Should churches/religions/cults be taxed?

[ColbertWatcher]

Define church, religion and cult any way you want to.

[Tesha]

1. Churches should be required to operate separate 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 operations.

Expenses related to the operation of their clubhouse, recruitment,
and the like should *NOT* be tax exempt. Neither should that property
(real estate) that pertains to those activities. These activities are non-
profit, but not charitable as they directly benefit the members of the club.

But any true charitable activities that the church performs should be
tax deductible, as with any other valid 501(c)3.

Tesha

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Like if they help the poor, but not for their overall operation? n/t

[Tesha]

5. Right. Charitable activities that don't involve proselytizing should be tax exempt. (NT)

[ColbertWatcher]

17. I find it despicable that "churches" require recipients of their charity to first ...

... be subjected to their propaganda.

Damn, if someone is hungry and you have food to give them, let them eat. Forget the preaching crap for just one meal already.

And the same goes for African countries that receive U.S. funds for AIDS foregoing condoms for abstinence-only crap. Some "churches" couldn't care less that people are dying as a direct result of their ideology.

[DailyGrind51]

49. Neither Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, nor the Jewish Welfare League

require recipients of their services to listen to religious teachings as a pre-condition of those services.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. Nor does Episcopal Community Services nor Episcopal Relief and Development

You're obviously another DUer who is basing your stereotype of churches entirely on your own personal experiences.

[ColbertWatcher]

74. But, you agree that it is dispicable when "churches" do this, don't you? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Yes, it is

Fortunately, there are plenty of alternatives that don't impose any religious qualifications.

[ColbertWatcher]

80. How do you suppose that kind of behavior be dealt with?

Should there be punishments? Fines?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. Well, since we have freedom of religion in this country

religious groups are free to place restrictions on distributing assistance. I don't like it, but I can't see a Constitutional way to force them not to place such a requirement, although a lawyer (which I am not) may know of such a way.

From what I hear, the clients exercise their Constitutional right not to pay attention during the services.

[Xithras]

125. In conservative areas, that's often the only way to get them services though.

I live in a very conservative area...so conservative that most new introductions include the question "So where do you go to church?" That's considered NORMAL here.

The relatively large nearby city, with a couple hundred thousand residents, has NO municipal homeless shelters AT ALL. It's a conservative city with a conservative city council put into power by conservative voters. Every attempt to establish a permanent homeless shelter has been shot down so rapidly that activists don't even bother anymore. The city once condemned and knocked down a perfectly habitable former hotel because the owners were considering turning it into transitional housing for the homeless...I'm serious when I say that anti-homeless sentiment here is strong. Homeless are banned from congregating in parks for any extended period, they're harassed by the police if they wander out of the industrial areas, and panhandling of any sort is an arrestable offense.

Despite this, the city has two large and comfortable shelters for the homeless to use and hang out in. Those shelters are run by local churches and are funded entirely by parishoners. Yes, they DO preach. And yes, they DO run they shelters as a way to convert people. But what would you have them do instead? Shut the shelters for being too "preachy" and just let the homeless freeze when we have another 25 degree night like we had last night? Or force them to suffer outside through our 105 degree summers because that's "better" than forcing them to listen to some sermon?

It would be nice if we all lived in liberal and progressive urban oases where the needs of the less fortunate are taken care of by the municipal governments, but in the real world MANY of our poorest citizens live in parts of the country that couldn't give a rats ass whether those people live or die. Often, those preachy churches and shelters are the ONLY resources available to help these people out. As bad as they are, they're a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

[TahitiNut]

7. Agreed.

Ordinary taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize sectarian activities by providing exemptions.

[TexasObserver]

10. Agreed. But so little of what they do really produces true charitable works.

If they were real charities, instead of fake charities, they'd all lose their right to be considered charities, with the exception of very few. They exist to pay for their buildings, their wasteful use of utilities, their insurance, and of course, their salaries. Add buying TV time for the large ones, and as you say, their "country club" accoutrements.

God save us from religions.

[kwassa]

12. You are very wrong, of course, about religious charities.

but I knew you didn't know what you are talking about, as you generally don't on religious subjects.

Of the top charities in the US, four of the top five have some religious affiliation, and the one with the HIGHEST overhead costs still gives 81 % to programs, and Catholic Charities gives 88%.

Note the highest salary and benefits going to a CEO is the non-religious American Cancer Society, at $874,157.00, which only directs 79% of it's income to programs.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/csmimg/p17a.pdf

[TexasObserver]

20. You are misrepresenting the facts, but that's common to those who make excuses for religions.

I advise REAL charities, the ones that have real standards to meet.

You're an apologist for superstitious organizations which specialize in self aggrandizing delusions.

You're segregating the very tiny portion of funds raised and expended for charitable purposes from the funds religions raise and spend for their own satisfaction. My comments are accurate. Yours are not. You are pretending that churches spend most of their money on charitable works, which is absurd.

[Blarch]

50. agree.

[Zynx]

56. Find numbers on that.

That is a serious accusation and it does need significant support.

[kwassa]

93. I could have predicted your reply

"You are pretending that churches spend most of their money on charitable works, which is absurd."

Uh, no I'm not. You just make that up! Good for you.

The funds listed in the list you didn't read are for CHARITIES, not any of the churches directly.

[TexasObserver]

94. 99% of the money churches raise DON'T go to their charities.

Your subterfuge attempts notwithstanding.

[kwassa]

95. Oh, you are playing make-up-a-fact!

Substantiate your absurd claim. You appear to be merely an anti-religious bigot, as you actually have no facts to work from.

So, step up and prove it.

[Greyhound]

27. Ah yes, the inevitable "we suck less" argument. It doesn't work for children on the playground

and it certainly isn't any more valid in the real world. Then again, consider the source.

[Tesha]

43. Just FYI, what's the entire budget of Catholic Charities compared to...

..the entire budget of the Catholic churches is America?

And, BTW, when the Catholic Charities are saving all those poor
starving kids we see on TV in their ads, are they also providing
any contraception advice to the parents and prospective parents?
Or are they just helping to ensure that more starving kids survive
just well enough to reach adolescence and produce the next gen-
eration of starving kids who need "Catholic" charity?

I await your response, especially to my earlier, financial question.

Tesha

[TexasObserver]

51. I will give to church charities that use 100% of their funds for real charitable purposes.

There are two in Texas I have long supported. I'm not religious and don't attend church, and don't believe the underlying religious doctrine of those involved, but I know they're good people doing good work. Neither is a charity anyone would have ever heard of. One specializes in helping the families of prisoners for everything from providing school clothes to Thanksgiving meals for the indigent families of prisoners, without regard to the crime of the prisoner, without regard to the beliefs of the families. NEED is the only issue. There's no prosyletizing, either.

The other one is a charity that focuses on helping indigent families with such things as nutritious food for their kids, education about same, and after school programs designed to give working parents a way to work and have their kids in a healthy, safe, nuturing environment.

I'm not involved in their programs directly. I write them checks, but I know their good works through journalists with whom I have longstanding relationships. Everyone in both charities volunteers their time and no one takes salary or administrative costs. These are small charities, and they're all about delivering to the needy things they need. There are no fundraisers, no fancy parties, no church promotions.

[Realityhack]

117. TO was not refering to religious carities but rather...

to religions which are taxed as if everything they did was charitable.

To be fair TO also plays fast and loose with 'facts'.

But it is a mistake to read his post as referring to religious charities as opposed to churches.

[dana_b]

13. agreed n/t

[Muttocracy]

15. sounds good to me, though I don't know if that's an accounting nightmare. nt

[Tesha]

45. It's done routinely by organizations that combine charity and lobbying.

For example, the ACLU and its various affiliates are *VERY CAREFUL*
to separate their charitable work (the legal stuff: defending people and
the constitution) from their lobbying efforts.

The IRS is "rather insistent" that they be very careful about this, right
down to the level of counting the number of photocopies cranked out
on the copy machine, minutes of telephone time used, and the like.

Churches could do this too if the law were actually enforced against them
in the same way it's enforced against "lefties".

Tesha

[originalpckelly]

16. That's eggsactly what I was thinking.

Very rational approach to your thoughts! Good on ya'!

[Realityhack]

116. I fully agree.

Separate their activities. Tax them like every other similar organization.

[Jamastiene]

2. Considering how much of that money is used to control our government,

I say it's about time we start taxing the whole damn lot of them.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

4. GONNA PLAY, YA GOTTA PAY

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. That part of church revenue that is used for secular projects

that would be not taxed if they were a regular 501 c3 should also not be taxed. This could include things like soup kitchens, food pantries, even schools--if it could be shown that no preaching or religious instruction was being done and if it was shown that the facilities were open to all.

[stray cat]

8. Maybe nothing should be tax exempt including charities, schools and tuition?

[1776Forever]

9. Reflection from Warren's Saddleback Mega Church - Spreading the "gospel"...

When you read this eyewitness report it becomes even clearer how Mega Churches like Warren's are spreading Warren's doctrine and furthering his "dream" while doing it:

May 27, 2008
Saddleback Reflections...from bob.blog

http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2008/05/saddleback-reflections.html

We went to the big house, wanting to avoid the video sermon... and got a video sermon. Apparently Video Venue fever has Saddleback not only creating venues on its own campus, but spinning them out over the city. Rick was preaching from a high school somewhere across town. After a few minutes of very earnest worship music (the crowd may not have been into it, but man - every extremely attractive person on the stage was selling it) we got the announcement that there was a problem with the video feed and we'd be watching the tape of Rick from the previous night's service. A spiky haired guy with a guitar did the special music thing, followed by the announcement that Hey! The video feed was working and we'd be joining Rick in progress. So, mid sentence, there was Rick on the 5 big screens at the front. (They have two big screens on the side, and then three big-but-not-as covering a speaker array in the middle of the stage).

Rick's message was out of Acts 1:8, and he wanted to talk about the universal mission that every person gets when they become part of God's family. He specifically stated he needed to avoid the individual mission (because that would be different for everyone) but wanted to focus on the corporate one.
And then, after a great point that we are called to be God's witnesses, not the Defense or Prosecuting attorneys, things kind of moved into a full-blown Saddleback commercial. For Rick, in Acts 1:8 parlance, my "Jerusalem" is my county. And Saddleback's goal is a purpose driven church in every city in all the counties around Saddleback. How? By church planting? No, silly. Through "campuses and venues." The idea is that Saddleback itself will beam its teaching into schools, community centers, whatever- throughout the whole LA area.

Next, "Judea" is Southern California. Okay- now we must be talking about planting churches, right? Well... Rick went on here to talk about all the small groups Saddleback has spread all over Southern California. It was cool to hear about the number of non-English speaking groups- Farsi, Afrikaans, Arabic, Korean, etc... But again- it was all centered around what Saddleback is doing.

(snip)

A confession here- I don't get Warren's preaching. The whole methodology of stringing together snippets of different verses from different translations to serve the movement of my outline just leaves me cold, and worse, I think it teaches and forms in a community of people a really poor way of handling Scripture. It's not a series of fortune cookie slips all bound together in convenient book form, though someone nurtured on this kind of preaching could be forgiven for thinking so...

I'm glad for Saddleback in a lot of ways- I appreciate the way they have pushed the church in America to think about the poor in Africa (particularly in regards to AIDS). I appreciate the vast number of people they have told about Jesus and baptized and are now nurturing (by making them run the bases!).

..........

This goes right along with the article in Time about what Warren wants to do with his "dream":

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1830147,00.html

[ColbertWatcher]

11. That particular "religious" machine has become much bigger than any of their members ...

... probably could have imagined or expected.

I wonder if they even know what their "church" is up to anymore?

[1776Forever]

39. At the end of the article the blogger said this.......

http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2008/05/saddleback-reflections.html

"But... the whole thing, while a pleasant enough experience, left me a bit underwhelmed. (snip) It was the insistence on extending Saddleback's reach and influence throughout the southland rather than simply planting other churches. It was the fact that I wanted to hang out a few minutes longer to catch a bit of the hard rock service, the fact that I had trouble remembering where we parked, and the realization that for me at least, the whole experience seemed to put distance between me and God, not bring us closer.

The streams of people leaving the auditorium during the final worship song seemed to be feeling the same thing. Otherwise, I think they would have sat still rather than filing out of the bleaches for their cars... I guess to avoid the traffic and get on with their days."

..............

This is the "kind" of "church" these Mega churches are becoming it seems - more like a video hook-up game and entertainment then a worship service. You called it a "machine" and I think that is right on. The Congress needs to look at this "machine" and see if it still qualifies as a tax-free entity especially with the influence peddling in the Prop8 legislation that Saddleback, the Catholic Church and the Church of Latter-Day-Saints participated in.

As this article and pdf. document states:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-church-of-latter-day-saints-the-mormons

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of Latter-day Saints (The Mormons)

Internal Revenue Service

Sponsored by:
The Facebook group "Petition IRS to revoke Church of Latter Day Saints tax-exempt status""

The LDS church contributed a significant amount of money and effort to endorse PROP 8 in California via its network of church, media, and community outlets enshrining discrimination under the law for thousands of Californians and their families.

"In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)."

..........

Here is more info on that fact:

http://saddleback8protest.blogspot.com/

[ColbertWatcher]

76. They leave before the "service" is over to beat the traffic?

That sounds more like a sporting event!

[StreetKnowledge]

133. Must be Done. MUST.

Proposition 8 was a straight-up smash to the back of the head to homosexuals in California. It's insulting and homophobic. And if the FLDS wants to support this crap, let 'em - but let them pay tax for it.

[Fearless]

14. Of course they should. I don't understand why they're not already.

This nation is supposed to be free for religions and free of religious preference even if that preference is for all religions over none.

[hughee99]

18. If all religions are free

then as long as the government treats them all the same, what does paying taxes have to do with it? Taxing all groups doesn't make it any more free. Not taxing them doesn't make it any less free. One could argue that by taxing religions, government is "discriminating" against poorer religious groups who may not be able to afford it. Personally, I agree with the Tesha, have the church set up both a taxable church organization and a tax-exempt charity.

[Fearless]

19. I'd say that...

A nation that gives preferential treatment to religious organizations is one that does not give equality to atheism. This should be unconstitutional as the First Amendment provides for both freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. Not taxing Churches equals giving them a leg up over secularism, IMHO.

[hughee99]

22. If I've read correctly,

Many Atheist organizations hold tax exempt status as well.

[Fearless]

163. And they shouldn't have it either.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Well are there atheist organizations comparable to churches?

Are their atheist organizations that meet together for (well, since worship would be out of the question) study groups, social events, and charitable work? There's no reason why such a thing couldn't happen, and presumably, they could be tax-exempt first.

But if you're all just functioning as individuals, well, yes, individuals, religious or not, get taxed.

[anonymous171]

21. Cult has an actual definition.

[ColbertWatcher]

23. Yes, and so does liberal. n/t

[orleans]

36. tax the churches, leave the cults alone

many claim the rocky horror picture show to be a "cult" movie.

who wants to pay an added tax just to go see RH for the 300th time??

[Zomby Woof]

24. Only the building used for worship should be exempt

Otherwise, tax the fuck out of them.

[ColbertWatcher]

25. The whole building?

Or, just the parts that aren't inside the TV studio?

[spoony]

28. Why start a thread as a poll

when you're only interested in your own opinion and how many shallow, nonsensical snarks you can cram into a thread?

[ColbertWatcher]

31. Because it can give people a chance to select the choice that best fits their opinion ...

... anonymously or by posting in reply whether they agree or disagree.

By making it a poll, people can choose to reply along with their vote, or just vote without anyone knowing how they voted if they want.

Thank you for asking.

[Xithras]

126. I have no problem with that first one being tax exempt.

Think about it as a matter of ratios. The number of people in those superchurches versus the amount of money needed to maintain them is vastly different than the same ratio when applied to a local corner church. When you have a small local church with 50 regular parishioners, virtually all of their money is needed just to maintain the building and would be tax exempt. When you have 8,000 paople packing into a stadium every Sunday, the amount of money donated is going to drastically exceed the amount of money needed to keep the (typically steel beam) structure clean, safe, and functional.

So with your small local church, virtually all of the revenue would remain tax exempt. With the superchurch, a huge portion of the money would be taxable and benefit society at large.

[Tesha]

46. I'm sorry, ZombyWoof, but you have that exactly backwards.

The building used for worship provides no "charitable use" by the
standard definitions of such things because all of its benefits come
right back to the members of the church. If you or I donate, say,
$100 to a public TV station, but as a promotion, we get opera
tickets worth $80, the IRS only lets us deduct the difference
between the value of our donation and the value of any premium
we received in return, so $20.

The church-goers should be in exactly the same situation: If
they donated $5,000/year to their church, but their share of
the expenses of maintaining the clubhouse (including its staff,
utilities, recruitment of new club members, and the like) is
$4,800/year, then they shouldn't get a deduction that's larger
than $200/year.

Only when the church is doing truly charitable works (feeding
the hungry *WITHOUT* preaching at them, building houses,
etc.) should their funds be deductible.

Tesha

[Pastiche423]

26. Yes, yes!

A thousand times yes!

[Sanctified]

29. If Churches are to be taxed then all Non-Profits need to be taxed.

Also once taxed then Churches can become political arms and actually start giving political orders directly from the pulpit.

[ColbertWatcher]

33. Hmm, good points.

But, what about some of the suggestions that say only the actual charitable arms of the churches be exempt?

Would that work?

[Sanctified]

34. They would still be able to be political.

One of the benefits of keeping Churches tax exempt is they absolutely have to keep clear of being involved in Government, once they are being taxed then they can actually start participating in Government, there would be nothing worse than the formation of the Christian Party and them putting up candidates who ran for Political office.

[ColbertWatcher]

35. But, they do that now!

And look at that Blackwater guy!

Damn, I'm surprised no one thought of this before 30+ posts!

[Sanctified]

37. No they don't do it now, imagine what type of political machine the Catholic Church could form.

They have a shit load of money, members and if they had free reign to say who to vote for from the pulpit and run their own candidate they would only be beaten by another denomination that was equally organized.

[ColbertWatcher]

38. Yeah, yeah, I know. I realize that NOW after you posted it!

But, they're very close to doing it. In fact, I'd venture to say it's like a "gentleman's agreement" kind of thing, they do everything except call it that.

You're correct of course, it would be way worse if it were sanctioned by law.

WAY worse!

[TWiley]

42. Frightening, it would certianly spark many wars

Not that they don't do that already.

[TWiley]

41. Let them campaign after getting taxed.

But why lump all non-profits together? Money tithed to the church is the worst possible charitable donation there is. The average church spends about 0.01% of revenue on doing good deeds for the needy.

Their mission (in the fundamentalist world anyway) is to convert the entire planet to christianity. Their goal is more political by this nature in the first place.

Plato (book "The Republic" and father of the Republican race) Believed the best way to govern was with a small and powerful ruling class and a large peasant / slave class. He felt the best way to accomplish this was through the legislation of personal morality. Today, most Republican ideals are cast into this "moral light" Same sex marriage, Abortion, and Stem Cells, are only a few examples of their effort to legislate the "morality" of individuals. By nature many churches preach Conservative politics.

Democrats, on the other hand, tend to believe in the values of Aristotle. Aristotle believed the best way to rule was from a large middle class to protect against the tyranny of either the rich or the poor. Aristotle also felt that commerce needed moral regulation, and not th individual. Today Democrats believe in the personal liberty of the individual, and also in the legislation of the morality of commerce or capitalism. It is immoral to destroy the planet just to make a buck.

Of course there are many shades to this discussion, nothing is all one way or the other so that it will fit neatly into a clearly labled boxe.

[JNelson6563]

134. Good points.

Well said. :toast:

[TWiley]

148. Hi Julie !

One thing that irritates me about the religious is that they assume that they are the ONLY people who volunteer or do charitable work in this world. Many of us probably donate more time and money to secular organizations that also do good works than many church folks do.

hey, did you see this?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfcTw81YtK8&NR=1

[JNelson6563]

150. LOL

You should send that to MM, if you haven't already. haha

Hope it's all good in your world. :hi:

Julie

[TWiley]

154. I sent it to Anne, It wil probably get there

Ya, things are fine here .... I do hope everything is well for you also.

[Tesha]

47. All other non-profits *ARE* taxed on their 501(c)4 activities and non-taxed on their 501(c)3 acts.

As I mentioned above, the ACLU is a perfect example of this, taking great
care to "split the hairs" correctly. The NRA/ILA is similar, although I've always
thought they're not quite so careful, and no one in the government (IRS)
seems to investigate them like they do the ACLU.

Only churches routinely get away with what they get away with when it
comes to commingling 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 activities and it's long-since
time that they be forced to occupy the same, level, tax-subject playing
field as all the other 501(c)4 political lobbying organizations.

Tesha

[Realityhack]

115. +1 n/t

[LWolf]

53. And they don't already?

I think that's part of the point. They already do engage in politicking from the pulpit.

[Sanctified]

54. They are very careful what they say from the pulpit and when you have

the Baptist Party, Catholic Party, Mormon Party and so forth all running their own Candidates directly out of their Churches, financed by their Churches good luck ever getting a Democrat elected again.

[LWolf]

88. Careful, but they still do.

How much campaigning, for example, was done on Sunday, in churches, "after" services, while the audience was still there?

I count that as "from the pulpit."

[rhett o rick]

90. I miss the logic behind why non-profits need to be taxed.

Churches are now allowed to accumulate great wealth at tax payer expense. Why???? Many churches today preach politics from the pulpit. The Catholic and Mormon Churches spend huge amounts of money on influencing legislation. I am ok giving that portion of their organization that does charity work tax breaks. But no tax breaks for them to expand their wealth. The Catholic Church is one of the richest organizations in the world and uses it's wealth to promote their agenda while some of their members live in poverty.

[Richard Steele]

30. Yes. If they truly believed that G*D supported them, they would't care about tax breaks.

I do believe that first thing, and I don't care about the second.

So, there you have it: my FAITH is stronger that that of
any 'Organized Religion' operating in the USA today.

If you attend any sort of "church" on a regular basis,
you should probably be pretty fucking AFRAID.

[Hekate]

32. It's time. nt

[TWiley]

40. Absolutely. So few do anything good for society

Tax them until they can no longer afford to run political ads. Let Government take over social welfare programs. They only help their own so what is the difference? Tithe 10% and get a turkey if you loose your job, or pay taxes and get unemployment if you loose your job?

Faith based initiaves was the absolutely worst leglislative action ever taken. It needs to be overturned.

[cabluedem]

44. Now that * is gone we need to get back to gov services. Nt

[Zynx]

55. I would contend the vast majority of churches do a great deal of good for society.

I want you to visit Milwaukee sometime and look at the huge number of people helped by church-based social services.

[TWiley]

100. What I remember about Milwaukee is all the beer gardens.

There are bars all over the place; every time two streets cross there is a bar on every corner. Is it possible that a large part of people who need might be associated with the vast amount of these bars?

And helped how? Soup kitchens? I remember one street in Manitowac that was about two miles of nothing butt bars, party stores, and salvation army store fronts. Some influence religion has had on that commmunity.

"I would contend the vast majority of churches do a great deal of good for society"

Ok then, give me some proof. What exactly is it that the vast majority of churches do for society that is good?
I am waiting ......

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. You think so, huh?

You realize that it's a minority that run political ads.

And the idea that churches help only their own is another one of those lies that anti-religious people like to toss around to each other so that they can feel smug.

[TWiley]

102. Most do help only their own.

Some try to convert the entire world ... is this help? The typical street corner church only helps people they know. If they visit, then most often it is with an ulterior motive.

I remember these guys that were trying to help my father when he was dying. Uninvited, one was asking all kinds of personal questions while the other was writing down the answers. It was an election year, and I suspect they were trying to steal his identity. I asked them to leave, and they refused. I got security, and he said that he has escorted those same guys out of the building many times but they keep sneaking back in. They were saying all kinds of superstitious and nasty things, how god was gonna git me because they had not finished their work.

yes, the world needs more help like that. Look at televangelism .... more of that too? For what?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. MOST? Your personal experience (with fundy vultures) doesn't equal "most"

You didn't notice the hospital/nursing home chaplain from a mainstream denomination who comes in once and goes away quietly if asked to, or who doesn't come at all unless requested.

[TWiley]

110. I guess I didn't notice at all.

If mainstream religion actually produces some good for society, then by all means, please let me know EXACTLY what that is. In our community, we have 2 soup kitchens, and over 300 churches. There are an additional 2 food pantries. Of these 4, two are secular, and two are religious.

Wow, a home run for Jesus !

If you look at the religious industry as a whole, it is true that they mostly help only their own. Christianity has had a 2000 year run, and there is not much world-changing evidence to justify it. Plenty of wars, and witch burning, but not really that much good stuff.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. Okay, if you're enjoying your prejudices, far be it from me to try to change them

:eyes:

By the way, you may be missing the soup kitchens that are run INSIDE churches. They are usually not advertised to the larger community. I bet that most residents of Minneapolis are unaware that the five largest downtown churches have divvied up the task of providing hot meals and other services for the downtown homeless, not in separate soup kitchens but in their own buildings.

[TWiley]

123. Not advertised for the "larger community"?

Oh ok. Guess they do not want to help those "others".

But please feel free to let me know EXACTLY the undisputed good that religon has done for society. I will change my opinion (or "prejudice") But please, give me some proof. Not of the exsistance of God, but simply of all this good that justifies Trillions of tax dollars. Over 2000 years .... there MUST be proof. Especially with God batting for you.

I believe that secular institution can do a much better job than religion ..... right across the board.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. By "the larger community," I mean "the non-poor," NOT non-members. Yeesh!

The poor and homeless learn of these sessions by word of mouth.

As for "trillions of tax dollars," whatever the government loses by not taxing church income or contributions to churches, it's small change compared to the trillions not only used but LOST (or embezzled, or diverted to black ops) by the Pentagon.

Oh, and unlike many secular charities, we don't request lots of paperwork or referrals before we serve people. Our meals are available to anyone who shows up.

[TWiley]

141. Is the sermon before or after dinner?

I do appreciate the small examples of charity that Christianity wears on its sleeve. I really do. In fact, I donate to religious food pantry's. My point is that they do not do shit compared to the $$$ in tax dollars they rip off from the rest of us.

If they were taxed, they would serve a greater social good. Everyone elses taxes would go down, and they would at long last carry a social burden.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

146. We have NO religious requirements for the people we serve

I'm about to go to my church's dinner for homeless and low-income youth. We volunteers pray together before opening the doors (The room is multipurpose, so it's not permanently set up as a dining room) and sometimes one of the clergy looks in, but we don't ask or know about the beliefs of the youth who come to eat. We don't ask them to pray or otherwise participate in religious activities. We keep baskets of hotel-sized soap, toothpaste, and shampoo available, as well as baskets of, yes, condoms.

Actually, everyone else's taxes would go up if the government assumed a larger social burden, as long as it didn't cut the military budget. Considering that most people don't itemize, the amount of money lost from the tax deductibility of charitable contributions (available only to itemizers) is miniscule compared to the size of the Federal budget.

[TWiley]

157. Oh puhleeze ....

How many meals do you serve per week and what % is that of total church revenue? I am not minimizing the good works you do, they really are needed and appreciated, it just seems like the religious feel that it will not get done if they dont do it. There are probably as many (or more) secular good doers as there are religious ones.

Besides, if you were born in a different culture, or were a different race, the odds are exponential that you would be a different religion. All those the christians have murdered in war, conquest, or missionary work included people who did good works for their own communities also. Muslims care, volunteer, and give. Christians kill thm. Buddists care, volunteer, and give, Christians kill them. Witches care, volunteer and give. Christians kill them. Athiests care, volunteer, and give. Christians kill them. Hindus care, volunteer, and give. Christians kill them. So add up all this "good" and subtract from it all the evil, and I predict a moral deficit.

[kwassa]

130. Religion has done a lot of undisputed good for society.

They were in the business of doing good historically before governments, and now they work on some programs with government agencies in the U.S. If they deal in Federal dollars, they can't proseletyze, and they don't. I know, I worked for a religious charity, though I was not of their faith. Catholic Charities, one of the biggest in the world, and they do lots and lots and lots of good.

I don't agree with their stand on abortion, but that does not disqualify all the OTHER good that they do.

There is a great deal of anti-religious feeling on this thread, and most of it is backed by virtually no facts on this subject at all!

[TWiley]

140. The food pantry is Catholic.

However, compare the $$ in gold, art, and real estate to what is given to the poor. It is a paltry sum, probably > 1%. Did you know that a 13th century (it was around then) Pope tortured monks as heratics because they took an "oath of poverty?" and wanted to help the poor? Evidently, the rage in religious circles at the time was to conquor nations. Research the word "propaganda" sometime. One defination is: The ancient Roman Curia empowered to preach the gospel of Christ for the purpose of destablizing and overthrowing foreign governments" I read that in a Collegiate Dictionary BTY

Lets face it, doing charitable acts is a sideshow for the religious organizations. They do very very little in comparison to the expensive buildings and properties. Take a look at the PTL club or the 700 club sometime. Tax free? Why?

They spread mental illness in the form of superstition, and lies.

[TWiley]

142. Oh, where is the proof? I am still looking for it.....

[kwassa]

162. Proof of what?

Google is your friend.

Use it. Read what you find. Be knowledgeable.

[ThomWV]

48. Let them deduct expenditures for community good works and tax the rest

Tax it at the same rate as individuals but only give them exemptions for the actual cost of charitable works in the community.

[ShadesOfGrey]

60. Good post! I'd agree to that. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. You obviously have no idea how churches function if you think

that they would survive under those conditions.

(I know, I know. You probably think "Let 'em all die." But that's your prejudice showing.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Dupe

How'd that happen?
Mysterious are the ways of DU. :-)

[Tesha]

84. There's a bug whereby when DU is busy, it double (triple, etc.) posts replies. (NT)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. So it's not the Miracle of the Multiplying Posts?

How disappointing. :-)

[Tesha]

87. Only is your post contains both the words "loaves" and "fishes" ;-). (NT)

[Senator]

52. k&r

[RB TexLa]

57. I wonder which churches would have had tax problems during the 50's and 60's in Alabama?

[gaspee]

58. FUCK YEAH

Most of these "religions" and "churches" funnel money from the bottom up to the top - a real giving way to live life - for the preacher/hierarchy! Not so great for the masses.

[anonymous171]

59. No. Instead the government should actually enforce the current tax laws.

[zorahopkins]

61. At The HIGHEST Possible Rate.

They should all be taxed heavily -- preferably at the highest possible rate (like 90%, if that is possible).

And people uuho donate to churches/religions/cults should NOT be allouued to deduct their contributions from their income taxes, either.

Note: In protest of the continuing occupation of OUR Uuhite House by the illegal and totally corrupt Bush/Cheney regime of thugs and cronies, I REFUSE to use the letter betuueen "V" and "X". Instead, I use a "double u", as in "Uuhite House".

[zorahopkins]

62. At The HIGHEST Possible Rate.

They should all be taxed at the highest possible rate (llike 90%, if that is possible!)

And anyone uuho donates to a church/relgion cult should NOT be allouued to deduct his or her contribution from his or her incomes taxes, either.

Note: In protest of the continuing occupation of OUR Uuhite House by the illegal and totally corrupt Bush/Cheney regime of thugs and cronies, I REFUSE to use the letter betuueen "V" and "X". Instead, I use a "double u", as in "Uuhite House".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. So much ignorance and prejudice, so little time

Honestly, this topic comes up every once in a while, and it becomes an opportunity for people whose only contact with religion was being brought up by abusive fanatics (or who haven't even had that much contact with religion at all) to vent their uninformed prejudices. (I say "uninformed" because they assume what is true of the megachurches is also true of the historic mainstream denominations.)

Also, you do realize, don't you, that most churches are NOT wealthy? If you haven't actually served on a church governing board, you have no idea of how much trouble most parishes have making income keep up with operating expenses. The charitable programs don't just happen by themselves. Someone has to organize them, and they mostly have to happen in buildings. Supplies need to be stored. Kitchens need to be kept clean and in good repair. We have to buy food, and we can't always get it at a discount or donated. A janitor or other staff member has to be present to clean up and lock up afterward. My church is used every day of the week, not only for church-based meetings and events, but also for charitable activities and outside groups, which use our space either free or for a nominal rent. (A music ensemble gets to use our space for rehearsals and concerts on the condition that they play at our Christmas Eve and Easter services.)

By the way, our clergy do NOT control the church's finances. Nobody's buying a mansion on the proceeds from the offering plate. Not in a mainstream church. The finances are controlled by a board elected from the congregation at large, and the clergy are paid on a scale set by the church's local governing body (diocese, synod, etc.) Clergy are given a discretionary fund to help needy people outside the confines of the church's programs, but they have to account for it at the end of each month. Oh, and I've heard anti-religious bigots claim that clergy's salaries are not taxed. Sorry, folks. Clergy pay income tax like the rest of us, although they pay self-employment tax like a self-employed person instead of FICA.

The worship services are not "useless." They are essential for creating the spirit of community that motivates people to volunteer. The people in a church are willing to volunteer for these community program together because they have created ties among themselves through worship services, study groups, and social activities.

Oh, and we use a room that is technically within the church proper as a daytime drop-in center for the homeless. At times it serves as a social area for youth. Gee, should that be taxed or not?

When people show up, we serve them. We don't ask them what religion, if any, they are. We don't categorize people by race or gender or sexual orientation. They don't have to fill out any forms. They don't have to be referred by anybody. If they're in need, all they have to do is show up at the appointed times.

When there are special needs in the U.S. or around the world, we have fund drives, especially after natural disasters.

Okay, so if churches should be taxed, how about other charitable organizations? How about your favorite secular charity, arts organization, or college?

But don't let an insider's version of the FACTS confuse you. Just keep letting out that pent-up venom from your horrible fundie or Mormon or conservative Catholic upbringing.

[The Straight Story]

78. excellent post

kick for it.

[ColesCountyDem]

106. EXCELLENT reply!

:applause:

[Zuni]

109. wow. This is about the only post

on this awful thread that made any sense.

I go to a Church that does all kinds of work for the community, and has very good clergy.

the kind of nastiness directed against Churches and religious people on this site in nauseating

[krabigirl]

120. Sorry, still disagree. Keep the dogma out of politics, then you can keep the tax-exempt status.

[anonymous171]

137. Isn't that already the law?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

164. That IS the law, and mainstream churches follow it

:eyes:

[anonymous171]

136. Good reply.nt

[TWiley]

143. You act like only religious people volunteer.

Ok, answer this

A Christian gives to the poor because they are afraid to go to hell.
An Athiest gives to the poor because they feel it is the right thing to do.

Now, who really lives on a higher moral plane? The ones who are calmoring for a reward in heaven, or the ones who simply do in because they feel it is the right thing?

[TCJ70]

151. Your first premise isn't always the case.

Alternate premise: A Christian gives to the poor because they believe it's the right thing to do and lines up with the message of Christ.

[TWiley]

155. That could be the case ... true

HOwever, most Christians I now are absolutely obsessed with life after death, going to heaven and all that. It is never far from their mind.

Assume my premise is true .... there are lots of Christians who act (or do not) out of superstitious fear. Which would be acting on a higher moral plane? The athiest, or the Christian?

[TCJ70]

156. I'll admit, I have a different view of how we should consider life and death

than other Christians I've met...

I don't worry too much about it. Having read the Bible, I know my fate is secure. It's my responsibility to do the best I can for people while I'm here. That's my attitude towards it. No amount of money or time donated will get anyone into Heaven.

[TWiley]

158. Just curious about the morality question.

I do understand that your beliefs are different than the hypothetical case I posed, as are many others. However, which would be your answer? The athiest, or the believer?

[TCJ70]

159. If the only two options are the first ones you presented...

...then of course the answer is the athiest.

[TCJ70]

160. Dupe...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

166. Where did I say that ONLY religious people volunteer?

:eyes:

[varelse]

65. No.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

[Lance_Boyle]

119. special exemptions in the tax code for churches ARE laws

"respecting an establishment of religion."

[Prophet 451]

66. Yes, but...

To echo the above poster: The part of their operation which is straightforward charitable work should not be taxed.

Not sure how you'd deal with those churches which use their charitable arm to proselytise though (i.e. those contemptable idiots who insist that the needy must be proselytised at before the meal). If you tax the charitable part of the organisation, that just leaves less money for helping the needy so I'm not sure how that could be enforced but I'm sure someone can come up with a workable suggestion.


(Since it seems to make a difference, I'm a man of faith (Luciferian Satanist but still faith) but my faith discourages proselytising beyond being a living example of the teachings and we believe that charity, where possible, should be anonymous)

[Divine Discontent]

70. the biggies should definitely be put under review for behaving like a non-profit or not, but,

the majority of groups organized to praise their higher power should be left alone from the govt, in the same way, the govt shouldn't be including the religious opinions of some, in govt. decision. The 'religious' area is rife with fraud, it doesn't mean there's not thousands of churches who don't help people every day or week with no expectation of the needy paying attention to what the church believes. It's not good when you've got thousands of fraudulent preachers/churches, but that's what fraud investigations are for, to maintain tax free status they need to prove they're not for profit. I won't even get started on the grotesque mega churches (those with more their fancy 50 million dollar buildings and such... Good bunch of discussion.

[starroute]

72. But what would you tax them on if they don't have profits?

Churches don't have shareholders or declare dividends. Whatever they take in is spent on the church's own activities, so I don't see that income tax figures into this to any significant degree. At most, they might have to separate out certain money-making activities and pay taxes on those, the way a non-profit hospital has to pay taxes on its gift shop in the lobby.

They'd also have to pay income taxes on their purchases of supplies and services, but that's relatively small change.

The major impact as far as I can tell would be that churches would have to pay property taxes on their buildings. This would have a particular impact on churches that own a lot of property, as the Catholic Church does.

But it might also impact a lot of those big old Victorian churches that are already a financial drain on their parishes because of upkeep and heating bills. I'm not sure I want to see a bunch of those torn down and replaced with WalMarts. Maybe they could be declared historical landmarks and given special terms on those grounds.

But all in all, I think that if you're serious about this, it's important to look first at how you would accomplish it and what the overall results would be, rather than just arguing about whether it would be a feel-good move. Otherwise, the law of unintended consequences would be sure to come back and bite you in the butt.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Quite true

My church was built in 1910 in Gothic revival style. Just keeping it from falling down is a major expense. It costs a lot to heat, so we've been looking at more environmentally responsible and economical heating systems, but those require upfront investment as well.

I suppose we could knock it down, but that would be a major architectural loss to the city, and building a replacement would cost even more than maintaining the present structure.

The location on the edge of downtown and on bus lines is ideal for serving the poor and for holding public events.

[Tesha]

85. You would treat donations to the 501(c)4 operations as taxable...

and only allow donors to take the tax deduction on their
contributions to the 501(c)3 operation; this would be the
same treatment as every other non-profit that runs both
501(c)4 (e.g., lobbying) and 501(c)3 (i.e., charitable)
operations.

Tesha

[Sultana]

73. FREAKING YES!

[iamme4043]

75. what does government have to do with God?

those who give money to churches are giving their money to God, or so they would hope.
on the other hand, money is of the world, so whatever.

[fedupwithbush]

77. Let's see less church building and land purchase.

I'm sick of seeing multi-million dollar churches on multiple acres of land being built. The land and the fancy building doesn't help anyone. And what does the lavishness of the church and setting have to do with praying?

My grandma told me early on, even though I was raised as a Baptist, that anywhere you pray is your church. God or whatever higher power you may believe in doesn't give a hoot if it's in church or in your bedroom. I took that to heart and believe it.

Now if those churches would use the money to help people instead of glorify their faith, I'd have some respect for them. But I can't, because I look and see how many families they could have helped by not building that fancy church and buying all that land.

At least if they paid taxes on that property, it would help people by paying for the local services like road maintenance, fire department, police, etc. And it would help with the enormous debt we're now carrying.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. I suspect that those "instant" churches growing up in the burbs

are funded under the table by right-wing foundations.

Having grown up as a preacher's kid, I have some knowledge about how mainstream churches organize new congregations in outlying areas. They start small, as in meeting in a rented storefront or even, in one case I know of personally, in the minister's living room. When they have enough people, they build or buy a small building. The growth of the congregation comes first in the sequence of events. If the congregation stays small, they stay in a small building.

When I was a teenager, the parish my father served built a new building, but that was only because we were having four services every Sunday and still had to set up extra chairs. Our old building was purchased by another church whose building had been destroyed by a tornado. They're still in it, forty years later.

It is unheard of for a mainstream church to start with a huge auditorium and acres of parking lots. If they're that big, it's because they've been attracting people and need the space.

[LWolf]

89. Good question.

I'm ambivalent.

Emotionally, I say "YES! TAX THEM ALL!"

Logically, and practically, probably not.

But, if NOT, then they should not be able to address politics in any form, at any time, at any function.

And when they do, they should lose that tax-exempt status.

Personally, I'd rather see blatant socialism than have needy people relying on services provided as a way to proselytize. Which is how I see too many of the "charities" run by organized religion.

To be frank, I define most organized religion, including scientology, as a cult. All but those who are open enough to embrace the idea that there might be many worthy paths, and that they are not the only "right" way or answer; all but those few are "cults" in my book.

That doesn't mean that I think all cults automatically cause harm. Those that actively recruit do; those that seek to establish political or financial power, those that seek to control the behavior and the choices of their flock.. they do cause harm. In my opinion.

[rhett o rick]

91. I didn't see anyone that defended the church's tax-free status give a reason they should

not be taxed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. Same reason that other non-profits are not taxed

What is the justification for not taxing secular charities, schools, or arts organizations?

[rhett o rick]

98. I don't mind giving tax breaks to organizations that do good for society. And some churchs meet

that criteria. But when churches use their income to build cathedrals, theme parks, and influence legislation, that's were I draw the line. Why does a church need to own stocks?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. Sometimes people bequeath stock to churches

and it provides a backup income for operating expenses. (That happened with the small church I attended in Portland. A long-time member bequeathed stock to the congregation and the dividends were set aside in a rainy day fund, because our building was old--built in the 1920s with the intention of being a temporary structure, and the rainy day fund meant that we didn't have to borrow when pipes burst or the furnace went out.)

But I agree that individual congregations shouldn't actively seek to trade on the stock market and that any church where the minister has sole control of the finances, without input from members, is highly suspect. Nor should churches go into purely secular businesses. Fortunately, I don't know of any mainstream Protestant or Catholic church where the clergy have sole control of the finances. They're answerable to governing boards elected from the members at large and are required to make financial reports to the regional and national governing bodies of their denomination.

The free-lance fundamentalists are another matter entirely. They're untrained, self-appointed, and usually responsible to neither their congregation nor any national supervisory body.

National and regional church bodies do own stock, but that's not for the personal enrichment of the leadership. Any bishop who was caught personally siphoning off money from regional or national funds would be out on his ass in record time. It's simply to provide a steady source of income. Think about the fact that if the national church is going to supervise the rest of the organization it is going to have administrative expenses.

As for cathedrals, well, I attend one, and it was built in 1910. Strictly speaking, a cathedral is a church that is a bishop's headquarters. Calling any other church, especially a fundy one, a "cathedral" is like calling your house a palace. Cathedrals may be purpose-built, or else a bishop may designate an existing church his cathedral. They tend to be large because they are the site for diocese-wide events. For example, my church serves as the site for the confirmation ceremony for all the youth in the diocese and actually hosted the national General Convention in 2003.

Few real cathedrals are being built nowadays. The only one I can think of is that the Roman Catholic diocese of Los Angeles built a new cathedral in downtown Los Angeles to replace one that was damaged (in an earthquake?).

I would agree that any church that seems like a personal money-making scheme for its self-appointed minister should be taxed, but the situation for mainstream churches is a lot more complicated than the stereotype of the huckster bilking the poor.

[rhett o rick]

112. Thank you for the polite dialog. I can't say I deserved it. But my real reason for

blogging here is to learn. Sometimes I let my prejudices get the best of me. I get upset when I think that my tax money is going to assist any organization that is pushing dogma. I personally am not an atheist, nor agnostic nor Christian. I feel that the religions of the Native Americans or some of the Eastern religions are more acceptable to me. I believe in live and let live, and not pushing religion or dogma on others.

Again, thanks for the polite dialog. Not easy to find in here.

[slackmaster]

108. The idea of non-profits is that they are supposed to be conduits for charity

Monetary contributions and volunteer labor, distributed from donors to needy recipients. Their existence is supposed to relieve society as a whole of the burdens of caring for the poor, sick, elderly, disabled, etc.

In return for agreeing not to run as a for-profit enterprise, not engaging in partisan politics, and other activities which would conflict with their missions, they get tax breaks.

The problem is, a lot of them break the rules.

[Festivito]

96. Yes, in part. many good ideas above. /nt

[Festivito]

97. Yes, in part. many good ideas above. /nt

[yodoobo]

99. If they pay taxes, their influence will grow tremendously

Then churches can say, "Look we paid xxx billion dollars in taxes, we demand representation".

If you think they have power now, make them a full fledged tax paying entity and they'll make mega corporations look like small potatoes when it comes to influence.

This is another reason why we have separation of church and state. If we remove that separation by bring churches into the taxpaying fold, we'll be in the fast lane for a theocracy.

Fortunately, no one is proposing this dangerous action.

[ColbertWatcher]

129. MiltonF's post #29 says something similar. n/t

[PufPuf23]

101. Don't forget Property taxes and other taxes that

make a level playing field.

With the faith-based programs, we are now providing federal funding for programs that evangelize as part of social programs.

[slackmaster]

105. Churches and all other non-profits that engage in partisan political activity should be taxed

Stripped of their tax-exempt status.

The churches are by no means the only organizations that chronically violate the conditions of tax exemption.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. Very true

Those rules are the reason that contributions to DU cannot be tax-exempt: It is an explicitly partisan organization.

I have NO TROUBLE AT ALL with removing the tax-exempt status of churches that urge their members to vote for specific candidates, parties, or pieces of legislation. When fundamentalist churches in Oregon distributed hate-filled anti-gay pamphlets to their members in the 1990s (I saw some of them), they should definitely have had their tax-exempt status revoked.

I notice that mainstream clergy are pretty careful about this. They'll say something like, "Be sure to vote after thoughtfully considering which candidate is more in line with all your values, not just a couple of pet issues."

[Realityhack]

118. "or pieces of legislation"

I disagree on that. It is not part of the specific prohibitions in the tax laws. As long as this is not their primary purpose I have no problem with them advocating for a specific law they support or do not support. Doing otherwise would require the same of other organizations.

[anonymous171]

145. Isn't that already part of the law?

[slackmaster]

147. Yes, it is the law

It's not being aggressively enforced.

Several incidents I witnessed as a campaign manager last year really put the problem into perspective.

I saw wholesale violations of tax-exempt status by diverse groups including:

- Churches
- Economic development agencies
- A legal aid society
- Historical preservation societies
- A major LGBT community center

The LGBT community center was the only group that admitted and apologized for their unlawful actions.

[anonymous171]

149. Ah. Thought so.

We don't need any fancy new laws. We just need to actually enforce the old ones.

[bigwillq]

107. YES! (nt)

[JNelson6563]

114. Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's....

render unto God, that which is God's.

Apparently lots of the money is God's now too. Back in the day it seemed bible-god was just interested in souls, he seems to be diversifying his portfolio of late.

Julie

[TexasObserver]

121. "We don't know much about God, but he know HE NEEDS YOUR MONEY!" -- George Carlin

I WISH Jesus was coming back - to give an ass whipping to all these religions that don't give a damn about his instructions, such as don't stand in the temple or a public place and say your prayers for all to see; go into your closet and pray.

Or visit those in prison. 99% of churchgoers ignore that one.

Or "make not your alms before men." Yeah, right!

If Jesus returned today, he'd be arrested if he tried to speak at most churches that bear his title.

[JNelson6563]

128. He'd probably prefer the company of atheists

Secular humanists. :toast: A lot less self-righteousness in those circles.

[kwassa]

132. oh, there are many self-righteous atheists in this very thread.

Hardly a quality of the religious alone.

Those with the most seem to know the least about the American religious landscape.

[JNelson6563]

135. Atheists don't believe

they are anyone's *chosen* people, don't have the vanity/fear of death that compels belief in an afterlife, don't do good things to a.) escape the wrath of all-loving bible-god or b.) earn a ticket to "heaven"......and on the list goes.

As Mark Twain said, "Go to heaven for the climate and hell for the company". Amen brother!

Julie

[TexasObserver]

139. Yes, that's probably true.

Jesus never once said to take up money, build a big building, and go to it a couple of times a week to feel good about yourself.

[anonymous171]

138. Souls aren't worth as much as they used to be. nt

[JNelson6563]

144. Are they charted, you know, like commodities?

That would be helpful.

[yellowcanine]

122. Churches and other nonprofits should definately pay property taxes, imo.

Property taxes are needed to maintain infrastructure and pay for schools. Churches should pay at least some property tax - maybe a reduced rate.

[SidneyCarton]

124. If you're going to tax, tax them all.

But first there will have to be a definition of "church" that adequately covers all the currently exempt religious organizations.

[noonwitch]

131. Most churches/religious organizations shouldn't be taxed.

a cult/church/group that operates a business(like Moon and the Washington Times) should pay taxes on it's businesses and profit-making enterprises.

[Redbear]

152. No. It's a fundamental part of church/state separation.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

[Seldona]

153. Yes. nt

[Evoman]

161. We should have a douchebag tax. That means a majority of the christian church leaders would end up

penniless, without actually hurting the little guys who want a place to gather in their community.

Also, McCain would lose a bunch of houses, and Karl Rove would have to turn tricks to survive.

Now all we have to do is get Obama to appoint a progressive Douchebag Czar.

[Dreamer Tatum]

165. So...you don't like religion in government, therefore you want to ensure...religion in government

:eyes: