Should have been a complete rejection, but I’ll take it
Should have been a complete rejection, but I’ll take it
I’m surprised Roberts didn’t go the other way. When they heard the case, I figured it was because they wanted to rule in favor of the religious schools.
Religion & Christianity are in major decline with modern technology. At some point we have to confront why Democrats thought having thousands of corporations across America operate as tax exempt non profits while spreading Trump’s messaging was a good idea. Religion, but especially Christianity, is always the elephant in the room. Religious leaders love the idea of the past when they had more power/control/$. Are we going backwards or forwards?
You can’t advocate for the separation of church and state and still decide churches are Republican tools. upholding the law as written now means they must respect that tax scam churches have; and work towards re-examining it methodically.
Unilaterally deciding to change the tax code because it would fit their political agenda is more a Republican thing.
Sorry… but… uhm… what?
Giving tax breaks to churches- especially churches that violate regulations on 501c(3) corps by engaging in political activity and endorsing candidates- is somehow failing to uphold the separation of church and state?
I don’t see that argument as even making sense.
Eh, I’m a firm believer that society has no business legislating and regulating thoughts. Regulating and taxing churches, while satisfying, would be a huge step in the wrong direction.
So I’m tax exempt now since I have thoughts? Those poor tax payers though must not have any thoughts, so they should be taxed as a result.
I don’t understand your argument.
My point was that taxing churches is not legislating and regulating thoughts. People can still choose to believe in something while it pays taxes from the money it collects. Churches can tithe 10% of that money to the government to serve the public. Tell me that these aren’t corporations with a straight face:
Churches are the mechanism by which people organize and share beliefs. Countries that do not allow freedom of religion use taxes and regulations to shut down religious organizations that either don’t follow the state sanctioned religion or compete with the state sanctioned religion. It is indeed a form of thought control.
Political leaders of faith will seek out ways to favor their own churches and punish the ones they don’t like. The Supreme Court has already created two classes of religions by giving preferential status to their own faiths while denying the rights of faiths they don’t believe should exist. That’s happening already, and we have a constitution that specifically prohibits it.
I agree with you that certain church leaders abuse their status and dramatically cross the line when it comes to political activity. They aren’t really churches, and there really is plenty of proof of that. I think the people running those organizations belong in prison for fraud, but I don’t get to have everything I want. It should be very hard to take away tax exempt status, though, because you know politicians would abuse that worse than church leaders abuse the system now.
If you and me were in charge, we could probably sit down with a list and make some really reasonable decisions about which churches should be taxed. But neither of us has that power, so I’m glad nobody else has it, and I’ll even bet that a lot of other people are glad we don’t have that power.
Yes there is fraud and abuse and corruption of tax-exempt churches. This is the better alternative.
Churches are the mechanism by which people organize and share beliefs. Countries that do not allow freedom of religion use taxes and regulations to shut down religious organizations that either don’t follow the state sanctioned religion or compete with the state sanctioned religion. It is indeed a form of thought control.
First off churhces are NOT “THE” mechanism. they are- at best- A mechanism.
there’s a MTG card shop I go to play games and hang out with people. There’s at least as much organization and belief sharing happening there. I doubt anyone would seriously argue that shop deserves to be tax exempt.
or on a more serious note, journalists, authors, book publishers and sellers and all sorts of other sorts in that general vein.
Political leaders of faith will seek out ways to favor their own churches and punish the ones they don’t like. The Supreme Court has already created two classes of religions by giving preferential status to their own faiths while denying the rights of faiths they don’t believe should exist. That’s happening already, and we have a constitution that specifically prohibits it.
so how is that an argument that churches/faiths should not be collectively taxed?
Personally, if a church wants to spin off an actual charitable organization, they should do that. but if the primary purpose is religious instruction/indoctrination they should be treated like a 501c7 corp. Which is still tax exempt, but is allowed to make political endorsements, so long as that’s not the organization’s prmary (or even “substantial”) purpose. West Burough Baptist, for example would get yeeted from 501c7 status; but most churches would not.
one critical distinction is that most of it’s income must come from membership dues. (tithes?) and contributions are not tax deductible.
IMO charitable organizations should be solely for charity and not be used to proselytize a particular faith, which is exactly what churches (and most religious organizations,) do, if they do any actual charity at all.
For those wondering:
The 4-4 split was made possible because conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. Though she did not explain her decision, the former University of Notre Dame law professor had multiple ties to the attorneys representing the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.
Ngl…very shocked to see a Trump appointee recusing herself.
She’s very nuanced for a trump lackey. It’s like she saw clearance and kegstand and realized she can’t go full magat. So every now and then she applies logic to something.
