I think I'm about ready to get rid of the tax exempt status of churches

[cry baby]

I believe that the churches took political positions this past election year. I'm not sure if that is against whatever rules if they speak out like that. Anyone know that rule?

[DrGonzoLives]

1. Some did, most didn't

n/t

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

89. Yeah, but I'll go with the OP.

[coloradodem2005]

2. Only the ones who took political action of any sort.

Leave them alone if they didn't.

[cry baby]

3. How can you know which did and which didn't?

[coloradodem2005]

4. Some of them made themselves pretty clear.

Where they originate from and who they were a part of.

[cry baby]

7. for practical purposes, someone would have to report them to the

govt. It would be easier just to create a flat rate tax for all.

[coloradodem2005]

11. True. But, if you could find dirt on one or two...

...and make an example of them that might be effective.

[Maria Celeste]

21. Not Just Churches

As I understand it, a non-profit is not supposed to engage in political activity. A number of chuches in the black community and other non profits actively opposed Bush. Enforcing the letter of the law could cut both ways.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. look for evidence

both written and recorded. If a preacher said in a sermon that the congregants had to vote Bush or go to hell, that would be an indication. If there is a statement of principle for the church that says that a church will not make any political statements, that would be evidence for not bothering that church.

FYI, the head of my Sufi order has stated numerous times that our Order would not make any political statements as part of any religious service or workshop. He has followed this edict, and so have all the cherags and cheragas (ordained ministers) that I know of.

[Cooper]

55. i say tax them all.

they just egg the fundies on, hyping them with fear. why shouldn't they be taxed?

[cry baby]

57. To be fair, not all churches are fundi, lots are liberal. I just don't

think which way they lean matters, or whether or not the church is a Christian church.

[Machiavelli05]

6. Attack the Christians!

That'll solve the problem!

[cry baby]

8. not attacking, I am one.

I am not trying to start anything that resembles "attacking" Christians. Just merely asking the question about what they can and can't do. Also, times change, most churches have money that they don't use for spreading the gospel or missionary works.

[ooglymoogly]

9. ah men

[OrwellwasRight]

10. They are not supposed to engage in any political activity at all.

But the IRS doesn't enforce the rule. So what you get are sermons about whom to vote for, printed voter guides inserted directly into the Sunday agendas, and political meetings held at churches.

And I disagree that "most" did not get political.

BTW, I think churches should have to pay taxes regardless of whether they got involved in politics. They should contribute to society just like everybody else does. The exemption goes way back to the middle ages in Europe, and the chirch became a place to hide wealth. It still is today, and if we don't favor religion over non-religion, then we should tax everyone. I do not believe there is a place for the favored status of churches in our supposedly pluralistic society.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. They should contribute to society? They should contribute to society?

I guess you don't know anything about what mainstream churches are doing.

And most of them are not rich. I know. I was on the Vestry (governing board) of a church in Portland, and it was always a struggle to make ends meet. This was while we were providing three meals a week for the homeless and providing free meeting space for self-help groups and a non-sectarian social club for people with mental illnesses. All this was done with the volunteer labor and contributions of about 100 people.

My current church (much larger) also feeds the homeless (up to 300 people at once) , provides clothing for poor people who need to go on job interviews, mentors families that are trying to get off welfare, sends teams to Habitat for Humanity projects, sponsors refugees, sponsors Girl Scout programs for immigrant girls from East Africa, tutors refugees in English, and sponsors work trips to various parts of the U.S. and the world. None of this involves proselytizing.

My current church needs to hire another priest and can't afford to.

Yeah, we should pay taxes all right. We're not doing a damn thing for the community. We're just working with the people no one else cares about. (sarcasm off)

[cry baby]

15. I believe churches contribute greatly to our society, but there are

many businesses and individuals that do that, too, and they are taxed. Maybe the churches with more than X number of members should pay and the small churches that have a much harder time, should not.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. I can't think of any business that makes a profit

that does nearly as much as the churches do. They usually do something soft and feel-good like contributing to Special Olympics if you buy their products.

Should other non-profits be taxed? Should your local food shelf be taxed?

It's popular among non-believers to say "tax the churches," but if all the churches suddenly disappeared, a lot of people would lose their only safety net. We take care of the people who fall through the cracks.

[cry baby]

53. Why do you think that if the churches were taxed that they would

"disappear"? I don't think that would happen. It would be best if there would be a plan whereby the large churches were taxed and small churches or churches that didn't bring in the big bucks weren't. It would be terrible if small churches fell apart because of this. There would have to be safeguards.

[msmcghee]

67. How about providing . .

. . thousands of jobs, some with health care, so people and their families don't have to be poor and hungry?

[cry baby]

72. My shelf food here in Tn is taxed. n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

22. Yes, contribute in the form of taxes.

As in the last response to your post, there are lots of other individuals and organizations that contribute to society in lots of ways and are not totally exempt from taxes the way churches are. Even public schools pay taxes in many states.

I'm just saying that I do not think organizations should have a favored position as compared to every other individual/organization in society.

Taxes are just an issue that really get to me. I am so sick of the mentality that "everyone but me should pay taxes," whether it is churches, pharmaceutical companies, or just plain vanilla greedy corporations.

P.S. Sarcasm: I've been to the Vatican. The Catholic Church could afford to pay a tax or two.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. As I said in my other post, should all non-profits pay taxes?

By the way, some anti-church types believe that clergy don't pay taxes on their personal income. That's a myth. They do.

[OrwellwasRight]

25. I just don't think that churches should be singled out for special

treatment, and in most cases, they are. Secular organizations have to prove that they do charitable work and churches do not.

Jim Bakker-types, shilling for money to do the work of god, but using it to enrich themselves, abound. How about that creep that about ten years ago said that god was going to kill him if he didn't raise X million dollars? I'm sure that all went to soup kitchens...

There are lots of non-profit organizations that do pay taxes, mostly because they have been determined to be "political," but the IRS treats churches as hands-off, and that is unfair.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. I'm all for taxing those that meddle in politics or those that are

money-making fronts for con men, but that's a tiny minority of churches.

No one goes into the mainstream clergy to get rich. It's only in the past twenty years or so that denominations have insisted that their parishes pay their clergy a middle-class salary.

I grew up as a preacher's kid in the 1950s and 1960s, and when, during the War on Poverty, I read a description of a "welfare diet," and I thought, "That's how we eat."

[OrwellwasRight]

63. Lots of other kids grew up

as mechanics' kids and janitors' kids and secretaries' kids and waitresses' kids and unemployed peoples' kids and in lots of ways did not have much money either. I'm not sure that convinces me that churches deserve special status.

And, so long as the IRS has a rule that churches are favorably treated, they will not tax even those that merely "meddle," much less those that turn over their membership lists to be used as mailing lists by Karl Rove. The IRS doesn't audit churches the way they audit other non-profits, and it is not fair.

[RevCheesehead]

65. For some reason, the IRS considers me self-employed.

So I pay self-employment tax (including quarterly Soc. Sec. payments). By the time the government gets its take, I've lost approximately 30% of my income. Yes, my parsonage is provided, but I live on about 20,000/year.

Most of us are not wealthy, by any means.

[OrwellwasRight]

75. And when I worked as a teachers' aide in the

Los Angeles Unifed School District and my total income for the year was about $9,000, the IRS said I was self-employed as well (b/c no taxes were deducted from my checks--though the school directed my every move). Anyway, I had to pay both halves of SS, Medicare, plus income tax. It was not fun eating top ramen for a year because all I could afford were 19 cent meals.

I'm not sure how that applies to this argument. I was doing good work, too, for kids that really needed me. I was not tax-exempt, but are you arguing that somehow if I added god to my job that I should have been? I just disagree.

[RevCheesehead]

76. I was replying to post #23, not to you.

[OrwellwasRight]

81. My bad. Makes so much more sense now. Apologies. nt.

[Bigmack]

12. Never mind their politics....

... how about just taxing them like every other business?,,, hell, HALF of other businesses!

They own property, lobby, take in money, and employ people.

Tax 'em all. Goodbye deficit.

[cry baby]

13. If my church was taxed, I don't think I'd mind too much. I'd just

give a little more. If it would help my country, I'd do it.

edited for clarity

[AliciaKeyedUp]

16. Churches are free from intervention

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Otherwise, back off.

And just because you are unhappy with conservative Christian churches, churches have been very active LIBERALLY for decades.

[cry baby]

18. no need to get upset, I'm just asking if the time has come...

even for liberal churches. Can't we have a civilized discussion here?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

29. Sure, let's have a "civil" discussion of racism next

What the heck. Let's violate the Constitution and discriminate against Christians first. Then we'll move on to different racial groups and while we're at it, let's get rid of that Bill of Rights.

[Solon]

32. I don't get it...

we're talking about revoking a privilege, not a right, if it is used unfairly, it would be Unconstitutional, but if churches, synagogues, or temples violate the rules, they have tax exemption revoked. I believe that happened to even other types of religious organizations, like the Christian Coalition.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

38. The power to tax is the power to destroy

I don't like what you say, hey let's boost that tax a bit. How about 50% you know, so you pay your "fair" share.

Oh, still speaking out? Well, you are wealthy after all, how about 75%?

[OrwellwasRight]

58. That is not how taxes work.

Do authors and pundits and newspapers and networks pay different rates based on what they write or spew about?

The power to tax is also the power to create. Taxes pay for schools, roads, mass transit systems, healthcare, Social Security, parks, workplace safety inspections, enforcement of environmental regulations, etc.

But that's OK. Let's have certain organizations be exempt for no other reason than the fact that religion is favored over non-religion. Sure. That's a great reason.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

61. Again, no law

Churches were given NO taxes because of all the good they do.

Tell you and the church haters here one thing, the day you can convince the majority of the U.S. that churches are bad THEN you can do something about it.

In the meantime, for the next couple hundred years or so, hang it up.

If religion is favored over non-religion, it's only to the extent that it does so much more good.

[cry baby]

64. Really, AKU, I can't speak for anyone else here, but I am not a

church hater and didn't say "churches are bad", I am a Christian! Please stop calling names.

I agree that it is likely that churches (of every religion) probably do more good for humanity than do non-religion groups. Can't say that for sure because I'm sure there are many secular groups that do a lot, too. Their contribution is important, too.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

68. I didn't call you a church hater

I specifcally separated the two categories.

I am sorry if you misunderstood.

[cry baby]

74. that's OK, thanks.

:hi:

[OrwellwasRight]

70. "Churches were given NO taxes because of all the good they do."

All the good like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem With Trials?
All the good like the ostracism of gays and lesbians?
All the good like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?
All the good like defending slavery?

There are two sides to every story and it is closed-minded and not a complete reading of history to say that churches are only tax-exempt "because of all the good they do." How about the fact that it was a traditional European approach because that is how the Pope and the medieval kings worked it out.

"Tell you and the church haters here one thing"

I am not sure what you mean here but at a minimum you are calling names ("church hater").

You should try intellectual discussion sometime instead of ad hominem. I am not a "church-hater." I actually learned a lot of really good things in church and I encourage my friends who don't take their kids to do so.

What I am is a proponent of eaqual treatment for all, especially when it comes to taxes. I pay taxes--and I am proud to do so--because I think it is my duty as an American to contribute to my society. I am very skeptical of any person or group that thinks they are so special that they don't have to contribute taxes, too. Moreover, that churches can get away with breaking the rules an accumulating gobs of wealth without being scrutinized the way other non-profits are is simply not fair. I can be against it without being a "church-hater."

[AliciaKeyedUp]

I call church haters, church haters because they hate churches

Whether you fall into that category or not is something YOU need to determine.

I pay taxes, too. In fact, the vast majority of taxpayers in the U.S. are religious folk.

As for your lame attempt to claim that the crusades or Salem represent current religion, where that's just downright pathetic.

[OrwellwasRight]

88. Again, ad hominem

I don't appreciate being called names so this will be my last response to you.

"your lame attempt to claim that the crusades or Salem represent current religion, where that's just downright pathetic"

I didn't say anything one way or another about the Crusades or Salem representing "current" religion, although it is completely debatable,especially given President calling his wars in terror and Iraq "crusades," and muder of abortion doctors that so-called men of the cloth advocate.

To be clear about what I did say and did mean: You had said churches were given tax exempt status "because of all the good they do." Taxes weren't given tax exempt status just yesterday. Churches have been given exemptions from many forms of taxes throughout history. Therefore, my examples also spanned history.

Certainly, at the dawn of this country, when their earliest church tax-exemption laws were put in place, the lawmakers did have knowledge of the relatively recent Salem witch trials. I would also posit that they also knew that a lot of the people they were making the laws for were only here because they were fleeing religious persecution by the Catholic church in Europe, persecution that reached a peak of ferocity during the Inquisition.

And as for whether you pay taxes, that is great. But the issue I am talking about is whether any person or group should be singled out for special exemptions and be treated "hands-off" by the IRS. I think this allows some to abuse the system; it also requires non-religious non-profits to jump through hoops that churches do not. I think that is unfair.

I mention my belief because I believe that it is patriotic to pay taxes and that we should all--including churches--want to contribute to the public coffers because we all benefit from the roads, schools, public health services, and other things that governments provide.

I don't think that anyone who wants churches to contribute to the government is a "church-hater." Nor would I call anyone who starts calling names to people who advocate taxing churches a "secular-hater."

[AliciaKeyedUp]

99. And I haven't called any person any names

Generally speaking, the church haters here attack churches. If you wish yourself counted in that group, by all means do so. But don't blame me for categorizing you so because I didn't.

I think people who wish to CHANGE the way churches are treated because they don't like their politics are exactly church haters.

[Solon]

104. That is an awefully broad statement...

Without a qualifier it is practically meaningless:

Generally speaking, the church haters here attack churches.

OK, so when my Mother, a good Catholic, attacks the Church on its position on abortion and contraceptives, she is what, a Self Hating Catholic? BTW: JFYI, she absolutely HATES this pope for those reasons, and his position on Homosexuality as well.

Attacking Churches for the words and actions of their leaders doesn't mean you hate the Church, just disagreeing with it's leaders. Even saying that Churches should pay there fair share in taxes means nothing more than it says for this very reason. I know several Christians of many denominations that feel the same way about there own churches in regards to tax exemption, are they Church haters too? If I was a member of a Wiccan Church, I would prefer them to pay taxes on property and such just like everyone else, would that make me a Wicca hater too?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

113. And attacking religion because one hates it

Is a pretty clear cut actions. Yes, there is such a thing as legitimate criticism. Funny though, almost the very second a thread mentions the Catholic church, for example, someone is calling priests pedophiles. So, you can try to paint this as positive as you wish.

Most of the time, it's not.

[Cobalt Violet]

119. All the good they did looking the other way while priests MOLESTED...

Children.

[OrwellwasRight]

121. Exactly. nt.

[Solon]

71. You see hatred where none exists...

This is getting ridiculous, seriously. I for one simply think that ANY Non-Profit that doesn't follow the rules should get tax exemption revoked, you have to come here and play victim. I don't care the the organization is question is a Christian Church, a Pagan Temple, or the Freethought Society, if any violate the rules, no more tax exemption.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

78. You for one

Many here want ALL of the churches to lose their tax exempt status. I see hate where hate exists. That's all.

[Solon]

83. How is that hatred?

First off, yes I do advocate that, I make no secret of it either, but TAXATION is NOT punitive! I do NOT want religious organizations to be taxed MORE than non-religious ones. So where would the hatred be again? If I was advocating that only Christian Churches should pay taxes, and everyone else be exempt, or taxed at different rates, then I can see it, but I am not, so I don't see what the problem is.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

84. Taxation clearly would be punitive

Taxation replacing the lack thereof because many here don't like the politics of churches is ENTIRELY punitive.

[Solon]

85. There is a difference between using religion for good works...

and using it for fraud. When ministries like Robertson's Christian Coalition lost there tax exempt status for there politics, if you will, was it punishment, or fairness. Any group regardless of religious affiliation, is NOT tax exempt when entering politics, if you want to play the game, you have to pay for it as well. DU itself is not tax exempt, because of political advocacy, are you saying that if they renamed it to Christian Democratic Underground, that it should then be tax exempt?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

100. I am saying this whole idea is not because of politics

But because the politics are disliked here. Churches that do leftwing political work are considered OK around here.

I could find the same kind of illogic on rightwing sites if I bothered to look.

You can't easily separate politics and religion at churches. Everything that goes on in the world is political, it is also moral and ethical and, because of that, founded in our religious principles.

[Solon]

103. There is a fine line that many have crossed...

A church can take a position on an issue, such as abortion, or war, however, the minute that a Priest or Pastor starts supporting a specific candidate or party, or bashing the same, is the time when tax exemption should be revoked. Be political all you want, but pay your fair share at the same time.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

114. Let's try a hypothetical

Last election, I am running a church. I come out and say that anyone who supports abortion supports murder. (I'm pro-Choice btw, so it's just an example.) Now I tell people to vote for a murderer is to facilitiate murder themselves and they will burn accordingly.

Is that political or religious by your definition?

[oneighty]

108. Conversely

those churches accepting federal faith based tax monies are setting themselves up for federal intervention. "Faith" cannot have it both ways.

No?

180

[AliciaKeyedUp]

115. Depends on what the rules are on the money

If the money has any strings at all, no church should accept it.

[cry baby]

47. Not all churches are Christian. Please stop putting the Christians

into a victim category. We are not victims.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

62. We are HERE

And I mentioned Christians because they are the favorite target here. I am battling against changing the rules for ALL religions.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[cry baby]

97. Really trying to keep this discussion civil. AliciaKeyedUp has made

some very good points in this thread. We don't hate her and want her input.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

101. Thank you

nt

[OrwellwasRight]

54. How is saying that all organizations should be treated equally

discriminating against Christians? I'm sorry, but I do not believe that favored tax status for churches is enshrined in the Constitution (Do you have a citation for that?).

Nor do I believe that anyone in this thread has advocated "get{ting} rid of that Bill of Rights."

I, for one, agree that we ought to be able to have a discussion about tax policy without hyperbole and ad hominem.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

66. Targeting ONE group is what this is about

Lots of people here love to beat up on religion. That's what this is all about.

No, no one is advocating getting rid of the Bill of Rights, just that first part.

I'm sure you think my response hyperbole. Let's talk about gutting the 13th Amendment and see how African-American posters react.

[Solon]

77. *Sigh*, your playing a nonexistant victim again...

No one on this board that I know of has advocating getting rid of the 1st amendment. Am I one of those who likes to beat up on religion? Look at my avatar genius. Is the guy who started this thread a self hating Christian? Your purpose seems to be to play the victim constantly, justified or not.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

80. Some people here target religion at every turn

If a guy rapes someone in Kalamazoo, it gets posted if he is Christian.

And so it goes...

[Solon]

86. Yes it can get ridiculous on both sides of the debate...

I did say, "justified or not" after all. Then again, if the rapist made his being Christian an issue such as that torturer in LBN then I can see shooting down the hypocrisy there. Many Christians get mighty pissed when an asshole like that claims to be a good Christian, are they justified in their anger as well? I just believe that in this particular case, you are blowing up over a little nothing. Churches get there tax exemption revoked for many reasons, from fraud by pastors, to political advocacy, both right and left. This is as it should be, for now.

[OrwellwasRight]

79. Saying that all groups should be treated equally is not

"targeting ONE group."

There already is one group targeted for special privileges, and that is religious groups. I'm just saying that I think the playing field should be leveled between believers and non-believers.

I fail to see the connection between advocating for equality and your position that I am arguing for "getting rid of . . . that first part." I guess you mean the first Amendment, but I do not know. Perhaps where that Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religion" to you means that Congress cannot tax any religion?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

82. Then let non-believers form big groups

And do good works.

In the meantime, there is no point arguing about this because it won't change.

Yes, Congress cannot tax religion. The 1st makes that abundantly clear.

[OrwellwasRight]

90. 1. Non-believers do form big groups and do good works

Doctors without Borders, ASPCA, NDRC, this list goes on.

2. Um, no, that is not what the First Amendment says. I quoted it above. There's nothing in it either about taxes or about giving churches special privileges (that would be a law "respecting a religion").

[AliciaKeyedUp]

102. By comparison

Non-believers have nowhere near the charity impact of churches. I strongly support their willingness to form an endless stream of charity groups, however.

As for making laws about taxes, it says Congress will make no law prohibitng the free exercise of religion. Taxing it has that effect.

[davsand]

110. Um... there is NO Constitutional tax exemption for churches.

Tax exemptions are created in the IRS code not the Constitution. The Constitution merely establishes that the federal government shall establish no law "...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There are IRS laws currently in place that clearly state that churches (and any other 501 (C)3 exemption holder) will not be involved in any political activity. It is clearly spelled out that specific activities will result in taxation.

The IRS exemption codes were established in the recognition that these organizations provide either for the spiritual welfare of the people or else lessen the burden of the government in some way. I doubt that many could argue successfully that any church doesn't provide for the spiritual welfare of its congregation.

I think the bulk of the argument really falls in the activities of the church. You do have a large number of churches that do good work in that local community--things like food banks and other social services. That kind of good work should be rewarded, IMO.

Local groups do a LOT of things that are desperately needed--think about it--Habitat for Humanity, Health Care Consumer groups, Disability Advocacy, Senior Advocacy, mental health boards... The list is endless and it is vital to our societal survival.

I have far less problem with church groups holding exemption than I do with the IRS assault on specific non-profits deemed to be negative to the current regime. When I see IRS targeting groups like the ACLU the NAACP, and other civil liberties groups, I get a bit queasy.

My personal opinion is that it'd be far better for us all to either reform the reporting practices of non-profits or else just leave it alone. I have no issue with church exemptions but I hate seeing the pulpit used (in some few cases) as a political tool. Similarly, I would hate to see some of the other non-profits go away simply because a few churches and other non-profits abused the tax exemption.

Just my two cents as somebody who deals with IRS and local tax code every day.


Laura

[Solon]

28. If that's the case...

Then churches should not use any public services that require taxpayer's money, at all. Why can't they pay their fair share in public services? Also, just for your FYI, you don't need to change the Constitution to implement such a policy, it isn't required, because, as long as it is fair to all religions and beliefs, then it is not discriminatory, therefore doesn't rob anyone of their freedom of religion.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

30. Religion is protected

And churches far and away do more good than any other organizations. They do their fair share, they don't need taxes on top of it.

As for your humorous interpretation of the Constitution, let me remind you:

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

That's pretty clear.

[Solon]

37. It DOESN'T prohibit the free exercise thereof...

Ulysses S. Grant tried to revoke the tax free status of ALL religions in the United States at the time, but was shot down, not by the courts, but by politics of the time.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

40. If you can tax, you shut it down

Thankfully, this idea has no chance in hell to get enacted.

[Solon]

45. This has happened before...

the IRS has revoked the tax exempt status of churches in the past for crossing the line. It isn't even so much law, rather it is regulation. If they did it unfairly, such as singling out a specific sect or religion, then that would be a violation of equal protection.

[mitchum]

95. Tax exempt status is ALREADY unconstitutional (see post 94)

[BBradley]

17. The Church of Satan has been advocating this since it's inception.

Tax the shit out of those churches.

[Az]

20. Those that abuse the system should be taxed

But taxing groups that advocate religious ideas is a means of controlling or destroying freethought. Taxation is our admission to have a voice in the Government. To tax the churches is to give them a direct voice in the Government. And as soon as you do that you are going to have problems.

They must be kept seperate.

[OrwellwasRight]

24. "is a means of controlling or destroying freethought"

I don't agree.

By that logic, any group that wants to promote 'free thought' should not be taxed. So, book publishers, newspapers, and websites should not have to pay taxes?

Conversely, the only free thought that occurs in this country happens in churches because they are not taxed? I hardly think that the freeest thought in this country goes on in an institution whose sole purpose is to get as many people as possible to have faith in their version of an unprovable story.

[cry baby]

27. Hang here, I am a free thinker and a Christian. There are many

of us. I don't think that should have anything to do with taxation.

[OrwellwasRight]

43. I didn't say there were no Christian freethinkers.

I just said that I think the argument that churches can't be taxed because it would "destroy freethought"doesn't hold water.

There is lots of freethinking not destroyed by taxes that goes on outside churches, and there is lots of tax-free non-freethinking that goes on inside churches.

[cry baby]

52. Gotcha!

[Az]

36. Those institutions are for profit

A church run for profit would be taxable as well.

[OrwellwasRight]

49. But you didn't argue for profit or not for profit above.

What you said was:

"taxing groups that advocate religious ideas is a means of controlling or destroying freethought."

I disagree. As I said above, freethought exists outside churches in taxed organizations (thus freethought is not destroyed by taxes), and lots of the activity that goes on inside churches is not freethinking (thus protecting freethought is not necessarily what is accomplished by the tax exemption).

[cry baby]

35. If they lobby Washington regarding political issues, then don't

they already have a voice in govt?

[atommom]

26. I thought some local churches crossed the line last year in

supporting political candidates (all Republican). But then, Jerry Falwell visited churches here and elsewhere, advising clergy on just how far they could go politically without getting into legal trouble. Which is pretty damn far, apparently. :eyes:

[OrwellwasRight]

31. Don't forget turning over their memberships lists to Karl Rove,

real non-political, huh?

Although, as mentioned above, it can cut both ways. I would never argue for special treatment for "lberal churches." I just think if there is a rule, it ought to be enforced.

That it isn't is evidence of the favored status of religion in this country.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

33. So, when black churches crossed the line

and pushed civil rights, shouldn't they have lost their tax status?

[atommom]

39. Fair question, but not an easy one. I'm not sure "the line" has

ever been clearly drawn.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

42. I rest my case

Which is why you shouldn't do it.

You can't separate religion from the actions of people with faith. EVERY action is impacted by our faith.

[OrwellwasRight]

51. So if every action is impacted by faith

then no one should ever pay taxes?

If churches are tax exempt no matter what because you don't think a line can be drawn then religious organizations will always have a favored status over non-religious organizations, and that is not equal treatment under the law.

[Solon]

56. Look at this link...

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

This describes what restrictions that 501(c)(3) organizations, in other words, charities, churches and other organizations have to follow in order to keep their tax exempt status. Are you saying that they should not follow these rules at all?

[journalist3072]

59. Churches and Tax Exempt Status

I think that a lot of churches have crossed the line, on both sides of the isle.

So in the interest of being fair, if we want to take away the tax exempt status of churches who promote righ wing nut jobs, then we have to feel the same about those who promote our candidates on the left.

Personally, I am really uncomfortable with ANY church promoting ANY candidate. I don't think the job of a pastor is to get up in the pulpit on a Sunday morning and tell you who to vote for. If you are only voting for someone b/c your Pastor told you to, that is getting to dangerously close to being a cult, b/c that tells me you can't think on your own.

I think a pastor's job is to tell their congregation to excercise their God-given right to vote, and to pray and seek the Lord about who they should vote for. ANd that's as far as I think it should go.

[cry baby]

60. agreed. n/t

[Solon]

41. If they had put up campaign flyers...

or had used the church to endorse specific candidates, then yes they should have. I don't think they did, but many churches in the past have lost tax exempt status, its called fairness and rule of law.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

44. Since when do fairness and rule of law have anything to do with each other

They don't. Allowing politicians to do whatever they want with religion is a recipe for insanity.

Again, fortunately, this won't happen.

[Solon]

48. It has happened...

don't you understand yet, religious organizations are a specific type of Non-Profit, if they violate the rules, tax exemption is revoked, plain and simple.

[cry baby]

50. I'm not really asking if the churches should be taxed as a punishment

[proud patriot]

46. Reframe debate Meme: Get the Government out of My Church !

back to your regular program :hi:

[RevCheesehead]

73. EXACTLY!

Churches which have violated their tax-exempt status should be reported to the IRS.

For those of us who have played by the rules, please back off.

I couldn't put a Kerry sign in my parsonage yard - so I didn't. But I did put bumperstickers on my car, and wore my pins every day - except Sunday - and got actively involved in campaigning during my time off.

But whenever I gave someone pins, signs, or stickers, I made it clear that I was NOT their pastor (at the moment) - I was a private citizen, exercising my free speech.

[baldguy]

69. They should be treated like any other non-profit org.

Report income & sources of funding. Pay property taxes. Disclose expenditures.

The Rev shouldn't be able to take donations from the flock & buy a diamond mine for himself in Ghana.

[Disturbed]

91. "Churches should be treated like any other non-profit org."

Agree.

[whistle]

87. Certainly all churches with a specific political agenda with...

... stated business goals of acquiring excessive wealth to the exclusion of specific individuals and groups of individuals from society

[RetroLounge]

93. Tax the shit out of them.

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

116. Thanks, you just proved the point I've been laboring to make

I appreciate such clarity.

[mitchum]

94. The tax exempt status for churches is already unconstitutional...

because the federal government through the IRS determines the "legitimacy" of churches. Apparently, some "faiths" are more equal than others.

[VPStoltz]

96. I for one...

think the IRS should take a good look at this issue. With Shrub's "faith-based" nonsense, your tax dollars are being used to tacetly and not so tacetly promote religion - specifically Christianity. How is it that the Catholic Church has so much money to bail out those freaks they call priests and then cry about tax exemption? More than one prominent religions figure spoke publically about electing Shrub. I am presently taking a hiatus from my Catholic congregation because of the absurdity of saying I was going to go to hell if I voted for Kerry. With out a doubt, most fundi and evangelical churches made it abundantly clear whom God wanted their members to vote for. Yeah, churches do good - so do I through more than generous charitable giving and I can't get it tax deducted - because I don't make enough money.

[cry baby]

98. If that were to happen (IRS looking into this) now would not be the

time. With the serious divide that **** has created between fundies and everyone else, even looking into this would seem like retribution. That would be bad and would divide us even more. We don't need that right now. Maybe sometime in the future - but having watched the discussion tonight, I think that taxing churches would open a pandora's box of issues that just can't be addressed in any civil way. It would probably just make the sh** hit the fan and we don't want that, do we?

[OrwellwasRight]

112. Word.

Additionally, don't forget that under the Reagan regime, Reagan directed his folks to defend the tax-exempt status of a racially segregated Christian college (I think it was Bob Jones U, but it may have been Oral Roberts). Bottom line is I don't think that tax breaks should be going to institutions I don't believe in--that engage in objectively evil practices, in fact--when I am too poor to take tax advantage over my "good works."

[atommom]

105. One point we should be making as progressives is that letting

government and politics into our churches, we will give government and politics too much say in what the churches do. Do religious organizations really want to be beholden to politicians, and hence corporate interests? I can see all kinds of potential conflicts there. We could argue that the separation of church and state was meant as protection for the church.... I honestly believe that was the original intent.

[cry baby]

107. Good point - n/t

[Walt Starr]

106. Religious organizations are corporations

so tax them as such!

[Hotler]

109. If the church has its own cable program.....

or it follows the likes of Ralph Reid, Falwell, Robertson, they should be taxed.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

117. So, basically if you don't like them they should be taxed?

That sounds like the rationale most here are using.

[noamnety]

111. I'm all for taxing them

and letting them deduct all money they spent on charitable causes. If they paid to feed 300 people, they should have accounting that shows what the expense was, and not pay taxes on that part.

Basically, church services are a combination of motivational speaking/some entertainment/psychology/history. The folks in each of those professions get taxed, right?

Of course they are political. In the church I visit occasionally, they never once endorsed a candidate. But in the Q&A they do between services, the pastor was always quite helpful in explaining why abortion should be illegal, while the death penalty was perfectly acceptable, and preemptive war was a good thing. Quite the song and dance he did on that one, while never uttering the names Bush or Kerry. Political? Can't convince me it wasn't.

[NVMojo]

118. ever look into the financial holdings of the Mormon Church? You'd really

want to get rid of the tax exempt status if you found out ....

[AliciaKeyedUp]

120. Or not

They are a church. They do lots of charity work, and given their history of being persecuted and run out of town, it makes sense that they would wish to be safe in case society ever turns against them again.

[BigMindTinyHead]

122. How do you plan to do this?

That would take a lot of clout. Do you have that much clout?

[cry baby]

123. After thinking about it and since we've discussed it here in depth,

I don't think it could ever be done. I think it would create a new civil war. Not worth it. Too divisive.

Edited to say Welcome to DU! :hi:

[shimmergal]

124. Whoa, everybody.

There are lots of non-profits that don't do any "good works" that still pay no taxes. For the past 3 years I've belonged to a large group that defines itself as a "purely social club" -- by which they mean the members get together just to have fun and to network. As long as the treasury stays below a certain level -- I think it's around $14,000 but it could be as large as $20,000 -- they're exempt from taxes.


The main problem with dividing groups into "taxable" and "non-taxable" is the one big exception we have. Most FAMILIES are non-profit; they exist for purposes other than accumulating excess money. Yet they are taxed. Does anyboy see a way around that?


I too would like to see a clamp-down on churches that threaten hellfire (or even social condemnation) for not voting a certain way. But do we really want already-strapped churches to be afraid to speak out for social justice because they can't afford the punitive taxes that would follow? That's the way it would work under our present administration, you know.

[Famine]

125. Taxing Churches will release the brakes

Have you considered that retaining their tax exempt status is one of the only things that has prevented most churches from becoming extremely active in politics? Do you really want to turn the Baptist's (as an example) loose in the political arena? Do you want the Catholic bishops to start excommunicating pro-choice candidates and politicians? If they pay their taxes, they have the right to participate fully in political life. If only a few churches crossed the line because of the current tax laws and they had so much influence this last election what would happen if they were unrestrained? Do you really want Christian PACs?

On the other hand, you would probably have to tax ALL non-profits to get to the churches. This means all the other types of nonprofits would have to pay their taxes too.