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.
So it is not as difficult to create spurious call for papers.
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,
when building physical products we can't always afford to build and test new physical hardware for it to then crash and burn
Well, it should just follow the software industry's path breaking achievements in shaping user expectations and user behavior.
First there should be an EULA claiming the body and soul of the user, with added clauses to add more demands later any time.
Then user should be made to accept, "it is going to crash and burn. Can I get get something done in the mean time?".
If it builds we ship. Then the customer feedback is how we know whether what we built works. This is the software industry standard.
If you don't want to be evil, you will very generously call your product "in beta".
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
