03-Dec-2010, 12:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-Dec-2010, 01:13 PM by Ajita Kamal.)
One of my fellow Admins on the Indian Atheists facebook page posted this quote by Sam Harris:
Of course, the fact that religious institutions are tax exempt is outrageous in the extreme, but I've heard a counter argument that might be worth considering. In the West, particularly in the US, the sane have sort of reached a deal- a treacherous compromise if you will, with the religious crazies. Its this: You don't interfere in politics and government, and I won't tax your proselytism.
A strong case can be made that since despite this constitutional "wall of separation" religion does indeed influence public policy in the United States, letting religious institutions get off without being taxed is a disaster. They get to eat their cake and have it too. I agree strongly with this side of the argument, even though I can see how it could be infinitely worse than it is now. But what I don't quite see is truth in the claims about how the supposed compromise between the religious right and the policy makers was reached, even if the claim is that the compromise was reached over time through legislation. I think that the situation now can be interpreted to seem like it is a compromise, but we just happen to be at an in-between stage. I don't think that ending religious tax-exemptions is in any way a logical prelude to increased religious involvement in government.
There may be many similar issues involved in discussing religion and taxation. I hope this thread can help us share ideas on this subject.
Quote:"How much money would be raised if religious institutions lost their tax-exempt status?"
Of course, the fact that religious institutions are tax exempt is outrageous in the extreme, but I've heard a counter argument that might be worth considering. In the West, particularly in the US, the sane have sort of reached a deal- a treacherous compromise if you will, with the religious crazies. Its this: You don't interfere in politics and government, and I won't tax your proselytism.
A strong case can be made that since despite this constitutional "wall of separation" religion does indeed influence public policy in the United States, letting religious institutions get off without being taxed is a disaster. They get to eat their cake and have it too. I agree strongly with this side of the argument, even though I can see how it could be infinitely worse than it is now. But what I don't quite see is truth in the claims about how the supposed compromise between the religious right and the policy makers was reached, even if the claim is that the compromise was reached over time through legislation. I think that the situation now can be interpreted to seem like it is a compromise, but we just happen to be at an in-between stage. I don't think that ending religious tax-exemptions is in any way a logical prelude to increased religious involvement in government.
There may be many similar issues involved in discussing religion and taxation. I hope this thread can help us share ideas on this subject.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.