Should all churches in all denominations pay taxes?

[goodboy]

I do. Maybe they'd use more of their money to actually help people, rather than buying big houses, big cars, gold thrones, plastic surgery, and PINK FUCKING HAIR etc.


<>

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goodboy]

4. doesn't mean they shouldn't pay taxes...(nt)

[MollyStark]

23. yes it does

That is exactly what it means among other things.

[goodboy]

24. Ok, the pukes would argue that there is no sep. of church and state

so using their arguement why not tax the shit outta them?

[FreedomAngel82]

92. When they use that argument

what I do is ask them why they aren't taxed and then tell them it's because seperation of church and state. The republican's have always believed this myth. :eyes:

[Steel City Slim]

28. Please Explain That

How does separation of church and state mean "EXACTLY" that they shouldn't pay taxes?

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. Actually, having religious institutions pay taxes can be argued as...

upholding separation of church and state. No judgment call needed when deciding what constitutes a religious institution and what doesn't.

[goodboy]

13. snap. nice Pacifist Patriot! (nt)

[asthmaticeog]

14. A great many churches are active politically.

They want to use money donated by congregants campaign on behalf of electoral candidates, they can pay their fucking dues to the process.

Frankly, I'd like to see churches taxed out of existence, but I'm a romantic.

Welcome to DU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. If a church does that, they are subject to taxation.

[asthmaticeog]

45. Technically, yes, but no-one enforces that clause.

Imagine that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

49. Which is why I said below that enforcement of existing...

laws might be a very good start. One church in my county was publicly slapped down for their political activity last October, but I have no idea what the financial repercussions were if any.

[asthmaticeog]

50. No doubt -

The revenue from Pat Robertson *alone* could probably feed lunch to all of our public-school kids for a decade.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. I second that.

"Frankly, I'd like to see churches taxed of existence,......" I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[flamin lib]

19. That's the way I read it.

If we aren't supposed to make laws establishing religion, how is it that we pass laws supporting religion? Laws like not taxing religious establishments, making tithing tax deductible etc.

Besides, it was decided that Scientology was not a bone fide religion so it wasn't eligible for such support. Seems to me that some religions are more equal than others so congress is definitely establishing some religions over others.

[LSdemocrat]

142. They're not taxed because they are not for profit

[Steel City Slim]

25. Exactly

And that is why they should pay taxes. Their exemption blurs the line.

Welcome to DU.

[TWiley]

2. No question about it. All public health threats should be taxed.

There needs to be some accountability for the billions of dollars poured into "faith based iniatives" also. To my knowledge, there is none.

[me b zola]

99. Yes. We should all be able to agree that billions of our tax $$

should not be funneled into churches under the guise of "faith based initiatives".

Interesting take on churches being puplic health threats, I've never thought about it like that, but in some cases I see your point.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. I'm always torn on that...

my church is struggling just to make ends meet and keep our doors open to provide the services we can to our congregation and community. There isn't one thin dime left over for a doll house let alone a real one. On the other hand, I don't see why not.

[Tux]

5. I'd like the tax

Be based on the number of members. Smaller churches wouldn't get hit hard and larger ones can easliy pay thier way.

[theboss]

7. There's no real way to measure that....

And there are some huge black churches that aren't exactly rich.

And how would you tax Catholic Churches. Some parishes are small; some are large, yet they receive support from the Diocese.

Bad idea all around. Keep government out of religion and religion out of government.

[Rich Hunt]

70. exactly

Taxing churches is a really dumb and lazily 'atheist' idea. It opens the door for all sorts of governmental abuses of private institutions.

In other words, it's un-American.

[goodboy]

6. well supposing the taxes were based on the revenue, so your church

wouldn't owe much if anything, where as, pat robertsons would owe BILLIONS...and the only way out would be to use the weekly 'take' to actually help people and get a deduction.

[Steel City Slim]

34. What Does Your Church Do With The Money It Takes In?

Does it pay to support missionaries to go out and convert others to your particular sect? Does it pay for religious tracts to be handed out and/or slid under peoples doors? Does it kickback money to the main office? If any of those things are so, all you have to do is stop and you'll have money to pay taxes.

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. Let's see, what do we do?

We don't have missionaries.

I print my own fliers describing the church and our activities which are left on the visitor's table in the foyer of the church. The church doesn't even pay for that.

Main office? Is that the little room we use to photocopy the Sunday bulletin whenever the photocopier is working?

We have a part-time minister and no other paid employees.

Does that help?

[theboss]

85. What business is that of yours?

What does my church do?

It runs a daycare.
It gives away a few grand in scholarships.
It sends poor kids to Church Camp for free.
It supports a School for Orphans in southern Virginia.
It supports a few missions in Africa and Asia.
It runs a summer Vacation Bible School.
It takes seniors shopping for groceries every Saturday and organizes other social events.
It organizes and funds pizza parties after local high school football games. The idea was to create a "safe place" for teens on a Friday night. It generally attracts about 60 people or so. (And, yes, they take five minutes for a message and prayer).

And we do all this on a shoestring budget.

If we were taxed, the daycare would definitely be gone.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. In which case your church could claim deductions for charitable

services, which deductions should balance the property taxes -- if things are that tight, there would certainly be no income taxes. Your church would be fine. The mega-church down the road is free to try to make the same claims.

[bryant69]

8. The power to tax is the power to destroy

Or at least that's the reasoning behind not having them pay taxes.

I don't suspect that is going to change.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

9. I'm coming around to that conclusion.

although I think it has been great for fledgling churches just starting up, I think large well-established churches have abused the tax break, and ESPECIALLY tv evangelists have.
I think also since SOMEONE gets to decide what is a tax exempt church and what isn't., we might as well pull the plug on all of them before the christian taliban pulls it on everyone butthemselves.

[goodboy]

15. ok so we only tax MEGA churches...and force them to do good in order

to get deductions.

[AverageJoe]

11. Yes

My guess is that many of the phony, right wing, politically active "churches" would close up shop and, thus, the hatred and bigotry index in the United States would drop dramatically.

For my money, that means about 80% of all the "Christian" churches out there...

Tax the hell out of 'em all, I say.

[goodboy]

16. hell yeah, Joe. Especially those mega churches...

[Pacifist Patriot]

20. Unfortunately, that tactic also hurts the liberal churches as well.

My UU church is a liberal haven in a conservative area. We're struggling in a 50 year old building with air conditioning that is almost as old. It's all we can do to stay in the black. We're fortunate to own our own property. The way property values have increased over the last five decades, taxes would shut our doors too, nut just the mega right wing churches.

[goodboy]

31. if they were taxed on revenue, then your church would owe very little,

also, your churches humanitarian activities would give tax credits, and maybe you'd be ahead of where you are now.

[Maru Kitteh]

80. Do you want all non-profit entities to be taxed? Or are you just singling

out and discriminating against Christians? What about Greenpeace, the Humane Society, Shriners, the Red Cross, National Public Radio....... etc, etc, etc. Some of them do a good deal of thinly disguised political activism too.

I am against taxing any non-profit, it discourages community services and the more benevolent institutions of society. That being said any charity that steps into politics should be taxed, whether it be a local parish or the local chapter of The March of Dimes.

[goodboy]

117. nope, the poll question was about churches. (nt)

[Mr.Green93]

12. Render unto Caesar

the things which are Caesar’s

[goodboy]

17. then the pukes will start attacking Jesus, "why do you hate america?"

[sui generis]

21. Agreed - Churches get police protection, decent roads

and live in a "free society" where they can exist at all, and only because taxes pay for that infrastructure.

It's time for churches as legal entities to participate in the very tax infrastructure that allows them to exist.

[Rich Hunt]

72. that's not correct

Citizens pay for those amenities.

Those who want to tax religion ought to take a harder look at some of the nonsense that goes on in the not-for-profit sector in general. They don't, however. Is their beef really with corruption, or is it just with religion?

[sui generis]

104. correct for me, therefore correct

so while I'm on it, yes, non-profits need to be taxed too.

This has nothing to do with having a beef - it's just appropriate. These are legal entities that take in money and exist within our infrastructure. They need to participate in it. When you have a state tax in your business, you change your cost structure and margins to accommodate the additional expense.

It would only be unfair if SOME organizations weren't required to pay taxes. Oh wait a second, that sounds like churches.

[theboss]

73. So does the United Way

We should tax them too under your theory.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

98. So should schools, hospitals, and other non-profits do the same?

:shrug:

[louis c]

139. Non-Profits

Give me a break. Check out the Vatican when the smoke goes up.

Or the Evangelicals' jewelry.

Make 'em pay.

And, by the way, all private schools can pay, too.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. I guess you know more about the public images of the

churches in the mass media than you know about actual average churches.

[Steel City Slim]

22. Absolutely!!!!

With out a doubt. No question about it.

[GaYellowDawg]

26. No.

Not all churches in all denominations are political machines.

Those that pass out "voting guides" are political organizations, and should be taxed as such. What's the legal definition of a church for taxation purposes, anyway? I'd love to see Pat Robertson get completely hosed by the IRS.

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. Perhaps enforcement of existing tax law would...

be a good start before we change the system completely.

[Kerrytravelers]

47. Good idea. I second that one. nft

[Walt Starr]

27. The original reason churches were exempted from taxes was social

i.e., the state would not have to foot the bill for social programs because the churches would handle it all.

Now we are in a time when social programs include paying welfare to churches!

Tax 'em all, I say!

[goodboy]

30. Especially since they've become more political. Handing out voter guides

preaching politics from the pulpit. Tax them.

[Oysteria]

63. Well then we'd have to keep politicians...

...from going into the churches to make their speeches too. Democratic politicians as well as republicans are always going into churches to speak.

I agree that making more laws or changing existing laws because the ones we have now aren't enforced is always a problem. That's how we get caught up in a morass of problems and things become impossible to implement. That's how government gets too much power and lawyers make too much money.

[goodboy]

118. no. going into a church isn't the same as telling your congregants who to

vote for...


welcome to DU, enjoy your stay.

[More Than A Feeling]

29. Go ahead and tax the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity too!

If we are going to tax one brand of non-profit, why not all of them?

Furthermore, there is a big difference between advocating issues (ok) and endorsing candidates (not ok). The vast majority of churches, liberal and conservative, do the first one, not the second. It is, after all, one of the functions of religion to critique society and government, and call everyone to live up to a higher standard. It is not a violation of the Separation of Church and State if they do that.

Also, I am curious to know how churches could use more of their money to help people, if they have to pay more in taxes. Wouldn't they then have less money to help people?

Watch the taxes rise on churches that speak out against the government.

The rules concerning the relationship between churches and governments were born out of long and bloody struggles, and I would be loath to change them. I am not in favor of taxing churches, I think it is a terrible idea. In my view, it is just like the fight over the filibuster. Churches, to my knowledge, have never been taxed in this country. Now because some are preaching messages we don't like, we should change the rules? No thanks.

However, I am not going to make electoral arguments about this. It could easily be done as a grassroots movement apart from any established party.

[Kerrytravelers]

33. With the current climate of making churches political organizing places

I say tax them! You hsould tax them based on income, so the struggling churches can survive.

Then, on the other hand, some churches that have all but said rethug will come out of the woodwork screaming as loud as they can. The billins of dollars floating around the wealthy mega churches will help fund the smaller fundy churches and once again, the smaller, poorer lib chuches will be left out.

No matter what, liberals always get the short end of the proverbial money stick, don't we? That's ok, to quote the Bible, it is easier for a rich man to get therough the eye of a needle than to get into Heaven. That's one of those scriptures the fundies tend to forget.

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. There are rules governing the political activity in which

churches and clergy as a representative of the church can engage. Once they cross that line they jeopardize their tax-free status.

[Kerrytravelers]

43. Yes. My brother-in-law was a Southern Baptist music minister

who put his toe right up to that line. I was just waiting for him to cross it. I personally think he went way too far. But, if I'd reported him and it came out that it was me, that would have been too hard on my husband. Most people don't realize you can turn these people in and what the proceedures are. My parents left their church of 22 years becuse the sermons were becoming more and more like *'s stump speeches. They didn't bother to turn this asshole in- it was a church on a military base. In 22 years, it had never been political until this idiot.

My brother-in-law is now deceased.

[leftofthedial]

38. yes

religion is just a business (and a particularly destructive one at that).

if they canearn $$, they can pay taxes.

[More Than A Feeling]

39. Churches are charities, not businesses

They don't earn money, they receive donations.

[aeolian]

40. "not businesses"

:rofl:

[Kerrytravelers]

51. "not a business"

Let Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts and the rest of the Billionaires for Jesus Club know that!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Just kidding. I get your point. I know what you mean by charity not business. Unfortunately, many of my Christian brethern doesn't understand that.

[Rich Hunt]

78. so tell me...

Do you think there is no such thing as embezzlement in the non-profit sector?

Do you think all non-religious non-profits have the most innocent motives?

[Kerrytravelers]

82. I was referring to the mega fundamentalist churches that take $$ from the

elderly and the poor by manipulating them. Not following the line of reasoning here. I was just commenting that some churches think more about how much cash they can bring in rather than functioning on the religious/spiritual needs of their parishoners. Don't recall saying all non-profits are innocent or don't embezzle. Check out my other posts on this thread. I can see both sides of the argument.

I'm Catholic. I belong to the wealthiest Christian church on the planet. I certainly believe some churches are there to serve the needs of the community while other ones are there to bring in a constant cash flow. I saw this when I was teaching at a Catholic school.

After reading the full thread, I think there are good arguments made from both the yes and no sides.

I'm not "really dumb," nor do I see the yes, tax the churches arguments as a "lazily 'atheist' idea." I don't see this as a black and white issue, but there are plenty of shades of gray to sift through.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Thanks for standing up for the "un-american atheists"

I thought nobody else caught that.
Too bad there wasn't a "snotty back-handed insult" tax, you know?

[Kerrytravelers]

106. Any time!

Back handed snotty tax :rofl:

Seriously thouggh, by protecting your right not to practice a religion, it is also protecting my right to practice a religion. Each one protects the other because it goes to keeping every right equal and not letting one faith become dominate over the others, even if it is the majority one practiced in the country.

You know me, I got your back, Scottie, anytime! :pals:

[beam me up scottie]

110. You got that right.

Minorities are just a lot less likely to forget that fact.
:hi:

[Pacifist Patriot]

48. Yes and no.

The are not supposed to be "for profit corporations," but you have to function like a business to be able to continue offering a service. My church barely breaks even, but we earn rental income by leasing the building as meeting space for a variety of organizations. If we didn't do that we'd cease operating all together.

Mega-churches are virtually corporations.

[More Than A Feeling]

52. I accept what you say about running like a business

but they are still 501 (c)3 non-profits right? Which means that to tax them and be consistent, you'd have to tax all the others that hold that status too. That includes Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other groups that we like. If churches cross the line, the IRS gets involved. There was a church in New York that lost their tax exempt status. It does happen. It would happen more under a more first amendment friendly administration.

Like I have said, I am 100% behind the Wall of Separation, but this taxing involves the government too closely. The wall protects churches just as much as it does the government. I think people are letting their hatred of the religious right get the better of them.

[Pacifist Patriot]

61. Sounds like you and I are agreeing.

[More Than A Feeling]

65. I agree!

:D

[amazona]

55. er, sure, you try that and get back to me

If I say provide child care for people who believeth in me and tell people that I'm just asking for donations, you may bet your derriere that the I.R.S. will come put me under the jail if I don't pay taxes.

Who died and made Pat Robertson and his millions exempt?

Agreed the taxation should be progressive, so low income churches are not affected, but the big money grabbers should be taxed and heavily. They have too much money when, say, LDS can send people all over the world to destroy other people's lives by converting them to their poisonous beliefs.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[More Than A Feeling]

60. If you have non-profit status and comply with the rules regarding that

the IRS won't touch you.

The LDS and others are charities and if people support their mission with heavy donations, as long as they aren't doing anything in conflict with tax law or other laws, your personal feelings about what the LDS or others are doing should have nothing to do with it.

I don't think the taxation should be progressive, I think there should be no taxation of charities and other non-profits, period.

What if the religious rightists say big money grabbers on the left like the ACLU or AU shouldn't be tax-free to travel the land destroying people's lives by spreading what the right would consider "poisonous" beliefs? I don't want that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. Tell that to Jim Bakker and Pat Robertson. nt

[More Than A Feeling]

66. If I were President, the IRS would be investigating the hell out of them

but I wouldn't change the tax code.

[Kerrytravelers]

86. Once * is gone, the next pres, a Dem, will hopefully do this,

This country needs some housecleaning.

[theboss]

71. Jim Bakker went to jail

Which kind of proves the point that there are rules.

[leftofthedial]

113. "charities" run by millionaires

to promote a narrow political point of view


if they are charities, let them prove nonprofit eligibility on the basis of their mission, not on the basis of them calling themselves a "church."

If they can demonstrate a qualifying mission, they can be a nonprofit church. Few of them would qualify.

[oneold1-4u]

41. Thot u ot to know

A preacher buys or is given land, 100 acres for example. A small church is built and a house for preacher who farms a bit of the land and sells and uses the product. The church may or may not prosper but no taxes are paid on any part of this, and a decade later the property value alone has increased to quarter of a million per 5 acres! Now it is time to sell and put some of the money into a small but beautiful church in downtown where more people see it and come to join. the congregation grows quickly and the church prospers. Still no taxes! Once again it is time to move on and the minister sells out to the established church.
The preacher began his calling at age 27 and is now 45 and a multi- millionaire who can run for public office and even become president in another decade! Just like most millionaire politicians, he really knows about the wage earner who has paid taxes all through life.

[More Than A Feeling]

42. Do we actually have any ministers holding elective office?

I know that Catholic priests have to receive a special dispensation from the Pope to even try to run for office.

If what you say is something to worry about, then surely it must be happening. I can't think of any examples where someone has done what you suggest. Can you?

[Pacifist Patriot]

44. I can think of ministers who have run for public office, but...

the scenario listed above is pretty specific and doesn't ring any bells with me. Maybe I should take notes....off to go find 100 cheap acres and learn how to farm.

[lonestarnot]

46. Absolutely they should be taxed!

[amazona]

53. yes i've had it with churches not paying taxes

Churches that have millions to throw away on nonsense pay no taxes, while I with my munificent annual income in the high four figures still paid taxes, primarily Soc. Security tax.

I'm tired of the unfairness.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. Churches do have to pay SS tax for their employees

Take it from one who knows it from the inside.

[Blue Moon]

54. If you're gonna tax churches

Then you have to be fair and tax ALL non-profit orgs, right? I can't think of any non-profit org that doesn't have a political agenda. Of course, non-profit orgs would include such diverse entities as 501(c)3's, political non-profits and unions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. Exemption from taxes is a violation of the separation of church and

state -- gives preference to religious institutions over secular ones. They should be allowed charitable deductions, but should pay on income like any other organization.

[More Than A Feeling]

64. all 501(c)3s, secular or religious, are tax exempt (n/t)

[tritsofme]

115. Seems like a lot of people on this thread are ignoring you

because what you are saying doesn't jive with their preconcieved notions of how things are.

Thanks for setting the record straight here.

[Kerrytravelers]

122. When I was working to get volunteers to help elect Kerry, I went to

PlannedParenthood and the NAACP. Both groups couldn't take my partisan fliers that said "John Kerry" on it because of their tax status.

They understand the rules and follow it. So do most churches. Unfortunately, there are the mega-fundy-churches who are getting away with giving money to * and coercing their "flock" to vote for *.

Honestly, most tax exempt groups undersand this. I'd like to see the rules enforced across the board or tax them all. Fair is fair.

[More Than A Feeling]

140. Thank you for your kind words! (n/t)

[Maru Kitteh]

57. As long as they keep their noses OUT OF POLITICS they should not

be taxed any more than any other non-profit is. If they start handing out voter guides or preaching about evil Democrats then yes, tax the hell out of them or make them pay a NASTY fine.

[Oysteria]

74. What if

they preach about evil Republicans? As some do. You have to be careful about what many of you are wishing for. It's a two way street and could come back to bite one on the nether regions. The rule would have to apply equally to both sides of the political aisle.

[Maru Kitteh]

83. Yes, the ones preaching about evil republicans should be taxed too

My church stays out of politics, they all should. Now if the gubnment would just stay out of faith, I'd be really happy.

Non profits who do not advocate for political candidates or porties should not be taxed. If you advocate for one political party or candidate you should be taxed.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Hell yeah, and you can start with

Creflo Dollar

"As the righteousness of God, your inheritance of wealth and riches is included in the "spiritual blessings" (or spiritual things) the Apostle Paul spoke of in Ephesians 1:5. Based on Psalm 112:3, righteousness, wealth and riches go hand in hand. You have every right to live wealthy and possess material riches-clothes, jewelry, houses, cars and money-in abundance."

http://interactive.creflodollarministries.org/bible/bsc_finance_t.asp

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. Love the shots from "They Live" nt

[beam me up scottie]

68. Thanks!

The money that has "THIS IS YOUR GOD" printed on it was hard to find-but worth it.
I am too scared to put on my sunglasses some days, how about you?

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. Yeah, but I prefer to know who I'm dealing with.

Besides, how else can we find the uplink?

[beam me up scottie]

75. shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

They'll hear us!

[Kerrytravelers]

87. Hi Scottie! How are you?

We meet again... on another religious thread... with some angry customers... imagine that!

Hope things are well with you and yours? Has your bother gone overseas yet?

[beam me up scottie]

94. Hi!

Doing good here, how about you?
My bro has left Mississippi and is on his way to California for some more training before shipping out in June.
Doesn't look like things are getting any better over there. It's amazing how many of the reich wing nuts I work with actually think that our guys are coming home soon.
Eh, same old story, they believe whatever blivet tells them while they cry about high gasoline prices and discrimination against "faith-based" people.
I see ah-nold's making all kinds of new friends, isn't he? I could have done without the speedo picture somebody posted this morning.
:puke:

By the way, where do you get your animated smilies? I LOVE those!

[Kerrytravelers]

109. I'm hanging in there... counting the seconds until Jan 20, 2009...

<http://www.clicksmilies.com/>

RWers are just plain stupid. Period. You'd have to be to buy any of *'s crapola.

Where is your brother at in CA?

Last time I checked, Schwartnazi was at a 43% approval rating. My parents recently received a booklet in the mail of his petitions, asking for their signature. My mother committed her first act of political defiance. She wrote Save California, send Arnold back to Hollywood, I love teachers and I love nurses all over the inside, then sent it back without a stamp (they asked to help save CA by attaching your own stamp so they won't have to pay for it.) Can you believe sending out a petition like that in the mail? What, can't he pay people to stand in front of Wal*Mart and get the rethugs that are too stupid to know better?

AAAGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!! Ok, I feel better now.

[beam me up scottie]

111. Not sure where he's going in CA.

I haven't talked to my dad yet this week.
Thanks for the link!
I hope your mom starts a revolution-throw his arrogant ass out of there!
It's just disgusting how he's so quick to spend your money on his "ballot initiatives" whenever he gets told "no".
When nurses and teachers hate you, you know you're on your way out!

C'ya!

[dcfirefighter]

76. I've got odd tax ideas

But churches should pay property taxes at least. I'd give them the option of paying it some form of service, but I'd tax them nonetheless. Same with non-profits as well.

Compensate those you exclude from natural wealth.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

77. Only if they are spouting political rhetoric.

n/t

[Rich Hunt]

79. what sort of rhetoric?

The kind you agree with, or the kind you don't agree with? Religious institutions do both, you know.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

81. I know - there are many liberal churches. They should ALL be taxed.

Even those I agree with - much as I hate to do it. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state. There are a lot more ulta-conservative churches spouting politics and busing their bots to the polls.

It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't such hypocrites. Abortion, birth control and letting Terry Schiavo die: bad. War and death penalty: good.

[Rich Hunt]

84. so essentially...

you're saying that religious communities ought not have any values at all. Pacifism, for example, is a value promoted by some religious communities. So is justice for the poor.

I don't get it.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

89. They should not be telling people how to vote and busing people.

They shouldn't be commenting on specific politicans (such as telling people if they vote for Kerry - they will be going against the church).

There is a difference between politics and values.

[Rich Hunt]

93. Not always

Abortion, regardless of how you feel about it, is a values issue as well as a political one. Militarism is a political issue as well as an ethical one. They do overlap.

I think you confuse 'politicking' with 'politics'.

[indepat]

88. Only those churches who espouse partisan political agendas

or otherwise proselytize RW or other agendas whose actions purport to be "Christian" but whose actions are contrary to Christian doctrine.

[FreedomAngel82]

90. I'm torn personally

On one hand I see big obnoxious churches like the TVgelicals and think they should be but then I remember there are a lot of churches like mine and my grandparents who don't do anything wrong and are just there. So I'm torn personally.

[Kerrytravelers]

95. I feel the same way. I can see both side of the argument.

And they are both great arguments.

[sweetheart]

91. Flat tax on all pay

No tax benefit for charitable giving. As much as churches are
businesses, they should pay taxes on salaries to their employees.

No special favours. No need for a buzillion special exemptions and
organizational statuses like "tax exempt"... Church and state
should be separate, and in this regard, a flat tax sees all organizations
as the same, with the blind vision of equanimity and justice.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

102. Churches DO pay SS and Medicare tax for their employees

Those are the only taxes that anybody, commercial or non-profit, pays "on salaries to their employees."

[sweetheart]

103. which is why i voted "no" in the poll

I wuz merely explainin' that i don't believe in anything but income
tax, and in this regard, then a church is identitical to a corporate
entity.

[Crunchy Frog]

96. If they're going to be involved in partisan politics, then they

should be taxed. Also, they should really go after the ones who are involved in fraud, and the ones who are making money in a shady fashion, like backing up 3rd word dictators in order to operate diamond mines.

Otherwise, they shouldn't be taxed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Fact check:

1. Most churches are not rich. I know. I grew up as a preacher's kid and sat on the vestry (governing board) of a church in downtown Portland. We were in a building that had been built as a "temporary" structure in 1922, and it was held together only by volunteers who came once a week and did repairs and maintenance. We paid utility bills like everyone else, and when the downtown streetcar came past, we paid an $11,000 assessment. Ouch. We are also "taxed" by our national organizations to fund things like worldwide relief efforts.

2. Most churches do a lot of community service: feeding and clothing the poor, building and furnishing housing for homeless youth, mentoring young parents, providing free meeting space for self-help groups and peace and justice groups, providing low-cost daycare, and other useful services. Which of these should they cut to pay their taxes?

3. The "wealth of the Vatican" myth: Your average Catholic church gets no "trickle down" from the wealth of the Vatican, which was amassed over the centuries and is mostly in the form of Renaissance artworks, some of which is permanently in place and immovable, like the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. Other denominations, which are less tightly organized, have even less potential for earnings from the higher-ups.

4. If churches are to be taxed, should schools, hospitals, secular charities, art museums, concert halls, and other non-profit institutions also pay taxes?

I agree that churches that endorse political candidates should lose their tax-exempt status. I can agree that churches that do not spend a certain percentage of their income for operating expenses and charities--the ones that are money-making schemes for the TV evangelists-- should be investigated for tax fraud.

But too much government oversight can be dangerous, too. Would you really have wanted the Reagan administration to be able to come in and say to churches, "You lose your tax exemption because you're helping Salvadoran refugees gain political asylum"?

Churches represent a tiny percentage of lost tax revenue compared to corporations. It create a buzz in Oregon in recent years that several major, major corporations paid only $10 in state income tax. Now there's a bunch that deserves going after.

[mtnester]

105. No and Yes - Separation of church and state NO...however, if they become

politically active, the separation is gone, and yes then they should pay taxes. So I voted Other.


Maybe a No...provided they stay out of it...selection, or a yes...only if they are politically active...selection would have been appropriate here too?

If you have the right to try and tell me what to do, then you should pay the same taxes I do.

[spanone]

107. Especially when they start talking politics. Definitely. Absolutely.

Otherwise they are a tax-free PAC.

[Kansas Wyatt]

108. At the very least...

The leaders of religious organizations and churches should be required to publicly post their income and worth, to be able to get a tax exemption.

Let's really see how much Fawell can, but does not, help the poor and unfortunate, while raking in money from Granny.

[Kerrytravelers]

112. In my hometown, all public employees (school admins, higher ups)

salaries were published in the newspaper once a year. It let the taxpayers know where their money was going. I bet many of these "televangelists" support would dwindle down if their followers realized how much fortune these guys had admassed.

YOu just know that they would deny it and call it left wing biased and their followers would eat it up... along with sipping the kool-aid.

[ComerPerro]

114. No, until they start pimping for a political candidate

Then they no longer qualify for exempt status, IMO

[Blue Moon]

116. Unions pimp too

Should they be taxed? Grassroots charities pimp for their politcal candidate to further their charitable agenda. Should they be taxed too?

[ComerPerro]

119. The whole basis of a church is that they are completely separate from gov'

And, the biggest difference is as follows:

Unions and Grassroots organizations don't use God to endrose a candidate.

[Blue Moon]

120. Using that logic

anyone who is a member of a religious organization should not be allowed to vote because of separation of church/state!

[ComerPerro]

124. That is some piss poor logic you've got there

While they are a member of a religious organization, their actions as a member of that organization are to be completely separate from the Goverment. However, they are still full time private citizens who can vote.

They aren't voting as a member of _______ Church. They are voting as a citizen of the United States.

As a citizen, they are free to actively be involved in any type of political organization, campaign or cause. But, it is unethical for them to do so as a member of a church.

Analogy: I have an email account at my job. I can use to to communicate with anyone within the company about any issue that I like, but not anyone outside. I am completely free to associate myself with any social, political, recational or whatever group I choose. But I am not to do so as a representative of the company.

Here's the problem: Churches and religious organizations are distinctly separated from the government expressly because they are based on unprovable assertions and requre drastic leaps of faith. They are not to be politically active. Your boss can't tell you "Look, I want every one of my employees to know that they should vote for John Kerry, otherwise I will be angry and they will have to explain themselves." Similarly, a preacher cannot tell you "God told me he supports George Bush".

The church should not influence how the individal citizens who make up its membership should vote.

Otherwise, they just become an extention of a campaign.

[Blue Moon]

126. Sorry, you're wrong

please cite ANY precedent or law stating that a church leader does not have a right to a public political opinion.

[ComerPerro]

128. I believe the word is coercion

Its not a free speech issue.

It goes beyond free speech.

What you have in that circumstance is someone who claims to have divine authority. He must therefore be responsible with his opinions, and have the restraint necessary to properly do his job.

Why is it coercion?

Simple:

Lets say that I am devoutly religious, and I know that my pastor is close to God. He is my spiritual link to God and Jesus.

Suppose he tells me that God endorses George W Bush. But I would prefer to vote for Kerry.

Now I have a choice: vote against my preference and fall out of favor with the Lord (and go to Hell) or vote against your own instincts but respect the Lord's will.

Now, this is going to seem random and extreme, but imagine you go to vote, and you are stopped by a very large man who says "If I find you you didn't vote for Bush, I will kick you in the balls."

Sounds funny, but its the same thing.

You can't use coercion to get votes. That's exactly what the preachers are doing.

[Blue Moon]

129. Coercion?

Coercion is physical force against your will! You are really stretching it here! You obviously confuse coercion with persuasion.

As an aside, tell me, which religion or religious leader specifically said that God endorses Candidate X?

[ComerPerro]

130. Try looking at the religious right sometime

On TBN a few weeks ago I saw Paul Crouch talking about how he worked closesly with SS Blackwell of Ohio to get the votes out for Bush.

I am sorry, but that is morally wrong. If its not illegal, it sure as hell should be.

And, trust me, there is a difference between simple persuasion and threatening God's vengenance.

There is no physical threat involved, but there is the threat of eternal damnation. That may not mean much to you or me, but you can bet your ass it means alot to members of the Church.

If a Church is politically active and campaigns, it should not qualify for Tax Exempt status. It is not providing the services of a religious organization, and is nothing more than a tax exempt propaganda arm for the GOP.

Tune in to TBN sometime, watch for a little while. I guarantee you will hear ringing endorsements of GOP candidates, and plently of attacks on Democratic candidates.

[Blue Moon]

132. Threat of eternal damnation?

BS! You are drawing invalid and non-supported conclusions based upon emotion, not fact. You didn't answer my question, because you can't. You ask me to trust you on the issue. No offense, but I don't trust you, I don't even know you. I trust me.

Look, right wing holy rollers are as repugnant to me as they are to you, but there is no law that precludes them or anyone from a political opinion. I'm right, you're wrong.

[ComerPerro]

134. Beg your pardon, but I answered each and every one of your questions

You just don't like the answer.

Is there a law on the books about this? Not that I am aware of.

But the question posed by the OP was "Should", not is.

I am justifying that there should be such a law.

I am drawing my conclusions based on observation and religious dogma.

Preachers are a spiritual guide to God. Therefore, that person speaks for God. Any opinion he states while wearing his "preacher hat" is meant to be taken as the carefully considered word of God. I don't believe in that BS, but that's how it works. That's one of the biggest problems with organized religion.

According to most Dogma, if you don't try to adhere to God's will, you will be judged accordingly.

No one is advocating imposing a restriction on the "rights" of Preachers or members of their church.

However, as I said earlier, just as your boss cannot tell you that he wants you to vote for Kerry, neither should a pastor. Its immoral, its irresponsible, and it certainly doesn't qualify as protections from government intervention.

[Book Lover]

131. You are being obtuse

if you assert that the preacher who is seen by a congregant as that congregant's link to the divine somehow has no authority to tell his/her congregants who god wants them to vote for.

[Blue Moon]

133. What preacher

are you referring to who told his or her congregation that God wants them to vote for candidate X? Be specific.

Any preacher has the right to voice his or her political opinion. Period.

[Book Lover]

135. I am an atheist and don't go to church

but if you honestly believe that not a single preacher in the US has done as we describe, I have a bridge to sell you. Instead of screeching about how you require proof, as if this were a courtroom, how about thinking for a moment? Human beings are standing in the pulpits, not robots. I am not asserting that we muzzle preachers; I am reacting to your assertions in this thread.

[Blue Moon]

136. So basically

You have made a generalization that you can't support and you extend that generalization onto a whole populace known as organized religion and I'm supposed to buy into you contention? Very enlightened thinking. Perhaps you might want to buy a bridge from me!

[Book Lover]

137. I took you off Ignore for this?

I wish I understood why you are so angry. Whatever.

[Kerrytravelers]

123. My union has never told me I"m going to hell. Neither has my parents.

That is a huge difference. It isn't manipulation people in the most personal way.

Grassroots are formed to support a candidate/issue/cause. They have rules they have to follow, too, or they are fined.

[ComerPerro]

125. Exactly

[Book Lover]

121. Churches that use buildings should

pay a percentage of what the property tax would be if the land and building had a productive commerical use. That's fair - those organizations that use municipal services (water/sewer, fire and police) should pay for a portion of those services.

on edit: I said this better in a different post a little while ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3480743&mesg_id=3480821

[nonconformist]

127. Absofreakinglutely. nt

[goodboy]

138. Thank you DU, for all your responses, here's my conclusion:

I think a church's revenue ought to be taxed. I think churches that take in less than 1 million should keep tax exempt status. For churches taking in more than one million, credits should be issued when that money is used for humanitarian work. It would create a huge incentive to do good in the world.
Any church participating in politics by encouraging their congregants to vote for a certain (any) political party, registering voters, preaching politics from the pulpit should be fined.


Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Thanks again,


goodboy.

[leesa]

143. Yes, until they get their shit together and get their noses and their

co-religionists noses out of politics. You politic, you pay.

[New Dealer]

144. I definitely don't think all churches should be taxed

I believe that most of them still operate as non-profit organizations. "Seperation of Church and State" is not an argument the taxation of churches, as a religious non-profit is not different than a non-religious one.

That being said, I do think that there needs to be regulations on what churches can do to maintain their tax-exempt status. Megachurches, obviously, should be taxed. Churches that take in an abnormally large income should be taxed. Churches that spread political messages should be taxed. But traditional churches should not be.

[BamaLefty]

145. NO

Just the ones that violate the rules. But as far as ALL churches... the answer is undeniably no.

[banana republican]

146. WOW this is really a twisted thread

First of all let me say that I will be sharing my thoughts as a Lutheran and a former divinity student and as a current CPA.

Most main stream Churches ( Lutheran Episcopal, methodist, Presbyterians) have salary standards with respect to their clergy. This is to insure two things 1) that the clergy are not taken advantage of by the congregation and 2) that the clergy do not take advantage of the congregation.

In addition most of the main stream congregations have reasonably good governance structures which are designed to avoid the misappropriation of funds into the pastors pocket.

It is when you jump into the fundamentalist world that things get really dicey. In those organizations there is very little if any corporate governance. The pastor makes all the decisions; there is no synodical or higher level oversight of the congregation. This is the situation that resulted in the Baker problem some years ago and the current Falwell; Benny Hine; Tilson problems.

One thing that is very important to understand is the distinction between the support of a candidate for public office (Prohibited for any not-for-profit) and advocacy or publicly supporting a political position such as the elimination of the death penalty (which is not prohibited).

In the last few years the congregation to which belong to has started a homeless shelter for women in its basement; supported several in Washington State including lobbying for universal health care; and on and on.

P.S. The fundies are *NOT* Christians they are Heretics

[goodboy]

148. I hate it when my thread gets twisted! (spaceballs style)

[ogsball]

147. I'm a Pastor

and I voted yes! There are no free rides in this world.

I also know of two churches that have been given ajacent parking lots by busnesses so that they could avoid property taxes.

[Stinky The Clown]

149. I vote YES, and without exception ..... and here's why

As soon as we start making exceptions (amount of church income, property owned, propensity for political activism, Preacher Pete's salary, etc., etc., etc.) we create loopholes and unintended consequences. The result, as is classic with many tax-issue "exceptions" is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I suggest we create a whole new class of "corporation" (for lack of a better word) that defines churches for tax purposes. Make it so the synod-based denominations can choose to have their churches report individually or collectively. (I suspect most synod-based religions are the ones we've always known .... Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., etc.) Non-denominational churches must report the same information and be subject to the same rules as the entirety of a synod-based religion. I suspect this will shine light on the more egregious of the religioroaches that infest popular religion. Presumably a synod-based denomination would have in place some reasonable standards that would keep in check the Preacher Pete types and the wenches with the pink hair and spotlights and microphones, etc. For example, what denomination is Falwell? Or Dobson? Synod based or snake-oil single tenters?

It is very difficult to keep tax free any "charitable" work. Where your church may be supporting a soup kitchen in the church hall, Preacher Pete may call his "God's Army to Kill Queers" a charity that serves the needs of the persecuted religiously insane.

The fact is, churches have gotten far too much power over the life of our (constitutionally) secular nation.

With respect to the argument that unions are the same in this respect, they simply are not. Unions advocate for a secular group. I'm unaware of any union that admits or discriminates based on a religious standard. Churches, on the other hand, do any and all their advocacy or charity work based on a set of principles that applies only to those who share their beliefs in **God**. Principle is secondary to that.

Clearly it would take a tome the size of a big city yellow pages to spell all this out, and that's not something I can develop. But the principle is simple. Tax churches as a separate class and use standards appropriate to their special class. And above all, require disclosure, disclosure, disclosure.

The light of day is healthy.

And yanno ..... even if we were to require actual taxation on only an exceedingly tiny part of their income, simply requiring the filing and reporting and disclosure would go miles and miles to deflating the evil Preacher Pete.

[goodboy]

150. GREAT POST!!! everyone should read your post....thank you!