Why exactly are religious organizations still granted tax-exempt status in the developed world?

So what?

More bang for the charity buck, more localized help.

The solution is that all religious denominations and groups - no exceptions - should lose their tax-exemptions.

Yes. And they lack many other privileges that corporations have.

And they get missionaries to do the trenchwork for them, foxholes are a fedora free zone. Temples are untaxed because they outsource the states expenditure , just like why mothethood is unpaid to be untaxed.

So if we do tax them, won't that mean we will have to let them start lobbying and stuff?
Risking to turn the Catholic Church into the biggest lobbying group?

>'Secular' charities provide much more charity than any religious ones

not true btw.

>today, we hate Muslims.
>lets tax every Mosque at 10x currency per square foot a year.

>tomorrow, we hate Christians.
>Down with the Mosque tax, up with the church tax.

Again, by allowing religious institutions to be taxed, you essentially open the door for any later government to arbitrarily destroy any given religious organization.

>give the government more money to spy on us, fund terrorist groups, and support bogus social movements

No thanks

You don't need a license to qualify for any number of tax exemptions (I think there are some that require a license though); that's if youre running a business for profit.

Also, slippery slope is a bad legal argument. You just say a judge will evaluate whether or not a church is a community based on specific criteria either in the statute or in judge-made legal precedent.

Yeah. Fedora or faithful, it's probably best that we just leave the churches to themselves. A lot of their revenue goes towards upkeep and charity anyway.

Only the LDS church seems to be getting away with murder.

>owing stuff is a crime
>you owe us your stuff because 2016
I want redditors to leave

>Temples are untaxed because they outsource the states expenditure

Hardly. Secular non-profits and charities and local community groups are much more effective than religious groups. Religious groups mostly only offer "spiritual help" which is undoubtedly useless in light of the lack of supernatural agency. Their charities are typically sub-par when compared to those 'secular' ones I just mentioned, since there is less emphasis on actually helping the people and more on "spreading the Gospel".

I always see churches nearby offering a free hot meal and clothes to local homeless people. The catch? They have to sit through an hour-long sermon about why Jesus loves them or some shit.

Mother Theresa is a good example of "Christian charity" - centers were the emphasis was on converting weak and vulnerable people, rather than actually helping them.

>foxholes are a fedora free zone

Atheists are generally sincere in their beliefs; they (we) are not closet theists lying about our opinions. If a person considers a character to be fictional or non-existent, stressful situations will not change that opinion

>letting some cults with crazy notions keep more money to lobby and throw their weight around and harm people with their idiotic and outdated notions.

No thanks.

Because then they would be a source of government revenue, granting them more influence over politics and vice-versa

Think about how much influence a pastor has on the political decisions of his community, especially in the united States. Now imagine how much that influence would grow if they didn't even pretend to stay non partisan.

>Well we could pass laws that limit their political influence too
No, you can't.

>the largest networks of private education throughout the entire world are Catholic
>no longer have anything of value

>letting some cults with crazy notions keep more money to lobby and throw their weight around and harm people with their idiotic and outdated notions.

I don't know what shithole you live in, but here the Church provides services that are commonly used and helpful for free. Which is the reason why most people here pay the church tax (which is optional) willingly. Which is also why most atheists and other non-religious are still part of the church here, because they provide good services.

You obviously just have some personal grind against religion.

>Recent studies from Harvard professor Robert Putnam and University of Notre Dame scholar David Campbell show that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community.

>Putnam said in a Religion News Service article about the studies that not only are people of faith better citizens, but they also make better neighbors and are generally just "nicer" people.

>The scholars agreed the reason for such civic engagement by people of faith has to do with the relationships people make in their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, which draw them into community activism.

gainesville.com/lifestyle/20090620/study-finds-religious-people-more-likely-to-volunteer

>I always see churches nearby offering a free hot meal and clothes to local homeless people. The catch? They have to sit through an hour-long sermon about why Jesus loves them or some shit.

Mother Theresa is a good example of "Christian charity" - centers were the emphasis was on converting weak and vulnerable people, rather than actually helping them.

You're ignoring the principle reason tax exemptions exist though: they are not run for profit. Sure, they may want people to convert, but proselytizing does not equal profiting in the eyes of the law, and if you're providing a service without any intention of profit, then you qualify for a tax exemption.

Also, secular charities often come under attack for spending heavy amounts of their donations on administrative costs, especially the salaries of the people running the non-profit. Red Cross, United Way, etc. have all come under heavy fire for diverting up to as much as a third or even a half of all donations to administering the charity's bureaucracy.

I'm not religious, but people who say churches provide nothing of social value just have an ax to grind against religion.

Take notes faggot. That's how you pitch atheism.

Converting them is helping them though. When you're dying, thoughts about what comes after death are a very real source of anxiety. Mother Teresa and those like her bring the healing of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to them.

check out these dubs

...

Atheists? Sincere?

kek

You're foolish little children running around saying "you're not the boss of me!"

I agree with you, actually; religious counseling is a form of therapy for earnest believers. This is why it qualifies as a service. And because of separation of church and state, the government does not get into the business of licensing religious ministers and members of the faithful.

>private education
>aka catholic indoctrination centers + public school curriculum

The most horrifying part of this system hands down is scientology. How those fuckass scoundrels ever got a hold of tax exempt status is beyond me.

Amen.

We would tax everyone the same, ding-dong.

Anyone with sense would oppose a plan to discriminate by denomination as with Jizya taxes.

>Only the LDS

See $cientology

>aka catholic indoctrination centers + public school curriculum

Many secular parents in England send their kids to Catholic schools because they are simply the best private schools.

The Church isn't some insidious organization hell bent on world domination like you and many others here seem to believe. Most fundamentalist Christians aren't church staff.

God's kingdom is not of this world.

I'm gonna expand on this:

So, let's say the Church has to pay taxes now. Presumably the "church tax" would be removed, and if you wanted to be a part of the Church you'd have to join them and pay a membership fee. This would mean that by every merit the Church is now a corporation. Church land of course stays with the church, it is their private property. This would mean that marriages, confirmation school, funerals and baptization would all likely start costing money.

The Church probably would need to start renting advertisement space on their property, giving that oh-so-medieval "Subway - Eat Fresh" logan to 1000 year old Churches.

This is all coming from a person who was so autistic that he didn't go to confirmation school despite the fact that it is a social norm and 90% of teens go there because I wanted to hold on to my principles as an atheist.

That still allows for the state to arbitrarily eliminate religion whenever they want through taxation.

It also means that wealthier religious organizations will thrive over less wealthy ones, since they'd be more able to pay whatever the tax rate that everyone's paying.

Most churches - including the Catholic Church - would not be able to bear the brunt if they were forced to pay taxes. Even mega-churches.

I

Evidence?

traditionally dont most non for profits qualify for tax exemptions?

By the same we mean same percentage.

It's not like both Megachurch and Tinysteeple will pay exactly $8000 every year. Rather, they both pay at a percentage rate.

Seriously, it's ridiculous that scientology is able to thrive under this shit.

Maybe I should go around insisting I have a bunch of convictions and superstitions and that it warrants its own tax-exempt culture.

>The Church isn't some insidious organization hell bent on world domination

Not anymore it's not, no.
They used to kill people for disagreeing.

And I'm aware of the secular benefits of religion. Doesn't mean that indoctrination isn't a main aspect of religious schooling.

Of course if you're convinced beyond reason that being indoctrinated is a good thing, then I suppose that goes on the list of benefits.

>strawman
>atheists are just [stereotype]

Who needs data when you have rhetoric and a sense of infallibility?

Yes. People benefit from shared opinions, cronyism, culture and so on.

Atheists couldn't do this if they tried because they'd immediately be accused of "being just like religion."

There's no secular place people can gather, be told they're right once a week by a skilled orator, get hooked up with friendly people, start families, etc.

The simple fact is that secular people are discriminated against in highly subtle ways, and religious communities experience extreme benefit not from some inherent superiority but from the boosted confidence and kickbacks that come from being part of a powerful in-group.

>Maybe I should go around insisting I have a bunch of convictions and superstitions and that it warrants its own tax-exempt culture.
If you can make an org for that, it's cash will be untaxed, so sure.

>Doesn't mean that indoctrination isn't a main aspect of religious schooling.

Depends on the country and the religious sect. Mainstream religions on western countries usually don't indoctrinate children by offering good school services.

They do it because the church can't survive on Sunday ceremonies anymore and they need to provide more secularized services to a more secular society. But yes some smaller sects do have indoctrinating private schools, but it's hard to do anything against them. The parents of the children are willingly sending them there, and we allow parents be awful parents in several other ways as well.

>"b-but religious charities do good stuff, I-I swear!"

jonathanturley.org/2012/07/01/the-myth-of-religious-charity/

They do, and a few people have already pointed this out. The "tax the churches!" people ignore this fundamental point, which is the most basic aspect of what qualifies an entity as a not-for-profit and thus for a tax exemption.

They do do it tho:

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/04/godless-church-services-for-atheists-go-global.html

>Atheists couldn't do this if they tried because they'd immediately be accused of "being just like religion."
>There's no secular place people can gather, be told they're right once a week by a skilled orator, get hooked up with friendly people, start families, etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Assembly
>The simple fact is that secular people are discriminated against in highly subtle ways
>but from the boosted confidence and kickbacks that come from being part of a powerful in-group.
"Guys, we are discriminated because we can't make or join a group to play with in the courtyard."
By that logic, non-jews/armenians/insert-other-clannish-ethnicity that uses a lot of networking were discriminated as well.

>Atheists couldn't do this if they tried because they'd immediately be accused of "being just like religion.
>There's no secular place people can gather, be told they're right once a week by a skilled orator, get hooked up with friendly people, start families, etc.

That niche doesn't have to be exclusively filled in by religion. It can be filled in by clubs or extra-curricular organizations that are unreligious in nature.

>And once a truly enlightened leader finally gets elected we can make that percentage 100% to eliminate once and for all the ridiculous notion of an invisible sky daddy!

>hat meme

This is the only thing Christcucks can respond with in the face of actual criticism.

The main issue with your line of thinking is that if secular organizations were entitled to various religious exemptions, then they would also be automatically subject to separation of church and state doctrine. Therefore, no state funding for secular education, no secular holidays, no provision of public funds for secular service organizations.

That article was pretty horrible desu. First of all the idea that red cross or any other secular charities aren't ideologically motivated is false.

Their ideology is the fact that shoveling money to Africa is going to help Africa. Which is wrong. I'd much rather support Church soup kitchen than pour money into charity organizations that "maybe kinda sort of" will help their supposed targets.

That article also talks if the Church somehow avoids taxes. You only need to look at this thread to see why it is a good thing to not make religion a corporation.

He also conveniently forgets that the church also does several things which lessen the communitys burden, such as giving out free services to the public while organizations like the red cross are entirely based on charity.

But being an autist that can't gather and chill with other people is hard, mom!

If you let the government tax religion, all it takes is one hardline atheist administration to tax all of it out of existence. A government that presumes an authority to destroy religious institutions is tyrannical.

A percentage of what, exactly? It's not like they have sales you can track.

Someone's projecting

My point isn't that secular organizations should be considered religious, but that religious organization don't warrant this kind of treatment, even the well established, old ones.

As it stands a kooky bullshit fad from the 1950s is getting religious exemption status because they bribed some politicians and pretended to have some superstitions.

It's a game.

A percentage of income.
Scientology makes billions through sale of """religious""" literature and products.

Why are universities granted tax-exempt status, and why does everyone ignores this when discussing taxing churches?

ITT

...

You realize that Scientology is not a good example of how typical religious organizations run?

What about those Mormon fellows? They seem like rather upstanding people.

Yet you haven't demonstrated why they don't warrant the exception. The founders understood that a person's spiritual beliefs were of the most intimately personal nature and that the government should have as little as possible to do with regulating them.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Assembly

Churches: Ubiquitous
Sunday assemblies: Like five locations.

>"Guys, we are discriminated because we can't make or join a group to play with in the courtyard."

No. Don't mock this shit. Running for public office as an Atheist is political suicide, still. Our opinions could get us killed for most of Western history, we are held in lower regard than homosexuals or minorities, who still have the potential to turn to Jesus.

On top of that, the benefits one gets from having a community to fall back on is enormous. I know some dumbass rednecks where I live, through my girlfriend's ma. They all have arrest records. They all waste money on booze and drugs. How do they stay afloat? They ask for money from a couple of churches they go to every now and then. All you need is set of convictions and to say the magic words and to profess beliefs and gates open magically for you to a social safety net nonbelievers are excluded from.

I knew a kid who lived out of a church once. He got emancipated from his parents and went to this local hipstery protestant church and asked if he could live in the back for a while. They let him. He has a few duties he does there in exchange for free rent. Good thing he believes in Jesus.

I'd suspect things like this are the reason people believe and think their group is "supernaturally blessed." The collective benefits you get from social network of a religion, either in the form of confidence, power, friendship, or economic benefits, all compel people to continue believing and drawing conclusions. Earthly cronyism = divine blessing in people's eyes.

There's a reason it's called the Good News user.

...

Because you can just CLAIM to have convictions you dont' really have and reap social benefits. Especially if you open a church.

Politicians have used religious positions as social platforms since before Christ. Caesar seized the position of Pontifex Maximus for a reason, and it wasn't piety.

People in the lower classes claim to believe so they can suck at the church community's teat in times of weakness. It becomes both a means of power through popular approval, a means of laundering money, a means of tax exemption, a means of cultural indoctrination, and a means of social welfare.

The incentives for these organizations are mostly secular in nature, and it is not the sincerity of conviction but rather the desire for these benefits that cause churches to thrive. It causes intellectual positions to be disproportionately held out of concern for social approval and community ties.

If you don't think there are thousands of people who pretend to be religious just so they can enjoy the kickbacks, then I suppose we can agree to disagree.

...

And yet they benefit from the arbitrary tax status bestowed upon religious organizations.

These are organizations that merely incentivize a population to draw unaccountable and infalsifiable conclusions about the universe for the sake of reaping temporary social benefit and approval.

This post is actually pretty spot on.

>No. Don't mock this shit. Running for public office as an Atheist is political suicide, still. Our opinions could get us killed for most of Western history, we are held in lower regard than homosexuals or minorities, who still have the potential to turn to Jesus.

While I disagree that homosexuals are held in higher "regard' than atheists by Christians, I do agree that one of the most grievous faults of Christians is to trivialize the harm and abuse that has been done towards those who did not fall in with the expectations of the religious establishment while aggrandizing their own.

Because most of the population has socio-historically been indoctrinated to call it that?

Sure I guess. I've never met an actual Mormons so I really have no idea.

I don't understand the point of this post. You're mad that religious organizations support their members? As someone who's never been baptized and never been apart of any religion, I'm calling you an idiot. If you want to have some special community organization to help you out, fucking join one instead of complaining about other's good fortunes.

Caesar being Pontifex Maximus is literally the opposite of separation of church and state. . .

Also to dismiss the beliefs of "the lower classes" as insincere is presumptuous.

No because it saves people.

>Depends on the country and the religious sect. Mainstream religions on western countries usually don't indoctrinate children by offering good school services.

Bro I live in America. I've lived in highly religious communities my whole life. I get chick tracts in my shopping cart when I go to the grocery store.

I get asked if I've accepted Jesus on a sidewalk, going to get my own mail.

The kids in my town mostly go to "Christian academies." and wear little gryffindor-ass uniforms and all go to church from a very young age.

Give me a break. I cannot deny what I have seen. While I've never seen God, I've seen a shit ton of religious people, a shit ton of indoctrination, and a shit ton of social pressure/incentive to be religious. It is only out of a weird sense of dignity and honesty and an inability to keep a straight face during church services that I haven't at times turned to local churches for help, that's how fucking ubiquitous they are in my area of this so-called "Western country."

Being an ideological minority who can't bring oneself to hold false convictions for the sake of reaping social benefits is hard.

I socialize great in any environment where religion isn't a dominating factor.

I believe that every belief system has a few assholes among them. There can be asshole atheists who pick on moderate Christians and other religions. There can be asshole Christians who pick on Atheists and other religions. There can be asshole Muslims who kill Atheists, Christians and others.
The list goes on.

>Caesar being Pontifex Maximus is literally the opposite of separation of church and state. . .

Tell me, would someone who says they're an Atheist ever win a presidential election in the U.S.?

Just because our presidents don't also try to be bishops doesn't mean religious discrimination isn't apparent in politics. People were afraid of Kennedy back in the day, because they thought he'd bend his knee to The Vatican sooner than the U.S.A.

This is spot on.

Religion is quite pervasive even here in the U.S., particularly in Midwest and Appalachia, but I've seen it here where I live.

Sure, religion is losing it's power, but it still has enough to pack a punch.

>good luck passing a "tax the churches" law

All you need is the "The Statue in Restraint of Appeals" decision or convert to Protestant, Reformed, or Orthodox, plus a Theologian advisor.

Good thing you've convinced yourself of that. It's a bit harder for me than simply going "Okay I believe now" and clacking my heels together three times.

Something about my big stupid brain just keeps telling me "people are incentivized socially to repeat these things and the evidence isn't there."

Tell me again how atheists are publicly hanged in the streets.

You remind me of vegans: assholes who try to do something besides the norm so that you can feel morally superior to everyone else.

Yes I think it's entirely possible that we could have an overtly atheist president within the next 100 years.

Our brains often get in the way, it's true.

They aren't.

Discrimination against Atheists is at its historical low-point, certainly. It's mostly just social and political suicide now, where it used to mean having to flee or being a lifelong pariah, or getting lynched.

And consider that most Atheists throughout history continued the facade of being religious to please their families and communities. I know plenty of people who still do it. Particularly in the Hispanic and Italian communities Atheists put on a Godly face for their families. Those are the kinds of families where you still get the belt or the switch or the rod for blaspheming, depending on the level of severity.

Seven states in the U.S. legally ban atheists from holding office at the state, county, city, and special-district level. A significant number of children who express atheist convictions (or homosexuality) are kicked out or abused by more religious parents. Look up the statistics on homeless teenagers in the U.S., and a significant number are in their condition because of what I just mentioned.

There is also the discrimination that cannot be gauged but that certainly occurs, especially in more conservative areas. People being denied jobs because of atheist conviction (but given a generic reason), the talk of atheists being "demonic" at pulpits, and more.

Don't trivialize the abuse your religious establishment has inflicted on certain groups.

And I do feel sorry for those people. But I don't think "avenging" them by destroying the moderate Christian lifestyle is justified by those events.
I personally can't wait for the day that a church, mosque, and synagogue can exist in the same area without conflict.
I'm trivializing anything, I'm just saying to at least be grateful for what you have, instead of complaining on Veeky Forums like it's reddit.

The Saudis still decapitate with sword, btw.

I'm talking about America, dipshit.