Started By
Message
2
Posted on 6/28/16 at 11:57 am to DanMullins4Life
quote:
There was an interesting write-up on this.
Yeah, I don't think the Founders intended their tax free status for religious organizations to be foreign "aid." With so many needy people in this country, religious organizations should man up and take care of our own or be taxed so that the taxpayer doesn't have to provide help.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 12:03 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Helping those close by might lead to a more long lasting commitment to provide aid.
Iv'e had this discussion with colleagues of mine that refuse to take time out of their offices to offer free care to the uninsured of our community but they always have their hand out to try and get you to go to on mission trips to Central America or Russia. Just boggles my mind when there is so much need right in our back yards.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 12:05 pm to Kentucker
quote:
As a person who is not religious, the only difference I see between religious organizations and private businesses is that the former don't pay taxes. It's my opinion that the founders of our country intended for religious organizations to provide services that would help the less fortunate. Thus the tax free status.
Well, I can understand the cynicism, given both the unfair portrayals the media often publishes AND the real abuses and corruption that do occur.
That being said, the vast majority of churches do not fall into this. My church has maybe 400 members. There is no profit sharing, no support from a central body (e.g., the Vatican or Southern Baptist Convention), we struggle to pay a small staff a living wage, we support local homeless shelters (both financially and with hands-on work) and any number of other outreach programs.
Are there excesses and abuses, especially at Megachurches? Absolutely, and I can't stand it. Just as bad, though, is casting all of us in the same light. I resent it, and the fact that this propagates from and is embraced by the left is one of the biggest objections I have to the Democratic party.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 12:10 pm to bengalbait
I would argue that the two situations(foreign poverty standards and national poverty standards) are in no way comparable.
But then again, I think you're both being disenguous about the efforts that both religious and secular charitable organizations make on both fronts.
But then again, I think you're both being disenguous about the efforts that both religious and secular charitable organizations make on both fronts.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 12:29 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Does the typical Baptist church provide local services that include shelter for the homeless, food for the hungry, medical services for the ill, counseling for the mentally injured, legal aid for the abused wife and children, cars for those who need to work, safe spaces for runaway children, education for their communities, orphanages for unwanted children, etc.?
Do they provide any services at all to those who aren't interested in being Baptists? How do they justify the incredible advantage of operating tax free?
Why are there taxpayer funded welfare programs when religions can perform those same services much more efficiently? What is the purpose of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and the like if not to help those who are less fortunate?
Shouldn't we tax religious enterprises to fund welfare programs?
As I read the progression of your questions, I honestly wonder if you are trolling.
The short answer is analogous to the passage in Charlie Wilson's War. In the book (page 303) it is put more simply. There is no perfect weapon. You have to use an array of weapons to defeat the enemy as it adjusts to your tactics. In the context of our discussion, the enemy is poverty, hopelessness, dependence, etc., and the weapons are government (that can do things "civilians" can't), secular 401c3 organizations (e.g., the Red Cross) and, yes, churches.
And, yes, MOST churches ABSOLUTELY reach out to people with no requirement that they join our church or even believe in our God. We hope they do, for the very reasons Penn (a very intelligent atheist) talks about in this video, but there is no quid pro quo (or there should not be). We don't make click-driving stories, though, so the media will never prioritize it.
Put it another way: should the Red Cross, United Way, Clinton Foundation, Gates Foundation, or any other secular nonprofit be taxed? If so, since they are not paying out profits, how do you calculate the tax? Keep in mind that any salaries paid to staff (and these can be, and often are, exorbitant) are fully taxable, just like any other personal income.
This post was edited on 6/28/16 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 6/28/16 at 12:44 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Are there excesses and abuses, especially at Megachurches?
Many are seeing the excesses and abuses as rampant, enough to warrant changing the tax free status in order to more fairly fund government welfare programs. Megachurches are the most visible example of the devolution of religion's intended purpose in our society, it's true.
quote:
Just as bad, though, is casting all of us in the same light. I resent it, and the fact that this propagates from and is embraced by the left
It's not a political issue. Yet. It's an economic issue, the supposed heart of right wing policies
It will become a political issue as the fraud and corruption associated with unmanageable government welfare programs grows. More and more people are beginning to say, "Wait, why are religious organizations tax exempt? And why am I paying taxes for welfare when that should be their mission?"
Posted on 6/28/16 at 12:46 pm to DanMullins4Life
quote:
But then again, I think you're both being disenguous about the efforts that both religious and secular charitable organizations make on both fronts.
Then why are government welfare programs gigantic?
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:06 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Many are seeing the excesses and abuses as rampant, enough to warrant changing the tax free status in order to more fairly fund government welfare programs. Megachurches are the most visible example of the devolution of religion's intended purpose in our society, it's true.
They are the high-profile, easy to target ones, and I do believe these things grow to a point where their mission, credibility, and probably even faith are undermined by greed and ego. It's a seductive drug for even the most earnest followers, and I won't argue that these should be seeding themselves to a more granular level.
But, for every Joel Osteen, I can give you a hundred churches full of people with the best of intentions and resources that are so meager as to qualify for help themselves, yet they still contribute sacrificially (in both time and money) to help others.
Like a lot of other things (government, NCAA, etc.) the temptation to punish or regulate everyone in the name of reigning in the abusers just creates a tangled web that ossifies things to the point of crippling the true intent of the governed. Target and deal with the abusers, not the ones doing their best to work within a reasonable system.
Baby, bath water.
As for the "supposed heart of right wing policies", I wish I could argue that. I resent the coopting of Christianity into Republican politics, and I cringe every time I hear a candidate espouse their "faith", or even when a party meeting opens with a prayer. I am one of the few who also object to prayer in school. It ostracizes the kids who are not raised in it more than it draws in others. Besides, faith and education should stand on their own. I don't like the way my school teaches math, and I want that to be a place where he learns prayer? No thanks, I will take care of that at home.
This post was edited on 6/28/16 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:16 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
As I read the progression of your questions, I honestly wonder if you are trolling.
Trolls insult and offer only quips. I offer my opinions and possible solutions.
quote:
government (that can do things "civilians" can't)
Government should perform only those functions that the private sector can't or won't. Chief among these are safety and public access projects beyond the private sector's scope. Examples are the military and the highway system.
Welfare is not beyond the private sector's ability to provide. It certainly is not an appropriate government function. Proof is obvious in the horribly mismanaged and inefficient programs currently extant at the state and federal levels.
quote:
Put it another way: should the Red Cross, United Way, Clinton Foundation, Gates Foundation, or any other secular nonprofit be taxed? If so, since they are not paying out profits, how do you calculate the tax? Keep in mind that any salaries paid to staff (and these can be, and often are, exorbitant) are fully taxable, just like any other personal income.
The Red Cross and United Way represent the same problems that government has in providing aid and welfare. They grow huge and invite fraud, corruption and inefficiency. I'm sure the Clinton and Gates Foundations will follow suit as they age and become dependent upon impersonal boards and executives. Non-profits were a good idea that has decayed into a wasteful misapplication of good intent.
The most important factor associated with religious organizations as the providers of welfare and aid is that they are extremely numerous and local. Note that welfare programs are not typically local in the U.S.
By taxing religious organizations and then feeding that money back to them, welfare becomes a local effort that more accurately finds its targets and minimizes the corruption and fraud that are the banes of impersonal government programs. I think this was the intent of our founders to avoid creating a government that would be too big to manage.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:23 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Then why are government welfare programs gigantic?
What a strange red herring.
You can't be seriously trying to draw some sort of causation between the bloated size of government welfare programs and your perceived lack of national aid by domestic charities and religious organizations.
Do you honestly believe that the size of the government welfare programs are the result of the lack of charitable efforts from tax-exempt organizations and not a product of the inefficiencies of the government welfare programs themselves?
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:28 pm to Kentucker
Wow. You're hard to pin down. I don't mean that as an insult. I have to get back to work, but it would take me a while to figure where you are politically. You don't fit into the defined boxes, but you have thought things out. I'm not sure how much we agree yet, but I salute your effort to dig into it and not rely on the categories the media feeds us.
This post was edited on 6/28/16 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:32 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
But, for every Joel Osteen, I can give you a hundred churches full of people with the best of intentions and resources that are so meager as to qualify for help themselves, yet they still contribute sacrificially (in both time and money) to help others.
Nonetheless, there's a perception of religious organizations that they exist only to proselytize and war with other religions and atheists. As this perception grows coincidental to religious organization abuses, demands for change will become louder.
quote:
Like a lot of other things (government, NCAA, etc.) the temptation to punish or regulate
Punishment and regulation are extremists' ideas. Moderates would propose changes that benefit the most parties. My idea is to tax religious organizations, feed the money back to them and make welfare their priority, not government's.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:38 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Welfare is not beyond the private sector's ability to provide. It certainly is not an appropriate government function. Proof is obvious in the horribly mismanaged and inefficient programs currently extant at the state and federal levels.
quote:
same problems that government has in providing aid and welfare. They grow huge and invite fraud, corruption and inefficiency.
So you describe the government welfare programs as having problems such as fraud, corruption, and inefficiency.
quote:
By taxing religious organizations and then feeding that money back to them, welfare becomes a local effort that more accurately finds its targets and minimizes the corruption and fraud that are the banes of impersonal government programs.
But your solution here, on the surface, is to remove the tax-exempt status so that more money is essentially funneled into the programs that you described above as riddled with fraud, corruption, and inefficiency.
Granted, it sounds like you more-so have an axe to grind with mega-churches that utilize the tax exemption status to fill the pockets of their pastors; but let's not be ignorant and pretend that the money from taxation doesn't also follow the same route in many cases with state and federal officials.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:41 pm to DanMullins4Life
quote:
There was an interesting write-up on this.
LINK
Granted, secular mission efforts aren't exempt from these same criticisms.
I don't dispute that this is pervasive, but I didn't find in the write-up much consideration that these actually DO make a lasting impact in some cases.
When we lived in Singapore, we took a LOT of trips in the region. Once of these was Christmas in Cambodia to meet some random people my wife had found when the mom read her blog. That relationship fizzled over time, but part of the trip was connecting with the mission I mention in another post in this thread. As a direct and ongoing result, we now pay the salary for one of the staff, my wife arranged a free sight-restoring in operation in Singapore for one of the American volunteers that has devoted her life to living and serving there, and we have recruited others to help in supporting this. This is a group on the front lines of taking on sexual predators who travel there and the government that enables them.
Did we also visit Ankor Wat, the killing fields, and all the other stuff there? Yup. But don't tell me that trip has not significantly improved the lives of the people we met and boys they try to keep out of a life of horrific abuse.
Again, baby and bath water, and don't paint us all with the same brush. Pretty sure the left has some strong words about stereotyping in their lexicon.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:43 pm to Kentucker
quote:
My idea is to tax religious organizations, feed the money back to them and make welfare their priority, not government's
But, you just added a sprawling layer of bureaucracy to administer this, one that will soak up even more of the resources. All of this just to move money from the right pocket to the left pocket?
Am I missing something?
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:50 pm to Numberwang
The whole "mission trip" situation brings up age old philosophical questions for me. The philosopher Immanuel Kant's second categorical imperative mainly. The whole "are these people using mission trips as a means to personal satisfaction?" thing. Are these people really doing this for to help the communities/areas or are they there for themselves. If they are there to truly help, why do we see pictures plastered all over facebook of them hugging and holding underprivileged and poverty stricken children? A lot of the time these kids don't even know why you're really there.. Or when you'll come back. Why the need to let everyone know what you are doing? So that's basically what I'm struggling with..
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:56 pm to MSU5
quote:
So that's basically what I'm struggling with..
Yeah, that's my feeling. I've never gone on a mission trip, but I've donated $ to those who were going for various reasons. Like, what purpose does it serve for a 35 year old obese woman to fly to Central America and hug brown toddlers and blow up Instagram? It's one of those things that makes me cringe. Medical pros, construction teams, etc. I sort of get it. General run of the mill church people, spending $2,000 on travel and posting pics of themselves with banana trees and palm fronds...seems like a really inefficient way to deliver charity.
The stuff people are doing within the U.S., but dragging a whole group to places not unlike their own hometowns, I just don't get that at all. There's a mission field in everybody's hometown.
This post was edited on 6/28/16 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:58 pm to MSU5
quote:
The whole "mission trip" situation brings up age old philosophical questions for me. The philosopher Immanuel Kant's second categorical imperative mainly. The whole "are these people using mission trips as a means to personal satisfaction?" thing. Are these people really doing this for to help the communities/areas or are they there for themselves. If they are there to truly help, why do we see pictures plastered all over facebook of them hugging and holding underprivileged and poverty stricken children? A lot of the time these kids don't even know why you're really there.. Or when you'll come back. Why the need to let everyone know what you are doing? So that's basically what I'm struggling with..
There is absolutely a "look at me and my good self (and traveling)" thing.
There is also a "spark interest and recruit others" thing.
I wish it was all the latter, but you have to accept the former as part of the whole thing. Can't paint everyone with the same brush.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 1:58 pm to DanMullins4Life
quote:
You can't be seriously trying to draw some sort of causation between the bloated size of government welfare programs and your perceived lack of national aid by domestic charities and religious organizations.
Not entirely. It's the nature of government to grow. Bloat afflicts any government agency that grows beyond a size that can be monitored for efficiency. Government welfare agencies surpassed that size long ago and are growing out of control. This lack of control is also causing fraud and corruption to exist almost unfettered.
I see America as "before FDR and after FDR." President Roosevelt was a megalomaniac who used World War II to turn our Libertarian society on its head.
His thirst for power led him to successfully campaign for four terms in the White House. He was our only "President for life." Certainly he was no George Washington.
Further acting as "King of America," he instituted the first national welfare programs and Social Security, which has essentially become a quasi-welfare program itself, having spawned SSI and Medicare.
So, after-FDR America is awash with government welfare programs of all sorts an types. Before-FDR was radically different.
Welfare existed mostly in the private sector with religious organizations, primarily Christian churches, providing help to the down and out. This is the way the Founders intended it to be, I think. Nothing else makes sense.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News