To make things simpler should all churches lose their tax-exemptions

[Perky]

(all Houses of Worship)

It would afterall reduce the federal deficit.

:sarcasm:

[Eric J in MN]

1. I voted Yes.

Why should the activity of giving a sermon be exempt from taxes when other goods and service are taxed?

[Madspirit]

116. Gay...wrong place...

I meant this to go at the bottom...sorry.

[porphyrian]

2. Absolutely. If they are otherwise charitible, let them use whatever other...

...existing tax exemption may apply.

[Renew Deal]

3. No

That's ridiculous. We'd probably be the only country in the world to tax religion. Besides that, it violates religious freedom.

[Perky]

5. Not to mention the Establishment Clause.

There is a prima facia case that taxing a religious insitution makes them servile to the state and the founders did not want another Church of England.
If you take money out of their pocket, you are restictinng their chosen commerce and you are making a law respcting religion....which is clearly unconstitutional

[MindPilot]

15. But by NOT taxing them the government is legislating in favor of

religion and actively discriminating against every entity which is not a church, also unconstitutional on its face. Why should a church be exempt from property taxes when a homeowner or a business is not? Especially considering that the church uses many of the services paid by the taxes of the homeowners and businesses.

[Perky]

18. You may be unaware that most urban and suburban counties

Actually do not want churches in their jurisdiction for that bery reason. It erodes the potential tax base. They set up all sorts of Zoning restrictions as it is

[jobycom]

19. That's backwards.

Giving religions tax-free status establishes religion. First, it defines what is a religion and what isn't (which is establishing a religion), and second, it gives religious organizations special priveledges over other organizations.

To exempt a religious organization, you have to make a law defining that religion. THAT is what violates the establishment clause. Treating religions exactly the way other organizations are treated would obey the clause.

James Madison agreed with that. He was opposed to tax breaks for religious organizations, and claimed they violated the separation or religion and government. Since he is often called "The Father of the Constitution," his opinion should bear some weight.

[Ravenseye]

82. I agree with Madison

By giving tax-free status, you've got to determine what is and isn't a religion, which isn't the place of government. Tax them as an organization irrespective of who or what they are, and you've got equality. Otherwise where do I sign up to have my families own brand of spirituality classified a religion?

All or none. I say none.

[mondo joe]

28. Most incorrect. By exempting religious institutions Congress is closer to respecting

an establishment of religion.

[Perky]

52. They are repecting religion of all sorts

They are not respecting one over any other. That is the consitutional intent.

[mondo joe]

53. Then if ALL are taxed, there's no constitutional violation.

In fact the tax exempt status is more likely to be unconstitutional since it requires the state to recognize religions and determine which are truly religions and which are not.

[Goblinmonger]

70. What?

How the hell is taxing ALL churches a violation of the establishment clause? How does that activity establish a national religion? Maybe, barely maybe, you would have an argument under the free exercise clause, but establishment doesn't seem to fly.

So there was a law made which said that religions didn't have to pay taxes. By your logic, that is a law respecting religion and was therefore clearly unconstitutional.

And what the hell is a "prima facia case"? On first face case? Wha? How does paying taxes make them "servile" the the state? It just makes those greedy bastards pony up some of the money they make.

[mondo joe]

6. How does it violate religious freedom?

[Renew Deal]

8. Let's say you want to open a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship

Not only would you have to overcome whatever expenses there are, you would be limited to the money after taxes. Since religious institutions do not operate to make a profit, it will make it even more difficult to maintain the institution thus impeding religious freedom.

[Bluebear]

12. 'Since religious institutions do not operate to make a profit'

That is sometimes true.

[Perky]

14. That is mostly true

Though there are some exceptions.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Somewhat., mostly?

Anyone got any actual data? What I know about here is that when the Catholic church got into a whole mess of legal trouble it had an amazing wealth of assets to pay off the long list of harmed individuals suing them. Seems like long term tax exempt status is a great way to pile up realestate assets.

But why not let tax exemption for religious institutions play by the same rules as any other non-profit? That way there is no problem for the truly non-profit religious institutions, and the ones who are in it for the money will have to meet the same standards as any non-profit charitable orgnization or pay like any other business.

[mondo joe]

30. That would be my preference - same standard as all non profits.

Religion should not, in and of itself, make a body tax exempt.

[hfojvt]

34. my business did not operate to make a profit either

and I certainly never had a $200,000 budget. Just got my church newsletter and read that the Pastor is making $32,000 plus $20,000 for housing allowance $1800 for continuing education, and $18,000 contributed to his pension. $70,000 in salary and benefits seems like a pretty hefty profit to me, although Billy Graham would think it a poverty wage.

[MindPilot]

21. Does someone own their home to make a profit?

No it's shelter--a basic necessity of life. But my home's very existence is taxed so by not taxing churches, the government forces me and every other homeowner to subsidize religion. Of course they force me to subsidize war as well; I'm not happy about that either.

ETA: I realize I'm co-mingling property taxes and income taxes, but it doesn't detract from the point.

[mondo joe]

27. Then you're asking the state to subsidize religious bodies by exempting them from taxes.

If they're fairly taxed it's up to them to make it or not.

It's up to every organization - even non profits - to balance their books when all is said and done.

[porphyrian]

37. Personal practice of religion requires no such structure.

Unless you are claiming that a religion has the same rights as individual citizens, religion has no right to property.

[Goblinmonger]

72. Yeah, that Catholic Church

they are SOOOOOO hurtin. And I don't even know how those megachurces even get off the ground much less keep going month after month.

[baldguy]

98. Churches ALWAYS operate at a profit.

Sometimes they have motive IN ADDITION to being profitable - but usually not. Running a church is one of the oldest scams in the world: put on a funny dress, tell your mark that the gods talk to you, then squeeze him for cash again and again. It hasn't changed in 4000 yrs.

There's nothing special about a church that makes it any different than Walmart or McDonald's. Tax them.

[deadmessengers]

23. No, giving it an exemption violates religious freedom

How, you may ask? It violates religious freedom because it places the government in the position of deciding what entity is a religion, and what is not.

Let's say my "religious faith" includes the tenet of "spreading the Good News" through advertising "sacramental" goods (let's say "widgets") for sale. The priesthood consists of my first-line employees, managers would hold the title of bishop in my church, and I, of course, would be the pope. Now, I apply for a tax exemption, for my multi-million dollar "religion". Do I get one? Wouldn't it be a violation of my religious freedom to deny it?

Of course, this is intended to be the most absurd edge case, but this isn't awfully far off from Scientology's business model.

[wiley]

4. No. They all have to pay payroll taxes however. That might need to

be informed.

[Perky]

10. Staff also pays income taxes

Just like everyone else.

[wiley]

79. I meant that might need to be enforced.

[formercia]

7. Except on property used primarily for religious services.

There are churches in this country that own tax exempt properties that are being used for commercial purposes that put them at a financial advantage over other businesses.
Some churches hold property worth Billions. Tax them and pass the savings on to the taxpayer. Now there's tax relief.

[yewberry]

9. No, I don't think so.

I think most churches & temples & mosques serve important societal functions, and they are part of communities' support structures.

I do think that there ought to be some examination of mega-churches and whether or not they are operating as not-for-profit organizations.

[Renew Deal]

11. I agree on the mega-chruches.

I think there is something un-religious about them. There is no reason why "pastors" should be living in the lap of luxury. It's un-christian.

[yewberry]

16. It's flat-out indecent. nt

[Perky]

20. OK but who is going to measure what is excessive?

or the reliousity of any particulat mega-church.

[mondo joe]

32. Just tax them all. Government shouldn't be deciding those things.

Level the playing field.

[Bill McBlueState]

65. well, that's a big problem too

Do you really want the government deciding what is or isn't "Christian," and therefore what is subject to taxation? I imagine the people working for Bush's Treasury Department have a different idea of what is Christian than you do.

[ChaoticSilly]

54. Another agreement on the mega-churches

I think churches should pay property taxes with some sort of exemption for smaller churches with the amount of the exemption based on the local property values. I don't have a problem with small community churches being exempt from taxes but the big mega-churches

*cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellevue_Baptist_Church *cough*

that do more to stuff the pockets of the preachers than help the community should be taxed as businesses.

[MazeRat7]

13. pro-rate their taxes based on "good deeds" to the community...

allow a credit for each homeless person they shelter over night, for each hot meal they serve, allow fmv for items donated like to food pantries, thrift shops, etc,

MZr7

[Perky]

17. That works for urban churches

but what of the hundreds of thousands of churches in the suburbs who, because there are far fewer poor/homeless per capita are doing Charity work in other ways?

Such as Teaching English as a second language. Or missionarywork overseas.

[MazeRat7]

22. Sure, mine was not a complete list just enough to get the idea across...

show documented proof they are utilizing resources to help others and they can get a tax break... the more help they do for others the lower their tax burden...

On the flip side, many suburban churches typically have higher income members so they might opt to do nothing other than talk about helping others and just opt to pay their taxes. :shrug:


MZr7

[mondo joe]

33. Apply the same standard as other non profits. Those that actually provide

a service go tax exempt.

And that should definitely not include missionary work.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Treat all non-profits the same.

If they meet the standards for charitable organizations, fine, if not they should pay the same taxes as any other for profit business.

[Virginia Dare]

38. I agree totally with your statement...n/t

[bigwillq]

26. Yes

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Did Jesus get a tax break?

Somehow, it's rather hard for me to imagine him sitting down at the Roman equivalent of H&R Block and listing the wear and tear on his sandals and writing off the the Last Supper as a business meeting.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

51. If I could nominate a single post, I would nominate this one.

:thumbsup:

[Perky]

60. Well Jesus was in fact a carpenter

SO I thoroughly expect that if the ROmans taxed businesses he was taxed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Actually, according to historians, he was a laborer.

A status below that of peasants and may not have been taxed simply because he had nothing.

[mikehiggins]

31. I voted no

Most churches do more good than bad. It'd be nice to smack the guys who violate the laws and so on but the reality is that at the end of the day the poor and underprivileged that most, if not all, churches serve would be left out in the cold. I'd rather balance the federal books on the backs of the rich and powerful (and Halliburton) than a homeless mother in downtown Cleveland.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. ALL nonprofits-- schools, museums, clinics...

libraries, hospitals, the Red Cross and other charitable offices and many others are exempt from many taxes in most areas, although the exemption rules are complex and not standardized. Get your IRS approval and let the savings begin.

For all nonprofits, including churches, any profit-making subsidiary business, such as housing or commercial property rentals, NYU law school's spaghetti maker, and such is taxed to some degree.

At any rate, taxing churches would bring little into Federal coffers since the only added revenue they would get would be corporate profits, which are nonexistent for most churches. Most of the new taxes they would pay would be local property, sales, and such taxes.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Federal coffers: true. Local coffers not so true.

Local real estate tax revenue can be seriously impaired by religious institutional tax exemptions.

[Virginia Dare]

36. No, many churches do some very good charitable work...

and they aren't politically inclined at all. Only the churches who preach politics from the pulpit. The IRS really needs to go after them, but HELL will freeze over first.

[porphyrian]

40. But why should they be treated differently than charities, then?

Should all non-profits get tax-free property?

[Virginia Dare]

41. Yes, they should, that's why I said no...

but non-profits are not allowed to delve into politics, and the churches get away with it.

[porphyrian]

43. Then why distinguish between the two?

Why not treat them the same? I mean, why not let religions that do charitable work simply register as charities and follow the laws that apply, perhaps modifying those laws to give tax exemptions (if they don't already exist) to charities?

Edit: elaboration

[Virginia Dare]

45. Yes, I agree with you...n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

48. Not too much in Arkansas, I believe

I've been on the Board of Directors of several non-profits, and all have to have a mission statement. In Arkansas, the only difference between a religious non-profit and another is that the mission statement doesn't have to be detailed-just showing that you are a member of a recognized religious organization is enough. But if you are an independent group wanting tax exempt status as a religion, you are scrutinized. Our Church, near Fayetteville, was denied tax exempt religious status because it came out that part of their religious rite including indulging in ganja.

[porphyrian]

50. That's a damn shame, and another reason to legalize it. - n/t

[genie_weenie]

39. To make things simpler all Governments should lose their taxing powers.

[undergroundpanther]

44. Yes

And make churches accountable showing in the public record exactly how the money is spent what for and why .(I think the same scrutiny and transparency is good for the US govt. too.)Every dime must be accounted for.No more of this Umm Sorry,I lost 50 million bucks of your money bullshit.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

46. No

My Order, for example, has a strict rule that the Order cannot be involved in politics in any way. Members of the Order may, but only as individuals, not as representatives of the Order. Since we also don't proselytize, but use our funds to publish writings, hold ecumenical workshops, and do charity work amongst the poor women and children of India, I think it would be unfair for us to lose our tax exempt status.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. So then your order would easily qualify as a tax exempt

non-profit charitable organization. No problem. So why get special treatment?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

62. As I understand it,

the main thrust of many comments here was to not allow religious groups to get any kind of break. Edited to add--by having a religious exemption, we are NOT allowed to get involved politically, whereas a regular 501c3 MAY have limited political objectives if it is in their purpose statement. What should happen is that religious organizations that do get involved in politics should lose their tax exemptions.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. What we have seen is that they don't.

And I think you are misreading 'the many comments' here, or else I am. What I think is that there ought to be no specific religious exemption as it leads directly to the sort of abuse we have seen with the rise of the rightwing fundamentalist faction of the Republican Party. Putting the Bush administration in charge of deciding which religious institutions are violating the restrictions on political activity is silly. Further, putting the state in the position of deciding what is or is not a religion is itself a violation of the establishment clause.

Having looked briefly at the various rules on 501* organizations I realize, as usual, that the IRS tax code is a byzantine mess that is designed to forbid us mere mortals from doing anything other than pay through the nose while allowing those elites who can afford the requisite legal services to get away with murder. Oh well.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

91. Interesting, what you say about putting the state

in the position of deciding what is or is not a religion, because that is exactly what Arkansas did with Our Church, which uses marijuana in its religious rites.

[Jed Dilligan]

47. All those that do not qualify as non-profit

should lose their exemptions. Starting with the Church of Rome.

[MN ChimpH8R]

49. Frank Zappa said it best

"Tax the churches. Tax the businesses owned by the churches."


Good enuff for me.

[Drifter]

76. Tax the churches ...

Tax the fuck out of the churches.

Indeed, Frank said it best.

Cheers
Drifter

[Bluebear]

56. Just a hunch, but I don't think this is the result you wanted

:hi:

[Perky]

59. Actually pretty much what I expected.

It was completely probative.

It underscores the animis towards religion generally and CHristianity specifically.

I suspect that if that if the Church was more politically benign the numbers would mirror the general populace more closely.

[specimenfred1984]

74. But it's not benign, many blatently support torture and murder

in the name of bigoted GOPig servitude. Religions that support killings are terrorist organizations and should be illegal, not taxed.

[Perky]

75. ok can you give me an actual example?

of a sect that actually backs terrorism?

[Chemical Bill]

83. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

[Perky]

95. This has nothing to do with Torture and Murder.

Next

[Chemical Bill]

97. Oh how quick you are...

to dismiss an obvious example. Any * supporter is supporting torture and murder. Do I need to clarify further?

Bill

[Perky]

99. That is not what was orginally said

It was suggested that Churches not individuals were supporting torture.

An as an aside, simply because someone supports Bush on some fronts does not mean they support torture. If you have a case of a Church or a pastor saying that they support torture and murder specifically. I will be glad to listen...but the broadbrush would seem to be unsupported and is certainly offensive to most Christians.

:shrug:

But it's not benign, many blatently support torture and murder in the name of bigoted GOPig servitude. Religions that support killings are terrorist organizations and should be illegal, not taxed.

[Chemical Bill]

102. Obviously...

anyone who supports killing in any way is not a follower of Jesus' teaching. However, it's easy to find "religious" people who support killers and killing.

How about Pat Robertson:

Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela's president
Pat Robertson, host of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club:

ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him . And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006

Sorry, the broadbrush is easily supported (this is from 2002):

Conservative Christians Biggest Backers of Iraq War
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Of the major religious groups in the United States, evangelical Christians are the biggest backers of Israel and Washington's planned war against Iraq, says a new survey released here Wednesday by a politically potent group of fundamentalist Christians and Jews.

Some 69 percent of conservative Christians favor military action against Baghdad; 10 percentage points more than the U.S. adult population as a whole.

And almost two-thirds of evangelical Christians say they support Israeli actions towards ''Palestinian terrorism'', compared with 54 percent of the general population, according to the survey, which was released by Stand For Israel, a six-month-old spin-off of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ).

''The single strongest group for Israel in the United States, apart from Jews, is conservative Christians,'' declared Ralph Reed, co-chairman of Stand for Israel and former executive director of the Christian Coalition. He also noted that 80 percent of self-identified Republicans also favor military action against Baghdad.

<more>

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm

Bill

[Solon]

123. The way Tax Exemption is meted out is arbritrary and UnConstitutional, that's why I oppose it.

Many religious organizations are denied tax exemption because of the dumbest reasons, varying from not having a building on the property in question, to just being outside the mainstream. In cases like that, the government is deciding who is a "real" religion, and who isn't, it shouldn't decide those issues in the first place.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. No, because the megachurches are in the minority

Most churches have trouble meeting their budgets every year.

However, I would tax any church that indulged in partisan political activity, such as telling members how to vote or having candidates or current office holders speak on political topics.

And yes, that would include the standard practice of Democratic photo ops at African-American churches. We can't expect the Republicans not to send a Republicanite Congresscritter to speak at Gated Community Church when the Democrats are sending Democratic Congresscritters to speak at Central City A.M.E. Church.

[davsand]

58. Federal Exemption is based on the idea that it lessens the burden on government.

A 501(C)3 designation (Churches and many other non-political non-profits) is based on the idea that the organization lessens the burden on the government. If you are a program feeding homeless people (for example) the government will then have to feed fewer people and thus save money.

Don't confuse IRS exemption (that 501(C)3 status) with exemption from property taxes. IRS exemption is not paying federal taxes. Property taxes are a local thing and those all run under different rules and expectations depending on the location.

I live in Illinois where the state laws are that exemption from property tax is based on both charitable use and charitable ownership. If I run a soup kitchen out of my basement and live in the rest of the house that property will not be exempt from taxes. If my local church opens a McDonald's in the basement that portion of the building ill probably be taxed.

Here in Illinois we are in the process of seeing our property tax exemption requirements clarified even more. The courts have handed down a series of decisions that say that the use of a property must be "exclusively" for charitable purposes. So if you are a church with a daycare program it suddenly becomes kind of interesting. If you are a hospital that accepts patients with insurance it is now suddenly VERY interesting.

We don't know for sure how much charity is "enough," but we know now (as of an appellate decision last month) that there has to be a provision of more than 27% of annual income provided as "charity" in order to be seen as a property tax exempt entity in Illinois.

Regards!


Laura

[JVS]

109. Ah thanks, I was waiting for someone to use the technical term: 501(C)3!

[Az]

61. As long as they are just doing Church things then no

The seperation clause is vital. Taxing them would give them cause to demand a voice in politics beyond what they have already.

Not all Churches are megachurchs. Not all Churches are authoratative. Some Churches are more about exploring the world than defining the world. Taxing a Church is the equivalent of taxing thought. At it's simplest a Church is a gathering of people to share in their ideas of the world around us.

Freedom of thought is the first and most important freedom. Everything hangs from that. Taxing Churchs may feel right for many due to the excesses of the megachurches. But you would squash many delicate gems in the nation if you went after them in such a broad manner.

Clarify the definition of what is a Church. Limit what extra functions they can associate with themself. Tax businesses they establish that do not directly connect to the core Church function. Limit even further their political interaction. But allow Churches to continue to be untaxed places of worship, thought, comptemplation, and solace.

[catzies]

87. Right you are. Well said.

IMO another way to honor the separation clause would be to tax just those that ARE engaging in politics. Because after all you can't deduct political contributions.

[lynne]

63. NO. If you tax churches and other charitable organizations -

- you'd better be prepared to either open your own wallet to make up the difference OR be willing to accept the fact that those whom the church helps will have to do with less or without anything at all. The only ones that would suffer would be those that the church helps.

[Bill McBlueState]

66. "churches and other charitable organizations"

But that's the problem. Churches get special treatment relative to other charitable organizations.

I'm in favor of treating all charities equally under the tax laws, giving them all the same breaks regardless of their philosophy. That way, we don't have to rely on IRS agents to decide what counts as a religion.

[mainegreen]

67. Hell yes. Let them run as a non-profit if they want, especially as they'll have to report budget!

No more sneaky religious money hiding, million dollar homes for high level authorities in church X.
Plus it would put the screws to the church of $cientology, Mormons and Catholics would get to see where their 10% goes, and I suspect there would be far fewer protestant pastors driving mercedes.

Now, why would you argue against this? Some bullshit answer like it inhibits religion? Ummmm, no. You can still read your damned little books, get together and talk about religion, gather at each others houses and hold meetings. Amish and COF are quite good at this. This would just inhibit the CHURCH getting rich, and I for one do not believe there is any such freedom of tax exempt church clause in the constitution. Religion != church.

EOM.

[Deep13]

68. Business gets taxed, charities do not.

In what way is a church a charity rather than a business?

[philosophie_en_rose]

69. No, but church-based businesses should be taxed.

Not informal bake sales or bingos or rummage sales, but formal corporate businesses such as book stores or sales of "courses".

[Freddie Stubbs]

71. Replacing the income tax with a per capita tax would make thing simpler

[booksenkatz]

73. For their share of the use/maintenance of the infrastructure, sewer system, etc. NT

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. It Is When I See Polls Like This With 100+ Yes Votes That I Start To Feel Embarrassment For DU.

I would wager that over 80% or more of those yes votes are solely due to intolerant bitterness towards religion rather than thoughtful logical argument. I am blatantly amazed that so many people voted yes to the question. I know we have our extremists here that are always so hard core about everything, but I did not expect to see that lopsided of a poll for this topic. Quite perplexing and in my opinion almost embarrassing to our community.

No, all churches shouldn\'t lose their tax exemption.

[porphyrian]

84. Oh, save your righteous indignation, for fuck's sake.

If you're going to be embarrassed, do it for your own posts, not the entire community. Admonishing those you disagree with at every turn isn't exactly a bold display of tolerance, either. Hypocrisy, sure.

[Bluebear]

90. 'If you're going to be embarrassed, do it for your own posts'

You said it.

[Perky]

94. Its the pot calling the kettle black

DUers who accuse rreligionists of being narrowminded are desirous of slapping downthose same religionists in a simialr narrowminded way. Then they slap down those who dare to call them on it.

They are welcome to their opinions but they should at least admit to thier hypocrisy.

[mondo joe]

96. I don't know what a "religionist" is, but your entire poll is bogus because it

operates out of an assumption that willingness to tax churches = animus for religion.

[Perky]

100. Oh Cmon

It is not simply a willingness, it is a strong desire based on either the aforementioned animus or great cynicism. It has little to do with policy.

I am all for taking away the exemption for ANY church that gets involved in advocating a candidate. But simply because a Church advocates a position does not mean they should be taxed. Whether it is advocating affordable housing or speaking out on abortion. There is a line that should not be crossed to be sure.

The benign position of the Constitution is that the United States is a Secular and pluralistic country not an athiest one.

But there are many on DU who would prefer to muzzle Churches and churchgoers from speaking in the public square at all and failing that ideal finding ways to punish them for doing so.

[mondo joe]

101. I think you're projecting.

Some feel there is no reason to NOT exempt churches simply for being churches.

You will also note that a lot of responses in this thread want churches to operate on the same footing other exempt organizations do -- if you are supplying a needed charitable service get a 501c3 status, just like any non-religious charity does.

It's absolute bullshit to say DUers want to muzzle churches churchgoers. There's a difference between muzzling a church and subsidizing its activities. And I've seen NO such call on muzzling churchgoers -- hell, Bill Clinton is a church goer.

[Perky]

103. Most churches do operate as 501 3 (C)s

How is government t subsidizing their acticity. All of their fundig comes from contribution.

[mondo joe]

104. Their activity is subsidized by eliminating their tax burden that is shouldered

instead by the rest of us.

And the point is that any group that is NOT a church has to prove it is doing charitable work to qualify to be tax exempt.

All a church has to do is be a church.

Why shuold a church group get a tax break that any other group doesn't get?

What many on this thread have suggested is that churches should be like every other group - their actual charitable activities can qualify for tax exemption just like everyone else.

[Perky]

105. .

"Their activity is subsidized by eliminating their tax burden that is shouldered
instead by the rest of us."

We are not subsidizing their activities when they do not pay taxes. Their exemption only means they are not subsidizing the activities of the state. That merely means that the citizenry pays more per capita because of their exclusion. No..to the extent that they are using govenment services yes, there existence is being subsidized

But unless we are paying for their services and charity work through the government they are not being subsidized by anyone.

I think the founders conceived of two realms as being distinct, not equal...but distinct and separate. church and state. They certainly did not want the Church dominating state activities, but neither did they tink it approproate for the CHurch to subservient to the state by taxing it.

[mondo joe]

106. That's absurd. If every business and person is taxed except

for a select few, the others are subsidizing them by carrying the weight for them.

You can play semantics if you like, but no matter how you slice it, everyone else is carrying their tax burden.

For non-profits with legitimate charitable purposes, this is a reasonable thing.

If churches provide legitimate charitable services, fine - let them go for the same tax exemption with the same regulations.

But thinking churches should be taxed is not anti-religion, and the suggestion the DUers want church goers muzzled is ugly made up shit.

[Perky]

107. If you created a poll which asked simply

Should religion have a place in the public square I bet it would split evenly

[mondo joe]

108. If you created a poll with an overbroad ambiguous question like that

it might mean anything.

But even ifyou got an overwhelming NO that doesn't mean DUers want churchgoers muzzled.

What makes you think churchgoers are only able to speak by injecting religion into everything?

[Perky]

110. I never said that.

But if a churchgoer is informedby his creed and beliefs I wold assume on some issues that it will influence his thoughts, belief and speech in both public and private.

If the overwhelming number suggests that DUers fon't want views and voicese colored ny religion influencing publuic debate....what do you think it says?

[mondo joe]

114. Given your demonstrated history of misunderstanding what people

are saying in this thread alone, I don't know how to respond to your question because I don't know what it reflects.

[Perky]

118. My suspicion is that the bye Churches get on Tax-exemption

is probably due to the fact that the state is ill-suited and constitutionall prohibited from defining what a religion is.

If they come up with a test that qualifies one as a religion they effectively have violteaded the establishment clause. I get the argument that exemption by default has the same effect. But tryigng to come up with a test seems more onerous.

Now to the idea tha charity work be exempt buy missionary work is not, I think the distinction is somewhat impractical in application.

Habitat for humanity builds low income housing? Clearly commendable, clearly exempt? Habitat's charter is expressly evangelical. So are most SOup kitchens and it is not purely passive. If you want to eat with us you aremore than welcome but you get a 10 minute sermon on salvation as well. The line is blurry and as soon as the state starts delving into the books and the activities of a Church to determine what passes the religious test and what does not it gets ugly.

I think the idea that controls are necessary are well meaning, but someone raised the argument that if you take away the exemption for purely religious activity, you are going to open the door for CHurches to be far more vocal politically, because you drag them into the public square when you tax their activities plus you have pissed them off by imposing taze upon them that they have never incurred before.

It also occurs to me that the notion of "two realms, separate and distinct" is supported both by the fact that churches derive their income largely from Tithes and offerings (their own form of voluntary taxation if you will) and giving is deductible.

Practically speaking, however much the left may distrust the fundies I would think the last thing in the world we would ever want to to is galvanize them, by saying purely religious activity is taxable

[mondo joe]

119. It's not as difficult as you suggest - the state defines what is a

charitable organization all the time.

Habitat's charter is evangelical - it's work is not. It's primary charitable service is not to evangelize.

Thanks to the new eligibility of faith based services, the government is already deciding which activities are religious in nature and which are not.

[SidDithers]

111. Yes, they should...nt

Sid

[williesgirl]

78. Our tax $'s subsidize religion. Every one of them violates tax exempt laws re no election

interference etc. The Catholic Church alone probably owns more real estate than any other "company". They act like companies with their heirarchy etc and should be taxed like everyone else.

[Chemical Bill]

80. Yes. Maybe they would see to it that...

their tax dollars are spent to further their mission.

Bill

[Kelly Rupert]

81. It would give the churches an honest legal claim

to having a stake in government, and vice versa. No, they shouldn't. There's a reason church and state are in wholly different spheres in America.

[noonwitch]

85. No, too much good is done in and by churches

Even those megachurches do some good things in their communities.

I go to a large, liberal church and we do a lot of good. In addition to providing meeting space for AA, NA, GA, BSA, and so on, we also give food to the poor, stuffed animals to the police (to give to kids they take into protective custody), and our men's group and our youth group give lots of time and assistance to local soup kitchens.

There are conservative megachurches that offer the same things to their communities-especially the food giveaways. Most churches of all stripes participate in community food banks or have their own food bank. Because even those with less money can come up with a few canned goods to donate, a large church can gather a lot of food in a short period of time. My experience as a social worker in a large, poor city has found that both liberal and conservative churches are pretty generous when families come to them for food. The conservative churches will offer to pick them up for church, or their kids for Sunday School, but their receipt of the food is not contingent upon accepting the offer.

I'm not big on enforcing the whole political speech thing, either, because both sides are guilty of violating it. The previous minister at my church shot off her mouth all the time about politics, it would have been a shame for a body consisting of 2500 people that does positive work in the community to lose their tax exemption because the pastor made some stupid political statements occasionally in services. The same goes for the Baptist church that has a minister endorse a conservative candidate or cause.

Face it-if your church is behind organizing a peace march, it is no different in the IRS's view than the conservative church sponsoring an anti-abortion march. You may agree with one and not the other, but both are sponsoring political activity at that point and are technically violating it.

[Cleita]

88. Bad idea. Although the last Congress didn't used the stick it had

against Churches blurring the separation of Church by threatening to chop off their tax free status, let's hope this Congress does. If Churches pay taxes then Congress will have no leverage at all against them getting involved in politics.

[Synnical]

89. Yes, they should be taxed as the businesses they are n/t

[mmonk]

92. Either that or tax the violators.

[Occulus]

93. I'd like to point out to the apparently clueless posters saying "no"

that christianity decided I couldn't get married, decided to amend the Constitution in my state, and I'm not a christian.

So, what we have here is a tax-free members-only organization telling NONmembers what rights will and will not be, for everyone. Not only that, but christianity goes out of its way to make my showing affection in public for someone I care about- even if it is as simple as holding hands- as dangerous as possible. As in, physical danger. As in, danger to my life.

Let me simplify: I can't get married or show affection in public because someone else's religion says it's wrong. How anyone can claim that any religion openly doing such things still deserves to not be taxed is completely beyond me. They owe me, and people like me. It's time for them to start paying up.

[Madspirit]

112. Whoohoohoo!!

Thank-you thank-you thank-you.

...as a lesbian and an atheist I am willing to support religion every fucking bit as much as it has supported me....and mine.

Bah...the most destructive hateful force on the planet gets tax exempt status. Sick really.
Madspirit

[kwassa]

113. what about all the openly gay priests and church-goers??

We have plenty of them in the Episcopal church, as well as many other churches do.

[Bluebear]

115. And now some Episcopal churches are joining African dioceses to escape the "gays"

Yes?

[Madspirit]

117. Yes Gay

This just all makes me want to say...as an aside...

I wish we had taken the word "Angry" instead of the word "Gay".
Madspirit

[kwassa]

120. A loud but very small percentage are talking about leaving.

and we can well do without them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. Yes, the majority of Episcopal churches are exceedingly gay friendlly

I predict that they will approve gay marriage as soon as a few of the older bishops (who retain the ability to vote, even after retirement) die off.

My current parish and the one before it both solemnize same-sex marriages. Maybe the civil laws will catch up to them some day.

[Bluebear]

122. Sounds like a great church, LL! nt