End the Tax Exempt Status of Churches!

[Anansi1171]

Put all freedom of expression on equal footing and end the tax exemption of nakedly political organizations such as the Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Conference.

They have the right to preach their Jihad and we the people have the right to not subsidize their hate.

http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/12601-tax-exemption-of-churches

[el_bryanto]

1. Should other tax exempt organizations lose tax exempt status as well?

Or just the churchs?

Bryant

[Squinch]

2. Which other organizations are you thinking of? Churches seem to me to often clearly act as legal

corporations.

[el_bryanto]

4. Well like PETA for example, or Greenpeace. The Sierra club. nt

[Squinch]

7. I see your point. But I was raised in the Catholic Church, and the wealth and property and

ability to generate more wealth and property seems to me to translate to undue political influence. Mega churches strike me the same way.

Maybe handle it like an estate tax where holdings over a certain threshold of operating expenses are taxed.

[el_bryanto]

8. That could work. I could see supporting that. nt

[homegirl]

33. Support

eliminating tax free status of all religious institutions. And many so called non profit organizations, huge scam.

[el_bryanto]

35. Hmmmm - no. Thanks for your suggestion though.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. this is the first sane idea i have seen on this topic

while admitting i try to avoid a lot of these threads.

the idea of a percentage over operating expenses is an interesting idea. the only problem i can see coming into the fray there would be facilities and capital project funds. our church saved money for 5 years as part of a building campaign. We will now be able to build the new facility with no debt... there could certainly be schedules for dealing with those issues, though.

sP

[joeglow3]

14. So, only small organization can avoid the tax?

How about unions? Do they also get taxed?

[Squinch]

25. Not necessarily small. An organization that brings in a heap more than some defined set of

operating expenses.

I imagine the local United Cerebral Palsy has huge operating expenses, and those take up most of their money. The local Catholic church was able to shell out tens of millions to settle suits. That says to me there is a lot of idle money lying around in that particular tax exempt organization which can be, and often is, used for purchase of influence.

[joeglow3]

86. Most non-profits generate and spend large amounts of cash

Usually in short periods of time. How do you know these churches didn't just donate less money those years? I know our individual church does not have huge stockpiles of money and what they do have is set aside is for future capital expenses on our 50+ year old buildings.

Otherwise, what we bring it, we send back out (homeless shelters, Christmas families, soup kitchens,etc.).

[Squinch]

93. But those are all costs of doing business. Those aren't purchases of new property or investments

that aren't related to their ongoing business or their charitable activities. That would be part of what I am calling a threshold of operating costs.

You ask how we would know. They would have to submit tax returns like everyone else itemizing and documenting their charitable deductions and operating costs. Some would end up paying no taxes, others would pay.

[LiberalFighter]

62. I would go with all churches losing tax exempt status.

For churches that do operate community based charities they could set up a separate organization that would be tax exempt. Any contributions to that organization could only be used for that purpose. It could not be diverted to the church for other uses.

Any funds used solely for the church that pays their salaries, maintenance and construction of buildings, or other church related operations would not be tax exempt.

[Squinch]

94. Or those charities act are kept as parts of the original organization and they act as deductions

that can drastically reduce their tax burden if they are the bulk of the business they engage in.

[LiberalFighter]

111. The charitable org would alreay be utilizing the deductions

through tax exemptions of supplies and property taxes.

The parishioners of a church that endorses a charity would benefit with being able to receive deductions for charity.

Possibly providing tax exemption from sales taxes on school supplies for their parochial school would be acceptable. And partial tax exemption on property taxes levied on the school part of a church. But it would not be 100% if any religious use is made of it. For instance a church uses the classrooms on Sundays for Sunday School classes or Bible Study classes. Which would be 1 out of 7 days used or 85.7% would be tax exempt.

[NCTraveler]

107. Like this a lot.

I don't read things about this often, but I have read about it before. Talking about taking away tax exempt status. Never made any sense to me as I figure they would just shift over to a non-profit. Regulation in this form is something I could really get behind.

"Maybe handle it like an estate tax where holdings over a certain threshold of operating expenses are taxed."

[Squinch]

108. And, as with everyone else, let their charitable activities act as deductions.

So they could conceivably become tax exempt, but only based on the extent to which they are not amassing their own fortune.

[NCTraveler]

109. I made that connection.

Seems like such a simple thought but it clearly isn't. In what I have read in the past, including on this forum, I have never thought about it like this.

I don't talk about it often here because of my own personal confusion on the issue. I think the church/religion are some of societies worst institutions. Mans bastardization of religion is the leading cause of death across the globe. At the same time, I cannot tell you how many people I know who have been greatly helped by the church. And I mean lifesaving help. On top of that, some of the most compassionate people I know go to church every Sunday and consider themselves to be Christian. I don't believe in tax exempt status for many mega-churches. That does not mean I want some of the local pastors I have met to struggle anymore than they are to feed the homeless. These are pastors driving 15yo cars and devoting their lives to helping others, including atheists and people from other denominations.

[Squinch]

110. I get it. I have family members who were

clergy members who spent their lives helping the people in our society who are worst off and who have fallen between the cracks and been forgotten. Clergy members who had nothing, and gave everything. I'd hate to see their work made more difficult. But at the other end of that same institution, they are spending billions on settlements for pedophiles and the upkeep of a palace city in Rome.

[Orrex]

16. No. Those aren't religious organizations.

The tax-exempt status enjoyed by churches & religious groups amounts to a direct subsidy of religion by taxpayer dollars. If it is reasonable to exempt a corporation from elements of the ACA because those elements are abhorrent to the religious values of that corporation, then it is reasonable to exempt taxpayers from subsidizing religious groups if those taxpayers object to such subsidies on religious grounds.

Greenpeace, The Sierra Club & PETA aren't religious organizations, so their tax-exempt status is not a subsidization of religion, and there is no obvious basis for objection on religious grounds. If there is indeed a credible objection on religious grounds, it is up to the claimant to demonstrate it.

[el_bryanto]

17. So you would favor ending the tax exempt status of all churchs, regardless of whether they

involve themselves in political matters, on the grounds that it amounts to a direct subsidy of religion.

What about the argument that many religions aren't profit making enterprises (obviously some are very wealthy, but some aren't), and there fore do fit into the non-profit bucket? Why doesn't that fly for you?

Bryant

[Orrex]

19. Yes, I would end the tax exempt status of all churches.

That tax exemption for churches is, in all cases, a subsidy of religion by taxpayer dollars and should be ended.

[el_bryanto]

22. OK - well I can't support that, unless you are going to end all non-profit organizations as well.

And I guess I wouldn't support that either.

Bryant

[MynameisBlarney]

65. Your support.

Is not sought or required.

[el_bryanto]

68. Well I suppose it isn't. We are still decades away from ending the tax-exempt status of churches

If it ever does happen. I don't really lose any sleep over the issue.

Bryant

[Orrex]

80. I propose ending the tax-exempt status of churches on religious grounds

For clarity, for what reason would you end tax-exemption for all non-profits?

I'm not sure that I disagree with you; I just want to be sure that I understand your reasoning.

[el_bryanto]

82. I don't think I would support it in any case

But I don't see the value in treating genuine religious non-profits differently from non religious non-profits. I can understand the argument that many religions make enough income that they certainly could pay taxes and should, but that's not every church. Some churchs are genuinely non-profit. In which case I don't know why they should be treated differently from other non-profits.

Or to put it another way I understand the argument that Church's shouldn't receive special benefits, but I am much less receptive to the argument that they should receive special drawbacks.

Bryant

[Orrex]

85. For me, the religious component is central

By granting tax-exempt status to churches, the government is making a law respecting the establishment of religion; specifically, the law mandates that my tax dollars subsidize a religious institution. I find this an unacceptable mingling of church and state.

I am aware, for example, that churches accept an enormous sum of "donations" to bankroll their missionary programs abroad, as well as to provide "assistance" to troubled regions in the form of bibles and gospel literature. How can this explicitly evangelical work possibly qualify as tax-exempt non-profit? Feeding the homeless is one thing; preaching that Jesus is the Son of God is very much another. In my view there is no credible basis for tax-exempt proselytizing.

Of course, my tax dollars subsidize other institutions and programs to which I object, such as the "war on terror" and the subsidies to the oil industry. However, these are not religious institutions, so my objection doesn't enjoy 1st Amendment support. I still object to them quite strongly, but I need to pursue these objections via other avenues.


Honestly, I'm not conversant with the guidelines by which a given institution is certified tax-exempt, religious or otherwise. However, it seems to me that they should be under intense scrutiny, and all income above a basic wages and housekeeping should be subject to ordinary taxation. They are given an extraordinary privilege, so they need to demonstrate that they are entitled to it. Osteen's multi-million dollar super-mega-church simply doesn't qualify, and its tax-exemption is a big "Fuck you!" to everyone who actually pays taxes.

[homegirl]

36. If

they don't make a profit there is nothing to pay taxes on, so your point is moot.

[el_bryanto]

41. Companies pay taxes on income not on profit, I believe

I'm not a specialist in business tax law, but I believe that if they make money, and they do not have tax-exempt status, they are required to pay taxes on that income even if they don't make a profit at the end of the year. They are also required to pay taxes on purchases; tax exempt organizations have a tax-exempt notification they can show to get waived taxes on certain purchases.

This is a bit like saying poor people don't pay taxes - well they might get back their income taxes in a refund at the end of the year, but they still pay sales tax, they still pay payroll taxes, and they might well pay property taxes (if they own property (in the case of the rural poor)) - even if their income doesn't justify paying any income tax.

Bryant

[LiberalFighter]

69. Yes they "pay" tax on taxable income

but only after reducing business costs.

If a business buys a product at wholesale for $20 and sells it retail at $25. They would not pay tax on the $20 that they paid.

[MynameisBlarney]

31. They're not violating the separation of church and state

are they?
Just what point were trying to make with that, anyway?

[el_bryanto]

34. There are a number of different arguments for why you should end the tax exempt status of religion

You are right; if your argument is that the tax exempt status of religion violates the separation of church and state than the issue doesn't come up. But other people seem to be arguing that religions that take clear stances on political issues should be treated differently from those that do not. And if your position is that the political lobbying of some church's should render them ineligable for tax-exempt status, than it's a fair question as to why other organizations could lobby and retain their tax-exempt status.

But in your case, since I take it you believe that all Churchs should lose their tax exempt status (regardless of whether they are political not) - the argument doesn't apply in your case.

Bryant

[MynameisBlarney]

37. You assume much

I do not really want to end the tax exemption status for churches if it opens the floodgates for a bunch of ignorant bible thumpers to start legislating their ridiculous morality.
They are doing plenty of damage to this country with the current restrictions on such things.
I think they should be somehow forced to keep to their own damn business and stay the fuck out of politics.
If that means throwing some people in jail and seizing their assets then so be it.

This is a secular govt by design.
What they are doing is inherently anti-American.

They want to bring about a Talibangelical Fascist Theocracy in this country.

And that is something that can not ever be allowed to happen.

[el_bryanto]

38. OK - So you are opposed to ending the tax-exempt status for churches? Or in favor of it? nt

[MynameisBlarney]

40. Did you even read my comment?

LOL

[el_bryanto]

42. Yes I did

But it wasn't clear - perhaps to ask my question more clearly - do you oppose ending tax exempt status for churches because you think it's an inneffective way to fight the growing political power of some churches?

[MynameisBlarney]

43. It wasn't clear?

I don't think I can make it more clear.
The answer to your question is in my post.
You may well have read it, but you clearly didn't comprehend it.

[el_bryanto]

45. You know when I find that people haven't understood what I have written and ask clarifying questions

I just answer them. Because I assume that if someone doesn't understand what I wrote, maybe I was unclear, and I'd rather people understood my point.

I can see that you feel differently.

Bryant

[MynameisBlarney]

46. I deal with a lot of trolls on another forum

And perhaps I am too eager to engage others that might not necessarily be trolls in a less than cordial manner. For that, I do apologize.
But, that said. I made my position quite clear in the post in question, and do not feel the need to repeat myself.

[arikara]

100. Not sure about the Sierra club

But in canada at least, PETA and green peace are not tax exempt.

Don't mind my typing, using an iPad and it's too hard to correct.

[hobbit709]

3. If they stick their noses into political matters, yes.

[el_bryanto]

6. If a religion doesn't stick it's nose into political matters it should keep it's tax-exempt status

then?

Bryant

[Anansi1171]

10. Yes!-nt

[Brainstormy]

26. NO

Freedom of religion should also mean the freedom to NOT support or encourage religion.

[LiberalFighter]

71. Absolutely not!

They don't provide a benefit to the community.

[el_bryanto]

72. What if a church runs a successful soup kitchen? nt

[LiberalFighter]

74. It should be a separate entity

with any contributions used solely for that purpose. It could not go back to the church in any form. The church could still run it but the finances have to be kept separate.

[el_bryanto]

75. And if they don't want to separate the two, than they pay taxes on both, I take it? nt

[LiberalFighter]

77. Yes!

Otherwise the finances would be commingled.

[el_bryanto]

78. OK fair enough

It seems like there's three proposals (with variations, but I talk of the general thrusts).

* Religions which advocate political action from the pulpit should lose their tax-exempt status,
* All religions should lose tax-exempt status.
* Religions should keep their tax exempt status.

It's an interesting discussion; the political will probably isn't there to make a change, but it's still interesting.

Bryant

[LiberalFighter]

84. The increase in atheists and those not church goers should make an impact.

I believe that public schools receive tax exemption in regards to purchasing supplies. I could see that applied to parochial schools. But only to the point of supplies used solely for education one would receive in a public school setting. For Catechism classes or anything similar that is focused on religion it should not be allowed.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. what about where the two meet?

the big two being same-sex marriage and abortion. those are both HUGE political topics and can be squarely against religious doctrine (as can many other things but these are the two that jump out at the moment). would the (a) church have to be silent on such matters?

sP

[el_bryanto]

18. There's taking a moral stance and taking a political stance. Not always the same thing.

If a church says that abortion is wrong or that same-sex marriage is wrong but doesn't advocate a political position on them, than you are left with inference. If a church says abortion is wrong so you have to support congressional candidate x who has pledge to fight abortion, or same sex marriage is wrong so vote yes on proposition 8, than the church has clearly taken a political stance.

Bryant

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. but saying they're right or wrong IS considered a political position

this is the problem. you can't really extract one from the other.

would it be within the church's rights to produce a "voter's guide" detailing stances of candidates for office as long as they don't advocate for one or the other... it's a sticky wicket.

sP

[el_bryanto]

21. Only if you believe that a church knows the best political solution to a problem

But I admit many people do believe exactly that.

Bryant

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. i would wager most IN the church would say they have the correct solution

church teachings, where they clash with political ideas/ideals, should still be protected. even if they go against the political-will-du-jour. it's a lot to think about...

sP

[el_bryanto]

27. Do they have the correct solution for what people should do? or do they the have the correct

solution for how people should vote? Those are two distinct questions, still. All churches purport to answer the first question, but not all churches purport to answer the second.

Bryant

[ProdigalJunkMail]

28. indeed...

but having the answer to one question could well be seen as a de facto answer of the second. this is where i believe the problem lies...

sP

[LanternWaste]

73. Where then is the relevant and precise division between political and religious matters?

Where then is the relevant and precise division between political and religious matters? E.g., is the responsible stewardship of the planet (i.e., environmentalism as attested to in the Methodist's statement in "A Theology of Stewardship and the Environment&quot a political or religious matter?

[YarnAddict]

83. So, when

Al Gore and Joe Lieberman campaigned in Black churches on Sunday mornings in 2000, were those churches sticking their noses into political matters? Should they lose their tax exempt status? Or, are you only interested in revoking the tax exemption for churches whose stances oppose yours?

[sulphurdunn]

23. Tax exempt status

is a complex mess that should be simplified and reformed. In this case, the finger prints of the Catholic Church were all over the decision. That is of far greater concern to me than the Church's tax exempt status.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. Actually, that sounds like the best way to go about it.

Let's just get rid of 'tax-exempt' status, period. No loopholes for anyone to try to crawl through.

[aggiesal]

76. Here is my problem ...

If the tax exempt status were removed from religious organizations,
then that opens the floodgates for all religious organizations to openly
support and donate to candidates, propositions and causes at will.

And since some of these religious organizations have a lot of money,
they would be no different than corporations or their money.

And if you think they are already doing this, I'd say think again, because
right now it's only a drop in the bucket.

Very good discussion though.

[dreamnightwind]

99. They can already do this

to any degree they choose, there is nothing stopping them except for the threat of losing tax-exempt status, so the situation after removing tax-exempt status for politically-minded religious organizations, or for all religious organizations, would be no worse and possibly better than the situation today.

I believe your post is expressing the sentiment Blarney was expressing upthread, though I found that post confusing. A legitimate concern to think about. However, as I said, it would not enable anything they can't already do, though they are less likely to voluntarily give up tax-exempt status if they have that option, so perhaps it is some deterrent to overt political activity by churches.

Personally although I believe in divinity I'm greatly opposed to organized religion and its influence on society, and would like no official taxpayer sanction of it. So in my mind revocation of tax-exempt status for religions would be a good move. With the recent court decisions removing campaign spending limits of corporations, I can see your point about the possible negative consequences of doing so. The real solution is to get private money as far removed from our political system as possible, that's where I'm putting my energy, though it is admittedly a very difficult reform to bring about.

[aggiesal]

101. I completely agree with your last statement ...

Using only public financing of elections is the way to go.
Once that's done then removing the tax exempt status from religious
organizations would cause little effect on elections.

Although I don't agree with your first statement that "They can already do this
to any degree they choose", because I don't believe they can and I don't believe
they do because of the tax exempt status.

If they get stripped you'll see them start using Koch style money, which you currently
are not seeing.

[dreamnightwind]

103. Well, my point was

they can, right now, do exactly that, use as much Koch money as they want. What happens if they do? They could possibly lose their tax-exempt status. There are no other consequences that I know of, you know of any others? If not, they can do it now and be no worse off than if all religious institutions had their exempt status revoked. I don't know how to explain it any better, though I realize it doesn't sound that clear.

There is the deterrent that they can keep their status by not doing it, its a voluntary deterrent though, they can spend whatever they want, they just might get their exemption revoked if they do.

[aggiesal]

104. I understand ...

and I think losing their tax exempt status is a big deal, so most don't
politicize from the pulpit, or publically support candidates, propositions or issues.

There is another way and that is to give to these secret donor Super-PAC's.

[dreamnightwind]

105. Yes, I agree - eom

[Generic Other]

87. The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions: $71,000,000,000

So maybe churches should only earn a tax exemption for charitable giving if they can show they address valid social needs. Audit them to make sure that the exemption will only be used to support qualified charitable causes. No exemptions for pastors' parsonages and the like.

Churches who receive giant government handouts should use the money in the spirit that it is given. They should open their doors to the homeless, feed the hungry, administer to the needs of the helpless. I have no problem with churches who do these things.

But when they use taxpayer money to promote their beliefs and politics, they need to lose their tax-exemptions entirely.

Example: What qualifies Westboro Baptist Church for a tax exemption? They would certainly seem likely candidates to lose any exemptions under my policy.

[el_bryanto]

88. $71 billion dollars? could you please provide a citation? nt

[Generic Other]

91. Sorry, I was afraid of being alerted on for citing the WashPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/

[dreamnightwind]

98. Thanks, excellent info

That's a lot of money.

[Anansi1171]

5. Clearly the trumped-up IRS scandal canard shows that 501(4) shows that status should be...

...eliminated. It lends itself to abuse, quite clearly.

After Monday, tax em all. Only in the spirit of freedom and fairness should tax payers not subsidize political speech; and religious freedom is simply political speech.

[SidDithers]

9. DU rec...

Sid

[on point]

13. Obviously sheep farming and fleecing is a for profit enterprise!

[Anansi1171]

15. Indeed. I have yet to read Gen. Smedly Butlers follow up-

"Sheep Farming and Fleecing is a Racket"

[HenryWallace]

29. "Tax Exempt Status" or "Tax Deductible Status"

Are you really advocating expanding "taxable income" to include member contributions toward the program & operating costs of these organizations?

There is already a tax on certain unrelated business income earned by these organizations and I suppose it could be expanded to include investment income (i.e., endowment earnings).

The people of the United States are the most generous in the world for one reason, our taxing system provides a limited income tax deduction and an unlimited estate tax deduction.

It is rare that a middle class individual exceeds the standard deduction. Therefore, who really benefits from the Charitable Contribution Deduction; its the wealth (a large percentage of what they give would have gone to the Government anyway). And it is certainly easier for large donors to influence these organization rather than the Government (which in theory is one person one vote).

Getting rid of these deductions would solve a lot of problems.

PS: Long-time Church member who has itemized deductions in the past.

[ColesCountyDem]

30. Not ALL churches become involved in politics.

Some denominations, like my own, specifically avoid political involvement. We believe that if we avoid political involvement (we refer to this as 'institutions of purely human origin') , we are entitled to the reciprocal right of having government not involve itself in purely church affairs.

[alfredo]

32. They have to spend a certain percent charity work. They get around that will missions to

third world countries where they can hide their real activities. I bet their anti gay lobbying/bribing in Uganda were probably subsidized by us taxpayers. They used Uganda as a proof of concept for a similar drive in the US and other Christian dominated nations.

Scott Esk, Republican candidate, Oklahoma.

[zwyziec]

39. START BY ENDING THE OVER $1.5 TRILLION PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ALL...........

church owned parish property, diocesan offices, seminaries, cemeteries, hospitals, youth camps, retreat houses, convents, bookstores, gift shops, retirement homes, mosques, temples, schools.

Even private corporations who made religious items like wafers for communion are allowed to claim a property tax exemption.

These organizations are subsidized local property owners, yet they use the roads, water, sewage, police and fire services.

Enough is enough!

[DURHAM D]

48. This is the place to start.

In my town the religious affiliated university owns a for-profit top notch hotel and restaurant and an excellent 18 hole golf course plus a couple of strip malls and tons of housing. None of it is on the property tax rolls.

[Anansi1171]

53. Wow. Just wow!-nt

[aggiesal]

81. Duke? n/t

[Tom Ripley]

79. ^^^THIS^^^

[hrmjustin]

44. Sorry but I can't agree. I think non-profits including houses of worship should have tax exempt

status.


If a parish breaks the no 9olitics rule inside the church then I say it should be punished.

[Moostache]

49. I agree with you in principle.

But churches (especially these fraudulent 'mega' churches and their gospel of prosperity snake-oil salesmen leaders) across the country are CLEARLY violating the prohibition of political action AND retaining their tax free status.

Those that do so, and in many cases blatantly do so, should be held accountable and that's where the current arrangement breaks down completely...

[hrmjustin]

51. Mega Churches do deserve more scrutiny. I heard you actually have to buy a ticket to get into some

of them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

55. They should be no different than other non-profits

And there is a move afoot (troubling on one level, but still interesting) to require that all tax-exempt organization prove that they provide services to the public that are of a value equal to the amount of their tax exemption.

Bear in mind that even non-profit organizations (including churches) with paid staff DO pay payroll taxes like any other employer.


Being exempt from income tax is not a big deal; any entity (including a for-profit company) pays taxes on the difference between income and expenses. Most non-profits are strapped for cash (and have no income as a result), and even mega-churches have mega-operating expenses that would leave the "income" relatively modest.

The big thing is sales tax and property taxes.

And I think it's not asking too much to tell a tax exempt organization that, if you're getting $20,000 in abated taxes, that you prove that you're providing at least $20,000 in services to the community.

[hrmjustin]

58. I think most houses of worship provide more than 20,000 dollars a year in services.

Except the really poor ones.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

63. Quite likely...

Now if you remove "religious instruction" from the definition of services, it might get a little close. Even more so if any activity (such as a soup kitchen) that also included religious indoctrination as per of the service was similarly removed.

Think about it. All those churches, to prove their worth, would have to provide food, shelter, and medical attention to the poor and destitute without expecting anything in return. Just like that Jesus guy.

[hrmjustin]

70. Most churches in this nation provide services to the poor.

And belie ing in God is not a requirement to recieve these services in mostof these churches. If a Church says you need to believe to recieve then iwould say tax the hell out of them.

Churches have the right to teach their views but I think this needs to be voluntary and not at the same time the ser ice is provided.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

89. I agree..

If the church is providing services with no strings attached (and not just to its own adherents), then that should count in their favor. And I think that most churches really do enough "unrestricted good" in the world that justifying their existence would not be an issue.

Others, however, may have to take their game up a notch. Same goes for non-profits -- especially those that seem to just fundraise for the sake of fundraising.

[Moostache]

57. That is really shocking...they charge admission to that crap?!?!?!?!?

I have a very dim opinion of organized religion in general and specifically these gas bag selective evangelicals particularly, but if those pieces of Samsonite in the audience are actually PAYING to get in the door, then those places should be regulated just like any other business. They should at a bare minimum be subjected to the same laws and regulations as amusement parks.

[hrmjustin]

59. Yes they bring in so much money a Sunday that they do need more scrutiny.

[Moostache]

60. Jesus wept. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

61. Indeed!

[valerief]

47. If done, all those churches will disappear, and the oligarchs would never allow that. nt

[freshwest]

50. Wow! 'Put all freedom of expression on equal footing' was my first thought this morning!

Within hours after the Boston buffer law was ruled unConstitutional - which I will now refer to as unKochstitutional - the RCC schools bused in 250 students to fill the sidewalks around the clinic as a flash mob.

They paid for the buses, the gas and drivers, but vulnerable families don't have that kind of wealth or would not be a clinic where they are available for target shooting. It's a matter of wealth going after the weak to break their spirits.

'The meek shall inherit the Earth,' yet clearly the churches aren't in that 'flock of sheep' no matter how loudly they proclaim to be. If 'The battle is in spiritual high places' they could go home to their 'prayer closets' and wait for a miracle. But 'They love to pray in public and receive the praise of men.'

They have forgotten what Americans believed, that their right to wave their fists end where our faces begin. I know why the Founders were Deists:

Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic



Natural law was the basis for the core ideas of the Revolution: People are free and equal in nature. Government is a compact between human beings, not something handed down from above.

Most important, we must always have the liberty of thought to examine received wisdom, evaluate its utility, and change our ideas — and our institutions.

That embodies so much of what I hold to be true, I am in awe of those words. Got a chuckle at this part at the review by the LATimes:

"Jefferson's vision for the future of American religion… featured nothing but Unitarian churches from sea to shining sea."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-jc-matthew-stewart-20140629-story.html

And from the first Amazon review, but all of them are very good:

“Splendid… imaginative but never fanciful, even at its most surprising. What lends Nature’s God a good deal of its verve is Matthew Stewart’s unabashed attachment not only to the revolutionaries as they really were but to the skeptical rationalism they embodied. This is partisan scholarship as it should be written, and much needed service to the public.” (Alan Ryan, author of The Making of Modern Liberalism)

http://www.amazon.com/Natures-God-Heretical-American-Republic/dp/0393064549/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1404062887&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Nature%27s+God%3A+The+Heretical+Origins+of+the+American+Republic

A better America than one divided into cults with fanatical adherents that search for enemies. Closer to what I grew up with when 'the wall of separation between church and state' was respected both ways. Our problem is that it is no longer accepted, and rightwing interpretations are falsehoods.

to cbayer who posted the LATimes review:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=137537

Although who will end their tax exemption now? Their GOP Libertarian offspring (sounds like an oxymoron, but deeds mean much more than words) have weakened secular government with corporatism, going directly in line with Mussolini's own description of the religious part of fascism. WW2 never ended, obviously:

"The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence.

His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power...

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.

Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

~ U.S. Vice President Henry A. Wallace, quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944

[dilby]

52. No way, Churches are way too powerful and would dominate in politics if they were not tax exempt.

True Churches throw money and their will into politics but if they were no longer held back by their tax exempt status they would turn into political machines. They already have the groundwork setup, money and followers. You let them have a candidate up in front of the congregation talking every Sunday and voting as a block they would be as powerful as a Union when it comes to elections.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

56. That's an interesting take on the subject

Better to keep the dog on a short leash than let him run wild through the neighborhood.

That means the IRS would have to ENFORCE the prohibition against political activity by churches.

[MynameisBlarney]

66. My point exactly

It's the absolute wrong approach.

[Initech]

90. Huh never thought of it that way.

I've seen articles where churches are gathering support in an effort to challenge the IRS over tax exempt status and that thought is scary enough as it is. But they'd go frothing at the mouth batshit insane if you take away their precious. Like Gollum in Lord Of The Rings.

[LittleBlue]

64. Absolutely not

Churches are usually better at distributing the funds than actual charities, a lot of which spend the money on administrative costs (some pay absurd salaries to executives).

[Rosa Luxemburg]

92. Data?

[MynameisBlarney]

67. Looks like The Law is throwing their hat in the ring

in violating the separation of church and state down in Louisiana as well.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/01/louisiana-sheriff-staging-july-4-in-god-we-trust-rally-to-defy-church-state-separation/

[onenote]

95. Making this part of the Democratic party platform would destroy the party

While one wouldn't necessarily know it from reading DU, there are very large segments of the Democratic base for whom their places of worship play a signficant role. This includes not only Jews, but African Americans and Latinos. If the party is perceived to be attacking religious entities, it will implode.

[Anansi1171]

96. Asking churches to pay tax when they run golf courses, hotels and use

...use the considerable political sway for partisan purposes is admittedly unrealistic, but it is fair and progressive. Isnt that a hard conversation worth having?

For petes sake, its a tax bill! Nothing more.

[Humanist_Activist]

97. Churches should follow the same rules and oversight of other non-profits...

they should not be exempted for being churches, but for being non-profits, there's an important distinction here.

[grahamhgreen]

102. ...and corporations....

[NCTraveler]

106. Wouldn't they simply set themselves up as non-profits? nt.