Consi, just one question. How much money does the Catholic Chuch have?

This is a red herring.  The issue is not whether the Catholic Church has a dime or not a penny.  There are only two factors to weigh with respect to the issue OB brought to a froth:  The potential property tax revenue vs. The value of the services rendered by the churches. 

Until I see stats that say that the value of the associated Catholic churches subject to any potential property tax outweighs the value of the goods and services rendered to the community, I’m going to work from the only fair assumption to be made: the Catholic Church’s social outreach programs are tax boons for the communities they service.

Consi: the Catholic Church’s social outreach programs are tax boons for the communities they service.

Mmm, yes, but it works the other way too: Communities are boons for the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
I would hazard a guess, with absolutely no knowledge to back it up, that the Holy Roman Catholic Church sucks much, much more from the community than it spends on it.
I think even you would agree that your (I’m guessing) Holy Roman Catholic Church is a long way from going into receivership.

As for the “I don’t have kids, why should I pay school taxes?�? argument, what elwed and DOF said

Well let’s be fair here. I actually didn’t mean it in that context. I meant it as a retort to the school voucher BS I keep hearing. Their argument is that it’s “their money” and it’s only fair that they can use that money however they want. The problem with that argument is that it isn’t. A very large percentage of that money comes from single, middle income, persons without children.

This is a red herring. The issue is not whether the Catholic Church has a dime or not a penny.  There are only two factors to weigh with respect to the issue OB brought to a froth:  The potential property tax revenue vs. The value of the services rendered by the churches.

Limiting the debate to the narrow point OB raised is a red herring, too.

Do you deny that the Catholic Church turns a profit?

The overarching question is whether the services rendered by religious organizations in general and the CC in particular justify their tax exemption status. A secondary and related question is whether taxation would materielly impact the capability of these organizations to maintain their charitable (and somewhat self-serving) work.

The Catholic Church has always maintained an extensive network of charitable franchises, but it’s hard to deny that this was at least partially motivated by a profit motive - to advertise for and win new converts and to maintain the level of donations of existing Catholics. Fundraisers, if you wish.

Also, do the charitable services rendered by the CC and affiliates come without strings attached? Or is it like one of those subsidized marketing events?

To put it this way, what’s so special about religion? Why shouldn’t churches be treated like a business?

Elwed: Why shouldn’t churches be treated like a business?

Wish I’d asked that.
I’ve often thought it’s the best business to be in.
No tangible product; selling something that doesn’t exist to willing customers who will go on lapping at the ultimate scam and paying for the joy of being ‘saved’.

I have no head for statistics, but I’ll gladly post these links so Consi or someone can peruse them and perhaps make some sense of them for me. 

Firstly - Leading Religious Organizations by Adherents for LA County, 2000

Since Catholicism ranks #1 (big surprise… not!) and Catholic Charities was brought up…

Services for the San Fernando (my) area

CCLA’s financial statement for FYE 6/2005

And just for purposes of comparison, a more depressing financial picture:

LAUSD Budget Analysis: 06 School District Financial Condition

The thing is, not only are the churches exempt from paying property taxes, but their income is tax-free (CCLA reports $3.7MM+ in contributions alone), and they receive any number of free perks simply because they’re churches.  However, they’re still BUSINESSES; and while the 163 churches in my neighborhood enjoy their tax-exempt status on the thousands or millions of dollars they receive from government and private donations, I’m required to pay a business tax to the City of Los Angeles in the amount of $117 each and every year, even though my little business made a whopping $241 in gross revenue in 2005, and I’ll be lucky to see even half of that in ‘06.

Y’know, I’d be fine with donations and other contributions to churches being tax-exempt, but I’ll never see the fairness of their being exempt from property taxes, especially when they’re sitting on prime Los Angeles real estate worth (in nearly every case) millions of dollars; and that tax revenue would go a long way toward social, medical and educational services that are in deep financial trouble here.  While the churches are rolling in dough, trauma centers and clinics are being closed down and kids are going to schools that are crowded, dilapidated and often dangerous.  It isn’t right.

OB:

In reviewing the expenditures by Catholic Charities, as I indicated, they are substantial.  Catholic Charities, just one arm of the Catholic Church’s outreach, amounts to nearly 30 million.  Your projected figure of 600k in property taxes is dwarfed by the amount of money the Church redistributes to those in need.

I see you are following Elwed’s lead regarding expansion of the argument.  I shall address that below.

Elwed:

The Catholic Church is organized in many ways.  When you query, “Do you deny that the Catholic Church turns a profit?”, I’m left to wonder: Which Church? The small rural Hispanic parish that is supported by the diocese?  The diocese?  Which diocese? Or the papacy?

You expand the argument, rightly knowing that the property tax issue raised was headed for a dead end.  OB, you should say thank you to Elwed for that save.

Unfairly, you have expanded the argument though.  You ask what is so special about religion.  If you are going to expand the argument though, expand it all the way my friend.  Ask the bottom line question:  Why shouldn’t all organizations be subject to taxes?

The general principle is that its a good idea to encourage good behavior and/or social/political involvement.  By and large that is what all the tax-exempt organizations do.  Programs like Narcotics Anonymous encourage addicts to stay clean.  So, we don’t tax the basket they pass.  The Girl Scouts, I’m not sure what they do, but they make damn good cookies, so they get a pass. NOW, I guess it engages its members it militant and short-sighted activism, but involvement in the process it is nonetheless.  The Church, well, it has had a hand in every aspect of life from birth to death as illustrated by the following:

1) Birth-Take a look around any mid to large U.S. city.  Most of the earliest hospitals started were founded and funded by the churches.  In addition, baptisms serve a social function in bringing the community together to welcome a new member and congratulate (or express remorse, depends on your sentiment) the new parents. That it serves as a bonding process for at least a portion of the community is undoubted.

2) Education-Again, one needs only to look at most of the premiere universities to find that they have their roots in charitable givings with a religious leaning.  This doesn’t take into account the undoubtedly superior education provided to members who attended parochial schools and went on to serve their respective communities and from which the benefit to the public is immeasurable.

3) Public Assistance-Check out the social services provided on the page that OB provided.  That is put a small portion of the services provided by the Church.  The Church does everything from providing pre-natal care for women, to feeding the hungry, to clothing the poor, to visiting those that you and I would shun that are in prison, to counseling the sick, and even going so far as to assisting with medical care (Catholic hospitals sometimes write off the medical bills).

4)"Moral" Behavior of its Members-Discounting the abominations that occur, because that is not what the stated purpose of the organization or its members profess, the Church encourages responsible, productive, and caring citizenship.  To the extent that its members follow it, that is of societal value.  zilch, I’m sure, would be happy to expand on this point ad nauseum.

5) Death-Culturally, at least in the U.S., the Church has provided a mechanism for its members to bury their dead.  More importantly though, it provides an opportunity for its members to engage in the grieving process.  I know of no other institution that serves this purpose as effectively.  On that point alone, tax-exempt status is justified.

There are precious few organizations whose community value would be missed more.  The better question is how do we encourage more of these organizations?

Consi: Catholic Charities, just one arm of the Catholic Church’s outreach, amounts to nearly 30 million.

According to page 4 of OB’s 2nd link, the gov’t gave your church $18.595 million ... in LA County.
According to Wiki there’re 3.7 million people in LA which works out to $5 a head multiplied by population of the US (298.4 million according to the CIA fact book at: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) and you’d have to assume the Holy Roman Catholic Church - US branch - would get close to $1.5 BILLION from the people of the US of whom 75% (according to CIA fact book) are NOT members of that branch of xianity.
Now if I was an Atheist, Protest-ant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Other, living in the US, that’d piss me off big time.
But, hey, I’m in OZ ... and don’t pay tax anymore, so I don’t really give a shit.

The Catholic Church is organized in many ways.  When you query, “Do you deny that the Catholic Church turns a profit?�?, I’m left to wonder: Which Church? The small rural Hispanic parish that is supported by the diocese?  The diocese?  Which diocese? Or the papacy?

The Holy Roman Catholic Church - US branch of operations and or World wide - doesn’t really matter - the answer is yes.
And I’m sure they do a bit of good and it’s about time too.
They’d need to, to work off all the bad karma they’ve amassed over the centuries.
And, Consi, I don’t hate Catholics.
My best mate and favourite woman are Catholics. 

I’m late to the party. About 35 comments or so…

I was only going to add one thing regarding the banter between church and state, especially regarding religion. Without the material sciences, where are your practical applications?

They are and will be in the sciences, and the sciences will test people’s faith.

Second, much as I like the way Consi addresses the good things that churches do, and I do like them, and the principles they intend to uphold, no amount of intended money makes actual profit. Same holds true morally and otherwise. Also, while I’m sure that the Church has historical roots in many things, I don’t see a need to honor those roots - especially financially. I’m sure my great grandfather was a wonderful guy - where’s my windfall?

Consi, you are subtly taking the Church out of the realm of what is into what has been and what ought to be.

Much as I’d like to trounce the Catholic Church for using the money they don’t pay in taxes to support child-molesting priests, if for no other reason than to twit Consi, the truth is that I don’t really know whether that money would be used better by the government.  Even if we know the figures, it’s pretty hard to convert them to community good.

But I can’t leave this (as I’m sure Consi knows):

“Moral" Behavior of its Members-Discounting the abominations that occur, because that is not what the stated purpose of the organization or its members profess, the Church encourages responsible, productive, and caring citizenship.  To the extent that its members follow it, that is of societal value.  zilch, I’m sure, would be happy to expand on this point ad nauseum.

I’ll try to expound in such a way that no one need call Ralph on the Big White Telephone:  handsome is as handsome does, I always say, or as the Good Book has it: “By their fruits shall you know them”.  Why should we discount abominations, if they are the result of the organization, whether part of its stated purpose or not?  And is there any evidence whatsoever that Catholics are more responsible, productive, etc. than, say, atheists?  I’d love to hear it.  Until then, simply claiming that the purpose is lofty cuts no ice.

handsome is as handsome does, I always say,

Why should we discount abominations, if they are the result of the organization, whether part of its stated purpose or not?

One can tar everything and everyone, from organization to families, by its worst members, whether leader or follower.  Contrary to some portions of The Good Book, I thought we had gained a consensus that the son should not bear the sins of the father.  Am I mistaken?

And is there any evidence whatsoever that Catholics are more responsible, productive, etc. than, say, atheists?  I’d love to hear it.

Okay, I choose you as my source.  Let me quote you from another blog:

But since morals are cultural, and subject to consideration by people who may have other values than differential reproductive success, what “better” means in the ideosphere is complex, and a moving target.  That’s one reason that religions....have evolved: to tell us what’s better....and to get us to do it.

Setting aside the question of whether the morals espoused by the church at a given point in history are “better,” it is my understanding from above and many other frothy posts, that you cite religion’s purpose in society as a mechanism by which society may obtain certain behaviors from its respective members via a carrot/stick approach.  You, zilch, and Elwed, and GM, and PZ, y’all are the basis for this poor farm boy’s belief that religion is an effective restraint on behavior that is counterproductive.  Y’all extolled (maybe not intentionally) the virtue of religion’s ability to moderate certain behaviors.

Why should I doubt ya?  I don’t think I should.

Consi, this is just a placeholder reply.

I deny that I am unfairly expanding the argument. You are unfairly trying to limit it

Ask the bottom line question:  Why shouldn’t all organizations be subject to taxes?

I can’t think of a single reason.

All individuals and organizations must be subject to taxes, but their tax burden may be lightened if and when it is in the public interest. I am not convinced that qualifying as a religious organization is sufficient in and by itself. You argue for the Catholic Church. Will you expand your argument to all religious organizations?

I will try to pick at your list of points later…

You, zilch, and Elwed, and GM, and PZ, y’all are the basis for this poor farm boy’s belief that religion is an effective restraint on behavior that is counterproductive.  Y’all extolled (maybe not intentionally) the virtue of religion’s ability to moderate certain behaviors.

Offset by its ability to remove restraints regarding certain behaviours. And raising the questions if religion does more harm than good and if the goods are gooder than the harms are harmer.

There’s a long thread and its continuation that I’d like to reread to see if I changed my mind since.

All individuals and organizations must be subject to taxes, but their tax burden may be lightened if and when it is in the public interest.

Elwed, I’m as annoyed by church tax exemptions as the next godless librool, but that just doesn’t make a lot of sense.  Who decides what’s in the public interest, and how?  Is there a constitutional provision for that?  I’m bald; I can’t afford that much head-scratching.

Consi, I’d be more sympathetic to the Catholic church’s pedo-priest problem if they’d booted those guys right into last week on the first trip, instead of transferring them to other, unsuspecting parishes.  It sorta taints the whole enterprise when they do that.

You, zilch, and Elwed, and GM, and PZ, y’all are the basis for this poor farm boy’s belief that religion is an effective restraint on behavior that is counterproductive.  Y’all extolled (maybe not intentionally) the virtue of religion’s ability to moderate certain behaviors.

Okay, consi.  First off- can poor farm boys really say “y’all extolled”?  Sounds powerful strange to this Northwestern White Trash boy’s ears. 

Second- while I’m pleased as punch to have learned counsel quote me approvingly, please reread what I said:

But since morals are cultural, and subject to consideration by people who may have other values than differential reproductive success, what “better�? means in the ideosphere is complex, and a moving target.  That’s one reason that religions....have evolved: to tell us what’s better....and to get us to do it.

Notice that I said that “better” is a moving target.  While religions are due a great deal of credit for having helped build societies, and have given (and continue to give) inspiration to many people to behave “better” in ways even a shaded and jaded atheist can appreciate (thanks for the bon mot- may I borrow it?), that does not mean that there aren’t better sources for morals nowadays than the Bible (or the Koran, etc.).  They helped us get where we are today, but we can do better than that now.

For example: the anti-condom stance of the Church that has helped spread AIDS in Africa, and saddled many families with more children than they can support.  How is this “moral”?

Who decides what’s in the public interest, and how?  Is there a constitutional provision for that?  I’m bald; I can’t afford that much head-scratching.

Who decided that religious organizations should be tax exempt? On what grounds? Is there a constitutional provision for that?

I am quite in the dark as to the origin of tax-exempt status for churches.  How did that get started?  Consi?

Since churches are supposed to break even I could see forgoing corporate income tax on their contributions (though their staff members pay personal income tax).  Hell, if GE doesn’t pay income tax, why should 1^st Lutheran?

But property taxes are another matter.  That, I really don’t get, at all.  How is that not a subsidy?  And thus an establishment of religion?

If y’all get this figured out and get churches to pay taxes, distribute evenly the portion going toward public schools, which I would like to clarify, I believe is part of the answer.

I’d like to also say that I am a little puzzled by both sides of this debate. On the one hand you have Consigliere (correct me if I am wrong) supporting prayer in public schools, yet not supporting the idea that churches should pay taxes, and in turn, contribute to public education. That baffles me.

On the other hand, you have a group who wants to see the line between church and state remain thick, if not get thicker, but would blur it if they could only one way. Seems to me, if the line is blurred to allow the government to collect taxes from churches, then the line will also blur to allow churches to penetrate institutions in which they do no belong.

Define, for us simple-minded, “hypocrisy.”

Define, for us simple-minded, “hypocrisy.�?

Go hypocripse yourself, simple-mind.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Not being a First Amendment scholar and all, the way I read it the taxation of churches would neither violate the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause. My understanding of the First Amendment may be flawed, but that’s not enough to call me a hypocrite.

Seems to me, if the line is blurred to allow the government to collect taxes from churches, then the line will also blur to allow churches to penetrate institutions in which they do no belong.

How does that follow? Anyway, seems to me that churches already penetrate institutions in which they do not belong.

On the other hand, you have a group who wants to see the line between church and state remain thick, if not get thicker, but would blur it if they could only one way. Seems to me, if the line is blurred to allow the government to collect taxes from churches, then the line will also blur to allow churches to penetrate institutions in which they do no belong.

I’d like to see the wall thicker, for sure; but I certainly don’t see it as a “blurring” to collect property taxes from religious organizations in order to pay their fair share for local public services.  They’ll still be receiving government funding (e.g. faith-based) and other breaks that corporations do, PLUS getting charitable donations from private citizens and business. They’ll just have to be ponying up their $X/sq. ft. like the rest of us.  Small church, smaller tax bite.  Big freakin’ megachurch (Crystal Cathedral, Church on the Way, Our Lady of Angels, that giamongous Mormon Temple in San Diego) on prime land, a much bigger share.  Fair’s fair.

As for their “penetration” where they don’t belong, and I mean this in the most pornographic way possible , they’re already in and thrusting away.  If they can afford to throw money at politicos at the rate that they do (using corporate loopholes, of course), they can damned well pay their property taxes, like the rest of us do.

Consi, I doubt I’ll have time to comment at length to your five points. I’m not conceding them, but there is another issue to be settled first.

As long as a secular organization providing any or all of services that the Catholic Church does and that you consider qualifying for tax exemption is awarded the same benefits as the CC, then this whole argument is moot. If the CC in particular and religious organizations in general receive benefits above and beyond that, then there is some explaining to do.

Follow the money trail…

Wikipedia has a small, but informative entry on 501(C)tax exemption rule that may be worth looking over. There are a number of organizations that are tax exempt falling under 1 of 7 subcategories with Religious organizations falling under 501(C)(3):

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

I’ve not been able to dig up much on the history of this section of the tax code yet, but the general impression I’ve gotten is that the exemptions are intended for organizations that are promoting the public good in some fashion.

elwedriddsche: Go hypocripse yourself, simple-mind.

elwedriddsche: Not being a First Amendment scholar and all, the way I read it the taxation of churches would neither violate the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause. My understanding of the First Amendment may be flawed, but that’s not enough to call me a hypocrite.

I’ll give you that this is probably not a constitutional issue. And, I didn’t call you a hypocrite, just your idea… follow:

Justice: Seems to me, if the line is blurred to allow the government to collect taxes from churches, then the line will also blur…

elwedriddsche: How does that follow?

I think it is only logical. Start pulling out the stops between government and church, and you pull out stops between church and government, whether we are talking about a technically constitutional issue or not. Now, the more I looked at tax laws, the more I thought a team of good lawyers could actually bring your idea to fruition. Also, the more I looked at it, the more I thought it might not be so much hypocritical as risky. We are talking about power hungry, “We are so persecuted” Christians, after all. As someone who would like to see the line between church and state impenetrably thick, I think it could be picking a fight not worth having.

But this:

elwedriddsche: Anyway, seems to me that churches already penetrate institutions in which they do not belong.

Were you drinking? “...seems to me that churches already penetrate institutions in which they do not belong.” Puh-lease. Elwedriddsche, that was an accurate observation, but you have way too much brain power to throw that out as a supportive argument.

OB:  Fair’s fair.

Can’t argue with that. But, this brings us back to the debate over whether or not giving breaks to organizations providing relief and resources to the public benefits us all in the long run, and also whether or not churches fall into that category of organizations (Whether they do more good than harm, even). I don’t belong in that debate.

I would love to hear from Consigliere.

Seems to me, if the line is blurred to allow the government to collect taxes from churches, then the line will also blur to allow churches to penetrate institutions in which they do no belong.

Collecting taxes is different to embracing an organisation. Is to collect taxes from purveyors of snake oil therapies to agree with ‘alternative therapies’? Is to collect tax on bars to promote alchol? Tax on lap dance clubs to promote stripping?  To fail to collect tax- that helps an organisation.

I’ll give you that this is probably not a constitutional issue.

The Separation between Church and State is a constitutional issue. If the taxation of churches is not a constitutional issue itself, then there is no wall being weakened. At least not a load-bearing one.

In my view, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the establishment of an official state religion, while not getting in the way of anybody getting their religious fix, no matter how distateful it may be to another. You still haven’t explained exactly how the taxation of churches is “pulling out stops”. Maybe I’m too much of a country bumpkin myself, but I just don’t see it.

Arguably, tax exemption of religious organizations is a law (I think) respecting the establishment of religion and thus violates the Establishment Clause. I’m just looking to redress this.

In any case, it’s not just technically a constitutional issue.

that was an accurate observation, but…

But I put it that way for a reason.