Slashdot Mirror


'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?"

130 of 700 comments (clear)

  1. A first: We should follow Germany's lead by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Godwin in the first post. I'm proud, /.

    2. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those who don't haven't heard the story:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Basically, Germany has refused to recognize Scientology as a religion, a position that has more-or-less lead to an all-out war by Scientology against the whole country. In fact, one of the most bizarre revelations of the Scooter Libby scandal was that Tom Cruise had been actively lobbying Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and the Bush administration to actually PUT U.S. SANCTIONS on Germany for it (you can't make this shit up).

    3. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by netbuzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    5. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by peragrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One step at a time. First you do the churches no one likes. Then you do the churches very few like. Then you wait a couple of generations and you can do blanket associations across all churches.

      Your way leads to revolt. My way takes 2-3 generations but is done peacefully.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The cult of Scientology is a criminal organization. Churches don't harass people who leave, so we can be confident that Scientology is a cult, rather than a church. You seem to either be a member of the cult, or to be a very stupid person. I'd be fine with removing tax exempt status from all these fantasy-based groups, but especially that of toxic, blackmailing cults.

    7. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically, Germany has refused to recognize Scientology as a religion,

      To clarify: Nobody in Germany claims officially that Scientology isn't a religion, but it isn't a "religious organisation" that gives it any legal or tax advantages.

      You can declare anything you want to be a religion. But for tax advantages, you need more. You need an organisation that tries to be beneficial to society. And that is where Scientology fails quite badly. A religion that said "I believe X, Y and Z and don't give a shit about anybody" wouldn't be a religious organisation the way German laws require it. And a religion that says "I believe X, Y and Z, I exploit people where I can, and I do what I can to hurt my perceived enemies" has no chance.

    8. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah.. The Nazis' way...

    9. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by jbolden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Churches don't harass people who leave

      Harassing people who are not members is illegal.

      However, not only do churches do this but the right to church discipline was one of the reasons the America was a land of religious freedom. Mennonite churches (think the Amish), most certainly do harass those who quit. And that Baptist tradition was all during the 19th century quite common. The LDS church, Jehovah's Witnesses. Many of the stricter Protestant faiths do this. And of course Islam does this. So no what you are saying is just false.

    10. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Kierthos · · Score: 2

      Didn't some place in Florida just get busted for basically operating like a club, but saying they were a religion?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    12. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a totally different issue. I think its a very bad idea. The government has the ability through taxes and subsidies to either encourage or destroy them. People won't die for businesses. Subject religions to the same regulations as businesses and religions tied to the state can use the state to persecute rival sects and religions. Which creates religions which are underground and hostile to the state.

      And for what? How much revenue do you think you'll get? The USA system has worked well for centuries why mess it up?

    13. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... it has about as much credibility as being a Jedi or a Pastafarian

      I would contest this - the Pastafarians at least publicly acknowledge that what they're doing is hokey BS intended to parody religion, which gives them a bit more credibility.

    14. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just make the religious institutions choose - tax exemption or copyright on their texts. You can't have both, you have to pick one.

      I think that would solve most problems.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    15. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ckatko · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you've completely missed the important facts.

      Scientology is still a religion in Germany, but they don't qualify to be state recognized religious organization because they don't do anything to benefit he community. You can be believe Jimmy Buffet is your only ticket to paradise, but he's not gonna get a tax break unless he tells you to give back to the community.

      Likewise, you can call whatever you want "a company" but it's not going to be a company--and entitled to the benefits therein--unless it gets a business license.

      You can call yourself a cop all you want, but unless you pass the requirements to become a LEO, you're not a cop.

      That's the difference.

      Meanwhile, the other major religions you listed are all giving back to the community in great numbers. So they do qualify to be a state approved religion. So this is an entirely apples to oranges, reasonable contrast between major religions and Scientology. If Scientology wants to get tax breaks all they have to do (GASP) is start giving a shit about people and trying to help them. If that burden is too high for you to become a religion, I don't think I want you anywhere near a legislative job.

    17. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by sycodon · · Score: 2

      Calling Scientology a Religion is like call Mary Kay Products a Religion.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    19. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who appointed you the Godwin Nazi?

      lol. Is that a first?

    20. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      You're preaching to the choir condemning Scientology, I doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you there. I certainly don't. That said, can you at least acknowledge the frightening potential for abuse if we empower some Government bureaucrat to determine what is and is not a legitimate religion? How do you draw the line? There's no objective test. You can't go by age, that shuts out LDS, UUism, Wiccans, and a bunch of others. There's a lot of people that would welcome them being shut out, but I'm sure that's not what you're advocating for.

      The only fair way to do it would be to treat all non-profit corporations (which is how all churches are incorporated in the US) the same. Leave religion out of it. If you want to tighten the rules for non-profit corporations you might find more support, there's plenty of abuse there, mostly in the secular world, but it's still a tough needle to thread.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ralphsiegler · · Score: 2

      get a refund on your history classes. the Nazis preemtively killed their opposers.

    22. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was a comparison of judgment. I'll allow it.

    23. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      One step at a time. First you do the churches no one likes. Then you do the churches very few like. Then you wait a couple of generations and you can do blanket associations across all churches.

      Your way leads to revolt. My way takes 2-3 generations but is done peacefully.

      It's pretty obvious you need some mandatory sensitivity training.

    24. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Umm... In 2-3 generations the Czech Republic will have a significantly lower percent of Atheists than it does today. You think the atheists are going to win a multi-generational war of ideology when they pop out kids below replacement level vs. an adversary which discourages birth control and consequently has average birthrates that double their population every couple of decades?

      If Stalin was trying to purge religion from the world 200 years later he did a shit job of it. Why do you think moral conservatives are opposed to education spending? Religious zealotry and birthrate decline with education attained(inverse relationship) such that a college educated public threatens the revenue streams of the churches.

      Church is a protection racket with Satan as the enforcer. Access to information and dissenting perspectives via the internet and a more connected society is what is causing a temporary dip in religious participation by the general public, but when the dystopia hits "peak misery" the church will be waiting with open arms to sell various alternative forms of euphoria like sexual repression "edging" and fasting. Nothing like a fairy tale's promise to escape accountability for your own victimization via economic castes, hedonism, and bad decision making.

    25. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Funny

      League Rules would side on the OP for sure.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    26. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      The idea that 'In God We Trust' printed on our money is somehow legal is what makes me insane. Its a CLEAR sign that the law is not being followed.

      --
      Good-bye
    27. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Good-bye
    28. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Yaztromo · · Score: 2

      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".

      Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Yaz

    29. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Copid · · Score: 2

      Have you met anybody involved in a multi-level marketing scam? The comparison is actually not that far off.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    30. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    31. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Holi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which they do with impunity any way.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    32. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by jimbolauski · · Score: 2

      Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.

      Be nice to BMG they are charging $20 for a $10 cd not $10,000 for a $5 science fiction novel.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    33. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Holi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then I guess you should remove it from all non-profits too. Churches are tax-exempt not because of religion but because of their non-profit status.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    34. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Charitable work makes you a religion? Is that codified somewhere? Is charitable work sufficient to make you a religion? Or just a subset of things which in some squishy way will?

      No, charitable work is part of what gets you tax-exempt status, is the idea. Either way, you're contributing to the community, is how it was intended.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    35. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, pretty funny story.

      A local church that has been hosting naked paint parties and slumber-party Sundays with the "sexiest ladies on the beach" will now have to pay taxes on the property as officers investigate the church's practices, authorities said Tuesday. [...] Sheriff Frank McKeithen said it is a "blatant slap in the face" to taxpayers and law enforcement. "They're trying to get around the laws, and they're using the church to get there," McKeithen said.

      On the plus side, if that's enough justification to strip this church of its tax-exempt status, maybe it'll work on the scienos, too.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    36. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      That's a political non-starter, whatever the merits may be. If you think you're going to change the law to tax every church in the United States I've got a bridge to sell you. I wouldn't even support it; I've belonged to UU churches and every single one of them operates on a financial razor edge. Taxing them would push them over the cliff. I'm sure they're not the only ones.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    37. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The government has the ability through taxes and subsidies to either encourage or destroy them.

      Destroy them? Hyperbole, much? While what you said is technically true, all religious organizations would be asked to do is to act like any other organization. If they are actually as philanthropic as they claim to be, they should have no problem getting non-profit, tax-exempt status — on a case-by-case basis, and subject to all the same scrutiny as any other nonprofit.

      Subject religions to the same regulations as businesses and religions tied to the state can use the state to persecute rival sects and religions.

      Yes, that's what they already do. Is alcohol a sacrament in your religion? Too bad for you, if you live in a state with blue laws. And our laws on marriage are clearly based on Judeo-Christian ideals, and are abusive to several faiths. So if you have a point, you are invited to make it, but this isn't anywhere near one.

      The government has encouraged religion through tax exemption, and there is no valid reason for it to do so. You don't need a special building to have a church, let alone a religion — in fact, Christianity, the dominant religion (or family of religions) in the USA which therefore benefits the most from this tax exemption is quite clear on this point. If your faith isn't strong enough to draw you together in worship in the absence of a special, tax-exempt building used for the purpose, then why should anyone care about it?

      Churches were probably worth promoting once, because they were community centers. But in the spirit of promoting religious freedom, which is allegedly a cornerstone of our society, we should leave off the promotion of religion. Our communications (and other) technology has eliminated the need for the church.

      Don't ask me to pay for the maintenance of your faith, which I consider to be an impediment to social progress.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Informative
      He is referring to the famous quotation attributed to Niemöller

      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    39. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by jbolden · · Score: 2
    40. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by MitchDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ALL Religions should have tax exempt status revoked. They're all cults.

    41. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Germany only gives the tax-exempt status to religions which perform good for the people. Scientology definitely does not, and in fact, its entire business model is predicated on doing precisely the opposite. A religion which charges hundreds of thousands in order to read its texts and find out what the religion (of which you are already a member) is not a religion.

    42. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by marsu_k · · Score: 3, Informative

      I ask this honestly, as a non-USian - Illinois recently passed the "religious freedom for bakers that don't want to cater to gays because jebus"-act. But how is a religion defined in the US? Could I (theoretically, were I to live in IL as a citizen) start my own religion (here in .fi it takes just 20 people), and decide to not serve some of the customers of my business because of some arbitrary rule that happens to exist in my religion? Or is that while all religions are equal, some religions are more equal than others?

    43. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    44. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Immerman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait - you bought the CDs at full price? I thought the standard practice was to buy the introductory 10/15/20 CDs for the price of one and then cancel so they'd send you another promo deal.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    45. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      I have no issue with religion, as long as it stays in its place (outside of government) and we don't favor one over the other. I don't understand why any religion gets a tax exempt status, and I know people who operate "churches" of very dubious merit for the tax benefits. The notion seems dumb, let's can it. But perhaps there are good reasons that I don't understand.

      My issue is that I don't really like playing favorites, If we can't universalize this to all religions, we shouldn't do it at all.

    46. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Ghostworks · · Score: 2

      I usually lean on the inverse-Godwin theorem: if I can't figure out some way to compare something to the Nazi's, Hitler, or the Holocaust, I probably shouldn't be that upset by it.

    47. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ADRA · · Score: 2

      Any organized religion operating in any country are required to operate within the laws of the lands they reside in, just like people. Scientology is often considered a cult / secret organization because of secret doctrine, non-transparent rules for church structure, and the fact that you pay to elevate yourself in the order. I'm sure there's more, but I don't spend much time caring about the org.

      They are fine in calling it a secret order and have all the right to do so, but its no a religion just because people rely on the org to fix their sad lives. Germany isn't the only one either. The UK also doesn't consider them a religion.

      http://www.economist.com/blogs...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

      --
      Bye!
    48. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well in many ways, Scientology is like Nazism.

      There, NOW we have gone full godwin.

    49. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by jbolden · · Score: 2

      In general the USA defines religious a religious institution as one that has functional equivalence with those institutions primarily concerned with the relationship with man and his creator. So anything that acts like a church.

    50. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 2

      Glad to hear it, or else I'd be Godwined every time I post.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    51. Re: A first: We should follow Germany's lead by HappyDrgn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Could I [...] start my own religion [...], and decide to not serve some of the customers of my business because of some arbitrary rule"

      Yes.

    52. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    53. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      It doesn't change your argument, but it was Indiana, not Illinois, that recently passed the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

      IL does have a similarly-named law enacted in 1998, but it (or maybe more recent legislation that supersedes it) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Here's two links that clear up the confusion.
      As a past resident of IL, I don't want my already-horrible state political machine further besmirched by such BS :D

    54. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by blackanvil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    55. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 3, Informative

      The term was first used around the time of the civil war, but as an official motto wasn't adopted until 1956. It's there to ward off "Godless Commies".

      --
      horror vacui
    56. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      The way you deal with an organization like Scientology is by bringing criminal cases against its membership, where applicable. False imprisonment, fraud, and so forth. Don't attack the religion itself, that's a recipe for disaster, but where members thereof break the secular law they should be held accountable. If Scientology is the big fat global scam (apologies to South Park) we all think it is, well, it shouldn't be able to survive its leadership going to jail.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    57. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      Who defines what is charitable work? Is saving souls not charitable?

    58. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by chadenright · · Score: 2

      The Illinois thing is going to last exactly as long as it takes for a gay, black lawyer from the NAACP to fly down there and sue their pants off because they refused him service because he was black. The US has laws against discriminating against people, and this was rather thoroughly hashed out in the '60's and '70's. Unfortunately it looks like we're going to have to hash it all out again because someone found a loophole. Basically, if your religion says you have to bang your forehead on the ground nineteen times a day, that's fine. If your religion says you have to bang someone else's head on the ground, you are going to run into problems. Of course, then there's the corrupt police forces that beat people up and kill them because they're some sort of minority, or just because the cop feels like it. But that's sort of a separate issue.

    59. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      I ask this honestly, as a non-USian - Illinois recently passed the "religious freedom for bakers that don't want to cater to gays because jebus"-act. But how is a religion defined in the US? Could I (theoretically, were I to live in IL as a citizen) start my own religion (here in .fi it takes just 20 people), and decide to not serve some of the customers of my business because of some arbitrary rule that happens to exist in my religion? Or is that while all religions are equal, some religions are more equal than others?

      Actually, it allowed discrimination base don religious belief and not necessarily membership in a religious institution. I would imagine a court would have to decide if you decided not to serve say anyone named Bob because you decided the Church of Bob, Reformed considered it blasphemy and thus serving a Bob would be against your religious convictions. The IRS defines religious institutions for tax exempt status but courts could still intervene to say a specific practice was unlawful; nor would a court need to limit applying the law only if you belonged to a recognized church. As for the US government doesn't really define what is a religion but recognizes various practices in various contexts. For example, the US military provides guidance to chaplains on Wiccan practices so chaplains can minister to them.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    60. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      That's just what a Rules Nazi would say.

    61. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all. So, no, churches are in no way tax exempt because they're churches. They're tax exempt because they meet the requirements of 501(c)3- just like the Sierra Club and the Humane Society.

      There is absolutely no constitutional way to make churches pay taxes without also requiring the Sierra Club to pay taxes. The only way to make Scientology lose their tax exempt status is to show that they violate the existing rules.

    62. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    63. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by laie_techie · · Score: 2

      With most religions they are more than willing to give me copies of their holy books some are quite persistent (look at you Mormons) so I don't think they would care about the copyright thing as they just want more people to have their stuff. Scientology on the other hand basically is the BMG CD club of religion.

      The Book of Mormon was originally published in 1830, so the text is in the public domain. The current copyright covers things like the page layout, chapter headings, footnotes, and the study guides. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints protects its copyright holdings religiously. The Church wants to "flood the earth" with copies of the Book of Mormon, but wants to make sure that any Book of Mormon in circulation is accurate. We give a copy of the Book of Mormon to anyone who accepts a visit from our missionaries and promises to read from it. Missionaries assume most people they come in contact with are already Christian so don't give out copies of the Bible (in fact, missionaries need to obtain special permission to teach non-Christians).

    64. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well in many ways, Scientology is like Nazism.

      There, NOW we have gone full godwin.

      So are many religions as some of their members practice it today.

      Just look at the fundies - when they get caught with hookers and coke and cheating on their wife by having sex with other men, they say "Jesus forgives me, how dare you continue to judge me!"

      And yet they try to impose the "rules" that they themselves don't obey on others and sit in judgment of them, thumping on the Old Testament. It's not just limited to Westboro Baptist Church either.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    65. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by xevioso · · Score: 2

      I knew someone was Goering to go there.

    66. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by xevioso · · Score: 4, Funny

      You've Godwinned the Godwin reference. I am now officially out of mein kampfort zone on this thread.

    67. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2

      Most atheists I know were born into at least moderately religious families. I grew up Congregationalist, my wife was raised Presbyterian yet all 3 (soon to be 4) of our children are being raised atheist. Despite growing up in the church, several of my siblings are also have atheist leanings. The more critical thinking is encouraged, the more likely someone will analyze the basis of their faith and reject it.

      The problem with atheism (from the religious perspective) is that even if you kill off all of the current atheists, someone in the next generation will rediscover all of the flaws in the local religion that led to the previous batch of atheists in the first place. As my wife is fond of saying, many atheists (herself included) don't believe in God precisely because they read the bible and found it lacking.

      I see no inherent need for conflict or a "war of ideology" as you put it between atheism and any particular religion. What every your particular faith, most of the world believes something else. If you buy into the "1 true religion" claim made by your faith (and almost every other faith) then all of those theists who don't believe what you do are just as destined for whatever fate is reserved for unbelievers. I've seen no religion that grants "Partial Credit" for having the wrong faith instead of none at all. Therefore, if Christians can tolerate the existence of Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Wiccans, etc. then Atheists should be just as tolerable. At least atheists don't worship a false gods.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    68. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Scientology is not a religion. It's a mafia masquerading as a religion. No other religion thugs on its members and makes them slaves to pay for revelation.

      I am no friend of religion myself, but you have to understand Scientology is nothing like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. in terms of behavior. No one forces you to pay to read the Quran. No one locks you up if you try to leave the Church. Contributions to Jewish congregation are voluntary, not compulsory. Of course there are fringe groups that do do these things. Amd they are rightly seem as cults far outside mainstream. Like Scientology is.

      My point is simply the case of Scientology and the case against religion in general are completely different topics and you can't segue from one to the other.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    69. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      If somebody has to decide who is a religion and who isn't, that immediately creates a tax imbalance.

      My suggestion is that churches be given tax exempt status based on already existing non-profit and charity criteria. That way religion isn't singled out either way, and the accounting requirements make sure they're actually operating the way they're supposed to.

    70. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not American, but your IRS site says that to qualify under section 501c you must be an organization that is "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, [or] preventing cruelty to children or animals."

      Therefore, churches are tax exempt because they are religious organizations. That exemption category seems to be problematic because somebody has to decide what is a religious organization, so just eliminate it and let regular churches be tax free under the charitable organization exemption, or one of the others.

    71. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    72. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those are the general guidelines. They don't really mean anything. As you note, the meaning of "religious organization" is unworkably vague. So are the meanings of "charitable" and "educational" groups.

      Here's the IRS form you fill out to become tax exempt-

      http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf

      The important parts are the questions like "Does your organization attempt to influence legislation", and the details of your finances. If you answer those correctly, they don't really care if you're a church, or a cult, or just a group of people who don't like wearing pants.

    73. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all. So, no, churches are in no way tax exempt because they're churches. They're tax exempt because they meet the requirements of 501(c)3- just like the Sierra Club and the Humane Society.

      I just googled for the requirement on IRS... They "separate" the link into 2 -- for charity ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&... ) and for churches & religious ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&... ). Interesting eh?

    74. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all.

      Umm, yes it does:

      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.

    75. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by multimediavt · · Score: 4, Informative

      That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all.

      Umm, yes it does:

      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.

      If only I had mod points...

    76. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. This law mirrors the 1983 law signed by Bill Clinton, introduced to Congress by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer, which passed with 100% of the vote in the senate, and only had 3 votes against in the house. All it does is give people of faith standing in court proceedings. For instance a doctor who does not want to kill little babies, or if you like, perform abortions. It does not give anyone a get out of jail free card for discrimination; they need to present compelling evidence that the act they are being asked to perform is materially against their belief system. The 1983 law was to allow Indians (not of the SE Asia persuasion) to smoke peyote in religious ceremonies notwithstanding the DEA.

    77. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by unrtst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you're both kind of right.
      My understanding of it is that churches are automatically classified as 501(c)3 nonprofit charitable organizations to the IRS, without having to apply.
      There are also other differences. For example, there is a "parsonage exemption" (ie. ministers can deduct housing expenses from their federal income tax), and church property is generally tax exempt as well.

      Others have also brought up the ban on church intervention to political campaigns. I think it's worth noting a couple other details to that:
      * That's not just for churches. It covers tax-exempt charitable organizations (ie. 501(c)3) in general.
      * There are allowances for pastors to campaign as individuals, and for churches to speak out on public issues (as long as it doesn't cross the line too far).

      FWIW, if the law was changed so churches weren't automatically tax-exempt, but 501(c)3 remained, then most churches and religious organizations would be mostly unaffected. I suspect that would include Scientology (they already employ a diverse structure of for-profit and non-profit companies to manage their stuff, carefully treading the lines).

    78. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      The Constitution includes procedures to create amendments. The problem is that the overly broad definition of the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses have allowed the statists in government to stretch things to the point where our government is unrecognizable compared to what the document says. The court has actually opined that a farmer growing wheat on his own farm to feed his own animals is subject to Department of Agriculture quotas since he might sell the cows across state lines to someone else. They act like the rest of the carefully enumerated powers are null and void because of some throwaway phrases. When the do-gooders wanted to ban alcohol in the 1920's, they realized that there was no statutory authority to ban anything. So they passed an amendment. Ultimately they saw the error of their ways and repealed that amendment with another amendment. Now the government bans all sorts of things with zero statutory authority. This is lawlessness and tyranny.

    79. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      I would say both ideas are about how the best way to the change the world with out encountering overwhelming opposition is to do so piece by piece. Slowly going after the low hanging fruit, making yourself stronger and weakening and opposition that could form. in the comments example you would pre-emptively go after the unpopular and non-powerful religions. getting rid as many, who would of joined a concerted opposition, silently as you can.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    80. Re: A first: We should follow Germany's lead by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      so if I'm a county clerk whose job requires me to issue marriage licenses, can I be burdened because there's no way to avoid issuing a license to a gay couple if the state allows it?

      If you're a county clerk* then you're acting on behalf of the government. MAYBE you could get yourself assigned to a different job with different duties than issuing out marriage licenses, but what you'd be asking for is for THE GOVERNMENT to be able to refuse someone service. BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS A MONOPOLY, they shouldn't be able to do that.

      Forget cakes and wedding pizza--this has always seemed the point to me: it's a way to stop gay marriage regardless of the will of the people.

      Indiana just passed law legalizing gay marriage. The RFRA doesn't overturn that law. It just protects PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS from dopey activists looking for paydays on bogus discrimination claims.

      *I actually think it's a town clerk in most states. I got my marriage license from a town, not a county, in New York, and New Jersey has towns issue marriage licenses as well.

    81. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by unimacs · · Score: 2

      From irs.gov:

      "Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:

      - Distinct legal existence
      - Recognized creed and form of worship
      - Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
      - Formal code of doctrine and discipline
      - Distinct religious history
      - Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
      - Organization of ordained ministers
      - Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
      - Literature of its own
      - Established places of worship
      - Regular congregations
      - Regular religious services
      - Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
      - Schools for the preparation of its members

      The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes."

      My take is that it's not something that can be reduced to an algorithm and to a certain extent it is a judgement call if for example an organization has some of the above characteristics but not others. Note however that the belief systems themselves aren't judged in any way (nor should they be).

      Also important to recognize is that the above are just characteristics of a church and alone aren't enough to make an organization tax exempt. There are other rules that apply. For example there can neither be private owners or share holders.

      For many years the IRS denied Scientology tax exempt status. I don't know if it was because the IRS claimed that it wasn't a real religion or because it violated some other rules regarding non-profits. Eventually Scientology was granted tax-exempt status but rumor was that they did so by strong-arming members of the IRS. Anyway, a petition will not be enough to remove their tax exempt status. It will have to be shown that they are in violation of the rules.

  2. What? Why discriminate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is scientology any less of a religion than christianity or islam or mormons or any other belief system? If its ok for christians, it should be ok for scientologists, or it should be not ok for anyone to have tax exempt status.

    1. Re:What? Why discriminate? by mu51c10rd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:What? Why discriminate? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:What? Why discriminate? by zarthrag · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This. I tend to cringe at these megachurches that collect (metric) tons of money from poor people with the (false) promise of "health, wealth, and prosperity" - only to turn-around and spend hundreds of thousands, or even millions, to buy a fancy plane, property for a bigger parking-lot (I've personally seen that same church humiliate a poor, homeless person - by putting a suit jacket on them for service, then refuse to provide any kind of real material help.

      The bible's position on it is pretty simple, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." - "USA" is printed on the dollar, churches ought to pay taxes. Even money that falls out of the sky counts as income.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    4. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      You realize that the tax-exemption does render unto Caesar and God what is theirs, right? The minute that you revoke tax-exempt status for these Churches, they can always start a PAC? They can also start to preach politics from the pulpit. Right now their tax-exempt status is a a balance and check. Removing that opens the gates to what you might consider worse things. Imagine after being released from their tax-exempt status all of the Churches combined their efforts to not only reinstate the tax-exempt status, but also allow political contributions? Scientology has a pretty affluent clientele (flock?). Sharia law?

    5. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    6. Re:What? Why discriminate? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      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.

    7. Re:What? Why discriminate? by RDW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Kierthos · · Score: 2

      And don't forget, some of those beliefs are "trade secrets".

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    9. Re:What? Why discriminate? by oobayly · · Score: 2

      I don't really think that argument stands nowadays. The tax code is transparent (stifles laugh, but you get my point), so the government can't just go around taxing a specific company or organisation just because it wants to. In fact, some of the these "churches" are big businesses, so the government would probably bend over backwards to accommodate them.

      Besides, I didn't think the idea of religion was to make money (or at least they don't like to admit it) - if they're truly a charitable organisation any proceeds should be re-invested - no profit, no tax to pay.

    10. Re:What? Why discriminate? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      I would be ok with removing all tax exempt statuses from churches as long as charity work was deductible for them.

      Why should charity be deductible, for churches or anyone? You want to give your money to the poor, go ahead; but why should that exempt you from paying your share of the rent?

      Remove all special treatment for religions, so the state can get out of the business of judging the sincerity of anyone's convictions, which it is absolutely unsuited for. And stop letting people use "charity" as a tax dodge.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:What? Why discriminate? by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    12. Re:What? Why discriminate? by OhPlz · · Score: 2

      There's a lot of stuff hidden in the archives at the Vatican that very few will ever see. Secrecy is just as common within a religion as it is anywhere else.

    13. Re:What? Why discriminate? by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      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.

      The argument that churches are a form of charitable/nonprofit organization makes the most sense, though religious organization are not currently held to the same standards of accountability as other nonprofits. The other common argument that taxing churches would begin a slippery slope to regulating them, violating the principle of separation of church and state, seems specious considering (a) slippery slope arguments are always questionable, and (b) churches have no problem taking all manner of public benefits. Still, the most likely argument seems that churches have been around a long time, have many voters and lawmakers among their vast membership, and thus get the laws they want.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    14. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should charity be deductible, for churches or anyone?

      Because the point of government is to support the general welfare of the population, and that's what taxes are supposed to be for. If you're doing your share of social support directly, it's rather unfair to also require you to contribute the full amount to the government pool.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    15. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    16. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Informative

      The difference is, when you've been a faithful Catholic for 20 years, and tithed the whole time and whatever else, they don't take you aside one day and say "Hey, here's the super-duper secret Bible that almost no one gets to look at. You're going to love the chapter where after Jesus' resurrection, grey aliens from Proxima 9 took him on a 2-millienium mission to the stars."

      Scientology does just that. If you have no idea, going in, about what thetans are, or where they come from, you don't find out about them until you're so invested in Scientology that it's very difficult to break away from it. "It has to be true, look how much time and money I've invested in it."

      And that's another thing.

      Let's say, for whatever reason, that I want to study up on Christianity. Well, one option that a lot of churches have are discussion groups/classes on it, especially for people who are converting to that church.

      A lot of those classes are pretty cheap, if not outright free, and here's the important bit. You don't actually have to take them. I could, right now, walk into practically any church in the country and join, for free.

      In Scientology, if you want to learn more (or are peer-pressured to do so), every class costs money. The higher you go, the pricier the classes. Oh, but you can get around some of the costs by signing a billion-year contract.

      Yeah, that's all completely normal and above board.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    17. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Cito · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always tithe, but God doesn't want it.

      end of each month I take my money and throw it in air, whatever God wants he can take, whatever lands on ground I keep.

      so far he's never wanted any.

    18. Re:What? Why discriminate? by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      There are many false churches and particularly in the radio and TV ministries. The prosperity doctrine is actually a Satanic doctrine that is foisted upon the ignorant. Christ clearly taught poverty as a part of the faith. The prosperity part is in reference to the next life and not about life in this world. There are a couple of ministers who have gone to prison over their use of money collected and spent for personal use. For some screwy reason ministers going to jail for stealing from the ignorant are about like telemarketers. Very few telemarketers go to prison but almost 100% are crooked. Any real effort by the authorities could result in tens of thousands of phone sales or telemarketer people being swept up and sentenced to decades in prison. Almost everything they do is totally illegal.

    19. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      That's because the leagues themselves are not-for-profit organizations. All of the profit in professional sports goes to the individual teams, who do (or at least should) pay taxes on those profits. Whether or not all of the "business expenses" of the leagues are appropriate is, as with any corporation, of course debatable.

      Similarly, most religious organizations do not have any owners or shareholders that get dividend checks at the end of every year. I've witnessed first-hand how difficult it can be just to balance the budget; it's always a struggle between higher membership dues, cutting programs, or trying to organize a major fundraising campaign.

    20. Re:What? Why discriminate? by sootman · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Jedi may also need to invest in the DVDs.

      Pro tip: you only need to buy the 3 old ones, not all 6.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    21. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      You say "privilege", but the usual word is "freedom".

      I am free to choose to support my local homeless shelters more than my local roads, rather than entirely accepting the distribution that my elected representatives have chosen.

      It's still not a unilateral election, because to qualify as a "charity", organizations must jump through several bureaucratic hoops to get approval, effectively giving the government a means of control over what's a society-supporting charity or not.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    22. Re:What? Why discriminate? by njnnja · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That means the plane, big building, parking lot, etc. gets paid for before taxes. Same with salaries

      Not exactly. There are rules about how big your expenses can be for things like executive compensation. For example, when a company pays for business lunches for its executives to dine out, it can't reduce income by the entire amount. And a firm can't deduct the entire amount of, say salary ($1,000,000 cap) or stock options (cap on deductible amount on incentive stock options, which is why they also offer "non-quals", i.e., non-qualified stock options).

      In general, if the choice is between the firm paying a tax or an executive paying the tax, the firm will generally pay the tax (in the US), since corporate rates are lower than the highest personal income tax rate. But if they can defer taxes altogether, by giving the executive something that will appreciate in value (like equity) but avoids immediate income tax, they will do that.

    23. Re:What? Why discriminate? by arth1 · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. See Tony Ortega's take on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://tonyortega.org/2015/04/13/if-you-want-the-irs-to-reexamine-scientologys-tax-exempt-status-its-time-to-get-real/

  4. All religions are cults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not just Scientologism. Shouldn't we be reexamining all tax exempt organizations that promote a religious belief as their sole claim to tax exempt? Run a soup kitchen, great, soup kitchen is tax exempt. Run an empire with a soup kitchen, the empire should not be tax exempt- true for scientologists and Christians.

  5. Tax exempt? No we don't revoke that by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has the government - beyond just the white house - been inclined to revoke any tax exempt statuses in memory? I don't recall a single one. Just because Scientology has only a slightly higher public approval rate than ebola doesn't mean the government is likely to take a stand against them.

    Besides, even if it was revoked, they would likely just find a really good accountant / lawyer team and end up paying the same amount (or less) in taxes. Last year Prudential insurance paid no corporate income tax and received a $106 million rebate. Time Warner cable paid no taxes on $4.3B in profit, CBS no taxes on $1.8B. Scientology could probably do better on their taxes by registering as a corporation anyways.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  6. Won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

    1. Re:Won't work by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      We the People petitions are meaningless. Get enough signatures, and you'll get a signed form letter from the White House. Nothing actually happens.

  7. FWIW by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:FWIW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except, churches aren't busy doing business and earning profits. They survive off the voluntary contributions of members, who have already had this salary taxed. Why should the government tax it twice? Clearly (from an accounting perspective) it wouldn't be double-taxed if church members just individually bought things for the church they attend.

      Money contributed to the church is money pooled in aggregate for the benefit of the contributors, and really no different. Churches do pay tax on income from rental properties and the like.

      I work for a corporation that already paid taxes. Why should the government tax it twice.
      I paid income taxes. When I go buy something why should the government tax it twice.

    2. Re:FWIW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      have you seen some of these big churches lately? they're more business and less charity than you think.... and they make big bucks, too.

  8. That would be unfair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As long as there is a tax exemption for religion -any religion- picking on one is unfair and bordering in bigotry. We the people are not (or should not) in the business of telling people what is or isn't a religion or what to believe or not as long as it aligns with the society accepted rules (i.e. the law)

    That said, I would support removing the blanket tax exemption for ALL religions activities and instead give it to specific activities benefiting the community as long as it doesn't discriminate on others based on their faith.

  9. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they are in fact a Religion, by all the criteria that count.

    Some might observe that they're also a criminal organization, by all criteria that count.

  10. 1 down many more to go by Roodvlees · · Score: 2

    Now just get rid of the tax-exempt status of all the other religions. Except of course for the charity work they do, for which they will have to make their finances public, like the real charities have to.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  11. What is or is not a religion? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My question here would be, how are we deciding what is or is not a religion? You have a bunch of people with a belief system organized together... I don't know how you distinguish between a social club, a cult, and a religion other than going by what they claim for themselves. However, whatever the legal method of determining the answer to that, it should be applied consistently.

    The process here should not be, "We think that Scientology is crazy and therefore not a valid religion, so we will revoke their legal protection on that basis." If there's no legal criteria to refer to, then you're setting a precedent for revoking the legal protections for any religion that you don't like. Go by the law. If the law is inadequate, then revise the law, but make sure you're comfortable with the revised law being applied consistently to all groups, including the group you belong to.

  12. Re:Yeah, abot time. by Roodvlees · · Score: 2

    They should also be made to pay taxes, like real people do. Btw Apple recently claimed the biggest profit in history and said they paid a hefty sum of taxes over that, we're talking 26,3% here.

    Are you saying that's a lie?

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  13. Tread carefully by andyring · · Score: 2

    While we may not like this particular religion, that doesn't matter. They are a religious organization, and an organized religion. Especially in the United States, the government most certainly should not determine what is or is not a religion. It's stated pretty clearly here:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    Any religion will have aspects that people agree with and don't agree with. If their activity is outright illegal, then punish that specific activity. Christians can worship Christ. Muslims can worship Allah. Pastafarians can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Satanists can worship Lucifer. Eco fairies can worship Mother Earth. Atheists can worship nothing. Democrats can worship government. Republicans can worship capitalism. And Scientologists can worship whatever it is they worship.

    The minute we allow government to dictate what is or isn't a religion is the instant we lose all religious freedom.

    1. Re:Tread carefully by PPH · · Score: 2

      The minute we allow government to dictate what is or isn't a religion is the instant we lose all religious freedom.

      So why is there a tax exempt catagory for religious organizations? That puts the government squarely in the middle of the business of determining what is/is not a legitimate religion.

      I say we treat them all as non profit organizations if they can meet the qualifications and leave it at that. If you want to wear a collander on your head, that's not the government's business.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Re:Tax exempt? No we don't revoke that by jbolden · · Score: 2

    Yes it is rather routine. But the institutions who get their status revoked aren't close to being exempt. The Church of Scientology does so many things that qualify it as a church its hard to imagine anything more than a fine without blatant intentional discrimination. The intent here is to encourage the state to attack a religion because they don't like it.

  15. Re:All churches that endorse candidates by fche · · Score: 2

    ... as should unions?

  16. Re:Tax exempt? No we don't revoke that by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This just goes to show the dangers of relying on your own perception when it comes to issues like this. You can download a list of entities which lost their tax exempt status from the IRS themselves, which I am doing now, and (for those who automatically lose their status) it's a 20MB ZIP file containing text, so you can imagine how many records it contains. If their servers weren't so slow from over here I'd give you a precise number.

    Don't trust that you know everything - double check you've not fooled yourself or been fooled by someone else. That has two benefits: You learn, and you decrease the chances of looking foolish.

  17. Re:No. by mean+pun · · Score: 2

    You mean the NRA, or religions in general?

  18. Try doing it right next time by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  19. Re:No. by oobayly · · Score: 2

    Some might observe that it's doubtful there's been a time in history where the two were mutually exclusive.

  20. Re:Just to save a lot of time for everybody by oobayly · · Score: 2

    Luckily I live in a country where CoS was described as "pernicious nonsense", "dangerous material" and "immoral and socially obnoxious". And that was by our courts.

  21. Re:A tough road to revoke this by jeepies · · Score: 2

    I myself agree, I read L. Ron Hubbard book years ago, and came away with no hint of a religious kind on organization

    That's like saying you've read the Bible and now understand any given Christian denomination or the Quran and now understand Islam. The actual religions are often quite different from the book that sprang from. In the case of Scientology, if you happen to catch the recent HBO documentary, they mention that Scientology is a repackaging of Dianetics as a religion that came about after sales of the book died down. So to say Scientology is not a religion because you once read Dianetics....that's a big leap.

  22. Re:Horrible arguments. by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's it to you if the religious text is a trade secret, you have to fork over cash to read their texts, and as far as civil trials are concerned they are operating withing the law.

    The only people who are "victimized" by Scientology are Scientologists. It's not my problem nor yours.

    Every organization sued or otherwise attacked by Scientology is also "victimized" by them. Are you interested in warning people against joining Scientology by telling them what it's really about? Prepare to be sued for releasing their Trade Secrets. Scientology's victims are hardly limited to their membership.

    Now, if they break the law and really hurt someone - like institutionalizing the molesting small children - then that's for the cops to handle and they SHOULD be punished.

    If Tom Cruise and other movie stars want to spend millions supporting the Scientolgists, that's their problem, not mine. The only problem I have with Tom Cruise is I wish he'd make more kick-ass science fiction movies.

    But if we're gonna pick on kooky religions, I think we should start with the Mormons first. They actually have a history of murdering people.

    In 1978 11 high ranking Scientology leaders were convicted in one of the largest counts of internal espionage of the IRS and federal attorney's offices.
    In 1978 France convicted, in absentia, L Ron Hubbard of fraud.
    In 1988 in Spain the Spanish head of Scientology and ten others were arrested on charges of fraud, coercion and labour law violations.
    In 2009, a Paris court found the French Church of Scientology guilty of organized fraud and imposed a fine of nearly US$900,000.

    Noah Lottick, died 1990
    Lisa McPherson, died 1995