• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I'm starting to respect Beto (Re: Church and Tax Exempt Status)

Taylor said:
Are you saying that this student has a right to attend a private college?
Click to expand...

Either you're being intentionally obtuse or didn't read my comment. I'll quote myself.

Supporting someone isn't to infringe on anyone's rights. Obviously "opposing" SSM also infringes on no one's rights - it's an opinion. But a "whites only" school would infringe on someone's rights, and the question is whether a school with an all white policy should get a tax subsidy/tax exemption. Should a school that fires or has a policy not to hire gay people or those in a SSM get a tax subsidy? We went to a concert on Friday and it turned out it was to celebrate "Coming out" day, and the headliner got kicked out of college for being gay. Not for gay sex, or pre-marital sex or any act but that he was gay. Should that college enjoy tax subsidies?
Click to expand...

Note the bolded and embiggened.

Note what I did NOT argue, which is that the college had no right to admit or expel who it wanted. I did NOT argue that a school had no right to be whites only. Beto didn't argue that a religious institution had no right to hold beliefs either, or to act on them, only that they had no right to violate the civil and human rights of others AND get a tax subsidy from the federal government.
 
vanceen said:
O'Rourke's comments are atrocious.

I would be fine with removing tax exempt status for all religious institutions. Many of them do excellent charity work, but the expenses for that can be claimed as charitable contributions without having a blanket exemption for religious institutions.

What Beto proposes is something different. He is proposing a test for whether a religious institution is "legitimate" or not. That is obviously and blatantly in conflict with the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

That's not quite right. I don't agree with him on this either, but the test as stated is whether the institution violates the human and/or civil rights of a citizen. That is an objective test, or can be at least, and I can't see how removing a tax subsidy is a violation of the 1A as long as the law is neutral - e.g. it's illegal to discriminate.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) What are churches other than a voluntary collection of people (citizens?) pooling their private (after tax) resources?
Click to expand...

How does that answer my question?

2) Yes, if they meet the qualifications of the federal income tax code.
Click to expand...

Churches currently don't have to apply. Would you support that churches have to apply, and under go the appropriate scrutiny, to meet the standards? Also, if there is even a HINT of political activity (e.g. if a church leadership supports / donates to Donald Trump), you agree that the church should be immediately stripped of this status.

3) Nice dodge.
Click to expand...

The same response applied to both #2 and #3.
 
JasperL said:
That's not quite right. I don't agree with him on this either, but the test as stated is whether the institution violates the human and/or civil rights of a citizen. That is an objective test, or can be at least, and I can't see how removing a tax subsidy is a violation of the 1A as long as the law is neutral - e.g. it's illegal to discriminate.
Click to expand...

I disagree. First, the question of whether a human right or civil right has been violated by "discrimination" is not clear-cut, and would rely on law that applies to employment and public accommodation but not to all areas of activity. Second, whether the test is objective or not, it amounts to a test of the legitimacy of a religious organization and runs afoul of the First Amendment.
 
ocean515 said:
Ignoring the Constitution is apparently a requisite to the kind of thinking that would support Beto, and underscores the radical elements that have created the New Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

Did you support the Old Democratic Party?
 
Dans La Lune said:
How does that answer my question?



Churches currently don't have to apply. Would you support that churches have to apply, and under go the appropriate scrutiny, to meet the standards? Also, if there is even a HINT of political activity (e.g. if a church leadership supports / donates to Donald Trump), you agree that the church should be immediately stripped of this status.



The same response applied to both #2 and #3.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong.

Applying for Tax Exempt Status | Internal Revenue Service
 
JasperL said:
Either you're being intentionally obtuse or didn't read my comment. I'll quote myself.



Note the bolded and embiggened.

Note what I did NOT argue, which is that the college had no right to admit or expel who it wanted. I did NOT argue that a school had no right to be whites only. Beto didn't argue that a religious institution had no right to hold beliefs either, or to act on them, only that they had no right to violate the civil and human rights of others AND get a tax subsidy from the federal government.
Click to expand...
Why must you always be so sensitive? All I did was ask for clarification.

You stated that:
a "whites only" school would infringe on someone's rights
Click to expand...
and asked if that school should receive a subsidy, then went on to talk about a gay singer being kicked out and asking if that school should receive a subsidy.

All I did was fill in the missing part of the analogy and ask if that's what you meant to imply:

Do you believe that a "heterosexual only" school violates the rights of someone who is gay? I.e. do you believe that this singer had a right to attend that private university? [Or if that's not what you meant, what "rights" in particular are being violated?]
 
Dans La Lune said:
Did you support the Old Democratic Party?
Click to expand...

Not really. But they offered a liberal perspective on policy that was reasonable to consider and include.

The giant leap to the far left that now permeates throughout the New Democratic Party is irrational, and antithetical to the foundation and principles of the United States.
 
Dans La Lune said:
If Beto can trigger Ben Shapiro to this extent, I'm pretty happy with him by default. Although the reason I'm starting to respect him is because his campaign is going for broke, and as a result he's making some brilliant points that transgress traditional boundaries of politics. Should churches get tax exempt status if they engage in bigotry? Mind you, this doesn't infringe on anything a church has a right to say, freedom of religion, etc. They just don't get a special tax status for doing so. Anyone else starting to respect Beto? Also, what are your views on the point Beto is making?

Click to expand...


I almost feel asleep in the first minute of that guy talking. He's boring af. That aside, Ben Shapiro's points are all spot on. That said, where does it say that if a church teaches church things they lose their tax exempt status? Churches operate off of donations from money that has already been taxed. You take tax exemption from churches then you have to take it from everyone else. Finally, you want to create one of the biggest conservative bunding operation for political fund raising overnight? Because this is how you get it. They start getting taxed then they are free to pool money and donate it.

This is nothing more than progressive puritanism, the most radical mainstream religion to currently exist.
 
vanceen said:
I disagree. First, the question of whether a human right or civil right has been violated by "discrimination" is not clear-cut, and would rely on law that applies to employment and public accommodation but not to all areas of activity. Second, whether the test is objective or not, it amounts to a test of the legitimacy of a religious organization and runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Assuming the law IS objective - is related to some act that applies to religious and non-religious institutions alike - a tax exemption or not does not determine an organization's legitimacy. GE is a legitimate organization, and it pays taxes. My business is legitimate and it pays taxes. A church or school can be totally legitimate and pay taxes, if it chooses to ignore neutral laws that apply to GE and my business.

The IRS can strip a church or other charity of its exempt status if it engages in prohibited political activity. Doing it doesn't make the church or school illegitimate, just ineligible for taxpayer subsidies. We've decided as a country NOT to subsidize political activity with generous tax subsidies. Political contributions are not tax deductible and the organizations who engage in political advocacy not tax exempt, religious or not, charity or not. We could easily extend - does not follow anti-discrimination laws - as another justifiable reason to strip an organization's tax subsidy.
 
ocean515 said:
Not really. But they offered a liberal perspective on policy that was reasonable to consider and include.

The giant leap to the far left that now permeates throughout the New Democratic Party is irrational, and antithetical to the foundation and principles of the United States.
Click to expand...

So basically, if the Democrats continued to move right, you'd be more inclined to support them. Out of curiosity, did you vote for Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who was to the right of John McCain?

In Conclusion: Heads you win, Tails I lose.

Your opinion is well-noted.
 
X Factor said:
I trust you’d be consistent and support this regardless of whether it’s a church, synagogue or a mosque?
Click to expand...

Hell yeah!

I'd take it further actually. No church, synagogue, mosque... whathaveyou with a congregational population over 500 gets tax exempt status at all. Then if your religious organization is under that amount of population but unionizes with other churches to form a basic proxy mega church, you assume their congregational population count in yours.
 
Dans La Lune said:
If Beto can trigger Ben Shapiro to this extent, I'm pretty happy with him by default. Although the reason I'm starting to respect him is because his campaign is going for broke, and as a result he's making some brilliant points that transgress traditional boundaries of politics. Should churches get tax exempt status if they engage in bigotry? Mind you, this doesn't infringe on anything a church has a right to say, freedom of religion, etc. They just don't get a special tax status for doing so. Anyone else starting to respect Beto? Also, what are your views on the point Beto is making?
Click to expand...

No, that position crosses Beto off my list. I think even the Church of Satan should be tax-exempt. You don't want to government choosing government approved churches based on the popular views of our times.

Keep in mind that Black Democrats are very religious. They wouldn't like this at all. It would be a disaster for Democrats.

Democrats are really trying hard to lose a race they can't lose.

I really hope Buttigeg catches fire. Otherwise, I'll support Biden. I'm no fan of Warren's break up Facebook and Amazon nonsense.
 
Taylor said:
Why must you always be so sensitive? All I did was ask for clarification.
Click to expand...

OK, but if I thought that a school should be REQUIRED to admit gays, I'd have stated that and not posed the question whether a school that e.g. DID EXPEL A STUDENT FOR BEING GAY should be tax exempt. The position inherent in my argument/question is that expelling a gay student is allowed, can legally happen, and if/when it does, do we subsidize that organization. If it's not allowed, the tax exempt or not question is moot - they'd be shut down or ordered to admit blacks/gays.

You stated that: and asked if that school should receive a subsidy, then went on to talk about a gay singer being kicked out and asking if that school should receive a subsidy.

All I did was fill in the missing part of the analogy and ask if that's what you meant to imply:

Do you believe that a "heterosexual only" school violates the rights of someone who is gay? I.e. do you believe that this singer had a right to attend that private university? [Or if that's not what you meant, what "rights" in particular are being violated?]
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have stated it differently and put the question in terms of harm. My supporting Beto (I don't but if I did) does you no harm. If you're black and prohibited from attending your city's elite private schools, of course you are or can be harmed, by being denied an opportunity for the education and contacts available to whites in that city.

At any rate, I don't want to get into a hair splitting exercise about 'rights.' There is no general right not to be discriminated against. We have laws against it, however, and we could as Beto suggests pass laws that say, discrimination based on _____ will forfeit your 501(c)(3) status, same way we forfeit that for prohibited political activity.
 
JasperL said:
Assuming the law IS objective - is related to some act that applies to religious and non-religious institutions alike - a tax exemption or not does not determine an organization's legitimacy. GE is a legitimate organization, and it pays taxes. My business is legitimate and it pays taxes. A church or school can be totally legitimate and pay taxes, if it chooses to ignore neutral laws that apply to GE and my business.

The IRS can strip a church or other charity of its exempt status if it engages in prohibited political activity. Doing it doesn't make the church or school illegitimate, just ineligible for taxpayer subsidies. We've decided as a country NOT to subsidize political activity with generous tax subsidies. Political contributions are not tax deductible and the organizations who engage in political advocacy not tax exempt, religious or not, charity or not. We could easily extend - does not follow anti-discrimination laws - as another justifiable reason to strip an organization's tax subsidy.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I still disagree.

What Beto proposes pierces the separation of church and state, in my view, in that it would penalize religious institutions for teaching and following particular doctrines.

Yes, a church can lose its tax exempt status for political activity, but that is because political activity is seen as separate from religious teaching, and crossing over into it is violating the definition of a religious institution under the law.

Far better to remove tax exemption entirely, without prejudice to the contents of the institution's teachings.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
No, that position crosses Beto off my list. I think even the Church of Satan should be tax-exempt. You don't want to government choosing government approved churches based on the popular views of our times.

Keep in mind that Black Democrats are very religious. They wouldn't like this at all. It would be a disaster for Democrats.

Democrats are really trying hard to lose a race they can't lose.

I really hope Buttigeg catches fire. Otherwise, I'll support Biden. I'm no fan of Warren's break up Facebook and Amazon nonsense.
Click to expand...

I agree about Beto. He's making terrible arguments and should go away. But it's IMO a fair question whether churches or other institutions that discriminate are ENTITLED to a tax subsidy. It's not about beliefs so much as actions. In the secular world, I'm allowed to be a bigot, but I'm not allowed to discriminate and operate a hotel. If an organization chooses to discriminate, should the taxpayers subsidize that effort? That's the issue.

I don't actually think it's straightforward. In an example above was a guy kicked out of a college for being gay. He didn't DO anything wrong - just was gay. It's not to me obvious that the college should be tax exempt. For example, if they were whites only would we decide the same thing? Seems fair to me to draw lines about what kind of things we'll reward with a tax subsidy.

FWIW, there is a real problem IMO with decades of ignoring anti-trust law. How to break up the big tech companies isn't obvious, but I have great fears about consolidating power in just a few giant tech companies with immense insight into everything we do online, which is almost everything these days.
 
Just another reason NOT to vote for a fool like him. He doesnt even understand the First Amendment to the Constitution.
 
Dans La Lune said:
So basically, if the Democrats continued to move right, you'd be more inclined to support them. Out of curiosity, did you vote for Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who was to the right of John McCain?

In Conclusion: Heads you win, Tails I lose.

Your opinion is well-noted.
Click to expand...

Continued to move right? You mean if they returned to the left, instead of the radical extreme left where they have run to?

Your statements about Hillary are insane, so I can't begin to comment about them.
 
ocean515 said:
Continued to move right? You mean if they returned to the left, instead of the radical extreme left where they have run to?

Your statements about Hillary are insane, so I can't begin to comment about them.
Click to expand...

What about my statements regarding Hillary are insane? You didn't answer the question. Did you support her in 2016, or do you think she's too far left? Truthfully, anyone who thinks Hillary is too far left doesn't belong in a serious political discussion.

 
snakestretcher said:
This 'mega church', has an annual budget of $53 million.

America's Biggest Megachurches

According to Forbes these places have a total income of over $8 billion.
Click to expand...

Then, there are places that are 'religious communities' that are tax exempt, such as the Bruderhof. They live on their communal religious property, and pay no taxes.
 
ocean515 said:
Continued to move right? You mean if they returned to the left, instead of the radical extreme left where they have run to?

Your statements about Hillary are insane, so I can't begin to comment about them.
Click to expand...

By the way, do you support Biden? He's basically a conservative Democrat, arguably to the right of Hillary Clinton. If you don't support him, then who are you waiting for?
 
Dans La Lune said:
By the way, do you support Biden? He's basically a conservative Democrat, arguably to the right of Hillary Clinton. If you don't support him, then who are you waiting for?
Click to expand...

Support Biden? Learn to debate on a higher level. I would never support a Democrat for President. I agree he is more old school Democrat than anyone else running for the nomination.

I would certainly never support a New Democratic Party candidate for President.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) That is precisely what the 1A dictates - the federal government may not interfere with the free exercise of religion and the SCOTUS has extended that protection to the governments of the several states.

2) That is the law at both the federal and state levels. BTW, religious organizations are not the only non-profit organizations which get special tax treatment. Beto, even if miraculously elected POTUS, has no power to change laws.

3) Isn't that exactly what Beto is advocating? The IRS has a simple mission - to enforce compliance with the federal income tax code.
Click to expand...

What about those churches who get involved in politics, especially when they advocate or tell their parishioners to vote for a certain candidate? When they step into the political sphere they are no longer a "religion", but part of a political party or candidate. So should they lose their tax exempt status when they get political?
 
independentusa said:
What about those churches who get involved in politics, especially when they advocate or tell their parishioners to vote for a certain candidate? When they step into the political sphere they are no longer a "religion", but part of a political party or candidate. So should they lose their tax exempt status when they get political?
Click to expand...

Why not treat churches like labor unions, the NAACP, the SPLC or the ACLU? Those federally tax-exempt organizations are plenty political yet you seem to have no problem with their tax exempt status - why, exactly, is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom