Charities, Churches and other non-profits

[McCulloch]

A charitable organization is a type of non-profit organization. It differs from other types of non-profit organizations in that its focus is centered around goals of a general philanthropic nature, that is activities serving the public interest or common good.

In many countries, a charity has a number of tax benefits, beyond those granted to other non-profit organizations. Most significantly, donations to a charity provide a tax write off to the donors whereas donations to other non-profit organizations do not.

Many countries laws specify that the advancement of religion is deemed to be an activity that serves the public interest, thus allowing organizations with the purpose of advancing religion to provide tax benefits to their donors.

Questions for debate:

1. Can it be demonstrated that the advancement of religion, as practiced by the various churches, truly a benefit to the public?
2. Should donations made towards the advancement of religion and religious practices be subsidized by our taxes?
3. If the answer to (1) is No, then should churches be mandated to keep their finances relating to genuine charitable activities separate from finances relating to the advancement of religion?
4. If the answer to (1) is Yes, then how can a government, through legislation, determine what activities constitute the advancement of religion yet maintain a separation of Church and State?

[dianaiad]

the government has this list of charities to which donations are tax exempt, and those which are not, what is the message here?

Maybe your government works differently than ours. Yes, our government maintains a list of registered charities, but any non-profit organization that can show that it meets the criteria of being a charity, mainly that it does charitable work, can get on that list. Churches get on the list without having to show that they meet any of the criteria. They unfairly get a free pass.

The point is that, except for the churches, the list is not arbitrary. The requirements are all set out in legislation. The government of the day cannot refuse an otherwise qualified organization because they don't like their ideology or theology.

Churches are assumed to be charitable organizations by the very nature of being a church. It comes with the definition OF 'church." In other words, if it isn't charitable, it's not a church. The IRS here takes a very dim view of organizations that claim to be churches, and turn out not to have a charitable aspect to them. People go to jail. There is no such automatic definition for non religious organizations--and in fact most non-profit organizations are NOT charitable organizations. They have different aims. Given this, it's a great deal more efficient to assume the obvious and go after the aberrant than it is to make everybody go through hoops.

As well, the suggestion has been, not that governments NOW discriminate against churches, but rather that they SHOULD.

[Goat]

the government has this list of charities to which donations are tax exempt, and those which are not, what is the message here?

Maybe your government works differently than ours. Yes, our government maintains a list of registered charities, but any non-profit organization that can show that it meets the criteria of being a charity, mainly that it does charitable work, can get on that list. Churches get on the list without having to show that they meet any of the criteria. They unfairly get a free pass.

The point is that, except for the churches, the list is not arbitrary. The requirements are all set out in legislation. The government of the day cannot refuse an otherwise qualified organization because they don't like their ideology or theology.

Churches are assumed to be charitable organizations by the very nature of being a church. It comes with the definition OF 'church." In other words, if it isn't charitable, it's not a church. The IRS here takes a very dim view of organizations that claim to be churches, and turn out not to have a charitable aspect to them. People go to jail. There is no such automatic definition for non religious organizations--and in fact most non-profit organizations are NOT charitable organizations. They have different aims. Given this, it's a great deal more efficient to assume the obvious and go after the aberrant than it is to make everybody go through hoops.

As well, the suggestion has been, not that governments NOW discriminate against churches, but rather that they SHOULD.

That is a very biased and inaccurate description of that suggestion. What the suggestion is that churches should not be given privatizes because they are churches, but be treated equally , just like every other non-profit organization, and kept to the same accountability as other non-profit organizations.

As was pointed out, churches do not have the same standard of accountability as other organizations.

[McCulloch]

Charities are granted certain benefits under tax legislation because charitable activities are presumed to be beneficial to society and should be encouraged out of public funds. The mechanism used is that donors to charities get a tax write-off. This has worked well and is as it should be, in my opinion.

My point is that no organization should be presumed to be a charity. If your group claims to be a charity and wishes to take advantage of the tax benefits available to a charity, then the onus is on your group to show that it is a bona fide charity. The rules should apply evenly and equally regardless of religious affiliation or the lack thereof.

But that is not how the system works. If I were to start a charity, then I (quite rightly) have to demonstrate to the government that this charity meets certain requirements: that it engages in legitimate charitable activities; that it is not-for-profit; et cetera. However, if I were to start a church, I can by-pass the need to demonstrate these things. I need not show that the promotion of faith is beneficial to society. I need not show that prayer or worship helps anyone. The government, in violation of the principle of the separation of church and state, grants to my organization, certain tax benefits without the need to meet the normal requirements.

If it isn't charitable, it's not a church.

Perhaps we disagree on what it means to be a charity. We agree that charities must be non-profit and that not all non-profit organizations are charities. What differentiates a charity from other non-profit organizations? To me it is that charities perform primarily charitable activities. But that could be seen to be tautological and somewhat circular, unless we can define what a charitable activity is. Canadian law states that a charitable activity is one which provides a tangible benefit to the public. Our common law further refines this into four categories:

1. the relief of poverty,
2. the advancement of education,
3. the advancement of religion,
4. or other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said are charitable.

American law 501(c)(3) is similar except that they explicitly include scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, as well.

I have two objections to the law as it stands.

Firstly, the presumption that purely religious activities are, in fact, charitable. If you want to worship some deity, then do it on your own dime.

Secondly, churches are exempted:

(a) organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501 (c)(3) status [...]Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches.

[dianaiad]

Charities are granted certain benefits under tax legislation because charitable activities are presumed to be beneficial to society and should be encouraged out of public funds. The mechanism used is that donors to charities get a tax write-off. This has worked well and is as it should be, in my opinion.

My point is that no organization should be presumed to be a charity. If your group claims to be a charity and wishes to take advantage of the tax benefits available to a charity, then the onus is on your group to show that it is a bona fide charity. The rules should apply evenly and equally regardless of religious affiliation or the lack thereof.

But that is not how the system works. If I were to start a charity, then I (quite rightly) have to demonstrate to the government that this charity meets certain requirements: that it engages in legitimate charitable activities; that it is not-for-profit; et cetera. However, if I were to start a church, I can by-pass the need to demonstrate these things. I need not show that the promotion of faith is beneficial to society. I need not show that prayer or worship helps anyone. The government, in violation of the principle of the separation of church and state, grants to my organization, certain tax benefits without the need to meet the normal requirements.

If it isn't charitable, it's not a church.

Perhaps we disagree on what it means to be a charity. We agree that charities must be non-profit and that not all non-profit organizations are charities. What differentiates a charity from other non-profit organizations? To me it is that charities perform primarily charitable activities. But that could be seen to be tautological and somewhat circular, unless we can define what a charitable activity is. Canadian law states that a charitable activity is one which provides a tangible benefit to the public. Our common law further refines this into four categories:

1. the relief of poverty,
2. the advancement of education,
3. the advancement of religion,
4. or other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said are charitable.

American law 501(c)(3) is similar except that they explicitly include scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, as well.

I have two objections to the law as it stands.

Firstly, the presumption that purely religious activities are, in fact, charitable. If you want to worship some deity, then do it on your own dime.

Secondly, churches are exempted:

(a) organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501 (c)(3) status [...]Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches.

I think that we are working on two entirely different paradigms here. You are looking at churches (and religion in general), I think as simply another human organization, like literary book clubs, the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity or...???

No different from them, anyway, because to you religion has no basis in fact, and no real use to humanity; if they all faded away that would be fine with you, as an atheist. This is certainly your right...but the fact is, churches are very different; a completely different class of organization. Those who belong to them, who believe in them, stake their entire lives, lifestyles, souls, families and everything they are to them; they have for as long as humans have been on the planet.

Atheists do, as well; aren't you staking everything you are on the idea that there is no God...or that if there is, He doesn't give a hoot what you do?

The point is, religion, and/or ideas regarding deity, have been central to human culture for, well....forever. One of the things that means is this: people who think that their religion is right and everyone else's is wrong tend to do something about that. The best send missionaries--the rest send soldiers. Governments which side with one religion or another are not kind to those not in favor; even now, take a peek at Russia and even Germany.

So, when the colonists decided to kick England (and the Church of England) out on her royal rear, the founding fathers decided that there was only one way to legally deal with religion; and that is, refuse to take sides. Refuse to advocate for one over another; no judgments regarding the truth, falsity or value of any of 'em. Do not, in other words, establish a state religion.

This nation has stumbled over that frequently--but somehow it, mostly, has avoided falling into that particular trap. In order to do that, we had to realize something; if we discriminate against any religion, for any reason, then the balance tips....and all hell breaks loose. The history of my own religion is pretty illustrative of what happens then.

So...the only thing that can be done is that ALL religions (churches) be assumed, AS churches, to be 'charities' as an integral part of the definition. As soon as one has to prove that it is charitable, the government is in a position of having to judge the religion/church. Is this one better than that one? Is this one culturally acceptable, and that one...not? Are you going to hell if you belong to this one, and not if you belong to that? Is this a cult, and that one not?

As soon as you give power to the government to make that decision, in ANY aspect of a religion, you have opened a can of crickets.

............and THAT is why churches must be presumed to be charities until it is proven that they are not, and why non religious organizations must prove that they are charities first.

I would include any avowedly atheist organization in this group of 'those who are presumed to be charities until they prove they are not,' as well. "American Atheists," for instance, should be presumed to be charitable...even though they probably would be insulted to be given this consideration.

It is VITAL, in order to preserve freedom of thought, religion and speech, that all such organizations be entirely out of the influence of government...every bit as important as it is to keep churches from dictating to the government.

[Shermana]

"............and THAT is why churches must be presumed to be charities until it is proven that they are not, and why non religious organizations must prove that they are charities first. "


Define charity, and then I think it will be easy to prove which Churches are giving a sizeable portion of their income to such endeavors, or if "Charity" merely involves the "feel good" speeches and rituals.

If so, Congress is Respecting every single religion and giving favor to them all individually, by holding them to NO account.

If Congress TAXED all Churches, then they'd be showing no favor to a particular church. As it stands, ALL churches are favored as they can simply call themselves a Church and use whatever reasoning they want to call their "Services" a "Charity".

If you consider your Church to be doing a good deed by giving people hope, good feelings, positive social interaction, and maybe even a little bit of feeding hungry people (with a whopping few percent of the whole total revenue), then I see no reason why this shouldn't be taxed like a Country Club.

[dianaiad]

"............and THAT is why churches must be presumed to be charities until it is proven that they are not, and why non religious organizations must prove that they are charities first. "


Define charity, and then I think it will be easy to prove which Churches are giving a sizeable portion of their income to such endeavors, or if "Charity" merely involves the "feel good" speeches and rituals.

If so, Congress is Respecting every single religion and giving favor to them all individually, by holding them to NO account.

If Congress TAXED all Churches, then they'd be showing no favor to a particular church. As it stands, ALL churches are favored as they can simply call themselves a Church and use whatever reasoning they want to call their "Services" a "Charity".

If you consider your Church to be doing a good deed by giving people hope, good feelings, positive social interaction, and maybe even a little bit of feeding hungry people (with a whopping few percent of the whole total revenue), then I see no reason why this shouldn't be taxed like a Country Club.

Who gets to decide which churches are charities and which are not? Think about it...and think about what that would mean, giving any group of people this authority, and think also what it would mean to, say....you. If you give people authority to judge the 'charitable' nature of this church over that one, then what if they decide that any organization that doesn't have this specific attitude toward deity, or that one, is no longer tax exempt?

What if they then go after atheists?

Governments have, y'know. In fact, the USA is still rather rare in the world for NOT going after unpopular, or politically incorrect, groups because of their beliefs, nor non-belief, in deity.

In short, you want to protect YOUR freedom to speak, and your freedom to not worship at all, and not be penalized for your opinions about religion?

Then protect the churches. All of them. With everything in you...because if even one is penalized because the government doesn't like some aspect of them, then all can be---and you can be. It is not a good thing.

[McCulloch]

I think we may be making progress. Yes, we do seem to be working on two entirely different paradigms. Yes, I am looking at churches as human organizations. This is the way that I believe governments should also look at churches. Governments operate as if they do not know about the gods. Religion and the state must be kept separate. It matters not whether religion has a basis in fact or my own personal attitude towards it. Churches may well be a completely different class of organization. But our governments have no basis to make that distinction without crossing the line into theology.

Yes, the Founding Fathers of the American Republic decided to institute the first ever national constitution without reference to any religion or religious belief. Theirs was a country without established religion, with complete constitutional religious freedom. Not just that the state was prohibited from establishing or impeding any particular religion, but the courts have ruled consistently, the state is prohibited from establishing or impeding religion. ¹

So, it is clear to me, that the only thing that can be done is that all organizations, should be treated equally under the law, making no distinction as to whether they are churches or something else. The state has no business judging the ideology of any organization, just whether what they are doing fits the legal definition of charity. If it does, then it is, under law, a charity.

The solution suggested by dianaiad leaves the government in one of two untenable situations. Since churches get favorable treatment under tax laws, either the government legislates what is or is not a church, or the government must accept every claim to be a church as valid². As soon as you give power to the government to make that decision, you have opened a can of worms.

A THAT is why governments must be blind to whether an organization is a church. It is VITAL, in order to preserve freedom of religion that all governments must avoid making distinctions between churches and other organizations.

_________________________________________
¹ Ironically, when the American colonists decided to kick the English monarchy and its established church out, they did so in violation of the teachings of the Bible itself.

² Reminds me of a joke. It has to do with a corporate restructuring to take advantage of certain tax benefits. It ends with, "And your new title is Bishop of Information Technology"

[Shermana]

"............and THAT is why churches must be presumed to be charities until it is proven that they are not, and why non religious organizations must prove that they are charities first. "


Define charity, and then I think it will be easy to prove which Churches are giving a sizeable portion of their income to such endeavors, or if "Charity" merely involves the "feel good" speeches and rituals.

If so, Congress is Respecting every single religion and giving favor to them all individually, by holding them to NO account.

If Congress TAXED all Churches, then they'd be showing no favor to a particular church. As it stands, ALL churches are favored as they can simply call themselves a Church and use whatever reasoning they want to call their "Services" a "Charity".

If you consider your Church to be doing a good deed by giving people hope, good feelings, positive social interaction, and maybe even a little bit of feeding hungry people (with a whopping few percent of the whole total revenue), then I see no reason why this shouldn't be taxed like a Country Club.

Who gets to decide which churches are charities and which are not? Think about it...and think about what that would mean, giving any group of people this authority, and think also what it would mean to, say....you. If you give people authority to judge the 'charitable' nature of this church over that one, then what if they decide that any organization that doesn't have this specific attitude toward deity, or that one, is no longer tax exempt?

What if they then go after atheists?

Governments have, y'know. In fact, the USA is still rather rare in the world for NOT going after unpopular, or politically incorrect, groups because of their beliefs, nor non-belief, in deity.

In short, you want to protect YOUR freedom to speak, and your freedom to not worship at all, and not be penalized for your opinions about religion?

Then protect the churches. All of them. With everything in you...because if even one is penalized because the government doesn't like some aspect of them, then all can be---and you can be. It is not a good thing.

Atheist organizations that collect income should be taxed too.

Magazines get taxed, they are vanguards of "free speech" (even if that free speech is government mouthpiece opinion). If Churches are some kinds of vanguards of "Free speech", they should give to Caesar what is Caesars.

As for who gets to decide what is charitable, how about simply comparing to other forms of charity?

Should religious magazines not be taxed either?

If I went to a Messianic Jewish congregration and I knew they were paying their fair share that all struggling working people and rich fat cats alike had to pay, I'd feel more honored to be there.

But as long as Churches get their assets and revenue tax-free, it's an insult to people who actually labor and sweat.

[McCulloch]

Shermana, you need to make a distinction between profit or income and revenue.

Churches and other non-profit organizations, while they have revenue, do not have income. That is, their revenue is not allowed to be materially greater than their expenses. Yes, certain employees of the organizations in question do get paid for their work, and that pay is considered income in their hands. We don't tax revenue, we tax income.

[Shermana]

I think NYGreenguy said something about a non-profit only having to give away 5% or something....

And there's the issue of the assets, which everyone else has to pay taxes on.