News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Tax Churches - the internet is silent on this

Started by Inevitable Droid, December 16, 2010, 11:37:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Sophus"Scientology churches aren't tax exempt are they? How do they distinguish between a cult and a religion?

Scientology in fact enjoys 501(c)(3) status, as I found noted on a variety of web sites, but most clearly and succinctly on one of their own - http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Append/09/page00.htm

If we could find some hard atheists who wanted to start a church, and if we designed it along the lines described above in this thread, I'm pretty confident the IRS would have little choice but to grant 501(c)(3) status.

Incidentally, there's a church that I would call apatheist, though it calls itself apathetic agnostic, but as far as I can tell, it never sought 501(c)(3) status - presumably out of apathy: The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic - http://uctaa.net/index.html
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Whitney

Quote from: "Sophus"How do they distinguish between a cult and a religion?

They don't...it's not up to the government to decide what is a dangerous cult and what is simply a religion.

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
Quote from: "IRS Publication 557"To determine whether an organization meets the religious purposes test of section 501(c)3, the IRS maintains two basic guidelines.
1. That the particular religious beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held.
2. The the practices and rituals associated with the organization's religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy.

The tricky part, of course, is that atheism per se is, for many of us, the absence of belief.  But those of us who have a positive belief in the non-existence of any deity could form a church around this positive belief.  The associated practices and rituals could be individualistic in nature.  For example, the creed could be as follows:

"There is no God.  There is only my life, governed by my will, causality, probability, and human laws.  Rejecting worship, rejecting prayer, rejecting divine command, and rejecting Providence, I am left with only my own courage, my own wisdom, my own strength, whatever resources I can bring to bear, and whatever help I receive from those who stand at my side.  So be it.  I am ready.  On this day, I begin my life anew."

The five virtues of this church, then, would be courage, wisdom, strength, resourcefulness, and reciprocity.  Encouraged practices would be facing challenges, study, physical exercise, financial investment, and social networking.

The sole ritual would be to recite the creed each morning.

The above is just an example of how something like this could be designed.  I'm fairly confident the IRS would have a hard time rejecting the above.

Comments?
In regard to the word "religious" in the guidelines, wouldn't this go against what being an Atheist means?  I've heard many times here that Atheism isn't a religion nor is it faith based.  To make ones creed that "There is no God" is to make the same, but opposite, claim as Christianity...or worse since I'm not aware of any religious creed that dogmatically or specifically states, "There is a God" (rather it is assumed) and thus making "There is no God" faith based.  It seems to this not so higly educated individual it is the wrong approach to gaining ground in taxing churches.
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The sole ritual would be to recite the creed each morning.
You mean robotically?  Where would this leave free thinking?

Just thinking as my fingers follow along.

Stevil

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In regard to the word "religious" in the guidelines, wouldn't this go against what being an Atheist means?  I've heard many times here that Atheism isn't a religion nor is it faith based.
If an atheist takes the position that they do not have a belief in god or gods (this is the definition of Atheist) then this is a neutral stance, although they could lean (even strongly) away from  or towards the possibility of a god or gods. No belief is assumed, they may simply be waiting for proof before making a judgement. Of course, with proof it would not be a belief as it would then be a fact.

If an atheist takes the position that they believe that there are no gods then this is a belief system that is not based on proof. They would still be an atheist because they would lack a belief in a god or gods.

Whitney

AD,

What the Atheist Church here basically did to solidify their status was define church as a group of people getting together to discuss religious topics and argued that, in this way, they were a religious organization.  There is no legal need to have a creed or any other such nonsense in order to be recognized as a church by the state...the definition of church is only loosely defined because ultimately the government can't dictate what is and isn't a religion as that would violate separation of church and state.  I could start the Church of the Fonz tomorrow and have tax free status upon incorporation simply by declaring the organization a church.



I'm not saying the reasoning for how a church can be only based on being an atheist was philosophically correct (legally yes) nor was I ever completely comfortable with the idea of calling a group of atheists a church.  For the purpose of the OP I am only supportive of doing so under a mass movement in an effort to make the religious churches secularize themselves by voting against automatic tax-free status for religious groups.

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: "Whitney"AD,
What the Atheist Church here basically did to solidify their status was define church as a group of people getting together to discuss religious topics and argued that, in this way, they were a religious organization.  There is no legal need to have a creed or any other such nonsense in order to be recognized as a church by the state...the definition of church is only loosely defined because ultimately the government can't dictate what is and isn't a religion as that would violate separation of church and state.  I could start the Church of the Fonz tomorrow and have tax free status upon incorporation simply by declaring the organization a church.

I'm not saying the reasoning for how a church can be only based on being an atheist was philosophically correct (legally yes) nor was I ever completely comfortable with the idea of calling a group of atheists a church.  For the purpose of the OP I am only supportive of doing so under a mass movement in an effort to make the religious churches secularize themselves by voting against automatic tax-free status for religious groups.
Thanks.

My only hang up left is the idea of a creed being repeated daily.  (I realize you mention there's no need for a creed) Not that I find it wrong.  There's value in memorizing, but from the standpoint of brainwashing.  I find it difficult to accept that someone like Inevitable Droid (I enjoy his logical and insightful thinking) would suggest something so argued against by most Atheism.  It's not full-on brainwashing, but couldn't it fall into the same arena?  When I read that, it made my head tweek to one side.  I could be wrong though.

Other than that, I really don't care whether religious organzations are tax-exempt or not.  I do think it could be a mistake to do so.  Just think how much influence the Church has now...and when the Church is then required to give taxes to the State...how much more will the Church think itself to have the right to do so AND act on this?  What about the potential of a backfire of this nature?  Is it possible?  Again, letting my fingers go as I ponder.

Whitney

I agree that a creed would be brain washing even if that wasn't the intention.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"and when the Church is then required to give taxes to the State

I don't think they should have to pay taxes no matter what, but they should have to pay if they are not helping society...if they want out of paying taxes they should have to prove that they are a non-profit organization, file taxes, make their financial information public, stay out of politics, etc  just like all secular non-profits are required to do to maintain their tax free status.

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't think they should have to pay taxes no matter what, but they should have to pay if they are not helping society...if they want out of paying taxes they should have to prove that they are a non-profit organization, file taxes, make their financial information public, stay out of politics, etc  just like all secular non-profits are required to do to maintain their tax free status.
I'm no expert on the tax laws and what happens with 501(c)(3)'s legally in regard to their financial information.  I do know of at least one Christian 501(c)(3) ministry that has gone through at least 3 audits in the past 10 years.  How much of the finances is combed through in those audits, I don't have knowledge of.  I was under the impression that the IRS has the right to look at everything.

As a Christian, I believe as you do.  We (Christians) should stay out of politics.

Whitney

I don't know about audits (probably much like a personal audit where they ask for supporting documentation) but all 501c3 organizations have to make their tax returns public.  This allows the general public to see what kind of money is going in and out of the non-profits.

terranus

Considering that raising taxes or implementing new taxes on anyone is an unpopular subject, and considering that the religious right is the group most vehemently opposed to taxes (especially for the rich!), i'm not surprised that the internet doesn't have much discussion going on about implementing new taxes on churches.

Here's an idea, instead of passing around an offering plate every Sunday, we should just send make the churches pass an IRS man around every Sunday.
Trovas Veron!
--terranus | http://terranus.org--