Government-Funded Religious Education

[statichaos]

So if the American government are giving funding to religious based organizations such as charities (which they do) Is that crossing the boundary between separation of church and state?

Yes, it is a violation.  Which charity or charities are you referring to?

That to me seems to be a violation but not a bad one. As the American government is giving to religious based organizations with good intentions would it not be acceptable to tax those churches that are taking advantage of their congregations, or those that give more money to pastors rather than helping the local communities or charity.

I think that both are wrong, so the argument doesn't apply to my beliefs.  Government should not fund religious charities, schools, or other organizations.  Similarly, as entities disallowed from receiving public benefits or funds, churches should not be obligated to pay into the system.

[Will37]

The difference is that there is no constitutional wall separating the government from a sports team or guaranteeing the right of sport.  I think the religious would be rightfully offended if they discovered that secularists really only wanted the wall to be impermeable in one direction.  A state government can tax a sports team but they can also fund a sports team.  The state is constitutionally prohibited from funding or supporting a Church.  Why should they get to tax it?  Moreover, we both know that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  I don't trust local government to not erect religious taxes designed to discriminate against Islam or other similarly unpopular religions.  Taxation weakens the wall and really would be unfair.  

Religion is a business though. If the government has a right to tax business, I see no reason that "right" should not be extended to religion. I'm personally in support of the abolition of Church/State separation. I doubt much would change as a result of it, but I would enjoy watching the outrage from the right.

Also, if the state adopted a preferred religion, it would do more for anarchy than anything Tom Woods could do. Regardless, I would enjoy the outrage and problems caused by the state adopting or taxing certain religions.

I really have nothing to say about the ideological components of your argument one way or the other (no offense, I'm just not an anarchist so have no desire to delve into the utility of religion in bringing about anarchy).  But the first two sentences represent, in my opinion, deeply flawed reasoning.  You're doing the same thing that the other guy is doing in presenting a 'heads I win but tails you lose' proposition to religion.  Maybe you believe that religion is essentially a business venture but it does not currently enjoy the same privileges as business. 

At this current stage in American politics tearing down that law will only help religion.  Do you really think that any major politician will be extending tax on mainstream Christian Church's?  The result will be very low taxes with subsidies and religion empowered to much more forcefully enter the religious arena. 

[Crow]

Yes, it is a violation.  Which charity or charities are you referring to?

Here is a bit of general information on it White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

[statichaos]

Yes, it is a violation.  Which charity or charities are you referring to?

Here is a bit of general information on it White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Oh, yes, that.  I'm not in favor of that office, or of any government money going towards religious programs, charitable or not.  I suppose that it's not so bad if there's no religious test or other requirement, and if there's no proselytizing going on, but having been on the receiving end of some charity, I can say that secular organizations tend to be much better at that sort of thing.  St. Vincent de Paul is a bit of an exception, but despite the Catholic name and the Catholic founder of the mission in San Diego, they tend to stay far away from any religious stuff.

[Firebird]

Church's do lose their tax exempt status if they directly advocate for a candidate or party.  If you know of an instance where it has happened and they haven't been caught then report it. 

Check out Pulpit Freedom Sunday:
http://speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702

And the article here, which includes a blurb at the end about how the IRS has ceased pursuing this kind of thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/business/flouting-the-law-pastors-will-take-on-politics.html?pagewanted=all

[statichaos]

Church's do lose their tax exempt status if they directly advocate for a candidate or party.  If you know of an instance where it has happened and they haven't been caught then report it. 

Check out Pulpit Freedom Sunday:
http://speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702

And the article here, which includes a blurb at the end about how the IRS has ceased pursuing this kind of thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/business/flouting-the-law-pastors-will-take-on-politics.html?pagewanted=all

The first link is vile, the second equally so.