| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Buck" |
| Date: |
28 Feb 2006 10:17:12 PM |
| Object: |
Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
Most of us here know by now that churches love to steal not only from
their congregations, but also from the public at large regardless of their
views. They do this by withholding the same taxes the rest of us have to pay
while demanding the same services that our taxes - not theirs - are paying for.
"Uncle Buck?" you say, "What _can_ we do? Where can _we_ go to get our
tax-exempt status, too?" Glad you asked, as that's precisely what I'm here to
offer a suggestion on.
I hereby propose to establish "The First Church of Atheism," a bona fide
- but godless - religious movement. I'm already working on a list of tenets
which atheists can agree on in general, but which will not endeavor to restrict
their intellectual autonomy in any way.
But -wait-! That's not all! {=-O
You might think I'm joking about this next part, but I'm dead serious:
I propose that part of our religion include clubbing, dancing and
drinking as rituals vital to the integrity of our religion, and that our
tax-exempt churches host such facilities on site for potentially tax-exempt use
by our members.
Catch on to the deviousness yet? Wait - there's more:
I further propose that any bar or club which meets our religious
standards be permitted to register with us as one of our "sanctuaries". That
way, what today are ordinary bars & clubs could be tax _exempt_ bars & clubs
tomorrow.
Waddaya' think? :-?
Just curious... :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
Put another way, a society can't claim the right
to label itself "civilized" until and unless its
citizens master "The Art of Peaceful Conflict".
************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
01 Mar 2006 08:35:39 AM |
|
|
*Sigh* It would be really nice -- and something of a change -- if people bitching
and moaning about churches paying no taxes would actually LOOK at the tax code and
the section that makes churches tax free.
Religious organizations, churches and non-churches, may apply for and get tax-exempt
status under section 501(c)(3). That is not a misprint: tax exempt status is NOT
automatic but must be applied for. There are many churches that are not tax exempt
because they have never applied for that status for whatever reason.
Further, section 501(c)(3) of the US Tax Code is *not* about churches at all, but
about non-profit organizations. Along with religious organizations, this status can
be extended to any charitable, educational, scientific or literary organization, as
well as to any organization that exists for testing for public safety, fostering
national or international amateur sports competitions or preventing cruelty to
children or animals. To pick just a very few groups that have 501(c)(3) status:
* Animal shelters
* Community sports, including Little League and pee-wee football
* Astronomy clubs
* Mutual aid societies
* Underwriters' Laboratories
* Private libraries and museums that are open to the public
* The American Heart Association
* Homeless shelters
* The Nature Conservancy
* The American Olympic Committee
* The American Atheist Association
In other words, your proposal -- amusing, I will admit -- is entirely irrelevant
with the way the law actually exists.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
KiltWear - http://www.cafepress.com/KiltWear
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in
the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny." - James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
01 Mar 2006 04:13:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:35:39 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <4405B13B.F379E7E4@serv.net>
*Sigh* It would be really nice -- and something of a change -- if people bitching
and moaning about churches paying no taxes would actually LOOK at the tax code and
the section that makes churches tax free.
Religious organizations, churches and non-churches, may apply for and get tax-exempt
status under section 501(c)(3). That is not a misprint: tax exempt status is NOT
automatic but must be applied for. There are many churches that are not tax exempt
because they have never applied for that status for whatever reason.
Further, section 501(c)(3) of the US Tax Code is *not* about churches at all, but
about non-profit organizations. Along with religious organizations, this status can
be extended to any charitable, educational, scientific or literary organization, as
well as to any organization that exists for testing for public safety, fostering
national or international amateur sports competitions or preventing cruelty to
children or animals. To pick just a very few groups that have 501(c)(3) status:
* Animal shelters
* Community sports, including Little League and pee-wee football
* Astronomy clubs
* Mutual aid societies
* Underwriters' Laboratories
* Private libraries and museums that are open to the public
* The American Heart Association
* Homeless shelters
* The Nature Conservancy
* The American Olympic Committee
* The American Atheist Association
In other words, your proposal -- amusing, I will admit -- is entirely irrelevant
with the way the law actually exists.
*Sigh* It would be really nice -- and something of a change -- if
people did not assume that every reference on every subject referred
specifically to the U.S.A.
The original message made no restriction as to the country that
tax-exemption applied.
It applied equally well to religious organizations the U.K., Spain,
Saudi Arabia, or the Vatican City.
501(c)(3) applies to a very small minority of churches in the world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
03 Mar 2006 06:38:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:35:39 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
*Sigh* It would be really nice -- and something of a change -- if people bitching
and moaning about churches paying no taxes would actually LOOK at the tax code and
the section that makes churches tax free.
*Sigh* It would be really nice -- and something of a change -- if
self-righteous asswipes didn't feel the need to be so obnoxious when making a
point, particularly when making it to someone who was in no way being obnoxious
to them.
FWIW, I didn't even read past this first *****-laden paragraph. So I hope you
wasted plenty of time putting the whole post together, it would serve you right.
:-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
Put another way, a society can't claim the right
to label itself "civilized" until and unless its
citizens master "The Art of Peaceful Conflict".
************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
01 Mar 2006 12:57:05 AM |
|
|
In article <sg7a02l4q2sh3njp1ar5835gth14s3ikie@4ax.com>,
Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
Most of us here know by now that churches love to steal not only from
their congregations, but also from the public at large regardless of their
views. They do this by withholding the same taxes the rest of us have to pay
while demanding the same services that our taxes - not theirs - are paying
for.
"Uncle Buck?" you say, "What _can_ we do? Where can _we_ go to get our
tax-exempt status, too?" Glad you asked, as that's precisely what I'm here
to
offer a suggestion on.
I hereby propose to establish "The First Church of Atheism," a bona fide
- but godless - religious movement. I'm already working on a list of tenets
which atheists can agree on in general, but which will not endeavor to
restrict
their intellectual autonomy in any way.
But -wait-! That's not all! {=-O
You might think I'm joking about this next part, but I'm dead serious:
I propose that part of our religion include clubbing, dancing and
drinking as rituals vital to the integrity of our religion, and that our
tax-exempt churches host such facilities on site for potentially tax-exempt
use
by our members.
Catch on to the deviousness yet? Wait - there's more:
I further propose that any bar or club which meets our religious
standards be permitted to register with us as one of our "sanctuaries". That
way, what today are ordinary bars & clubs could be tax _exempt_ bars & clubs
tomorrow.
Waddaya' think? :-?
Just curious... :-)
I think it's a pretty devious plan... one that will incur heavy costs
due to legal persecution by "established" religions. I'd LOVE to see it
carried out, though.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
28 Feb 2006 10:23:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:17:12 -0500, Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
You might think I'm joking about this next part, but I'm dead serious:
I propose that part of our religion include clubbing, dancing and
drinking as rituals vital to the integrity of our religion, and that our
tax-exempt churches host such facilities on site for potentially tax-exempt use
by our members.
This I suggested and forgot to mention that this is because the churches insist
that everyone else fund _their_ social lives, why -shouldn't- we get in on the
deal? Anything else would be undeniable discrimination.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
Put another way, a society can't claim the right
to label itself "civilized" until and unless its
citizens master "The Art of Peaceful Conflict".
************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
28 Feb 2006 10:53:00 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:c78a02p0r0orqmcfjoe0qktrfdp79s2618@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:17:12 -0500, Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com>
wrote:
You might think I'm joking about this next part, but I'm dead serious:
I propose that part of our religion include clubbing, dancing and
drinking as rituals vital to the integrity of our religion, and that our
tax-exempt churches host such facilities on site for potentially
tax-exempt use
by our members.
This I suggested and forgot to mention that this is because the churches
insist
that everyone else fund _their_ social lives, why -shouldn't- we get in on
the
deal? Anything else would be undeniable discrimination.
So what did you have in mind for the drugs the religion requires in its
observances?
Note that there's already religious exceptions to the law for peyote and
hallucinogenic teas in the US.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard M Braun" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
01 Mar 2006 06:59:30 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:c78a02p0r0orqmcfjoe0qktrfdp79s2618@4ax.com...
< snip >
by our members.
This I suggested and forgot to mention that this is because the churches
insist
that everyone else fund _their_ social lives, why -shouldn't- we get in on
the
deal? Anything else would be undeniable discrimination.
So what did you have in mind for the drugs the religion requires in its
observances?
Note that there's already religious exceptions to the law for peyote and
hallucinogenic teas in the US.
Beer. That's all I need. I would kneel down to beer. :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
01 Mar 2006 01:51:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:53:00 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <PcOdnStT6b81tZjZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@io.com>
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:c78a02p0r0orqmcfjoe0qktrfdp79s2618@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:17:12 -0500, Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com>
wrote:
You might think I'm joking about this next part, but I'm dead serious:
I propose that part of our religion include clubbing, dancing and
drinking as rituals vital to the integrity of our religion, and that our
tax-exempt churches host such facilities on site for potentially
tax-exempt use
by our members.
This I suggested and forgot to mention that this is because the churches
insist
that everyone else fund _their_ social lives, why -shouldn't- we get in on
the
deal? Anything else would be undeniable discrimination.
So what did you have in mind for the drugs the religion requires in its
observances?
Note that there's already religious exceptions to the law for peyote and
hallucinogenic teas in the US.
And the exemption for ritual Catholic alcohol (the second most
dangerous drug in the world), has been in force since prehistoric
times.
This exemption is surely a precedent?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
02 Mar 2006 11:29:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:53:00 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:c78a02p0r0orqmcfjoe0qktrfdp79s2618@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:17:12 -0500, Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com>
wrote:
You might think I'm joking about this next part, but I'm dead serious:
I propose that part of our religion include clubbing, dancing and
drinking as rituals vital to the integrity of our religion, and that our
tax-exempt churches host such facilities on site for potentially
tax-exempt use
by our members.
This I suggested and forgot to mention that this is because the churches
insist
that everyone else fund _their_ social lives, why -shouldn't- we get in on
the
deal? Anything else would be undeniable discrimination.
So what did you have in mind for the drugs the religion requires in its
observances?
Note that there's already religious exceptions to the law for peyote and
hallucinogenic teas in the US.
Not a bad idea. I think the religion should promote exploration of as many
different things as possible. Withholding any drug would be infringing on our
freedom of religious expression because with "maximize diversity" as a sort of
tenet, those who wish to explore drugs would be obligated to explore as wide of
a variety as possible. Any restriction is an impingement, though I'm well aware
that some drugs are just never going to be legalized no matter what legal theory
you are using. But it would be our religious duty to at least -try-, right?
:-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
Put another way, a society can't claim the right
to label itself "civilized" until and unless its
citizens master "The Art of Peaceful Conflict".
************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
01 Mar 2006 08:19:26 AM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
I'm already working on a list of tenets
which atheists can agree on in general
You have? That'll be a first. I've never seen more than half a dozen
atheists agree on anything for more than one day. We're kind of a
cussed lot.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Devious suggestion re: tax exempt churches |
01 Mar 2006 08:24:51 AM |
|
|
On 1 Mar 2006 06:19:26 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
I'm already working on a list of tenets
which atheists can agree on in general
You have? That'll be a first. I've never seen more than half a dozen
atheists agree on anything for more than one day. We're kind of a
cussed lot.
All we've got in common is that we're not theist. This has no tenets
because it is no different than not believing in pixies.
Unless a few of us have cats called Pixie?
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
