Poles to bring the case for the CoFSM before the ECHR

[Martinus]

So, long story short, after long negotiations with the Catholic menace, the Polish government has decided to abolish direct government subsidies to churches and instead allow each citizen to dedicate 0.5% of his or her annual taxes to a "church" of choice.

Poland has a system where, in order to operate an organisation recognized as a "church" (which benefits from tax breaks etc. and now from this special tax income) you need to be entered into an administrative register.

Alas! The intolerant Polish authorities refused to register the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, saying it's not a "real" religion.

The church is now appealing this to Polish courts, and if that does not work, is planning to go to the European Court of Human Rights.

It's gonna be fun to watch, especially as I find it likely the ECHR will rule against Poland.

[Admiral Yi]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be granted church status until the time it has an apparatus in place to spend donations in a socially useful manner.

Do aetheists have to donate too?

[Tamas]

So, long story short, after long negotiations with the Catholic menace, the Polish government has decided to abolish direct government subsidies to churches and instead allow each citizen to dedicate 0.5% of his or her annual taxes to a "church" of choice.

[Martinus]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be granted church status until the time it has an apparatus in place to spend donations in a socially useful manner.

Do aetheists have to donate too?

It's not a donation per se - it is neutral from the tax payer perspective. If you, say, paid $10,000 in (income) taxes during the last year, you can decide in your annual tax filing that 0.5% of it (i.e. $50) is to go to a church of your choice. If you do not make this decision, the government keeps it.

It is being argued that atheists are discriminated as they cannot give it to an organisation supporting their worldview, so we will see how it goes.

Incidentally, the catholic church is pretty fidgety about this, too, because despite the declared 97% of Catholic Church membership in Poland, anti-clergy sentiments are quite strong so many people may refuse to give it to them out of spite (and many people will also not do it out of laziness, since you need to actively fill in some boxes in your annual form, and most people prefer their employer to do it for them if they do not have extra sources of income outside of their job).

Btw, we already have a system in place where 1% of the tax can go to a charity of your choice, on the same basis.

[Martinus]

So, long story short, after long negotiations with the Catholic menace, the Polish government has decided to abolish direct government subsidies to churches and instead allow each citizen to dedicate 0.5% of his or her annual taxes to a "church" of choice.

Well, I have mixed feelings about this system. It is not a large part of the taxes overall, so it does not really matter that much, but if you think about it, it is quite undemocratic.

[Razgovory]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be granted church status until the time it has an apparatus in place to spend donations in a socially useful manner.

Do aetheists have to donate too?

It's not a donation per se - it is neutral from the tax payer perspective. If you, say, paid $10,000 in (income) taxes during the last year, you can decide in your annual tax filing that 0.5% of it (i.e. $50) is to go to a church of your choice. If you do not make this decision, the government keeps it.

It is being argued that atheists are discriminated as they cannot give it to an organisation supporting their worldview, so we will see how it goes.

Incidentally, the catholic church is pretty fidgety about this, too, because despite the declared 97% of Catholic Church membership in Poland, anti-clergy sentiments are quite strong so many people may refuse to give it to them out of spite (and many people will also not do it out of laziness, since you need to actively fill in some boxes in your annual form, and most people prefer their employer to do it for them if they do not have extra sources of income outside of their job).

Btw, we already have a system in place where 1% of the tax can go to a charity of your choice, on the same basis.

Are you of the opinion that political parties or movements should be able to receive these donations?

[Martinus]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be granted church status until the time it has an apparatus in place to spend donations in a socially useful manner.

Do aetheists have to donate too?

It's not a donation per se - it is neutral from the tax payer perspective. If you, say, paid $10,000 in (income) taxes during the last year, you can decide in your annual tax filing that 0.5% of it (i.e. $50) is to go to a church of your choice. If you do not make this decision, the government keeps it.

It is being argued that atheists are discriminated as they cannot give it to an organisation supporting their worldview, so we will see how it goes.

Incidentally, the catholic church is pretty fidgety about this, too, because despite the declared 97% of Catholic Church membership in Poland, anti-clergy sentiments are quite strong so many people may refuse to give it to them out of spite (and many people will also not do it out of laziness, since you need to actively fill in some boxes in your annual form, and most people prefer their employer to do it for them if they do not have extra sources of income outside of their job).

Btw, we already have a system in place where 1% of the tax can go to a charity of your choice, on the same basis.

Are you of the opinion that political parties or movements should be able to receive these donations?

Probably not (they don't, anyway, as only non-profit charities and NGOs are eligible, and poltical parties cannot be also NGOs), although we have a system of financing political parties based on the election results (it's essentially an ability to receive refund from the state for election costs etc.)

Why? Because, as I said, the system is profoundly undemocratic and while it can be tolerated when it comes to charities, NGOs and churches (although the latter two often have political agendas), it would be more problematic when it comes to political parties.

Why is it undemocratic? Because it allows for the distribution of public funds according to a system that is not one-man-one-vote.

[Valmy]

The system was created by a parliament that was elected right?  If the democratic institutions determine this is the way funds should be distributed doesn't that suffice for the test of democraticness?  Of course just because it is democratic does not mean it is a good policy or is not unjust in some way.

[Martinus]

The system was created by a parliament that was elected right?  If the democratic institutions determine this is the way funds should be distributed doesn't that suffice for the test of democraticness?  Of course just because it is democratic does not mean it is a good policy or is not unjust in some way.

Well, it's in a sense the state abdicating its power to make a decision. I guess it's a matter of balance.

For example, would it be democratic for a democraticly elected Parliament to give all power to a tyrant? Probably no.

My philosophical problem with this system is that it effectively means that, despite the money coming from taxes that have already been collected (i.e. constitute a public resource), people who paid more taxes are able to pay more to their charity, NGO and/or church of choice than people who paid less. But then again as a rich gay atheist in a country of poor heterosexual Catholics, I don't really think I should complain.

I usually give my 1% to gay rights groups or (recently) to the foundation that helps my boyfriend's sister who has cerebral palsy.

[crazy canuck]

The system was created by a parliament that was elected right? 

A system created by a democratically elected government is not always democratic. 

[Valmy]

The system was created by a parliament that was elected right? 

A system created by a democratically elected government is not always democratic. 

Well I suppose if they go beyond their authority in some way, like reforming the political system in a way that goes way beyond their mandate (such as the political coup by Pierre Laval following the French defeat in 1940)...but probably not when putting together a system of funds distribution which is what I specifically discussing.

[crazy canuck]

The system was created by a parliament that was elected right? 

A system created by a democratically elected government is not always democratic. 

Well I suppose if they go beyond their authority in some way, like reforming the political system in a way that goes way beyond their mandate (such as the political coup by Pierre Laval following the French defeat in 1940)...but probably not when putting together a system of funds distribution which is what I specifically discussing.

There are lots of examples of democratically elected governments doing things that are undemocratic.  Simply having elections doesnt guarrantee the creation or continuation of robust  democratic institutions.  That is one of the reasons the Rule of Law is so important.

Governments can act within their "mandate" and still create an undemocratic system.  Take Gerrymandering as just one example.

[Martinus]

Btw, one negative side effect of the 1% system (probably less applicable to churches, but quite applicable to NGOs/charities) - they end up spending a lot of money on advertising.

[Agelastus]

...instead allow each citizen to dedicate 0.5% of his or her annual taxes to a "church" of choice.

...but if you think about it, it is quite undemocratic.

Could you please explain to me how the direct, personal choice of an individual taxpayer to either contribute to a church of their choice or not is "undemocratic"?

----------------

As for the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all I can say is that I agree with four of their five doctrines...

» We believe pirates, the original Pastafarians, were peaceful explorers and it was due to Christian misinformation that they have an image of outcast criminals today

» We are fond of beer

» Every Friday is a Religious Holiday

» We do not take ourselves too seriously

» We embrace contradictions (though in that we are hardly unique)

And personally, despite the above, I hope that their case is thrown out of court as being "vexatious and totally without merit".

[Martinus]

I already explained why I think this is undemocratic. Read the thread please.