Salon Writer Robert Boston Writes Perfect Response to "Religious Oppression"

[catcul]

Robert Boston of Salon.com writes the perfect opinion piece responding to the religious right's cries of "religious freedom" and "religious oppression."

The ultimate guide to debunking right-wingers’ insane persecution fantasies

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I had a really good response to this but my browser ate it. And now I'm too annoyed to type it again.

[Panacea]

I had a really good response to this but my browser ate it. And now I'm too annoyed to type it again.

Response or rebuttal? I'm not clear on how you viewed the Salan article.

[s_stabeler]

I have a simple rule: is it attempting to force one religion's views on people not of that religion? Yes? then opposing it isn't oppression.

[Rageaholic]

This is the best article on this subject I've read. I didn't read the whole article (it's a little long), but I got the jist of it. I especially like this

Religious groups enjoy a loud and robust public voice. They own television and radio stations all over the country (all tax exempt, by the way). They own publishing arms, and they maintain various outreach sites on the Internet. The ability of religious groups to proselytize and spread their theology is limited only by the imaginations of their leaders.

I would normally just laugh these people off who claim persecution over some silly issue, but the problem comes when they are the ones persecuting others, get called out on it, and then pull a DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse, Victim, and Offender). Ultimately most pundits claiming religious persecution are just annoyed that a lot of us are willing to question their dogma. So they make it seem as though this new thought is some kind of vast conspiracy against their faith.

[s_stabeler]

personally, i'm of the opinion that the tax-exempt status should be more limited. ( specifically, that the tax-exempt status should apply solely to their religious or charitable operations- anything they do not strictly related to performing their religion should be taxable.)

[Sleepwalker]

Shouldn't be tax exempt at all.

[Kheldarson]

Shouldn't be tax exempt at all.

Why not? It's all charity donations. We give tax breaks for those.

[Andrew B]

Yes, that's true. But every other charity in the US has to fill out tax forms and show themselves as a non-profit. Churches don't.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think my thing is I don't mind tax exempt status for churches, but I would like to see enforcement of the law prohibiting them from political meddling. That is, you should not be able to tax exempt your private donations by funneling them through a church which then becomes a giant political megaphone. Second, your revenue streams are auditable without massive IRS strings.

Running a recording studio isn't what tax exempt was designed for. A massive gift shop ISN'T what tax exempt was designed for. If what you are doing is arguably (to a court) more commercial than philanthropic, you're abusing the status you were given. Bureaucrats working government jobs have more ethical and income restrictions than these guys which is a bit silly, since technically part of the reason we allow charity to be tax free is that it is obstensibly in large part being used in place of public organizations. A Church soup kitchen is supposed to replace a municipal one.

[HYHYBT]

personally, i'm of the opinion that the tax-exempt status should be more limited. ( specifically, that the tax-exempt status should apply solely to their religious or charitable operations- anything they do not strictly related to performing their religion should be taxable.)

What, in your view, would and would not count as "religious or charitable operations," and how do you go about making that line sharp enough?

[s_stabeler]

It's a judgement call, basically, but to give a idea what i had in mind:
1. cost of maintaining the Church/mosque/whatever
2. vestments - if there is something that the priest/imam/whatever uses exclusively for religious services, then it counts. ordinary clothes? nope.
3. cost of religious services- communion wine/bread, holy texts, etc.

I won't get into charitable activities, but suffice to say that if it would be considered charitable if done by a private citizen, it counts.

NOT COUNTED:
1. political activities- if you are doing something for political reasons, then you don't get a tax break.
2. activities purely for profit.

basically, how i see it working is that a religious organization has to declare what percentage of it's income is spent on religious or charitable purposes- and, subject to random checks, they can take that percentage off their taxes.

[Kheldarson]

So...a priest's or religious orders' cost of living shouldn't count (since you say regular clothes don't count)?

[s_stabeler]

Priests get paid. THAT is taxable only to the priest, not the Church. They can buy their own clothes.

As for religious orders, then they would generally be tax-free. ( I say generally, because the Templars, for example, went into ( IIRC) banking in a big way. THAT would not be tax-free.)

but the list I gave was never supposed to be exhaustive. I just want to see some common sense used.

[Sleepwalker]

Why not? It's all charity donations. We give tax breaks for those.

Because the purpose of the 'charity' is to proselytize. Any actual social welfare is secondary and optional- you can be a church without social welfare, but you can't be one without religion. It's ludicrous to consider the maintenance and spread of religion to be something that the government should bankroll even partially- and yeah, given the ubiquity of taxation in the modern world, a blanket tax exemption is a bankroll.