Why condemn a whole people if only a few do wrong?

[halbhh]

I'm not in the US.

However, you're wrong. These tax-free organizations still receive services that the rest of us have to pay for. This is true in the US as well as here in Canada.


In both the US and here, there are benefits that religious organizations get that other charities don't.

That being said, here in Canada, we have two classes of non-profits:

- charities (e.g. the Lion's Club). They have to be dedicated to a charitable purpose. They pay no taxes and donations to them are tax-deductible.

- not-for-profits (e.g. an astronomy club). They aren't charities, but they don't generate profit and they don't have share capital. They pay no taxes (because there are no profits to tax), but there's no tax credit for donations to them. They have to file financial statements to confirm that they really don't generate profit or dividends for their members.

I would have no issue with the average church being classified as a not-for-profit like an average, say, social club. Right now they get classified as charities even though they don't need to demonstrate that they fulfill a legitimate charitable purpose.

BTW: if you think that churches get treated no differently than other charities, you may want to equate yourself with the case where FFRF tried - and failed - to get the same tax treatment as a church: Atheists give up $1B church tax lawsuit - Becket

That's a lot...but...I can't help but notice the actual bottom line:

The reality when the budget review (we just had one) finishes.

The real numbers.

Just like another civic organization like a Lion's Club, a church doesn't have to pay taxes, and just like Lion's Club, it gets no subsidy.

So, if you write about 5 atheist law suits about trying to do whatever, the bottom line is still the bottom line in the end: Where's the subsidy?

If there is a subsidy, why doesn't our church get it?

?

I know the budget numbers. I actually have them printed on paper.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a lot...but...I can't help but notice the actual bottom line:

The reality when the budget review (we just had one) finishes.

The real numbers.

Just like another civic organization like a Lion's Club, a church doesn't have to pay taxes, and just like Lion's Club, it gets no subsidy.

So, if you write about 5 atheist law suits about trying to do whatever, the bottom line is still the bottom line in the end: Where's the subsidy?

If there is a subsidy, why doesn't our church get it?

?

I know the budget numbers. I actually have them printed on paper.

The subsidy is in services.

When someone at your church calls 911, emergency services still show up even though your church didn't pay for them.

When you do a church banquet, the food you buy has been inspected by government inspectors who were paid for by someone else's taxes.

Flood control measures protect your church along with the rest of your town.

If someone defrauds your church, your church still has recourse to courts that someone else paid for.

Etc., etc.

The fact that your church pays no taxes - and the fact that you get tax credits for your tithes - means that everyone else has to pay more.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

A very classical issue that occure not only in RF but in daily life on earth, is that people judge everyone from a group if one of them do wrong.

Example if one muslim do wrong, every muslim must be evil.

If one Christian do wrong Christianity must be evil?

How about if a car mechanic do an evil action, example murder or rape, does every car mechanics become evil human beings?

So why Do you judge differently if a bad person come from a religious background?

I am unsure why you think this, I certainly don't believe all Muslim's are evil just because some are just as I don't believe Christian's or those from any other religious group are evil because of the actions of the few.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I am unsure why you think this, I certainly don't believe all Muslim's are evil just because some are just as I don't believe Christian's or those from any other religious group are evil because of the actions of the few.

I do not say that everyone think islam is bad or wrong, but i have experienced enough to know that islam has a very bad name among many non muslims due to what some muslims have done.
I have experienced harrasment and comments toward my self in my real life where i live, because of being Norwegian and a muslim is seen as bad by my fellow human beings in Norway

 

[Sandra Jayne]

I do not say that everyone think islam is bad or wrong, but i have experienced enough to know that islam has a very bad name among many non muslims due to what some muslims have done.
I have experienced harrasment and comments toward my self in my real life where i live, because of being Norwegian and a muslim is seen as bad by my fellow human beings in Norway

I think we have to accept there are a lot of stupid, ignorant people in this world but there are a lot of decent people as well. Having been a nurse for over 30yrs I know it is a person's character that matters not their ethnic background or religious beliefs. I have some friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses and I get so angry at some of the nonsense I hear said about them.

I also think part of it is that a lot of the world today think they have 'killed God' and some of the scoffing on this forum substantiates that. Many people are confused and can't understand how someone can believe in a creator and confused people who lack understanding are more likely to be confrontational.

 

[Bird123]

To me it is best to combine reason and feelings, but that is me and I accept that you do it differently. But I don't accept that you speak for me.

What would life be without feelings? Not good. On the other hand, Failure to Think before one acts can have those feelings loosing their way. It's never fun being lost.

You are right. There are many people who lead with their feelings. These are just more lessons to learn. The results will tell all when all is said and done.

As for combining the two, they are already combined. It's just a matter of which one chooses to lead with.


That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think we have to accept there are a lot of stupid, ignorant people in this world but there are a lot of decent people as well. Having been a nurse for over 30yrs I know it is a person's character that matters not their ethnic background or religious beliefs. I have some friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses and I get so angry at some of the nonsense I hear said about them.

When it comes to proselytizing groups like the JWs, I think a special degree of blame is warranted that doesn't apply to a more "live and let live" adherent of a religion.

The people in any religion will cover a spectrum: the religion will motivate actions that are better or worse, depending on the person.

If all a person does is follow their beliefs according to their understanding and conscience, then they're only responsible for themselves.

OTOH, if someone is responsible for bringing new people into the religion, well, the proselytizer has no way to predict where on that spectrum the new convert will end up. They're doing something that could very well end up with someone at the "worse" end of the spectrum, so they have a share of the blame for that "worse" end of the spectrum, even if the proselytizer personally disagrees with that faction of their religion.

 

[halbhh]

The subsidy is in services.

When someone at your church calls 911, emergency services still show up even though your church didn't pay for them.

When you do a church banquet, the food you buy has been inspected by government inspectors who were paid for by someone else's taxes.

Flood control measures protect your church along with the rest of your town.

If someone defrauds your church, your church still has recourse to courts that someone else paid for.

Etc., etc.

The fact that your church pays no taxes - and the fact that you get tax credits for your tithes - means that everyone else has to pay more.

In general all Americans are indeed served by roads, libraries, parks, free public education (of even other peoples' kids benefits us all, all 100% of us, greatly), water works, mutual defense, and so on. Yes, indeed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In general all Americans are indeed served by roads, libraries, parks, free public education (of even other peoples' kids benefits us all, all 100% of us, greatly), water works, mutual defense, and so on. Yes, indeed.

And all that costs money. Churches pay for none of it.

And all else being equal:

- people who tithe to a church pay for less of all those things than people who don't.
- religious ministers pay for less of all those things than people who work for legitimate charities (thanks to the parsonage exemption).

... and therein lies the subsidy.

Or at least, that might be all the subsidy in some places. Here in Ontario, the government directly funds religious schools, so there's that as well.

 

[halbhh]

And all that costs money. Churches pay for none of it.

And all else being equal:

- people who tithe to a church pay for less of all those things than people who don't.
- religious ministers pay for less of all those things than people who work for legitimate charities (thanks to the parsonage exemption).

... and therein lies the subsidy.

Or at least, that might be all the subsidy in some places. Here in Ontario, the government directly funds religious schools, so there's that as well.

First, we do already pay -- church members pay taxes. Just like you, or people you know, or Lion's Club members.

Just like atheists don't have to pay taxes an extra time if they join a lion's club or local whatever civic organization, so also Christians don't have to pay taxes a 2nd time if they join a church.

Just in case: Are you saying all organizations A-Z should pay taxes, including International Rescue Committee, chess clubs, and so on?....

Or, what are you saying precisely?

Do you mean that among all organizations, that only churches should pay taxes, but not other organizations like American Atheists?

In other words, do you mean that American Atheists should (continue, as already) to be tax free, but churches should be taxed?

If that's what you mean, then why do you single out churches to pay taxes but not other organizations?

I take it your actual preference isn't so clearly wrong and unfair, and you just didn't realize that all 501c3 organizations are every last one tax free. That seems more likely: that you merely didn't know about civic organizations from A-Z being all tax free when they meet the easy 501c3 rules.

(And yes, any so-called 'churches', the small minority, that break the 501c3 rules should be taxed, of course! That would be very good, and leave the overwhelming majority of churches untaxed just like any other civic organization that is 501c3)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First, we do already pay -- church members pay taxes. Just like you, or people you know, or Lion's Club members.

I never said you didn't. You do pay taxes; you just pay less.

All else being equal, based on the rates here, someone who tithes, say, $2,000 over a year would pay $763 less in taxes than someone who didn't.

If someone is going to put an extra burden on everyone else like this, then they're going to need to justify it. In the case of your example of the Lion's Club, they've more than met this burden to my satisfaction. No church has done this.

Just like atheists don't have to pay taxes an extra time if they join a lion's club or local whatever civic organization, so also Christians don't have to pay taxes a 2nd time if they join a church.

You're missing my point.

Do you really not understand how taxes work, or are you just feigning ignorance?

Just in case: Are you saying all organizations A-Z should pay taxes, including International Rescue Committee, chess clubs, and so on?....

Or, what are you saying precisely?

Well, we got sidetracked by your refusal to acknowledge that churches get special benefits at all, but if you go back to my first post that you quoted, you'll see my point: that if a person or organization gets special benefits that I and everyone else have to pay for, then I'm going to demand that they justify themselves to my satisfaction.

In the case of a legitimate charity, this isn't a problem: if someone tells me that the extra burden they put on me allows them to, say, build a hospice, run a homeless shelter, or teach refugees English, then I'm good.

... but if all you've done with the burden you've placed on me is run a weekly social club for the benefit of your own members, I'm going to feel that I've been taken advantage of.

 

[Audie]

A very classical issue that occure not only in RF but in daily life on earth, is that people judge everyone from a group if one of them do wrong.

Example if one muslim do wrong, every muslim must be evil.

If one Christian do wrong Christianity must be evil?

How about if a car mechanic do an evil action, example murder or rape, does every car mechanics become evil human beings?

So why Do you judge differently if a bad person come from a religious background?

It is about motivation, and how many might act on the same motivation. Religious or political
orr racial, same thing.

If a few people all of the same religion,
acting from religious motivation, all stsrted performingwonderful acts of kindness, some really self sacrificing heroism, we'd all take note
and give due credit to the religion and its adherents, we' d expect ore of the same
from those of that faith.

 

[halbhh]

I never said you didn't. You do pay taxes; you just pay less.

All else being equal, based on the rates here, someone who tithes, say, $2,000 over a year would pay $763 less in taxes than someone who didn't.

If someone is going to put an extra burden on everyone else like this, then they're going to need to justify it. In the case of your example of the Lion's Club, they've more than met this burden to my satisfaction. No church has done this.


You're missing my point.

Do you really not understand how taxes work, or are you just feigning ignorance?


Well, we got sidetracked by your refusal to acknowledge that churches get special benefits at all, but if you go back to my first post that you quoted, you'll see my point: that if a person or organization gets special benefits that I and everyone else have to pay for, then I'm going to demand that they justify themselves to my satisfaction.

In the case of a legitimate charity, this isn't a problem: if someone tells me that the extra burden they put on me allows them to, say, build a hospice, run a homeless shelter, or teach refugees English, then I'm good.

... but if all you've done with the burden you've placed on me is run a weekly social club for the benefit of your own members, I'm going to feel that I've been taken advantage of.

If you don't know the basic reasoning for why non profit civil clubs, organizations, and so on don't pay any taxes, you could learn more.

We -- 99% of people -- aren't going to be willing to have a double standard.
People won't ever accept the unjust: "let 10,000 types of non profits be tax free, except for churches".

People have more fairness and equity than that. More justice. Equality under the law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you don't know, find out what a '501c3' is, and find out about how various organizations don't pay any taxes, and why.

You've misrepresented me in every reply you've made to my posts. How long should this go before I finally decide it's deliberate?

We aren't going to be willing to have a double standard.

We are not going to say: "sure let 30,000 types of non profits be tax free, except for churches".

Not gonna happen. Because people have more fairness and equity than that.

Great. So I take it that you'd also support eliminating the special benefits that ONLY churches get?

Of course, this is a separate issue to my actual argument. Since we keep talking past each other, you're going to need to do something if you want this conversation to continue: tell me what you think my argument is. Because so far, your responses suggest to me that you don't have the first clue about what I'm actually saying, and I'm not willing to spend any more effort correcting you if you're going to keep refusing to listen.

 

[halbhh]

So I take it that you'd also support eliminating the special benefits that ONLY churches get?

Yes, a church should not get some governmental benefits that no other organizations get. That's basic.

Singling out any particular organization for special favors that other organizations don't get is a form of establishment, which is against the constitution.

In contrast, if the benefit is one that some other organizations also receive, then of course there is no problem re establishment or unequal treatment.

This stuff is so primary or fundamental to me tho, I hardly think to mention it to begin with.

One of the worst things that can happen, in my view, in relation to religion, is if the government established some religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, a church should not get some governmental benefits that no other organizations get. That's basic.

Singling out any particular organization for special favors that other organizations don't get is a form of establishment, which is against the constitution.

In contrast, if the benefit is one that some other organizations also receive, then of course there is no problem re establishment or unequal treatment.

This stuff is so primary or fundamental to me tho, I hardly think to mention it to begin with.

One of the worst things that can happen, in my view, in relation to religion, is if the government established some religion.

And how about now you address the rest of my post?

Like I was saying earlier, I have no interest in continuing this discussion if you're going to continue to misrepresent me and refuse to listen.

Edit: also, I think it's a bit ridiculous that you would insert yourself into a conversation between a Canadian and a Norwegian and try to make everything about US law.

 

[halbhh]

And how about now you address the rest of my post?

Like I was saying earlier, I have no interest in continuing this discussion if you're going to continue to misrepresent me and refuse to listen.

There is a U.S. centric quality to posts on these forums of course, and usually unless someone says: "This is in nation X only, and not other nations" we will all assume the clearly implied meaning is that it is about America also (or even primarily).

So, looks like you need to edit this typical wording of yours:

When someone at your church calls 911, emergency services still show up even though your church didn't pay for them.

If you don't mean the U.S., then you need to say so.

In the U.S., Churches do not typically get special subsidies that other organizations don't also get, other organizations that are also not taxed.

It's equal and fair generally (most all the time most everywhere). It's typically (usually and also by law) the same standard for all the various 501c3 organizations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a U.S. centric quality to posts on these forums of course, and usually unless someone says: "This is in nation X only, and not other nations" we will all assume the clearly implied meaning is that it is about America.

So, looks like you need to edit this typical wording of yours:



If you don't mean the U.S., then you need to say so.

No, I really don't.

Your failure to understand the context of a conversation you jumped into is your problem, not mine.

In the U.S., Churches do not typically get special subsidies that other organizations don't also get, other organizations that are also not taxed.

It's equal and fair. It's typically (usually and also by law) the same standard for all the various 501c3 organizations.

First off: you just acknowledged that we're not only taking about the US. Cut it out with this US-centric stuff.

Second: what you're saying isn't even true for the US. Only churches get the benefit of calling some of the salary paid to their employees a tax-free "parsonage allowance." Only churches get to enjoy charitable status without filing financial statements. Only religious organizations get to discriminate on employment decisions.

Third: you've completely misunderstood my point. This has never been about the law; this has been about ethics: when someone gets special treatment that imposes a burden on others, what should they do to justify this state of affairs? Ethics isn't just a matter of doing the bare minimum that existing law requires.

 

[halbhh]

Summary: In the U.S. in general, usually, and even better (and crucially central and important) by our constitution, churches do not get subsidies that other organizations don't also get.

U.S. Churches: generally get no subsidies any different from other tax free 501c3 organizations.

U.S. Churches: church members already pay taxes themselves, just like members of Lion's clubs or chess clubs or any other non profit.

Claims that U.S. churches typically/generally get special subsidies other organizations don't get = a false claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Summary: In the U.S. in general, usually, and even better (and crucially central and important) by our constitution, churches do not get subsidies that other organizations don't also get.

U.S. Churches: generally get no subsidies any different from other tax free 501c3 organizations.

U.S. Churches: church members already pay taxes themselves, just like members of Lion's clubs or chess clubs or any other non profit.

Claims that U.S. churches typically/generally get special subsidies other organizations don't get = a false claim.

Well, I guess I should take comfort in the fact that it's not just me you refuse to listen to; it's also your Supreme Court:

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/parsonage-exclusion-found-seventh-circuit-to-be-constitutional