[Vision2020] Taxing churches (was: vandals strike again)

[Kenneth Marcy]

On Sunday 08 November 2009 00:37:01 Donovan Arnold wrote:
<snip>
> If political organizations are tax exempt, like political parties,
> why can’t churches be?

Political organizations are expected to attempt to provide some 
rational explanation for their proposals, positions, and policies. 
Churches exist to provide an environment within which the lack of 
rationality with respect to beliefs is tolerated and protected.

The results of political activities are expected, via the policies 
chosen to be implemented as a result, to have effects upon members of 
the public at large. The results of personal belief are expected to 
affect only the believer of those particular tenets, to satisfy the 
individual, and not to effect changes upon others in a community.

What is protected about churches is their right to gather and to share 
among their members the nature and characteristics of their personal 
beliefs. What is not protected about churches is any attempt to 
influence political processes via which public policy choices are 
made and implemented.

> Churches are doing three things that are tax exempt,
> 1) Exercising Religion,

To the extent that churches operate to provide shelter within which 
individuals of similar beliefs may congregate in fellowship, their 
activities are protected.

> 2) Administering to the needy, and  

To the extent that churches provide sustenance and assistance to those 
in need, without concurrent expectation of compensating contributions 
or conversion or conformation of beliefs, their activities are exempt 
from taxation. 

> 3) Expressing their political beliefs. 

Though it may be, and often is, the case that individual members of a 
church have political policy preferences, and act on such preferences 
in public matters, for a church to espouse particular public policy 
preferences is not only not protected, but is discouraged because of 
the authoritarian nature and theocratic tendency of their processes.

> Now, the only reason to tax a church is if it opens up a for profit
> business. Then it should be taxed. Or if it has CEOs and the like
> that make sizable salaries and profits. 

Many contemporary churches are public user interfaces (PUIs) for real 
estate investment and holding companies. These large financial 
organizations are, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from 
tax shelters to dodge and to escape what otherwise would be enormous 
income taxes on real estate transactions and property taxes for the 
ongoing services provided by the communities within which those 
properties exist. 

> If one understands politics, you know, that no organization or
> person is apolitical. It cannot be.

This is an expression of your belief, which happens to be incorrect. 
Persons and organizations without political concerns do exist.

> Every interaction we have with another person is political, it may  
> just be on a smaller scale, a baby crying may be politicking for   
> milk, or Priest saying not to support abortion, it is all          
> political.

The word political comes from the Greek word for citizen, a member of 
a community whose residents have mutual concerns requiring mutual 
thought, discussion, and decision-making.

A hungry baby has personal concerns requiring nourishment, not public 
concerns such as requiring the purchase of fair-trade chocolate for 
chocolate milk as opposed to Mom's original or Freddy's fine formula.

> But Atheists want to take away freedom of religion, and replace it  
> with NO Religion. They want to be free from religion.

No. Atheists have a positive belief that no god exists. This belief is 
a matter of faith for which an atheist has no proof, just as a theist 
has no proof of the existence of a god.

An actively held personal belief structure is a religion, so an 
atheist does not want to be free from religion because that would 
imply release from atheism. An atheist might prefer not to have to 
interact with theists and their various rituals and worship services, 
but not attending church is not the same thing as having no religion.

> People cannot be banned from religion in public and still say our
> First Amendment rights are not being violated.

Sure they can. Just as smoking in public can be banned because of the 
detrimental effects it has on citizens who choose not to smoke, so 
can excessive public displays of arational belief be banned from 
working their detrimental effects on the conscious attentions of 
citizens who choose not to believe without proof.

The believer's privilege to present arationality in public ends where 
the rationality of another community resident begins.

> It is just not possible to both include and exclude God at the same
> time. One side has to prevail.

No. Theists have no rational proof for existence, and atheists have no 
rational proof for nonexistence, yet each believes the respective 
position. One side does not have to prevail because an agnostic may 
assert that without rational proof neither position is acceptable nor 
believable, and so reject both belief positions simultaneously.

> Which one is constitutionally protected?

All three positions are constitutionally protected.

> It is more damaging to a believer not to be allowed to practice     
> their faith than it is for the non-believe to endure His inclusion.

That is an arational assertion of your opinion, and perhaps of your 
belief, but there is no evidence beyond your assertion of its truth.


Ken