Is it time to start taxing churches?

[POed_Ex_Repub]

I know, I know... separation of church and state and all. But all that hasn't stopped religious organizations from putting their tax free dollars toward political causes (Christian Coalition anyone?) or people from starting churches for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes. There are even "mega-churches" that use their tax free status for such things as making a buck off of McDonald's

http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/082803/coverstory.html

Shrub is putting billions into faith based initiatives and proposed school vouchers would send untold $$$ to religious schools. Do you think it's time to start recovering some of that money?

I'm off to watch some basketball (Twolves-Pistons, Lakers-76ers)!!!, but I'll be back to check your responses. I'm quite curious to see what people have to say about this.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

1. Yes, especially now that they are preaching politics from the pulpit

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[bullimiami]

15. exactly

if they are going to be political they should not be tax exempt

[locustfist76]

26. Actucally

The most political churches tend to be the more liberal Black churches. How many times have Democratic candidates (even Jewish ones) stood behind a pulpit in black churches during campaign season. This is unheard in most other churches. Either way, I do find it disgraceful when politics and religion are mixed, especially in church.

[Deja Q]

39. Agreed...

Even the MCC I used to go to, which spouted pro-Bush nonsense shortly after 9/11 but was worse one day in early 2003, I had had enough...

And tax them based on the amount of money they get. That way the wealthy, who listen to their revised version that ignores greed and sin, pay their fair share...

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Sure, who cares about that Freedom of Religion

Down with the Constitution!

(Sarcasm off.)

[The Zanti Regent]

63. It's time for Fartwell and Robberson to RENDER UNDER CEASAR!

Yeah, it's time to tax these lying crooks so they don't have extra money to play with diamond mining!

[loudsue]

2. Absolutely!!!

I'm sick of churches being undeclared political PACs with all their political preaching.

:kick:

[snippy]

3. I think churches should be taxed because under the current law only

the government can define a church. I do not think the government should have that power.

[Speed8098]

4. I say no

HOWEVER they need to be reigned in.

I was born and raised a catholic, but I'm not a practicing catholic and haven't been for many years. I think organized religion is BS.


That said, There are SOME churches out there that do help people in need. They need to be able to continue to offer that help without the government taking a cut.

[yankeedem]

45. Thats what tax deductions are for

nt

[leesa]

5. As long as they preach politics. Absolutely. The GOP Church of christ

needs to be SHUT DOWN, before it destroys our country. It is sad that other churches who mind their own business will be hurt, but they haven't done enough to stop the scourge of the GOP Fundie movement so now they need to pay the price for their apathy.

[BlueJazz]

6. Tax the shit out of them

They want to stick their noses in every political event that happens to come down the pike. I'm fed up with Pastors and Preachers coercing
their flock to vote one way or the other.

[TheWebHead]

8. yes and no

I wish someone would set up a web based watchdog group that would secretly videotape services to expose those who preach politics from the pulpit -- though we see plenty of evidence for that with Pat Robertson. But there are churches who are truly apolitical and shouldn't be forced to be penalized because of churches who are partisan -- almost always favoring Republicans.

[Cptn Kirk]

81. Why? They are blatantly open about it!

Turn on TBN and watch Hagee devoting his entire "sermon" to how evil Clinton and the Dem party are.

[starroute]

9. The trouble is there's so much variation among churches

Some of them are as poor as . . . well, as poor as churchmice. Church buildings, especially the big old ones with no insulation, cost a fortune to heat, and many of them are badly in need of repair. Ministers as a group are not exactly well-paid either. I think that if many of those churches were taxed on their income or real estate, they would go out of business -- or at least shrink down to storefront size.

You hear a lot about how wealthy the Catholic Church is, but I've also read that individual parishes have no claim on that wealth and are are poor as any other churches. (Can anyone confirm if this is so?)

It's only a few churches that are really making out like bandits, and those are the ones that draw all the attention. It might be possible to cast the laws in such a way that those churches do have to pay taxes on their money-making enterprises, while the churches that are just scraping along, doing good works and caring for the poor and needy, remain exempt.

But it would be a tricky business -- and as usual, those with the money to afford good lawyers would probably be able to find loopholes.

[Pithlet]

17. That's how I feel about it, too.

I was going to say something very similar until I saw your post.


I think that those that are turning a profit for profit's sake, and operating pretty much like a business, should be taxed on it.

[Maeve]

20. In general, the church property is owned by the diocese

Technically, the bishop usually has title, but it's held in trust. On occassion, tho, there is a different situation--the bishop of Columbus shut down a parish some time ago, intending to sell the property, only to discover it was owned by "the people of the parish"--he could close it, but couldn't sell it!

Different religious orders sometimes own the schools, hospitals, retreat houses, retirement houses, convents, etc. although the diocese may be a major part of the support.

I agree with you--it would be complicated. Most churches(all denominations), I suspect, would be able to raise the money for taxation, but then their congregations might demand a return on their tax dollars...Politically, I don't think this would be the best time for an attempt to tax them.

[FreeState]

10. YES

I was raised Mormon and they bring in a ton of money. If they were purely a religious organization I would say no, however most religions use money to push a political agenda. I don't get a tax break for giving money to political causes, neither should Churches.

BTW the LDS church has given millions of dollars to anti-gay marriage causes in Hawaii, Alaska, California and other places.

[ButterflyBlood]

11. nah, just crack down on the politicizing ones

the non-partisan ones don't deserve to be punished. tighten regulations on what allows them to be tax-exempt, but don't remove the status.

[sweetheart]

23. This misses the point in religion

Buddhism, a religion I'm qualified to speak of, is traditionally not
involved in politics. That said, Buddhism is more a way of living
than a set of beliefs, and part of that way of living is to vote
with your feet toward relieving the suffering of all sentient beings.
This is inherently political. A Buddhist world
view is very similar to a DU world view... and likely you would not
be making such remarks were Buddhism the dominant religion in
America, as the religion is a very large tent indeed.

I presume laws already exist to prevent supporting a political party
with tax free contributions, and were the election laws designed
that political speech (in media) by churches is treated as paid
campaign advertising and restricted to equal time like all the rest.

Your approach has merit, but it is wiser to reform the election laws
toward one vote one person.... and leave religions to abide by that
wisdom.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[izzie]

13. Some places like colleges pay taxes because it is good for the city

I have read that colleges with building in the city of Boston pay as they say it is good for the city as the city is so much a part of their schools. Holy Cross had a lot of trouble with buying up part of the city they were in and it left a few people paying very high taxes as they had to take care of roads, cops, firemen and they did some screaming about that. I do not know how that ended but it was a church/state thing. That was in Mass also.

[oneighty]

14. Let them pray for money

and streets and police protection and snow removal and private schools. God will provide.

180

[BootinUp]

33. thats a good answer! -eom-

[sweetheart]

16. don't tax churches...

don't tax schools. Separation of church and state.

My buddhist teacher did not use a tax-free structure, and rather registered our community as a for-profit seminar company, as what is a congregation but a "seminar" in the broad sense. He did this to avoid the restrictions of the tax-free gambit, as with that qualification, comes a great deal of snooping and state religion.

I would go one further, for that matter, and make the salaries of religious people non-taxed. Religion (away from state) is no danger
to anyone.

Just cuz the fundie mullahs have taken over the government is no reason to trash the greater wisdom of older, wiser leaders. organizations of religious worship are the heart of the national sense of community... as the majority of americans are religious and pay taxes already on the income they donate to religion. Why double tax people for their extended family affairs.

taxing religion is as destructive as banning religion. It puts a double taxation on to religion... better to apply that to corporationss and get the priorities straight.

[oneighty]

19. Catholic church in our village for a long time

posted in their yard a large sign giving a running count of the number of abortions in America. There were no signs giving numbers of sexual assault cases in the church hierarchy, no body count of or war dead, no count of number of hungry children right here in our little village.

Do the church fathers really contribute to the good of our community?

180

[sweetheart]

22. Catholic church?

Well i'm a buddhist, so i'm not gonna give any credence to that cult... but i'm for freedom of religion... let them put up stupid
signs if they want to... hell, its a good sign to keep all the smart
people away and kill of the church...

My buddhist temple would have no sign, but anyone who attended our biweekly meditations would confess that it had a very positive effect
on their lives. People who had more close contact with buddhist monks and masters in private sessions, might even help pay for the
"free" meditation hall.

I agree that religion can be abusive and stupid... but that is what
most religions view each other... and it can't be helped... we may
be born equal under the law, but DNA selects different qualities... and the constitution wisely accepts them all.

That the catholic church is gone bonkers, is their problem.

I would hope that liberals in the same neighborhood had a sign with a running tally of american military deaths, wounded and civilian dead.

The problem is SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE... not churches or their tax status.... i am for a total, irrevocable break from the state siding with a religious point of view. That would pretty much
sort out the grievance i feel behind this thread... and instead, they're focusing wrongly on the churches. Just like labour being shipped overseas to India.... its not the indian people's fault, rather the government and our own system of corporate governance... just its more complex and difficult than blaming someone not involved.

[Az]

18. No, Do not tax the churches

Taxes are the conduit by which our voice is heard in government. As such to maintain the seperation between church and state this conduit must remain closed to churches.

Another and more vital factor is that taxation would amount to a unfair burden to any new religions that may rise. Just as we cannot appoint any religion an official state religion we cannot disuade a religion by bleeding its resources.

What does have to happen is making sure that church dollars do not get put into politics. If a church decides to enter into the political fray then it is made taxable. Pat Robertson keeps playing games with this and keeps getting slapped back. When a church leaves its function as a house of religion and become a poltical advocacy house it becomes taxable.

[HowdyDUit]

21. Check this link out before you decide to tax the churches

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22church%22+%2Bclinton+%2Bspeech

[54anickel]

36. Huh? What link?

[0007]

59. LO!! which one?

[PVnRT]

24. If they are engaged in any kind of political activity

then yes.

Otherwise, no.

[philosophie_en_rose]

25. If the "church" is really a business, it should be taxed.

Otherwise, McDonalds should be able to start the cult of the big mac and fail to pay taxes on happy meals.

Most places of worship should be liberally defined as "churches." However, Benny Hinn, CBN, TBN, Scientology and any other so-called religions that exchange money for services or goods should be taxed.

[opihimoimoi]

27. Dont they benefit from Police, Fire, and other services?

Hello?

[philosophie_en_rose]

28. Hello? I don't think it's that simple.

My concern is that people should be able to congregate without having to pay a premium to do so. People already pay taxes on their own and shouldn't have to pay extra to discuss religion or to worship how they choose.

Regardless of whether I sit in the woods and meditate or sit at home and do nothing, I deserve the same protection - the same value - that anyone else is entitled to. I am not religious, but I think that targeting a true non-profit is reprehensible.

At the point where a religious organization drains social services or acts as a business, it should be forced to contribute through maintenance or taxes. However, people are entitled to fire and police protection, regardless of their religious affiliation.

[sweetheart]

29. double taxation.. hello?

The religious groups I've been with ARE my family. I am already
taxed on any income i pass toward these groups, and the services
you mention area ALREADY paid for by the church members from their
private income tax. Sure there is a charity gift thingie, but that
does not cover the sizable donations that REALLY keep religious
organizations on their feet.

Best to apply those principals to corporations where they are secular
and supposedly not political. Religion is always political. Given
that you have the human right to become a nut-ball fundie Christian
10 years from now, by the human right to free religion, perhaps you
might in your future zeal adopt a very political stance to follow
your beliefs... and i will fault you not at all for that.

Rather modify the campaign finance laws to lump all support
advertising, even if "free" as campaign donations in an equal
time/money campaign finance reform.

[arewethereyet]

34. how is a church a business and the Humane Society not ?

Church selling salvation, humane selling animals. I can see a dog, eternal life is a little trickier.

[philosophie_en_rose]

64. It depends on whether someone makes a profit.

There are several things to look at. 1) Whether the activities are an exchange of services for money and 2) Whether surplus funds are used for the benefit of the nonprofit, as opposed to individuals.

Most churches are non-profit organizations. The money that is collected goes towards building repairs, modest salaries, and programming. The church members that meet do so for a personal purpose.

Many organizations have thrift stores or fundraisers. They should be taxed, unless the money is for a legitimate not-for-profit purpose.

School book sales that use funds to benefit the school - not taxed.
Jan Crouch book sale that uses funds to buy pink wigs - taxed.

There is a lot of grey area. "Salvation" or "health" are not tangible commodities. However, books about weight loss or vitamins or slave-labor CBN diamonds are tangible and, if the purpose to personally enrich individuals, then it is too much like a business to escape taxes.

Again, on the other side of grey area, there are actual corporations that otherwise should be able to start their own religion to avoid taxes.

[arewethereyet]

30. its not just churches, its all charitable operations

you really want that ?

[guitar man]

31. My first knee-jerk reaction

Hell yes! tax their ass,especially the big,multi-million dollar behemoths where the uber class get their Sunday whitewashing.

but then I think,if they start paying taxes,are they going to want to put the Ten Commandments in all the courthouses?

[BootinUp]

32. I like the way you think- but it'll never happen -eom-

[T Bone]

35. You will force a lot of church closures with this

Small non-vogueish, non-fundie churches will just say it is not worth the paperwork to keep the place open. Really they have their hands full keeping the doors open and there won't be anyway to tax their income, it all goes back out somewhere. Are you going to tax the money they take in to pay the heat bill for a 50 year old boiler in the basement? When these churches close the only other game on that block will be the liquor store and the crack dealers. Good luck.

Medium size churches won't give that much up if you allow operating expenses as non-taxable. They will show almost as much expenditures for operation as they take in.

Ah, the large mega-sized fundie churches and the Catholic Church, and the Episcopalians with their endowments, now you're talking cash, right? And major-league pissed off parishoners.

It's not worth it to push this, for these practical reasons, much less that you are abandoning freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

I think it is truly un-American to tax churches. Much as we have a bone to pick with the fundies and their interloping into the public arena with their wacked out religious ideas.

[PurityOfEssence]

52. How is it Un-American to tax churches? It's Un-American NOT to.

Why should I subsidize their activities? All influences made by churches on society aren't good, and many of them are downright bad, exclusionary and destructive to pluralism.

Why shouldn't they pay for their societal services?

Taxation isn't punishment; it's an attempt at accurate billing for services rendered. I guarantee you I pay through my property taxes for the Catholic parades through the streets of Los Angeles. I guarantee you other businesspeople lose money due to the disruption, too.

My principal argument for the separation of church and state--besides the fact that IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND--is that it presumes and creates privilege. Those who believe are "better" and get more breaks because of this "virtue"; if mandated by the state, those not of the belief are literally second-class citizens or not really citizens at all. Once privilege is granted to a group of people operating on a guess that they treat as fact, the rest of us are inferiors and our words, actions and thoughts are not given the same weight. Granting elevated status to any or all religions is supremely anti-democratic, and should not be allowed.

Let them pay their fair share, and let them have the same credibility and say-so as the rest of us.

Having said all that, I say leave it alone for the time being. This is a deadly wedge issue, and it's more important to concentrate on ousting the usurping monarchists at the moment.

Fair's fair, and religion is by definition unfair; it presumes to have a "better" view than others, and hence deserving of being treated as superior.

Indeed, NOT taxing churches is supremely Un-American; it's the sustaining of an unchecked, unassailable aristocracy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. Religion is inherently fair

It is voluntary. You don't want to believe, go right ahead.

Ultimately, whenever you push this, the African-American community will walk away lock, stock and barrel and either go Green or just flat out Republican. With them with go Hispanics and many traditional Dems as well.

In fact, you will look around and see very few folks in YOUR camp.

[shimmergal]

68. I agree, it's just not worth it.

But please don't believe all Episcopalian churches are sitting pretty.
It's probably true that the national org. has large endowments, but individual churches are responsible for their own expenses. Most things operate on a diocesan basis, and I doubt that even some dioceses are that well off, esp. in areas of the U.S. where the E. church is not the "class church" that most of the establishment belongs to. I once lived in a small Kentucky city where the Southern Baptists were the class church. BIG building on Main Street; traffic jams during morning and evening hours on Sunday; lots of presence on community boards and loud in the local media, and even classrooms. The E. church was tiny, and struggling. And, I might add, we and the Methodists were the only counterbalance in the town to the large funky fundamentalist groups...the churches that went far beyond the Southern Baptists in their devotion to "Biblical inerrancy"" women couldn't wear pants (much less fill any leadership positions; they'd have enforced this in govt. too if they could); revival meetings were an excuse for missing school or work hours, etc.

The church I attend at present is mid-sized and middle class, but our budget has taken a precipitous decline in the post-9/11 employment crunch. Even so, we manage to contribute and send workers to the Food Pantry, local groups working with the homeless, etc. Our bishop and diocesan convention have approved commitment ceremonies for gay couples (conducting them is still up to the individual priest, of course.)

Just want to toss these things in for consideration. In principle, taxing churches sounds like a good idea, but it would likely be more disastrous for liberal and mainstream churches than for the fundies. After all, lots of the latter don't mind going around the law when they believe they're "doing God's work."

[AlFrankenFan]

37. Yes

Taxing them would be good. But then again, church and state, but then again....I'm going to go crosseyed.

[stepnw1f]

38. Once we tax churches..

The seperation of church and state will be over. Take away federal funds from churches completely.

[Deja Q]

40. Uh, it's already over if preachers preach politics...

of ANY political party. Period.

[RowWellandLive]

41. Yes!!

Absolutely. Who defines what is a "church" anyway? Can I start my own in my backyard and be tax exempt?

On edit: Thanks for bringing this issue up. It often galls me and is largely ignored by all candidates.

[DjTj]

42. No - Close the loopholes...

...leave the churches alone.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. It appears many need a civics lesson

On the importance of separation of church and state. Clearly, the radical anti-religious are holding sway in yet another anti-religion thread.

Woohoo! Too bad that is such a frivolously minority opinion in the real world.

[Bombero1956]

46. I've always thought

that paying taxes gave you the right to bitch about the way things are, so if you don't pay taxes you don't get to bitch.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Being a member of our society

Gives you a right to bitch. Churches are members of our society and do a great deal of good -- feeding the hungry, helping the poor, giving counsel and advice.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

47. I think this is a legitimate debate

I'm also in favor of taxing old ladies and myself (that doesn't make me anti-old ladies or self-hating) To me this is strictly a policy issue. As for the civics class, you do realize that laws can and have been changed in the past should circumstances warrant it right? What I am asking (by using the examples given in the original post) is merely, do current circumstances warrant such a change?

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. It's not a policy issue

The power to tax is the power to control or destroy. If government gets that, it will be able to dictate actions by churches. Last time I checked, that's a violation of our Constitution.

Yes, laws can be changed. This one will require gutting the 1st Amendment. Then, if you succeed, there will be a civil war.

Have at it.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

71. It wouldn't gut the first amendment

Do we gut free speech by taxing advertising or the purchase of books? Not last time I checked. Do we gut the right to have arms by taxing the guns? Hmmm... looks like the right is still there.

As for the power of tax as the power to control or destroy.The only place where I could see that possibility would be if you tax to the point of non-existence (ie. no longer being able to sustain the organization). Do you see any proposal of that kind discussed here? I think not. I'm talking about reasonable taxes, like taxing for burger at the in mega-church McDonald's, the same tax that legitimate establishments already pay.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Taxing

Actually, in both cases, those taxes limit the rights in question. Suppose the tax on gun sales or ammunition (strongly advocated by gun opponents) was to go up 1,000%. Wouldn't that limit your rights?

You don't have to tax to the point of non-existence. You can simply tax to the point of acquiescence. Let's take the Catholic Church's opposition to the morning after pill. How long would they continue that if they knew it would cost them $1 million a year? How about $100 million? Or $1 billion?

And yes, I see that EXACT kind of proposal discussed here.

Your definition of "reasonable taxes" would be different from the next guy.

Thankfully, as I said elsewhere, this is a fantasy concept and shows how out of touch with the public some are here.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

75. Again, where do I purpose unreasonable taxes?

Can you show me the line? So you would have zero taxes on gun sales and advertising, and novels etc.. where do you expect to make up this revenue? How about a 5% flat income tax (for the sake of argument). Is that too much?

And yes this is a fantasy concept (and that's unfortunate), last time I checked this was a good forum to post hypothetical situations. However I fail to see where popularity of a concept makes it any more or less valid. Are you saying the majority is always right?

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. Taxing churches is inherently unreasonable

Ergo...

Since we are discussing the 1st Amendment, here 'tis:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Let's see, "no law," seems pretty clear to me. So, yes, no law.

And, while DU is a good forum to discuss fantasy concepts, a good dose or reality is sometimes called for.

No, the majority is not always right. Neither is the minority.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

80. Let's look at this...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


A small tax would not prohibit the free exercise of religion any more than the sales tax on the book I purchased the other day kept me from buying it. (And the author's right to free speech also mentioned in the SAME text). If that small tax is repression, then you need to repeal quite a few existing taxes and I'm quite curious how you plan to make up that revenue.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. "No law" seems pretty dang clear

Yes, we do need to repeal quite a few existing taxes.

As for making up the revenue, we should revise the entire tax system. A debate for another day. In the meantime, there is no revenue to make up because you don't have it now.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

84. Implementation is a whole other debate

On this I agree.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

83. I'll self-censor this one...

There's a contradiction I'd pointed out, but in retrospect I'd rather stick to policy.

[philosophie_en_rose]

65. It's not radically anti-religious, to value church/state separation.

Church and state separation actually protects churches from invasive government interference.

If I was a member of a religious organization, I wouldn't want the government to interfere with my religious convictions. That means that I don't want John Ashcroft speaking for me and my God. I don't want any religious symbols to be on public buildings. I don't want government funding, because that opens the door for government to be involved.

As for this thread, it is an insult to legitimate churches to allow business organizations to masquerade as churches. It's a big deal that some "faith-based" organizations get government subsidies and others don't. It's an issue that the economically disadvantaged could have more assistance, if it weren't for these religious frauds sucking up faith-based funding and refusing to pay taxes.

Religious people have a right to fight for their convictions, even when I think they are wrong. That's what political debates are for. However, using "non-profit" funding to fund political organizations or individuals takes money away from operating funds or charitable efforts for which the nonprofit status was designed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. You wish to open Pandora's Box

I do not.

Allowing government to differentiate between legitimate religious groups and those that are not is heading directly down the road to state-sponsored religion. That is the very reason for the 1st Amendment freedom of religion.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

77. Doesn't the government already do that?

"Allowing government to differentiate between legitimate religious groups and those that are not is heading directly down the road to state-sponsored religion."

Uhmm.... How does a religion get it's tax free status unless the government recognizes them as a "legitimate group"? I can form a church in my back yard, but it's not tax free unless the government approves it.

[freeforall]

48. They should pay taxes.

I have never understood why religions do not pay taxes.

[eridani]

49. Yes and no

Leave the buildings and the charity funds alone. Tax the real estate, stock portfolios, etc.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

50. I think you are on to something there

That sounds perfectly within the bounds of seperation between church and state to me.

[not systems]

51. Superstition should not be subsidized.

Go ahead a hate me for saying so.

Tax churches. Yes.

[juajen]

53. I think there should be some tax structure for churches

Especially when they own half the town, like the Church of Christ does in Nashville, Tennessee. Believe me, I've lived there, and the COC should be taxed. Anytime a house of God owns businesses, they should be taxed. Actually, they shouldn't be allowed to have tax portfolios or own businesses. When a church gets that rich, they have too much power. Other religions in other towns can be just as big. They generally don't like to admit what they own. Hell, in Nashville, the COC even owns the biggest radio and TV stations, honest.

[tobius]

54. Great idea for the Pres. campaign- "Tax the Evil Churches!!"

It's genius, can not lose , will inspire the electorate across all spectrums! </sarcasm off>


-WTF!?

[0007]

57. Where Church & State are coming together, it is time to tax 'em

[demsrule4life]

58. If the churches lose their tax status

then any other group that does not pay taxes but plays politics should lose their status to.

[dand]

60. Organized religion is a huge scam

We would be better of without it.

[JNelson6563]

61. some yes, some no.

Some are really just House-of-propaganda type "churches". They're in it for the dough. I say if they are political, first of all, tax them. If they do not do charitable works for the community (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses) tax them. If they sell stuff they should pay sales tax.

There are some churches that do a great deal for their community with very little resources. I'd like to see taxation that spared these genuine houses of good will.

Julie

[Jose Diablo]

62. The churches that have tried to influence the political process

should be taxed. Those that have contributed to these churches should have those 'charitable' deductions reversed.

After all, how would these churches like it if the government said there needs to be a call to prayer to Allah 5 times a day, or women must cover their whole body with cloth, or all females must undergo female circumcision upon reaching the age of 13, or the students must have studies on the life of Mohammad.

There are valid reasons to separate church and state. The foundation of these reasons is to give individuals the right to work out the reasons they believe what they believe without the forceful hand of government.

People should be free to believe in God as they perceive him/her or even not believe in any God whatsoever.

[Madison Grad]

66. Yes

I just signed up today and as such, am not eligible to vote in the poll. So I'll just state my YES!! here in the comments.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

79. Welcome to DU Madison Grad!

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. I grew up as a preacher's kid and have been on the governing board

of a college chaplaincy and a small Episcopal church.

Believe me, the suburban fundie megachurches are the exception. Most religious organizations are struggling to make ends meet. Many are in old buildings that need constant repairs and frequent upgrades to meet health and safety codes. My previous parish was housed in a building that had been built as a "temporary" structure in 1922, and it was practically falling apart, but we couldn't afford a new building.

In both Portland and Minneapolis, the mainstream churches take turns feeding the homeless--with no strings attached.

My current parish also sends teams to work on Habitat for Humanity projects, sponsors refugees (the most recent family was Muslim, and no attempt was made to convert them), mentors families moving from welfare to work, provides school supplies and winter clothing for children from poor families, and serves as an overflow homeless shelter in the winter.

My previous parish provided free meeting space to Narcotics Anonymous, even though it was struggling with severe cash flow problems. (I was on the vestry--Episcospeak for governing board--during that time.)

I don't see atheist groups organizing to do that, for all their claims of superiority.

Those who slam "organized religion" need to realize that few of these charitable works can be run efficiently--or at all-- without organization. Nor can the other functions of the church, such as providing spiritual fulfillment and a sense of community, exist without organization.

HOWEVER, I would revoke the tax status of churches that practice partisan politics. This of course includes the fundie megachurches that distribute Republican voters' guides at the door, but in the interests of fairness, it would also have to prevent Democratic candidates from speaking during the services at African-American churches.

My experience is that clergy in mainstream Protestant churches talk about general ethical principles all the time but carefully avoid partisan politics. For example, a preacher might say, "It's a disgrace that we spend billions to invade another country while the number of desperate people coming to our church for help is constantly growing." At election time, though, the sermon will be about carefully looking at the candidates and ballot measures to see which ones lead toward the kind of world you want to see.

[sangha]

69. I once read that religious organizations

are responsible for delivering half of the AIDS assistance in Africa.

Yeah, let's tax them so they can't continue to waste money like that!

[mitchum]

70. YES!!!!!!!!

[Silverhair]

72. POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

As soon as something like this gets introduced, even the liberal churches will be against it. Since an extremely overwhelming number of Americans, both Democrat and Republican and Other, are people of at least marginal faith, the outcry over that would kill it instantly.

A serious proposal like that would unite the liberal and conservative churches in their opposition. My step son goes to a huge gay church that supports lots of liberal causes, but I am very confident that they would instantly make common cause with Jerry Falwell on this issue.

[mike1963]

76. Yes, they should be -subject- to taxes just like everyone else...if they

can show they're essentially non-profit, let that determine the low or zero liability. Give them credit for real charitable contributions, as appropriate.

[rocketdem]

85. Tax them like any other business.

To do otherwise is a violation of the separation of church and state.