|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mosque Tax
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
A German politician is suggesting that Germany start collecting taxes from Muslims to fund mosques in the same way that the German state currently taxes Christians to support churches.
quote:
Alexander Radwan, a CSU member of the Bundestag, has recommended the introduction of a so-called “church tax” for Muslims living in Germany.
"If you stop foreign funding of mosques, of course you have to provide sufficient funding here in Germany," Radwan, a member of the European Parliament for Bavaria, told German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, adding that this could be done similar to the “existing church tax for Catholics and Protestants."
Church members in Germany are required to pay tax to fund church activities, so when Germans register as Catholic, Protestant or Jewish on their tax forms, the government receives income tax from them which amounts to 8 or 9 percent of their total income tax, according to the German Catholic Bishops’ Conference.
From my perspective, using the state to collect taxes on behalf of religious organizations is an abuse of its power. That said, if you're going to have something like the Kirchensteuer ("church tax") it seems only reasonable to include all religions.
Thoughts?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
It seems reasonable to reasonable people.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think they'll run into problems trying to allocate the funds - the Mosques are generally not centrally organised in the way that either the Roman Catholic or Lutheran churches are. Possibly Baptists might be a reasonable comparison in terms of polity, but I'm not an expert, and I don't how the German church tax deals with Baptists.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think they'll run into problems trying to allocate the funds - the Mosques are generally not centrally organised in the way that either the Roman Catholic or Lutheran churches are. Possibly Baptists might be a reasonable comparison in terms of polity, but I'm not an expert, and I don't how the German church tax deals with Baptists.
From the article (sorry for not including the link in the OP):
quote:
Radwan didn't provide further details for his proposal, but according to the interview, Muslim religious communities may have to get registered as public corporations (Koerperschaft des oeffentlichen Rechts) like The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) and many other religious institutions. The status will allow them to raise taxes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
This is a real dilemma from where I'm sitting.
Islam certainly doesn't have the real estate assets historic Christian churches have in Europe, and blocking funding from the more extreme overseas sources sounds like a good idea, so domestic financial support of some kind seems inevitable.
Moreover, if state funding of religious organisations exists, then it would seem equitable to extend it to any qualifying organisation, and this could well be a way of allowing Islam to become more mainstream.
On the other hand, it is somewhet reminiscent of the "registered churches" of the ex-USSR, which were by all accounts stuffed full of informers and heavily restricted in what they could teach. They were frequently pitted against the unregistered churches in a clever divide-and-conquer strategy.
In France, I'm not sure the official Muslim council has much grassroots support as it is perceived as being run by apparatchiks too close to the powers that be. And Arethosemyfeet is right, Islam is much more fragmented even than much of Christianity.
As an interesting comparison, the Waldensian church in Italy collects a similar tax, and devotes all of it to social action, for instance in welcoming migrants. As I understand it Italians are allowed to choose which organisation this bit of their tax bill goes to, and the Waldensians get a disproprotionately large chunk as a result.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Do you object to taxpayers' money being used to fund public libraries or to build playing fields?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is a real dilemma from where I'm sitting.
Islam certainly doesn't have the real estate assets historic Christian churches have in Europe, and blocking funding from the more extreme overseas sources sounds like a good idea, so domestic financial support of some kind seems inevitable.
Moreover, if state funding of religious organisations exists, then it would seem equitable to extend it to any qualifying organisation, and this could well be a way of allowing Islam to become more mainstream.
my italics
IMO Islam is already pretty mainstream worldwide, but the general perception seems to be that Islam=terrorist organisations. Surely this is no more true than it would be to say that Christianity=the Inquisition or the Crusades. *
*invading foreign counties to win them for Christianity. Or possibly to win their wealth.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
In the German model, this is an additional tax - it's basically enforced tithing, using Herr Taxman as the enforcer.
In the Italian model, it is both an order of magnitude smaller, and not an additional tax - everybody pays, but you can choose to direct it to one of a small number of large-ish religious organizations (AIUI, there's a Buddhist and a Hindu option, but no Muslim option), or to the Italian state.
I'm not a fan of compulsory tithing, so don't support either of these schemes.
As it stands, individual German Muslims are free to give money to support their mosque, just as I am free to give money to support my church.
I don't think I see a difference in principle between Saudis (for example) funding a German mosque, and Americans or Europeans funding a missionary church in some other country.
It's clear that the aim is to replace nasty regressive Wahabbi terrorist-sympathizers with nice friendly westernized German Muslims, but I'm not sure how it's reasonable to prevent foreign funding for a place of worship.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
IMO Islam is already pretty mainstream worldwide, but the general perception seems to be that Islam=terrorist organisations.
I was thinking rather French-centrically where Islam is very definitely marginalised rather than mainstream, and Muslims have a lot of trouble obtaining any venue to become a place of worship.
Not too long ago there was a bit of a storm when a Muslim leader suggested France turn over some of its deserted Catholic churches (which are state-owned) for use by Muslims. quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think I see a difference in principle between Saudis (for example) funding a German mosque, and Americans or Europeans funding a missionary church in some other country.
Ouch. quote:
It's clear that the aim is to replace nasty regressive Wahabbi terrorist-sympathizers with nice friendly westernized German Muslims, but I'm not sure how it's reasonable to prevent foreign funding for a place of worship.
Perhaps not, but there are plenty of ways to make that difficult by multiplying red tape and keeping any resulting local assembly at arm's length.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I'm not sure what is being proposed here.
If a German ticks a census box that says they're Catholic do their taxes go up by 8 or 9% or does their tax remains the same as atheists and Muslims but 8% of what would otherwise go to secular state institutions get diverted to support the church?
If the latter, then it seems very unfair not to do this for all religions.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I'm not sure what is being proposed here.
If a German ticks a census box that says they're Catholic do their taxes go up by 8 or 9% or does their tax remains the same as atheists and Muslims but 8% of what would otherwise go to secular state institutions get diverted to support the church?
The former, except by default church tax is collected and you have to opt out.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Wow, interesting system & strange relationship between church and state, or so it seems to me.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
I'd not heard of this. My son and his family live in the east of Belgium, but he works (and pays taxes) and my daughter in law attends church in Aachen, Germany. I'll see what information I can glean from them next time we Skype.
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not too long ago there was a bit of a storm when a Muslim leader suggested France turn over some of its deserted Catholic churches (which are state-owned) for use by Muslims.
Are there in fact any RC churches in France that have been converted into mosques? Have any Protestant churches been used in this way?
The UK situation is of course different, but Non-conformist church buildings in British cities are often sold and converted into mosques. It doesn't seem to happen with the CofE. I imagine that the public would feel more protective of its state churches than it does of the others.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not too long ago there was a bit of a storm when a Muslim leader suggested France turn over some of its deserted Catholic churches (which are state-owned) for use by Muslims.
Are there in fact any RC churches in France that have been converted into mosques? Have any Protestant churches been used in this way?
One of the first evo churches I ever went to in France had premises that had previously been in the hands of the Mormons followed by the JWs.
In terms of churches that look like churches, I think there would be massive opposition to any takeover by Muslims even if the building was deconsecrated.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Perhaps not, but there are plenty of ways to make that difficult by multiplying red tape and keeping any resulting local assembly at arm's length.
I don't understand this statement. If it is not reasonable to ban something, it is also unreasonable to introduce a whole load of red tape to "discourage" it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes, but it wouldn't be quite so in the limelight. I personally am not saying either approach would be a good thing.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Most churches built in France before 1906 are owned and maintained by the state,which allows religious bodies (mainly rc ) to use them.
Churches built after 1906 will have been built,maintained and owned by the relevant religious bodies.That maintenance can cost a lot.
All this apart from the areas of Alsace and Lorraine which were not part of France in 1906.
The church tax (Kirchensteuer) which you find in Germany and in a good number of other European countries (including Alsace and Lorraine) helps to pay for the upkeep of churches,payment of clergy and charitable institutions managed by the churches.In Germany this tax is imposed unless one formally opts out.
If however one opts out (austreten) one is considered, certainly from the Catholic standpoint, as having abandoned the Church and unable to receive the Sacraments or even to have a church funeral.
In Austria, although ecclesiastical authorities are able to find out how much tax individuals have paid to the state, the responsibility lies with the individual taxpayer to pay the sum directly to the church authorities - that is,of course, assuming that they wish to be considered as a full member of the church.
For the Catholic church in France there is an annual sum, le denier du culte, which is asked for from members of the Church. It can, of course ,only be optional and there is no question of anyone being excluded for not paying.
In the UK churches have to rely on voluntary donations mainly in the collection plate from those who attend church. At the same time churches will sometimes get money from the government sources (general taxpayers who may not be members of the religious community) to help maintain important buildings of cultural and historic interest.
If I understand correctly CofE clergy have to provide occasional services for members of the public in their parishes and the clergy may well charge for these. Does that help with the financing of church life ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In terms of churches that look like churches, I think there would be massive opposition to any takeover by Muslims even if the building was deconsecrated.
For a country that's often depicted as one of the least religious in the world, it's ironic that many French people would feel so protective of 'churches that look like churches'.
The growing presence of Islam is presumably the problem for such people, not church buildings as such. Nevertheless, one could argue that a degree of pluralism in a culture can work to the benefit of secularisation. And for the purposes of surveillance, or tax, it's surely better to have religious groups meeting in very visible, stable settings. Do French people ever reflect on such things?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For a country that's often depicted as one of the least religious in the world, it's ironic that many French people would feel so protective of 'churches that look like churches'.
Ah, but you have to understand that French secularism is only skin-deep. Most people's grandparents were Catholic, and France's mental image of itself is simply not multicultural in the way that, say, the UK's is. There is a huge disconnect between the actual religious and ethnic makeup of the country and its self-perception.
The French also like things neatly pigeonholed. Churches should meet in buildings that look like churches. The idea of, say, a church meeting in a primary school on a Sunday morning is just beyond comprehension.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
French news this morning ran the story of a former synagogue in Marseille being sold to become a mosque.
This neatly illustrates the following, as far as the French are concerned:
i) such a transaction is newsworthy
ii) it happened between two "other" religions, so that's ok
iii) it was from one group of expatriates to another (so that's ok, not "real French" people)
iv) the place remained a place of worship (a point with which I tend to sympathise)
v) the city council could have objected, but didn't.
[ 27. April 2016, 05:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you object to taxpayers' money being used to fund public libraries or to build playing fields?
Surely the difference here is that those things are for the use of everyone and are used by a wide group of people? I think they're also not personal in the same way a place of worship is. There's also the question of the appropriateness of the state having a stake in religious buildings in this way.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Surely the difference here is that those things are for the use of everyone and are used by a wide group of people? I think they're also not personal in the same way a place of worship is. There's also the question of the appropriateness of the state having a stake in religious buildings in this way.
But then part of the discussion has to consider the particular context (Germany) which has a somewhat different model for how the church relates to the state than is the case elsewhere.
Isn't it up to each particular society to decide where the balancing point should be?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Surely the difference here is that those things are for the use of everyone and are used by a wide group of people?
My church is also for the use of everybody. What you'll get, if you come in, is Christian worship according to the rites of the Episcopal Church, so if what you're after is a Muslim prayer service, a game of table-tennis or a pint of milk, you'll need to go somewhere else, but anyone is indeed welcome - we're not a members' club.
Is it obvious that that is different from a public swimming bath, which is open to everyone, but only if they want to put on a swimming costume and swim?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The money raised by the church tax in Germany and a number of other countries (Norway for example) comes from those who profess the religion and not from general taxpayers.
Although there is no church tax in England as far as I know, the State will on occasion provide monies for the maintenance of certain church buildings. This money may well come from taxpayers who would not wish to support the churches in any way.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you object to taxpayers' money being used to fund public libraries or to build playing fields?
Surely the difference here is that those things are for the use of everyone and are used by a wide group of people? I think they're also not personal in the same way a place of worship is. There's also the question of the appropriateness of the state having a stake in religious buildings in this way.
Not everyone can (or will) use a playing field or a library. The same applies to churches.
And as others have said, the German experience is very different to that here - which in turn is very different to that in England with its established church.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Actually in Norway and Iceland it does come from the general revenue. The taxpayer is not paying extra for his or her religion but a portion of the tax revenue goes to the religion depending on the number belonging. In Iceland IIRC the money for those not registered use to go to the University but now goes into the general pool. This btw has led to some people signing up for one particular religion that promises to just hand the money back to them. Norway also had the slight problem of at least one Catholic diocese signing up a lot of people without their knowledge so as to get the revenue (the number of Catholics officially dropped from 140,109 to 95,655 last year when the government caught on).
Norway and Iceland also have a few Muslim groups that officially get money in the same way.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The money raised by the church tax in Germany and a number of other countries (Norway for example) comes from those who profess the religion and not from general taxpayers.
Although there is no church tax in England as far as I know, the State will on occasion provide monies for the maintenance of certain church buildings. This money may well come from taxpayers who would not wish to support the churches in any way.
This only happens for funding architectural heritage, and often has strings attached that may inhibit freedom to use the building the way one would want to. Public money cannot normally be used to fund religious activities. Churches are expected to fund it themselves, from donations or their existing resources.
Overall, the burden of having to preserve historic buildings out of church funds is a major inhibitor of church growth in the UK. It's particularly so in rural areas.
I've not done the research. It would probably be quite hard to do it. But I strongly suspect that burden far outweighs the amount of public money a few key heritage buildings receive to stop a celebrated national monument falling down.
[ 29. April 2016, 09:22: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I quite agree. But we mustn't forget that Charities in general (including churches) can claim back Gift Aid on donations given by income-tax payers. In a sense that is a sort of State grant, albeit nothing like enough to pay for the presumptions it makes about the upkeep of historic buildings.
[ 29. April 2016, 10:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I quite agree. But we mustn't forget that Charities in general (including churches) can claim back Gift Aid on donations given by income-tax payers. In a sense that is a sort of State grant, albeit nothing like enough to pay for the presumptions it makes about the upkeep of historic buildings.
I don't think many people since the late C19 would maintain that enabling people to give to charity before in stead of after tax amounts to a state grant.
That would be classing our earning capacity as state property and personal allowances as state generosity.
[ 29. April 2016, 12:27: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Overall, the burden of having to preserve historic buildings out of church funds is a major inhibitor of church growth in the UK. It's particularly so in rural areas.
I agree with you, but I doubt that the government would be interested in lifting the architectural burdens that prevent church growth. There wouldn't be any electoral advantage in it.
However, I wonder if the German (and other) churches have found it it easier to focus on growth since they benefit from taxes for the upkeep of their buildings.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
