Regarding Scientology...

[MSUgEEk]

By definition they are a creed and provide no benefit to the general public, only to the subset that comprise the members of said creeds.

I'm really not trying to be mean or snide or anything, but that statement shows your ignorance on the subject matter being discussed.

I'm using the term ignorance in its intended context meaning, you are just uneducated or falsely educated on the subject. Plenty of subjects I am ignorant about. Some people take that term as an insult and I do not mean it that way at all.

Take the churches away and you'll see a failing community. They provide benefits that go largely unnoticed the majority of the time.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I'm really not trying to be mean or snide or anything, but that statement shows your ignorance on the subject matter being discussed.

I'm using the term ignorance in its intended context meaning, you are just uneducated or falsely educated on the subject. Plenty of subjects I am ignorant about. Some people take that term as an insult and I do not mean it that way at all.

Take the churches away and you'll see a failing community. They provide benefits that go largely unnoticed the majority of the time.

Anyone mention taking churches away? Read the posts prior to calling others ignorant. You make no relevant comment.

 

[OutofDate1980]

...I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are either an agnostic or atheist.

Partial answer to your post. None of your business.

 

[Gmash]

Here's an old Rolling Stone article. Hubbard was a prophet.

Inside Scientology | Culture News | Rolling Stone

In his 1983 autobiography, Over My Shoulder: Reflections on a Science Fiction Era, the sci-fi writer Lloyd Eshbach describes meeting Hubbard in the late 1940s. "I'd like to start a religion," Eshbach recalls Hubbard saying. "That's where the money is."

So, back to Scientology.
Finally had the time to read the whole article. I already knew most of this stuff, but there were some interesting details in there. So many good parts to quote, but this part caught my attention:

Both of Natalie's parents are Clear, she says. Her grandmother is what's called an "Operating Thetan," or "OT." So is Tom Cruise, who is near the top of Scientology's Bridge, at a level known as OT VII. OTs are Scientology's elite — enlightened beings who are said to have total "control" over themselves and their environment. OTs can allegedly move inanimate objects with their minds, leave their bodies at will and telepathically communicate with, and control the behavior of, both animals and human beings. At the highest levels, they are allegedly liberated from the physical universe, to the point where they can psychically control what Scientologists call MEST: Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

Anybody interested in learning more about Scientology and the mindset of its members should take the time to read the article.

Who knew Tom Cruise was basically a Jedi? Wow.

 

[MSUgEEk]

Anyone mention taking churches away? Read the posts prior to calling others ignorant. You make no relevant comment.

Please see the quote above my comment. You said they provide no benefit. If they truly provide no benefit, then you could easily take them away and the mass society not miss them at all. SMH. Unsubscribing from thread. It's the people that preach open mindedness that most often have a closed mind.

 

[Gmash]

Please see the quote above my comment. You said they provide no benefit. If they truly provide no benefit, then you could easily take them away and the mass society not miss them at all. SMH. Unsubscribing from thread. It's the people that preach open mindedness that most often have a closed mind.

Hmm, I have a bit of a mixed opinion on this. I do agree that SOME churches definitely have positive effects on their communities, especially in poor areas. The problem is the bar is set so low for what qualifies as a tax exempt church (see: Scientology, for example, which I have never heard of doing anything worthwhile for non Scientologists). And losing tax exempt status doesn't necessarily mean the churches would go away, either. Not sure what the answer is, maybe some short of litmus test to see how much of a benefit they are providing, but that opens a whole other can of worms, basically, who decides. We'd probably waste more money than we would save if we added another layer of bureaucracy there. My problem isn't with the neighborhood churches who I admit do good things, but with these so-called "mega-churches" that offer no benefit to anyone except the corrupt preachers lining their pockets at the expense of the weak minded. Why shouldn't they have to pay taxes on their multi million dollar operations? Also, obviously, the cult type organizations.

Everyone, please, refrain from personal attacks. Remember, attack the issue, not the poster. Thanks.

 

[Gmash]

X

 

[B2L]

So, back to Scientology.
Finally had the time to read the whole article. I already knew most of this stuff, but there were some interesting details in there. So many good parts to quote, but this part caught my attention:

Both of Natalie's parents are Clear, she says. Her grandmother is what's called an "Operating Thetan," or "OT." So is Tom Cruise, who is near the top of Scientology's Bridge, at a level known as OT VII. OTs are Scientology's elite

 

[A.Nonymous]

Partial answer to your post. None of your business.

Apologies. I meant no offense. I only asked as I've found that the vast majority of those who argue for church's to lose their non-profit status tend to be atheist/agnostic. Their arguments are generally based on the premise that religion is evil and/or useless and therefore religious organizations are evil and/or useless.

Hmm, I have a bit of a mixed opinion on this. I do agree that SOME churches definitely have positive effects on their communities, especially in poor areas. The problem is the bar is set so low for what qualifies as a tax exempt church (see: Scientology, for example, which I have never heard of doing anything worthwhile for non Scientologists). And losing tax exempt status doesn't necessarily mean the churches would go away, either. Not sure what the answer is, maybe some short of litmus test to see how much of a benefit they are providing, but that opens a whole other can of worms, basically, who decides. We'd probably waste more money than we would save if we added another layer of bureaucracy there. My problem isn't with the neighborhood churches who I admit do good things, but with these so-called "mega-churches" that offer no benefit to anyone except the corrupt preachers lining their pockets at the expense of the weak minded. Why shouldn't they have to pay taxes on their multi million dollar operations? Also, obviously, the cult type organizations.

Everyone, please, refrain from personal attacks. Remember, attack the issue, not the poster. Thanks.

There are definitely excesses in religion but the same can be said about anything. There are many non-profits who exist for the sole purpose of making the people who head them rich and nothing else. There certainly a number of animal rights groups that fall in this category.

Nevertheless, I would argue that a church provides more services to the community for less cost to the public than many other non-profits. The zoo charges me admission yet it is funded by my tax dollars and charitable donations. The local humane society takes government money and tax free donations but charges me if I want to surrender a pet, adopt a pet or have my pet spayed/neutered. The free clinic also takes taxpayer money and donation as well and may charge for some of it's services. Yet a church rarely charges for it's services. If you need prayer or counseling or even food or help with a utility bill a church will usually not charge. They take no taxpayer funds (in general) and only accept donations.

 

[OutofDate1980]

There's no requirement that the local Humane Society provide any services either. I could argue it's worse because they do charge you for their services. You want to surrender a dog and they charge you. You want to adopt a dog and they charge you. They charge everyone for every service they provide and take tax-exempt donations on top of that.
...

Both are exempt under section 501(c)(3), there are also 27 other types of exempt organizations under 501(c).

A religious organization purpose: furtherance of a religion. Note the singular.

A animal shelter purpose: prevention of cruelty of animals.

Both organizations must file a tax return or lose exemption. If either organization fails to perform its purpose then exemption can be revoked. Rarely, if ever applied to a religious organization.

Prevention of cruelty of animals is a great deal more specific and constrained than furtherance of a religion.

Religions can and do charge for their services, example: Weddings.

Religions can and do get taxpayer funding, example: School vouchers.

Religious organizations are like political parties, both are attempting to further their beliefs. These beliefs need not be rational or coherent. Both should be treated the same for tax purposes.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Wow... just wow, not to offend any Scientologists, but you would have to be at least a little crazy to believe you have Jedi powers like that. I once remember hearing that Will Smith was a Scientologist, which later turned out to be untrue. But going by what he says, he's not far off.

One mans religion is another mans belly laugh. Depends on ones perspective.

 

[Gmash]

Enjoy

Tom Cruise Scientology Video - ( Original UNCUT ) - YouTube

 

[A.Nonymous]

Both are exempt under section 501(c)(3), there are also 27 other types of exempt organizations under 501(c).

A religious organization purpose: furtherance of a religion. Note the singular.

Not really the purpose of a religious organization. Perhaps correcting this misunderstanding will be helpful. A religious organization exists to serve the community first and foremost. Same way an animal shelter does. Both promote their agendas. The local humane society can frequently be found advocating for spaying/neutering. The local church can frequently be found advocating that men turn from their wicked ways and come to god. Not sure where the real difference is. Are you arguing that advocating spay/neuter has a benefit in the community, but a church preaching their religion does not?

Both organizations must file a tax return or lose exemption. If either organization fails to perform its purpose then exemption can be revoked. Rarely, if ever applied to a religious organization.

Not sure what your point is here so I apologize if I misunderstand. You're saying that religious organizations frequently fail to file a tax return and nothing is done to them? Do you have a source for this?

Prevention of cruelty of animals is a great deal more specific and constrained than furtherance of a religion.

Not really. Most religions are fairly well defined as to what they do and don't believe.

Religions can and do charge for their services, example: Weddings.

Incorrect. The minister charges for his service. No payment goes to the organization he may or may not belong to. The minister may not charge for his services in some case. Are you saying that a man or woman provides a service and it's wrong to re-imburse him?

Religions can and do get taxpayer funding, example: School vouchers.

Incorrect. Second Amendment is pretty clear here. The money goes to a private school. The religious affiliation is irrelevant.

Religious organizations are like political parties, both are attempting to further their beliefs. These beliefs need not be rational or coherent. Both should be treated the same for tax purposes.

Not true. There are laws against religious organizations getting involved in politics and attempting to sway public opinion. They can, but they lose their non-profit status for doing so. This happens fairly frequently.

Heck, a local zoo is forwarding it's conservation beliefs. Yet it's non-profit. What of a religious organization that feeds the homeless? Should it lose it's status as well? What of a faith based free clinic?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Also, by your logic PETA and HSUS would both lose their 501c status as all they are is advocacy groups. What services they provide to animals are token and next to nothing. They merely advocate. And they're not alone. The group that did the Kony video is a non-profit advocacy group. And there are many others.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Just a 501(c)(3) practicing it's legal purpose. Remember all donations are tax deductible. Somehow it doesn't give me a belly laugh.

Whites-only Christian gathering riles some Alabama neighbors - U.S. News

 

[A.Nonymous]

So, some 501s that only advocate causes are ok and some aren't. How do we decide which?

 

[OutofDate1980]

Not really the purpose of a religious organization. Perhaps correcting this misunderstanding will be helpful. A religious organization exists to serve the community first and foremost. ... /QUOTE]

You have the misunderstanding, the IRS doesn't. Religions just need to meet at least one of these criteria. Just being religious is a criteria, nothing else is required. You can meet other criteria, but is not required.

Suppose a religion holds that navel gazing is a religious belief, therefore teaching how to navel gaze is the furtherance of a religion, therefor any donations that supports this activity is tax deductible. No other activity is required, but is not proscribed.

There is no requirement to serve the community.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

 

[OutofDate1980]

So, some 501s that only advocate causes are ok and some aren't. How do we decide which?

Religion by definition is subjective, therefore remove the tax exemption. Let the "believers" decide which are worthwhile, not Caesar choosing which creed to bestow its blessing upon.

 

[Gmash]

Remember, Scientology is a tax exempt "religion". Again, quoting from the RS article.

So far, Natalie has gotten much of her auditing for free, through her parents, who have both worked for the church. But many Scientologists pay dearly for the service. Unique among religious faiths, Scientology charges for virtually all of its religious services. Auditing is purchased in 12.5-hour blocks, known as "intensives." Each intensive can cost anywhere from $750 for introductory sessions to between $8,000 and $9,000 for advanced sessions. When asked about money, church officials can become defensive. "Do you want to know the real answer? If we could offer everything for free, we would do it," says Rinder. Another official offers, "We don't have 2,000 years of acquired wealth to fall back on." But Scientology isn't alone, church leaders insist. Mormons, for example, expect members to tithe a tenth of their earnings.
Still, religious scholars note that this is an untraditional approach. "Among the things that have made this movement so controversial," says S. Scott Bartchy, director of the Center for the Study of Religion at UCLA, "are its claims that its forms of therapy are 'scientific' and that the 'truth' will only be revealed to those who have the money to purchase advancement to the various levels leading to 'being clear.' It is this unvarnished demand for money that has led many observers to opine that the entire operation looks more like a business than a religion." Clearing the stages along the Bridge to Total Freedom is a process that can take years and cost tens and often hundreds of thousands of dollars—one veteran Scientologist told me she "donated" $250,000 in a twenty-year period. Other Scientologists can wind up spending family inheritances and mortgaging homes to pay the fees. Many, like Natalie's parents, work for their local church so they can receive auditing and courses for free.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Religion by definition is subjective, therefore remove the tax exemption. Let the "believers" decide which are worthwhile, not Caesar choosing which creed to bestow its blessing upon.

So is a group that advocates for animal rights. What does "animal rights" mean? A ban on animal testing? Conservation? Responsible pet ownership? Ban on furs? All of the above? None of the above? Completely subjective.

 

[Gmash]

Just come up with a story like this, and convince enough people to believe in it, and you too, could be free from the shackles of paying taxes!

The truth of Scientology: South Park - YouTube

But seriously, how about limiting the exemption to, say, a million dollars so it doesn't hurt the small churches that do try to help their communities but don't let the nut jobs and con artists build tax free empires?

 

[OutofDate1980]

So is a group that advocates for animal rights. What does "animal rights" mean? A ban on animal testing? Conservation? Responsible pet ownership? Ban on furs? All of the above? None of the above? Completely subjective.

Your view can also be applied to all the 501(c)(3) American tax-exempt nonprofit organizations; Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations.

The other organizations may argue that they are not permitted to discriminate based on creed, sex, race, etc... as religious organizations are permitted to and therefore are more deserving of tax-exemption.

These organizations may also argue that their activities to promote their purpose can be scientifically measured. For example Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Providing funds to pet owners to have their pets spayed or neutered to prevent overbreeding.

A better argument for you to eliminate all 501(c)(3) exemptions is why should the government select some worthy causes, but not others. Get the government out of this selection process and have the marketplace select the winners and losers.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Your view can also be applied to all the 501(c)(3) American tax-exempt nonprofit organizations; Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations.

The other organizations may argue that they are not permitted to discriminate based on creed, sex, race, etc... as religious organizations are permitted to and therefore are more deserving of tax-exemption.

These organizations may also argue that their activities to promote their purpose can be scientifically measured. For example Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Providing funds to pet owners to have their pets spayed or neutered to prevent overbreeding.

A better argument for you to eliminate all 501(c)(3) exemptions is why should the government select some worthy causes, but not others. Get the government out of this selection process and have the marketplace select the winners and losers.

Again, religious groups don't discriminate based on creed. I can't think of a single example where a church would discriminate against someone based on creed. If you call a church requesting prayer for your loved one in the hospital, they're not going to tell you to pound sand because you don't belong to their faith. The only example I can think of is marriage and that's a religious sacrament not a community service.

The goals of an animal rights or victims rights organization are no more quantifiable than those of a church. PETA's mission statement is "PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry." How in the world do you define that? How do you define those goals? And how are they more concrete than a church's goal to "help people"?

I'd argue the 501 status is needed for all kinds of charities. It encourages giving. How is giving a bad thing?

 

[OutofDate1980]

"Only White Christians Invited" or are Muslims, Hindus, etc not a creed ?

Whites-only Christian gathering riles some Alabama neighbors - U.S. News

The fact is religions can legally discriminate that would be unlawful outside of the practice of religion.

As on the merits for or against PETA I haven't a clue, but am of the opinion quantifying results for the prevention of cruelty to animals would be easier than saving peoples souls from hell. Last I checked hell or heaven don't publish census results.

Tithing existed long before tax deductions. Religions aren't required to be charities. Why should government be in the business of giving a tax benefit to one "social cause", but not another. Let the donors decide the merits.

I bet armed robbery also "encourages giving".:viking:

 

[A.Nonymous]

You're absolutely right. One group in Alabama does this. Therefore every single religious group across the country does the exact same thing.