The happy medium would not give tax breaks to religions, so that the government never has to decide is a particular practice is a religion and hence tax free, or weigh in on what isn't a religion and hence taxed.

Gary, you have hit upon one of my favorite pet peeves. Religion is big business in our country and until that day of glorious tax reform, all are invited to join me for services in my favorite house of worship - The Church Of Perfect Tax Evasion.

Churches have enjoyed tax free status in the USA for far too long, but I cringe at the thought of untangling it. Most people, for example, would want a soup kitchen run by a church to retain its tax-free status. Sure you could pass a law requiring churches to spin off their charitable work for tax-free status, and tax the church on the rest of its income, but then you would get into having to operationally define exactly what constitutes "charitable work".

Defining "charitable work" is nearly as hard as defining "religion".

What a can of worms!!!

I read the first few posts and here's my take. It's not hard to be a Christian, just practice what you preach and even better quit preaching. I believe in the principals of Christ's teachings and think the world would be a better place if more people who claim to be christians would behave like christians.

You hit the nail on the head with that statement. Ive had the misfortune to have had dealings with die hard born agains, Both perosnal and as being employed by one.
They are the most intolerant, Judgemental, Narcisstic people I have ever had the misfortune to meet. All they care about is themsleves and those who feel the same way. And yes they will cheat you out of your fair pay if you work for them.

As for the con artists.
I give you Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggert, and the Bakers of the 700 club.

How devout they were. Yeah right.

Religions should be taxed on income. Show that you do good works to the needy and that gets deducted from your tax bill. Buy artwork and gold and property you get taxed.

---

[/quote]

Old James

As for the con artists.
I give you Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggert, and the Bakers of the 700 club.

You forgot Billy Graham and the Pope and all the other fakers that you see on TV.

but then you would get into having to operationally define exactly what constitutes "charitable work".

It would not be too bad on the income side. All of the expenses for the soup Kitchen, school , day care and church could be written off. All of the net income from the same would be taxed as any other business.

As for property tax --that might be more of a problem. I would let them declare it to be a business and write off the depreciation of the entire construction cost of all of the buildings.

Here in tony Brentwood TN we turned down a shopping Mall as being out of character with the Neighborhood. What we now have at that property location is a Vatacan-sized church complex that would rival the Mall in size --and not one dime of sales, property and income tax for the community. Yes folks religion is big business--Washington Post estimates just the cost of tax breaks alone at over 80 Billion per year. Property Tax exemptions would rival that number I am sure.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9957086,-86.8030105,18z/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

I have personally known 2 different people, that formed their own religions, just to avoid property taxes on their homes. It worked for both of them, as they taught their religion in their houses once a week. That is also the only way the Duggards with 19 children avoid taxes, and can afford to have so many children.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

The happy medium would not give tax breaks to religions, so that the government never has to decide is a particular practice is a religion and hence tax free, or weigh in on what isn't a religion and hence taxed.

Gary, you have hit upon one of my favorite pet peeves. Religion is big business in our country and until that day of glorious tax reform, all are invited to join me for services in my favorite house of worship - The Church Of Perfect Tax Evasion.

Churches have enjoyed tax free status in the USA for far too long, but I cringe at the thought of untangling it. Most people, for example, would want a soup kitchen run by a church to retain its tax-free status. Sure you could pass a law requiring churches to spin off their charitable work for tax-free status, and tax the church on the rest of its income, but then you would get into having to operationally define exactly what constitutes "charitable work".

Defining "charitable work" is nearly as hard as defining "religion".

What a can of worms!!!

Perhaps "not for profit" is easier to define than "charitable work."

Before we all go off the deep end, a little overview of how the tax, well USA tax, works in relation to religion, not for profit, and the rest of us is in order.

A minister gets a tax break no one else has, he does not pay personal income tax or social security tax on his ministerial income. Everyone else pays those taxes or goes to jail.

A not for profit has no owner so it can't distribute dividend or have owners who benefit from capital gains. All it money has to go out in purchases of goods or salaries to workers.

A for profit company can pay dividends to its owners and its stock price can appreciate (capital gains). It however has to pay income tax on its profits.

As individuals we pay income tax on all we earn, but get a special break on income from long term capital gains and dividends (double taxation)

So how this all works out is that a for profit company will pay its boss $1 in salary and pay the rest in dividends, and stock options (capital gains) to limit the tax the boss owes personally. A not for profit company has no method to pay the boss except by salary so the boss pays the highest personal income tax. The minister however doesn't pay income tax so he acts as a leech.

Then there are the other taxes. Sales taxes, property taxes, and the innumerable other taxes, assessments, fees and the like. Churches don't pay property taxes. In some places Churches don't pay sales taxes. As to the innumerable others, I'm sure there are innumerable special treatments. Not for profits, for profits, and persons all pay property taxes, sales taxes and those innumerable others taxes.

But not paying property tax is only part of the picture. In most states the property tax is for the local government, and the loss to the local government is made up for by the state out of its general funds. This means that if Podunk decides on having a mega-church and not a mega-mart the rest of the state will pay extra taxes to cover the lost revenue.

If you have been paying attention, out of the million bucks paid to the boss, the government will get a higher tax from the not for profit, because it all will be taxed at the highest personal tax rate. As to investors, not for profits don't have any, so there is no loss of tax dollars; on the for profit side, with the current zero tax rate on them the tax treatment is essentially the same.

Finally we get to worthiness testing. Is this a function for government, or should this be a function for donors?

Yes, I too hate places like the Arthritis Foundation where only a pittance of the money goes towards the charitable purpose, the rest is spent of fundraising. Then you could contrast that with say Catholic Charities where over 95% of the donations goes towards charitable purpose. But is that a tax matter or perhaps better covered as fraudulent advertising? BTW what % of donations to SETI is used on the purpose of SETI?

In any case this special total tax pass given to ministers seems to me to being akin to establishing religion by the government. The total pass on property tax also seems to be establishing religion by the government. Not just one flavor, but in general.

I say treat churches like any other not for profit. They don't need a special religious tax break. Everyone should be equal.

---

but then you would get into having to operationally define exactly what constitutes "charitable work".

It would not be too bad on the income side. All of the expenses for the soup Kitchen, school , day care and church could be written off. All of the net income from the same would be taxed as any other business.

Yeah but its super easy to take the Starbucks route and invent some construction that shows all that all the 'profits' from the church go directly into the soup kitchen, so when the IRS comes the church appears to only break even.

What is freedom of religion?

Can the government give you this without having to decide what is a religion? Does the government having to define religion make freedom or religion impossible?

This is a serious question that does not have an easy answer in the traditional sense. So many of us are rooted in Abrahamic religious practices that we would not find other practices to be religious at all. If the Government were to use such a test it would fail to give freedom to other practices, such as offerings to the volcano god.

Government must not fall into the trap of only making rules that the followers of Abraham would enjoy, but make rules for a corporal reason. For instance a rule preventing offerings be left to the gods, but a rule for sanitation purposes preventing litter being left to rot. So they can make their offering, but before it rots and becomes a health hazard they have to clean it up.

Then there is freedom from religion. Does this mean that the individual gets to shut out the world? Many troglodytes would enjoy that, but religions that believe in proselytizing would hate it. Or does this mean the Government will not adopt a religion and all laws need to be based on demonstrable facts. For instance a law against murder, not a law against human sacrifice.

The happy medium would not give tax breaks to religions, so that the government never has to decide is a particular practice is a religion and hence tax free, or weigh in on what isn't a religion and hence taxed.

The happy medium would not target a religious practice, but have rational reason to place restrictions on conduct or encouraging it.

I think you are missing the point of religion, and therefor of religious freedom a bit. Religion is far more than just a set of practices like going to a church on a set date or offering some food at an altar or whatever. Religion at its core is a system of beliefs, and thats where the real freedom of religion comes in. It means you can have any system of beliefs you want, no matter how outrageous those might be, and the government will not prosecute you for it. That also eliminates the need for the government to come in and determine what sort of religion is 'real' and what sort of religion isn't.

It means you can have any system of beliefs you want, no matter how outrageous those might be, and the government will not prosecute you for it.

Ah, so under your definition having a belief that you must kill all those who do not believe exactly like you and your god demands you act on this belief is fine.

Or is it having the belief is fine, acting on the belief isn't? (Like burning crosses on black people's lawns.)

Or does the government come in and test to see if you actually have the belief or are just pretending? (There have been attempts to set up a church of prostitution.)

---

What is freedom of religion?

Can the government give you this without having to decide what is a religion? Does the government having to define religion make freedom or religion impossible?

This is a serious question that does not have an easy answer in the traditional sense. So many of us are rooted in Abrahamic religious practices that we would not find other practices to be religious at all. If the Government were to use such a test it would fail to give freedom to other practices, such as offerings to the volcano god.

Government must not fall into the trap of only making rules that the followers of Abraham would enjoy, but make rules for a corporal reason. For instance a rule preventing offerings be left to the gods, but a rule for sanitation purposes preventing litter being left to rot. So they can make their offering, but before it rots and becomes a health hazard they have to clean it up.

Then there is freedom from religion. Does this mean that the individual gets to shut out the world? Many troglodytes would enjoy that, but religions that believe in proselytizing would hate it. Or does this mean the Government will not adopt a religion and all laws need to be based on demonstrable facts. For instance a law against murder, not a law against human sacrifice.

The happy medium would not give tax breaks to religions, so that the government never has to decide is a particular practice is a religion and hence tax free, or weigh in on what isn't a religion and hence taxed.

The happy medium would not target a religious practice, but have rational reason to place restrictions on conduct or encouraging it.

I think you are missing the point of religion, and therefor of religious freedom a bit. Religion is far more than just a set of practices like going to a church on a set date or offering some food at an altar or whatever. Religion at its core is a system of beliefs, and thats where the real freedom of religion comes in. It means you can have any system of beliefs you want, no matter how outrageous those might be, and the government will not prosecute you for it. That also eliminates the need for the government to come in and determine what sort of religion is 'real' and what sort of religion isn't.

Actually, I think you are the one missing the point, and it could be due to not being in the USA. What Gary is referring to is whether a government checking whether a "church" is "real" to see if it is really deserving of a tax exempt status.

Ah, so under your definition having a belief that you must kill all those who do not believe exactly like you and your god demands you act on this belief is fine.

Having that belief is fine, acting on it is not.

Or is it having the belief is fine, acting on the belief isn't? (Like burning crosses on black people's lawns.)

Acting on your belief is fine as long as you remain within the boundaries of the law.

Or does the government come in and test to see if you actually have the belief or are just pretending? (There have been attempts to set up a church of prostitution.)

A government cannot and should not check whether what people think in their head is genuine. As long as they don't act on beliefs that clash with the law, such as murdering people, the government has no business checking whether those people really believe in what they claim they believe in.

And I assume that a church of prostitution was really about avoiding anti prostitution laws by claiming having sex for money is protected under their first amendment rights. In such cases the government doesn't actually forbids or bans anyone from believing anything, they just say that the rituals those people want to attach to their beliefs are not protected under their first amendment rights and hence remain illegal.

What is freedom of religion?

Can the government give you this without having to decide what is a religion? Does the government having to define religion make freedom or religion impossible?

This is a serious question that does not have an easy answer in the traditional sense. So many of us are rooted in Abrahamic religious practices that we would not find other practices to be religious at all. If the Government were to use such a test it would fail to give freedom to other practices, such as offerings to the volcano god.

Government must not fall into the trap of only making rules that the followers of Abraham would enjoy, but make rules for a corporal reason. For instance a rule preventing offerings be left to the gods, but a rule for sanitation purposes preventing litter being left to rot. So they can make their offering, but before it rots and becomes a health hazard they have to clean it up.

Then there is freedom from religion. Does this mean that the individual gets to shut out the world? Many troglodytes would enjoy that, but religions that believe in proselytizing would hate it. Or does this mean the Government will not adopt a religion and all laws need to be based on demonstrable facts. For instance a law against murder, not a law against human sacrifice.

The happy medium would not give tax breaks to religions, so that the government never has to decide is a particular practice is a religion and hence tax free, or weigh in on what isn't a religion and hence taxed.

The happy medium would not target a religious practice, but have rational reason to place restrictions on conduct or encouraging it.

I think you are missing the point of religion, and therefor of religious freedom a bit. Religion is far more than just a set of practices like going to a church on a set date or offering some food at an altar or whatever. Religion at its core is a system of beliefs, and thats where the real freedom of religion comes in. It means you can have any system of beliefs you want, no matter how outrageous those might be, and the government will not prosecute you for it. That also eliminates the need for the government to come in and determine what sort of religion is 'real' and what sort of religion isn't.

Actually, I think you are the one missing the point, and it could be due to not being in the USA. What Gary is referring to is whether a government checking whether a "church" is "real" to see if it is really deserving of a tax exempt status.

The part in bold clearly shows that he is talking about freedom of religion in general. His argument simply conflates 'church' with 'religion' which in my opinion would be incorrect to do so. A church represents organized religion, or a set of ritualized actions that people have attached to a certain system of beliefs. My point is that religion itself does not necessarily require those rituals to remain a religion. For example, I would be a Christian the moment I believe in Jesus Christ being the son of God send to save us all. I do not need to go to any specific church for that.

In any case, because Gary conflates church and religion, its only natural that the argument ends up revolving around whether the government should give tax exemptions to churches because that inherently involves the government deciding which church is 'real' and which church isn't. My point is that because religion is separate from church, the government can do all it wants when it comes to recognizing churches, it doesn't actually stops people (nor does it want to stop people) from believing in whatever the hell they want. Hence freedom of religion remains without prior approval or interference from the government.

What is freedom of religion?

Can the government give you this without having to decide what is a religion? Does the government having to define religion make freedom or religion impossible?

This is a serious question that does not have an easy answer in the traditional sense. So many of us are rooted in Abrahamic religious practices that we would not find other practices to be religious at all. If the Government were to use such a test it would fail to give freedom to other practices, such as offerings to the volcano god.

Government must not fall into the trap of only making rules that the followers of Abraham would enjoy, but make rules for a corporal reason. For instance a rule preventing offerings be left to the gods, but a rule for sanitation purposes preventing litter being left to rot. So they can make their offering, but before it rots and becomes a health hazard they have to clean it up.

Then there is freedom from religion. Does this mean that the individual gets to shut out the world? Many troglodytes would enjoy that, but religions that believe in proselytizing would hate it. Or does this mean the Government will not adopt a religion and all laws need to be based on demonstrable facts. For instance a law against murder, not a law against human sacrifice.

The happy medium would not give tax breaks to religions, so that the government never has to decide is a particular practice is a religion and hence tax free, or weigh in on what isn't a religion and hence taxed.

The happy medium would not target a religious practice, but have rational reason to place restrictions on conduct or encouraging it.

I think you are missing the point of religion, and therefor of religious freedom a bit. Religion is far more than just a set of practices like going to a church on a set date or offering some food at an altar or whatever. Religion at its core is a system of beliefs, and thats where the real freedom of religion comes in. It means you can have any system of beliefs you want, no matter how outrageous those might be, and the government will not prosecute you for it. That also eliminates the need for the government to come in and determine what sort of religion is 'real' and what sort of religion isn't.

Actually, I think you are the one missing the point, and it could be due to not being in the USA. What Gary is referring to is whether a government checking whether a "church" is "real" to see if it is really deserving of a tax exempt status.

The part in bold clearly shows that he is talking about freedom of religion in general. His argument simply conflates 'church' with 'religion' which in my opinion would be incorrect to do so. A church represents organized religion, or a set of ritualized actions that people have attached to a certain system of beliefs. My point is that religion itself does not necessarily require those rituals to remain a religion. For example, I would be a Christian the moment I believe in Jesus Christ being the son of God send to save us all. I do not need to go to any specific church for that.

In any case, because Gary conflates church and religion, its only natural that the argument ends up revolving around whether the government should give tax exemptions to churches because that inherently involves the government deciding which church is 'real' and which church isn't. My point is that because religion is separate from church, the government can do all it wants when it comes to recognizing churches, it doesn't actually stops people (nor does it want to stop people) from believing in whatever the hell they want. Hence freedom of religion remains without prior approval or interference from the government.

I am to take that you are actually talking about the freedom to have ideas be they "religious" or otherwise? Perhaps North Korea where everyone must think the same as the dictator comes to mind. China and which person is to be the new Dali Lama is about the only other example I can come up with where a government, which is also not a religion, is restricting thoughts. Expression of thoughts, written or spoken, is restricted by most governments - obscenity being very common, but that is different than the ability to have thoughts. Practice of thoughts is restricted by every government as you point out, say murder.

I think you are dragging baggage of what you think a church is into religion. A religion of one person is fine. It can even have a church. It won't have other parishioners, but that religion of one may still need a church (building or some physical place and things) to practice it. I suspect you think of a church as some social structure with some form of self governance and a set of rituals and not just a physical place. It can be both a place and a self governing social structure. The religion is the belief system (ideas) that may give rise to a church.

As to the tax, which is where this started, and a religion of one, I'm not sure how a person donates to themselves in some way where it creates a transaction that could be taxed or should not be taxed. I won't rule out that possibility.[1] Otherwise it has to be a religion of more than one, which implies some sort of separate entity of the individual believers. It is that entity (church) that tax laws apply to.


[1]Forming a separate corporation with you as all officers, is a separate entity from yourself, even if the corporation is just a piece of paper, even ignoring that SCOTUS says it is a person.

---

I am to take that you are actually talking about the freedom to have ideas be they "religious" or otherwise? Perhaps North Korea where everyone must think the same as the dictator comes to mind. China and which person is to be the new Dali Lama is about the only other example I can come up with where a government, which is also not a religion, is restricting thoughts. Expression of thoughts, written or spoken, is restricted by most governments - obscenity being very common, but that is different than the ability to have thoughts. Practice of thoughts is restricted by every government as you point out, say murder.

Nope, I'm also talking about expressing the thoughts, which is again something you can do in a place that has freedom of religion. You can say that your religion thinks homosexuals as disgusting and will burn in hell. You can say that according to your religion, you should be intolerant against homosexuals. You can even say (provided you mind how you phrase it) that according to your religion all who are not part of your religion should die.

As long as you stick with saying those things and not actually following your words up with actions, you're safe. Others might think you are a horrible person for saying those things, but you have the freedom, the government will not ban you from saying those things.

And if we are talking about expressing your religious views, the amount of countries where you can freely do this decreases dramatically. If you are in the Middle East and you say you don't believe in Allah or you say something that doesn't stroke with local or national religious dogma, your life is in danger. In other places there are a few accepted mainstream religions you can pick from, but anything that deviates from that can get you in trouble.

I think you are dragging baggage of what you think a church is into religion. A religion of one person is fine. It can even have a church. It won't have other parishioners, but that religion of one may still need a church (building or some physical place and things) to practice it. I suspect you think of a church as some social structure with some form of self governance and a set of rituals and not just a physical place. It can be both a place and a self governing social structure. The religion is the belief system (ideas) that may give rise to a church.

Note the words in bold. Practicing religion means the system of beliefs has gotten certain actions or rituals associated with it it. Its very simple, if you don't have any rituals associated with your system of beliefs, you don't have or need a church.

Nope, I'm also talking about expressing the thoughts, which is again something you can do in a place that has freedom of religion. You can say that your religion thinks homosexuals as disgusting and will burn in hell. You can say that according to your religion, you should be intolerant against homosexuals. You can even say (provided you mind how you phrase it) that according to your religion all who are not part of your religion should die.

As long as you stick with saying those things and not actually following your words up with actions, you're safe. Others might think you are a horrible person for saying those things, but you have the freedom, the government will not ban you from saying those things.

That is freedom of speech not religion. Speech is the action.

Note the words in bold. Practicing religion means the system of beliefs has gotten certain actions or rituals associated with it it. Its very simple, if you don't have any rituals associated with your system of beliefs, you don't have or need a church.

Then you do nothing but think and not even speak, or had you not realized how limited your idea is.

---

That is freedom of speech not religion. Speech is the action.

You can't have freedom of religion without freedom of speech. Besides, the first amendment protects both speech and religion.

Then you do nothing but think and not even speak, or had you not realized how limited your idea is.

Speech is not necessarily a ritual and thus not automatically requires a church. If I talk with you here on these forums about what I believe, I'm expressing my religious ideas, but that speech isn't part of any type of ritual that I have attached to my system of beliefs. Hence, its not part of any church nor do I require a church for it.

Its funny that religious persecution used to involve people being imprisoned or even murdered by the state for holding mass, or having the paraphernalia of that religion, or even gathering for prayer and now religious persecution is defined as not being able to force your beliefs on someone else.

I think people have forgotten what religious persecution actually is and why the law was created in the first place.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Then you do nothing but think and not even speak, or had you not realized how limited your idea is.

Speech is not necessarily a ritual and thus not automatically requires a church. If I talk with you here on these forums about what I believe, I'm expressing my religious ideas, but that speech isn't part of any type of ritual that I have attached to my system of beliefs. Hence, its not part of any church nor do I require a church for it.

Sorry, but the ground you stand on when you do your ritual is your church. You may not own it, perhaps it is a public square, but you still need some space to perform the ritual, silent or otherwise.

---

Speaking about free speech:
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/590061/WhatsApp-UK-Ban-Weeks-Snoopers-Charter
No more private conversations, you must include the government listening post. Is this England or North Korea?

---

Speaking about free speech:
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/590061/WhatsApp-UK-Ban-Weeks-Snoopers-Charter
No more private conversations, you must include the government listening post. Is this England or North Korea?

“In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?” said Prime Minister Cameron earlier this year.
"My answer to that question is: 'No, we must not’.”

So that means that I have the right to read GCHQ documents.
Jeeez...