'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status 700
An anonymous reader writes: There has been a lot of interest in the activities of the Church of Scientology recently, especially since the release of Alex Gibney's documentary Going Clear. A petition against tax-exempt status for Scientology has been started on the U.S. White House petition website. If it receives more than 100,000 signatures, it will qualify for an official White House response. Even Slashdot has had its own run-ins with Scientology in the past — one of many internet sites to face legal threats from the Church. Has the time come for Scientology go "clear?"
A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, they got the Nazi thing wrong. But they definitely got the Scientology thing RIGHT.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Funny)
Godwin in the first post. I'm proud, /.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Funny)
It was a comparison of judgment. I'll allow it.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Funny)
Well in many ways, Scientology is like Nazism.
There, NOW we have gone full godwin.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Interesting)
Well in many ways, Scientology is like Nazism.
There, NOW we have gone full godwin.
So are many religions as some of their members practice it today.
Just look at the fundies - when they get caught with hookers and coke and cheating on their wife by having sex with other men, they say "Jesus forgives me, how dare you continue to judge me!"
And yet they try to impose the "rules" that they themselves don't obey on others and sit in judgment of them, thumping on the Old Testament. It's not just limited to Westboro Baptist Church either.
Re: (Score:3)
I usually lean on the inverse-Godwin theorem: if I can't figure out some way to compare something to the Nazi's, Hitler, or the Holocaust, I probably shouldn't be that upset by it.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Funny)
Who appointed you the Godwin Nazi?
lol. Is that a first?
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Funny)
You've Godwinned the Godwin reference. I am now officially out of mein kampfort zone on this thread.
Re: (Score:3)
Glad to hear it, or else I'd be Godwined every time I post.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Informative)
For those who don't haven't heard the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Basically, Germany has refused to recognize Scientology as a religion, a position that has more-or-less lead to an all-out war by Scientology against the whole country. In fact, one of the most bizarre revelations of the Scooter Libby scandal was that Tom Cruise had been actively lobbying Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and the Bush administration to actually PUT U.S. SANCTIONS on Germany for it (you can't make this shit up).
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, Germany has refused to recognize Scientology as a religion,
To clarify: Nobody in Germany claims officially that Scientology isn't a religion, but it isn't a "religious organisation" that gives it any legal or tax advantages.
You can declare anything you want to be a religion. But for tax advantages, you need more. You need an organisation that tries to be beneficial to society. And that is where Scientology fails quite badly. A religion that said "I believe X, Y and Z and don't give a shit about anybody" wouldn't be a religious organisation the way German laws require it. And a religion that says "I believe X, Y and Z, I exploit people where I can, and I do what I can to hurt my perceived enemies" has no chance.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious solution is to remove tax exempt status for religious institutions altogether. It's not just Scientology taking advantage of this, it's so-called megachurches and televangelists too. If they want to have a charitable division, fine, but a religious organization should pay taxes like any other.
"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Churches are tax exempt because they're churches. If they satisfy the requirements of a tax exempt non-profit or charity, that's great. If not, pay your taxes. Scientology, for example, would likely fail quite badly as a non-profit.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not American, but your IRS site says that to qualify under section 501c you must be an organization that is "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, [or] preventing cruelty to children or animals."
Therefore, churches are tax exempt because they are religious organizations. That exemption category seems to be problematic because somebody has to decide what is a religious organization, so just eliminate it and let regular churches be tax free under the charitable organization exemption, or one of the others.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you're both kind of right.
My understanding of it is that churches are automatically classified as 501(c)3 nonprofit charitable organizations to the IRS, without having to apply.
There are also other differences. For example, there is a "parsonage exemption" (ie. ministers can deduct housing expenses from their federal income tax), and church property is generally tax exempt as well.
Others have also brought up the ban on church intervention to political campaigns. I think it's worth noting a couple other details to that:
* That's not just for churches. It covers tax-exempt charitable organizations (ie. 501(c)3) in general.
* There are allowances for pastors to campaign as individuals, and for churches to speak out on public issues (as long as it doesn't cross the line too far).
FWIW, if the law was changed so churches weren't automatically tax-exempt, but 501(c)3 remained, then most churches and religious organizations would be mostly unaffected. I suspect that would include Scientology (they already employ a diverse structure of for-profit and non-profit companies to manage their stuff, carefully treading the lines).
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Informative)
That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all.
Umm, yes it does: [irs.gov]
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
If only I had mod points...
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
but if a megachurch can afford a huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos, nope, that's a for-profit enterprise, even if you cook the books so there's no money left over at the end of the day.
I'm not disagreeing with you, because I think that stuff is disgusting. But. As a programmer, how would you write a function that returns a boolean value: "is this church a legitimate non-profit?" Because that's ultimately what you're asking, and I'm having a hard time formulating such a thing.
Test cases:
* A small-town church with a pastor who has four different congregations: True
* A huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos: False
* A small local all-volunteer charity that feeds the homeless: True
* A small, all-volunteer, poorly run charity who means well but sucks at their mission: True
* A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who effectively uses their resources to do amazing things: True
* A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who isn't very effective, but everyone agrees means well: True?
* A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who doesn't effectively uses their resources: Um...
Step one: agree on the test cases. Step two: specific the input parameters that lets you distinguish between outcomes. Step three: non-profit?
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Interesting)
Scientology is not a religion. It's a mafia masquerading as a religion. No other religion thugs on its members and makes them slaves to pay for revelation.
I am no friend of religion myself, but you have to understand Scientology is nothing like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. in terms of behavior. No one forces you to pay to read the Quran. No one locks you up if you try to leave the Church. Contributions to Jewish congregation are voluntary, not compulsory. Of course there are fringe groups that do do these things. Amd they are rightly seem as cults far outside mainstream. Like Scientology is.
My point is simply the case of Scientology and the case against religion in general are completely different topics and you can't segue from one to the other.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
In general the USA defines religious a religious institution as one that has functional equivalence with those institutions primarily concerned with the relationship with man and his creator. So anything that acts like a church.
Re: A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Insightful)
"Could I [...] start my own religion [...], and decide to not serve some of the customers of my business because of some arbitrary rule"
Yes.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Then lets avoid picking on Scientology and revoke tax exempt status for all churches.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Interesting)
One step at a time. First you do the churches no one likes. Then you do the churches very few like. Then you wait a couple of generations and you can do blanket associations across all churches.
Your way leads to revolt. My way takes 2-3 generations but is done peacefully.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Informative)
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Re: (Score:3)
One step at a time. First you do the churches no one likes. Then you do the churches very few like. Then you wait a couple of generations and you can do blanket associations across all churches.
Your way leads to revolt. My way takes 2-3 generations but is done peacefully.
It's pretty obvious you need some mandatory sensitivity training.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm... In 2-3 generations the Czech Republic will have a significantly lower percent of Atheists than it does today. You think the atheists are going to win a multi-generational war of ideology when they pop out kids below replacement level vs. an adversary which discourages birth control and consequently has average birthrates that double their population every couple of decades?
If Stalin was trying to purge religion from the world 200 years later he did a shit job of it. Why do you think moral conservatives are opposed to education spending? Religious zealotry and birthrate decline with education attained(inverse relationship) such that a college educated public threatens the revenue streams of the churches.
Church is a protection racket with Satan as the enforcer. Access to information and dissenting perspectives via the internet and a more connected society is what is causing a temporary dip in religious participation by the general public, but when the dystopia hits "peak misery" the church will be waiting with open arms to sell various alternative forms of euphoria like sexual repression "edging" and fasting. Nothing like a fairy tale's promise to escape accountability for your own victimization via economic castes, hedonism, and bad decision making.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a totally different issue. I think its a very bad idea. The government has the ability through taxes and subsidies to either encourage or destroy them. People won't die for businesses. Subject religions to the same regulations as businesses and religions tied to the state can use the state to persecute rival sects and religions. Which creates religions which are underground and hostile to the state.
And for what? How much revenue do you think you'll get? The USA system has worked well for centuries why mess it up?
Re: (Score:3)
The government has the ability through taxes and subsidies to either encourage or destroy them.
Destroy them? Hyperbole, much? While what you said is technically true, all religious organizations would be asked to do is to act like any other organization. If they are actually as philanthropic as they claim to be, they should have no problem getting non-profit, tax-exempt status — on a case-by-case basis, and subject to all the same scrutiny as any other nonprofit.
Subject religions to the same regulations as businesses and religions tied to the state can use the state to persecute rival sects and religions.
Yes, that's what they already do. Is alcohol a sacrament in your religion? Too bad for you, if you live in a state with blue laws. An
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA system has worked well for centuries why mess it up?
Because there's a significant number of people here that are hostile towards religion in any shape or form. The mere fact that it exists drives them insane.
As an atheist, I can safely say that my view of religion is essentially the same as towards people who believe in astrology, fairies or alien abductions, i.e. it's your problem
The difference is that religions think they have the right to make it my problem too.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion and therefore a "true believer" in atheism is an oxymoron. It's like if you ask someone what there favorite cola is. The majority will say Coke, a close second will be Pepsi, some percentage will name far less popular colas, and some will say they don't like cola at all. That last group is the functional equivalent of an atheist. To say that their favorite cola is "None" is not really correct because it presumes that they like cola at all, which is not the case.
That being said, there are assholes in any group, and one should not confuse the views and actions of the asshole as representative or indicative of the group. And in defense of some atheists I've seen accused of being militant (my wife being one), what believers often perceive as being militant is actually being unapologetic. My wife's family has on several occasions attempted to engage my wife in religious discussions only to get frustrated when she turns there attempts at conversion (which no matter what they claim, was the true purpose of these conversations) into a dialog where she explains her beliefs and tries to make them understand her view. They view her attempts to turn the tables as being disrespectful and rude because they start from the assumption that god exists and any discussion of the possibility that he might not be real is inherently wrong and disrespectful to god. As the previous poster pointed out, there are lots of things people believing for which there is no credible evidence. Just because someone believes in something does NOT mean I have to show respect for that belief. However, lack of respect for the belief does not grant me permission to show disrespect to the believer. The religious in this world enjoy a privileged status in most society and many view that privilege as their right, instead of as an artifact of previous intolerance of different religions or the non-religious. Therefore they have a hard time not seeing my lack of respect for their belief as a lack of respect for them as a person.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no issue with religion, as long as it stays in its place (outside of government) and we don't favor one over the other. I don't understand why any religion gets a tax exempt status, and I know people who operate "churches" of very dubious merit for the tax benefits. The notion seems dumb, let's can it. But perhaps there are good reasons that I don't understand.
My issue is that I don't really like playing favorites, If we can't universalize this to all religions, we shouldn't do it at all.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Funny)
Just make the religious institutions choose - tax exemption or copyright on their texts. You can't have both, you have to pick one.
I think that would solve most problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.
Be nice to BMG they are charging $20 for a $10 cd not $10,000 for a $5 science fiction novel.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Funny)
Wait - you bought the CDs at full price? I thought the standard practice was to buy the introductory 10/15/20 CDs for the price of one and then cancel so they'd send you another promo deal.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:4, Insightful)
Then lets avoid picking on Scientology and revoke tax exempt status for all churches.
Leaving aside the problems this would likely pose [wikipedia.org] under American law, in the United States it's generally the case that non-profit corporations are not taxed at any level of government. At the local level they're exempt from property taxes. At the state level they're exempt from sales and income taxes. At the federal level they're exempt from income taxes.
Doing what you wish would require a wholesale revision of the tax code at every level of Government. It would be fought tooth and nail by countless different organizations, religious and secular. In short, it's a political non-starter.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Informative)
Harassing people who are not members is illegal.
However, not only do churches do this but the right to church discipline was one of the reasons the America was a land of religious freedom. Mennonite churches (think the Amish), most certainly do harass those who quit. And that Baptist tradition was all during the 19th century quite common. The LDS church, Jehovah's Witnesses. Many of the stricter Protestant faiths do this. And of course Islam does this. So no what you are saying is just false.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, Scientology is a religion founded by a science fiction writer who famously said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
They use some unscientific piece of equipment to measure people and tell them about the concentration of aliens or somesuch, and then charge them to fix the issue -- and apparently keep charging them. I'm also fairly certain the medical community doesn't recognize Dianetics as being anything other than gibberish.
Sorry, but it's awfully hard to take it seriously as a religion ... it has about as much credibility as being a Jedi or a Pastafarian.
So, what exactly is our threshold for saying "sure, your wacky religion can have tax exempt status"? Because my "Church of the Big Titties" could definitely use some tax free status if we're just handing it out like that, that way we can have more "Sacraments of the Holy Wet T-Shirt" while imbibing "The Blessed Beer".
You're kvetching about giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with, I have yet to see why we should acknowledge it as actually being a religion.
Can I just make up any old crap and call it a religion? Or are there rules about it? Clearly logical consistency or proof aren't required.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would contest this - the Pastafarians at least publicly acknowledge that what they're doing is hokey BS intended to parody religion, which gives them a bit more credibility.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're kvetching about giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with, I have yet to see why we should acknowledge it as actually being a religion.
You're preaching to the choir condemning Scientology, I doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you there. I certainly don't. That said, can you at least acknowledge the frightening potential for abuse if we empower some Government bureaucrat to determine what is and is not a legitimate religion? How do you draw the line? There's no objective test. You can't go by age, that shuts out LDS, UUism, Wiccans, and a bunch of others. There's a lot of people that would welcome them being shut out, bu
Re: (Score:3)
So, what exactly is our threshold for saying "sure, your wacky religion can have tax exempt status"? Because my "Church of the Big Titties" could definitely use some tax free status if we're just handing it out like that, that way we can have more "Sacraments of the Holy Wet T-Shirt" while imbibing "The Blessed Beer".
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yaz
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, pretty funny story [newsherald.com].
A local church that has been hosting naked paint parties and slumber-party Sundays with the "sexiest ladies on the beach" will now have to pay taxes on the property as officers investigate the church's practices, authorities said Tuesday. [...] Sheriff Frank McKeithen said it is a "blatant slap in the face" to taxpayers and law enforcement. "They're trying to get around the laws, and they're using the church to get there," McKeithen said.
On the plus side, if that's enough justification to strip this church of its tax-exempt status, maybe it'll work on the scienos, too.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology is still a religion in Germany, but they don't qualify to be state recognized religious organization because they don't do anything to benefit he community. You can be believe Jimmy Buffet is your only ticket to paradise, but he's not gonna get a tax break unless he tells you to give back to the community.
Likewise, you can call whatever you want "a company" but it's not going to be a company--and entitled to the benefits therein--unless it gets a business license.
You can call yourself a cop all you want, but unless you pass the requirements to become a LEO, you're not a cop.
That's the difference.
Meanwhile, the other major religions you listed are all giving back to the community in great numbers. So they do qualify to be a state approved religion. So this is an entirely apples to oranges, reasonable contrast between major religions and Scientology. If Scientology wants to get tax breaks all they have to do (GASP) is start giving a shit about people and trying to help them. If that burden is too high for you to become a religion, I don't think I want you anywhere near a legislative job.
Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, charitable work is part of what gets you tax-exempt status, is the idea. Either way, you're contributing to the community, is how it was intended.
Re: (Score:3)
Calling Scientology a Religion is like call Mary Kay Products a Religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ALL Religions should have tax exempt status revoked. They're all cults.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Any organized religion operating in any country are required to operate within the laws of the lands they reside in, just like people. Scientology is often considered a cult / secret organization because of secret doctrine, non-transparent rules for church structure, and the fact that you pay to elevate yourself in the order. I'm sure there's more, but I don't spend much time caring about the org.
They are fine in calling it a secret order and have all the right to do so, but its no a religion just because p
See Tony Ortega's take on this (Score:5, Informative)
http://tonyortega.org/2015/04/13/if-you-want-the-irs-to-reexamine-scientologys-tax-exempt-status-its-time-to-get-real/
All religions are cults (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just Scientologism. Shouldn't we be reexamining all tax exempt organizations that promote a religious belief as their sole claim to tax exempt? Run a soup kitchen, great, soup kitchen is tax exempt. Run an empire with a soup kitchen, the empire should not be tax exempt- true for scientologists and Christians.
Tax exempt? No we don't revoke that (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, even if it was revoked, they would likely just find a really good accountant / lawyer team and end up paying the same amount (or less) in taxes. Last year Prudential insurance paid no corporate income tax and received a $106 million rebate. Time Warner cable paid no taxes on $4.3B in profit, CBS no taxes on $1.8B. Scientology could probably do better on their taxes by registering as a corporation anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is rather routine. But the institutions who get their status revoked aren't close to being exempt. The Church of Scientology does so many things that qualify it as a church its hard to imagine anything more than a fine without blatant intentional discrimination. The intent here is to encourage the state to attack a religion because they don't like it.
Re:Tax exempt? No we don't revoke that (Score:4, Insightful)
This just goes to show the dangers of relying on your own perception when it comes to issues like this. You can download a list of entities which lost their tax exempt status from the IRS themselves, which I am doing now, and (for those who automatically lose their status) it's a 20MB ZIP file containing text, so you can imagine how many records it contains. If their servers weren't so slow from over here I'd give you a precise number.
Don't trust that you know everything - double check you've not fooled yourself or been fooled by someone else. That has two benefits: You learn, and you decrease the chances of looking foolish.
Won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a lot of experience with the We the People petitions. Specifically, how they don't work like people think they do.
How people think it works: You gather enough signatures and then somehow, you introduce bills to congress with your stated goal
How it actually works: A white house rep sends you a generically worded statement about how in this case, the IRS is the agency in control of determining tax exempt status of the church.
There have been dozens of petitions for Westburough baptist church and Scientology and they always get the same response. "I have no control over this".
Re: (Score:3)
We the People petitions are meaningless. Get enough signatures, and you'll get a signed form letter from the White House. Nothing actually happens.
FWIW (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Christian, and I would prefer that there is no such thing as a 'religious' exemption from taxation. To me, that's contrary to the constitutional separation of church and state and is an example of the state's recognition of religion (if not the establishment of an official religion, of course).
No, simply churches should have to file as non-profits, and hew to the rules (including auditing, etc) therefor. If they do, great. If they don't, too bad.
That would be unfair (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as there is a tax exemption for religion -any religion- picking on one is unfair and bordering in bigotry. We the people are not (or should not) in the business of telling people what is or isn't a religion or what to believe or not as long as it aligns with the society accepted rules (i.e. the law)
That said, I would support removing the blanket tax exemption for ALL religions activities and instead give it to specific activities benefiting the community as long as it doesn't discriminate on others based on their faith.
1 down many more to go (Score:3)
What is or is not a religion? (Score:5, Interesting)
My question here would be, how are we deciding what is or is not a religion? You have a bunch of people with a belief system organized together... I don't know how you distinguish between a social club, a cult, and a religion other than going by what they claim for themselves. However, whatever the legal method of determining the answer to that, it should be applied consistently.
The process here should not be, "We think that Scientology is crazy and therefore not a valid religion, so we will revoke their legal protection on that basis." If there's no legal criteria to refer to, then you're setting a precedent for revoking the legal protections for any religion that you don't like. Go by the law. If the law is inadequate, then revise the law, but make sure you're comfortable with the revised law being applied consistently to all groups, including the group you belong to.
Tread carefully (Score:3)
While we may not like this particular religion, that doesn't matter. They are a religious organization, and an organized religion. Especially in the United States, the government most certainly should not determine what is or is not a religion. It's stated pretty clearly here:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Any religion will have aspects that people agree with and don't agree with. If their activity is outright illegal, then punish that specific activity. Christians can worship Christ. Muslims can worship Allah. Pastafarians can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Satanists can worship Lucifer. Eco fairies can worship Mother Earth. Atheists can worship nothing. Democrats can worship government. Republicans can worship capitalism. And Scientologists can worship whatever it is they worship.
The minute we allow government to dictate what is or isn't a religion is the instant we lose all religious freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
The minute we allow government to dictate what is or isn't a religion is the instant we lose all religious freedom.
So why is there a tax exempt catagory for religious organizations? That puts the government squarely in the middle of the business of determining what is/is not a legitimate religion.
I say we treat them all as non profit organizations if they can meet the qualifications and leave it at that. If you want to wear a collander on your head, that's not the government's business.
Try doing it right next time (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be nice to see a petition that instead makes a cogent, fact-based, reasoned argument against the COS's legal eligibility for tax-exempt status, rather than a rant consisting of a bunch of unproven allegations, unspecified accusations of government corruption that sound like they come from conspiracy nuts, some borderline libel, with a couple facts thrown in. It wouldn't be that difficult to do, and it might actually make it awkward for the White House to dismiss, rather than making it easy by inviting them to defend their tax status as an example of how the U.S. defends "oppressed" religions.
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would be ok with removing all tax exempt statuses from churches as long as charity work was deductible for them. We could then see which churches really do put their money where their mouth is in charitable work and donations. It would also encourage any religions which don't put much effort in helping the poor to change that behavior rather quickly.
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:5, Interesting)
This. I tend to cringe at these megachurches that collect (metric) tons of money from poor people with the (false) promise of "health, wealth, and prosperity" - only to turn-around and spend hundreds of thousands, or even millions, to buy a fancy plane, property for a bigger parking-lot (I've personally seen that same church humiliate a poor, homeless person - by putting a suit jacket on them for service, then refuse to provide any kind of real material help.
The bible's position on it is pretty simple, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." - "USA" is printed on the dollar, churches ought to pay taxes. Even money that falls out of the sky counts as income.
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:5, Funny)
I always tithe, but God doesn't want it.
end of each month I take my money and throw it in air, whatever God wants he can take, whatever lands on ground I keep.
so far he's never wanted any.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:4, Interesting)
That means the plane, big building, parking lot, etc. gets paid for before taxes. Same with salaries
Not exactly. There are rules about how big your expenses can be for things like executive compensation. For example, when a company pays for business lunches for its executives to dine out, it can't reduce income by the entire amount. And a firm can't deduct the entire amount of, say salary ($1,000,000 cap) or stock options (cap on deductible amount on incentive stock options, which is why they also offer "non-quals", i.e., non-qualified stock options).
In general, if the choice is between the firm paying a tax or an executive paying the tax, the firm will generally pay the tax (in the US), since corporate rates are lower than the highest personal income tax rate. But if they can defer taxes altogether, by giving the executive something that will appreciate in value (like equity) but avoids immediate income tax, they will do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should charity be deductible, for churches or anyone? You want to give your money to the poor, go ahead; but why should that exempt you from paying your share of the rent?
Remove all special treatment for religions, so the state can get out of the business of judging the sincerity of anyone's convictions, which it is absolutely unsuited for. And stop letting people use "charity" as a tax dod
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should charity be deductible, for churches or anyone?
Because the point of government is to support the general welfare of the population, and that's what taxes are supposed to be for. If you're doing your share of social support directly, it's rather unfair to also require you to contribute the full amount to the government pool.
Re: (Score:3)
You say "privilege", but the usual word is "freedom".
I am free to choose to support my local homeless shelters more than my local roads, rather than entirely accepting the distribution that my elected representatives have chosen.
It's still not a unilateral election, because to qualify as a "charity", organizations must jump through several bureaucratic hoops to get approval, effectively giving the government a means of control over what's a society-supporting charity or not.
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the N.F.L., N.H.L., P.G.A. and L.G.P.A are tax exempt
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor... [nytimes.com]
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the N.F.L., N.H.L., P.G.A. and L.G.P.A are tax exempt http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor... [nytimes.com]
That's because the leagues themselves are not-for-profit organizations. All of the profit in professional sports goes to the individual teams, who do (or at least should) pay taxes on those profits. Whether or not all of the "business expenses" of the leagues are appropriate is, as with any corporation, of course debatable.
Similarly, most religious organizations do not have any owners or shareholders that get dividend checks at the end of every year. I've witnessed first-hand how difficult it can be just to balance the budget; it's always a struggle between higher membership dues, cutting programs, or trying to organize a major fundraising campaign.
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was agreeing with the thread until this point.
Here's the problem with your statement:
"prime real estate" got that way over a very long time. In the downtown parts of pretty much every major city, those churches were built long ago, when the land was essentially considered unsuitable for anything else (for commerce, farming, industry etc). Many of these places have, over time, become part church, part museum, part heritage - for both its congregation *and* the city it sits in.
Bringing down crushing property taxes on such places would eventually force any religion out of a downtown area, as it almost does for private residents now. It's bad enough that most downtown areas have pushed out anything except for ultra-wealthy corporate and private interests... if it weren't for tax exemption, the museums, churches, libraries, and most other public edifices would have been driven out of the city long ago. Now you want to start eroding that? Sure, you may say it would stop there, but fact is, it won't... someone else will find another reason to start relocating museums out to the 'burbs in order to free up uber-profitable land, then someone else entirely will start whining that big-assed libraries full of paper books on "prime real estate" are totally unnecessary in this digital age, so maybe we should just, you know...
For every "palatial manor" your proposal would dismantle, at least 2-3 small rectory houses, convents/monasteries, strip-mall-churches, *schools*, etc would be forced on the auction block, or funds would be diverted from actual charitable efforts just to pay the property tax bill (money is fungible that way). Note that I haven't even come near bringing up all the religious-run hospitals in the nation and the impact on them (there's a whole lot more than you think - enough that their absence would cripple healthcare rather harshly nation-wide.)
TL;DR - This thing is a bit more complex than you might realize, given the blanket statement. Find a better way
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:5, Interesting)
The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam. Whether the followers have a belief or not is not something we can or should question, but we can certainly question the CoS.
Anyhow, I am all for all religious organizations losing their tax free status. It's built on a religious statement from the bible, that one should give god what belongs to god and the emperor what belongs to the emperor. Being that the law is religious based, it breaches the separation of state and church, and should be found unconstitutional.
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:4, Insightful)
The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam.
False dichotomy. Why can't it be both? All belief organizations are financial scams, at least to unbelievers. All financial scams require some degree of faith from their victims.
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam.
Cost of reading the most sacred beliefs of all major religions: free online, or $10 for the paperback. Jedi may also need to invest in the DVDs.
Cost of reading the most sacred beliefs of CoS: $380,000 (2006 pricing: http://www.xenu.net/archive/pr... [xenu.net] ). Discounts available by signing a billion year contract and working full time in return for food.
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:4, Funny)
> Jedi may also need to invest in the DVDs.
Pro tip: you only need to buy the 3 old ones, not all 6.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying you're wrong but that's probably the weakest possible argument for religious tax exemption: Minus the clever wording, Jesus in that scene is explicitly telling the Jewish religious leaders that they should pay taxes.
The argument that churches are a form of charitable/nonprofit organization makes the most sense, though religious organization are not currently held to the same standards of accountability as other nonprofits. The other common argument that taxing churches would begin a slippery
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really think that argument stands nowadays. The tax code is transparent (stifles laugh, but you get my point), so the government can't just go around taxing a specific company or organisation just because it wants to. In fact, some of the these "churches" are big businesses, so the government would probably bend over backwards to accommodate them.
Besides, I didn't think the idea of religion was to make money (or at least they don't like to admit it) - if they're truly a charitable organisation any p
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me another religion that hides their religious texts behind the concept of "trade secrets".
I mean, I can go to pretty much any church and read a Bible. Heck, I can buy a copy at practically any bookstore. Same with the Qur'an. Or the Torah.
I can have religious discussions with Christians (of varying denominations) or Muslims or Jews and find out pretty much anything I want to know about their religion and it doesn't cost me anything other than time.
You want to officially learn about Scientology? Start forking over the cash. (Yes, officially. According to the Church of Scientology, practicing Scientology outside of the auspices of the CoS is bad, mmkay? Not even the Pope tries to insist that you can't be a real Christian unless you're Catholic.)
A lot of that stuff that we know about the Church of Scientology... like Xenu, and the Galactic Confederation, and all that (from the OT III docs)? We're not supposed to know that. We only know about it because of civil trials involving the CoS, and they tried to suppress that stuff under the concept of it being trade secrets.
So yeah, show me another religion that has trade secrets. Where's that other major religion that you don't learn the 'true faith' until and unless you've invested a substantial whack of cash?
Re: (Score:3)
There's a lot of stuff hidden in the archives at the Vatican that very few will ever see. Secrecy is just as common within a religion as it is anywhere else.
Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is, when you've been a faithful Catholic for 20 years, and tithed the whole time and whatever else, they don't take you aside one day and say "Hey, here's the super-duper secret Bible that almost no one gets to look at. You're going to love the chapter where after Jesus' resurrection, grey aliens from Proxima 9 took him on a 2-millienium mission to the stars."
Scientology does just that. If you have no idea, going in, about what thetans are, or where they come from, you don't find out about them until you're so invested in Scientology that it's very difficult to break away from it. "It has to be true, look how much time and money I've invested in it."
And that's another thing.
Let's say, for whatever reason, that I want to study up on Christianity. Well, one option that a lot of churches have are discussion groups/classes on it, especially for people who are converting to that church.
A lot of those classes are pretty cheap, if not outright free, and here's the important bit. You don't actually have to take them. I could, right now, walk into practically any church in the country and join, for free.
In Scientology, if you want to learn more (or are peer-pressured to do so), every class costs money. The higher you go, the pricier the classes. Oh, but you can get around some of the costs by signing a billion-year contract.
Yeah, that's all completely normal and above board.
Re:Horrible arguments. (Score:5, Interesting)
What's it to you if the religious text is a trade secret, you have to fork over cash to read their texts, and as far as civil trials are concerned they are operating withing the law.
The only people who are "victimized" by Scientology are Scientologists. It's not my problem nor yours.
Every organization sued or otherwise attacked by Scientology is also "victimized" by them. Are you interested in warning people against joining Scientology by telling them what it's really about? Prepare to be sued for releasing their Trade Secrets. Scientology's victims are hardly limited to their membership.
Now, if they break the law and really hurt someone - like institutionalizing the molesting small children - then that's for the cops to handle and they SHOULD be punished.
If Tom Cruise and other movie stars want to spend millions supporting the Scientolgists, that's their problem, not mine. The only problem I have with Tom Cruise is I wish he'd make more kick-ass science fiction movies.
But if we're gonna pick on kooky religions, I think we should start with the Mormons first. They actually have a history of murdering people.
In 1978 11 high ranking Scientology leaders were convicted in one of the largest counts of internal espionage of the IRS and federal attorney's offices.
In 1978 France convicted, in absentia, L Ron Hubbard of fraud.
In 1988 in Spain the Spanish head of Scientology and ten others were arrested on charges of fraud, coercion and labour law violations.
In 2009, a Paris court found the French Church of Scientology guilty of organized fraud and imposed a fine of nearly US$900,000.
Noah Lottick, died 1990
Lisa McPherson, died 1995
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying that's a lie?
Re: (Score:3)
... as should unions?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Some might observe that it's doubtful there's been a time in history where the two were mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:3)
Luckily I live in a country where CoS was described as "pernicious nonsense", "dangerous material" and "immoral and socially obnoxious". And that was by our courts.