Religion
Related: About this forumShould Courts Get to Define Religion?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/how-do-the-courts-define-religion/480903/The city valued the property at $12.8 million, all of which had previously been exempt. But in 2013, officials decided that $4.9 million of that value represented property not used for religious worship or instruction. They declared that a maintenance shed, coffee shop, conference rooms, and a religious bookstorealong with the forest preserve that covers more than half the campusare used for secular purposes. The shrine, the city decided, had to pay up, and received a $92,000 tax bill.
Under pressure, the shrine paid, but then sought a tax abatement through the courts, arguing that all 199 acres were used for religious purposes. Faith leaders from across Massachusetts agreed and filed a brief in support of the shrine. The notion that local assessors or any government actor is equipped or would presume to deem whether one use of a religious organization's property or another falls within the definition of religious worship is antithetical to religious freedom, said the brief, signed by leaders representing Jewish, Christian, and Muslim organizations. Catholic bishops in Massachusetts, including Bostons Cardinal Sean OMalley, also weighed in, arguing in a brief that the shrines grounds offer communion with nature, which is a core religious activity with ancient roots in Christianitys past.
...
On its face, the conflict in Attleboro is about the special status afforded to religious organizations under the law, which is being challenged by those who effectively see tax breaks as government sponsorship of religion. But the deeper issue is about who gets to define religion. Since its founding, Massachusetts has recognized the value religion gives to wider society, which is why the state has given churches certain tax breaks. The meaning of religion has expanded and changed since colonial days, and interpretations of the law should take that into account. In a pluralistic, multicultural country like the United States, believers have to be able to decide for themselves what constitutes their faith; thats the only way to implement the existing law fairly.
Seems to me the pious can't have this both ways. If they're going to argue, as the author of the piece above did, that believers alone determine what their faith is or isn't, then that opens the door for the Pastafarians, the religious group that the religious love to hate. But if instead the government gets to determine, then certain ventures may be taxed.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Should they be treated like other non-profits?
Why are churches so strongly clinging to practices that are hurting the community?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I can't speak for churches in general since I only visit them for funerals and weddings.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I don't believe religion should be tax exempt.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)As the author notes:
"believers have to be able to decide for themselves what constitutes their faith; thats the only way to implement the existing law fairly."
If the author is looking for fairness, and for believers to be treated equally, well then one easy way to do that is make it so that no one is exempt. I have a feeling they aren't keen on that idea, though.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The obvious solution is to deny the exemption for everyone.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)we have already infringed on that according to some. The government has placed limits on what people can do in the "practice" of their religion, like polygamy.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)Some religions allow it, but I don't know if anyone say you need to be doing it to live your religion thoroughly.
Yes, there are arguments about what limits are allowed, but that tends to mean you need 'religion' defined. As well as tax considerations, we have the problem of religions that say they 'have to' discriminate. That's bad enough, but imagine if every racist could just say "my religion tells me I must be racist" whenever they want.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)rather is it a tenant of the religion? It doesn't matter to the government either way, since polygamy is illegal. My view is that you are free to worship the Cookie Monster if you wish, provided you do not break civil or criminal law.
But "income" and "property" should be taxed. If you want the privileges of citizenry, they you pay your admission just like every one else.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)This goes down a rabbit hole that leads no where good. getting into what is and isn't compulsory in a religion means that the government is enforcing religion vs allowing free exorcise. While the bit about not establishing state religion, or infringing on the practices is in the constitution, the bit about not paying taxes is one I don't think I've ever read, so there's an easy solution.
struggle4progress
(118,224 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Just because you're a non-profit, doesn't mean you are exempt from all taxes. Only certain non-profits quality. Churches are one of the few things that get a virtual blanket exemption.
struggle4progress
(118,224 posts)We have discussed this matter frequently, and in some detail, here
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Churches are specifically identified in 501(c)(3) and are exempt from the qualification requirements that most other non-profits have to go through specifically because they are a religious organization.
An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) or section 401(a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502 or 503.
(3) 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.
If you don' think "churches get a virtual blanket exemption", try looking at form 1023 sometime, which churches aren't required to file.