Beto O'Rourke's Threat Re: "Oppos{ing} Same Sex Marriage"

[Oliblish]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, the neo-Marxist and post-modern approach these guys take to everything is the new religion.  At least Yuval Noah Harari considers it religion, and with good reason.

Being a religion you would agree that they should qualify for tax-exempt status?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

With all do respect, Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you in principle.

They failed to muzzle King, and the religionists failed to muzzle Jefferson.

Since this issue will be determined by legislation rather than the courts, it will continue.

Nope, on Jefferson. Read the letter where Jefferson coined the phrase separation of church and state and it is clear he was protecting religion from the government and did not even imply the reverse. Better yet, read his Virginia stature on religious freedom. When near death this was one of the few things he listed that he hoped he would be remembered for:

“An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

Try to find a justification that Jefferson believed that religion should keep its nose out of politics in there.

Edited October 16, 2019 by The Nehor

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Being a religion you would agree that they should qualify for tax-exempt status?

Religions don’t get tax exempt status, churches do (Iow, have to be organized).

Edited October 16, 2019 by Calm

[Analytics]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

I am saying I don't buy his campaign's subsequent spin. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Judd said:

I haven’t read this whole thread, but there are a few questions I have:

It seems religious organizations are often threatened with their tax exempt status for getting involved with political issues. Why is this, and why are religious organizations the only ones threatened with this? Many organizations, in fact I’d guess the vast majority, that are not companies but are involved in politics are non-profit and tax exempt. Nobody threatens them. For instance, Planned Parenthood not only is tax-exempt, involved in politics, and never threatened with losing that status, but it’s often viewed unconscionable to suggest even cutting funding, let alone suggest removing tax-exempt status. 

But, more importantly, do you know what else is tax-exempt and involved in politics? The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. So if someone feels religious organizations getting involved it politics should qualify them to lose tax-exempt status, please provide a cogent argument on why we say this about religious organizations but literally no other tax-exempt organizations, even those whose sole purpose is politics.

These organizations are 501c4 organizations (which do the lobbying) but donations to these organizations that will be used in political campaigns are NOT tax deductible for the donor. Donating to those organizations cannot be written off like donations in tithing or other donations to churches or to the Red Cross or whatever. That is what they are threatening to take from churchs so it is not hypocrisy. It is a different designation with different laws governing them. You could form a religion under that designation if you wanted. Few do because of the tax burden decreasing donations and the increased hardship to parishioners.

Edited October 16, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am open to "other perspectives," but Mr. O'Rourke is threatening the tax exemptions of religious groups because of their beliefs.  That is viewpoint discrimination.  That is unconstitutional.

I often say that "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things."  But not all things.  As Prof. Volokh put it (and as noted in the OP), this is an "open and shut" issue:

So, back to your statement: "From one perspective, denying a tax exemption is a penalty."  I disagree.  The unconstitutional nature of Mr. O'Rourke's threat (denying/revoking a tax exemption based on viewpoint discrimination) is not a matter of perspective.

I'd rather not.  That's too far beyond the scope of this thread.

 

Actually no, that's not the issue.  Not for this thread.

Again, beyond the scope.

This is why your threads are so often boring. You set up a position and argue it is basically uncontestable. Then people go into subsidiary discussions and you whine that they are all derails so discussion is limited to agreeing with you or derailing the thread. You come across as a control freak. What is there to discuss? Do you just want a chorus of amens?

[Jake Starkey]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, on Jefferson. Read the letter where Jefferson coined the phrase separation of church and state and it is clear he was protecting religion from the government and did not even imply the reverse. Better yet, read his Virginia stature on religious freedom. When near death he was hopeful this was one of the few things he listed that he hoped he would be remembered for:

“An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

Try to find a justification that Jefferson believed that religion should keep its nose out of politics in there.

Thank you for your comments.  From https://usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

"Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion."

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

This is why your threads are so often boring.

Feel free to not participate, then.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You set up a position and argue it is basically uncontestable.

No, I don't do that.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Then people go into subsidiary discussions and you whine that they are all derails so discussion is limited to agreeing with you or derailing the thread.

I don't think so.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You come across as a control freak.

No need to personalize the thread.  That's off-topic, too.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

What is there to discuss? Do you just want a chorus of amens?

I'd like to discuss the statements by O'Rourke, etc. that are itemized in the OP.

I am not interested in such a discussion expanding to the constitutionality of all tax exemptions, or railings against Donald Trump, or other tangents.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Two people earn $100,000 a year, and the tax rate is 15%.

Person A pays 10% to his church which is tax deductible:

Adjusted Gross Income = Gross Income - Tithing = $100,000 - $10,000 = $90,000.

Tax: 15% * $90,000 = $13,500

Net Income = Gross Income - Tax = $100,000 - $13,500 =  $86,500

Person B gets a $1,500 direct cash subsidy but no tax break:

Adjusted Gross Income: $100,000

Tax: 15% * $100,000 - $15,000

Net income: Gross Income + Subsidy - Tax = $100,000 + $1,500 - $15,000 = $86,500

Getting a $1,500 tax break is identical to getting a $1,500 subsidy. Both cases result in a net income of $86,500 and net tax revenue of $13,500.

 

We were talking about tax exemption vs receiving a subsidy, and we were also talking about religious organizations instead of a single person. 

You apparently know how to add and subtract and multiply pretty good but you need to figure out first which numbers you should be using.

Consider this now with 2 different organizations, one which is tax exempt while the other organization has to pay taxes but gets a subsidy from the government

The tax exempt organization receives 10% from 3 million of its 8 million members and the average net annual income of each of those 3 million people is $40,000 per year, for a total of 120 billion dollars per year.

Donation to the church = 10% of 120 billion dollars per year  = 12 billion dollars per year, all of which is tax exempt

Now let's say that the organization which has to pay taxes somehow manages to get as much income but is taxed at a rate of... let's say 15%... but also gets... let's say 10 million dollars per year... from a government subsidy:

12 billion dollars per year - 15% taxes = 10.2 billion dollars + 10 million from the government subsidy = 10.21 billion dollars.

Now you can do the math to see which one comes out ahead.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

How could anyone not see that the “Christian Faith” is under fire and under siege? 

It is but I would argue it is not unique in that respect. Almost everything is under fire and under siege. Everything is tentative and the rules we have used to control the chaos and excesses of humanity are being torn down.

Quote

26 And in that day shall be heard of wars and rumors of wars, and the whole earth shall be in commotion, and men’s hearts shall fail them, and they shall say that Christ delayeth his coming until the end of the earth.
27 And the love of men shall wax cold, and iniquity shall abound

 

[Robert F. Smith]

46 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Being a religion you would agree that they should qualify for tax-exempt status?

The practitioners of the new religion are not self-reflective enough to recognize their religious belief system, and so are unlikely to declare themselves a religion eligible for a tax-exempt status.

[mnn727]

On 10/15/2019 at 1:15 PM, california boy said:

.  Get out the vote for a specific party would also violate those tax exempt guidelines.

Yet, some Black Evangelical Churches do it all the time.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Two people earn $100,000 a year, and the tax rate is 15%.

Person A pays 10% to his church which is tax deductible:

Adjusted Gross Income = Gross Income - Tithing = $100,000 - $10,000 = $90,000.

Tax: 15% * $90,000 = $13,500

Net Income = Gross Income - Tax = $100,000 - $13,500 =  $86,500

Person B gets a $1,500 direct cash subsidy but no tax break:

Adjusted Gross Income: $100,000

Tax: 15% * $100,000 - $15,000

Net income: Gross Income + Subsidy - Tax = $100,000 + $1,500 - $15,000 = $86,500

Getting a $1,500 tax break is identical to getting a $1,500 subsidy. Both cases result in a net income of $86,500 and net tax revenue of $13,500.

 

The difference is that in the first case the church gets 10,000.00. The church often does more good with the money than the government would and can do things the government can't.

There is three parties involved,  not two. We need to take into account the effects on all the parties, not just the taxpayer and the government.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

Leave. Or accept that dissonance.

You reference this fact a lot. I don't believe that it requires the narrative you seem to believe it does.  It seems you think that religion should be so determined to keep members that they keep quiet about issues in the world. 

That would be a logical choice to me. 

But all religion is not heading in the same direction.  And I respect the value in those religious communities working to engage in the public square.  Again, how is that different from GLAAD or HRC or PFLAG organizing to address issues relevant to their mission?

You finally got my point.  And that is exactly what we are seeing.  People are leaving organized religion by the millions each year.  If a religious institution feels it's political activism is worth more than bringing people to Christ, then there is absolutely no problem at all.  This Gallup pole might shed some light on how fast that decline is happening.  Organized religion started its full throttle political involvement with the establishment of the Moral Majority in 1979.   From 1938 to 1983 the numbers for organized religion did not change more than 2 % points.  Since 1983. about a fourth of Americans have walked away from organized religion, or about 85 million Americans.

While political activism may not be the only cause for the decline of religion, it has been identified as one of the major reasons.  

Quote

One might conclude that faith leaders who have morphed into political lobbyists, cultural warriors and partisan cheerleaders have neglected their core role. To the extent younger generations are more progressive politically, they may now look upon religious sects as akin to political parties or political action committees, with which they choose not to affiliate.

So yeah.  Religion has a right to be involved in politics, but it is not without consequences.  I guess each religion has to decide what it values most.  Being a political powerhouse?  Or leading more people to Christ.  Getting a tax exemption from the government might be the least of their concerns down the road.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Or we could just vote on whatever comes up for us to vote on.  And we might even do something to get something on the ballot for us to vote on, if we want to be that politically active.  None of that requires abandoning or ignoring our religious beliefs.

A religion is a perspective on how to live life, and the best way to find a religion is to get to know Jesus Christ and learn from him about how he wants us to live our life.  None of that requires abandoning politics or not voting when something comes up to vote on.

Religion is a perspective.  I think you're talking about people with a particular perspective or religion.  So what is it that you find so appalling about what some people are doing to themselves?  Is it that you don't like how some people are living their lives?

There are all kinds of religions... all kinds of perspectives on how to live life... so when you talk about where religion is headed I wonder what you are talking about???  Which religions do you have a problem with?  And how do you see politics affected by religion?

See the above comments to Kllindey. 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Bread and circuses.

I’ve not heard that expression before, but I looked it up, and it is certainly apt. 

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

See the above comments to Kllindey. 

From what I can see in your comments to Klindey it seems to me that you have a very narrow view of what it means for people to lead other people to Christ, or for what people should do when they have been led to Christ.

For me, living as a disciple of Jesus Christ and trying to lead others to him means talking about and promoting ideas to suggest that people should live as he wants us to live, which also involves not doing particular things which he regards as sinful behavior.

That's basically all we are doing, and we try to do that in several ways, including voting on issues that affect how we live or should be living our lives.

What does it mean to you?  What problem do you really have with what we are saying or what we are doing to live as we believe Jesus wants us to live?  I'd really appreciate it if you would just tell me and describe what you really expect from us?

[Robert F. Smith]

55 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Yet, some Black Evangelical Churches do it all the time.

Religious organizations are free to preach on political and social policies and legislation, even if they are partisan, without endangering their tax-exempt status.  At the same time, they may not preach on behalf of a particular candidate.  The LDS Church, for example, legally injects its opinions into Utah legislative proposals, and has strong influence (most state legislators are LDS).  There is nothing wrong with that, and all churches do it.

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

You finally got my point.  And that is exactly what we are seeing.  People are leaving organized religion by the millions each year.  If a religious institution feels it's political activism is worth more than bringing people to Christ, then there is absolutely no problem at all.  This Gallup pole might shed some light on how fast that decline is happening.  Organized religion started its full throttle political involvement with the establishment of the Moral Majority in 1979.   From 1938 to 1983 the numbers for organized religion did not change more than 2 % points.  Since 1983. about a fourth of Americans have walked away from organized religion, or about 85 million Americans.

While political activism may not be the only cause for the decline of religion, it has been identified as one of the major reasons.  

So yeah.  Religion has a right to be involved in politics, but it is not without consequences.  I guess each religion has to decide what it values most.  Being a political powerhouse?  Or leading more people to Christ.  Getting a tax exemption from the government might be the least of their concerns down the road.

Charles Murray agrees with you that there are consequences, but that goes both ways.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXIsEHFCBns..

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

We were talking about tax exemption vs receiving a subsidy, and we were also talking about religious organizations instead of a single person. 

You apparently know how to add and subtract and multiply pretty good but you need to figure out first which numbers you should be using.

Consider this now with 2 different organizations, one which is tax exempt while the other organization has to pay taxes but gets a subsidy from the government...

Sure. It is the same logic. Say an organization makes $1,000,000 a year in profit and pays the corporate tax rate of 21%, so that their after-tax profit is $790,000. Two proposals are floated:

Proposal A: Give the organization a direct monetary subsidy of $265,823 in pre-tax dollars, i.e. this money would be taxable. Thus, its gross income is $1,265,823, and its tax bill is $1,265,823 x 21% = $265,823. So, the government's revenue is a bit higher (collecting $265,823 rather than $210,000 gives it an extra $55,823 in revenue), but the government's expenses are much higher ($265,823 more). The net result of this direct monetary subsidy is $210,000 more dollars in the corporation's hands and $210,000 fewer dollars in the government's hands.

Proposal B: This corporation gets a tax exemption. Thus, the corporation's after-tax profits are equal to its gross profit, which is $1,000,000. The net result of the tax subsidy (that is what its called) is exactly the same as the direct monetary subsidy in Proposal A; the corporation's after-tax income goes up by $210,000 and the government's revenue goes down by $210,000.

In both cases, the rest of us will need to pay higher taxes to make up for the shortfall.

And the market will be equally distorted in both cases. Direct monetary subsidies and tax subsidies (i.e. tax exemptions) are both subsidies that have the exact same effect on all parties involved and on the market as a whole. There is nothing financially, economically, or morally different between giving somebody a direct cash subsidy and giving them a tax break, whether it be a tax exemption or a tax deduction. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

The difference is that in the first case the church gets 10,000.00. The church often does more good with the money than the government would and can do things the government can't.

There is three parties involved,  not two. We need to take into account the effects on all the parties, not just the taxpayer and the government.

People will be more willing and able to give the church 10% of their income if there is a tax deduction or an equivalent direct subsidy to incentivize them to do so. That is the point--churches want donations to be tax deductible because tax deductions distort the market towards higher tithing payments in exactly the same way that a direct cash subsidy conditional on paying tithing would distort the market and result in higher tithing payments.

Bracketing the issue about whether subsidizing religion is constitutional, maybe it is good for society to distort the free market with subsidies in favor of donating money to religion. But it would be a lot easier to evaluate that question if the churches were required disclose their finances.

Ideally, virtually all tax exemptions and tax deductions should be abolished, everyone's tax rates should be dramatically lowered, and then being free from the obligations of being subsidized by the government, churches should be free to fully engage in politics (and to be secretive about their finances without any objection from me).

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Sure. It is the same logic. Say an organization makes $1,000,000 a year in profit and pays the corporate tax rate of 21%, so that their after-tax profit is $790,000. Two proposals are floated:

Proposal A: Give the organization a direct monetary subsidy of $265,823 in pre-tax dollars, i.e. this money would be taxable. Thus, its gross income is $1,265,823, and its tax bill is $1,265,823 x 21% = $265,823. So, the government's revenue is a bit higher (collecting $265,823 rather than $210,000 gives it an extra $55,823 in revenue), but the government's expenses are much higher ($265,823 more). The net result of this direct monetary subsidy is $210,000 more dollars in the corporation's hands and $210,000 fewer dollars in the government's hands.

Proposal B: This corporation gets a tax exemption. Thus, the corporation's after-tax profits are equal to its gross profit, which is $1,000,000. The net result of the tax subsidy (that is what its called) is exactly the same as the direct monetary subsidy in Proposal A; the corporation's after-tax income goes up by $210,000 and the government's revenue goes down by $210,000.

In both cases, the rest of us will need to pay higher taxes to make up for the shortfall.

And the market will be equally distorted in both cases. Direct monetary subsidies and tax subsidies (i.e. tax exemptions) are both subsidies that have the exact same effect on all parties involved and on the market as a whole. There is nothing financially, economically, or morally different between giving somebody a direct cash subsidy and giving them a tax break, whether it be a tax exemption or a tax deduction. 

IF it worked out the same monetarily then there would be no monetary difference but it just seems easier to go with Proposal B to avoid needing to calculate how much the taxes would be before giving a subsidy/tax exemption for that amount.  Just say no need to pay taxes.

Thus there would also be no need for the government to send a check or notice of a subsidy for the 1.8 billion dollars to the corporation in the example I used.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Ahab

[Analytics]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

IF it worked out the same monetarily then there would be no monetary difference but it just seems easier to go with Proposal B to avoid needing to calculate how much the taxes would be before giving a subsidy/tax exemption for that amount.  Just say no need to pay taxes.

Thus there would also be no need for the government to send a check or notice of a subsidy for the 1.8 billion dollars to the corporation in the example I used.

That's undoubtedly true.

The purpose of the thought exercise is to recognize the fundamental similarities between direct cash subsidies and tax subsidies. If we as a society decide that an organization should get a subsidy, it should be done with our eyes wide open about what it is we are doing, and then should be implemented in the most efficient way possible.

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That's undoubtedly true.

The purpose of the thought exercise is to recognize the fundamental similarities between direct cash subsidies and tax subsidies. If we as a society decide that an organization should get a subsidy, it should be done with our eyes wide open about what it is we are doing, and then should be implemented in the most efficient way possible.

Yes, even if what society is doing is saying it is none of my business how much money your organization receives from contributions as long as the purpose of your organization qualifies as an exempt purpose under IRS code.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You finally got my point.  And that is exactly what we are seeing.  People are leaving organized religion by the millions each year.  If a religious institution feels it's political activism is worth more than bringing people to Christ, then there is absolutely no problem at all.  This Gallup pole might shed some light on how fast that decline is happening.  Organized religion started its full throttle political involvement with the establishment of the Moral Majority in 1979.   From 1938 to 1983 the numbers for organized religion did not change more than 2 % points.  Since 1983. about a fourth of Americans have walked away from organized religion, or about 85 million Americans.

While political activism may not be the only cause for the decline of religion, it has been identified as one of the major reasons.  

So yeah.  Religion has a right to be involved in politics, but it is not without consequences.  I guess each religion has to decide what it values most.  Being a political powerhouse?  Or leading more people to Christ.  Getting a tax exemption from the government might be the least of their concerns down the road.

I am not sure your assumption is valid. The decline of European churches has been as dramatic, if not more so, and it has not been because religions have become more political similar to the Moral Majority. 

As an aside, I support your position that churches should stay out of politics i.e. supporting candidates and electing specific individuals. I think churches should be allowed to comment on moral issues and government actions that directly conflict with beliefs and the rights of churches to exist.