The "we should tax religion" meme is back, and in Free Inquiry, of all places. Specifically, they think (or, at least, broadly suggest) that "religions" should be treated as "for-profit corporations providing entertainment." They base this conclusion on the fact that "religions," on average, don't function as charities and therefore shouldn't enjoy nonprofit status and the tax breaks that go with it.
So, of course, it's a fact that nonprofit status depends on whether or not an organization functions primarily as a charity. Well, isn't it? I mean, the authors did take a few minutes to research this important question, right? They wouldn't falsely assert that nonprofits=charities if that were, in fact, not the case?
Well, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about nonprofit organizations:
"A nonprofit organization (NPO) is an organization that uses surplus revenues to achieve its goals rather than distributing them as profit or dividends." Logical enough.
So, um, it seems that operating as a charity is not necessary for nonprofit status--which would explain the large number of nonprofits that aren't charities, would it not? We have to ask ourselves, are the Free Inquiry authors aware that they're presenting a false either/or by pretending that nonprofit status is an issue of charity vs. non-charity? Some aspects of the piece suggest as much. For instance, the term "for-profit" appears seven times, while neither "nonprofit" nor "non-profit" appear even once. It can't be, surely, that this is purely intentional, that they don't want anyone to stop and ask, "Hm, what are the rules for nonprofits"? That would be less than strictly honest, wouldn't it?
Boldly asserting something without directly doing so--that's sort of like propaganda, isn't it?
Or maybe it's just fantastically terrible writing. Your call.
4 comments:
Hi Lee,
With respect, I think you missed the boat on this one. I don't think anyone was questioning that there are many types of nonprofit organizations. The IRS recognizes religious, educational, fraternal, scientific, and a couple of others. (I'm assuming that the final criterion for an organization being considered "nonprofit," at least in the US, is that it has been so determined by the IRS so that donors can deduct their contributions.
This brings us to the next conundrum: what is a "charity"? One definition is that any IRS-recognized nonprofit is a charity: if you can deduct your gifts to it, it's a charity. Another definition (used, for one, by the state of California to determine exemption from state taxes) is that a charity must offer direct services or benefits to the needy. Depending which definition you select, all nonprofits can be charities or some will be and some won't.
All that aside, the question I think our authors' study really posed was: Suppose the practice of granting religious exemption to church organizations should be overturned -- perhaps on establishment clause grounds that no taxpayer should be compelled to support a religion he or she abhors, even indirectly. Granted, that's not likely to happen anytime soon with THIS Supreme Court, but just suppose. On that scenario, would there be justification for tax-exempting churches and church organizations on some grounds other than that they are simply religious? Some have argued that their charitable work would so qualify them, and that is the contention the authors are challenging.
More fundamental than that, however, is the piece of long-overdue research the authors DID do, toting up for the first time in decades a rough estimate of the total revenue foregone as a result of federal and state tax preferments for religion. ($71 billion, as you'll recall.) Whatever one may think of the religious exemption or of whether church groups could qualify for exempt status on some other grounds, that's a huge chunk of revenue foregone. To my mind, public discourse about religious tax preferment is greatly advanced by having a hard number (if, as the authors admit, one that is tentative and probably conservative)on the table.
Tom Flynn
Editor, FREE INQUIRY
www.secularhumanism.org
Tom Flynn wrote: "perhaps on establishment clause grounds that no taxpayer should be compelled to support a religion he or she abhors, even indirectly" as a muse arguing a way the SCOTUS might overturn religious exemption.
Well, heavens to betsy, I am compelled to support many things I abhor routinely with tax dollars. Really now, this as basis for our pet desires dissolves the social contract very quickly. Come on Mr. Flynn dig deeper for more persuasive arguments - this is surface stuff.
Steve - Ohio
Tom,
Thanks for your comment. My understanding is that the justification for tax-exempting churches is that (to borrow Wikipedia's explanation) they use surplus revenues to achieve their goals vice distributing them as profits or dividends. Any church (or religious organization) not in compliance with that requirement should be considered for-profit outfits and taxed. To that end, the IRS should be granted full auditing authority. I'm completely in favor of full transparency, since I believe the vast majority of churches (and, for that matter, denominations) have nothing to hide.
And this is where I have my greatest reservations about the report—namely, about the way it suggests, in league with media cliches about faith, that for-profit religions are, to any extent, the norm. With television relentlessly focusing on Pat Robertson-style con outfits and the tragically conservative people who enable same, the impression is given that religion in America is not only rolling in dough but that it functions primarily as a shill for the worst kind of right-wing politics. I know, through frustrating experience, that trying to suggest otherwise on liberal on-line discussion boards is akin to shouting into a cyclone, so thoroughly immersed are so many in the damning image of religion promoted by the media, by Richard Dawkins, and by hip comedians.
The article starts with mention of “pastors who live in multimillion dollar homes”--allow me to describe the financial situation of many churches in my small-town Ohio county. First, there's the Methodist church where I work as organist and choir accompanist for $55 a week, and whose congregation numbers 70 on a good day, and who recently solicited a special “love fund” donation from its members to pay outstanding bills from 2011 (including office supply costs). It can't complain, however—unlike many of its sister congregations, it has its own full-time pastor and doesn't need to share pastors between churches, i.e. use one per three or four congregations per Sunday . In another part of the county, there's a small Presbyterian church where I used to play for no fee as a member of the congregation, and which could neither afford a full-time minister or the latest edition of the denomination's hymnal.
(Continued)
If its behavior corresponded to media cliches, the church I presently attend would be filled with activist right-wingers, its Sunday sermons would condemn Obama, environmentalism, MSNBC, and professional women, and it would pass out voting guides at election time. In fact, our present and previous ministers, both female, are of not only a liberal bent (I know this only because I know them personally) but not given to even discussing politics in church, let alone taking sides. We have been told to be good stewards of the environment (and, hence, to accept global warming science), not judgmental of others (believers and nonbelievers alike), and honestly confront our own considerable faults and failings.
I am all for informed public discourse about any or all aspects of religion and society, religion and state, and so on. But biased discourse is, by definition, misinformed. A piece which reduces “religions” to entertainment forms, which portrays their members as greedy and shallow (tithing as a form of dodging the IRS, for instance), and which suggests that nonprofit privileges should, in any case with any kind of institution, be considered in terms of potential savings, is hardly providing balanced ground for debate. Lastly, regarding your point that churches should not be tax-exempted on the grounds “that they are simply religious” (i.e., simply because they are religious), I'm in total agreement, though perhaps not in the way you might think. That is, I passionately disagree with the extreme reading of the establishment clause typical of your side: namely, that nothing less than total, literal separation between state and church can be permitted. Which, in the context of this debate, would equate to the state being required not to extend to churches benefits it would extend were churches not religious. It would amount to punitive action, which falls well outside any definition of state/church neutrality. The solution is to view religious organizations as organizations first, and religion second, but I don't sense this is what your side advocates.
Best,
Lee Hartsfeld
Post a Comment