Should any respectful donation to a religious establishment be honored by the State?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cho_pilo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cho_pilo

Guest
Correct me if I am wrong but I can say that most Christians believe that they are (required?) to give a tithe to their Church (Num. 18:21-38; Mal. 3:7-10). Now, without getting into a debate over Old Testament law and New Testament law I want to know if it is ethically, morally or legally acceptable for a (Christian) to expect a rebate on their tithing, from the federal government none the less, when their intention for giving was “ordained by God”.

Put yourself into these shoes:
God expects you to give a tithe for the advancement of (its) will. Should you expect the federal government to compensate you for furthering God’s will?

Now put yourself into these shoes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …
Should any respectful donation to a religious establishment be honored by the State?
 
Not sure what you are getting at here. If what you are referring to as a “rebate” is actually a “tax refund”, then there is no problem, since the tax refund is not “compensation” but a “correction”.

To put it in terms of “Tithing”, the government collects an “estimated tithe” from our paychecks which is reviewed and corrected once per year.

As to: “* Should any respectful donation to a religious establishment be honored by the State?*”…
Depends on what you man my “honored”. If the state can “honor” (that is encourage) charitable donations without making them a tax write off.
Likewise they can honor (and encourage) such donations BY making them a tax write off…

Peace
James
 
If you itemize taxes, you can deduct donations to a charitable group, of which a church counts.

A tax rebate is really YOUR money that you overpaid to the government. The government is just giving it back to you. If you frequently get large refunds, you should adjust your withholding.
 
“Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar; and render unto God what belongs to God.”
 
A. The government is not compensating you. It’s giving you back some of the taxes YOU paid. Meanwhile the government gets to say that it supports taxpayers who support worthy causes.

B. If you feel bad about that donate the rebate to the Church/charity too.

Win/win/win!👍
 
cho_pilo said:
Now put yourself into these shoes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …
Should any respectful donation to a religious establishment be honored by the State?
Click to expand...
Just to clarify the highlighted part, the word “respecting” in this sense means, “with reference to” or “concerning”. It does not mean to hold in esteem any established religion. It just means that the government cannot make laws that would actually establish a state religion.

To answer the original question, the State is not necessarily honoring donations to religious establishments as much as it is giving a tax break for ANY charitable donation, whether it be to a church organization, the Red Cross, or Goodwill Industries, etc.
 
It comes down to ‘rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’.

In the UK, donations to charitable causes are tax exempt (provided the charity is registered). Since the donation is assumed to come out of income that is already taxed (since anyone who isn’t self-employed has income that has tax taken from it before it is given to you) the Government will make up the difference at the end of the financial year and pass it directly to the charity.

Bizarrely, because that difference paid to the charity is based only on the ‘standard’ rate of tax (20%), if you pay tax at a higher rate because you’re better off, you actually get a tax refund related to the amount of your donation rather than the charity getting extra. If you then forward that balance to the charity, they get a further 25% mark up from the government and you get a tax refund the next year if you’re still a higher rate taxpayer, and so on, ad infinitum!

Ain’t taxes fun?

Ok… perhaps they’re not fun and I’m just a geek… 😛
 
cho_pilo said:
The thread is about about declaring religious tithes as a tax free donation.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.

I don’t know. I suppose that one could take the position that allowing deductions for “tithing” - that is, money for church operation as opposed to direct “charitable” work - could be seen as government support of religion…(establishment of religion)

I don’t know if it quite rises to the level of being unconstitutional…hhmmmmm…:hmmm:

Personally I view it as a benefit the government provides within the tax structure. The government itself can withdraw it if it so chooses. It would not effect my giving.

Peace
James
 
juno24 said:
It just means that the government cannot make laws that would actually establish a state religion.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make any sense to me. Your interpretation says:
.
Congress shall make no law (concerning) an establishment of (a state) religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (of a state religion); …
.
That’s a contradictory statement with an inserted assumption. My interpretation says:
.
Congress shall make no law (with reference to) (any) establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (of religion); …
.
That is a much more consistent statement. From dictionary.com:
.
an
  • indefinite article
    .
  1. One
    2. Any; any one.
IMO, it shouldn’t matter if the law includes all religions or not because NO LAW shall be made that includes ANY religion, or prohibits the free exercise of religion.
 
cho_pilo said:
My interpretation says:
.
Congress shall make no law (with reference to) (any) establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (of religion); …
.
IMO, it shouldn’t matter if the law includes all religions or not because NO LAW shall be made that includes ANY religion, or prohibits the free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...
Except that it doesn’t say that Congress shall make no laws involving any religion; it says that Congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion, nor which prohibits the free exercise of religion. My point, though obviously not clearly made, is that Congress has not made any law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor with respect to the free exercise of religion. Allowing a citizen to claim a tax break on a charitable donation (regardless of the religious nature of the charity) in no way infringes upon the 1st Amendment. It is an incentive (a fringe benefit, if you will) to encourage charitable giving. The more we give to charities, the less the government is asked to support the causes of those charities (in theory, anyway).
By the way, can you clarify what you mean by “respectful donation”?
 
juno24 said:
Just to clarify the highlighted part, the word “respecting” in this sense means, “with reference to” or “concerning”. It does not mean to hold in esteem any established religion. It just means that the government cannot make laws that would actually establish a state religion…
Click to expand...
I don’t think that interpretation is generally accepted.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
Click to expand...
This does not mean that Congress would be doing the “establishing”. It could mean that there is a religion, pre-existing, that Congress chooses to “recognize” by granting it some special status. This is not the same thing as establishing a state religion, yet it is prohibited by the first amendment. For example, suppose Congress passed a law that stated that all charitable donations to the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, could be fully deductible for income tax purposes, but donations to other churches were only 75% deductible. Such a law would be unconstitutional, even though Congress is not saying the Lutheran Church is the official church of the United States.

Getting back to the general question of deducting for religious donations, how would you feel about a hypothetical “church” that was established solely for the purpose of creating a tax-free way for a group of people to spend their money on themselves? Such a church could hold minimal “ceremonies” followed by picnics, trips, etc., and choose not to do any charitable work. Is anybody a little bit worried that such a church could so easily qualify for the charitable deduction for its members without really being a church in the usual sense? Of course, once you get into setting strict qualifications for “churches” to receive tax-free status then you get dangerously close to respecting the establishment of religion.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I don’t think that interpretation is generally accepted.

This does not mean that Congress would be doing the “establishing”. It could mean that there is a religion, pre-existing, that Congress chooses to “recognize” by granting it some special status. This is not the same thing as establishing a state religion, yet it is prohibited by the first amendment. For example, suppose Congress passed a law that stated that all charitable donations to the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, could be fully deductible for income tax purposes, but donations to other churches were only 75% deductible. Such a law would be unconstitutional, even though Congress is not saying the Lutheran Church is the official church of the United States.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the example; I agree completely. I can see clearly where giving legal preference of one religion over another is clearly in contradiction to the 1st Amendment. It still has nothing to do with the OP’s premise that giving a tax break to donors of a recognized charitable organization should by necessity exclude donors to religious charitable organizations.
 
juno24 said:
… it says that Congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion
Click to expand...
No it does not. Verbatim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …
.
In this case AN means ANY and THEREOF means OF OR CONCERNING THAT OR IT. Your interpretation (which is a common mistake) makes the second part of this clause contradictory - ex., or prohibiting the free exercise of a state religion.
My point, though obviously not clearly made, is that Congress has not made any law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor with respect to the free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...
Actually they did. Congress put into law an exception specifically for Churches - arguably the largest portion of tax exempt entities - that automatically qualifies them as tax deductible entities. How is that not making a law respecting an establishment of religion?
By the way, can you clarify what you mean by “respectful donations”?
Click to expand...
It was ment to imply a religious obligation to tithe. I don’t know how other religions tithe but The Bible is very clear that tithing is to be used to facilitate their religious agenda.
.
Let me be clear. I don’t have a problem with writing off charitable donations to religious establishments as long as the donor and recipients itemize where their funds are to be spent. It would be no different than what is expected of (embryotic) stem cell researchers when Philippine Peso or federal dollars are involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top