Forums | MacLife

Ribtorus wrote:

Aren't churches subsidised through tax exemptions?

Does the Gideon bible society get tax exemptions?

Is a tax exemption the same as using tax dollars?

Or is this going to evolve into the RIAA argument of "IT'S STEALING!"?

First off, nothing in science is taught as fact.  Its taught as theories, principles, and laws.  All of these words indicate that the idea behind them can be bent/broken (physics says that a bumble bee can't fly, but it does).

Now, in a science class, which is more appropriate to teach: a true scientific theory of evolution, with all its genetic and fossil record evidence to support it, or a creation myth that tells us that we were created from clay?  And don't kid yourself, Genesis is a creation myth.  There is no evidence to support it; its a archaic belief handed down from ancient times, and really has no more credibility than the Iroquois creation myth

NokX wrote:

so water isn't made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen?  we can't prove that?

No one said water wasnt anything. Science teaches that as far as we can tell right now, what the chemical makeup of water is. Later on though, we may learn something different though, so no one calls that a scientific fact except for people who dont understand how science works.

Donovan Osaya wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

Aren't churches subsidised through tax exemptions?

Does the Gideon bible society get tax exemptions?

Is a tax exemption the same as using tax dollars?

Or is this going to evolve into the RIAA argument of "IT'S STEALING!"?

It's preferential treatment, though, no?

Why aren't they taxed, anyway?

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Why aren't they taxed, anyway?

Churches are supposed to be non-profit (though not necessarily non-prophet, heh heh).  I'm not sure how or if non-profit organizations are taxed, but I would assume that they get tax exemptions as well.

Second, most of the churches that I've been involved in barely scrape through from year to year.  The tax revenue from 95% of churches would be pretty lean.

Third, I would assume that if the State started to tax churches, members would reduce monetary input and increase time/labor input (which is not taxable).  Church members are the only ones that contribute...and on a voluntary basis...to church revenue.  At least, again, in 95% of cases.  There are those big ol' mega-churches that probably have all sorts of other income sources.  In any case, the reduction in member donations that would result would again reduce any potential tax revenue dramatically.

Fourth, most churches that I've been involved in, and I would suspect again 95% of churches, contribute far more to their community than they take in return.  Every church still has to pay utility bills.  And most churches have very active "food closets", job and life counseling for those who can't afford it, money and resources on hand for emergencies that show up on their doorsteps (which happens at least several times a week for most churches), after school youth programs, reduced-cost daycare for single working moms, etc. etc. etc.  The fact of the matter is, churches play a role in communities that far outstrip what they take in from the community.  States, amazingly, realize this and rightly allow churches to function.

Summary:
-non-profit organizations are not heavily taxed in any case
-usually not very rich anyhow, minimal tax revenue potential
-minimally taxable in any case, since members would likely reduce monitary giving for other forms of service were taxtion to be imposed
-chruches, for the most part, contribute a great deal to their communities through services rendered

Those probably sum up the argument

Except that plenty of them are involved in political activities, no? Taking up collections for various causes and issues?

And not all the churches are shoestring operations. Taxes would be graduated, so the poor outfits wouldn't have to pay a dime, while the fat ones would have to pony up.

In any event, they still make use of government services and programs that are paid for with tax money. So in truth, yes ... tax dollars are supporting churches.

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In any event, they still make use of government services and programs that are paid for with tax money. So in truth, yes ... tax dollars are supporting churches.

You have, inadvertently I think, hit the nail on the head.

First of all, let me start with the caveat that the churches that I attend tend to be really, really non-political.  They are deeply involved in meeting the spiritual and physical needs of members and others in their immediate communities.

And the churches that I've been involved in are very leery of government money in any case.  All of the services that they render come from monetary or time/labor donations from members.

However, you are correct that many churches get "off the rails" and start to promote one politician or another with official events. (Note that I said "official events"...there is nothing to stop people from talking about politics in the foyer, but you can stop pamphlets from being handed out, etc.).  And some churches, no doubt, rely on government handouts.

This is, of course, rank hypocrisy; particularly when the same activist churches scream about separation of church and state.

The interesting thing to note is that it is the smaller, non-political churches that likely do the most good in the local community with the least in terms of government handouts...and they fuss the least about the "separation" issue because they have too many other things to worry about.  And it is often the smaller churches that are "outward looking" to their communities.  The larger churches, on the other hand, with all of their resources tend to be the more "inward looking" ones in which there is often a disconnect with their community.

Think about your neighborhood.  Does the big huge church down the way to much in way of community interaction?  Probably not, at least in relation to its size.  Now, take a gander at the smaller churches in the area, see what they are doing.  The contribution is probably disproportionate. 

With churches there seems to be an inverse relationship between size and community involvement.  It probably has something to do with the people that tend to attend such churches.

So, perhaps a threat of taxation would sock it to some of those big churches that have lost their true calling.  However, I am not happy using the force of the State to take on spiritual problems, so that is only hypothetical.

Yeah, the little United Church nearby does a ton of outreach and whatnot.

And can you imagine trying to appoint people to decide who gets taxed and who doesn't, especially in today's climate? Next step: civil war! Weeeha!

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Why aren't they taxed, anyway?

Churches are supposed to be non-profit (though not necessarily non-prophet, heh heh). 

Fourth, most churches that I've been involved in, and I would suspect again 95% of churches, contribute far more to their community than they take in return.  Every church still has to pay utility bills.  And most churches have very active "food closets", job and life counseling for those who can't afford it, money and resources on hand for emergencies that show up on their doorsteps (which happens at least several times a week for most churches), after school youth programs, reduced-cost daycare for single working moms, etc. etc. etc.

Dammit! That's what "The Government" is supposed to do! Churches don't need to be involved in that sort of thing.

Churches need to stay out of politics, then.

Hank Rearden wrote:

emaw_kc wrote:

Dammit! That's what "The Government" is supposed to do! Churches don't need to be involved in that sort of thing.

I assume that that was sarcasm.  If so, I agree.  If not, then you're off your rocker.

Yes, your sarcasmatron is functioning properly. Whenever I get into a discussion with one of my left-leaning friends about how "The Government" doesn't do enough to "help people,"  I try to point out that we should rely on people to help people (family, friends, neighbors and, yes, faith organizations).

I'm the first to admit that organized religion has been responsible for some pretty assholey things (crusades, inquisitions, beheadings, jihads, etc.), but organized religion is also responsible for the finest acts of compassion.

It's reflective of the human dichotomy that has the capacity to, as George Carlin puts it, create something as destructive as napalm, yet also something as whimsical and entertaining as silly putty.

Anyway, this is starting to lead to a Light Side/Dark Side Star Wars conversation, so let

Last edited by emaw_kc (2005-05-25 4:11 pm)

Occasionally, while an undergraduate, I procrastinated by reading amusing periodicals. By amusing, I do not mean publications such as Punch, but rather journals that could be viewed with a sort of ironic detachment. These included The New American (the journal of the John Birch Society), and Beijing News, which I read to increase my command of jingoism. One of these journals which struck me as particularly odd was a publication devoted to the non-religious study of religion containing, for example, dry technical explanations of the economic impact of tithing and models of the population biology of religious communities. I don't quite remember the name, though.

It has been noted, in less esoteric magazines, mind you, that the more successful churches, in terms of growth, are the ones that raise the opportunity cost associated with membership--thus discouraging the "free-riders" that distract from a quality religious experience.

Such a cost may be established by requiring a certain amount of community service from each member. The church might set up a soup kitchen, or a food pantry and employ its own members. But such institutions are not as necessary in a prosperous, egalitarian society, or even in a society in which the senate placates the masses with offers of bread.

It is thus apparent to me that aggressive lobbying on part of the church for a less compassionate, less caring government might just be beneficial to the religious health  of the faith based institution. Moreover, a vibrant capitalist class, unfettered by the chains of the SEC, OSHA, or the EPA, might just provide an effective demonstration of the presence of evil in today's world-- and perhaps even a approximation of the reality of eternal damnation in Satan's millworks.

Last edited by jerwin (2005-05-25 5:17 pm)

NokX wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

In reality, it boils down to this.  The crazy-Right in this country want the cake (public education) and to eat it too (i.e., to control it).  Moral of the above news story, and many like it...it ain't gonna happen.

is evolution fact?  no

so what's wrong with letting the kids know that?

is gravity a fact? no.

are the "laws of thermodynamics" fact? no.

everything is theory.

get over it.

Freezer mac wrote:

NokX wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

In reality, it boils down to this.  The crazy-Right in this country want the cake (public education) and to eat it too (i.e., to control it).  Moral of the above news story, and many like it...it ain't gonna happen.

is evolution fact?  no

so what's wrong with letting the kids know that?

is gravity a fact? no.

are the "laws of thermodynamics" fact? no.

everything is theory.

get over it.

This may be as good  time as any to reference Sokal:

Thirdly, the postmodern sciences overthrow the static ontological categories and hierarchies characteristic of modernist science. In place of atomism and reductionism, the new sciences stress the dynamic web of relationships between the whole and the part; in place of fixed individual essences (e.g. Newtonian particles), they conceptualize interactions and flows (e.g. quantum fields). Intriguingly, these homologous features arise in numerous seemingly disparate areas of science, from quantum gravity to chaos theory to the biophysics of self-organizing systems. In this way, the postmodern sciences appear to be converging on a new epistemological paradigm, one that may be termed an ecological perspective, broadly understood as ``recogniz[ing] the fundamental interdependence of all phenomena and the embeddedness of individuals and societies in the cyclical patterns of nature.''