Those are not religious rules. They are what TJ described as "self-evident laws", and precede the religions who have adopted them.
And besides, we don't even have absolute laws against theft and murder - only theft and murder that's not ordered by the government.
The question is how do we legislate the difference between what the Church of Scientology is and what we think a church should be. How do we write a definition of "church" in the law that will exclude people like the Scientologists without allowing that law to then be leveraged against legitimate belief organizations that are merely unpopular?
Why is that the question?
Can't we just drop tax heaven for religious reasons across the board?
If religious organizations do charity work, they'd still be eligible for those branches being exempt under current laws.
I'm just waiting for a church to re-launch the old religious custom of temple prostitution. Can't be taxed, because it's religious... Right?
No. Your inability to think doesn't warrant a citation.
They are not tax free because they are religious, they are tax free because they are non-profit.
You are mistaken. To quote IRS:
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
Our government does not get to define a religion.
They most certainly do define it from a tax perspective - you have to fit criteria set by our government.
See what IRS says about it.
It is not allowed to say one persons beliefs are more correct then another.
No, that would be like saying '"two plus two equals five" is more correct than "two plus two equals three"'. I certainly don't want them to utter such stupidity either.
False dichotomy. Why can't it be both? All belief organizations are financial scams, at least to unbelievers. All financial scams require some degree of faith from their victims.
Not all belief organizations have a cash flow. There are a few - admittedly very few - that do not accept money from its members, do not pay, house or feed its clergy, and congregate in privately owned facilities.
Of course, the members may still be victims of a scam, but not a financial one. And they aren't scamming the government by paying their leaders tax-free dollars.
I'm not saying you're wrong but that's probably the weakest possible argument for religious tax exemption: Minus the clever wording, Jesus in that scene is explicitly telling the Jewish religious leaders that they should pay taxes.
Indeed. If they had god-coin without the picture of (and support of) the emperor on it, it would be different.
But as long as someone wants to use coin backed by a government, they should have the same obligations to the government as anyone else using that coin.
I think a good solution would be to end all tax exemptions, including churches and charities, and instead increase the spending on causes that reduces the need for churches and charities.
You realize that the tax-exemption does render unto Caesar and God what is theirs, right?
Yes, and that is the problem. It is a religious rule. Religious rules becoming law is unconstitutional.
The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam. Whether the followers have a belief or not is not something we can or should question, but we can certainly question the CoS.
Anyhow, I am all for all religious organizations losing their tax free status. It's built on a religious statement from the bible, that one should give god what belongs to god and the emperor what belongs to the emperor. Being that the law is religious based, it breaches the separation of state and church, and should be found unconstitutional.
Godwin in the first post. I'm proud,
Usually authors improve as they age
That does not correlate with my observations.
I would say that most authors get better for a few years, and then they decline. Much like musicians and other creative people.
Chinese are caching up to Americans, etc.
Hopefully not using nginx.
Call me a cynic, but I would think this is less of reaching out a hand than trying to find ways to offset the costs.
No, it's nothing like that. In a discussion of whether something is "systemic and widespread," the rate at which it occurs is relevant.
Yes, and the rate at which other things occur, like cops being good, or flowers sprouting roadside is irrelevant.
All that is relevant is how often cops go bad. Not how often cops do good things or eat donuts or change underwear.
Darwin and Wallace called this artificial selection. They might not have had any idea how prevalent artificial selection would become in a mere century. Today, it likely is the primary evolutionary process for almost all higher order species.
Natural selection is still valid - how could it be otherwise? It now selects for those who benefit from artificial selection.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
