From the looks of things it's because the law is an old one, dating from before the times when Islam, Hinduism etc. had penetrated Western Europe, and maybe they've never got around to updating it.
The tax of 1803 is to compensate the religions for the state taking over religious property . The Muslims and others did not have any religious property to take over.
I think it's fair enough to charge a membership fee for any club and most organised religions or spiritual groups do this one way or another but the fact that the state is involved is unusual to me but the story hints that is isn't elsewhere.
As an atheist my only concern would be that the state gets reimbursed for all administration costs associated with having to get involved with peoples hobby to such an extent and I mean real cash reimbursement, not free prayers or Communion or other claptrap.
So if the government of the UK confiscated all the assets of The church's and said '' from now on if you want to be a member of a religion it's 10% extra income tax to pay for it'' how many would sign up ?
This could solve all our finacial problems and stop people moaning about 'the riches of the church'.
The idea is that the tax goes to the three religions whose property was taken; it forms a substantial part of their income. That's why the bishops have ruled that someone who refuses to pay it shall not receive the rite of the Church [see link above]
Up until about 1837, our established church was entitled to claim tithes but thereafter the tithes were phased out.
We all pay a religious tax as taxpayers . The government pays out a £billion
each year in the form of direct funding, grants, and tax exemptions to religious organisations.
OG,you have to pay a fee, a tax, to be a practising member of the Church. It's closer to a club demanding a subscription or, perhaps, the licence fee for TV, here.
That report sounds like blackmail to me. The state should keep out or religion, religions should keep out of the state. If churches can't raise enough voluntary contributions, doesn't that say everything about the appeal of the churches for their believers ?
I think the important bit is that taxes are levied by the State not clubs. Were it a membership fee decision then that would be controversial enough, and one might wonder at a secular court deciding a religious subscription issue. But a tax isn't a subscription. Plus it equates to official State endorsement.
But this must surely be a bad move for the church ? If they wish to build the last thing you need to to demand tax payments from potential members. Instead of joining that church folk'll go elsewhere, where donations are voluntary and one can describe oneself as a member of the religion regardless as to whether a fee has been paid.
Thanks for that, eddie, I never knew this, but it's another reason for NOT being a christian/jew in Germany, as I prefer paying as little tax as possible to any government.
I am actually surprised that the Jews still have to pay , I would have though the injustice done to them in WW2 would have 'cancelled the debit' '
Ed, Yes ,I was very surprised I had not heard about it before now.
At first glance I made the assumption the the church rightly paid a form of corporation tax to the government after submitting it's accounts for inspection and independant auditing.
It appears that I was wrong..but I'm not surprised, once the idea of religion is followed to it's (il)logical conclusion only silly things can happen.