I addressed that in the very next paragraph of the same post you quoted.
Christmas is an odd holiday because it is both religious and secular. The ACLU has no problems with pretty displays of lights and trees. They are ok with Santa and Reindeer. They object to Nativity scenes, especially if that’s the only display. (I believe in one case a court ruled the NS was okay as it was just part of a more extensive Christmas display.)
I don’t see any reason to have the taxpayers pay for religious displays, even if there are some complex rules for “equal time”.
If we want to look at colonial and early US history, Patrick Henry introduced a bill in the VA General Assembly which which specified a general assessment tax to support “Teachers of the Christian Religion.” Each taxpayer was allowed to choose what church or minister could receive his tax money.
This was a response to Jefferson’s “Religious Freedom” bill. Henry’s bill said everyone has to support some religion, but they could choose which (as long as it was Christian). Jefferson’s bill, which won out in the Assembly, said " no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever …"
That last word seems to say “freedom from religion”, in contrast to Henry’s bill.
James Madison pushed the bill through the Assembly in 1786. That was a few years before Madison wrote the first draft of the federal Bill of Rights.
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom | The First Amendment Encyclopedia.
Finally, getting back to a tax deduction for religious contributions, IMO that’s saying I have to support “religions”. I don’t get to choose which, just which ever religions get contributions from (higher income) taxpayers.
US: Taxpayer takes a deduction and reduces tax payment
UK: Taxpayer does not get a deduction by claims Gift Aid and government pays 25p for every pound donated. I would not call that a direct payment from the government as the government has no control over the amount.
Not how that phrase is being used today as I see it.
When I see that phrase used today it’s after someone complains about Christmas being a school / federal holiday or that it’s inappropriate that an ecumenical prayer is said at the opening of Congress or that a kid was suspended from school for wearing rosary beads or they had to walk past a Christmas display on public property.
I think of direct payment as meaning it goes straight from the government’s coffers to the church’s, which Gift Aid does.
It’s non-discretionary, I’ll grant you that.
Note that nobody complains to the gov’t that they had to walk past a display on private property. Nobody asserts they have a right to “freedom from religion” at that level.
It is only “freedom from government support of religion”.
And, I agree that because Christmas is so secularized, we will always have some gray in something like a school holiday. There’s also the “de minimus” test. Like the “in God we trust”.
2 Likes
Because we live in a representative democracy and our representatives voted for that. Simple as that. If someone in America wants to change that they can certainly do so. Until they do, that’s the way it is.
I’m pretty sure the question was looking for some answer other than “politically popular”.
I want to change it, and I’m “someone”. I think you meant “a super-majority”. Changing federal law requires three separate approvals.
4 Likes
While that’s certainly the theory, it relies on the assumption that you have a say in who your elected officials are.
Given gerrymandering and certain other architectural considerations in our political system, that’s not necessarily a reasonable assumption to make.
(EDIT: At least in the US.)
1 Like
This thread is about the Constitutional aspects of “freedom from religion”. A tax deduction for a donation to a religious entity might be considered not to be “freedom from religion” if in fact the Constitution guarantees that? I don’t know if it does but I found the discussion to be of academic interest.
I imagine there are other sections of the tax code (eg carried interest deduction) which aren’t exactly the will of the masses! The tax code is probably more influenced by special interest groups than the broader voting public. The tax code is anything but an expression of participatory democracy.
3 Likes
I think there is some logic to the argument that the tax advantages religious organizations have could be interpreted as a form of government support.
Where the logic crumbles is that (at least in the US) non-religious nonprofit organizations also share many/most/all? of the same tax advantages.
The idea of tax exemptions constituting state support for/establishment of a religion, or violate a perceived freedom from religion, is a bit of a stretch given that little detail.
I do think the appropriateness of at least some religious organizations receiving the general tax-advantaged treatment given to non-profits/charities could legitimately be debated. My own bias would be for the state to default to similar treatment because to do otherwise would potentially require the state to make decisions that break the “separation of church and state” firewall.
I suppose some objective criteria could be imposed about what generally sort of nonprofit activities could/should be considered worthy of favorable tax treatment as regards any nonprofit organization (not just religious), and those criteria could be set in such a way as to avoid breaking that firewall, but depending on what those criteria were, I imagine the bureaucracy involved in implementation would be horrific.
1 Like
Are you sure? Can a candidate not come and appeal to the district they are given? Gerrymandering implies that some group cannot be reached at all by the other group. I don’t think that’s true.
The will of the masses is that they don’t have to pay any taxes. That’s also not the case.
I’m of the opinion that many voters are apathetic and tend to vote based on a high-level party preference. In areas where laws/regs accept gerrymandering, politicians can and do draw district boundaries to capitalize on this phenomenon, to maximize their party’s power.
While an ordinary individual can lobby for a particular change, especially if that individual has the wherewithal to identify others sharing their views, politicians have limited reason to pay attention to novel ideas when they can count on the apathetic masses to drive their reelection campaigns.
To effect real change, you have to overcome the challenge of politicians selecting their voters (rather than the other way around). Technically, it’s not impossible…but it is likely very improbable.
I suppose that if you can get a few talking heads that program the hordes of apathetic voters to sign on to your idea, you could actually get some traction…but that still feels improbable.
It’s been 10-16 years since I’ve encountered a close race on a general election ballot. In my area, there’s little incentive for the elected officials to heed ideas raised by constituents.
It’s not so black and white, though. Historically, foundations were set up to support things like all male schools, whites only schools, etc. these foundations eventually were required to amend to conform to the laws. Can’t really say that about religious groups, since the question arises "can we deny them their option to (fill in the blank).
Did you know the Catholic hospitals defer to bishopric guidance? They are in a tough spot, yes?
The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA ), formerly the Catholic Hospital Association of the United States and Canada , is a Catholic professional association comprising more than 600 hospitals and 1,400 long-term care and other health facilities in the United States. It is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation. The association has offices in Washington, D.C.and St. Louis, Missouri.
So while there are many tax deductible items of rather dubious value to the general public, they don’t enjoy leeway in what laws to follow.
And just to be clear: My comments were intended to be limited in scope to the question of whether religious groups’ tax exemptions and the deductibility of contributions to religious groups constitute inappropriate government support for such organizations. I’d argue “no”, to the extent that nonreligious nonprofits have the same advantages.
(Whether those tax exemptions and deductibility of contributions are appropriate is another matter, one that I’m not touching right now.)
Objections certainly could be raised about the extent to which some religious organizations are exempt from other laws/rules/regs, and the complexity associated with that…but that’s a can of worms I’m not touching right now. I can see that someone might claim that such exemptions run afoul of the idea that government should at best be neutral towards religion…but I’d disagree; in my mind they’re a (frequently imperfect) attempt at balancing the need to regulate with accommodating those who wish freedom to practice their religion.
3 Likes
Sure. I reacted to the crumbling argument phrase. It may open up “can of worms”, but I take that to mean it makes the argument significantly more complicated. No doubt. A simple comparison to other charitable deductions is not enough.
Btw, we recently saw the reverse situation, where government wasn’t up to the task without community support - placement of foster kids. Philadelphia loses case
Religion and government often work in tandem on social problems. That’s a good thing, imo.
1 Like
This has already been done. The tax deduction for “charitable” contributions is actually a deduction for contributions to any of the “qualified organizations” listed here: Charitable Contribution Deductions | Internal Revenue Service.
In every case, the IRS has to make a judgement. What is a qualifying “community chest” or “educational” or “literary” organization? I expect that the IRS has tried to write rules for each, and there are probably court cases on organizations on the fringe somehow. IIRC, there was a “museum” in Nebraska that took your hunting trophies. You got a tax deduction for something you don’t want cluttering up the house any more. Is that a legit “scientific” or “educational” institution?
Adding “religious” to the list results in additional rules and debates. It does not simplify anything.
It is not true that every nonprofit can get tax deductible contributions. Here’s a list of 173 501(c)(4) organizations that can’t (I haven’t checked any of them carefully. Any veterans organizations or volunteer fire departments would qualify under 4 and 5 on the IRS list.)
The categories the IRS list are there specifically because somebody thinks the government ought to subsidies these specific activities. If the gov’t wants to subsidize legit museums by making contributions tax deductible, that’s at least within the realm of “legitimate government activities” to me. One test I might use is whether I’m okay with the gov’t funding these activities directly.
Subsidizing religious activities is not on my list of “potentially reasonable government spending”. I’m not okay with direct cash payments, therefore I’m not okay with a targeted tax deduction.
1 Like