability to issue a receipt for a charitable donation or are those two unrelated?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obviously, this is not the criterion I am applying.
Obviously, I did not say that you were. I was making a point that relied on the next statement as well.
quote:Many organisations pay their managers, yes. My contention, however, is that churches exist for the purpose of paying their managers, and that this is the distinction.
Your contention is wrong by any objective standard you could fully articulate for determining whether an organization exists "for the purpose of paying [its] managers."
quote:Again, are televangelists non-profit? Should they be? (For purposes of the law, that is.)
*shrug* Depends entirely on what you mean by "televangelist." It's fact-specific, and I doubt either of us know enough facts about any specific one to meaningfully address the issue.
If you want me to say that there is some point where personal benefit to one in control of a tax exempt status becomes so great that a tax exemption is no long warranted, I've never said otherwise. Of course such a point exists.
quote:A question about the organisation of the law. Are churches tax-exempt under the same statute or regulation that applies to other non-profits? If not, why not?
quote:Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
posted
Mucus, you can compare the requirements for an organization being able to receive tax-deductible contributions by looking at Section 170(c):
quote:c) Charitable contribution defined For purposes of this section, the term “charitable contribution” means a contribution or gift to or for the use of— (1) A State, a possession of the United States, or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the United States or the District of Columbia, but only if the contribution or gift is made for exclusively public purposes. (2) A corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation— (A) created or organized in the United States or in any possession thereof, or under the law of the United States, any State, the District of Columbia, or any possession of the United States; (B) organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals; (C) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual; and (D) which is not disqualified for tax exemption under section 501 (c)(3) by reason of attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. A contribution or gift by a corporation to a trust, chest, fund, or foundation shall be deductible by reason of this paragraph only if it is to be used within the United States or any of its possessions exclusively for purposes specified in subparagraph (B). Rules similar to the rules of section 501 (j) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph. (3) A post or organization of war veterans, or an auxiliary unit or society of, or trust or foundation for, any such post or organization— (A) organized in the United States or any of its possessions, and (B) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. (4) In the case of a contribution or gift by an individual, a domestic fraternal society, order, or association, operating under the lodge system, but only if such contribution or gift is to be used exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. (5) A cemetery company owned and operated exclusively for the benefit of its members, or any corporation chartered solely for burial purposes as a cemetery corporation and not permitted by its charter to engage in any business not necessarily incident to that purpose, if such company or corporation is not operated for profit and no part of the net earnings of such company or corporation inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. For purposes of this section, the term “charitable contribution” also means an amount treated under subsection (g) as paid for the use of an organization described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4).
There's a bit in there that's pretty much taken from 501(c)(3).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes - Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. I've linked this before for you (probably a different page):
Ah! Just the information I need. I want 'religious' struck from that list. Keep 'charitable', but 'religious' benefits theists over atheists (and organised theists over unorganised ones), which is presumably unconstitutional and certainly unethical.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My hazy reading of that is that the list of tax-exempt entities includes charities via 501c3
So, all charities are apparently tax exempt. All charities are also non-profit. Also via "(D) which is not disqualified for tax exemption under section 501 (c)(3)" it seems that a church would automatically lose the ability to receive tax deductible donations if they lost tax exempt status for the reasons laid out in the OP.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm glad you can't vote.
I'm very sorry that you can, but neither sentiment seems to be much of a reasoned argument. Would you like to tell me how the religious exemption does not favour theists over atheists, and the organised over the unorganised?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah! Just the information I need. I want 'religious' struck from that list. Keep 'charitable', but 'religious' benefits theists over atheists (and organised theists over unorganised ones), which is presumably unconstitutional and certainly unethical.
You must have a strange definition of the word "presumably" if you think giving a tax exemption to churches is "presumably unconstitutional."
As to your contention that it benefits theists over atheists, given the entirety of the list in 501(c)(3), atheists are not benefited any less than theists. There are numerous organizations that atheists could create that would qualify as "religious" under the rule, just as there are many more organizations that anyone could make that would not even implicate the religious portion of that section.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you like to tell me how the religious exemption does not favour theists over atheists, and the organised over the unorganised?
Why don't you tell me how it does favor the theist over the atheist? Just give an example of an organization that an atheist would want to found that is not exempt while a corresponding theist organization would be exempt.
As to the organized over the unorganized, I'm not sure how that supports your desire to remove only one type of organization from that list. Only the organized, by definition, can benefit from ANYTHING on that list.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that it is unconstitutional to favor the organized over the unorganized is absolutely hilarious.
For the theists over atheists, atheists are able to for non-profit community groups and qualify as tax-exempt.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Actually, Javert, it occurs to me that we might be in agreement.
I think there is a difference between taking a stand on a moral issue that has become a political issue and endorsing a candidate or party.
The first should absolutely be okay - to require churches to be silent is definitely attempting to muzzle them.
For the second, though, it is support for an organization or a person and not a moral issue, so I tend to view that as much less okay when done by a church.
If Joseph Smith were alive today and once again running for President, I would expect him to have his his campaign finances completely separated from the finances of the church. And to respect the "Don't use this list for any commercial or political activities" disclaimer on all the membership directories.
That is pretty much what I believe as well, and the problem with this is that these churches have done exactly that...endorsed a specific party/candidate.
It is partly because of these issues that a lot of people have a problem electing a Roman Catholic President.It has happened, but not recently. A lot of people wonder what the President would do if his duty to the country required him to do one thing while his religious affiliation (or the Pope specifically) required him to do another.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... If you want me to say that there is some point where personal benefit to one in control of a tax exempt status becomes so great that a tax exemption is no long warranted, I've never said otherwise. Of course such a point exists.
I'm trying to work my way through the texts that you brought up. Is this point at which tax exempt status is no longer warranted, defined explicitly here?
A related question, from reading 170, it doesn't seem to (my very untrained eyes) specify how much money a charity has to spend on actual charity work before it gets disqualified. Could a charity spend like 99% of its money to simply raise more money or on a CEOs salary and still be considered a charity?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you like to tell me how the religious exemption does not favour theists over atheists, and the organised over the unorganised?
Why don't you tell me how it does favor the theist over the atheist? Just give an example of an organization that an atheist would want to found that is not exempt while a corresponding theist organization would be exempt.
Eh? Churches, which many theists want to found, are exempt. There is no corresponding atheist group. Therefore theists are favoured. This seems rather similar to the gay-marriage argument that gays have the same rights as anyone else, they can marry members of the opposite gender. I know you don't believe this argument, so why are you applying the analoguous version here?
Edit: To be clearer, the analogy runs:
Gays have the same rights as others, they can marry people of the opposite sex. Atheists have the same rights as others, they can found religious groups.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The idea that it is unconstitutional to favor the organized over the unorganized is absolutely hilarious.
Oh? "Make no law concerning an establishment of religion". This law gives benefits to organised religious groups which are not given to ones which do not organise themselves. Would you like to make a serious argument for how this is not favouring one set of religions over another, or would you like to continue shouting about how hilarious my posts are?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm trying to work my way through the texts that you brought up. Is this point at which tax exempt status is no longer warranted, defined explicitly here?
It is not defined explicitly, but that limitation is contained in "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." Regulations define more specifically when paying a salary crosses over into inuring to the benefit of an individual.
quote:Eh? Churches, which many theists want to found, are exempt. There is no corresponding atheist group. Therefore theists are favoured.
Atheists could found many groups that are analogous to churches if they wanted to. The law specifically allows it. If PZ Meyers wants to meet with a couple hundred people every week to talk about the importance of rationalism, the law allows him a tax exemption to do so.
It seems your contention is that "the law allows tax exemption for some activities that not everyone is interested in participating in." If so, then yet again you're relying on a factor to exclude religious organizations that should, if applied consistently, exclude any organization that some people are not interested in. Which basically means all organizations.
quote:This seems rather similar to the gay-marriage argument that gays have the same rights as anyone else, they can marry members of the opposite gender. I know you don't believe this argument, so why are you applying the analoguous version here?
You're smart enough to reach the conclusion that I don't consider the arguments to be the same. I think you're smart enough to figure out why.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're smart enough to reach the conclusion that I don't consider the arguments to be the same. I think you're smart enough to figure out why.
There are many possible mistakes you could be making to lead you to this erroneous conclusion. While I'm certainly capable of reading your mind to see which it is, I prefer not to do so. Please elucidate your wrong reasoning so I can set you straight.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh? "Make no law concerning an establishment of religion". This law gives benefits to organised religious groups which are not given to ones which do not organise themselves. Would you like to make a serious argument for how this is not favouring one set of religions over another, or would you like to continue shouting about how hilarious my posts are?
If you have a credible case to make that the Constitution prohibits this, make it. You haven't done anything here except state a conclusion that, on its face, is contrary to the interpretations of the constitution that have the force of law in this country.
It seems strange to insist that someone else make a serious argument when you have declined to do so yourself.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're smart enough to reach the conclusion that I don't consider the arguments to be the same. I think you're smart enough to figure out why.
There are many possible mistakes you could be making to lead you to this erroneous conclusion. While I'm certainly capable of reading your mind to see which it is, I prefer not to do so. Please elucidate your wrong reasoning so I can set you straight.
Quite simply, your analogy sucks.
Again, you demand clarification when people oppose points that you've simply stated without support. In this case, you've ignored a specific example that identifies the essential point.
Either start actually making an argument or stop demanding that others do so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems your contention is that "the law allows tax exemption for some activities that not everyone is interested in participating in."
No; my contention is rather that theism and atheism are foundationally asymmetric on this issue. It is reasonable to assemble an organisation around a theme of "We believe X about the structure of the universe, and derive Y morality therefrom", and study X and Y. It is not reasonable to make a similar organisation for "We do not believe X, and consequently have differing moralities Y, Z, and omega".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only benefit to the religious I'm aware of churches getting is the presumption that they are exempt, instead of being required to file certain paperwork. Though many churches do file such paperwork.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No; my contention is rather that theism and atheism are foundationally asymmetric on this issue. It is reasonable to assemble an organisation around a theme of "We believe X about the structure of the universe, and derive Y morality therefrom", and study X and Y. It is not reasonable to make a similar organisation for "We do not believe X, and consequently have differing moralities Y, Z, and omega".
But it is reasonable to make a similar organization "We believe in A (a part of which includes a lack of belief in X), and derive B morality therefrom, and study C and D." For example, the objectivists could easily have such an organization. So could pure utilitarianists.
In other words, atheism is not the sole joining characteristic of the hypothetical PZM organization any more than theism is the sole joining characteristic of the Catholic Church.
quote:Ok, I see you are not interested in a reasoned debate. Fair enough.
Once again ignoring what I've said in numerous posts on the subject.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those that are curious, it seems that Canada has an analogous policy, albeit for charities rather than for tax-exempt status specifically:
quote:6.1 What are prohibited activities?
A charity may not take part in an illegal activity or a partisan political activity. A partisan political activity is one that involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office.
When a political party or candidate for public office supports a policy that is also supported by a charity, the charity is not prevented from promoting this policy. However, a charity in this situation must not directly or indirectly support the political party or candidate for public office. This means that a charity may make the public aware of its position on an issue provided:
1. it does not explicitly connect its views to any political party or candidate for public office; 2. the issue is connected to its purposes; 3. its views are based on a well-reasoned position; 4. public awareness campaigns do not become the charity's primary activity.
quote:If you have a credible case to make that the Constitution prohibits this, make it. You haven't done anything here except state a conclusion that, on its face, is contrary to the interpretations of the constitution that have the force of law in this country.
The Constitution prohibits laws that favour one religion over others, or that inhibit the free exercise of religion or lack thereof. My contention is that the tax benefit favours those religions which choose to organise themselves into churches with paid ministers - or even just church-owned buildings - over, for example, Wicca. That is, the practice of Protestantism is made easier by this law, while the practice of Wicca or atheism is not. I do not see how this is so different from a law stating, for example, "The evangelical-Lutheran faith remains the religion of the State, and those who profess it are obliged to raise their children in the same". It's state approval for one set, and not for another, all the same.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it is reasonable to make a similar organization "We believe in A (a part of which includes a lack of belief in X), and derive B morality therefrom, and study C and D." For example, the objectivists could easily have such an organization. So could pure utilitarianists.
You are ignoring that no morality is deriveable from atheism. "There is no God, therefore... what?" You cannot reason from 'is' to 'ought'. And to the extent that C and D are observable phenomena, I don't see how you can call such an exercise religious - it would then be covered by the 'scientific' part of the law. Conversely, if they are not observable phenomena, I don't think you're talking about atheists anymore.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh? Churches, which many theists want to found, are exempt. There is no corresponding atheist group. Therefore theists are favoured.
You can apply that claim to any case of belief versus non-belief.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting laws that favor one religion over the other by side effect. For instance, public decency laws almost certainly make the practice of certain religions somewhat more problematic than others. However, they are still Constitutional.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh? Churches, which many theists want to found, are exempt. There is no corresponding atheist group. Therefore theists are favoured.
You can apply that claim to any case of belief versus non-belief.
Yes? I don't understand your point.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting laws that favor one religion over the other by side effect. For instance, public decency laws almost certainly make the practice of certain religions somewhat more problematic than others. However, they are still Constitutional.
Tax exemptions are hardly a side effect! They are the actual, direct purpose of the law in question!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, atheists are free to found an organization which is basically the same as a church in terms of observable activities: regular meetings, with a regular employee who supervises them, centering around community building, and receive the exact same benefits.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, as noted, an atheist would have no reason to do so.
However, I should not be doing this, I should be writing the truth-matching code, so I'm going to take a break now. If you see me post in here for the next few hours, remind me that I'm supposed to be working. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the direct purpose of the law is not to give tax exemptions to churches, but to give it to non-profit organizations. Many churches just happen to fit the definition. That religions which have easier times fitting the definition receive some benefit other religions do not is a side effect of the law, not the main effect.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are ignoring that no morality is deriveable from atheism. "There is no God, therefore... what?" You cannot reason from 'is' to 'ought'.
And you ignore - which I find almost unbelievable given the fact I took great pains to say it explicitly - the fact that it's not atheism from which morality would flow in my example.
quote:And to the extent that C and D are observable phenomena, I don't see how you can call such an exercise religious - it would then be covered by the 'scientific' part of the law. Conversely, if they are not observable phenomena, I don't think you're talking about atheists anymore.
I didn't say it was religious. I said it would be tax exempt. It might be tax exempt under the "religious" part of the section (since I don't think the IRS is using your definition of religious) or another part of it, but it would definitely be exempt.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would an atheist have no reason to found a club? There are lots of clubs with no particular religious orientation, including ones that provide pay for their leaders.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, as noted, an atheist would have no reason to do so.
Many of your fellow atheists would seem to disagree. See, for example, the Council for Secular Humanism, the Atheists of Florida, the Boulder Atheists, or the Atheist-Agnostic Students of Portland State University.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."
As a thought exercise, if Constitution allowed for the establishment of Christianity as a state religion but somehow inexplicably this law remained unchanged, I wonder if this clause would outlaw tax exempt status for churches on the basis that their earnings would insure to the benefit of an individual, namely the Christian god.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are ignoring that no morality is deriveable from atheism. "There is no God, therefore... what?" You cannot reason from 'is' to 'ought'.
And you ignore - which I find almost unbelievable given the fact I took great pains to say it explicitly - the fact that it's not atheism from which morality would flow in my example.
Then I can only suggest that you needed to suffer a bit more. While I see now what you were trying to say, it was anything but obvious.
You are suggesting that atheists could organise around some sort of ethical or philosophical system, and it would be tax-exempt under the religious clause. I suggest that your theory does not explain why the IRS's denial of tax exemption to Scientologists was upheld by the courts. (The IRS eventually reversed itself, but the courts haven't.)
quote:
quote:And to the extent that C and D are observable phenomena, I don't see how you can call such an exercise religious - it would then be covered by the 'scientific' part of the law. Conversely, if they are not observable phenomena, I don't think you're talking about atheists anymore.
I didn't say it was religious. I said it would be tax exempt. It might be tax exempt under the "religious" part of the section (since I don't think the IRS is using your definition of religious) or another part of it, but it would definitely be exempt.
If it is covered under a different part of the law, then the 'religious' part does not extend equal benefits to atheists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: But the direct purpose of the law is not to give tax exemptions to churches, but to give it to non-profit organizations.
This does not seem to match the language of the regulation, which explicitly mentions religious purposes. If that's not tax exemptions for churches I don't know what is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many of your fellow atheists would seem to disagree. See, for example, the Council for Secular Humanism, the Atheists of Florida, the Boulder Atheists, or the Atheist-Agnostic Students of Portland State University.
posted
KoM: The Scientology example was based on what types of things were happening at the church, and if those things actually fit the legal definition of a tax exempt organization.
There is one single fact that blows your arguments out of the water....churches are only one form of tax-exempt organization. There are additional avenues to acheive that other than declaring yourself a religious organization, and the benefits of doing so match the exact benefits of being a church in regards to this law.
To use your own poorly reasoned example, there is already a "civil union" allowed to non-religious groups...with all of the exact rights and obligations of the original "marriage" allowed to churches. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are suggesting that atheists could organise around some sort of ethical or philosophical system, and it would be tax-exempt under the religious clause. I suggest that your theory does not explain why the IRS's denial of tax exemption to Scientologists was upheld by the courts. (The IRS eventually reversed itself, but the courts haven't.)
The reasons for upholding the non-exempt status had to do with other areas of the law: specifically that it was commercial and operated for the benefit of Hubbard.
quote:If it is covered under a different part of the law, then the 'religious' part does not extend equal benefits to atheists.
1) They are covered under the religious clause (Glenn's first example is explicitly tax exempt under this clause - thanks Glenn!). So your factual foundation is now simply gone.
2) Even if it weren't, constitutional analysis of disparate effect would examine the whole law.
3) Finally, even if it were true that atheists can't make use of the religious exemption (which they can - see 1) or that the law favored the religious over the non-religious (which it doesn't - see 2), you would only be at the beginning of the constitutional analysis not the end. The next step would be to examine the state interest advanced by the law and how closely the part (the whole part) giving rise to disparate effect was tailored to match that interest. You haven't even touched on this area.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The idea that it is unconstitutional to favor the organized over the unorganized is absolutely hilarious.
Oh? "Make no law concerning an establishment of religion". This law gives benefits to organised religious groups which are not given to ones which do not organise themselves. Would you like to make a serious argument for how this is not favouring one set of religions over another, or would you like to continue shouting about how hilarious my posts are?
Make a serious argument to you? With the argument you have brought to the forum and your known biases and blindness? Not even remotely interested. I also do not engage in debate with the homeless guy panhandling by my building every day.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, I suggest that if you don't want to engage KoM, you might also refrain from insulting him. It looks petty otherwise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, Glen, Dags and I pretty much have countered it step by step, covering the common sense angle (me)m the legal angle (Dags) and the "Whoops! I forgot to fact check" angle (Glen).
posted
Any group can apply for tax-exempt status, as long as they meet the requirements. Excluding churches simply because you don't agree with their beliefs would not be very fair or equatable. That is what it really boils down to, IMO.
If one fo those atheist groups were to speak endorsing a specific candidate, the would possible lose their status as well. Holding religious groups to the same standard is fair and equitable.
There was an interesting tangent mentioned above that I would like to explore. Some people seemed to think that the removal of a privileged was the same as applying a penalty/punishment. I remember discussing this as a psych student many years ago. There is a difference between imposing a fine for breaking a law, and removing tax-exempt status for groups that speak out politically. The net result is one of loss, but they come from two very different place.
A fine would be imposing your will on a group, while removing tax-exempt status from a group is less a punishment...it is an predetermined result of their actions. A group agrees to do A, B and C, and because they do all three they qualify for a specific status. However, after talking about it, the group decides that B is against their beliefs, then they lose that status. It is less a punishment than a natural result of their actions and beliefs.
Do you see the difference?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing that you've said makes it not be a penalty. Both are a punitive action against you because of your actions. In English, we call that a penalty.
Do you really think that if we did revoke these churches tax-exempt status, that they would be unable to regain it after some appropriate time had passed?
Loss of status is the penalty for breaking the rules you have agreed to for that status, just like paying a fine is the penalty for breaking the speed limit as you have agreed to when you get a driver's license.
If you're argument is correct, then loss of your driver's license, say from a DUI, isn't a penalty either--its just a predetermined result of your actions.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
