An op-ed in the LA Times calls for revocation of Scientology’s tax-exempt status. I agree 100% with the reasoning.
In the past, critics of the church have called for its tax exemption to be revoked because it is not a "real religion." I agree that tax-exemption isn’t merited, but not for that reason. The Church of Scientology has a distinct belief system which, despite its somewhat strange cosmology — mocked by the TV show "South Park" and many others — is not essentially more strange than, say, the idea of a virgin birth. Scientologists are entitled to believe what they want to believe. And the IRS website makes it clear that anyone is entitled to start a religion at any time without seeking IRS permission. To maintain the right to be tax-exempt, however, religions must fulfill certain requirements for charitable organizations. For example, they may not "serve the private interests of any individual" and/or "the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy."
On these points alone, it is hard to see why Americans should subsidize Scientology through its tax-exemption.
Yes — you should not target the Church of Scientology because its beliefs are weird — that implies that the beliefs of other religions are not weird. But I do have to wonder why we’re giving organizations tax exemptions for their beliefs in the first place.
I do appreciate how clearly the grounds for revocation are laid out. I wonder how you determine whether a church is serving the private interests of an individual, though: is any church with a charismatic leader living an extravagant lifestyle vulnerable, then? Should Joel Osteen, to name one example among many, be denied a tax exemption?
I’m also wondering how faith-healing churches that end up killing people can retain their tax exemption in light of that last requirement, that they not violate public policy.
Of course these are tricky concerns that would keep many lawyers employed. I say we just simplify and get rid of religious tax exemptions for everyone.
“violate fundamental public policy”… Like restricting marriage to different sex partners in a state that has same sex marriage?
See, that’s the thing. Osteen doesn’t draw a salary from his church. Instead he makes his millions from book sales–which are popular because of his church.
Should his–and every other–church pay taxes? Well, since they’re benefiting from public services like police and fire protection, I’d say hell yeah.
I’m currently in the middle of reading Beyond Belief: My secret life in Scientology and my harrowing escape by Jenna Miscavige Hill and I’m struck by how many of its beliefs are familiar elements of New Age-y “spiritualities.” It’s not the science fiction aspects so much as its emphasis on dualism, levels of attainment, the paranormal, mind over matter, eliminating doubt, alternative healing, ‘negative thoughts,’ and an ultimate Purity and Perfection above nature towards which we must strive. Yes, this isn’t only a cult: it’s a religion. It’s a gnostic spiritual religion.
So I’m not convinced by the argument that it should have its tax exempt status revoked because it abuses its members. Wouldn’t the same laws which break up cults like the FLDS apply here? They need to be enforced.
Hear, hear. I also think that it’s time that the public start applying the same level of scrutiny to other faiths — and the whole idea of “faith” itself.
I would like to strip tax-exempt status from all churches, except for the genuinely charitable activities (food and clothing banks, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc.). I think the day-to-day activities of a church are much more like a country club or other social group and I don’t see why taxpayers should subsidize them. It wouldn’t be that hard to set up a different tax entity for such activities and separate the bookkeeping.
Of course I know it ain’t gonna happen, but in my dream world…
What are your crimes, PZ? ;-)
A more useful way of fighting Scientology would be taking away their right to give credit. One of the ways they entrap members is to present anyone who leaves with a “freeloader’s bill”, which demands payment of tens of thousands of dollars for the services supposedly provided. Given that anyone who leaves will generally be broke, unemployable, without friends or family (due to the “disconnection” policy), and generally unable to fight against an organization with a colossal legal budget, many are forced to stay.
I do appreciate how clearly the grounds for revocation are laid out. I wonder how you determine whether a church is serving the private interests of an individual, though: is any church with a charismatic leader living an extravagant lifestyle vulnerable, then? Should Joel Osteen, to name one example among many, be denied a tax exemption?
And that, in a nutshell, is precisely why there will NEVER be a significant political push to revoke $cientology’s tax-exempt status: once you apply that yardstick to one church, attention will widen to other churches, and the whole edifice of Christian privilege — in the strictly legal arena at least — will start to crack. This is a major advantage that loony cults like $cientology will always have: people who should be their natural enemies, such as other cults who should be seeking to crush their competition, will instead be forced into permanent alliance with them against their most fearsome enemy, a skeptical public backed by vigorous public officials.
Churches often tout their charity as a reason for why they deserve tax exemption, but it’s simply a decoy. They try to pretend that if we make religion pay taxes, charity will disappear and that’s simply not true.
The exemptions for charities would still apply. The only difference would be that the churches would actually have to do charity work before they get the exemption. They wouldn’t be exempt simply by virtue of being a church.
The church groups that do legitimate work will still get the same tax breaks they always did, following the same rules as every other charitable organization, whether religious or not.
Religion simply shouldn’t enter into that discussion. If you do charity, you get a tax break. If you don’t, you don’t. That’s the only sensible way to do this.
Religious exemptions from taxes in Australia were dropped several decades ago. These days Australian religious organisations have the same ability as any other group to found a charitable foundation that abides by all the relevant regulations, and may then solicit donations to that charitable foundation to fund activities that fulfil the rigorously described charitable purposes of that foundation.
For any other activities of the religious organisation that fall outside the remit of their charitable arms they can still engage in fundraising via donation, but they have to make it clear to the donors that their donations will not be tax-deductibles. This seems to work quite well in making it much more difficult for con artists to fleece their flock in the most deplorable ways, although of course nothing’s foolproof.
LykeX #8 wrote:
Yes. But I think churches also presume that touting religion is, in and of itself, an act of charity — and a religious public has always been happy to acquiesce. Believing in God (having faith) is considered a moral virtue even before you get to the ways we’re supposed to worship, give thanks, and obey whatever Higher Power we’re talking about. Helping people find God is the ultimate act of charity. That’s one of the main reasons religion is granted a special status above and beyond the secular humanitarian works of the community.
I mean, look at how awful it is to be an atheist. Let’s rescue folks from that.
This legal privileging of faith is damaging and wrong. Telling folks about Jesus or Xenu or our nature as ‘spiritual beings’ should not be stuck in there with soup kitchens and disaster relief.
Yes, we should just get rid of the religious tax-exemption across the board. I don’t even know what the rationale for it is supposed to be anymore. Something to do with charity, is what people usually say, but charities have their own tax-exempt status. To the extant that a church is a charity, fine. But churches do a lot more than charity, Giving money to a church for building an expansion or renovating the chapel or re-paving the parking lot… that’s not charity. Paying the salaries of the church employees… also not charity.
My fear is that Scientology will have its tax-exempt status removed, and it will stop there. Scientology’s problem is not just that it’s a horrible cult, but it’s a horrible cult unaffiliated with any major religion. Other horrible cults, like those tele-vangelists who solicit millions in donations for their own personal use, are Christians. Isolated communities of conservatives or hard-liners can be every bit as cultish as Scientology, but they’re also Jewish or Christian or Muslim, so they get protected by association. Who hasn’t heard stories of ex-Mormons being ostracized and even persecuted? These of these issues is unique to Scientology.
If it’s only Scientology that loses its tax-exempt status, that’s religious discrimination. I can’t support that.
Hello, Capt. Obvious here. You are describing the Pope, fer sure, just trying to distract us, by identifying Joel Osteen in particular. tsk tsk tsk.
drewvogel:
My thoughts exactly. I can see Scientology being stripped of its status because it is obviously siphoning money and it is obviously involved in some bad behavior. But the only reason it would be punished and not a megachurch or Mormons or the Roman Catholic Church, is because it is New and it is Small, therefore it is Weird. Those are virtually the only real distinctions between it and other religions who are given a pass for the same things, or worse. And I very much doubt that even if they do punish Scientology in this way, that Christian privilege will budge an inch. There have been countless churches meddling in political affairs and still retaining their tax exempt status. And that is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.
OP
I’m also wondering how faith-healing churches that end up killing people can retain their tax exemption in light of that last requirement, that they not violate public policy.
To me, it seems that if a religion requests an exemption from any law on the grounds of their beliefs, that alone should constitute a violation of public policy, since if their beliefs were compatible with said policy, they would not need to seek an exemption. It then follows that since many laws have religious exemptions and no one has considered that a violation of public policy, they aren’t terribly interested in enforcing that particular criterion.
Most likely because of the very obvious outcome: an almighty outrage arising simultaneously from hundreds of millions of people across the land.
I did not know that “freedom of religion” is short for “religious feelings makes one exempt for all laws”. Essentially what Indiana is telling Indianians.
@ tigtog
Unfortunately the advancement of religion is considered a charitable purpose under the Australian Taxation Office’s and the Australian Charities and Not -for-profit Commission’s guidelines, and therefore entitled to tax concessions like other charities and NFPs. We still have a way to go.
TonyJ @ # 5: What are your crimes, PZ?
Hemant Mehta and Mick Nugent have compiled a convenient list for us.
Remove all religious tax exemptions, let god sort it out.
What keeps getting lost in this discussion is the definition of a 501(c)(3) corporation. That status can be had by any corporate entity that “operates exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for testing for public safety, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.” Little League Baseball is a 501(c)(3). The Humane Society is a 501(c)(3). Underwriters Laboratories is a 501(c)(3). Heck, the science fiction convention I work with is a 501(c)(3).
What makes religions special in the tax code is that they are exempt from the reporting requirements that all other 501(c)(3) corporations must make. It took Norwescon several years to line up non-profit status: we had to jump through a lot of hoops, file a lot of reports, establish an acceptable accounting system, and turn our records over to the IRS for evaluation. A church merely has to call itself a place of worship and it automagically is a 501(c)(3) without any paperwork ever changing hands. THAT is what needs to be changed. I have no problem with religious orgs having the benefits of being non-profit, as long as they can meet the exact same requirements that all other 501(c)(3) corporations must meet.
A red herring.
The vast majority of their loot intake isn’t charity. 88% goes for homeostasis, building and salaries. The rest is pass through to the cult headquarters, missionary activities usually targeting other xians, and…charity.
I’d estimate that 5% is actual charity.
So far as I know, the tax exemption for churches is rooted in the concept of “the power to tax is the power to destroy” coupled with the 1st Amendment freedom of religion. The 1st Amendment clause certainly implies that that IRS should NOT have the power to decide what is or is not a church or religion. So the status quo is that virtually *anything* calling itself a “church” is tax exempt.
A better situation would be to adopt–as a general rule–the Biblical admonition to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” (which implies that no actual Bible-believing church should even *seek* to be tax exempt as that is in direct violation of one the orders they’ve been given).
What I would like to see is for churches to be re-designated–universally–as corporations, with all the normal tax and legal implications of that. This would treat *every* religion/church the same (as implied by the 1st Amendment), simplify the IRS’ job, and provide additional funds for every level of government to carry out basic functions (or, alternatively, reduce the tax burden on everyone else).
Does anyone know of any city or town that taxes church property on the basis that said taxes pay for basic public services (e.g. roads, sewers, schools, etc.) that the churches make use of?
Only the right “religious feelings,” of course.
The real reason that they shouldn’t be tax exempt is how they got the exemption in the first place.
They blackmailed the IRS into giving them that status.
How? They instructed their members to sue the IRS for every single item that would normally fall under the tax exempt privilege but that they didn’t benefit from. Oh and the suits were strategically placed and worded so they couldn’t be consolidated. And this was told to the IRS before hand that this is how Scientology would react on not receiving the status. The IRS capitulated.
I don’t have a problem with churches being exempt from taxation. Someone up above compared them to social clubs, which seems about right to me. Social clubs are exempt from tax under Internal Revenue (tax) Code Sec. 501(c)(7) (“Clubs organized for pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofitable purposes, substantially all of the activities of which are for such purposes and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder”). This means that the clubs do not pay tax on income they get from their “nonprofitable purposes” (their restaurant or golf course used by their members, for example) but does not allow their members to deduct their dues.
The problem with granting churches (c)(3) status is that it allows parishioners to take charitable deductions for their contributions when most of the contributions are spent on buildings, liturgy, or other noncharitable purposes. (Why should these people get a deduction for the expenses of their Sunday morning leisure activities while, say, golfers do not?) I like the Australian approach described above–Let a church set up a separate charitable foundation, and let its members take charitable deductions for contributions to it that will actually be spent on charitable purposes.
There really is no constitutional right to tax-exempt status, although people sometimes mistakenly say there is. If you are interested, you could look at a couple cases: Branch Ministries, Inc. and Christian Echoes Nat’l Ministry, Inc.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy” has nothing to do with the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is from an early case called McCulloch v. Maryland that established states could not tax activities of the federal government. After all the New York Times Co. and most other media outlets–other than public television and NPR of course–pay taxes, and no one argues that this impinges on the freedom of the press.
And the religionists will resurrect Niemoller’s lament:
First they came for the Scientologists…
Hello, my first time commenting on this blog.
PZ- “But I do have to wonder why we’re giving organizations tax exemptions for their beliefs in the first place.
It’s one aspect of the separation of church and state. The idea of tax exemption may seem to be wholly beneficial to religious organizations but it’s actually a way to curtail their reach.
We have to go back to the history of religion in European governments. Apologies for this, but the best and most concise way to sum that up is, it was always a complete clusterfuck. Ironically the people who persecute religions are inevitably religious people themselves. Religious institutions have always used whatever means at their disposal to gain the upper hand over their ideological rival memes.
James Madison wrote “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.” No truer words can be said. When religion has direct influence over government the religious will inevitably use every opportunity to persecute those of other sects or religions. If churches were taxed this would undoubtedly be used in such a fashion to spar with each other.
I don’t mind so much if they do grapple with each other, but the collateral damage to various societies in those struggles has historically been catastrophic. Economic ruin, wars, etc… such a waste. If you’ve read European history religions role in government was not typically about coming up with sensible solutions to societies ills, it was more concerned with clawing to the top of the heap and batting down opposition. It’s best to keep religions from weaponizing tax codes, best to keep that out of the reach of eternally heated, hate based conflicts who write off any and all collateral damage as little more than a necessary sacrifice to their gods, to the detriment to larger society. Who knows where humanity might be today if not for this strife. Perhaps, some measure of success of the US can be attributed to the separation of church and state, we’ve used those resources to better aims. Who knows, something to think about at later date, I digress.
Could you imagine what kind of insidious machinations religious groups like Scientology, or any church, would get up to today in the US if they thought they could lobby for tax legislation laws that would give themselves even more of an advantage over, or perhaps even inhibit another religion or sect? The temptation to vie for control and advantage is too much. The religious love to lament persecution and in a way they’re correct after a fashion it does exist, they know this because they’re the ones who do it to each other.
I accept that tax exemption IS an advantage, but there are worse things than keeping religion sated, the capacity for religion to creating havoc is historical record. Tax exemption is kind of a secular Sword of Damocles that keeps religion in check and behaving toward each other, at least to some minimum extent where their lack of power to weaponize tax codes is concerned.
Many religious institutions do cross that line, even regularly. The Mormon churches spending and work to support proposition 8 in CA were sound grounds for denying tax exemption status I think. Perhaps we don’t go far enough in enforcing a separation of church and state. However, if you take away tax exemption you’re taking the reins off religion completely. Then what? I guess it would be no better or worse situation than we have with corporate interests being able to buy whatever legislation they want.
In fact this doesn’t even address the issue of front companies and think tanks for religious organizations who can and do spend whatever they like to cross that line of separation between church and state. So maybe I just argued myself into moot point, I just go for the ride wherever the reasoning takes me.
Recent developments in the US such as the Hobby Lobby supreme court case and various state laws about “religious freedom”, which is really about denying civil rights, increasingly give religious exemption to for-profit corporations. This is tied to the principle of tax exemption directly also. Typically it was not-for-profit status which was the major distinguishing factor in tax exemption status, even long before the IRS existed. But now that exemption is ever more extended to for-profit companies, I wouldn’t call this crossover a crack in the separation of church and state, but it certainly has blurred the lines. It may be that this push will not have the outcome the religious intend. It has never really been possible to tax not-for-profit institutions like churches because of that separation of church and state. Do the religious realize that if we can cross that gap it may not be what they expect. Sure they’ll be able to push their agenda in gov’t, but once you push your religious beliefs into the secular public purview atheists like me will be carrying a whips too and we’ll have a say in their “dominion” like never before.
Churches should be taxes like any other club that takes dues from its members. They should be free to set up charitable sister organizations that would be tax exempt if they can adhere to the standards that other not-for-profit charitable organizations have to, including audits. This would also end the fallacy that religious people contribute more towards charities as the churches themselves are nothing more than god clubs. Some money does get to helping others, but the lions share goes to running the club.
Some churches, such as the Mormon Church, have very dismal contributions towards helping people in their communities and abroad. They are businesses that sell an awful idea to a bunch of suckers who will part with their money thinking it is going towards helping people. The Church of Scientology is definitely not in the business of helping anyone in terms of charity. They should have their status revoked.
In Australia the tax office is very clear: https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Fringe-benefits-tax/In-detail/FBT—GST/Religious-institutions–access-to-tax-concessions/?anchor=Religiousinstitution#Religiousinstitution
So I decided I’m creating my own religion based on dancing and secular humanism. It’s still in the works.
I’m puzzled by the “supernatural” requirement though.
What does it even mean?
How does Scientology meet that requirement?
(The CoS is recognised in Australia too, even if it was acknowledged to be a sham: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Australia#1965_Victorian_Board_of_Inquiry_into_Scientology )
tbp1 @4:
Just looked up my Minnesota county at taxexemptworld.com: The golf course in my smallish town is tax exempt, listed as “Pleasure, Recreational, or Social Club”. And I don’t see why it doesn’t pay taxes, either.
Really? I rather thought that Scientology was a multi-level marketing scam, disguised as a religion.
davem:
You repeat yourself.
My understanding is the church more or less exhausted the IRS into submission by throwing lawsuits at them unceasingly for years and years. I can’t say how well I’d hold up under such an onslaught.