Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm not going to argue with you, but how much money is required to create a country/ state capable of instantly- without prior not notice- govern all the people on earth, in one perfect utopia?

If you are referring to the church becoming a literal kingdom on earth when Jesus comes again I have no idea what an economy looks like.  Of course I think what you refer to is fantasy but assuming its not let's think about it.  Based on the alleged calamities that will precede that it seems to me that their investment portfolio will be relatively worthless.  So I don't but that point at all.

 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's what they believe with certainty.

That is what you think they believe. What they really believe who knows.  So you think that the leaders really think they need to build a massive wealth base of real estate, stock, bonds etc to rule the earth?  Really? Well may be the real estate may be helpful in such a dystopic world.  The other stuff not so much.  

But even so, what I am suggesting is what @Analyticsrecommends.  The church could give much more than they do for relief of human suffering and still increase their massive wealth accumulation program. Heck they are already one of the richest organizations on earth and worth more than a lot of nations.

 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"NO man knows" when the Savior will return.

Yea and that Savior you refer to preached blessing the poor and relieving suffering. I do not know anywhere that he taught to lay up massive treasures on earth. In fact he preached the opposite. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

They are doing those things. Just not to your satisfaction. How much would be enough to satisfy you?

If you read what I have said you would know the answer.  While commendable, the billion or so the church gives is paltry compared to it's annual income and its massive wealth. Go read what @Analyticshas recommended.  His reasoning is based on other tax exempt entities that have large endowment funds.  Essentially the church could put to work around $6 to $8 billion per year and not touch the EPA funds at all and they would even continue to grow.

 

It amazes me that those here who claim to be disciples of Christ are quite fine with the so called Church of Jesus Christ accumulating massive wealth while at the same time does so little when compared to its resources.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ah silly boy. I do do that.  I give $$ to organizations that actually do use the majority of $$ they receive to relieve human suffering.

That is a nice (but easy and meaningless) thing to assert, given your assertions about the Church. I'd say you can and should do better, and do more.

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is a nice (but easy and meaningless) thing to assert, given your assertions about the Church. I'd say you can and should do better, and do more.

Whatever.  You really are just trying to be snarky.  But guess what?  I can do better.  But given my income and assets, as a %, I do more than the church does to relieve human suffering. It is actually quite humorous for you to play this game.  I don't claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ.  But the LDS Church does.  If that does not mean something to you when it comes the the resources the church has and continues to amass. I thought blessing the poor wa the fourth mission of the church, at least under President Monson.  Apparently this has take second seat to accumulating wealth.  If you are fine with that so be it. I have opinions about that.  But for me the LDS Church no longer gets any $$ from me. I give to organisations  that actually do put the majority of the resources they receive to relieve human suffering.

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, helix said:

I'm only staying on topic to the original point: The church is afforded privacy in their finances, and the US government explicitly defends the right of a church to be free of government regulations over their own finances.

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, here is a hypothetical situation I'd like you to consider.

I'm thinking about forming a church. I'll call it "the Church of Perpetual Hedonism." The religious mission of the Church is to pursue human pleasure through meetings, sacraments, services, events, pilgrimages, and temples, all devoted to what I worship: human pleasure. Say I go ahead and form this Church, and then donate 100% of my income to it and then rely on the Church to meet my temporal wants and needs.

Please answer these questions:

1. Should my donations to the Church of Perpetual Hedonism be tax-deductible to me?
2. Should the Church of Perpetual Hedonism be able to purchase property for its religious purposes without paying property tax?
3. Should the Church of Perpetual Hedonism be able to grow the size of its investment portfolio tax free and completely free of the government regulations that non-religious entities are subject to?

 

 

[helix]

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Should my donations to the Church of Perpetual Hedonism be tax-deductible to me?

Yes

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Should the Church of Perpetual Hedonism be able to purchase property for its religious purposes without paying property tax?

It should just be a consistent standard and not so onerous as to dissuade any non-profit from having a building.  So if a religion's building hooks into a sewer line and property taxes pay for sewer lines, then I'm ok with that religion paying property tax to help maintain the sewer line. But if local government has a high property tax to pay for things like education and healthcare, now a property tax is taxing a non-profit for services unrelated to the non-profit, and the high cost of the tax dissuades some non-profits from activity.

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Should the Church of Perpetual Hedonism be able to grow the size of its investment portfolio tax free and completely free of the government regulations that non-religious entities are subject to?

Yes. Absolutely. Now if this hypothetical church owns commercial business ventures, then they are subject to business rules and business taxes. But otherwise the government should absolutely have no right to regulate that religion's money.

[Pyreaux]

Being ignorant of corporate/church tax laws and business/charity ethics, my 2 cents on the moral issues raised:... I don't know why I keep reading how useless money will be in the Millennium. I assume we are accumulating wealth and assets to be self-sustainable, not necessarily perpetually until the Millennium, as LDS are not proponents of the Rapture doctrine that the righteous will escape the Tribulation that precedes it. In addition, there are massive plans of city building that isn't waiting, for no one knows when a true dystopian era will arrive, assuming it's not started. Buying farms, ranches, residential and commercial properties across the US. In Florida, a church-owned property is set to become the site of a new city for as many as half a million people by 2080. Are these unworthy goals?

Edited November 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you are referring to the church becoming a literal kingdom on earth when Jesus comes again I have no idea what an economy looks like.  Of course I think what you refer to is fantasy but assuming its not let's think about it.  Based on the alleged calamities that will precede that it seems to me that their investment portfolio will be relatively worthless.  So I don't but that point at all.

 

That is what you think they believe. What they really believe who knows.  So you think that the leaders really think they need to build a massive wealth base of real estate, stock, bonds etc to rule the earth?  Really? Well may be the real estate may be helpful in such a dystopic world.  The other stuff not so much.  

But even so, what I am suggesting is what @Analyticsrecommends.  The church could give much more than they do for relief of human suffering and still increase their massive wealth accumulation program. Heck they are already one of the richest organizations on earth and worth more than a lot of nations.

 

Yea and that Savior you refer to preached blessing the poor and relieving suffering. I do not know anywhere that he taught to lay up massive treasures on earth. In fact he preached the opposite. 

He didn't. (bold)https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_and_the_poor

Edited November 9, 2023 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He didn't. (bold)https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_and_the_poor

I agree!  Rep point for you again. Why can we still not give you an up vote in your posts?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Whatever.  You really are just trying to be snarky.  But guess what?  I can do better.  But given my income and assets, as a %, I do more than the church does to relieve human suffering. It is actually quite humorous for you to play this game.  I don't claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ.  But the LDS Church does.  If that does not mean something to you when it comes the the resources the church has and continues to amass. I thought blessing the poor wa the fourth mission of the church, at least under President Monson.  Apparently this has take second seat to accumulating wealth.  If you are fine with that so be it. I have opinions about that.  But for me the LDS Church no longer gets any $$ from me. I give to organisations  that actually do put the majority of the resources they receive to relieve human suffering.

Yes, there are many opinions, napkin calculations and biased rationale on who is doing enough good with their material resources. I'm not making fun of your donations or your charities, just your challenge that someone else do better, using your personal calculus as a standard.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Based on the alleged calamities that will precede that it seems to me that their investment portfolio will be relatively worthless. 

That's my point. They need more from their perspective 

You use stocks and hedged options for getting fast cash, then buy free and clear real estate with the cash, which ain't going nowhere.

Plus some cash on cash commercial centers

Even desert land. Put some windmills or solar cells on it, and the desert blooms like a rose!

You can get out of the stocks at the top, or puts on the way down

Them BYU accountant boys ain't stupid! You make money if the market goes up OR down

"As a result, put options are often used to hedge or protect from downward moves in a long stock position."

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/putoptionexcercise.asp#:~:text=A put option is a,shares from the option holder. "

"Long" means you actually own the stock.

How much will it take for the entire population of earth to "retire" AND become homeless at the same moment?

Suddenly the entire planet becomes indigent.  How about the poor then?

We all go on church welfare! 

THIS is the paradigm 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He didn't. (bold)https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_and_the_poor

He did say though that the poor would always be with us and that sometimes it was appropriate to use money for other things, even when people grumble about it.  (Matt. 26:11).   

 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He did say though that the poor would always be with us and that sometimes it was appropriate to use money for other things, even when people grumble about it.  (Matt. 26:11).   

 

 

More context to the scripture you shared. I kind of think it means Jesus needed them right before He ascended to the Father. 

Matthew 26:11

For ye have the poor always with you
This is said in answer to the objection of the disciples, that the ointment might have been sold, and the money given to the poor. Christ seems to have respect to ( Deuteronomy 15:11 ) , and which, agreeably to the sense of the Jews, refers to the times of the Messiah: for they say ^F8,

 

``there is no difference between this world (this present time) and the times of the Messiah, but the subduing of kingdoms only; as it is said, ( Deuteronomy 15:11 ) , "for the poor shall never cease out of the land": the gloss on it is, from hence it may be concluded, that therefore, (twyne vy) (Mlwel) , "for ever there will be poverty, and riches".''

 

Our Lord's words also show, that there will be always poor persons in the world; that there will be always such with his people, and in his churches; for God has chosen, and he calls such by his grace; so that men may always have opportunities of showing kindness and respect to such objects: in Mark it is added, "and whensoever ye will ye may do them good", ( Mark 14:7 ) ; by relieving their wants, and distributing to their necessities:

but me ye have not always;
referring not to his divine and spiritual presence, which he has promised to his people, churches, and ministers, to the end of the world, but to his corporeal presence; for he was to be but a little while with them, and then go to the Father; be taken up to heaven, where he now is, and will be until the restitution of all things; so that the time was very short in which any outward respect could be shown to him in person, as man.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

More context to the scripture you shared. I kind of think it means Jesus needed them right before He ascended to the Father. 

Matthew 26:11

For ye have the poor always with you
This is said in answer to the objection of the disciples, that the ointment might have been sold, and the money given to the poor. Christ seems to have respect to ( Deuteronomy 15:11 ) , and which, agreeably to the sense of the Jews, refers to the times of the Messiah: for they say ^F8,

 

``there is no difference between this world (this present time) and the times of the Messiah, but the subduing of kingdoms only; as it is said, ( Deuteronomy 15:11 ) , "for the poor shall never cease out of the land": the gloss on it is, from hence it may be concluded, that therefore, (twyne vy) (Mlwel) , "for ever there will be poverty, and riches".''

 

Our Lord's words also show, that there will be always poor persons in the world; that there will be always such with his people, and in his churches; for God has chosen, and he calls such by his grace; so that men may always have opportunities of showing kindness and respect to such objects: in Mark it is added, "and whensoever ye will ye may do them good", ( Mark 14:7 ) ; by relieving their wants, and distributing to their necessities:

but me ye have not always;
referring not to his divine and spiritual presence, which he has promised to his people, churches, and ministers, to the end of the world, but to his corporeal presence; for he was to be but a little while with them, and then go to the Father; be taken up to heaven, where he now is, and will be until the restitution of all things; so that the time was very short in which any outward respect could be shown to him in person, as man.

Jesus needed who before He ascended?  I'm not sure what you mean.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Being ignorant of corporate/church tax laws and business/charity ethics, my 2 cents on the moral issues raised:... I don't know why I keep reading how useless money will be in the Millennium. I assume we are accumulating wealth and assets to be self-sustainable, not necessarily perpetually until the Millennium, as LDS are not proponents of the Rapture doctrine that the righteous will escape the Tribulation that precedes it. In addition, there are massive plans of city building that isn't waiting, for no one knows when a true dystopian era will arrive, assuming it's not started. Buying farms, ranches, residential and commercial properties across the US. In Florida, a church-owned property is set to become the site of a new city for as many as half a million people by 2080. Are these unworthy goals?

 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Jesus needed who before He ascended?  I'm not sure what you mean.

He only had a little time with the disciples. And they were getting after Jesus for using the ointment instead of selling it and giving to the poor from my estimation or guess. And He wanted them to understand that He only had a short time with them before He ascended to the Father. Therefore the scripture you shared is put into context or explained, not cut and dry. Just a guess here, since I'm the last person to be a good scriptorian. 

"Our Lord's words also show, that there will be always poor persons in the world; that there will be always such with his people, and in his churches; for God has chosen, and he calls such by his grace; so that men may always have opportunities of showing kindness and respect to such objects: in Mark it is added, "and whensoever ye will ye may do them good", ( Mark 14:7 ) ; by relieving their wants, and distributing to their necessities:

but me ye have not always;
referring not to his divine and spiritual presence, which he has promised to his people, churches, and ministers, to the end of the world, but to his corporeal presence; for he was to be but a little while with them, and then go to the Father; be taken up to heaven, where he now is, and will be until the restitution of all things; so that the time was very short in which any outward respect could be shown to him in person, as man."

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He only had a little time with the disciples. And they were getting after Jesus for using the ointment instead of selling it and giving to the poor from my estimation or guess. And He wanted them to understand that He only had a short time with them before He ascended to the Father. Therefore the scripture you shared is put into context or explained, not cut and dry. Just a guess here, since I'm the last person to be a good scriptorian. 

"Our Lord's words also show, that there will be always poor persons in the world; that there will be always such with his people, and in his churches; for God has chosen, and he calls such by his grace; so that men may always have opportunities of showing kindness and respect to such objects: in Mark it is added, "and whensoever ye will ye may do them good", ( Mark 14:7 ) ; by relieving their wants, and distributing to their necessities:

but me ye have not always;
referring not to his divine and spiritual presence, which he has promised to his people, churches, and ministers, to the end of the world, but to his corporeal presence; for he was to be but a little while with them, and then go to the Father; be taken up to heaven, where he now is, and will be until the restitution of all things; so that the time was very short in which any outward respect could be shown to him in person, as man."

In the story Mary buys very expensive ointment and puts it on Jesus's head.  Iscariot and some others complain that the oil should have been sold and the money used to feed the poor instead of on ointment.  I think you are right in that Jesus was telling them that He only had a short time left and to leave Mary alone, but I'm not sure how that context changes my point at all.  There is context for why the church is saving so much money as well, right?  That issue also isn't cut and dry.

Can you elaborate a bit more?

Edited November 9, 2023 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In the story Mary buys very expensive ointment and puts it on Jesus's head.  Iscariot and some others complain that the oil should have been sold and the money used to feed the poor instead of on ointment.  I think you are right in that Jesus was telling them that He only had a short time left and to leave Mary alone, but I'm not sure how that context changes my point at all.  There is context for why the church is saving so much money as well, right?  That issue also isn't cut and dry.

Can you elaborate a bit more?

A few posts up, I believe @Teancum mentions that he gave more to charity percentage wise than the church did for humanitarian needs. That's a big red flag IMO. I just think the church can do much better with the fourth mission statement. His quote below:

"Whatever.  You really are just trying to be snarky.  But guess what?  I can do better.  But given my income and assets, as a %, I do more than the church does to relieve human suffering. It is actually quite humorous for you to play this game.  I don't claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ.  But the LDS Church does.  If that does not mean something to you when it comes the the resources the church has and continues to amass. I thought blessing the poor wa the fourth mission of the church, at least under President Monson.  Apparently this has take second seat to accumulating wealth.  If you are fine with that so be it. I have opinions about that.  But for me the LDS Church no longer gets any $$ from me. I give to organisations  that actually do put the majority of the resources they receive to relieve human suffering."

The 2022 church's report of humanitarian funds spent, which for the most part cam from members donations/volunteer work etc. It never comes from the Ensign Peak fund, in my estimation, sadly: https://www.thechurchnews.com/global/2023/6/11/23754413/caring-for-those-in-need-humanitarian-welfare-self-reliance-numbers#:~:text=In 2022%2C as stated in,to help those in need.

 

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, helix said:

Yes

It should just be a consistent standard and not so onerous as to dissuade any non-profit from having a building.  So if a religion's building hooks into a sewer line and property taxes pay for sewer lines, then I'm ok with that religion paying property tax to help maintain the sewer line. But if local government has a high property tax to pay for things like education and healthcare, now a property tax is taxing a non-profit for services unrelated to the non-profit, and the high cost of the tax dissuades some non-profits from activity.

Yes. Absolutely. Now if this hypothetical church owns commercial business ventures, then they are subject to business rules and business taxes. But otherwise the government should absolutely have no right to regulate that religion's money.

I appreciate your direct answers and the internal consistency of your position. Allow me to make two points:

First Point: 
Using round numbers, let’s hypothetically assume that when you include federal, payroll, state, local, sales, and property taxes, my total tax obligation is $100,000 per year. In this hypothetical scenario, I’m a winner in the economy and therefore receive a disproportionate amount of benefits from society in general and the government in particular. For example, I hypothetically drive an amazing luxury import, which wouldn’t be possible without the U.S. Navy facilitating trade and keeping the oceans free of piracy. I hypothetically have a million dollar house, which therefore requires an outsized amount of police and fire protection. I hypothetically travel and shop a lot, and indirectly benefit from the fact that the people around me are educated and able to provide me with the services I enjoy. Since I purchase a lot of stuff, I benefit more from the roads those things are transported on. I have a relatively large amount of money hypothetically deposited in bank and investment accounts, and regulators keeping those accounts and markets working benefits me tremendously. If the whole American experiment were to collapse, I have a lot to lose. Hypothetically. And that is not true for everyone.

If I implemented the religion I outlined above that coincidently has amazing tax benefits, my tax bill might decrease by 80% (I’d still be paying sales tax and payroll tax). Despite saving $80,000 a year in taxes, I’d still continue to receive all of the benefits from society I now enjoy—I’d just be paying a lot less in taxes. If others followed my example and either joined my hedonistic church or created their own, then local, state, and federal tax rates would necessarily need to be raised on everybody else. This demonstrates one of my fundamental points: tax benefits are equivalent to tax subsidies. The government reducing my annual tax bill by $80,000 because my money flows through a hedonistic Church is financially equivalent to the government cutting me an $80,000 check because I belong to a hedonistic Church. Giving tax breaks to religion is subsidizing religion.

Second Point:
Regardless of whether you think funneling your money through the Church of Hedonism should confer tax advantages, the reality is that it does not. The way the government actually works is that the IRS determines which religions are the government approved religions that will be subsidized through the tax code, and which religions are not government approved and therefore must pay taxes. 

By IRS Regulation (but not by actual law), the IRS defines what “is considered a church for federal tax purposes.” 

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations/churches-defined

Philosophically, it is indisputable that the government defining what is considered a church for federal tax purposes and then subsidizing those government-approved churches is an unconstitutional establishment of government-favored religion. 
 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

 

In the business, we used to call it "land that holds the planet together"

How much is THAT worth?? The entire planet would fall apart if that dirt, down to the earth's core, suddenly disappeared!! 😱

Or "10-60" land.  That's land that it would take a cow with a mouth 10 feet wide, running at 60 miles an hour to get enough grain to get a meal.🐪🤭

That was in the early '80s when loans were 20% and people would actually take a deed on "10-60" land as a downpayment on that condo when they could no longer pay the HOA fees

"WOA WOA woa, well here it comes!" - Van Morrison 

"The fed funds rate began the decade at a target level of 14 percent in January 1980. By the time officials concluded a conference call on Dec. 5, 1980, they hiked the target range by 2 percentage points to 19-20 percent, its highest ever."

https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/history-of-federal-funds-rate/#:~:text=Rates began drifting downward sharply,10 percent since November 1984.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Philosophically, it is indisputable that the government defining what is considered a church for federal tax purposes and then subsidizing those government-approved churches is an unconstitutional establishment of government-favored religion. 

Precisely correct, and THEN they should see that Socialism is a religion seeking Utopia.  

It's the opiate of the poor.

Heck, I knew Angela Davis personally and know how she saw it.

That which you practice "religiously" IS your religion.  It gives you purpose in life and hope for a glowing inevitable future.🤗

Edited November 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's my point. They need more from their perspective

More wealth?  Well as noted, they could triple or quadruple what they do to relive human suffering and still have their massive wealth accumulation program continue.  But hey whatever.  Jesus said where you treasure is, there will be your heart also.

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

You use stocks and hedged options for getting fast cash, then buy free and clear real estate with the cash, which ain't going nowhere.

The church could buy a heck of a lot more real estate tomorrow given they have over 100 billion of stocks,etc. And they already are one of the largest landowners in the USA.

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Plus some cash on cash commercial centers

They do that now.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Even desert land. Put some windmills or solar cells on it, and the desert blooms like a rose!

You can get out of the stocks at the top, or puts on the way down

Them BYU accountant boys ain't stupid! You make money if the market goes up OR down

"As a result, put options are often used to hedge or protect from downward moves in a long stock position."

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/putoptionexcercise.asp#:~:text=A put option is a,shares from the option holder. "

"Long" means you actually own the stock.

How much will it take for the entire population of earth to "retire" AND become homeless at the same moment?

Suddenly the entire planet becomes indigent.  How about the poor then?

We all go on church welfare! 

THIS is the paradigm 

 

As noted, if the apocalypse happens the way Mormonism teaches the only thing the church has that will likely be beneficial is the land.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Teancum

[helix]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

This demonstrates one of my fundamental points: tax benefits are equivalent to tax subsidies

Two fundamental issues are at play. 1) Your belief that tax benefits are tax subsidies, and 2) Taxing churches ultimately contradicts the First Amendment.

#2 wins against #1. It's deeper rooted and more fundamental.  But that displeases many in society, so the next tactic is to try to back-door and evade the First Amendment through emotional arguments about social rights and social justice.

Quote

In this hypothetical scenario, I’m a winner in the economy and therefore receive a disproportionate amount of benefits from society in general and the government in particular

Your belief in how much an individual is a "winner in the economy" has zero impact in the freedom of a church from the government. The First Amendment trumps and reigns supreme.

Quote

The government reducing my annual tax bill by $80,000 because my money flows through a hedonistic Church is financially equivalent to the government cutting me an $80,000 check because I belong to a hedonistic Church. Giving tax breaks to religion is subsidizing religion.

This was already settled in the 1970 Supreme Court Case Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. It wasn't close.

Quote

my tax bill might decrease by 80% (I’d still be paying sales tax and payroll tax)

 My prior "Yes" was "Based on current law, yes, treat all religions equally". Since you are getting into such extreme details of charity, I would add that a government *must* treat all non-profits (including religion) equally, but income tax deductions isn't fundamental. For example, the government could choose to abandon every single tax except for a sales tax with zero exemptions. That's fine. 

The bigger issue, is as the Supreme Court said "The power to tax is the power to destroy". A government cannot create a tax that is burdensome and onerous preventing a church from forming and operating. They also can't target a disliked church through shopping around for the tax policy that negatively affects that church the worst.

Quote

Regardless of whether you think funneling your money through the Church of Hedonism should confer tax advantages, the reality is that it does not

This gotcha attempt is eye-rolling and weak. You gave me a 10 word description of a church. You included in it "meetings, sacraments, services, events, pilgrimages, and temples". That's it. Now you are stating the IRS would not count that as a church. If you continue in these games, I won't respond further.

Quote

The government defining what is considered a church for federal tax purposes and then subsidizing those government-approved churches is an unconstitutional establishment of government-favored religion.

Again, this is eye-rolling and weak. By this gotcha logic, the government opening Webster's Dictionary to understand the First Amendment's "religion" means the government unconstitutionally defines religion by picking how it's defined. It's beyond silly and somehow seeks to declare the First Amendment a paradox that shouldn't exist. I'm not going to play this game.

Edited November 9, 2023 by helix

[smac97]

2 hours ago, helix said:

Two fundamental issues are at play. 1) Your belief that tax benefits are tax subsidies, and 2) Taxing churches ultimately contradicts the First Amendment.

#2 wins against #1. It's deeper rooted and more fundamental.  But that displeases many in society, so the next tactic is to try to back-door and evade the First Amendment through emotional arguments about social rights and social justice.

By Roger's reasoning, anyone who claims any tax deduction, or otherwise takes any action to reduce his tax obligation, is being "subsidized."

I suspect Roger is part of "anyone."

2 hours ago, helix said:

This was already settled in the 1970 Supreme Court Case Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. It wasn't close.

Indeed.  It was a 7-1 decision.  Some excerpts (from Justice Brennan's eloquent concurrence) :

Quote

Although governmental purposes for granting religious exemptions may be wholly secular, exemptions can nonetheless violate the Establishment Clause if they result in extensive state involvement with religion. Accordingly, those who urge the exemptions' unconstitutionality argue that exemptions are the equivalent of governmental subsidy of churches. General subsidies of religious activities would, of course, constitute impermissible state involvement with religion.

Tax exemptions and general subsidies, however, are qualitatively different. Though both provide economic assistance, they do so in fundamentally different ways. A subsidy involves the direct transfer of public monies to the subsidized enterprise, and uses resources exacted from taxpayers as a whole. An exemption, on the other hand, involves no such transfer.  It assists the exempted enterprise only passively, by relieving a privately funded venture of the burden of paying taxes. In other words, "[i]n the case of direct subsidy, the state forcibly diverts the income of both believers and nonbelievers to churches," while,

"[i]n the case of an exemption, the state merely refrains from diverting to its own uses income independently generated by the churches through voluntary contributions."

Giannella, Religious Liberty, Nonestablishment, and Doctrinal Development, pt. II, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 513, 553 (1968). Thus,

"the symbolism of tax exemption is significant as a manifestation that organized religion is not expected to support the state; by the same token, the state is not expected to support the church."

Freund, Public Aid to Parochial Schools, 82 Harv.L.Rev. 1680, 1687 n. 16 (1969). Tax exemptions, accordingly, constitute mere passive state involvement with religion, and not the affirmative involvement characteristic of outright governmental subsidy.
...
Government does not affirmatively foster these activities by exempting religious organizations from taxes, as it would were it to subsidize them.

Once more, with feeling:

"{A} tax exemption ... {is} a manifestation that organized religion is not expected to support the state; by the same token, the state is not expected to support the church."

"Tax exemptions [] constitute mere passive state involvement with religion, and not the affirmative involvement characteristic of outright governmental subsidy."

Contrast the foregoing statements with the dissenting opinion from Justice Douglas, which is surprisingly conclusory and light on analysis.  Some excerpts:

Quote

There is a line between what a State may do in encouraging "religious" activities, Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, and what a State may not do by using its resources to promote "religious" activities, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, or bestowing benefits because of them. Yet that line may not always be clear. Closing public schools on Sunday is in the former category; subsidizing churches, in my view, is in the latter. Indeed, I would suppose that, in common understanding, one of the best ways to "establish" one or more religions is to subsidize them, which a tax exemption does.
...
This case, however, is quite different. Education is not involved. The financial support rendered here is to the church, the place of worship. A tax exemption is a subsidy. Is my Brother BRENNAN correct in saying that we would hold that state or federal grants to churches, say, to construct the edifice itself would be unconstitutional? What is the difference between that kind of subsidy and the present subsidy?

He presupposes, rather than demonstrates or presents argument to advance, the idea that "{a} tax exemption is a subsidy."

No wonder it was 7-1.

2 hours ago, helix said:

The bigger issue, is as the Supreme Court said "The power to tax is the power to destroy". A government cannot create a tax that is burdensome and onerous preventing a church from forming and operating. They also can't target a disliked church through shopping around for the tax policy that negatively affects that church the worst.

And it sure seems difficult for people like Analytics, who has spent years and untold hours railing against "a disliked church," to claim they they are not "target{ing}" that church, or even churches in general.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.  Roger, do you think the State should eliminate all non-taxed organizations?  Or is it, as I suspect, just the "religious" ones that you want subjected to the "power to tax" Helix references above?

I am very grateful that we live in America, and that our system of laws protect people like us from people who, in the end, wish to use the vast and coercive power of the State to punish religious groups in their capacity as religious groups.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 9, 2023 by smac97

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

...the idea that "{a} tax exemption is a subsidy.

This seems like something out of 1984.

By not taking money from me the government is actually giving me money.