Religious Liberty Is Critical for Believers and Non-Believers Alike
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I was recently at the United Nations General Assembly when President Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president in history to convene a meeting at the U.N. solely devoted to protecting religious liberty. When critics declared it was simply a political move to score points with his base, they failed to understand how important religious liberty is to the peace, prosperity, and freedom of the religious and non-religious alike.
In fact, the evidence that society benefits as a whole when religious freedom is protected is so impactful that today, The Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government is livestreaming online a discussion with key officials from the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services on the administration’s efforts to protect religious liberty and the effects they are having.
In addition to the obvious spiritual, moral, and emotional benefits religion provides to the faithful, non-religious people realize tremendous advantages when religious liberty is respected. Long before government did it, churches and religious organizations were building schools, hospitals, research centers, homeless shelters, and food kitchens for the benefit of everyone, not just believers. They were also providing disaster relief and sending missionaries to aid impoverished people in the farthest reaches of the globe.
We see even more benefits for both believers and non-believers when we study nations that allow a significant amount of religious freedom and see large numbers of people practicing their faith. These nations generally experience lower rates of violence and crime. Moreover, governments that respect religious liberty also display greater peace and stability, which is attractive for business investment and jobs.
Religious freedom also goes hand-in-hand with other fundamental human rights. One only has to look at countries like Iran, China, and Venezuela to see that a lack of respect for religious liberty correlates directly with high levels of oppression and the lack of respect for other rights.
Even in nations where citizens have a great degree of religious freedom, we are seeing that freedom challenged and diminished. When tolerance for religious beliefs wanes, intolerance for other beliefs isn’t far behind. When it becomes acceptable to discriminate against or persecute people for their religious beliefs, it's a short slide down the slippery slope to justify doing the same thing to both the religious and non-religious based on their political beliefs, their beliefs on how they raise and educate their children, or some other belief system that doesn’t comport with the government’s.
According to data from the Pew Research Center, over 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or banned. Thousands are displaced or killed annually because of their religious faith. In response, President Trump in his U.N. speech called on foreign leaders to protect the free exercise of religion, to end the persecution of people practicing their faith, and to repeal laws restricting freedom of religion and belief. He also reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to promoting religious freedom here at home.
One part of the president’s announcement that didn’t get much notice was his creation of a first-of-its-kind coalition of U.S. businesses tasked with encouraging the private sector to protect people of all faiths in the workplace and integrate support for religious liberty into their diversity strategies. When religious freedom is respected in the workplace, morale and even productivity can improve significantly.
However, the benefits aren’t just within companies. They can encompass whole economies. According to a 2014 study by Georgetown and Brigham Young University researchers, religious freedom is one of three factors significantly associated with overall economic growth. The study found a positive relationship between religious freedom and 10 out of 12 indicators of global competitiveness.
Demonstrating more than just correlation between religious freedom and economics, the study found that both government restrictions on religion and societal hostility to religion harmed economic growth, driving away business investment as well as home-grown entrepreneurs who decided to take their talents elsewhere. Businesses seek peace and stability when locating facilities or seeking new markets in which to sell their products and services. When religious freedoms aren’t respected, violence and conflict can result.
These are just some of the myriad reasons society benefits as a whole when we protect religious freedom. In the end, the work the current administration continues to do to promote and protect religious liberty here and abroad could result in not only greater religious freedom for believers, but in greater respect for all human rights and greater prosperity for all people. That’s a win for everyone.
Pundits can continue to argue that’s politics, but I will argue that’s just good policy.
Recommended from Townhall
Tags
Who is online
225 visitors
If leaders of congregations involve politics in any way, shape or form when they preach then their tax exempt status should end.
Either lose the politics or lose the exemption.You can't have both.
How do you feel about them just offering up a generic prayer for whoever happens to hold public office?
Personally, I wouldn't attend or belong to a church that tried to tell me what candidate to support.
Taxing something is exercising a form of control over it. We can't very well say that people have the right to freely worship and then set about taxing the activity. The purpose of the first amendment is to limit the government, not to limit churches.
I don't feel anything about that. I don't care one way or the other who or what they want to pray for. But there should be no political agendas pursued in houses of worship.
I agree. A persons' religious beliefs and ways of worshiping their chosen deity should be a private matter between them and their deity. There is no place for it in politics and vise versa. The separation between church and state should be upheld to the fullest measure.
JMOO
But the churches benefit from the taxes others have to pay, They get police and fire protection, roads are paved so it is easy to get to church, municipal services are available ect ect. Citizens have to pay for this and churches should not get a free ride.
This means I am subsidizing someone else's religion.
I don't care what goes on in churches. If it's promoting a certain political agenda then they should loose the tax exemption. I don't know how many times/ways I need to say it. It's really a very simple concept.
I agree with all of that except for the JMOO part.
How many times/ways can I explain it ? Please see my comments above, there's your answer.
The people inside that church are the ones paying those taxes. You want to tax them twice?
The organization should be taxed, not the members. Big difference.
Why? Most churches bring in donated money for starters (from people who have probably already been taxed), then they turn around and give it away or pay a salary to people who work in the building. The organization is lucky if it makes any kind of profit at all, and if they do, it usually goes to their facilities or more charity. What are you going to tax?
This is laughable. Your post is beyond naive.
They should pay property tax otherwise who pays for what they get? The homeowners and business of the town and/or county have to make up for lost tax revenue
It pisses me off to see churches that have police controlling traffic when services dismiss, so everybody can get out of the parking lot. They're being subsidized to disrupt traffic.
I pay taxes on my business. Every patient I see already pays taxes on the income they use to pay me. My employees and I pay taxes on our salaries. My landlord pays property taxes. My local business taxes and my landlord's property taxes (paid indirectly by me) provide emergency services and street upkeep so that my business can operate and be kept secure.
Why should churches get preferential treatment?
I can’t imagine being so petty as to have that bother me.
talk about first world problems
I can't imagine being so entitled that I think I deserve for the government to help me get to the Cracker Barrel for Sunday lunch before everyone else, but here we are, paying cops to do exactly that. For churchgoers, anyway.
"give it away or pay a salary to people who work in the building"
both of those would be expenses in a regular business and not part of the profits that would be taxed
Your post contributed nothing to the conversation, except maybe some unwanted arrogance.
How dare they, were they on duty? I mean why would you direct traffic to avoid accidents? I thought we paid them to focus their time on persecuting minorities. The next thing you know they will be stopping traffic for funerals.
I'd rather they spend their time preventing crimes, looking for those who have committed crimes, training, or directing traffic where they're actually needed, such as at the scene of accidents or breakdowns, rather than for the convenience of a few.
There was one megachurch locally who used to have cops stop traffic when their services dismissed, on a road that didn't have nearly enough regular traffic for there to be any real danger for a competent driver. County government put a stop to it pretty quickly.
Because some do some actual, tangible good. They feed people, clothe people, treat the sick. Spreading mythology provides no tangible good.
Are you ok with your family business subsidizing any organization that claims its supernatural beliefs entitle it to your financial support? Seems to me that as much as you complain about taxation and paying others' share, you'd have a problem with paying religious organizations' share, too. For the sake of consistency, you know.
I would think that would be more likely to lead to a crash, not less.
What part of the JMOO don't you like Steevie?
Some do. Some don't. Some are just spreading mythology. Some are even spreading hate. I really think those churches don't deserve a tax break.
That's not right. It's like they claim more right to the roadways than anybody else out there.
If I were sitting there waiting, with ice cream melting in my trunk, I'd be pissed.
Fair enough.
I'm willing to subsidize a food pantry, health clinic, or volunteer fire department, because they benefit all in the community. Churches may benefit the community, and I donate to church programs that I know help to feed disadvantaged children and house families, but I don't think I should have to subsidize all churches.
Not really. The thread is about church exemption from taxation, and you commented on it yourself. If you felt the thread diverted conversation away from your intended topic, you shouldn't have participated.
That's the first sentence of your first comment.
I think he's more upset that you agree with taxing churches than he is about the thread being "off topic" (which it wasn't). It was on topic as long as his usual supporters were, well, supportive.
Only for the churches promoting political agendas which I've repeated ad nauseum.
Then they need to separate themselves from state activities. Too many churches want the preferential treatment, but still want to legislate their own beliefs. If they're politically active, they need to pay taxes.
They should be taxed also.
PP is already subject to taxation on money it spends for political activities. As it should be.
That's not an endorsement of a particular candidate.
If they promote clear, political agendas they should be taxed.
If you have anymore posts asking the SAME questions please refer to these:
And? So long as they're not endorsing a particular candidate or legislation, it's allowable.
I have no idea. The law stipulates that they taxed on money spent on political activities, and I'm agreeing with that law. You asked if they should be paying taxes on money spent on political activities. I said they should, and showed that they are expected to do so.
You're moving goalposts.
Some churches engage endorse candidates, in violation of tax law. If they want to do so, they should give up their tax-exempt status.
I've answered them several times. In my answers, I've actually agreed with you. It seems you can't abide that, so you keep asking more questions, and yes, moving goalposts. You did the same to pat. Your inability to accept that we mean what we say is on you, not us.
Under Trump?
Sure, sure.
What, proof that the IRS under Trump is a tool of the left?
MUVA made the statement, and should be the one to prove it, if he can.
So the trump administration appointed commissioner of the IRS is letting this happen?
So MUVA claims that right wing groups are still being targeted, Sandy questions the veracity of such a claim as trump picked the people in charge.
Then you question why trump would be brought up in this discussion....
The only thing proven is ones own ability to ask inane questions that do not even pertain to the topic at hand.
That's from January 2016. Trump hadn't even been nominated by the GOP yet.
Ok, so let's review verb tenses.
"Is" implies present tense. The IRS at present IS an agency of executive branch of government, which branch IS currently headed by Trump.
So when MUVA says
he is, by definition of the word "is", not referring to the IRS under Obama, or the IRS in January 2016 (his "supporting" link), but the IRS now, under Trump.
Did I attack you or Texan? Or did I attack the diversionary comment/question...
I'm going to make an observation. You, pat, and I were having a reasonably civil discussion. We weren't in total agreement, but we had quite a bit of common ground, and conversation was fairly friendly.
Then the sealioning started. It wasn't you, BTW, engaging in sealioning. But it dragged the whole discussion into the cesspit. We mostly agreed, until you let someone convince you that we didn't.
Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".
Just for once could you stop with the nonsense. Who told you about this deep state? If trump is so wonderful and a savior, why does this deep state still exist? Is he not the president? Does he not have power? Why has he not done anything about this deep state?
You can't take civil disagreement with your statements?
Oh, well. Some here can't even stand for me (or pat) to agree with their statements, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Beato O'Rourke and company simply want to destroy the first amendment.
Sad to see.
I have a totally different take on the headline and the article.
"Religious liberty is critical of-----liberty.
Sorry CH4P. I just never thought the 'cake people' were really all that genuine.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion,
Correct...
In America, I don't think anyone is actually being forced into a religion. If they are, and they're not kids, a crime is probably being committed.
Millions of kids are forcefully indoctrinated into religions all the time in the US.
Kids are forced into things every day. School, for example. It's part of being a kid. That's why any reasonable discussion on this topic excludes kids, as I did in my comment. The fact it's the only thing you can identify as a lack of freedom just shows how weak that position is.
I call the cops on door knocking bible thumpers, since my condo complex is clearly posted with no soliciting signs on every door. it's fun to watch them argue with the cops until they receive tickets for trespassing. seems so difficult for them to understand that they're subject to the law of the land. tough shit thumpers, pay that fine and share your tale of religious persecution next sunday to people that give a holy shit. maybe they'll get reimbursed from the collection plate, or not.
come knocking and find out
both are considered soliciting in the eyes of the law in a place clearly posted with no soliciting signs
If you leave your thumper literature, it IS soliciting.
going door to door without the consent of the HOA is trespassing
our HOA is extremely diverse and is all about keeping door knocking sales pimps and religious pests out. I have a 5x9 American flag hanging inside my sliding glass door that can be seen by everyone in the courtyard.
Good. I do not have an HOA thankfully, but, on Monday someone (and I'm not sure who) came to my door 3 times in 2 hrs. Everyone who knows me knows to come to my back door, so I know when it's the front door, someone is trying to sell me something or convert me.....
I convert thumpers into fine paying contributors to the local municipal court after they lip off to the cops, with the full backing of our HOA. freedom from religion.
I am. it's an important lesson for the morons that think their book of fables supersedes the US Constitution and I'm all about trying to help ignorant knuckle draggers to see the brighter light.
It's amazing to me how the very concept of church and religion seems to mentally unhinge some non believers. I don't believe myself but it never occurs to me to be upset that some people do. Counseling is probably a good idea for some, given their unhealthy issues with other people's beliefs.
Relax. Learn to tolerate people who think differently than you. You'll be happier than when throwing hissy fits over the concept of thoughts and prayers being offered.