Why Have Religious Subsidies

I am starting this here to keep from taking another thread off topic. The issue came up on the thread http://EvC Forum: Dawkins mp;m=4#4From whatever: From crashfrog Why not? Why should established religions get a break when individual faith does not? Why should religions NOT support the socio-economic system that allows them to operate in peace and comfort? If a church is broken into do they not call the police? If they have a fire do they not get help from the fire department? Do not the civil laws written and passed by elected legislatures against vandalism and hate mongering and the like benefit these institutions? Property taxes go purely to local costs of the socio-economic system that help preserve the freedom of the churches. And how many shady or quasi-religious operations are using religion as an excuse to avoid taxes when they are operating a business type operation?Do you have any idea how big this subsidy is? According to http://www.deism.com/tax_religions.htm And who is benefiting? Roughly 20 to 30% of the population ... according to one survey (see U.S. Public opinion polls on religion) "19% regularly practice their religion." while on another survey "About 54% of respondents said they are religious, but 45% of those said they are more likely to follow their own instincts than denominational teachings" (leaving 55% of 54% = 30%). Looks to me like a small fraction of the US population is getting a massive subsidy while others of equal faith are not. Is this not discrimination?What is one good reason to let religious institutions skip paying their dues?This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 20:15 AMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 20:16 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Your forgetting foundations are exempt to from taxation, do you think its fair for the foundation against religion to be exempt from taxation to use this tax free money to wage a war against the christian belief in this country, in the courts, etc...P.S. What I'm saying you have equal tax shelters of money for the athiests too, 501 c3's is not just shelters for religion, and how is the freedom of religion foundations lawsuits to communities expressing their freedom of religious expression, showing they are responsible in the sheltering of their donated money, to attack the constitution, What I'm saying is when paleontologists recieve federal moneys, they should be held accountable, too, etc...Personally the freedom against religion is an example of a foundation that should have their 501 c3 exemption pulled, The constitution clearly protects churches from being restricted in their free exercise thereof, while the freedom from religion, and other paranoid foundations, continually are attacking this freedom of free exercise thereof, in the courts, however, were in the last days, so like in Jerusalem (kjv Jeremiah 8:8-9) where they rejected the law of the Lord, in favor of abominations, in america it may take an act of congress to protect the sanctity of marriage, to stop the freedom of religion and like foundations from continually creating lawsuits contrary to the constitution, etc...I'm still waiting to see if the mayor in California will be prosecuted for breaking federal law, for marrying same sex individuals, if Martha Stewart gets a year for a little violation the mayor should get life, without parole, don't you think thats fair, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-09-2004]

The argument on property tax is the same for all -- all such institutions benefit from the socio-economic system, and should be willing to share in the costs of upkeep and maintenance of same.Personally I think institutions that have organized to counteract the efforts of religions groups trying to impose their faith on others have taken to the tax exempt status to gain the same advantages that the religious institutions enjoy while they act to undermine education, restrict the availability of some medical procedures and subvert the constitution.However, I also think you are a little paranoid about what institutions are "against" religions. Certainly secular organizations like museums can be religion neutral. What are you going to hold paleontologists accountable for other than reporting on the facts of their discoveries and the best explanations for them based on solid science? Certainly property taxes do not restrict the free exercise of religion, especially if they help fund the very institutions that protect those freedoms -- the courts, the police, etc...Ridiculous marriage laws \ Martha Stewart are off topic and there is a thread for that issue.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I don't think property taxes are that fair to begin with. Just because one has property I think it's erroneous to assume that they have the income to pay taxes.Churches should be exempt from property tax because they don't make much money. In general I think the positive social benefit from church organizations and activity outweigh the possibility that shady doings will occur.What's the tax status if you run one of those MegaChurches with the Starbucks right in em? (Doesn't anybody else think that's contrary to the Bible? Didn't Jesus whip the asses of moneychangers for doing less? I think the Bible is pretty clear that money and religion don't mix well.)

They do. Paleontologists recieve government grants because evolution is true and creationism is religious lies.The fact that it's evolutionists with the money and creationists without is proof that the process is correctly weeding out bad science.

I was under the impression that property tax was only paid when you sell the property (or in some cases, inherit/recieve it) and not while just for owning it.This is the way it's done in Sweden, and while it presents some troubles, it does not in any way stand on the basis of house = income.The bad side effects is in some cases when you inherit a house from your parents which you've been living in for decades, and you are then forced to sell the house just to cover the inheritance tax.

I guess it's different in the US. You pay taxes on the property you own, ever year. It funds things like schools and emergency services. Here they often drop a big tax lien on it, which I guess is like a mortgage you have to pay off if you want to sell it.

Abby, me friend, I've gotta go with you here. You're right and I do agree with Whatever that you need to remember to include all the secularist ones. Non profits should pay their share of the property taxes, including my own church. The abuse is widespread. Non profits unfairly compete with tax paying businesses in everything from food service to bowling alleys.

I think you've got a point about that. Not-for-profit organizations should be limited to education and volunteerism. It is unfair when they represent competition to local businesses.Sometimes they exist, though, because local business is insufficient to meet a community need. For instance, co-op telecomunications organizations in small rural towns. My hometown has a municipal liquor store, the only one in town.

Property tax in the US is based on two things: the appraised value of the property and the millage rate of the (local) taxing government, it is paid every year in one or more installments. Inheritance tax is different and there are ways to shelter homes from Inheritance taxes. There also used to be (federal) capital gain tax when a property sells to be like a sales tax on the change in value, but I believe that has been done away with. These are also instigated by different levels of government.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

There will always be those that need to reconsider their assets.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I think there's an argument that taxing churches represents a barrier to the free exercise of religion, which is unconstitutional.

You could also argue that the cost of providing electricity, water and sewer service, garbage collection, heating and air conditioning, etcetera, all combine to represent a barrier as well, to say nothing of the cost of acquiring the land and building the structure. There is no difference.Property tax is your bill for your share of the cost of services provided by local government.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I agree, though I disagree with how those taxes are collected. Nonetheless I think that churches pay their debt to the community in other ways, like the services they provide, the volunteering they do, etc.Persons in the community must find some value in chruches or else they wouldn't build them, don't you think?

Yah, like there's some large expensive edifices that have dwindled down to a dozen parishoners. I say, if it gets to that, it's time to sell to someone who will pay the taxes and downsize to someone's family room or a small bldg. If it's a denomination, usually they can subsidize the slow churches if they wish to keep them.