The Unification Church in Japan was ordered dissolved by a court Tuesday after a government request spurred by the investigation into the 2022 assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
The church said it was considering an immediate appeal of the Tokyo District Court’s revocation of its legal status, which would take away its tax-exempt privilege and require liquidation of its assets.
The order followed a request by Japan’s Education Ministry in 2023 to dissolve the influential South Korea-based sect, citing manipulative fundraising and recruitment tactics that sowed fear among followers and harmed their families.
In the ruling, the court said the church’s problems were extensive and continuous, and a dissolution order is necessary because it is not likely it could voluntarily reform, according to NHK television.
Not to defend the Moonies (100% cult) but it makes me really uncomfortable seeing a “dissolution” of a religion like this. I realize this is my 1st Amendment influenced western bias showing. Still...
Not to defend the Moonies (100% cult) but it makes me really uncomfortable seeing a “dissolution” of a religion like this. I realize this is my 1st Amendment influenced western bias showing. Still seems like a slippery slope to me. If they can shut down the Unification Church, can they not also shut down the Catholic Church, or various Buddhist or Shintoist orgs, etc.? I’m sure justifications could be produced for any of them.
Also, people tend to take their religions pretty seriously. The Moonies in Japan aren’t going to just quietly accept this. I anticipate unintended consequences.
The order handed down by a Tokyo district court will strip the church of its tax-exempt status and require it to liquidate its assets, but it will still be allowed to operate in Japan.
Thanks — that last part is important clarification. What does that actually mean then? They have to sell all their assets, then with the sale proceeds, they can buy it all back again? Practically...
Thanks — that last part is important clarification. What does that actually mean then? They have to sell all their assets, then with the sale proceeds, they can buy it all back again? Practically speaking, what would the path forward look like for them?
If the government can dissolve companies and other organizations I don’t see why religions should get special treatment. If they want to shut down the Catholic Church, it’s their choice. Not like...
If the government can dissolve companies and other organizations I don’t see why religions should get special treatment.
If they want to shut down the Catholic Church, it’s their choice. Not like much of value is lost.
I think there's a pretty obvious difference in terms of citizens' personal freedoms between shutting down a church vs a for-profit business, but given that the Unification Church is just losing...
I think there's a pretty obvious difference in terms of citizens' personal freedoms between shutting down a church vs a for-profit business, but given that the Unification Church is just losing assets and tax-exempt status, not being banned, I'm pretty fine with this outcome. They're a very predatory organization.
No one said anything about for profits. Governments can shut down non-profits and not-for-profits. That can be in abusive ways (eg a dictatorship kicking out MSF), but it is a power nonetheless we...
No one said anything about for profits. Governments can shut down non-profits and not-for-profits. That can be in abusive ways (eg a dictatorship kicking out MSF), but it is a power nonetheless we expect governments to have.
Everyone is free (in most countries) to associate and speak, but whether or not you get to be an official organization recognized by the state is not a right.
If you don't believe giving the government power to freely shutter organized religion is not at least inhibiting the free exercise of religion then idk what to tell you. In the US, churches do not...
If you don't believe giving the government power to freely shutter organized religion is not at least inhibiting the free exercise of religion then idk what to tell you. In the US, churches do not need to get "official recognition" to get tax exempt status. A church is not a church because the government says so.
I don’t believe it inhibits it in a way that matters. Certainly the government should not be able change people’s beliefs (nor does it really have a a way to do that), but everything else is fair...
I don’t believe it inhibits it in a way that matters. Certainly the government should not be able change people’s beliefs (nor does it really have a a way to do that), but everything else is fair game.
If a government says, this organization which represents a religion can no longer exist - that’s no different than any other organization. Religion is no different and deserves no special place in the modern age.
Religious organizations gets too much special treatment in US law, and I think it should be stripped of that in the US, and I have no issue with governments exercising their right to regulate and control them in other countries.
I don’t think churches should be tax exempt to begin with.
I mean, some might argue that a church shouldn't get tax-exempt status at all. They can be a church as much as they want. If they organize as whatever legal form of non-profit or for-profit body...
I mean, some might argue that a church shouldn't get tax-exempt status at all.
They can be a church as much as they want. If they organize as whatever legal form of non-profit or for-profit body they prefer they can then be treated as suitable.
I agree that the government should be able to intervene when it comes to fraud and abuse from non-profit organizations, including churches. (I mentioned for-profit because your earlier comment...
I agree that the government should be able to intervene when it comes to fraud and abuse from non-profit organizations, including churches. (I mentioned for-profit because your earlier comment said "companies" and a reply to it said "businesses," which both imply a for-profit entity to me.) I also don't think even well-behaved churches should be tax-exempt in the first place, tbqh. But I do think you're downplaying the potential sources of concern when it comes to government action against churches.
My original comment said “business and organizations” to be broad. Governments have the power to do a lot of bad things. That’s part of having enough power to do their job. There are many...
My original comment said “business and organizations” to be broad.
But I do think you're downplaying the potential sources of concern when it comes to government action against churches.
Governments have the power to do a lot of bad things. That’s part of having enough power to do their job. There are many organizations of various types focused on community building etc, and they are fully under the jurisdiction of governments. Just because some of them believe in various sky potatoes should not give them any more privilege than organizations which don’t.
Religious belief and identity has been used as one of the the primary axes of governmental oppression throughout history, and this just totally ignores that. I think society as a whole is...
Religious belief and identity has been used as one of the the primary axes of governmental oppression throughout history, and this just totally ignores that. I think society as a whole is healthier when there are non-governmental institutions that can wield power in opposition to the government, like rights groups (e.g. ACLU), universities, and yes, religious orgs. I am basically just describing "civil society" write large.
It's also been the justification for said oppression in most cases. But I digress. To reiterate, my points are twofold: one is that religious organizations should have ZERO additional privilege...
Religious belief and identity has been used as one of the the primary axes of governmental oppression throughout history,
It's also been the justification for said oppression in most cases. But I digress.
To reiterate, my points are twofold: one is that religious organizations should have ZERO additional privilege merely because they are "religious". In the class of organization that they reside in, there is nothing special about believing in supernatural forces. If anything, people with beliefs that lie more in reality should have more preference.
That the Japanese government shut down an abusive religious organization should have NO more scrutiny than if they shut down an abusive school, or a vegan group, or an abusive animal shelter, or whatever.
Second is that governments should have the power to shut down organizations unilaterally. This is a necessary step in having the power to properly regulate organizations, which is essential IMO. Of course, this can be used in abusive ways, but that's part and parcel of having proper power to regulate. You can't have your cake and eat it.
In the end, there are far more small (and large), abusive organizations of all shapes that need to be reigned in than vice versa.
Agreed. Churches are just another business organization. The government has the divine authority to protect their people from less than scrupulous organizations.
Agreed. Churches are just another business organization. The government has the divine authority to protect their people from less than scrupulous organizations.
Should that determine their tax exemption status though? I get that some people find fulfillment from visiting their places of worship but why does everyone else have to pay for it? Churches often...
Should that determine their tax exemption status though? I get that some people find fulfillment from visiting their places of worship but why does everyone else have to pay for it? Churches often occupy prime real estate and would normally have to pay a shitload in property taxes.
The person I was responded to had claimed there was no difference between a church and a business organization, which I was pushing back on. Most churches in the US do not occupy prime real...
The person I was responded to had claimed there was no difference between a church and a business organization, which I was pushing back on.
Most churches in the US do not occupy prime real estate, and most operate on basically shoestring budgets given their size. The majority of congregations are 100 people or less, and have a yearly revenue of $250k or under. Most of this revenue goes towards personnel, then towards facilities, then towards mission related services. The majority of churches spend all of the money they receive yearly. The worst offenders, ‘mega churches’, comprise less than 10% of all congregations in the US.
Put another way, individual donations comprise about 50% of a given churches revenue in a year, and according to this that amount comprised around $130 billion nationally in 2019, the most recent year I could find this number. So let’s say that all churches in the US bring in $260 billion. Assuming around 7.5% profits (average), and the average corporate tax rate of ~20%, this amounts to a total federal tax liability of $5 billion. So we stand to gain $5 billion dollars, but at risk of totally destroying most congregations financial situation, likely causing many churches to close? Anyway, given that the largest social support providers outside of the government are run by churches (Lutheran Services, Catholic Charities USA, etc), I imagine they provide more than $5 billion in social benefits each year.
These are exactly the reasons that we don’t typically tax non-profits and I really do not see why we shouldn’t tax non-profits, except religious ones, which seems to be the claim here. Financial abuse happens in secular non-profits as well, I will point out.
I think a lot of people, online and on this site in particular, tend to have bad past experiences with hypocritical organized religion (and that’s understandable), see the few large mega churches or historic cathedrals at the center of a city, and assume that all churches in the US are like that. I think the vast majority of churches in the US are small faith-centered orgs that help with social welfare and provide religious fulfillment, while operating on not a lot of money and usually only surviving because of the volunteerism of their congregants (and tax breaks).
You're mixing and matching too many things. But what percentage of revenue goes to mega churches? Billionaires make up a tiny percentage of all human population, etc. Small churches would likely...
You're mixing and matching too many things.
The worst offenders, ‘mega churches’, comprise less than 10% of all congregations in the US.
But what percentage of revenue goes to mega churches? Billionaires make up a tiny percentage of all human population, etc.
Assuming around 7.5% profits (average), and the average corporate tax rate of ~20%, this amounts to a total federal tax liability of $5 billion. So we stand to gain $5 billion dollars, but at risk of totally destroying most congregations financial situation, likely causing many churches to close?
Small churches would likely have fewer profits. You say further down that most churches are small and not making much money, thus their tax bills would be low or none. You can't say the total tax bill is estimated to be $X and then assume the effect falls evenly on all churches.
I'm not even pro-taxing churches but this was mixing and matching stats very, very misleadingly.
I definitely don't intend to be misleading, but I am trying to pull some numbers in to make this discussion more concrete and to illustrate why I think it is not worthwhile to tax churches. It is...
I definitely don't intend to be misleading, but I am trying to pull some numbers in to make this discussion more concrete and to illustrate why I think it is not worthwhile to tax churches. It is tough to find sources that are not obviously biased.
But what percentage of revenue goes to mega churches? Billionaires make up a tiny percentage of all human population, etc.
The closest thing to an estimate I could find online is "several billion" dollars going to mega churches. Assuming that is true (let's say 10 billion dollars, but I think that is an overstimate), and accounting for inflation since that article was published, that is still around 1-2% of the total revenue figure quoted above. Mega churches are not representative of the typical church in the US.
Small churches would likely have fewer profits. You say further down that most churches are small and not making much money, thus their tax bills would be low or none. You can't say the total tax bill is estimated to be $X and then assume the effect falls evenly on all churches.
I didn't say that, and I didn't mean to imply it, although I can see how one would reasonably read my post that way. My point was that by taxing churches, we stand to gain around $5 billion based on a rough back of the envelope calculation. But given that most churches in the US operate at break-even (according to the study I linked to above), any change in their tax bill would require re-budgeting, and given that their top two expenses are personnel and facilities, that means either laying people off or selling properties, both of which threaten closure.
I'm not claiming this analysis is the only one that can be done, but I thought getting some numbers in here would provide some perspective on the relative merits. I'd welcome any refinements to the above if people can find better sources, but as it stands this is as quantitative as I can get.
So do non-profits, and shelters, and community clinics, and community centers. Most are operated in donations, most are tax-exempt, and all give a sense of community and belief in the...
So do non-profits, and shelters, and community clinics, and community centers. Most are operated in donations, most are tax-exempt, and all give a sense of community and belief in the organization.
Those are all organizations, and if they were actively harming the community, then the government (state, local) is sure to step in. Just because we have categorized 'religion' as a primary identifier, it should be thought of as a secondary to community organizations.
You could argue even political and social activism groups have the same level of ideological belief as religious organizations do, and if those organizations become hostile, begin scamming or coercing their members, then the state is sure to step in.
Religious communities are ideological communities and are not separated categories.
Sure, that’s not what you said though. You said churches are businesses, with the implication that they should be regulated as such. Churches are not tax exempt because of some special law, they...
Sure, that’s not what you said though. You said churches are businesses, with the implication that they should be regulated as such. Churches are not tax exempt because of some special law, they are tax exempt because the vast majority are registered as non-profits and therefore are tax exempt. I just don’t understand what exactly you’re advocating for? That non-profits be tax exempt so long as they are not religious, in which case they must pay taxes?
Im just wary of claims giving the government unilateral authority to dismantle or suppress community organizations that they deem to be ‘unscrupulous’. I know of many governments that would love to do so for all kinds of community orgs.
This is absolutely not true in the US. Churches are automatically tax-exempt in the US even without applying for or obtaining tax exempt status from the IRS, as they are not required to do so....
Churches are not tax exempt because of some special law, they are tax exempt because the vast majority are registered as non-profits and therefore are tax exempt.
This is absolutely not true in the US. Churches are automatically tax-exempt in the US even without applying for or obtaining tax exempt status from the IRS, as they are not required to do so. This includes being allowed to receive 501(c)(3) donations and not being required to even file a return or notice with the IRS each year. Many churches register as nonprofits anyway, but under US law they are absolutely given special treatment that other non-profits do not get.
Those are still all businesses, they just rely on community support as their funding model. The service they provide follows just the same as a freemium business, where those with funding help...
Those are still all businesses, they just rely on community support as their funding model. The service they provide follows just the same as a freemium business, where those with funding help offset the costs of the service for all.
From the article:
Not to defend the Moonies (100% cult) but it makes me really uncomfortable seeing a “dissolution” of a religion like this. I realize this is my 1st Amendment influenced western bias showing. Still seems like a slippery slope to me. If they can shut down the Unification Church, can they not also shut down the Catholic Church, or various Buddhist or Shintoist orgs, etc.? I’m sure justifications could be produced for any of them.
Also, people tend to take their religions pretty seriously. The Moonies in Japan aren’t going to just quietly accept this. I anticipate unintended consequences.
Per the BBC:
Thanks — that last part is important clarification. What does that actually mean then? They have to sell all their assets, then with the sale proceeds, they can buy it all back again? Practically speaking, what would the path forward look like for them?
If the government can dissolve companies and other organizations I don’t see why religions should get special treatment.
If they want to shut down the Catholic Church, it’s their choice. Not like much of value is lost.
I think there's a pretty obvious difference in terms of citizens' personal freedoms between shutting down a church vs a for-profit business, but given that the Unification Church is just losing assets and tax-exempt status, not being banned, I'm pretty fine with this outcome. They're a very predatory organization.
No one said anything about for profits. Governments can shut down non-profits and not-for-profits. That can be in abusive ways (eg a dictatorship kicking out MSF), but it is a power nonetheless we expect governments to have.
Everyone is free (in most countries) to associate and speak, but whether or not you get to be an official organization recognized by the state is not a right.
If you don't believe giving the government power to freely shutter organized religion is not at least inhibiting the free exercise of religion then idk what to tell you. In the US, churches do not need to get "official recognition" to get tax exempt status. A church is not a church because the government says so.
I don’t believe it inhibits it in a way that matters. Certainly the government should not be able change people’s beliefs (nor does it really have a a way to do that), but everything else is fair game.
If a government says, this organization which represents a religion can no longer exist - that’s no different than any other organization. Religion is no different and deserves no special place in the modern age.
Religious organizations gets too much special treatment in US law, and I think it should be stripped of that in the US, and I have no issue with governments exercising their right to regulate and control them in other countries.
I don’t think churches should be tax exempt to begin with.
I mean, some might argue that a church shouldn't get tax-exempt status at all.
They can be a church as much as they want. If they organize as whatever legal form of non-profit or for-profit body they prefer they can then be treated as suitable.
I agree that the government should be able to intervene when it comes to fraud and abuse from non-profit organizations, including churches. (I mentioned for-profit because your earlier comment said "companies" and a reply to it said "businesses," which both imply a for-profit entity to me.) I also don't think even well-behaved churches should be tax-exempt in the first place, tbqh. But I do think you're downplaying the potential sources of concern when it comes to government action against churches.
My original comment said “business and organizations” to be broad.
Governments have the power to do a lot of bad things. That’s part of having enough power to do their job. There are many organizations of various types focused on community building etc, and they are fully under the jurisdiction of governments. Just because some of them believe in various sky potatoes should not give them any more privilege than organizations which don’t.
Religious belief and identity has been used as one of the the primary axes of governmental oppression throughout history, and this just totally ignores that. I think society as a whole is healthier when there are non-governmental institutions that can wield power in opposition to the government, like rights groups (e.g. ACLU), universities, and yes, religious orgs. I am basically just describing "civil society" write large.
It's also been the justification for said oppression in most cases. But I digress.
To reiterate, my points are twofold: one is that religious organizations should have ZERO additional privilege merely because they are "religious". In the class of organization that they reside in, there is nothing special about believing in supernatural forces. If anything, people with beliefs that lie more in reality should have more preference.
That the Japanese government shut down an abusive religious organization should have NO more scrutiny than if they shut down an abusive school, or a vegan group, or an abusive animal shelter, or whatever.
Second is that governments should have the power to shut down organizations unilaterally. This is a necessary step in having the power to properly regulate organizations, which is essential IMO. Of course, this can be used in abusive ways, but that's part and parcel of having proper power to regulate. You can't have your cake and eat it.
In the end, there are far more small (and large), abusive organizations of all shapes that need to be reigned in than vice versa.
Agreed. Churches are just another business organization. The government has the divine authority to protect their people from less than scrupulous organizations.
Churches fulfill a very, very different role in people's lives than businesses. I find the fact that this needs to be stated surprising.
Should that determine their tax exemption status though? I get that some people find fulfillment from visiting their places of worship but why does everyone else have to pay for it? Churches often occupy prime real estate and would normally have to pay a shitload in property taxes.
The person I was responded to had claimed there was no difference between a church and a business organization, which I was pushing back on.
Most churches in the US do not occupy prime real estate, and most operate on basically shoestring budgets given their size. The majority of congregations are 100 people or less, and have a yearly revenue of $250k or under. Most of this revenue goes towards personnel, then towards facilities, then towards mission related services. The majority of churches spend all of the money they receive yearly. The worst offenders, ‘mega churches’, comprise less than 10% of all congregations in the US.
Put another way, individual donations comprise about 50% of a given churches revenue in a year, and according to this that amount comprised around $130 billion nationally in 2019, the most recent year I could find this number. So let’s say that all churches in the US bring in $260 billion. Assuming around 7.5% profits (average), and the average corporate tax rate of ~20%, this amounts to a total federal tax liability of $5 billion. So we stand to gain $5 billion dollars, but at risk of totally destroying most congregations financial situation, likely causing many churches to close? Anyway, given that the largest social support providers outside of the government are run by churches (Lutheran Services, Catholic Charities USA, etc), I imagine they provide more than $5 billion in social benefits each year.
These are exactly the reasons that we don’t typically tax non-profits and I really do not see why we shouldn’t tax non-profits, except religious ones, which seems to be the claim here. Financial abuse happens in secular non-profits as well, I will point out.
I think a lot of people, online and on this site in particular, tend to have bad past experiences with hypocritical organized religion (and that’s understandable), see the few large mega churches or historic cathedrals at the center of a city, and assume that all churches in the US are like that. I think the vast majority of churches in the US are small faith-centered orgs that help with social welfare and provide religious fulfillment, while operating on not a lot of money and usually only surviving because of the volunteerism of their congregants (and tax breaks).
You're mixing and matching too many things.
But what percentage of revenue goes to mega churches? Billionaires make up a tiny percentage of all human population, etc.
Small churches would likely have fewer profits. You say further down that most churches are small and not making much money, thus their tax bills would be low or none. You can't say the total tax bill is estimated to be $X and then assume the effect falls evenly on all churches.
I'm not even pro-taxing churches but this was mixing and matching stats very, very misleadingly.
I definitely don't intend to be misleading, but I am trying to pull some numbers in to make this discussion more concrete and to illustrate why I think it is not worthwhile to tax churches. It is tough to find sources that are not obviously biased.
The closest thing to an estimate I could find online is "several billion" dollars going to mega churches. Assuming that is true (let's say 10 billion dollars, but I think that is an overstimate), and accounting for inflation since that article was published, that is still around 1-2% of the total revenue figure quoted above. Mega churches are not representative of the typical church in the US.
I didn't say that, and I didn't mean to imply it, although I can see how one would reasonably read my post that way. My point was that by taxing churches, we stand to gain around $5 billion based on a rough back of the envelope calculation. But given that most churches in the US operate at break-even (according to the study I linked to above), any change in their tax bill would require re-budgeting, and given that their top two expenses are personnel and facilities, that means either laying people off or selling properties, both of which threaten closure.
I'm not claiming this analysis is the only one that can be done, but I thought getting some numbers in here would provide some perspective on the relative merits. I'd welcome any refinements to the above if people can find better sources, but as it stands this is as quantitative as I can get.
So do non-profits, and shelters, and community clinics, and community centers. Most are operated in donations, most are tax-exempt, and all give a sense of community and belief in the organization.
Those are all organizations, and if they were actively harming the community, then the government (state, local) is sure to step in. Just because we have categorized 'religion' as a primary identifier, it should be thought of as a secondary to community organizations.
You could argue even political and social activism groups have the same level of ideological belief as religious organizations do, and if those organizations become hostile, begin scamming or coercing their members, then the state is sure to step in.
Religious communities are ideological communities and are not separated categories.
Sure, that’s not what you said though. You said churches are businesses, with the implication that they should be regulated as such. Churches are not tax exempt because of some special law, they are tax exempt because the vast majority are registered as non-profits and therefore are tax exempt. I just don’t understand what exactly you’re advocating for? That non-profits be tax exempt so long as they are not religious, in which case they must pay taxes?
Im just wary of claims giving the government unilateral authority to dismantle or suppress community organizations that they deem to be ‘unscrupulous’. I know of many governments that would love to do so for all kinds of community orgs.
In extreme cases, it could be warranted.
This is absolutely not true in the US. Churches are automatically tax-exempt in the US even without applying for or obtaining tax exempt status from the IRS, as they are not required to do so. This includes being allowed to receive 501(c)(3) donations and not being required to even file a return or notice with the IRS each year. Many churches register as nonprofits anyway, but under US law they are absolutely given special treatment that other non-profits do not get.
Fair enough, I did not know this.
Those are still all businesses, they just rely on community support as their funding model. The service they provide follows just the same as a freemium business, where those with funding help offset the costs of the service for all.