Do Churches Deserve Tax Breaks?

These certainly display why you are confused. You are concentrating on the "religion" issue, when, for both of your scenarios, religion matters nothing to your justification.

You are focusing on the typical tangential qualities of a church (charitable, community based) that can be fulfilled by any organization, while ignoring the necessary quality of a church (religion) that cannot be fulfilled by any organization.

So to clear confusion, ask yourself if religion is a quality that deserves special consideration from government.

Yes, and purposefully so. Those aspects you point out (charity, support of a community) are - to me - the only real benefit such an entity could provide.

Interesting perspective you have. I view the generic (and perhaps steriotypical) qualities of fellowship, support, charity, giving and community support as the only reason any such organizations could have any basis for consideration. Do you place worth in the religious teachings/reinforcements these places provide?

Yes, and purposefully so. Those aspects you point out (charity, support of a community) are - to me - the only real benefit such an entity could provide.

Interesting perspective you have. I view the generic (and perhaps steriotypical) qualities of fellowship, support, charity, giving and community support as the only reason any such organizations could have any basis for consideration. Do you place worth in the religious teachings/reinforcements these places provide?

Giving churches tax breaks violates the separation of church and state.

Can you really "rest easily" with that sort of activism? Surely you would not expect the PACs to acr independent of the pastors' wishes. Don't you think that Justin may have been on track when he said: "Churches may as well get into laundering money because that's sort of what it is."

How so? The first amendment prohibits government from establishing an official religion, from preferring one religion over another, and from preferring religion to no religion. Giving churches and similar religious institutions tax breaks does not establish an official religion, does not make one religion preferred over another, nor do tax breaks to churches promote religion over no religion. I do not see the violation.

MFtP - That's all well and fine, but I still do not see a First Amendment violation.

As it stands, charitable organizations receive tax exemptions depending upon how much of their income is spent on charitable activities. Most Kiwanis clubs have some measure of tax exempt status.

So, we have a system wherein religious organizations and secular charitable organizations can receive tax exempt status. The system is far from perfect, but the tax exempt status of churches does not seem to violate the First Amendment, even if said status does violate the political philosophy of some people - for example, the tax exempt status of many churches violates my philosophy of politics, even though I do not see a First Amendment violation involved.

Again, the First Amendment prohibits government from establishing an official religion, from preferring one religion over another, and from preferring religion to no religion. Giving churches and similar religious institutions tax breaks does not establish an official religion, does not make one religion preferred over another, nor do tax breaks to churches promote the practice religion over no religious practice.

I'm sorry, but if any organization can receive benefit from the government because of its religious affiliation alone, that is promotion of religious organizations over secular organizations.

I think it is an endorsement of religion, as it encourages religious establishments to start because all secular establishments cost more. I think it violates the separation of church of state and the first amendment. Even if it doesn't, however, I am opposed.

In my opinion there are no just "religious rights", rather all of these rights are simply guaranteed by other basic rights.

Dewey wrote:

Do you think the other basic rights would bar the government from establishing a single state church? If so, please explain. Thanks!

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

It depends very much on how it goes about doing it. If this government church pays for itself and no one is compelled by the government or other entity to belong to this church then I see no issue.

Once we get into that realm, however, we are beginning to lose the qualities that make the government what it is.

Can we go over this again?

I understood you to say in effect that Amendment I was not necessary to protect religious rights because they are protected by the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I questionned you about that because I could not see how the other rights would prevent the government from establishing a single state church.

Please elucidate. Thanks.
.

Okay, but that isn't the case. Churches do not receive these benefits simply because they are churches, but because they are not-for-profit organizations.

Can we go over this again?

I understood you to say in effect that Amendment I was not necessary to protect religious rights because they are protected by the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I questionned you about that because I could not see how the other rights would prevent the government from establishing a single state church.

Please elucidate. Thanks.
.

Didymos Thomas has corrected the mistaken idea that many of us have had about the First Amendment. It does not, as I claimed at the outset of this discussion, draw any "boundary between government and church". The term "separation of church and state" so commonly used to describe it now is a distortion, really a reversal, of what Thomas Jefferson meant when he used that phrase.

The amendment says exactly what the founders wanted and no more. They chose their words very carefully. They wanted Christian principles to run the nation but they did not want one denomination to run the nation. They wanted to place all sects and denominations of Christians on the same equal footing. The amendment does not provide one whit of support for the court decisions and laws excluding or limiting the churches' political activities..

OK, the churches really do have the right to practice politics. (A move is afoot to challenge the constitutionality of the laws barring such practice.) Now that I understand that, do I still object to their tax exemptions (other than for their charitable operations)? The answer is that I object even more strenuously. Now, I don't even have the satisfaction that I and other non-religious people had of getting something for our money. We were paying the churches to abstain from any direct injection of their faith-driven ideas into our political process. Now, or at least soon, they can inject to their hearts' and souls' content.

Heavy church involvement in politics was not so objectionable in the founders' time. Everyone was religious. Everyone was a Christian. But the times have changed and are continuing to change. Religion is declining.. Secularism is growing. Americans identifying themselves as religious now comprise only about 70% of the adults. Some 14% of them are not even affiliated with an organized religion. The advances of science and research are eliminating the need for words from on high to guide our political behavior.

In the interests of fair and equal treatment of our fast-growing secular segment of society, I believe we should amend the Constitution. This time around we should intentionally and finally separate church from state.

PS: I nearly forgot the main question of this discussion. As you would expect from such an opinionated guy as me, my belief is that we should tax the churches' non-charitable operations.

If we can agree that your "wall of separation" is a barrier only to the government -- more like a one-way door -- we are in complete agreement. I did not mean to imply that the First Amendment had become worthless. The problem is in its misinterpretation.

This idea that religious organizations should abstain from politics seems down right dangerous. Imagine a world wherein Martin Luther King Jr. remained politically inactive. Or Desmond Tut, or Thich Nhat Hahn, or any of the other great spiritual leaders who's political activism shaped the world.

Everyone should be allowed to take an active role in politics.