English communities secretary, Eric Pickles, has proposed that the government may want to withdraw tax breaks for the Church of Scientology — noting controversies over the Church’s activities and alluding to the general view in England that it is more of a cult than a religion.
Scientology is not treated as a religion in England but still receives financial benefits as a charity. In 1984, the organization was described as a cult by a high court judge.
Yet, the City of London Corporation has asked Scientology to pay only one-fifth of the tax rates for its London headquarters near St Paul’s cathedral.
Pickles questioned whether Scientology can be described as beneficial for society to justify the saving of millions in tax payments: “The Church of Scientology is not a registered charity, since the Charity Commission has ruled that it does not provide a public benefit. Nor are its premises a recognised place of worship.”
Indeed, in 1999, the Charity Commission ruled that the church did not pass the “public benefit” test required for advancing religion as a charitable purpose. He also cited the negative views of Scientology by a majority of English citizens.
I am not familiar with English law on the subject but such a basis for rescinding tax exemption would be rejected in the United States – particularly the unpopularity of the Church with the majority of citizens. Such a test would invite a dangerous level of subjectivity and majoritarian control in the denial of benefits.
Source: Guardian
Washington….The Obama administration, for the second time in two months, interjected itself Monday into an angry local dispute over a proposed Islamic center, warning local officials that opposing the mosque could violate the civil rights of its members and become a federal crime.
http://loganswarning.com/2010/10/18/obama-opposing-mosques-could-be-a-federal-crime/
Tony C,
Buckeye is most sincere and knowing main-line old churches as I do, they really do do good and don’t proselytize … in fact they don’t like to testify, or “come to Jesus”, or prophesy … they believe actions speak louder than words and many of them believe whole heartedly in giving to others without telling anybody about it. They support mission work locally, nationally and worldwide. They aren’t fundamentalists or evangelists or charismatics or cultish or catholic. They pray quietly for the sick and sit quietly in church listening to the music and the sermons and they give and give and give without regret or reward and they never talk about it … they just do it. They may talk politics a bit during coffee hour but that’s the extent of it.
But … they have these monsterous buildings that take up a lot of real-estate … valuable real-estate … and they should pay property taxes as should any other institution that owns property. And no public funds to any charitable organization or church organization. If one chooses to belong to a church and give to mission work, fine, but pay your fair share in property taxes and don’t look to me or my tax dollars to support your organization. If I want to support your organization, I’ll join and contribute my time and my money because in making that choice I can also decide to quit and stop donating. When it’s my tax dollars, I have no choice.
I’m all for rendering unto Caesar …
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
@Buckeye:
It seems a common theme on the Turley threads, if somebody refuses to agree with you they must be a TROLL.
I don’t have a chip on my shoulder either; I simply have a fundamental disagreement with you over principle, and because I refute your arguments and won’t agree with you that churches should be tax exempt, you decide to start calling me names.
@Blouise: It isn’t that I do not think it is possible, it is that I think it is bad in principle.
Likewise, for example, I have no doubt that if the President of the United States can simply have people that he is convinced are terrorists assassinated on his command, without charges or a trial, he will probably assassinate some bad guys. That is possible, it is even possible he will never assassinate anybody accidentally, but I think assassination by Presidential Decree is simply wrong in principle and violates the Constitution.
I do not doubt Buckeye’s claims that his church does some good, that is not only possible but probable. I think it is wrong in principle for the government to treat religious institutions differently than any other business organization, because religion is none of OUR government’s business, and I think by doing so they shirk their own responsibility to the disadvantaged and allow enormous variance in their care that should not exist.
The disagreement is over fundamental principles of the role of government in society. I’m not a troll or a fake or an ideologue just because I think somebody’s argument is fundamentally wrong.
Blouise
Thanks. I thought I was being reasonable, but we can always learn. 🙂
Buckeye,
Having followed this discussion I believe your last decision is the right one. Most main-line old churches don’t proselytize as it gets in the way of serving those in need. Many old and established congregations are perfectly content to “hide their light under a basket” if doing so makes it easier to minister to those in need.
But it is difficult for others who aren’t personally familiar with these congregations to separate them from the holier than thou congregations that populate so much of our landscape.
You have explained it well enough, Tony just doesn’t believe it’s possible … so let it go. What he does or does not believe has no impact on what you actually experience as you work with others through your church.
Tony C.
I’m sorry. Either you are tired or I am. I can make little sense of your last post.
You seem to want to continually misconstrue what I say and when a discussion reaches that point I’m out.
I never argue with shoulder chips or trolls. It’s not productive and I’m too old to waste very much time.
@Bdaman: Thanks for the stat. So I presume 11% fewer total people were served, exactly when the ranks of the unemployed were about doubled!
@Buckeye:
So that is how it comes out; it looks like you just give a crap if proselytizing is happening or not, denying it was just a red herring. You think logos aren’t advertising. You think it is important for receivers to know WHO gave them their boon, but that isn’t any kind of “advertising” or “self promotion,” although you would be happy to accept the same consequences that self promotion provides: Donations or new members.
And if it against the law of the Constitution and the founder’s precepts of separating church and state — Well just like Obama or Reid or Palin or McCain, when the Constitution gets in the way of what you want to do, it seems you are willing to ignore it.
ALL waste, fraud and abuse is not a myth, what IS a myth is that it happens at a higher rate in government programs than it does in the private sector.
Relying upon the kindness of strangers is an inherently unreliable system of funding.
Donations Dropped 11% at Nation’s Biggest Charities Last Year
No government funds are counted. As a result, some organizations that are large but get most of their money from government agencies are not included.
http://philanthropy.com/article/A-Sharp-Donation-Drop-at-Big/125004/
@Bob,Esq:
“Eternal life and joy in Paradise, commences immediately after permanent death. Zero complaints in thousands of years!”
Tony C.
Tell you what. I won’t tackle your belief system if you don’t tackle mine. Proselytize away, but don’t be offended if I decline to be convinced.
We do put our logo on any goods that are to be bulk packaged simply to allow the receiver to know where it came from and where to send a thank you note or a donation if they want to later. I doubt it’s going to cause anyone to join our church though if they wanted to we would certainly accept them. The local food pantry has a logo but not of anyone particular church and no belief systems are exchanged.
I am sure some churches as well as the Salvation Army do proselytize as you say. I will tell you again, mine doesn’t and I really could care less whether you believe it or not. Nor do I care that you don’t believe that a non-profit has better cost controls than the government enough to look up the numbers. I’m not convinced that all that “waste, fraud, and abuse” everyone talks is a myth, but you could be right.
But as long as we see the need, we will try to assuage it and you will have to live with the result. We’ll just have to muddle along until you can get the government up to speed. Then we’ll be happy to stop.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101013/new-white-house-faith-based-council-unnamed-questions-remain/
@rcampbell: Agreed on Obama, for a guy that is supposed to be a Constitutional Scholar, Obama seems to have no problem shredding it. Perhaps it is due to that other old saw, “familiarity breeds contempt.” Because “contempt” is certainly what Obama seems to feel for it.
“Eternal Salvation — Or TRIPLE your money back!”
Tony C
You’ve hit a red hot button with me about government monies being doled out to religious organizations under the guise of the Faith Based Intiative. In my opinion there are NO circumstances under which secular tax revenues should be distributed to religious organizations that prosletize a religious faith. To compound the wrongness of that program–at least during the Bush regime, not a single dollar has been distributed to any Muslim rehab group through that program.
It’s more than a little objectionable that Pres. Obama has retained this un-Constutional government financing of religion. There is little difference in my mind between the direct funding of prosletizing to the homeless or to those rehabbing through drug or alcohol dependency and providing churches with a tax free operation when prosletizing is (to borrow an advertising phrase) their business–their only business..
@Buckeye: Proselytizing is done automatically by virtue of the name and denomination of the church being involved. You do not help people with 100% anonymity so you ARE advertising, your help is “branded” as Christian, or Protestant, or Catholic or whatever.
It is pretty plausible to me that government doesn’t do its job because charities shoulder the load, and no politician is above taking free help.
If the free help stopped the public would demand the government provide a more secure net, and they would, with greater taxes to pay for it.
However, because they don’t, parishioners of churches pay a voluntary “tax” in the form donations, and people that do not donate end up with a free ride. That means you are over-taxed, albeit voluntarily, it would still cost you less if the government did it.
As for costs, I refuse to believe your assertions, I believe they are based on false and hyped opinion of the efficiency and purchasing clout of government, which is considerable, and which cannot be matched by a private organization. Look at Medicare and the VA and Social Security, whenever a non-partisan independent analysis of privatizing one of these functions is done, it concludes the privatized overhead will be greater than the government run system.
>> except from those who are determined to castigate all religion of any stripe.
I detect accusation in your tone, I suspect you would rather tackle my belief system than discuss the actual issue. It hardly matters if *your* church isn’t doing something, I know for a fact the Christian run homeless shelter in my town demands silence before meals while the folks with the ladles hold hands and pray openly to Jesus; it offers a “Christian counselor”, it holds sermons, it invites the homeless to be saved, and on and on. Not to mention the crosses everywhere.
The fact is that proselytization does happen, and the people in need are essentially coerced into tolerating it because they cannot be sure they would be helped if they spoke out against it. They also cannot be sure the help will be there next week; it is well known that donations and contributions to charitable causees declines in bad economies. Relying upon the kindness of strangers is an inherently unreliable system of funding.
The aid should be provided by the government as a right of citizenship, an entitlement, and the fact that churches do it may well be why it is not.
Tony C
That’s why I said the requirements should be like other non-profits so “Money Churches” would be caught.
One reason I give through my church is to bypass the exorbitant salaries other non-profits have. And our church, since it is large enough, has access to the professional personnel and equipment – it’s a very large scale operation. Certainly it outstrips any government operation of the same size as far as cost containment.
I don’t worry about proselytizing since there’s little to none done, at least with my church. I know because I work at the local facility and I’m pretty sure the national and international works the same way. Just because a church is involved doesn’t mean discrimination is involved – except from those who are determined to castigate all religion of any stripe.
And of course, no advertising is done with the exception of who we are and how to get in touch with us.
I believe the government should supply the safety net, also. They are not doing a very good job, especially right now. Our food pantry and utility payment requests are skyrocketing. Give and give generously this year to your favored charity. And do check the administration costs before you choose one.
@Buckeye: I fail to see the distinction.
If a church (the “company” equivalent) uses parishioner donations to provide free food, clothing, or shelter to the poor, I see the cost of those services, including the costs of collecting or buying the materials, as deductible from their revenue, the donations, before any income tax is computed.
If the church expenses for the year are less than their revenue, that excess is their “profit,” just as in any business. Now I’ve got no problem with a longer term outlook; i.e. a loss this year can be used dollar for dollar to offset a profit next year, something like that.
But if the church is accumulating wealth it should pay taxes on it. If they spend 98% of what they bring in on charity, that is very little income.
>> Do you really want the government to spend more instead of accept what the churches do for the poor and disabled?
Yes, yes I do. The government won’t combine their aid with proselytization, for one thing, and the government won’t pay anybody an exorbitant salary to head up that department, and the government doesn’t need to spend 30% of its revenue advertising for more revenue, so they can get more bang for the buck there, and they also get more bang for the buck by having professional negotiators for supplies, professional logistics, computer systems, fraud protection, and more.
The poor, disabled and mentally ill deserve care. I believe society owes them care, and it is my belief that 100% of the social safety net should be provided by the government, secularly, without discrimination and uniformly regardless of the supernatural belief system to which a citizen or relief worker may subscribe.
Tony C.
H & R Block sells a service to make a profit. They don’t provide the service unless it’s paid for.
They don’t give free food and clothes, provide transportation to doctors, house the homeless or do the many other things that governments would have to do were it not for charities.
You did see the bit about churches should pay property taxes for government services didn’t you? Do you really want the government to spend more instead of accept what the churches do for the poor and disabled?
If the institution, church or other non-profit, doesn’t make a profit, what is there to tax – other than their property? Their books should be open as any taxable entity’s are, which would catch any dishonest dodge. That’s the key to fighting any discrimination.