Proton Soup said:sounds like you have a gospel truth of your own. maybe if you put out some signs, set up a tent and some chairs, people would come and listen to what you have to say.
zomgwtf said:What a rediculous response this was.
Pengwuino said:depending on the major...
but no, you pay to go to Harvard... you pay like mad.
Our new financial aid policy has dramatically reduced the amount families with incomes below $180,000 are expected to pay, and parents of families with incomes below $60,000 are not expected to contribute at all to college costs. We no longer consider home equity as a resource in our determination of a family contribution, and students are not expected to take out loans, which have been replaced by need-based Harvard scholarship. This new program has reduced the cost to middle income families by one-third to one-half, making the price of a Harvard education for students on financial aid comparable to the cost of in-state tuition and fees at the nation’s leading public universities.
The Archdiocese of Portland (controlling authority of the Roman Catholic church in Maine) spearheaded the drive to repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law. The church took special collections for Stand For Marriage Maine and organized petition drives to repeal the same-sex marriage law. They were not the only church to support SFMM and try to repeal the law, but they were the most prominent. Because they are a church, they are not subject to the same reporting that other politically-active organizations are. Googling "Diocese of Portland" and "anti-gay" for instance, will get you more hits than you'll ever care to read. Some of the more acceptable ones (per forum rules) are newspaper articles that are now archived and unavailable for free. I don't know the status of the lawsuit, but there was a suit filed aimed to remove the church's tax-exempt status because of their political activities.Hurkyl said:Turbo: Can you provide citation for your main concerns? It sounds more like rumor and fear mongering rather than confirmed fact.I did some brief searching, and came across this document:
From page 3:
To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an
organization must meet the following requirements
(covered in greater detail throughout this publication):
- the organization must be organized and operated
exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other
charitable purposes,- net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any
private individual or shareholder,
[*] no substantial part of its activity may be attempting
to influence legislation,
[*] the organization may not intervene in political
campaigns, and- the organization’s purposes and activities may not
be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
Your beef with political action committees belong in another thread where they aren't obscuring what is ostensibly the topic of this thread -- tax-exemption as it relates to religious groups.turbo-1 said:The National Organization for Marriage ...
Please feel free to move the post or delete the reference to NOM if you wish. My point is that the church provided manpower and cash (about 1/2 million dollars) to get proposition 1 on the ballot and they were aided by some very wealthy out-of-state donors. It appears that the church was acting as a PAC, in violation of the IRS rules regarding tax-exempt status.Hurkyl said:Your beef with political action committees belong in another thread where they aren't obscuring what is ostensibly the topic of this thread -- tax-exemption as it relates to religious groups.
No.Hurkyl said:Really, I think I'm totally confused as to what your point is.
Let me ask a specific question: do you have any objection to a religious group being tax-exempt if they adhere to the bullet points I quoted?
If the bullet points are violated (and there is not some further relevant law), then they shouldn't get tax-exempt status. Case closed.turbo-1 said:I bolded the two points that were most relevant to the discussion.
And can one not similarly say " ...depending on the church, and depending on the nature of the specific services it provides ..."?Pengwuino said:depending on the major...
I agree. To the extent that any church deserves tax-exempt status, so does Westboro Baptist. So also, would any extremist madrasa that is careful about how it walks the legal line (by knowing and sticking within its amendment limitations).Hurkyl said:Well, turns out I'm up for a brief round of devil's advocate.
Their campaigns seem to target public opinion, spread the word, that sort of thing. So unless their message happens to fall in the realm where we the Government is allowed to legislate religious content, they start undertaking illegal activities, or they start operating for profit, then yes, they should enjoy a tax-exempt status.
No, they should all have to pay property, etc. taxes.turbo-1 said:Should they all be exempt from taxation?
My feeling, too. If an organization is a charitable enterprise, they can take a load off public services, and they deserve to be tax-exempt. I certainly don't think that the Salvation Army needs to be taxed because they do so much good, and they target their efforts locally, using volunteers, as much as possible.ThomasT said:No, they should all have to pay property, etc. taxes.
vela said:I think this claim that churches should have to earn their tax-exempt status by doing good for the local community is a red herring. The reason for the tax exemption is to keep the government from promoting some religions over others via the tax code.
Is that really the reason? I hadn't heard that argument before. I always thought the argument was one along the lines of promoting the common good.vela said:The reason for the tax exemption is to keep the government from promoting some religions over others via the tax code.
I see it being an obvious violation of the Separation clause if some religious organizations were taxed at different rates than others, and therefore can't imagine it would have any hope of surviving judicial challenge. I don't, therefore - at least not yet - see that making them tax-exempt is a necessary means of protecting Separation (I'm not even convinced it is a sufficient means). But then, maybe I'm just not thinking as creatively as a determined Congressperson (plus staff) might.Frankly, I'd rather put up with the abuses of some churches than giving Congress the power to tax churches. I can only imagine what kinds of taxes would have been passed after 9/11 targeting Muslims if Congress had that power.
If one or more of the televangelical empires were targeted, I would expect their tax-exempt status would fall quickly, leading to a bulk review of the tax-statuses of all "religious" non-charitable organizations at higher court levels.Gokul43201 said:II see it being an obvious violation of the Separation clause if some religious organizations were taxed at different rates than others, and therefore can't imagine it would have any hope of surviving judicial challenge. I don't, therefore - at least not yet - see that making them tax-exempt is a necessary means of protecting Separation (I'm not even convinced it is a sufficient means).
Ah, I see the merit in that argument. My previous objection, therefore, is withdrawn.turbo-1 said:If one or more of the televangelical empires were targeted, I would expect their tax-exempt status would fall quickly, leading to a bulk review of the tax-statuses of all "religious" non-charitable organizations at higher court levels.
turbo-1 said:If one or more of the televangelical empires were targeted, I would expect their tax-exempt status would fall quickly, leading to a bulk review of the tax-statuses of all "religious" non-charitable organizations at higher court levels.
Here's a summary of a 1970 Supreme Court ruling about the religious tax exemptions:Gokul43201 said:Is that really the reason? I hadn't heard that argument before. I always thought the argument was one along the lines of promoting the common good.
A justification for a blanket exemption is to avoid the possibility of messing with the tax code to tax some religious organizations more than other through non-transparent methods. Obviously, if a law targeted, say, the Catholic church by name, it would quickly be rejected by the courts as violating the First Amendment. On the other hand, the government could achieve the same result by jacking up taxes in regions which just happen to have a large concentration of Catholic churches if churches weren't exempt.I see it being an obvious violation of the Separation clause if some religious organizations were taxed at different rates than others, and therefore can't imagine it would have any hope of surviving judicial challenge. I don't, therefore - at least not yet - see that making them tax-exempt is a necessary means of protecting Separation (I'm not even convinced it is a sufficient means). But then, maybe I'm just not thinking as creatively as a determined Congressperson (plus staff) might.
Agreed. And thanks for the link.vela said:Obviously, if a law targeted, say, the Catholic church by name, it would quickly be rejected by the courts as violating the First Amendment. On the other hand, the government could achieve the same result by jacking up taxes in regions which just happen to have a large concentration of Catholic churches if churches weren't exempt.
I think this is part of the general problem with the influence of any special interest over the local, state, and federal government, but I can certainly understand why people get angry with a church trying to influence elections while not having to play by the same rules as other organizations. I certainly felt that way here in California when Prop. 8 passed largely due to the efforts and backing of the Mormon and Catholic church.CRGreathouse said:Fair enough. But there's also reason to be concerned about the power of, e.g., the Church of Scientology over local governments, which seems to cut in the other direction. Thoughts?
I'm primarily interested in arguments of what is *right* or *desirable* rather than what might or might not be allowable under a particular interpretation of the legal system as it stands now.