Interesting question Ian poses: if a church in the US advocates for a certain political position, should it lose tax exempt status? What are the issues? Would it not be better for churches to stand on their own? Isn't tax freedom a form of state support? As a somewhat recently reconfirmed church-goer in another country, I really only have observer status but it's an interesting question.
Group Project: Separation Of Church And State
Posted by on Thursday, November 6, 2008 in - 19 comments

Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - November 6, 2008 9:21 AM
I say remove the tax exempt status of churches and charities. Let there be no examination of what an organization does, other than that they don't violate the criminal law and file their taxes on time.
Hans - November 6, 2008 9:27 AM
I agree with Ben.
sean - November 6, 2008 9:59 AM
I agree with Hans and Ben. Any form of tax exeption is a form of endorsement and support.
Alan - November 6, 2008 10:09 AM
What about this?
sean - November 6, 2008 10:38 AM
Wow. I'm surprised more people/groups haven't acted on that to declare more places Clergy Residences.
Ben (The Tiger) - November 6, 2008 10:49 AM
I'd abolish it.
The point is, clergy should be able to say dingbat things from the pulpit without fearing financial repercussions (other than the simple after-effects of antagonizing their congregations).
And that means that there should be no tax exemption to worry about losing.
sean - November 6, 2008 10:54 AM
AND dingbat groups like the Scientologists should be barred from receiving tax exemptions by taking a whacky sci-fi-based philosophy cult and turning it into a "religion" for profit and protection.
Alan - November 6, 2008 10:59 AM
There is a large body of Scientology cases from, I think, the 1980s in the Ontario courts you may want to review.
Ben (The Tiger) - November 6, 2008 11:02 AM
So we're agreed -- others don't want to subsidize dingbat groups, and I want to preserve the freedom of dingbats to express their dingbattery, and so we compromise by saying that they ought to be liable for taxation just like any other citizen or group.
Awesome.
Hans - November 6, 2008 11:05 AM
Again, I agree with Ben. (And he said it so eloquently, too!)
Alan - November 6, 2008 11:06 AM
I clearly need to recruit more social conservatives...
sean - November 6, 2008 11:14 AM
Again, I agree with Ben and Hans.
Sean - November 6, 2008 7:58 PM
I see that persons angry with the passing of Proposition 8 are a tad unhappy, and rightly so. They are starting a movement to strip the Mormon church of its staus as a religion or something like that. Three double ewes followed by mormonsstoleourright then a period then the word com.
Thomas - November 7, 2008 12:36 AM
The origin of separation of church and state is that there is no official government religion. Anything more is reading too much into the issue.
I don't really have an opinion on the tax question but I don't really see it related to the Title of the post.
Alan - November 7, 2008 8:26 AM
Maybe because you haven't inquired very deeply into the question.
Ben (The Tiger) - November 7, 2008 9:27 AM
My issue with the tax thing is, a whole lot of discourse is chilled by the question, "Oh, no! Will we lose our tax exemption?"
So I want to protect the churches from the state.
Others say (justifiably), "Why are we subsidizing these people?"
And I say to any potential complainants, "If you don't like paying taxes, well, vote in some nice friendly libertarians who will cut taxes across the board!"
sean - November 7, 2008 10:37 AM
I just don't think anyone outside of individuals of low income deserve special tax status or breaks unless said special status or breaks helps the economy.
Thomas - November 7, 2008 3:36 PM
I have Alan, a Poli Sci degree and 6 years of working in the field in DC, I just don't care.
Alan - November 7, 2008 4:50 PM
...I just don't care.
Which is why you aren't thinking that deeply about it.