After a 15-year battle a Berlin Court on Thursday granted the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany the full legal status accorded to the Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany. This allows the group to collect church tax and establish charitable organizations. The ruling also grants the sect substantial tax advantages. There are about 200,000 members of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany today. SInce the Jehovah’s WItnesses Church refuses to acknowledge the authority of the state (its members are told not to vote or join the armed forces) does it make sense for German taxpayers to subsidize the organization? Bettina Gaus asks this question in her commentary in the taz:
Das Urteil des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Berlin, das den Zeugen Jehovas
die Anerkennung als Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts zuspricht,
löst Unbehagen aus. Ausgerechnet Leute, die den Staat für Teufelswerk
halten und aus religiösen Gründen die Teilnahme an Wahlen ablehnen,
sollen Steuerprivilegien und andere Vergünstigungen erhalten? Das
scheint absurd.
She goes on to ask the next logical question: why should ANY church be subsidized in a liberal, secular society? Withdrawing the tax-exempt status is not the same as persecution based on belief.
In the US, the bar for religious tax-exempt status is much lower, and many cult-like organizations such as the Mormon Church and the Hollywood cult – The Church of Scientology – are subsidized by US taxpayers. President Bush wants to transfer even more federal funds to religious organizations as part of his faith-based initiatives program. The problem is that many of these "churches" despise the rule of law and even advocate violence against the state if laws do not conform to their religious convictions. This was made clear again this week during the Terri Schiavo case where both state and federal courts refused to intervene to replace a feeding tube in an comatose woman. Extremist Christian groups – whipped into a frenzy by an irresponsible media and the shameless grandstanding of the US Congress – are now threatening violence against the judges involved in the case, and are even advocating the use of armed force to remove the woman from the hospice where she is dying.
Here is a (non-violent) statement from a Catholic organization – recipient of US tax benefits – known as Priests for Life:
"The Terri Schiavo case has demonstrated that we are being governed by
un-elected judges, and that the legislative and executive branches of
government lack the will to stand up to them when they authorize acts
of violence. The matter, therefore, now rests with the people. When
government fails to protect life, the people must do so directly. Today
must mark the beginning of a new era of civil disobedience and
conscientious objection, with simultaneous, determined efforts to curb
the authority of the courts and restore government to the people
through their elected representatives"
I do hope the situation in the Schiavo affair will resolve itself before the "Christian activists" act on their threats. Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the religiously-inspired intrusion in the Shiavo family tragedy, so why do we continue to give tax breaks to organizations that are hostile to the laws of the land?
0 comment
“The problem is that many of these “churches” despise the rule of law and even advocate violence against the state if laws do not conform to their religious convictions. ”
Much as I disapprove of the attempts to intervene in the Schiavo case, I must make mention of 2 points:
(1) Filing legal briefs, submitting bills in Congress, etc. as fundamentalists did in this case are, it seems to me rather a far cry from despising the rule of law or ‘violence’
(2) You comment above seems to suggest that ‘many’ churches in the US that might be eligible for federal funding advocate violence. That’s ridiculous. A tiny, tiny minority of radical fringe sects advocate violence. Faith-based funding ( as well as vouchers) would be made available for providers of services such as addiction therapy & education. As far as respecting the rule of law is concerned, I assume you had no objections when southern African American churches advocated & participated in lunch counter sit-ins, etc. which, at the time, were illegal.
Frankly, I’d rather send my kids to a Mormon or Scientology school than to a dismal public school. And if the Salvation Army or AA can be effective in providing services, more power to them. (And, BTW, I’m an atheist.)
Ellie –
You may want to check out the background of Randall Terry, who surfaced as a “spokesman” for the Schindler family last week. His “Operation Rescue” treads a thin line between civil disobedience and violence. Here is a useful link:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220001