'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

An anonymous reader writes: There has been a lot of interest in the activities of the Church of Scientology recently, especially since the release of Alex Gibney's documentary Going Clear. A petition against tax-exempt status for Scientology has been started on the U.S. White House petition website. If it receives more than 100,000 signatures, it will qualify for an official White House response. Even Slashdot has had its own run-ins with Scientology in the past — one of many internet sites to face legal threats from the Church. Has the time come for Scientology go "clear?"

Comments

A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[NotDrWho]

Okay, they got the Nazi thing wrong. But they definitely got the Scientology thing RIGHT.

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[netbuzz]

I'm not sure this was an actual instance of Godwin's Law in action, since the comment does not *compare* anyone or anything to Hitler or Nazism, but merely makes reference to Nazism. I am not a lawyer, however.

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[Austerity Empowers]

Then lets avoid picking on Scientology and revoke tax exempt status for all churches.

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[gstoddart]

That's vastly different than giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with.

Honestly, Scientology is a religion founded by a science fiction writer who famously said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

They use some unscientific piece of equipment to measure people and tell them about the concentration of aliens or somesuch, and then charge them to fix the issue -- and apparently keep charging them. I'm also fairly certain the medical community doesn't recognize Dianetics as being anything other than gibberish.

Sorry, but it's awfully hard to take it seriously as a religion ... it has about as much credibility as being a Jedi or a Pastafarian.

So, what exactly is our threshold for saying "sure, your wacky religion can have tax exempt status"? Because my "Church of the Big Titties" could definitely use some tax free status if we're just handing it out like that, that way we can have more "Sacraments of the Holy Wet T-Shirt" while imbibing "The Blessed Beer".

You're kvetching about giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with, I have yet to see why we should acknowledge it as actually being a religion.

Can I just make up any old crap and call it a religion? Or are there rules about it? Clearly logical consistency or proof aren't required.

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[Shakrai]

Then lets avoid picking on Scientology and revoke tax exempt status for all churches.

Leaving aside the problems this would likely pose under American law, in the United States it's generally the case that non-profit corporations are not taxed at any level of government. At the local level they're exempt from property taxes. At the state level they're exempt from sales and income taxes. At the federal level they're exempt from income taxes.

Doing what you wish would require a wholesale revision of the tax code at every level of Government. It would be fought tooth and nail by countless different organizations, religious and secular. In short, it's a political non-starter.

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[spire3661]

The point of giving tax breaks IN THE FIRST PLACE, is to encourage charitable work in the community. If they are not doing that, then why are we giving them a pass?

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[StikyPad]

The obvious solution is to remove tax exempt status for religious institutions altogether. It's not just Scientology taking advantage of this, it's so-called megachurches and televangelists too. If they want to have a charitable division, fine, but a religious organization should pay taxes like any other.

"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[tehcyder]

The USA system has worked well for centuries why mess it up?

Because there's a significant number of people here that are hostile towards religion in any shape or form. The mere fact that it exists drives them insane.

As an atheist, I can safely say that my view of religion is essentially the same as towards people who believe in astrology, fairies or alien abductions, i.e. it's your problem

The difference is that religions think they have the right to make it my problem too.

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[ceoyoyo]

Churches are tax exempt because they're churches. If they satisfy the requirements of a tax exempt non-profit or charity, that's great. If not, pay your taxes. Scientology, for example, would likely fail quite badly as a non-profit.

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[blackanvil]

If a church wants non-profit status, they should need to separate the religious elements from the charity. Oh, your small-town church with a pastor who has four different congregations he moves between has nothing to worry about, but if a megachurch can afford a huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos, nope, that's a for-profit enterprise, even if you cook the books so there's no money left over at the end of the day.

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[Just Some Guy]

but if a megachurch can afford a huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos, nope, that's a for-profit enterprise, even if you cook the books so there's no money left over at the end of the day.

I'm not disagreeing with you, because I think that stuff is disgusting. But. As a programmer, how would you write a function that returns a boolean value: "is this church a legitimate non-profit?" Because that's ultimately what you're asking, and I'm having a hard time formulating such a thing.

Test cases:

* A small-town church with a pastor who has four different congregations: True
* A huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos: False
* A small local all-volunteer charity that feeds the homeless: True
* A small, all-volunteer, poorly run charity who means well but sucks at their mission: True
* A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who effectively uses their resources to do amazing things: True
* A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who isn't very effective, but everyone agrees means well: True?
* A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who doesn't effectively uses their resources: Um...

Step one: agree on the test cases. Step two: specific the input parameters that lets you distinguish between outcomes. Step three: non-profit?

Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead

[crmarvin42]

I think you are confusing two different issues here. Atheism vs Theism is about Belief, Gnosticism vs Agnosticism is about Knowledge. My wife and I are both agnostic atheists. Neither one of use Know whether or not there is a god, but neither of us belive that one exists based on the available evidence and rational marshaled as justification for his/her/its existence. It is possible to be a Gnostic Atheist (Knowing and Believing in the absence of a deity), as well as an Agnostic Theist (believing in god without actually knowing). From my perspective, the truly scary to me are the Gnostic Theists who claim to know for certain that god exists, not because of any empirical evidence, but simply because... Their counterparts, the Gnostic Atheists at least have a view that is consistent with observable phenomenon and are generally willing to be convinced of their error with sufficient evidence. I've had Gnostic Theists on the other hand tell me flat out that there is no evidence they would accept of god's nonexistence to even open up the possibility that they might be wrong. That kind of absolutism is truly dangerous.

Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion and therefore a "true believer" in atheism is an oxymoron. It's like if you ask someone what there favorite cola is. The majority will say Coke, a close second will be Pepsi, some percentage will name far less popular colas, and some will say they don't like cola at all. That last group is the functional equivalent of an atheist. To say that their favorite cola is "None" is not really correct because it presumes that they like cola at all, which is not the case.

That being said, there are assholes in any group, and one should not confuse the views and actions of the asshole as representative or indicative of the group. And in defense of some atheists I've seen accused of being militant (my wife being one), what believers often perceive as being militant is actually being unapologetic. My wife's family has on several occasions attempted to engage my wife in religious discussions only to get frustrated when she turns there attempts at conversion (which no matter what they claim, was the true purpose of these conversations) into a dialog where she explains her beliefs and tries to make them understand her view. They view her attempts to turn the tables as being disrespectful and rude because they start from the assumption that god exists and any discussion of the possibility that he might not be real is inherently wrong and disrespectful to god. As the previous poster pointed out, there are lots of things people believing for which there is no credible evidence. Just because someone believes in something does NOT mean I have to show respect for that belief. However, lack of respect for the belief does not grant me permission to show disrespect to the believer. The religious in this world enjoy a privileged status in most society and many view that privilege as their right, instead of as an artifact of previous intolerance of different religions or the non-religious. Therefore they have a hard time not seeing my lack of respect for their belief as a lack of respect for them as a person.

Re:What? Why discriminate?

[mu51c10rd]

I would be ok with removing all tax exempt statuses from churches as long as charity work was deductible for them. We could then see which churches really do put their money where their mouth is in charitable work and donations. It would also encourage any religions which don't put much effort in helping the poor to change that behavior rather quickly.

Won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a lot of experience with the We the People petitions. Specifically, how they don't work like people think they do.

How people think it works: You gather enough signatures and then somehow, you introduce bills to congress with your stated goal
How it actually works: A white house rep sends you a generically worded statement about how in this case, the IRS is the agency in control of determining tax exempt status of the church.

There have been dozens of petitions for Westburough baptist church and Scientology and they always get the same response. "I have no control over this".

FWIW

[argStyopa]

I'm a Christian, and I would prefer that there is no such thing as a 'religious' exemption from taxation. To me, that's contrary to the constitutional separation of church and state and is an example of the state's recognition of religion (if not the establishment of an official religion, of course).

No, simply churches should have to file as non-profits, and hew to the rules (including auditing, etc) therefor. If they do, great. If they don't, too bad.

Re:What? Why discriminate?

[Kierthos]

Show me another religion that hides their religious texts behind the concept of "trade secrets".

I mean, I can go to pretty much any church and read a Bible. Heck, I can buy a copy at practically any bookstore. Same with the Qur'an. Or the Torah.

I can have religious discussions with Christians (of varying denominations) or Muslims or Jews and find out pretty much anything I want to know about their religion and it doesn't cost me anything other than time.

You want to officially learn about Scientology? Start forking over the cash. (Yes, officially. According to the Church of Scientology, practicing Scientology outside of the auspices of the CoS is bad, mmkay? Not even the Pope tries to insist that you can't be a real Christian unless you're Catholic.)

A lot of that stuff that we know about the Church of Scientology... like Xenu, and the Galactic Confederation, and all that (from the OT III docs)? We're not supposed to know that. We only know about it because of civil trials involving the CoS, and they tried to suppress that stuff under the concept of it being trade secrets.

So yeah, show me another religion that has trade secrets. Where's that other major religion that you don't learn the 'true faith' until and unless you've invested a substantial whack of cash?

Re:What? Why discriminate?

[RDW]

The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam.

Cost of reading the most sacred beliefs of all major religions: free online, or $10 for the paperback. Jedi may also need to invest in the DVDs.

Cost of reading the most sacred beliefs of CoS: $380,000 (2006 pricing: http://www.xenu.net/archive/pr... ). Discounts available by signing a billion year contract and working full time in return for food.

Re:What? Why discriminate?

[JackieBrown]

Well, the N.F.L., N.H.L., P.G.A. and L.G.P.A are tax exempt
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

Try doing it right next time

[tverbeek]

It would be nice to see a petition that instead makes a cogent, fact-based, reasoned argument against the COS's legal eligibility for tax-exempt status, rather than a rant consisting of a bunch of unproven allegations, unspecified accusations of government corruption that sound like they come from conspiracy nuts, some borderline libel, with a couple facts thrown in. It wouldn't be that difficult to do, and it might actually make it awkward for the White House to dismiss, rather than making it easy by inviting them to defend their tax status as an example of how the U.S. defends "oppressed" religions.

Re:What? Why discriminate?

[Penguinisto]

I was agreeing with the thread until this point.

Here's the problem with your statement:

"prime real estate" got that way over a very long time. In the downtown parts of pretty much every major city, those churches were built long ago, when the land was essentially considered unsuitable for anything else (for commerce, farming, industry etc). Many of these places have, over time, become part church, part museum, part heritage - for both its congregation *and* the city it sits in.

Bringing down crushing property taxes on such places would eventually force any religion out of a downtown area, as it almost does for private residents now. It's bad enough that most downtown areas have pushed out anything except for ultra-wealthy corporate and private interests... if it weren't for tax exemption, the museums, churches, libraries, and most other public edifices would have been driven out of the city long ago. Now you want to start eroding that? Sure, you may say it would stop there, but fact is, it won't... someone else will find another reason to start relocating museums out to the 'burbs in order to free up uber-profitable land, then someone else entirely will start whining that big-assed libraries full of paper books on "prime real estate" are totally unnecessary in this digital age, so maybe we should just, you know...

For every "palatial manor" your proposal would dismantle, at least 2-3 small rectory houses, convents/monasteries, strip-mall-churches, *schools*, etc would be forced on the auction block, or funds would be diverted from actual charitable efforts just to pay the property tax bill (money is fungible that way). Note that I haven't even come near bringing up all the religious-run hospitals in the nation and the impact on them (there's a whole lot more than you think - enough that their absence would cripple healthcare rather harshly nation-wide.)

TL;DR - This thing is a bit more complex than you might realize, given the blanket statement. Find a better way