Many believers have distanced from sacred conviction in order to be “neutral” researchers – without recognizing the alternative worldview they are embracing. There is a better way.
Yesterday Paul Mero, a man I long admired, wrote an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune titled, “LDS Church should surrender its tax-exempt status.” Since I’ve been on the record previously calling the argument that Churches should be taxed “a terrible argument.” I thought I should probably try and keep the conversation going with Mero. In his article Mero makes a few points: The Church can continue its mission with less financial means Members of the Church will continue to donate because of their faithfulness even if it is not tax deductible Tax exemptions don’t protect the religious from government interference The Church’s tax exemption gives church critics a platform to criticize the Church on. Mero clearly means well. He believes that the negative effects would be minor. But I believe where his argument falls flat is in the benefit it would provide the Church. The only benefit Mero can suggest is that, currently, some critics argue that the Church should pay taxes. Sure the Church would certainly be able to survive while taxed, but those funds would be taken away from accomplishing the Church’s mission. And the only accomplishment would be to take one issue away from critics. But this criticism is not virtuous. It is almost always a thinly veiled attempt at religious discrimination, arguing that religious nonprofits should be treated uniquely worse than all other nonprofits. (Religious nonprofits currently have some benefits others do not. But arguments to tax churches don’t seek to remove those minor additional benefits, but to take from them a major benefit that all other nonprofits have.) And this is very unlikely to reduce total criticism of the Church. No one who criticizes the Church for its tax status is likely to join if they start paying taxes. And there will always be some new issue to criticize whether real or invented that will immediately fill the gap. Criticism won’t go down, it will just move on to a different issue.
The Church released this morning a video open house of the Washington D.C. Temple. The open house has attracted many prominent politicians, journalists, and celebrities. This unique video, narrated by Gary E. Stevenson and Dale G. Renlund, may prove to be a perfect opportunity to share the wonder of a temple open house with anyone no matter where they live.
Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: Will the Utah Senate Race Break the Partisan Doom Loop? Beau Tremitiere — The Bulwark Latter-day Saint politician Evan McMullin is an independent running for Senate in Utah against Mike Lee. In a very unusual move, however, McMullin has been endorsed by Utah’s Democratic party. Could this cross-partisan alliance signal a new way forward? Conflict in a Society without a Religious Consensus Rick Plasterer — Juicy Ecumenism This article certainly is not the first to suggest that a lack of moral consensus plays a major role in our current political tensions, but Plasterer does an enviable job of tracing the history of this fracturing consensus. Now in the spotlight, Dubai Jews struggle for public synagogue Isabel Debre — Associated Press With a newly announced temple in Dubai, Latter-day Saints may find this article about the Jewish search to find worship space in the city of interest as well. Bravo! The New York Times reports that evangelicals are divided, not united on politics Terry Mattingly — Get Religion The godfather of religious journalism criticism examines the silver linings in a recent article in the New York Times about the state of politics among evangelicals. How We Fought Each Other at Michigan Law Andrew Koppelman, Ilya Shapiro — Heterodox Academy Two law professors at the University of Michigan coming from very different perspectives on constitutional law questions describe how meaningful they find their debates, and how to disagree with one another better.
