begging the point. Honestly, why should those minority religions be treated favorably by the government? Why should any religion be given special treatment by the government? Honestly, if you’ve got a reason, I’d like to hear it. Maybe you’ll change my mind. All you’ll have to do is give a single example that religion can provide any strongly evidenced social benefit that can’t be achieved by an organization that’s secular.
2 Likes
Begging the point is hardly a compelling tactic. The problem I have with your following question(s) is that you are asking me to defend my existence as a religious person and as a member of a religious people. For us Jews this has never gone well. Your mode of questioning is also loaded since you assume that the function of a religious organization is to provide a “strongly evidenced social benefit that can’t be achieved by an organization that’s secular.” Fortunately the authors of the US Constitution saw differently, (See Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Babtists linked by @Romberry above).
However, in essence the legal protections afforded by US to religious organizations, especially to minority religions, can reasonably be said to be part of why the US has been a factor for the US being a magnet destination for immigrants who have most definitely enhanced the US economy, gastronomy and overall cultural mix. To further belabor the point, these same laws most definitely contribute to the economy and cultures of “out of the way” places like Nebraska. Were minority religions only able to afford to establish their houses of worship/gathering places in dense population centers of link persons (whats that word? ghettos…) it is rather unlikely there would be any Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. in places like Nebraska at all.
If that’s how you take it, let it be known that it’s not my intention to ask you to justify your existence. Just that you justify special treatment when the reason appears to be, essentially “I have an idea that I really like” That’s what a religion is. An idea. Why do we have to give special deference to those who hold special ideas? What’s the justification for favoring people who think their idea is so special that nobody can question, examine, or critisize it? I’m not being obtuse here. I’m breaking down exactly what the word “sacred” means.
And, if you’d like, I’ll rephrase my question: If you can show that religion does something unquestionably good, that can’t be done by secular philosophy or action, then I’ll concede that there might be a reason for giving it some kind of special treatment. But so far all I’ve seen is equivocating religion with culture, which, while they aren’t totally unrelated, aren’t the same thing by a long shot.
3 Likes
“Unquestionably good” as you put it still puts me in a position to justify my existence as a religious person and again you seem to be asking the same leading question. In any case it not a very logical question. Life is not an even playing field, some ways that people organize themselves are granted special protections under law most societies. Why not ask why any group at all is granted any form of privilege? Why indeed? Because of course it is a pointless question.
While we are begging questions, why give any government privilege to any group? No more pesky affirmative action laws, govt regulations specifying minority or women quotas in contracts, no laws to protect by sex, sexual orientation and so on. Now THAT is how you beg this question.
I was wonder if you know where in the Constitution THAT load of horseshit is proffered. Hint: It isn’t. However, the “separation of church and state” phrasing comes from a letter written by Jefferson, explicitly explaining the rhetorical and legal purpose behind the First Amendment - which makes it a much more convincing explication than your bit of unsupported nonsense.
5 Likes
You certainly begged your questions much harder than I did, but measuring is juvenile. I don’t actually believe I’m begging the question. I’m honestly asking why a religious incorporated group should be treated differently by the government from secular incorporated groups. So far you’ve said that the reasons are either: because religion is tied to cultural benefits. We’ve always done it. And, we have a tradition of hospitality and pluralism. I contend that we can be very pluralistic without explicitly favoring anyone, and that religion and culture aren’t the same thing, even if they are tied together in some cases. And I don’t think you can make a case that religion isn’t favored in the US, so I don’t think I’m actually begging any questions here.
Edited to add to my points, because I’m not a very good rhetoricist and caught myself cherry picking.
2 Likes
See my previous begging questions. In the end, protecting the minorities or the weak is not the same as favoring them.
In some cases they are, in some cases they are related and in some cases they are not. Humanity is complex and thus so is building a society which accommodates it in its glorious variety.
And why, precisely, should anyone who doesn’t already believe such a doctrine be compelled to subsidize those who do? That’s what special tax exemptions do. The rest of us all have to pay their share of support for public goods.
Moreover, how does that work in practice? If the church doesn’t own it, do they have no special claim or rights to it, so they won’t mind it I walk in and start destroying or renovating, or move in without asking? Obviously not. Legally, they own it. The churches themselves agree to that terminology when they pay money and sign contracts to purchase or lease the property. What they call it internally has no bearing on that.
And no, not all churches believe in such things. Catholics certainly don’t. Like it or not, historically the pope was a prince. The Vatican has a bank to oversee its investments and assets. It took over a thousand years for the church to fully ban priests and bishops from marrying, and as a result it is a matter of established canon law that priests may not own property to pass on to legitimate or illegitimate children, because the property belongs to the church. So Catholics, at least, cannot be exempted from taxes by your claim.
3 Likes
I suppose we fundamentally disagree here. And I’ll just say that, while protecting minorities is certainly within the scope of my philosophy, I’m not a fan of treating religions any better than secular organizations no matter the scale. While I do rankle at the current system of requiring established populations, and a certain level of mainstream acceptance in order to recieve religious legitimacy for tax purposes, I’d rather all religious groups, big and small, jump through the same hoops that secular organizations have to, and furthermore undergo the same levels of oversight and scrutiny for political entanglement. The main reason I hold this position is because I don’t believe anything a religion has to offer is fundamentally better than what can be provided by secular ideas and secular organizations. Nor do I believe that the good things that religions offer (social cohesion, sometimes moral advice, cooking technologies) are exclusive to only those who tangentially believe unreasonable things about the world, or even believe true things but without reason.
You can have your say now, but I have to turn in for the day. So we may have to speak further about this just a little later. I don’t mean to run from the discussion as this is a lot of fun, and the best debate practice I’ve had in quite a while (my lack of skill notwithstanding).
Edited to correct grammar and yet again strengthen and clarify my position, because I like to post in drafts 
1 Like
I live in a semi-rural/urban area of NC and sure their are plenty of old churches and a rather semi-mega one for our area. At the same time I can drive a half hour toward the country and you can find plenty of churches that are 20 times the value of the local homes. Certainly the mega church is the same, if not more so, but we are talking houses with values below $50k. If anything the land they sit on is more valuable than then structures. Obviously the mega church isn’t hurting for money, but when I see a church that is rather upscale compared to the area it serves it makes me question the purpose it has (and how it is run).
1 Like
I’d say it’s the opposite. Currently, the U.S. government forces citizens to pay higher taxes to subsidize religious institutions they don’t believe in.
3 Likes
Already have the choice. The Moonies never incorporated as a 501c3. They pay taxes on everything they take in, and they have no duty to release any information about their finances to the public.
An organization which does get tax exempt status is required to have open bookkeeping. Any random person off the street can walk into any 501c3 church and demand to see their complete financials, and legally they have to show them.
In practice, I imagine that the law is not followed as closely as it should be. Might be fun to test.
FYI, I’m Pagan, and helped found a 501c3 organization that provides both religious services and is heavily involved in aiding the homeless- So I actually have some firsthand experience in the legal process and requirements to form a church. Happy to answer questions.
1 Like
So then they won’t owe much in the way of taxes.
1 Like
You’ve been repeating this since the beginning of this discussion and it seemed so obvious I didnt want to address it. Obviously secular society can provide for charity funds, feeding the hungry, interest free loans, etc. Sometimes this is done well, sometimes at the price of individual dignity but that in and of itself is not an argument for religious institutions to have anything like a sole mandate on these things. Nonetheless it should also be obvious that religions provide exactly what secular organizations can not and that is the realm of the sacred. Note that I don’t demand or expect you or anyone else to believe, merely to acknowledge that others do. This gets us back to Jefferson’s letter.
I realize that this sort of wording is typical of the New Atheists. Whether you realize it or not it is not respectful of the other party.
No problem, its getting to midnight here in Tokyo so I’ll be signing off this thread for now myself. I am please you enjoy this and hope you can benefit from the practice. Us Jews have been at it for ~3,000 years since God gave us the Law in its basic form, so you could say that arguing is part of our religion 
In the case of religion in the U.S., “the minorities or the weak” are the non-religious, not any particular religion. They’re the ones who need protection.
6 Likes
I acknowledge that some people believe. I don’t see why that means they should get special treatment because of it, though.
If you’re going to accept that secular organizations can also do good work, then any argument that religious ones should be exempt from taxes must be separate from that. So why shouldn’t they pay the same taxes as everyone else?
Tangential, and not directed at you, but I’m also a bit confused as to why the First Amendment doesn’t protect polygamy and animal sacrifices.
1 Like
The phrase appears in the context of:
“So, Tom- I’m worried about my freedoms. What’s with that first amendment?”
“Oh, we wanted to establish a wall of separation between church and state so nobody can enforce their religious beliefs on anyone else”.
It’s a little hard to argue that a principle author of the Constitution, describing the intent behind the document, somehow isn’t interpreting it correctly.
And if you honestly, genuinely believe that you can have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, then I’m sure you’d back my proposal to allow prayer in schools only as long as they are performed while kneeling towards Mecca.
3 Likes
Here’s the thing people keep (deliberately?) messing up:
We were settled as a Christian colony.
We were founded as a secular nation.
Several big important distinctions there.
6 Likes
None should, but if one is given benefits, then every one needs to be given the same.
Personally, I believe that the churches should be able to deduct the operational costs of soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and so forth that have a demonstrable positive effect in a secular context, while still paying taxes on money used for purely religious purposes. ie: It’s fine to run a charity tax-free, but simply gaining new converts doesn’t count for that purpose.
3 Likes
