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

[Kheldarson]

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.

Errr...not quite. That may be the purpose of Christian churches, but that's not the purpose of all churches nor all religions. Further, if one part of the charitable program's beliefs being unacceptable is a good reason not to give tax breaks and exemptions, then no charity should get tax breaks or exemptions.

[Sleepwalker]

Errr...not quite. That may be the purpose of Christian churches, but that's not the purpose of all churches nor all religions. Further, if one part of the charitable program's beliefs being unacceptable is a good reason not to give tax breaks and exemptions, then no charity should get tax breaks or exemptions.

You can't talk about organized religion in the US and not talk about christianity. When the vast majority is xianity, and the vast majority of the non xian organized religions also proselytize, just saying 'it's not all religions!' is a copout. It's who is taking the religious based tax exemption in the US.

As for charities not getting exemptions for when they go into non charity based work- uh, yeah. That gets their exempt status yanked. I work for a non profit. If we were to start devoting 10% of our time to the governor's reelection campaign, we'd get our status yanked in a hot minute. Stump for jesus(et al), and you can do whatever you want.

It doesn't matter whether it is 'unacceptable'. That that even comes up shows how deeply entwined 'religious freedom' and tax exemption have become in the US' popular imagination. It's not remotely 'unacceptable' to stump for the governor- what is unacceptable is banking that campaign with taxes. Again, why is the government bankrolling religion? Any religion?

[Kheldarson]

You can't talk about organized religion in the US and not talk about christianity. When the vast majority is xianity, and the vast majority of the non xian organized religions also proselytize, just saying 'it's not all religions!' is a copout. It's who is taking the religious based tax exemption in the US.

Vast majority of non-Christian organized religions also proselytize? I think Judaism, Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, and Hinduism wish to speak to you.

As for charities not getting exemptions for when they go into non charity based work- uh, yeah. That gets their exempt status yanked. I work for a non profit. If we were to start devoting 10% of our time to the governor's reelection campaign, we'd get our status yanked in a hot minute. Stump for jesus(et al), and you can do whatever you want.

I said beliefs in reference to core beliefs, not political. A better analogy for what I was saying would be denying an animal foundation a tax exemption because of their beliefs on spay or neutering animals. A religious group running a charitable service has a core belief that it is in service of X belief or Y reason of core tenets of that faith.

It doesn't matter whether it is 'unacceptable'. That that even comes up shows how deeply entwined 'religious freedom' and tax exemption have become in the US' popular imagination. It's not remotely 'unacceptable' to stump for the governor- what is unacceptable is banking that campaign with taxes. Again, why is the government bankrolling religion? Any religion?

Because religions are, in many communities, the heart of charitable works. No matter what the driving reason. And since government cannot judge on religion, it must open its doors to all religions on this matter. Call it bankrolling or whatever, when you have a community that thrives solely on the funds that the community pools together on their own and uses those funds for charitable works, then it is unfair of the government to demand a share.

For example, one of the church's I used to go to (I've moved from the area) hosts a huge festival every year. It's a major draw for the area and all the local businesses get involved. The funds from that festival go first in tithe: 10% of whatever's made is given away to charity. Then costs are covered, paying off whatever's needed for the festival to the day to day running of the church and its programs. So, simply because it's hosted by a church, does have booths and information available about our church and faith, and despite being open to all with the intent of increasing our good works for the community, we should be taxed on this activity simply because we're sharing the reason for our charity and hospitality?

[Sleepwalker]

we should be taxed on this activity simply because we're sharing the reason for our charity and hospitality?

I dunno, if the Governor's Reelection Committee did the same thing, should they? You're saying that religion should ride charity's coat tails, since otherwise I guess the charity would stop. Which begs the question, why not just put the taxes collected towards social welfare programs? As well as, how much charity does Microsoft have to do before it is also exempt? You can write off charity on your taxes, but it doesn't make all of your financial activity exempt.

Humans benefit from spay and neuter programs, they reduce nuisance animals, not to mention that society/government has decided animal welfare is important enough to pass laws in regards to. The non proselytizing faiths have few adherents in the US. Again, it's Xianity and similarly structured religions that are using most of these exempt statuses.

[KabeRinnaul]

We don't tax churches because early in our nation's history it was decided that it would be for the best if we just never opened that can of worms to start with. If the government taxes churches, they could reasonably expect to have access to government aid in return. Then we've essentially established state sponsorship of religion.

[Sleepwalker]

We don't tax churches because early in our nation's history it was decided that it would be for the best if we just never opened that can of worms to start with. If the government taxes churches, they could reasonably expect to have access to government aid in return. Then we've essentially established state sponsorship of religion.

Bzuh? They already do get government aid. It's not like the police/fire departments won't go to churches, or priests, etc, would be turned away from an emergency department. They get as much aid from the government as a pizza parlor does, but the government doesn't require them to participate in funding it.

[Kheldarson]

Bzuh? They already do get government aid. It's not like the police/fire departments won't go to churches, or priests, etc, would be turned away from an emergency department. They get as much aid from the government as a pizza parlor does, but the government doesn't require them to participate in funding it.

That's not what was meant. Churches can't apply for grants if they're struggling. They can't ask for government aid to help fund their charities. They can't say "keep us afloat, we pay taxes."

[Sleepwalker]

That's not what was meant. Churches can't apply for grants if they're struggling. They can't ask for government aid to help fund their charities. They can't say "keep us afloat, we pay taxes."

What? That isn't even true, except for the part where they can't say they pay taxes. Of course they can and do apply for aid- the government works with faith based initiatives all the time, from the county to the federal level. Where did you hear they couldn't?