tax exempt status

  • Thread starter Thread starter brgregmack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brgregmack

Guest
I’m interested to read what other people think about whether or not pagan religions such as wicca and druidry should have tax exempt status.

Personally, I don’t think so, as none of them are that large, and to do so would mean acceptance of their morality.
 
If small Christian bodies…small Jewish bodies…small Muslim bodies…small Buddhist bodies receive exempt status as a religious organization…then so should organized Pagan groups. Their “morality” has nothing to do with their tax status…their meeting the requirements for tax exempt status does.
 
brgregmack said:
I’m interested to read what other people think about whether or not pagan religions such as wicca and druidry should have tax exempt status.

Personally, I don’t think so, as none of them are that large, and to do so would mean acceptance of their morality.
Click to expand...
my opinion is of no value, what does the IRS say? how is the law applied in cases of minority religions or sects that claim to be religions. do you really think the IRS cares about anyone’s morality except as it pertains to obeying the tax laws?
 
I disagree whole heartedly with peganism… That said, the law must be applied blindly. Tax exempt status for religious groups isn’t for the ones that are Christian (only) or (only) for the ones we tolarate. It’s for anything that legitimatly call it’s self a religious organization.

There for, legally speaking yes they should be exempt. No matter how bankrupt the spirituality or theology.
 
I base my morality argument on what our Holy Father wrote in Caritas In Veritate:

At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.

For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133].
 
brgregmack said:
I base my morality argument on what our Holy Father wrote in Caritas In Veritate:

[133].
Click to expand...
none of which is an issue for the IRS, they are concerned only with establishing if the group meets the criteria for a religious denomination under the law.
 
puzzleannie said:
none of which is an issue for the IRS, they are concerned only with establishing if the group meets the criteria for a religious denomination under the law.
Click to expand...
But wouldn’t our silence on allowing paganism tax exempt status amount to saying that their worldview is acceptable?
 
When allowing a particular religion tax exempt status, it should be asked whether or not the faith in question is in keeping with the principles this country was founded upon.
 
As others have said, the “morality” of a religion has nothing to do with whether or not they are granted tax exemptions, as long as they meet the requirements that the government has set regarding eligibility for tax exemption. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like what they’re doing; I’m sure there are some people who think that no religious organizations should have exemptions, but that’s not how the law works.
 
brgregmack said:
But wouldn’t our silence on allowing paganism tax exempt status amount to saying that their worldview is acceptable?
Click to expand...
I don’t see that not making a group pay taxes is the same as saying they have an acceptable worldview.

To be nice to other posters, I won’t mention groups, but there are plenty of recognized religious groups out there whose worldview is completely wrong in my view.

Also, if the debate is about not paying taxes, I generally favor fewer taxes, just as a general principle. And I definitely do not want the tax benefit received by religious groups to be tied to their doctrines or teaching.
 
brgregmack said:
When allowing a particular religion tax exempt status, it should be asked whether or not the faith in question is in keeping with the principles this country was founded upon.
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced that the country was founded on Catholic religious principles for starters.

What position would that put us in?

Also, at our founding several states had, and maintained for a time, official state churches. I don’t want that.
 
brgregmack said:
But wouldn’t our silence on allowing paganism tax exempt status amount to saying that their worldview is acceptable?
Click to expand...
since when do we have any say so about how the IRS operates? if you want to change the law, start with your congressman. This has nothing whatever to do with the Church it is a matter of civil law. Am I condoning and accepting all that Lutherans and Jews teach because their institutions enjoy tax exempt status? no I am not, and neither is the government. Laws have been established to define non-profits for this purpose and right know some religious bodies fall under those laws. The law can change at any time, but that is up to the US Congress, not the Catholic Church.
 
I guess I should probably clarify a little bit. I’m talking individually on a case by case basis and not a blanket pass or denial.
 
brgregmack said:
I’m interested to read what other people think about whether or not pagan religions such as wicca and druidry should have tax exempt status.

Personally, I don’t think so, as none of them are that large, and to do so would mean acceptance of their morality.
Click to expand...
One way to solve the problem would be to revoke tax exempt status from all religious groups. In that way, there is no concern about any group’s legitimacy as a religious organization, and the religious group need not worry about losing its tax exempt status for expressing political views.

A pretty strong case could be made that the Catholic Church and the LDS broke the law, with respect to their tax exempt status, in weighing heavily in a recent California election campaign. Revoking their tax exempt status would allow them to operate with fewer legal encumbrances, and would help them not to feel that they must violate the law in order to promote their moral agenda.

But given, that these Churches are not likely to voluntarily surrender tax exemptions, then the same exemption must be given to any legitimate religious group. There are standards for establishing the legitimacy of such a group, and conduct which is allowed and disallowed under the law, if the group is to retain its tax exemption. These standards have nothing to do with what the particular group believes in or promotes morally, religiously, or philosophically. The restrictions are primarily related to profit making activities, and political activities. For example, a priest may not publicly endorse a politician or a political measure from the pulpit, nor may he do so as a person speaking for the Church. He may do so as a private individual, however, as this is an individual freedom of speech issue.
 
brgregmack said:
Worldview does not equal theology.
Click to expand...
You are correct, worldview does not equal theology, and neither have to do with tax exempt status for religious groups.
When allowing a particular religion tax exempt status, it should be asked whether or not the faith in question is in keeping with the principles this country was founded upon.
Click to expand...
The only principle involved is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

It has nothing to do with worldview (in the U.S., at least), theology, or even a papal statement or that of the leadership of my own communion.

Jon
 
brgregmack said:
When allowing a particular religion tax exempt status, it should be asked whether or not the faith in question is in keeping with the principles this country was founded upon.
Click to expand...
I hate to say it, but in this regard the principal the USA was founded on was a kind of secularism… No, not the kind that exists today, it was a secularism used to allow freedom of religious expression, rather than the stuff we found today used by groups like “freedom from religion”.

By this definition, your argument sort of runs aground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top