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]

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?

After some thought...

I believe that the answer to question 1 is YES. A resounding and unqualified YES.

Why?

Because the only real freedom is the freedom of thought; no matter what else may constrain our actions, what we choose to THINK about the world around us should be unfettered. The only way to be certain of this is to keep anything, and anyone, from abridging freedom of speech--or of religion.

Remember; religion has been a divider, and a uniter, of peoples for literally millenia. It seems to me that the only societies which do not experience the divisive nature of religion are those who have such an ingrained worldview (including ideas regarding deity) that no other option is presented to them, OR those societies which allow all.

I prefer the latter type, myself. One of the most expressed reasons for leaving Europe and coming to America was a longing for freedom to believe, and worship, as one wished. It's too bad that many of those religious groups brought with them the attitude of 'well, I have mine, let's keep everybody else out," but for some remarkable reason, enough groups of odd religious persuasions got over here that the founding fathers ended up deciding to leave religion alone; the state can't do, HERE, what European nations did to their peoples.

Religion, then, is special; what one believes about deity is a fundamental part of one's existence, unlike pretty much anything else in one's life; it informs one's ethics, one's time, one's goals...little, if anything, else is as influential, and this applies to those whose view of God is "there isn't one" equally strongly.

Since one's view of deity is fundamental to the way one thinks and lives one's life, then it is vital that those who have ideas about this be absolutely free to speak about them, and not be hindered in doing so. Competing ideas are always good things; Censorship is rarely, if ever, appropriate--and that really applies to religious ideas.

So, because of the importance of the topic, because freedom of speech and freedom to think is fundamental to the American ideal, then yes, it is very much to the public good to have churches advance their religions.

As well, MOST religions have, at their core, solid and culturally advantageous moral codes that aid in the 'keeping of the peace". After all, if all that holds a thief back from stealing is that he might get caught--that's not much of a deterrent, frankly. It is internal ethical codes that keep people from stealing, not criminal statutes; those are there for the minority who do NOT have such codes. Do you think that laws against stealing would mean anything if everybody decided that it was morally and ethically permissible to steal?

We know the answer to that one...

As to #2: "subsidized by our taxes?" Such a statement is backwards. We aren't paying taxes to support churches. If I don't pay taxes this year, I'm not stealing from YOU, after all; I simply do not owe the government anything. Your question assumes that all money is the government's to begin with, and that somehow, by not paying taxes, the government is giving them something of ours. It's not. It's simply not taking THEIR money.

At most we can say that at present, the government is not penalizing people for exercising their right to free speech.

One can argue that as soon as churches are taxed for evangelical activities, their right to speak freely is very much being abrogated...and that the government is establishing a church; the 'don't you dare even HINT that there is anything like a God" church, because if you do, you lose your non-profit status--even though every other non-profit group organized for the purpose of making its positions known is NOT taxed.'

Finally, as to your last point: if the government allows...and allows tax exemptions for...ALL organizations whose main purpose is to talk about a specific belief regarding Deity, then it is by no means establishing a religion or official church. Thus there is no need to worry about whether it is.

I can tell you one thing; if you tax ANY organization that talks about God in any way, while allowing others to remain tax exempt, then you ARE establishing a religion, absolutely. Preventing that would cost millions of dollars..perhaps billions...and a whole new bureaucracy: one that would probably be thrown out as soon as it was formed as being completely unconstitutional on its face.

Nope, it's much better for society, and much CHEAPER, to leave the churches alone.

.............besides, American Atheists would also have to be clobbered under any proposal to tax churches. It, after all, is a non-profit organization whose purpose is only to disseminate it's views regarding deity, and all contributions to the organization ARE tax exempt.

Do you see the problem, here?

[McCulloch]

The question is not about freedom of religion or of speech. Restricting the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion would be a violation of human rights. However, I don't quite see how providing tax benefits to those who donate to the advancement of religion is necessary for protecting either of those rights. These freedoms are critical and fundamental, and as a taxpayer, I am willing to support the protection of those freedoms. However, I don't believe that I should have to pay more taxes than the person who provides money to the advancement of their religion.

About the law and order argument. Can you demonstrate that religions have been effective in deterring crime? Do atheists commit more rapes, murders or thefts proportionally than their theist counterparts? Because I don't believe in a god, am I more likely to torture kittens?

Our governments spend money raised by taxes. If it provides a deduction to someone, then either they have less money and thus provide fewer services or they have to tax the others more. Either way, I am either being shortchanged on government services or charged extra tax because of the tax benefits accrued to those supporting religious indoctrination. Taxes are not a penalty. Taxes should be the fair share contribution of the citizens towards the costs of running a civil society. In my view, this fairness is compromised by breaks given for the promotion of religion.

I am not suggesting that churches be taxed. They should not be taxed for evangelical activities. They should not be taxed for their worship. Church run charities should still be able to issue tax receipts. Churches should and will remain non-profit organizations, paying no taxes on their revenues. Their ability to practice, preach and teach should not be hindered in any way by our governments. My objection is to the right of the churches to issue tax receipts on what I see as being non-charitable activities, the promotion of religious doctrine and the worship of deity.

However, I do not see a compelling reason why those who donate money to those purposes should have their tax burden reduced.

Nope, it's much better for society, and much CHEAPER, to leave the churches alone.

You are probably correct. The disruption caused by correcting these injustices are likely not worth the benefit that would accrue. It is probably not worth the effort.

American Atheists would also have to be clobbered under any proposal to tax churches. It, after all, is a non-profit organization whose purpose is only to disseminate it's views regarding deity, and all contributions to the organization ARE tax exempt.

As I understand it, American Atheists are a non-profit organization, not subject to having their revenues taxed. Just the same as I would propose that the churches be. Are they a charity?

[Kuan]

McCulloch, I know nothing about taxes or how the system works, but I do find this conversation interesting.

You said the following:

My objection is to the right of the churches to issue tax receipts on what I see as being non-charitable activities, the promotion of religious doctrine and the worship of deity.

Could you clarfiy for me what you mean exactly? I just wanted to be sure if I understood you correctly.

You just seem to contradict yourself here.

They should not be taxed for their worship.

Their ability to practice, preach and teach should not be hindered in any way by our governments. My objection is to the right of the churches to issue tax receipts on what I see as being non-charitable activities, the promotion of religious doctrine and the worship of deity.

[dianaiad]

The question is not about freedom of religion or of speech. Restricting the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion would be a violation of human rights. However, I don't quite see how providing tax benefits to those who donate to the advancement of religion is necessary for protecting either of those rights. These freedoms are critical and fundamental, and as a taxpayer, I am willing to support the protection of those freedoms. However, I don't believe that I should have to pay more taxes than the person who provides money to the advancement of their religion.

So choose another charity to donate your funds to. Are you truly suggesting that the government be allowed to reward, or to punish, non-profit organizations according to how politically and 'culturally' correct their ideas are? I hope you see where the problem lies in that idea.

About the law and order argument. Can you demonstrate that religions have been effective in deterring crime? Do atheists commit more rapes, murders or thefts proportionally than their theist counterparts? Because I don't believe in a god, am I more likely to torture kittens?

Careful, there. I did not claim that atheists go out and commit murder and rapine. What I SAID was that what stops people from stealing, committing murder and otherwise harming each other isn't the laws against such things, but rather an internal code of ethics. Criminal laws aren't written to control the majority of people who have these internal ethical codes; they are written to control those who do not. We know this for two reasons: first, if everybody is out to do something, no law will prevent them from doing it. Mobs happen, for instance. Secondly, laws are not passed in anticipation of something going sideways; every law we've seen passed lately was done so as a result of someone doing something awful--that nobody thought would HAVE to be 'against the law." Just think about the increased security at the airports, passport rules, gun legislation...pick something.

As to atheists, yes, most of them have these internal ethical codes by which they live; probably gained from their parents, who may have been religious, or from their grandparents, who almost certainly were. Religions are pretty much all about these internal codes of behavior, and when they proselytize, that code of behavior is a rather important part of the message; 'good' members of the various religions just don't go around stealing. lying, killing...you get the drift.

Our governments spend money raised by taxes. If it provides a deduction to someone, then either they have less money and thus provide fewer services or they have to tax the others more. Either way, I am either being shortchanged on government services or charged extra tax because of the tax benefits accrued to those supporting religious indoctrination. Taxes are not a penalty. Taxes should be the fair share contribution of the citizens towards the costs of running a civil society. In my view, this fairness is compromised by breaks given for the promotion of religion.

If you advocate that all non-profit organizations, no matter what they advocate, be taxed the same, then...

but you don't seem to be doing that. It's the religion part that bugs you, and it is precisely THAT attitude that the Constitution (first amendment) was written to prevent. After all, if the government can penalize an organization because it is religious, what happens next? I contend that doing so IS establishing a government religion; an 'anti-religion,' rather the way certain European nations now discriminate against Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientology, or other small religions that don't pass their 'stink' test.

Next thing you know, they'll start taxing the atheists...and don't kid yourself; once you open that door, anybody can walk through it.

I am not suggesting that churches be taxed. They should not be taxed for evangelical activities. They should not be taxed for their worship. Church run charities should still be able to issue tax receipts. Churches should and will remain non-profit organizations, paying no taxes on their revenues. Their ability to practice, preach and teach should not be hindered in any way by our governments. My objection is to the right of the churches to issue tax receipts on what I see as being non-charitable activities, the promotion of religious doctrine and the worship of deity.

In other words, you want to tax their freedom to speak. Problem, that.....

True, PAC's, though they themselves are non-profit, have the disadvantage of donations not being tax deductible. However, I think that's because they want to affect the government rather more directly than churches are allowed to do; they can work for specific candidates; that's what they are for.

However, other organizations who combine charity and 'speaking out' have their contributions fully deductible. Why should churches be singled out here?

However, I do not see a compelling reason why those who donate money to those purposes should have their tax burden reduced.

Simply because you disapprove of the use to which their money is put? Problem, that one.

Nope, it's much better for society, and much CHEAPER, to leave the churches alone.

You are probably correct. The disruption caused by correcting these injustices are likely not worth the benefit that would accrue. It is probably not worth the effort.

That's one way to look at it. Of course, the injustices that would need correcting would go deeper than I think you can imagine. We'd be setting this nation up for pogroms, I'm afraid. It would all depend on who was in charge at the time who the target was.

American Atheists would also have to be clobbered under any proposal to tax churches. It, after all, is a non-profit organization whose purpose is only to disseminate it's views regarding deity, and all contributions to the organization ARE tax exempt.

As I understand it, American Atheists are a non-profit organization, not subject to having their revenues taxed. Just the same as I would propose that the churches be. Are they a charity?

You are correct; they are a tax exempt non-profit organization. They have a blog, youth clubs..sorta..and they do provide legal support for atheists who want to sue people who display crosses on their lawns at Christmas. If you want to call that a charity, be my guest.

.............and yes, all contributions to American Atheists are tax deductible. see their 501 statement here: http://www.atheists.org/orphans/501c3_statement

..........................and yes, this should remain true for them, an for any other group that exists primarily to express an opinion, religious or not.

(edited because I screwed up the quote hierarchy...)

[McCulloch]

Churches are non-profit organizations. I do not believe that their revenues should be subject to tax. I strongly believe in freedom of the press and freedom of religion. However, I do not believe that someone who gives a donation towards the non-charitable activities of a church merits a reduction in his tax burden. In the same way that I don't believe that someone who gives a donation towards a non-profit news organization should get a tax deduction.

If I give money to a church, and get a tax receipt, I get a reduction in the taxes I owe. Thus the real cost to me of that donation is less than the amount of money I paid. In essence, the church receives part of the money from me and part of the money from all the other taxpayers. This works the same as when I give to registered charities. The justification is that charities perform work that is beneficial to society so society as a whole supports them, in proportion to how much individuals give. The differences between churches and registered charities is that unlike registered charities, churches have no legal onus to prove that they are actually benefiting society and they are not obliged to have open accounting practices.

Therefore, I believe that churches should be treated under law as other non-profits rather than charities. They should not be taxed, but their donors should have to pay the entire amount of their donations. Other taxpayers should not be paying for the maintenance of worship or evangelism. Churches which run charitable activities should be allowed to provide tax receipts for donations directed to those charitable activities.

Just in case anyone missed it, I believe that churches should not be taxed on their revenue. Read my lips, no church taxes.

So choose another charity to donate your funds to.

I do. And I would be able to do more if part of my taxes were not going to subsidize churches.

Are you truly suggesting that the government be allowed to reward, or to punish, non-profit organizations according to how politically and 'culturally' correct their ideas are? I hope you see where the problem lies in that idea.

Absolutely not! Our governments should be ideologically and religiously blind. An organization that is not for profit which performs works which can be demonstrated to be beneficial to society should be treated as a charity. Donors to such organizations, in recognition of their efforts to benefit society should find some relief from their tax burden as a result. An organization that is not for profit, but serves only its own members should not be taxed, but donors to such organizations should not be subsidized by the other taxpayers.

To suggest that my way of thinking would lead to pogroms, taxing the freedom of speech would be a gross misrepresentation of what I am saying. I believe that Atheist or Humanist organizations should operate under the same legal framework as churches, whatever that is. No discrimination at all based on ideology or religion.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

To suggest that my way of thinking would lead to pogroms, taxing the freedom of speech would be a gross misrepresentation of what I am saying. I believe that Atheist or Humanist organizations should operate under the same legal framework as churches, whatever that is. No discrimination at all based on ideology or religion.

Here's the thing: if someone is going to donate funds to a charity, and the government has this list of charities to which donations are tax exempt, and those which are not, what is the message here?

What decision do you think that the person with the money will make? What preferred decision is implicit in the very existence of such a list?

Personally, I think that all donations to tax exempt organizations should be tax exempt also, with the possible exception of Political Action Committees that are bound to specific candidates....and I'm not all that certain about those.

[nygreenguy]

Personally, I think that all donations to tax exempt organizations should be tax exempt

Donations are never subject to taxes anyhow. In fact, most donations allow a tax deduction.
(for the donator)

[dianaiad]

Personally, I think that all donations to tax exempt organizations should be tax exempt

Donations are never subject to taxes anyhow. In fact, most donations allow a tax deduction.
(for the donator)

For most tax exempt organizations, this is true. Only PAC's, and political parties deny tax deductions for the donators.

The argument here seems to be that this should be extended to religious organizations.

[McCulloch]

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.