Split Thread Should we tax religions? (split from ACLU defends shirts)

[ponderingturtle]

See above (but change "charity" to non-profit). They don't get that status because they're a religion, but because they abide by the same laws that any secular "charity" or non-profit corporation abides by.

Not quite though. They are non-profits not because they are religions, not because of broader requirements of community benefit that other non-profits have to show. They also don't have to report their finances in the same fashion.

 

[KingMerv00]

Yea right. Look at Benny Hinn, the poster child for using a church for personal enrichment and no one cares.

If you read my comments more carefully you'll realize that I agree with you. I've said churches are technically bound by the same ethical limitations as other non-profits but the IRS is too afraid of them to do much about the violators.

Edit: Sorta funny to think that the people who took on Al Capone are afraid of the Prince of Peace.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

For once I think the UK has this right - any organisation can be registered as a "charity" as long as they fulfil the requirements of being a charity and then they do gain some tax-breaks, so a church/religion can become a registered charity if they wish to abide by those regulations.

That to me seems not only fair but sensible.

ETA: England & Wales: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registration/faqpage.asp, Scotland has similar regulations.

Problem with the regulations is in the definition of "charitable purposes" - specifically included is the advancement of religion.

It is kind of hard to argue that a set of regulations that includes this amounts to treating a church/religion the same as every other body when there is an implicit assumption that the very existence of a church/religion is desirable.