I posted the following in another thread and, to date, no one has voiced an opinion, raised an objection, comment, or argument. On the hunch that I just posted in the wrong place, here it is again:

It probably seemed a good idea at the time but, granting some organizations exemption from taxation has resulted in considerable injustice to the majority of our citizens. Does your organization provide services that feed the hungry, clothe and shelter the poor, etc.? Seems very commendable, but - how about the other guys, the rich dudes with the kooky religion and the billions in property they own and profit from? Aren't they getting away with murder, so to speak?

I'm told that there are over 1.607 million tax exempt organizations in the U.S.A. They own assets over $4.03 Trillion, and have incomes over $2.93 Trillion. I believe that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, etc. are entitled to the same perks and privileges as Catholics, Baptists, Scientologists, etc. Is any government justified in spreading the tax burden in a fashion that results in inequality at the same time it claims to be democratic? I submit that the original idea has, like many well-meant ones, outlived its usefulness and has resulted in a slippery slope of abuses we would do well to rectify.

I believe that charity is a good thing. Whether or not it should be tied to income tax exemption is debatable. Because it is and because I have certain favorite charities and a limited income, I have tried to confine my donations to Veterans Organizations. The results are that every organization with the slightest hint of a connection to: soldiers, sailors, marines - active, retired, wounded , or deceased sends me address labels, note pads, dimes, nickels, dollar bills, etc. etc.
Upon investigation it turns out that the charity itself gets little of the money it raises. Most of the funds produced go to the fund raiser company, a small portion to pay for the labels, dimes, nickels, etc. Being a trifle skeptical, I'm suspicious that some unscrupulous people will approach any group with a desire for funds and a plausible appeal to others to supply them. "Let us borrow your cause and raise funds for you in your name - keeping only a portion for our administration and expenses." An offer too good to refuse, even for the Society for the Protection of Polecats, for instance..

I think there is an obvious solution that requires more than one small voice in the wilderness to bring about. I wonder how many Answerpudlians agree that present practice results in unequal justice for all???
What, if anything, should be done?

I agree that there are many charlatans, con artists, and the like associated with "charities. I wish there were a way to stop them. Certainly, laws can be passed limiting the cut of the fund-raiser, but what can be done about the psuedo-religions, fake charities, etc.?
While most are easy to spot, in many cases, what one man sees as a cult, a sham religion, or out-and-out fakery another man may see as the True Path. Some see the Roman Catholic church as a cult; others see Jim Baker, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, etc. as simply money-making schemes. (Personally, I see snake-handlers are loonies who need to be proteted from themselves.) Can a law be written to distinguish between what is honest religion and what is a con? How would it be different than current laws? It is easy to say what was said about pornography, "I know it when I see it", but how can that be codified? (And we all know how well that definition of porn worked.)

I realized that I put my focus on the religious aspect of charities, but the basic questions fit the entire spectrum of charities. At what point do we draw the line?

In short, I agree that there is problem, but I think it is one that doesn't have a solution. Or maybe it is that I cannot see a solution, but others do.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Can a law be written to distinguish between what is honest religion and what is a con?

Honestly it seems very unlikely that this problem will be dealt with in the next few hundred years or so.

Anyway, how do you distinguish between an 'honest' religion and a con?

The first thing that comes to mind is the quality of the clothes worn by the head guy. In my opinion, the better the clothes, the more likely the operation is in it for "worldly goods."

The lawmakers are in tight with the religion peddlers . They won’t hurt their own pockets by creating and passing legislation that would “hurt” the religious groups . (Cults or whatever you call some of them)

Some things are timeless, or maybe some things never change. I go with the latter on this one.

I simply can’t resist, everybody sing along.

Heavenly Bank Account~ Frank Zappa

"That's right, remember there is a big difference between
kneeling down and bending over..."

"He's got twenty million dollars
In his Heavenly Bank Account.. .
All from those chumps who was
Born again
Oh yeah, oh yeah
He's got seven limousines
And a private plane...
All for use of his
Special Friends
Oh yeah, oh yeah
He's got thousand-dollar suits
And a Wembley Tie...
Girls love to stroke it
While he's on the phone
Oh yeah, oh yeah
At the House of Representatives
He's a groovy guy. . .
When he Gives Thanks He is not alone. . ."

.......

I realize that I'm too old to see any major change in my lifetime. However, just because it has always been screwed up, doesn't mean that we should just accept it 'as is'. The constitution needs to be amended in the following way: No law in which special treatment is accorded one group of citizens over any other group should be legal. Taxation should never give special consideration to marital status, or theology. It is not, or should not be, the business of government to promote marriage, population increase, charity, nor morality other than purely secular obedience to impartial laws. IMHO. I can't help hoping that we may have finally reached a point where common sense changes are attainable.