Is it time we tax the churches?

[Photographer]

[randys1]

1. I dont know where you got that but I would like to turn them into au.org

please turn the info over to them

https://www.au.org/

[Photographer]

3. Came accross it on FB, there are several such photos of many different "churches" with similar

messages.

[randys1]

5. If you ever get specifics, please pm them to me, I can contact au...

[Photographer]

7. I will.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Long past time.

[merrily]

4. Do we give tax breaks to atheists?

[Photographer]

6. I wish they did. Hmmm What if I tithed to myself.

[TipTok]

8. I do... Goes into my liqour cabinet...

[Photographer]

9. LOL.

[merrily]

12. Exactly, If government action favoring the supernatural is "establishment of religion" why

isn't tax policy favoring the supernatural "establishment of religion?" Do I expect our almost all Catholic Supreme Court to ever rule that way, though? No.

[gratuitous]

13. If they make contributions to non-profits, yes

Any atheist who sends $10 to Oxfam or any other charitable outfit gets the same income deduction as the most devout religious person who puts $10 in the offering plate.

[merrily]

15. Sorry, I was very unclear. I did not mean individual atheists. I meant organizations that urge

atheism, as churches, temples, mosques, etc. urge belief in the supernatural.

[KamaAina]

10. As a wise man once said, we could reap billion$$ in tax revenue by taxing commerical church property

That man was Michael "Meathead" Stivic. Heck, the LDS Church owns half of Utah.

[merrily]

19. In theory, commercial property owned by churches, temples, etc. is subject to tax.

Emphasis on "in theory."

[former9thward]

47. No, not "in theory". It is.

Sad so many ginning up faux outrage don't know that.

[merrily]

53. On the books, it is. whether it gets collected is another issue. I'm sticking with "in theory."

[zappaman]

11. Past time. n/t

[quaker bill]

14. no

The tax exemption was not invented to protect the Church, it was invented to protect an experiment in democracy.

[merrily]

16. Even assuming that actually was the original reason, it's not working that way now.

[Photographer]

17. You're going to need to explain that one to me.

[quaker bill]

43. simple enough

The colonists had a thing called a revolution against England. In England the Church was the State and the State was the Church. This is why they called it the "Church of England", and why on the top of the steeples there was a cross, and on top of the cross there was a crown. The ministers were ordained by the state and the tithe was how taxes were collected for the state. Failing to attend the Church of England and pay the tithe was a crime punishable by prison and forfeiture of property and estates.

Politics in England was the Church and the Church ran politics. They created the laws.

The Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Methodists..... left England many because they were tired of going to jail and dying over these matters.

So when they got here, many promptly set up their own Church-states, in fact many different church-states that were not at all tolerant of the others existed in the colonies. The Puritans we hanging the Quakers, Baptists, and Jesuits in Boston, The Anglicans in Virginia passed laws prohibiting Quakerism "the Quaker Act" because Quakers kept freeing their slaves and indentured servants....

Then along came Wm Penn with his "holy experiment" where they wrote into their governmental founding documents that no person would be harmed or judged for their practice of religion (articles of the Province of West New Jersey, 1663 and then into the articles for the founding of Pennsylvannia some years later)

So when they came to writing the Constitution, where did they meet? Philadelphia. Why? because it was the one place where they all could meet, practice their faith as they might (and many did), without the fear of being arrested for it. Only a few of the founders wanted the newly forming government to be able to be a church-state (Patrick Henry...), most preferred a government for the union that could not establish a church and insist that the colonies conform by changing their established churches, so they created a wall that made sure that the state could neither use the church as a weapon or become dependent on the church for funds.

This is why we don't tax churches. It is a good idea. There are plenty of places around the world where this bright line does not exist. To my understanding none are pleasant places to live.

[Photographer]

46. True enough, until the charlatans saw the money to be made.

By taxing churches as money making industries, which they are, we can repair more roads, spend more on infrastructure, etc. None of that would indicate a coupling between any particular religion and Government.

Organized religion has been a pox upon mankind since the sale of the first papal bull.

[quaker bill]

58. Once again

You need, really need to consider, that our government subsidizes and promotes the businesses it taxes very frequently. You read about it all the time in your local paper. If growing more and larger churches becomes a source of more government revenue, good things will not happen.

There is tons of money out there to be had if revenue is needed. Most of this money is not in the hands of churches, it is in the hands of the 1%. If money is what we need, I humbly suggest we focus on taxing those who have most of it. The problem there of course is that they already own the government.

[hifiguy]

18. A century or two past time, IMO.

[FLPanhandle]

20. Churches should be treated like bars

No one under 21 allowed.

Heavily licensed and regulated.

Taxed heavily.

[JonLeibowitz]

28. What about the right to free assembly?

[former9thward]

48. If you are going to throw out one section of the 1st amendment

you might as well throw it all out...

[JonLeibowitz]

50. Indeed, though obviously an appeal to freedom of religion isn't helpful with him/her

I should have also mentioned that those <21 are free to enter many bars, as long as they do not consume alcohol. And it may be universally true if you are a DD. But I am sure facts are irrelevant to the parent.

[madokie]

55. Yup

[Squinch]

21. Yes.

[smirkymonkey]

22. F**k YES!!

Tax them up their tight, bigoted, fat arses!!

[onecaliberal]

29. ^^that right there^^

[yeoman6987]

31. Non profits too

Too many organizations not paying taxes. It all must stop.

[pnwmom]

38. You've heard of the US constitution, haven't you?

It prohibits interfering with the free exercise of religion.

And it prevents Churches from being treated differently than other non-profits.

So unless and until you get that pesky old Constitution amended, this idea is dead in its tracks.

[smirkymonkey]

41. Well then, I call for an amendment. Promptly.

This shit is out of control.

[Xithras]

23. The problem, of course...

...is that most churches actually do play by the rules and don't directly intervene with politics. They certainly push a conservative mindset, but it's still fairly uncommon for them to overtly jump into a race.

If you eliminate the federal tax benefit for churches, all bets are off. You'll have churches handing out voting cards to their members, telling them that voting otherwise will send their souls to hell. You'll have church vans taking members to their polling places. You'll have major national churches officially endorsing candidates. Can you imagine that last one for a minute? What would American politics be like if you had the Pope officially telling America's 70 million Catholics that they need to vote for a particular candidate? Or if the Southern Baptist Convention or Mormon churches came right out and called a Democrat "Satans Candidate".

The ONLY thing stopping that from happening today is the threat of losing their tax exempt status. Eliminate that status and you'll end up with MORE religion in American politics, not less.

[pnwmom]

40. And it would be unconstitutional anyway.

That little document that keeps getting in the way of what people want to do.

[madokie]

56. Churches are where most voting is done around here

a funeral or to vote is the only time I step foot inside one, well if its a special person and they're getting married I will but otherwise I stay as far away as I can.

[PowerToThePeople]

24. Yes. n/t

[Iggo]

25. Long past time.

Last edited Thu Dec 10, 2015, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Same answer every time this question gets asked here or anywhere.

[DonCoquixote]

26. It's been high time

Churches have acted like the are the fourth estate for years.

[TeddyR]

27. Absolutely not

We should focus on more important issues than taxing churches, which more often than not do a lot of good, charitable work in their local community. If you want to focus on tax inequities, then focus on corporations.

[Photographer]

33. I disgree most surely.

More than not, the big money churches bilk the feeble minded of their money and provide their founders with riches and charity is only a front and a small fraction of the monies acquired.

[Go Vols]

39. +1

[mmonk]

30. Yes. F*cking period.

[bigwillq]

32. Yes (nt)

[B2G]

34. Sure. And mosques andy synagogues and

All of them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. God has a lot of good accountants who help Him both collect and avoid taxes.

They're known as "the Clergy".

[pnwmom]

36. No. Not ever. Not unless we amend the Constitution.

Or unless we start taxing all non-profits, like Greenpeace and Habitat for Humanity, etc.

We can't tax Churches because we can't discriminate against them based on religion. Profit making arms of a church -- if a church owns a shopping center -- yes. But not the non-profit Church or school itself.

What we need to do is ENFORCE the laws that are supposed to discourage Churches from endorsing political parties or candidates.

[Initech]

37. Been saying this for 15 years!

[Go Vols]

42. Is this the Dumb-ass that allows such?

http://www.vbtak.org/meet-the-pastor.html

[williesgirl]

44. Absolutely!

[agnostic102]

45. tax tax tax

now now now! every religion in the united states has to pay tax like the rest of us!

[kwassa]

49. This should be in the Religion forum.

but since there is no moderation anymore, why speak up?

[CBGLuthier]

51. No. It is WELL past the time we should have been taxing the churches.

[HuckleB]

52. Yes.

[tblue37]

54. Way past time. K&R. nt

[ileus]

57. right after we ban guns we'll go after those people.

Of course if we were smart we'd eliminate all tax exempt groups.