tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post1919830219026438584..comments2024-01-03T05:23:36.046-08:00Comments on The Citizens: Churches, Taxes, and Money: A Vestryman's PerspectiveUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-51914931610352588032009-06-22T23:53:08.337-07:002009-06-22T23:53:08.337-07:00I knew there was another comment I had in mind.
I...I knew there was another comment I had in mind.<br /><br />I think, as always, it is critical to realize that there is a great deal of local difference in how privileged religious institutions are. Federal income tax is one thing, but local services and local enforcement (which those taxes pay for) can be inconsequential or extremely unjust.<br /><br />RbR's example of a school more or less being donated to a church doesn't surprise me at all. I have certainly lived in towns where nativity scenes _were_ set up on public land every year. There are school sports teams that pray at the behest of their coach every practice.<br /><br />These practices are wrong, in my opinion, but they are widespread. RbR is probably right to rankle at the exceptional privileges he sees religious institutions enjoy around him.<br /><br />I would suggest that those privileges are not universal, that LTG's church is not in the same situation, and probably wouldn't exploit the public sphere that way even if it could do so. <br /><br />In my mind, the tax code isn't where the problem lies. It is that some localities do not revere the separation of church and state as much as they revere the mythology of their homogeneous culture. <br /><br />What I'm saying is, the provinciality that says "hey, surely we're all Christians here, so we're not really hurting anyone if we say a little prayer before the town meeting" is alive and well in a lot of America. Thankfully, there are also many parts of the country where such reasoning is unacceptable.<br /><br />We need to hold in our minds that this blog reports from many corners of America and the world.Scholeologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01110359677410211160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-85963725800120847742009-06-22T23:25:06.459-07:002009-06-22T23:25:06.459-07:00I know this thread is finished, and should be left...I know this thread is finished, and should be left that way. I am not trying to agitate and force people to defend their deeply held views, the cores of which are simply incompatible.<br /><br />But I thought I had an elaborations on other's arguments that might (or might not) make them clearer.<br /><br />Responding to RbR's posit "But what if there were a small class of people who were free of tax obligations." Well, there are, or at least a class that get dramatically reduced tax obligations: the blind. It's right there on the 1040 form. <br /><br />I have nothing against blind people, but there's nothing particularly "just" about my tax burden helping them at a higher rate then they pay themselves.<br /><br />There is not, needless to say, "nearly universal outrage." <br /><br />My point here is simply that religion is one of many beneficiaries of government, who don't on balance pay for it at the same rate I do. Most of the beneficiaries are not what I would choose, at the rates I would choose, but that's democracy for you. It's not clear to me at all that religion is treated significantly differently or benefits financially quantitatively more than other privileged groups.Scholeologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01110359677410211160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-25912299861372908212009-06-02T17:03:48.987-07:002009-06-02T17:03:48.987-07:00FYI, we do pay property tax on a portion of the ch...FYI, we do pay property tax on a portion of the church property. I presume this is the portion that we rent out. So churches are not as tax-free as you might think.<br /><br />Of course, given the vagaries of Prop 13, the church pays less in property tax than I do for a much, much more valuable piece of land.The Law Talking Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17886791396468512490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-5757780497556989702009-06-01T12:32:35.931-07:002009-06-01T12:32:35.931-07:00Once again, RbR goes right on asserting there is s...Once again, RbR goes right on asserting there is some significant taxpayer subsidy of religion in this country, ignoring and brushing aside all of my comments to the contrary. (In fact, he goes even further now, describing a "coercive" subsidy.) And now he claims I have been silent on this matter, and that my silence should be taken as consent?! Is he trying to get me to flip out??!!<br /><br />If so, RbR, then congratulations: you just got wish. I have had it with your pigheaded refusal to listen to me. You never concede a point... You do not even do me the basic courtesy of acknowledging when I have <I>made</I> a point. In nearly every comment of mine on this thread, you will find that I have recognized and acknowledged points you have made, agreeing with you several times--and doing so with respect. From you I feel only contempt. I deserve better than that.<br /><br />For the last time... The tax exemption for religious organizations represents a negligible subsidy, and as such is justified for several reasons. It prevents government meddling with the private lives of citizens. It prevents all kinds of religious oppression, big and small. It celebrates ethnic and cultural diversity. And as LTG has mentioned repeatedly, removing the exemption <I>now</I> would be terribly harmful and arguably quite unfair indeed. All told, the tax exemption is a tiny price to pay for domestic tranquility.<br /><br />Look, you know I am an atheist, and in my opinion in a perfect world there would be no religion at all--so in that most abstract sense I agree that it is not "fair" that religion gets a tax exemption when others do not. But given that religion is in reality widespread and hugely important to millions of Americans, the tax exemption is clearly justified. Similarly, in a perfect world, there would be no AIDS or drug abuse--so in that most abstract sense it is not "fair" to spend taxpayer money on needle exchange programs. But given that AIDS is in reality widespread and hugely devastating to millions of Americans, needle exchange programs make good sense.<br /><br />In an unfair world, unfair policies are, as a practical matter, sometimes the most just thing we can do. (Just think about the logic behind Affirmative Action.)Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-68610017470600900372009-06-01T08:17:34.846-07:002009-06-01T08:17:34.846-07:00RBR, the question you asked was whether big buildi...RBR, the question you asked was whether big buildings were needed in religion. Non-churchgoing people often think that "spirituality" as they call it is an individual thing (as do many radical protestants) and that organized religion is inherently hypocritical and of no spiritual worth. Why spend the money on a building, rather than on the poor? (This from people who also do not spend all their money on the poor). You should be acting like Mother Teresa, they ask (when they do not, themselves, act that way). Having answered that religious buildings do serve a genuine religious purpose - they're not just filled with "fancy artwork" as you put it - you now say that I didn't answer your real question, whether it the tax exemption was just.<br /><br />Well, that's one the one hand a sort of strange question. Do we measure every government tax policy by how "just" it is? Is the mortgage interest deduction just? Oil depletion allowance? R&D credits? These are justified with respect to how they advance certain economic policies that are viewed as beneficial, not as to their "justness." The tax exemption for non-profits, including religious non-profits, reflects a legislative goal that we want to encourage these activities. When the income tax was broadened in the mid-20th century to affect most people, it was recognized that imposing those burdens on non-profit institutions, including churches, would very much hurt them. Legislators found no compelling political, economic, or social reason to do this. Recall that before the growth of big secular non-profit charities in the late 20th century, the vast majority of charitable work was done through churches. A lot still is - and much of it with very little overhead. [For example, when our church does a project (all local churches participate in a huge stadium dinner for the homeless a couple times a year) all the labor is free and most of the food is donated by parishioners or sponsor businesses. No overhead.]<br /><br />I have explained, I hope, my opinion that changing these rules *now* would cripple most churches, and I bet the same goes for non-profit schools and other non-profit institutions or charities. Worse, the change would punish those who have relied on them. <br /><br />I don't think religious institutions are any less deserving of a tax-exemption than secular non-profit institutions (so long as they are not engaging in profitmaking activities, of course).The Law Talking Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17886791396468512490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-55267261904334882612009-06-01T04:51:03.547-07:002009-06-01T04:51:03.547-07:00No seriously, what if there were some kind of comp...No seriously, what if there were some kind of company that did not have to pay taxes just because of the type of company they are?<br /><br /><br />The fact that you think it's "obtuse" kind of proves my point.<br /><br />I will take silence as consent in this. The consensus of this blog is that tax exemption for religious organizations is NOT just. It is a form of coercive action by the state to force non-believers to subsidize the activities of believers against their will. This is based on the presumption that either everyone is a believer or that believers are inherently superior citizens to non-believers.Raised By Republicanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03461006522141969925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-64138925389581781692009-06-01T00:30:21.779-07:002009-06-01T00:30:21.779-07:00Oil companies?? Now you're just being obtuse, RbR ...Oil companies?? Now you're just being obtuse, RbR :-) There is nothing else equivalent to religion... Thank god.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-11117485712870771822009-05-31T17:53:28.305-07:002009-05-31T17:53:28.305-07:00What if instead of a class of people, it was oil c...What if instead of a class of people, it was oil companies?Raised By Republicanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03461006522141969925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-8856159078280979812009-05-30T08:49:27.522-07:002009-05-30T08:49:27.522-07:00I like how you put it: that the tax exemption is t...I like how you put it: that the tax exemption is there to protect religions from each other! Sad, but true. We agree on this.<br /><br />Theoretically, the idea of applying the tax code equally to all religions makes sense, I agree. But I have two practical concerns. First, I am not sure that anything other than "no taxes" would ever really end up being equal. Second, the tax code would inevitably distort religious practice. You have said yourself that property taxes could force religions to lose their big buildings and make do with smaller congregations. It is not hard to imagine how these sorts of pressures could be used to inhibit religious freedom, or even drive out certain groups by making their practices too expensive. Exposing religion to taxation opens the door to government interference in religion, and there is no way around it.<br /><br />Your hypothetical example of tax exemption has some problems. First, <I>people</I> are not tax exempt. Religious adherents pay the same taxes as everyone else. Second, many religions <I>are</I> strongly identified with ethnic groups. Far from causing universal outrage, this identification merely provides another reason for society to protect their unique forms of worship: supporting cultural diversity.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-26988187335180174842009-05-30T05:41:57.369-07:002009-05-30T05:41:57.369-07:00My view is that the tax exemption was originally e...My view is that the tax exemption was originally established to protect religions from EACH OTHER. At the time the idea that there could be people of no religion at all was somewhat fanciful. That is no longer the case. Also, in a firmly established democracy there are other protections (freedom of assembly, freedom of speech etc) that protect religious as well as secular forms of organization and expression. Not to mention the 1st amendment's specific protection of religious diversity. <br /><br />It seems to me that protecting religious diversity requires only that all religions be treated the same way. That can be done by having them all exempt from taxes or all covered by the same tax code. Back in the 18th century the norm was to tax some churches and not others. We resolved not to tax any churches. But we could just as easily resolve the problem by evenly applying the tax code.<br /><br />Dr. S. you keep making the argument that none of this matters because churches don't drain public resources that much. But what if there were a small class of people who were free of tax obligations. Let's say they weren't populous enough to noticeably effect the provision of public services to the rest of us but they used them nevertheless. If this group of tax exempt people were defined by their ethnicity, class or gender there would be nearly universal outrage. But because this special class of tax exempt people are defined by religious as opposed to secular status, there is mute acceptance.Raised By Republicanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03461006522141969925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-8654904749558052112009-05-29T08:13:23.934-07:002009-05-29T08:13:23.934-07:00Obviously we all agree religious institutions enjo...Obviously we all agree religious institutions enjoy special privileges--specifically, their tax exemption. I still contend that it is specious to equate this tax exemption with government funding. Churches do not contribute to the general fund, but the extent to which they are a <I>drain</I> on the general fund is negligible. Exiling churches from a city would not improve that city's budget.<br /><br />Now, as to RbR's question of whether the tax exemption is fair... That depends on one's opinion of religion. Those who value religion claim various intangible benefits to society. While I doubt most of those claims--and to the extent there are actual benefits from religion, I doubt they are unique--I think there is value in defending religious <I>diversity</I>. The tax exemption was created largely to protect religious diversity from the tyranny of the majority. Given the ugly history of religious oppression in this world--given how religious conflict has bruised nations and peoples everywhere--a little prophylactic tax exemption to mitigate the dangers posed by this particularly virulent form of social madness is a wise precaution.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-70388229728425705822009-05-29T05:03:48.009-07:002009-05-29T05:03:48.009-07:00LA DWP is an exceptional situation. Many local ut...LA DWP is an exceptional situation. Many local utilities operate at a loss. There are roads etc.<br /><br />As for public safety, yes, Churches are free riders. I agree. My question is this: is that just? Should a church with a congregation of middle class people with an ornate building in valuable location be given the same consideration as people who have no means to contribute to the provision of public services that serve the community in which they exist?<br /><br />As for church use of public space. I suppose it is a question of perception and there are regional variations. After a natural disaster here in my town recently, a church lost their building and the public schools were opened up to them for months so that the congregation could operate out of the local school. There was no debate about it. There was no bill presented to the church for the use of the building etc. This church was given unlimited access to a public building for months rent free. I propose that while the specific circumstances are exceptional, it speaks to the unquestioned privileged position of religion.<br /><br />I will ask again my basic question. Is it just? Dr. S and LTG have argued all around this question. LTG has argued about how wonderful ornate religious buildings are and how important they are as an expression of faith. Dr. S. says there really isn't that much public support so it doesn't matter. Neither addresses the basic question. Is it just that one particular type of organization is set above all others in this way?Raised By Republicanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03461006522141969925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-37118908954587619162009-05-28T22:47:33.857-07:002009-05-28T22:47:33.857-07:001. At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth (and...1. At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth (and that would not be tasty!) I will say I believe RbR exaggerates the "support" that public schools or universities provide to religious groups. As government institutions, public schools and universities may not provide meaningful support to religious activities. Churches most certainly are not permitted to set up shop on public land. (Hell, you can't even put up a nativity display!) Yes, if some students wish to hold regular "Bible study" in an unused classroom after hours, they have as much right to use that space as any other club would, but that is all. Remember: the only reason this level of "support" is constitutionally permissible is precisely because it is negligible!<br /><br />2. If you let one building catch fire, or one building become a hive of scum and villainy, then the entire community is threatened. In an urban setting, we would <I>force</I> churches to accept fire and police protection even if it were against their religion! So it is good you left that point aside :-)<br /><br />3. Churches pay sewage, water, and electric bills. I cannot speak for every community, but the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power receives <I>no</I> tax support. The LA DWP funds its operations entirely by assessing fees and selling its own bonds (the interest for which it pays through fees). The LA DWP is a revenue-producing <I>contributor</I> to the Los Angeles City general fund.<br /><br />I guess what I am saying is, from a <I>public policy</I> perspective, the argument that taxpayers subsidize religion carries little weight. Consistent with the First Amendment, there is negligible public support for religion.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-28086566162150443102009-05-28T19:46:34.166-07:002009-05-28T19:46:34.166-07:00I completely respect that many people would like t...I completely respect that many people would like to worship in a beautiful building. But why shouldn't people who appreciate that kind of thing be expected to pay for all of the costs involved - including the public services required to maintain it? I think it is very telling that LTG's response to the prospect of equal taxation for churches was not, "My co-religionists and I would gladly double our contributions to get to worship in our beautiful church." Rather it was to suggest that taxation would destroy the church - implying that maintaining his church on an equal basis with other organizations costs more than he and his co-religionists are willing to pay themselves. The rest of us are making up the difference. <br /><br />Why should the subset of people who are moved by these things expect people like Pombat and me to help pay for it? I get that that is the way the world is. But is it just that non-believers be forced to help pay the tab? Granted, we pay less of the tab than we used to be forced to back in the bad old days but we are still forced to help pay.Raised By Republicanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03461006522141969925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-5896406699541511562009-05-28T17:31:43.404-07:002009-05-28T17:31:43.404-07:00Thanks for sharing your experience of Grace Cathed...Thanks for sharing your experience of Grace Cathedral LTG - sounds like it touched you quite deeply.<br /><br />I don't get that from churches though. I get that feeling from being in places untouched (or at least mostly untouched!) by man - looking out across the vastness of deserts, or across beautiful rolling landscapes. I also get it from being in places like the Forum in Rome, or Pompeii/Herculaneum (Ercolano), or Stonehenge - walking in places that have existed for thousands of years, that were created by people and cultures so very different to ours. The feeling of awe, of being just one very small part in this ongoing history of our world, that's what touches me.<br /><br />I have visited churches that I found beautiful (first seeing Milan's Duomo by moonlight was pretty special; I'm also rather fond of some of the English cathedrals - Salisbury springs to mind), but the overwhelming memory that is coming to mind right now is the almost physical revulsion I felt at the ostentatious grandeur of St Peter's (Vatican City). The sheer amount of wealth that was gathered there seemed nothing but hypocritical to me - my inner voice kept asking how many people could this feed, clothe and house?!<br /><br />So, I guess what I'm saying is that the physical buildings often represent hypocrisy to me - they're relics of an age when The Church was overtly political, when going into the church was a sure way to power and influence, and they should not be necessary for true worship.<br /><br />All of that said, I'm looking at things through European eyes, where the church has a much longer (and thus more sordid) history. And I do appreciate just how important having a physical place that is the centre of your spiritual life can be for people. I just question what kind of place that needs to be, and I also question whether we really need lots of different places for all the different flavours of spirituality - the underlying lessons/beliefs/tenets of religion/spirituality seem pretty much the same to me.<br /><br />I also think we need to untangle "the church", i.e. the local gathering place, from "The Church", the big overarching hierarchy, which often has an agenda.Pombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-12725611638154685392009-05-28T17:04:42.435-07:002009-05-28T17:04:42.435-07:00I am reminded of a comment made by a convert to Or...I am reminded of a comment made by a convert to Orthodox Christianity who was asked to comment on the gaudiness of their ceremonies, with all the gold, incense, and icons. <br /><br />In reply she said that the services were worship and thanksgiving for the the Lord of Hosts, the Creator of the Universe: it is supposed to be beautiful! beautiful to see, to hear, to smell, and to feel, to breathe in. <br /><br />Open spaces and artwork elevate the soul. One of the great spiritual experiences I can recall is walking the labyrinth (a painted labyrinth) on the floor of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. We all removed our shoes and began following the path around and around each other. You can see a picture of it: http://www.gracecathedral.org/community/labyrinths/. As we walked the labyrinth it was as if we became unhinged from time, lost in meditations. Walking is, itself, a form of prayer. Some paused from time to time for body prayer: the stretching of limbs, turning, extension of the body and controlled breaths, centering the experience into one's physical being. Some breathed the same short prayer repeatedly, as a chant, to clear the mind. We walked alone, but together. Then we each quietly emerged at the center and looked up and around us. There, at the center of the cathedral, the ceiling vaulted high above, the light streamed in through the richly colored windows, and I stood in the midst of all this swirling humanity. When I emerged from great doors of the cathedral on the open spaces atop Nob Hill, the world and I seemed different.The Law Talking Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17886791396468512490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-15925345338023225862009-05-28T14:53:09.101-07:002009-05-28T14:53:09.101-07:00I understand that religion gets special treatment ...I understand that religion gets special treatment and that this is - for a variety of political reasons - likely to persist for the foreseeable future. I'm just posing some philosophical questions about the inherent public interest in that privileged position. <br /><br />It is simply not true that no tax dollars are spent to support religion. Public schools and universities are permitted, indeed forced, to allow religious organizations use their facilities. But the religious organizations make no contribution through taxes to the provision of those facilities. <br /><br />Leaving that issue aside churches are protected by fire and police. Churches have access to sewer and water services. All of these things are paid for (or at least supplied at a loss because of tax dollars. Churches don't contribute but do avail themselves of these services. <br /><br />With regard to point c. How much is it worth to the average church goer to worship in a fancy building? Is it worth 10% of their income in contributions? 15%? To the extent that privileged tax status lowers the amount of donations big fancy building churches require, it does favor particular forms of worship. In a free market of spirituality (lousy analogy but work with me here), some people are simply not willing to pay a large share of their income to worship in a fancy building as opposed to their friends' living rooms or a rented store front in a mall or whatever. <br /><br />Large, ornate churches have been a fixture of Christianity since the Roman Empire made it the official religion. And churches have always relied on the power of the state to supply these buildings. In the old days the division between state and church was blurred and the state would simply build the church. Now churches get a pass on taxes that all other organizations have to pay.<br /><br />Why? What is the compelling public interest in doing this? I can see the public interest in not singling out a particular sect for favor or disfavor but what is the compelling public interest now?Raised By Republicanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03461006522141969925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-39282714932559222672009-05-28T08:11:45.870-07:002009-05-28T08:11:45.870-07:00Religion enjoys a privileged position in our Const...Religion enjoys a privileged position in our Constitution. No other activity, organization, or institution is granted such clear protection. Like it or not, religion gets special treatment.<br /><br />Characterizing the tax exemption for religious activity as a "subsidy" is questionable to me. (a) No tax dollars are spent to support religion. (b) The tax exemption for religious activity is not meant to encourage religion but only to avert government interference. (c) The blanket exemption does not privilege one form of worship over another but gives churches the freedom to organize as they please. Some choose to worship in humble surroundings, saving their cash for charitable activities; others prefer to invest in giant halls adorned in silver and gold.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-89261884588826905202009-05-28T04:25:43.492-07:002009-05-28T04:25:43.492-07:00That's fine. But does group worship require a lar...That's fine. But does group worship require a large expensive building with art work etc? A minyan (Hebrew for quorum?) of 10 people certainly does not require a great deal of expenditure on buildings. <br /><br />The biggest expenditure for your church is the building and the land it sits on - even if you were taxed you will still spend far more on the building than on the taxes. <br /><br />I'm thinking of other group organizations and the infra structure they require. They often use rented store front office space and look for inexpensive options. They don't jazz up the place with lots of expensive art work. <br /><br />There is a tradition in organized religion of using the building to instill a sense of awe in those that enter it. This is a carry over from the days when THE Church was also interested in maintaining temporal power.<br /><br />We're not talking about destroying freedom of worship either by individuals or groups (at least I'm not). We're talking about worship having a privileged position. We're talking about a state mandated subsidy for worship in a particular form - that is worship in large, expensive buildings with full time, professional staffs etc. What is the compelling social need for that?Raised By Republicanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03461006522141969925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-84849264954512586882009-05-27T17:11:49.785-07:002009-05-27T17:11:49.785-07:00I would offer, RBR, that preservation of instituti...I would offer, RBR, that preservation of institutional religions from the depredations of a hostile state was one of the prime movers in the founding of the country. It is certainly widely valued. In his "four freedoms," FDR singled out "freedom of worship" right up there. I also will offer that corporate worship (meaning group worship by a body of believers) is a fundamentally different experience than individual spiritual exploration. The gospels record that Jesus said he would be there "Whenever two or three are gathered together in my name." Jews require a minyan (10) to pray at many important times. I presume many other religions have similar group commands. Religion is not just a "me" thing, but a "we" thing. So yes, some religious expression needs some institutional form.The Law Talking Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17886791396468512490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-78366880186769056672009-05-26T15:38:25.252-07:002009-05-26T15:38:25.252-07:00There is another question here too. Does society ...There is another question here too. Does society have such a compelling interest in preserving highly institutionalized religion, complete with big buildings and professional staff (pastors)? <br /><br />I mean, I can see how spiritual exploration would be a service for some individuals (but not all). But does this require a large building and profession staff? And does providing these resources for that segment of the population that wants these things do so much good for the rest of us that we should use tax dollars to subsidize it?Raised By Republicanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03461006522141969925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-12807993648290206372009-05-26T13:40:09.557-07:002009-05-26T13:40:09.557-07:00LTG, Churches, like businesses have infrasctructre...LTG, Churches, like businesses have infrasctructre, assets, employees, and customers. It seems crass to say that the product is "faith" or comfort, or something of a spiritual nature. YOu pointed out that churches rent space, they conduct weddings and baptisims, and they often collect for these services . . . products. We have an economy that runs on the service sector and many of those services are intagnible.<br /><br />As an outsider, I don't see churches as holy institutions. At best they are communities of like minded people who seek spiritual re-enforcement. At worst, they can be manipulative institutions whose promary goal is, as RBR said, self-preservation.<br /><br /><br />As for tax deductions for charitable giving . . . I understand what they purpose is. I just don't agree, really.USwestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-21567617292402928552009-05-26T10:44:30.665-07:002009-05-26T10:44:30.665-07:00I think Mother Teresa is the example of what churc...I think Mother Teresa is the example of what church is supposed to do, a true humanitarian...<br /><br />The Vatican is full of gold and priceless art, in the middle of a slum...I guess the real con here to me is, how much are will you pay to save your soul? I think Jesus and his lawyer might have a problem with all of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-40051588831701090952009-05-26T10:25:16.993-07:002009-05-26T10:25:16.993-07:00Sorry, RBR. I was terribly confused. The "drinki...Sorry, RBR. I was terribly confused. The "drinking" bit sounded funnier in my head.<br /><br />I meant only that changing the rules would be deadly to the church institutions, especially poor rural ones. I do not suggest that churches provide some charitable or other economic function that the state could not or should not. <br /><br />Bob- the original ban on taxing churches was a ban on taxing the non-state supported churches (in order to harm them) where they existed. I must not have made that clear. <br /><br />USWest- you are right that the charitable deduction is troublesome in some ways, but the intention is clear. The government wants to promote private giving to institutions that perform functions that have social value. We have written that 'social value' very broadly to include almost any not-for-profit entity on the (not crazy) theory the "market" for providing volunteer or non-profit services creates such entities to fill perceived social needs. Churches are not charities; their function is to be churches. But similarly schools and not charities. <br /><br />I guess, USWest, when I said a church isn't a business, I mean that I can't identify the "product." Schools "sell" education (sort of), so the business analogy is a bit easier to see. While you can have fun talking about churches selling services it's not terribly accurate. There is relatively little connection between the amount we give and what we receive (the connection is sort of the reverse, actually, those who value the institution the most give more).The Law Talking Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17886791396468512490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-7793333558667407462009-05-26T09:44:36.337-07:002009-05-26T09:44:36.337-07:00Thanks for this post LTG. Very detailed and though...Thanks for this post LTG. Very detailed and thought out.<br /><br />We talked about the first amendment right to freedom if speech, but let's not forget the freedom to assemble as well, so I don't begrudge Church property . . . often used for civic events as well like voting polls. And in rural areas, often the only place to assemble for any purpose is the local church.<br /><br />LTG points out that churches aren't really businesses. Well they are; they are non-profit businesses. Taxes are usually on "profits" and assets. When there is no profit, there is no tax. Asset taxes depend largely on they type and use of the asset. Maybe you could develop a code whereby a certain percentage of the donations collected has to be dedicated to charitable works or community service for an organization to remain 100% tax exempt.<br /><br />I think there is something fundamentally wrong with giving tax exemptions for charity. It's either charity or it's not. Giving money to charity for a tax exemption may be a "win-win" situation for those involved in the transaction, but then it also provides a justification for the very well-off to dictate to the very poor through the power of philanthropy. This idea that social services should be provided through religiously or ideologically based organizations (i.e. faith based initiatives) is flawed. I tend to think that society, though its governmental institutions, has a responsibility to support those in distress. I do not believe this should be the responsibility of churches. The tax code in its current state pretty much co-ops churches by forcing them to do work that isn't their responsibility and it is coercive for the poor.<br /><br />So I would eliminate or reduce the deduction for individual donations and leave the tax exempt status of churches alone. Why tax the same money twice?uswestnoreply@blogger.com