American Atheists V. Irs

[Destino]

Call me old fashioned, but I think the government should be making regulations based in behavior and not beliefs, period.

Then support the end of separation and religions can be just like every other group. As long as the wall stays up religions are not like every other group and the government has no business regulating them as if they were.

[alexey]

Then support the end of separation and religions can be just like every other group. As long as the wall stays up religions are not like every other group and the government has no business regulating them as if they were.

I'd say government not getting involved in religion IS the separation of church and state. Any special treatment one way or another = government involved in religion.

[The Sisko]

Free food and a pamphlet still sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

 

Maybe so but that begs the question whether they're doing good because of the potential to gain converts or because it's the right thing to do. If I were down on my luck and needed help I'd resent the proselytizing.

[Zguy28]

Maybe so but that begs the question whether they're doing good because of the potential to gain converts or because it's the right thing to do. If I were down on my luck and needed help I'd resent the proselytizing.

When you are down on your luck, you don't really care. At least I didn't. Christians have a commission from Jesus to make disciples. Likewise, the apostles taught that because God gave so much, we should give. God is called many times in the bible "Father to the fatherless" and that he cares for widows and orphans and the poor. Christians are being conformed to the image of Christ and have his spirit within. So we reflect Christ to the world in his caring. True love (agape) in the bible is sacrificial and compassionate. Such is Christ, such should be the church. Both in eternal matters (salvation) and temporal (compassion and relief).

[zoony]

I SUSPECT that you're probably right. But I confess I'm not at all certain of it.

Absolutely incorrect at my church (Methodist)

We do restrict how often they can come. So they have to register (they can come once a month). And we do ask if there are any prayer concerns they have or if they need any spiritual help. Not because of a mandate but because it is the brotherly thing to do

After that they are free to shop the food pantry. We will even walk it out to your car for you

The church we belong to now don't have the funds at this time to have a food pantry. Struggling right now due to a slow economy and low membership. Our Pastor had to get a 30 % cut in pay and now has a second job as a school bus driver. Thankfully we have the mortgage paid off, but we have a leaky roof that is in need of continuous repair. But God works, and maybe someday we'll have a food pantry for the ones in need.

Food pantries are incredibly expensive. I am trying to convince our church to invest more in storage space so we can shop at Food Distributors and save thousands. You have to buy in very large quantities though

Our pantry is not funded by the church, no room in the budget. It is 100% volunteers donations, and it will occasionally shut down when funds dry up. Thankfully this has been a good year

[alexey]

Work of churches is so important but it's hard to ensure adequate coverage. It's too bad our society did not yet decide to provide proper social support for all people.

[Destino]

I'd say government not getting involved in religion IS the separation of church and state. Any special treatment one way or another = government involved in religion.

If equality were the same thing then why not get rid of the wall of separation entirely? Treat religion like any other entity. If you say that is the same thing as separation then let's explore that. I'm sure that it's not the same thing but since you made the claim I'll let you walk down that logical path.

[Renegade7]

Any religious organization that makes more then $1 million a year should be taxed just like any other business, helping the community or not. I respect tax exempt status for the smaller churches because they need everything they can get and do a lot of good for their people and people they don't even know, even atheists.

I get tired of people that don't believe in God going after people that do, this feels like another case of that, mind your business on the level of tax benefits who believe in something you don't.

[alexey]

If equality were the same thing then why not get rid of the wall of separation entirely? Treat religion like any other entity. If you say that is the same thing as separation then let's explore that. I'm sure that it's not the same thing but since you made the claim I'll let you walk down that logical path.

i think the wall of separation means no special treatment under the law based on religion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

i think the wall of separation means no special treatment under the law based on religion.

That's not a wall and that's not separation, what you're describing is what many on the Christian Right want because that would allow (under equal protection) full participation by churches in all things governmental, something that Atheist and Civil Liberties groups have strongly resisted. Your argument is that those groups are wrong, if there is a separation between church and state and there is NO other separation between the state and any other group then the Constitution has by that alone set up a unique relationship with churches which provides them with zero tax liability. And ironically enough, the fact that atheist groups have routinely denied that being an atheist is a type of faith/religion (a discussion that has been had on this very message board) then that removes atheist groups from participation in that special relationship. So let's say that the way the article presents the relationship is correct, the Atheist groups are then complaining about a special/unique relationship/division that they themselves have insisted upon....they just don't like one of the characteristics of that relationship.

Which seems IMO hypocritical.

[CrabR]

they should pay taxes they use the same public services as i use. Why should I help subsidize a chruch/religion. Let their flock pay the taxes. If they are actually doing charitable work then they can deduct it

 

I looked a children's religious charity my mother was giving to. As I recall it was 30% administration, 10% food 10% clothing and 50% reading material/school aides.     The reading material/school aides. were bibles and other religious stuff printed by the Ministry. As far as i am concerned only 20% should be deductible that is for the food and clothing

[hunterx]

Separation of Church and State

Tax churches and then they get FULL involvement.

Pick your poison.

BTW, it isn't just churches...it's all religious groups that file under 501c3, and we know that atheism isn't a religion so they can file as a non-profit organization just like any other secular non- profit.

 

They are already involved in politics....Churches should not say a dang thing about political candidates or their views if they don't want taxed.  They should also not "skirt" that system by bringing up specific points in the bible to preach toward one candidates views or another.

 

The title doesn't make much sense, but this is a GREAT article about Church and it's involvement in Government as well as lack of involvement in "people."

 

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/08/the-obamacare-question-pastors-shun/

[AsburySkinsFan]

they should pay taxes they use the same public services as i use. Why should I help subsidize a chruch/religion. Let their flock pay the taxes. If they are actually doing charitable work then they can deduct it

So the same goes for secular non-profits then too I assume?

BTW, you use the word subsidize, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Subsidize: support (an organization or activity) financially.

synonyms: give money to, pay a subsidy to, contribute to, invest in, sponsor, support, fund, finance, underwrite;

[AsburySkinsFan]

They are already involved in politics....Churches should not say a dang thing about political candidates or their views if they don't want taxed.

And yet, the Supreme Court has affirmed the right to be able to talk about issues just not endorsing candidates.

They should also not "skirt" that system by bringing up specific points in the bible to preach toward one candidates views or another.

Why? Because those points in the Bible disagree with you?

You realize that Women's suffrage, Civil Rights Movement found much of their foundation in faith groups and in scripture, not to mention William Wilberforce's fight against slavery. I guess by your argument those movements should have never been allowed to affect the politics of their day because they found their basis in scripture......or is it just that you don't want preaching against the stuff you like? If so, that seems a bit silly.

[alexey]

That's not a wall and that's not separation, what you're describing is what many on the Christian Right want because that would allow (under equal protection) full participation by churches in all things governmental, something that Atheist and Civil Liberties groups have strongly resisted....

I do not know what you mean by "full participation". Have these groups resisted something other than government endorsement of religion?

Your argument is that those groups are wrong, if there is a separation between church and state and there is NO other separation between the state and any other group then the Constitution has by that alone set up a unique relationship with churches which provides them with zero tax liability. And ironically enough, the fact that atheist groups have routinely denied that being an atheist is a type of faith/religion (a discussion that has been had on this very message board) then that removes atheist groups from participation in that special relationship. So let's say that the way the article presents the relationship is correct, the Atheist groups are then complaining about a special/unique relationship/division that they themselves have insisted upon....they just don't like one of the characteristics of that relationship.

Which seems IMO hypocritical.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying. Let me go over my thinking again and maybe you can tell me where I am going wrong.

The government passes laws. These laws apply to everybody, and they include laws about taxation. As a part of tax laws, the government outlined some basic rules for entities that provide a particular kind of services. Those entities get special treatment under the tax because of what they do. All of that its fine with me, and I think its fine with those atheist/secular groups as well. The problem comes up when the government adds special treatment not based on what organizations do but on what they claim to believe.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I do not know what you mean by "full participation". Have these groups resisted something other than government endorsement of religion?

Government subsidies, full on candidate support and endorsement etc, the same abilities that every other non-profit can engage in that are denied to faith groups.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying. Let me go over my thinking again and maybe you can tell me where I am going wrong.The government passes laws. These laws apply to everybody, and they include laws about taxation. As a part of tax laws, the government outlined some basic rules for entities that provide a particular kind of services. Those entities get special treatment under the tax because of what they do. All of that its fine with me, and I think its fine with those atheist/secular groups as well. The problem comes up when the government adds special treatment not based on what organizations do but on what they claim to believe.

The Separation clause already sets up a special relationship, i.e. No relationship. Your argument seeks to maintain wall between churches and government influence and subsidy, all while taking the church's money. You don't get to do both.

[alexey]

Government subsidies, full on candidate support and endorsement etc, the same abilities that every other non-profit can engage in that are denied to faith groups.

Oh I see what you're saying now. I suppose that's another reason not to give special treatment to religious non-profits.

The Separation clause already sets up a special relationship, i.e. No relationship. Your argument seeks to maintain wall between churches and government influence and subsidy, all while taking the church's money. You don't get to do both.

Maybe that depends on your frame of reference. I see it this way:

I donate money to a food bank. I can deduct that money on my taxes. Government subsidizes food banks.

I donate money to a church. I can deduct that money on my taxes. Government subsidizes churches.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Oh I see what you're saying now. I suppose that's another reason not to give special treatment to religious non-profits.

Yet once you start taxing churches then you have to afford them the same access and participation, again you can't have it both ways. So if you don't want ACTUAL subsidies paid to churches then you can't tax them, lest we end up with taxation without representation, and as I recall there was a war fought over that.

Maybe that depends on your frame of reference. I see it this way:I donate money to a food bank. I can deduct that money on my taxes. Government subsidizes food banks.I donate money to a church. I can deduct that money on my taxes. Government subsidizes churches.

But that isn't a subsidy, by definition a subsidy is money paid by the gov't to an organization. You don't get to change the usage of words just to fit your argument.

[alexey]

Yet once you start taxing churches then you have to afford them the same access and participation, again you can't have it both ways. So if you don't want ACTUAL subsidies paid to churches then you can't tax them, lest we end up with taxation without representation, and as I recall there was a war fought over that.

I do not understand... Are you saying that if government treated churches the same way as other non-profits, it would have to give them subsidies? Why is that?

I want the government to subsidize particular activities. Advancing religion is not one of those activities. If churches get subsidies for doing activities that I want the government to subsidize, no problem. Where is the desire to have it both ways?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I do not understand... Are you saying that if government treated churches the same way as other non-profits, it would have to give them subsidies? Why is that?

Because they would have to be eligible for all the same things non-religious non-profits can receive under the equal protection statute.

I want the government to subsidize particular activities. Advancing religion is not one of those activities. If churches get subsidies for doing activities that I want the government to subsidize, no problem. Where is the desire to have it both ways?

Because churches serve to advance religion. You want to subsidize them for doing something other than what they do. What's more is how can you tell the difference in what activities you're paying for? The money goes into the same account and a certain amount is used for the thing you like which simply allows the church to offset its costs on its other activities, the only place your thinking even makes sense is on paper because in reality the type of subsidy you support allows the church to advance religion with the other money it used to spend on the activity you're now subsidizing.

[alexey]

Because they would have to be eligible for all the same things non-religious non-profits can receive under the equal protection statute.

Because churches serve to advance religion. You want to subsidize them for doing something other than what they do. What's more is how can you tell the difference in what activities you're paying for? The money goes into the same account and a certain amount is used for the thing you like which simply allows the church to offset its costs on its other activities, the only place your thinking even makes sense is on paper because in reality the type of subsidy you support allows the church to advance religion with the other money it used to spend on the activity you're now subsidizing.

Churches do much more than advance religion... but yeah if you're getting money from the government, you better be able to show that you're spending it the way you are supposed to.

[Corcaigh]

A few hurdles in accounting shouldn't be a barrier to anything ... non-profits and commercial organizations that receive grants and contracts from the government are required to properly account for their labor and expenses in performing the work. This includes allocating overhead and indirect costs appropriately using a cost basis which is documented and approved by the contract officer.

[Zguy28]

they should pay taxes they use the same public services as i use. Why should I help subsidize a chruch/religion. Let their flock pay the taxes. If they are actually doing charitable work then they can deduct it

Don't their flocks pay taxes? And what public services do the church (in an organization sense) use for free that you do not? Is not the church actually people (who pay taxes), including the minister? You're not subsidizing because you are not giving.

[Elessar78]

The "separation" concept has been thrown around a lot here but it never actually appears in the Constitution.

 

First amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The "separation" concept has been thrown around a lot here but it never actually appears in the Constitution.

First amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[/size]

And yet the Separation of Church and State interpretation has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court. Which means that the Separation of Church and State is Constitutional. So it isn't just some "concept" and it hasn't just been "thrown out there" it is the law of the land. The only way it can be changed now is a different SCOTUS ruling or a Constitutional amendment....likelihood on either of those two 0%.