Who Defines Religion?

[kalm]

Interesting question.

Property-tax battles are rarely sexy. But a case now in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, about whether the 21 religious brothers and sisters who run the Shrine of Our Lady of LaSalette in Attleboro should have to pay taxes, could have huge repercussions. The Court’s decision will be an important part of the ongoing debate in America about who defines religious practice—believers or bureaucrats—and whether religion itself should be afforded a special place under the law.................

On its face, the conflict in Attleboro is about the special status afforded to religious organizations under the law, which is being challenged by those who effectively see tax breaks as government sponsorship of religion. But the deeper issue is about who gets to define religion. Since its founding, Massachusetts has recognized the value religion gives to wider society, which is why the state has given churches certain tax breaks. The meaning of religion has expanded and changed since colonial days, and interpretations of the law should take that into account. In a pluralistic, multicultural country like the United States, believers have to be able to decide for themselves what constitutes their faith; that’s the only way to implement the existing law fairly.

Even the city has praised its value to the community. Jeremy Denlea, a city councilor whose district includes the shrine, called it “a great neighbor.” He said he hopes the shrine’s charitable endeavors, and its light display, will continue regardless of the court’s ruling, which is expected sometime this summer. But it’s fair for the city to try to collect taxes on the property, he said. “I think it’s unfortunate, and kind of uncomfortable right now,” he said. “But this is the cost of doing business in modern-day society.”...............

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... on/480903/

[bandl]

Catholics. The answer is catholics.

[YoUDeeMan]

Tax them all.

There is no reason that churches should be exempt from taxation.

Seriously...the world won't collapse.

It will be similar to the minimum wage issue...everyone will adjust. Except in this case the government will get more money...money which should be used on things that people vote on instead of the benefit going towards a specific religious group.

[89Hen]

Tax them all.

Secular charities too?

[YoUDeeMan]

Tax them all.

Secular charities too?

Yup.

Everyone will adjust.

[89Hen]

Secular charities too?

Yup.

Everyone will adjust.

How about your tax deduction for donating?

[Chizzang]

Meh...
The only issue I have is the property tax exemption
Which I think should be revoked - but otherwise all else should stay the same

For example:
The $600 Million dollars NYC would receive annually from Church property tax would be handy

[JoltinJoe]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

[andy7171]

Why do non-believers even care about this shit?

Catholics. The answer is catholics.

FOR THE fucking WIN!

[Chizzang]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

Yes... ^ Why yes I do
and I love how this issue gets Joe to talk separation of church and state
all of a sudden - that's HUGE - too hilarious Joe

[Grizalltheway]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

I'd settle for the government being able to effectively prosecute the perverts within the Church...just like they prosecute perverts everywhere else.

[Chizzang]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

I'd settle for the government being able to effectively prosecute the perverts within the Church...just like they prosecute perverts everywhere else.

Well sure...
but (as Joe already pointed out) there are only a few hundred pedophile rapists in the church
It's really not that big of a deal

[YoUDeeMan]

Yup.

Everyone will adjust.

How about your tax deduction for donating?

Never understood that deduction.

Why should I get a tax deduction, essentially taking away money from everyone, to support only things/people/ideas that I specifically want to support?

That makes no sense.

[YoUDeeMan]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

Odd argument...and not a good one.

Do I want the government to own my land? No.

Do I want the government to own the local charity's land? No.

I don't want the government to own anyone's land? No.

So why do some places get exempt, when others do not? And why should I be happy if some person gets his land taxes reduced or eliminated if I don't? All things being equal, that make ME, and others, pay more to make up for the lost revenue.

Let's put it this way...if some church goes down to 3 members, and owns 4 million acres of land, is it fair that they don't pay taxes on all that land?

But, but, but...

"Now that we've established that you're a whore, all we're doing is discussing price."

Sorry, joe...your argument doesn't hold any ground. To be religious, you don't need a big church. I think some guy named Jesus proved that to be true.

Tax everything.

[kalm]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

So who gets to define what a religion is?

The Kalm Monastery is a place of worship for those who believe in mother nature, blue winged olve mayfly hatches, and EWU football and it makes regular contributions to various charities the Humane Society, the Cheney Food Bank, Shriners Hospitals for Children, and the Snowden Elementary PTO. Yet it seeks no tax exemption.

Then there's these guys:

http://firstchurchofpolydeism.tumblr.com/

[HI54UNI]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

I don't think the government has to foreclose on it unless they want to. And if the church can no longer pay its taxes maybe it shouldn't be a church any longer.

Having said that I would be OK with the actual church building being exempt from property taxes but all other church property should pay including the residence for the minister if owned by the church. Around here people leave millions of dollars worth of farmland to the church and the church doesn't have to pay property taxes on any of it but takes all the income off of it by renting it out to farmers who still use the roads, etc. I had a retired priest buy a house on my block with his own money but he put it in the church's name so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. It's not right.

[kalm]

Why do non-believers even care about this shit?

Catholics. The answer is catholics.

FOR THE fucking WIN!

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[JoltinJoe]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

Odd argument...and not a good one.

Do I want the government to own my land? No.

Do I want the government to own the local charity's land? No.

I don't want the government to own anyone's land? No.

So why do some places get exempt, when others do not? And why should I be happy if some person gets his land taxes reduced or eliminated if I don't? All things being equal, that make ME, and others, pay more to make up for the lost revenue.

Let's put it this way...if some church goes down to 3 members, and owns 4 million acres of land, is it fair that they don't pay taxes on all that land?

But, but, but...

"Now that we've established that you're a whore, all we're doing is discussing price."

Sorry, joe...your argument doesn't hold any ground. To be religious, you don't need a big church. I think some guy named Jesus proved that to be true.

Tax everything.

This is the argument, and the policy, behind the tax exempt status of churches.

I suppose if you favor taxing churches, then you wouldn't think it's a good argument.

But it seems at present we're still the majority. Moreover, any attempt to tax church property would likely be overruled by the courts on First Amendment grounds, for the reasons cited.

[JoltinJoe]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

So who gets to define what a religion is?

The Kalm Monastery is a place of worship for those who believe in mother nature, blue winged olve mayfly hatches, and EWU football and it makes regular contributions to various charities the Humane Society, the Cheney Food Bank, Shriners Hospitals for Children, and the Snowden Elementary PTO. Yet it seeks no tax exemption.

Then there's these guys:

http://firstchurchofpolydeism.tumblr.com/

I already told you who ultimately decides on what is a religion eligible for tax-exempt status, and how it decides.

You're not a church under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court.

[kalm]

So who gets to define what a religion is?

The Kalm Monastery is a place of worship for those who believe in mother nature, blue winged olve mayfly hatches, and EWU football and it makes regular contributions to various charities the Humane Society, the Cheney Food Bank, Shriners Hospitals for Children, and the Snowden Elementary PTO. Yet it seeks no tax exemption.

Then there's these guys:

http://firstchurchofpolydeism.tumblr.com/

I already told you who ultimately decides on what is a religion eligible for tax-exempt status, and how it decides.

You're not a church under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court.

Who did you say it was again? The Supreme Court?

And why not?

[andy7171]

Taxing churches and church property would be a grave threat to our freedom.

Perhaps this will help explain why.

Let's say you've paid off your mortgage. Great. You think you own your home? Stop paying your RE taxes, and you'll find out who really owns your property.

Freedom of religion is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country. Do you really want the government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

The flip side of this First Amendment right -- separation of church and state -- is a great thing, and it has served to protect religious freedom in this country. It is why we are pluralistic nation -- we respect the right of others to worship as they see fit. This "promotes domestic tranquility." Thus, keeping government untangled from religion is another way we preserve freedom of religion.

But separation of church and state works both way. So, again, do you really want government to essentially "own" religious property and have the right to foreclose on it?

So who gets to define what a religion is?

The Kalm Monastery is a place of worship for those who believe in mother nature, blue winged olve mayfly hatches, and EWU football and it makes regular contributions to various charities the Humane Society, the Cheney Food Bank, Shriners Hospitals for Children, and the Snowden Elementary PTO. Yet it seeks no tax exemption.

Then there's these guys:

http://firstchurchofpolydeism.tumblr.com/

You're not trying hard enough then Even the Indians figured out how to smoke peyote legally. Jeesh!

[Pwns]

Think churches meddle too much in politics today? Just wait until you make them pay taxes.

[89Hen]

How about your tax deduction for donating?

Never understood that deduction.

Why should I get a tax deduction, essentially taking away money from everyone, to support only things/people/ideas that I specifically want to support?

That makes no sense.

I view it as incentive to donate. Sure, there are plenty of people who will donate without the deduction, but if you think charities would receive even close to the same amount if you took that away I think you're kidding yourself.

[Chizzang]

Think churches meddle too much in politics today? Just wait until you make them pay taxes.

That boogie man doesn't scare me too much...
Illogical mumbo jumbo has had a recent resurgence but its a fringe thing

and the louder the bat-sh!t crazies get the farther back in the race they fall

[UNI88]

Think churches meddle too much in politics today? Just wait until you make them pay taxes.

If they get too active in politics, they should lose their exemption. 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in any political campaign.

I have no problem with a church being tax exempt like other 501(c) organizations (charities, chambers of commerce, etc. but any and all unrelated business income (like lease payments on rented farmland) should be taxed.

It would be interesting to know how the various states exempt religious property from taxes. I could see exempting property used exclusively for worship and parking which I believe California does. This would reduce the gaming of the system that HI5 described.

Isn't it immoral for a religious institution to game the system to avoid contributing to the governance and betterment of the community that they are a part of? Isn't it hypocritical for the religious leader to chide government officials about their need to do more for the poor and less fortunate while the organization that he/she heads is avoiding contributions to local governments?