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
Bdaman I get it bdaman. Clinton had programs under Fannie Mae that provided poor people with the opportunity to buy homes so therefore he started it. You have the tea party republican line down. You can access your propaganda quite easily.
Clinton was great, thats why I wish Hillary would have been President. However if you really want to know where the housing crisis really started, it started with him.
We had a surplus with Clinton. Why did the republicans run up such huge deficits?
Tony C:
one of the debaters is a Catholic with a PhD in economics and she makes a pretty good argument against your proposition.
Byron, we are in real trouble here. The dollar, the economy, real-estate, unemployment, union pensions and political turmoil, the deficit.
After an unheard of record deficit last year of $1.4 Trillion the economy experienced a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year.
For the second year in a row they passed the trillion dollar deficit mark.
@Byron: Perhaps, but about 5 minutes at a time. Plus I am not a Christian; I understand the Bible well enough to already know (as my comment suggested) that Capitalism is inconsistent with Christ’s [supposed] teachings.
@Bdaman: I do not think the government should rescue anybody from mortgage default; I think the government SHOULD prevent mortgage companies from committing fraud or using predatory practices in lending by making contracts impossible for the average person to understand, which is what mortgage companies did.
In some sense the government was forced into one bad practice by an earlier bad practice, shirking their responsibility to use their expertise on behalf of the public at large to prevent fraud and predation.
I think the banks should have failed. The bailout probably kept us from a depression, but ends do not justify means, and instead of spending $750B on preserving a corrupt financial system and rewarding the predators that got us into the mess, we could have spent $750B on infrastructure repair and new projects, schools, unemployment, public housing to prevent homelessness, border security, shipping container inspection and more.
Help those that suffer, not those that caused the suffering in the first place.
Bdaman:
“or people would just stop paying their mortgages because the government will come to their rescue using tax payer dollars.”
Brilliant observation.
Tony C:
you send your money to DC, it is your money.
Wow, two 46 minute segments? Wish I had time for that.
Hour and a half is about half the time you spend here commenting a day.
2) If nobody had to pay a share of taxes for anything they morally disagreed with, the country would suddenly be filled with pacifists that don’t think they should have to pay for the military. Republicans would refuse to pay Democrats and vice versa. Militia men would refuse to pay taxes for the police. No roads would be built, because why should “my money” be spent on a bridge I will never use?
or people would just stop paying their mortgages because the government will come to their rescue using tax payer dollars.
TONY C:
I listen when I do drafting, you don’t have to focus very hard so I can do both. Calculations on the other hand require quiet or classical music, none of that head banging shit it’s quite distracting. Like a spoiled child it demands your attention and is persistent.
@Buddha: Right, because the truth is always up for a vote in your mind.
@Byron: Wow, two 46 minute segments? Wish I had time for that.
As for not wanting “your money” to go to abortion:
1) I do not regard taxes as “my money,” I think that is an error.
2) If nobody had to pay a share of taxes for anything they morally disagreed with, the country would suddenly be filled with pacifists that don’t think they should have to pay for the military. Republicans would refuse to pay Democrats and vice versa. Militia men would refuse to pay taxes for the police. No roads would be built, because why should “my money” be spent on a bridge I will never use?
In short, that idea is just untenable. People would claim moral objections to everything and nothing would get funded at all. I think the result would be lawless chaos, and worse than the wild west, with a life expectancy about as long as then.
3) You have the power to vote. Abortion is routinely excluded from government provided healthcare by lawmakers, out of fear of the vote.
Personally I find this highly discriminatory, because the only people oppressed by that decision are the poor that cannot afford it, or cannot afford the obvious alternative: Safe legal abortion available in a dozen other economically and technologically mature foreign countries.
Tony C:
Christians give much money to charity, i.e. voluntarily. They just disagree that they should have to give to government to do their charitable works for them. It always goes back to the individual and what is best for them.
I don’t want my money going to abortion why should I have to support that with my tax dollars? Why cant I give my money to an orphanage instead?
Tony C:
you might find this interesting, it is a debate about whether or not Capitalism is Christian.
http://arc-tv.com/is-christianity-compatible-with-capitalism/
No, Tony.
You keep trying to insert false premises into my statements. It’s funny. Because it’s crap like that that makes you come of as a troll when combined with your lovely baseline personality . . . such as it is.
Your trollish nature has nothing to do with agree with me or not and everything to do with your nature and presentation, Mr. Bad People Skills. If you’ve come across as a troll to multiple parties at multiple times over multiple subjects (and you have)?
You just might actually be a troll, buttercup.
As to my opine to your true nature, I lean more towards the chip on your shoulder diagnosis although I tend to think of it (when I bother to think of it) in more psychologically operative terms.
I AM AN ATHEIST, but I know the Bible to some extent; like many atheists, I have read it (not memorized it).
What puzzles me is Christ was a straight-up socialist or communist, “give all your money to the poor” kind of socialist; “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven” kind of socialist.
Christ endorsed paying whatever taxes Caesar demanded; he implies in the command “Render unto Caesar what is Caeser’s” that the money was never yours to begin with, it belonged to Caesar the entire time.
Christ tells people it is their sacred duty to provide food, shelter, and aid to needy strangers.
Christ tells the story of the Good Samaritan, which I think is frequently misunderstood — At the time Samaritans were regarded as bad foreigners, and I think the point of the story is that God will judge people on their acts and selfishness, not on their labels or professed beliefs.
This is no sermon, I do not even believe Christ existed as a man. But for those that do, that call themselves “Christians,” I sincerely do not understand how they can know the first thing about Christ and still complain about their taxes, public schools, social programs, and property issues, and how they can advocate for our strong military excursions into foreign countries, how they can demand the retraction of social security and Medicare and the VA Hospitals —- In general, not all Christians are selfish, but it seems to me the most selfish people in our country all call themselves **Christians**.
If they understand Christ’s message they are full on hypocrites. If they don’t, then I am truly bewildered by how readily so *many* people will dedicate their lives to a Figure with so little understanding of what that Figure taught.
Does anybody else find it totally crazy that the most vociferous opponents of taxes to provide a comprehensive social safety net and medical care for the poor insist they are devout ***Christians***?
@Bdaman: I agree with those positions, Islam is obviously a religion that enjoys Constitutional protection.
@Buddha: Right, because you think anybody that complains about being falsely accused is obviously guilty. And since anyone that doesn’t complain is obviously giving silent assent to the charge, you are handed the perfect tool to ostracize the people you don’t like. Even if their goals are aligned with yours, as mine ARE, if they don’t march in lockstep to the strategies you have devised, they must be marginalized at every opportunity. Level false charges against them. Imply their vehement protestations of innocence are just more evidence of their guilt. Make sure their is only ONE liberal voice here, because when liberals disagree it is just confusing and dilutes your message.
Everybody look, now. Buddha leads by example.
DOJ Files Brief In Favor Of Tenn. Mosque
The Department of Justice today filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit in Murfreesboro, Tenn., where opponents of a new mosque are trying to stop its construction. In the brief, the DOJ declares that Islam is a religion and is entitled to freedom of expression.
In a press release, the U.S. attorney for the middle district of Tennessee, Jerry E. Martin, acknowledged that the lawsuit is a “local matter,” but that the DOJ wants to “vigorously support” the decision of local authorities to grant the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro building permits.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/doj_files_brief_in_favor_of_tenn_mosque.php