Should churches & religious organizations lose their tax exempt status now?

[cboy4]

So I'm burning up about all of these religious organizations -- especially the Mormon church -- for pumping millions of dollars into California to defeat Prop 8 .. including organizing the distribution of Yes (hate) signs.....

I decided to look over the IRS tax guide 1828, which is the tax exempt code (IRC section 501(c)(3))

And what is in one of the very first sections, "JEOPARDIZING TEX-EXEMPT STATUS"?

**they must not devote a substantial part of their
activities to attempting to influence legislation,

**they must not participate in, or intervene in, any
political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)
any candidate for public office ...

:wtf:


TIME TO START PAYING UNCLE SAM MORMONS AND CATHOLICS (of which I'm a non-practicing member of the church, btw) and all of you other weaselly religious institutions who continue to legislate behind your 501 status!

It is an outrage. Why is this allowed to go on?

Read the code for yourself if you want------------------>http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:d1b8k190T4gJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf+list+of+churches+tax+exemption&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[H2O Man]

1. It will never happen. n/t

[cboy4]

3. Why? Because this is a "Christian nation?"

And lawmakers would be terrified to get the ball rolling on this out of fear they'd be booted out of office?

[H2O Man]

13. Partly.

Also because of the Constitution.

[davsand]

32. I am unsure what part of the Constitution you are talking about.

Frankly, I think the argument could be made that granting exemption to ANY church over any other is giving a governmental preference to one form of religion over another.

Right now, if you personally decide you want to host some form of religious observance in your living room YOU can't get an exemption--yet that is a fundamental reason (use) why many "recognized" churches are exempted. That would contradict the entire First Amendment prohibition against establishment of a "national religion." They are, essentially, creating a "preferred" religion by giving those churches something they will not give to your religious space.

Churches are thought to "lighten the burden of government" somehow, and that was an argument that was made for the creation of that 501(C)3 law. I have never fully understood that logic, personally. I can see how community organizations that are organized specifically for the assistance of the community (food banks, for instance) could be seen as lightening the governmental load, but I have yet to see how being a church is enough to claim to provide that benefit.

YMMV, this is just my personal opinion here.



Laura

[H2O Man]

36. Respectfully disagree.

The part of the Costitution I am speaking of -- and which you certainly are aware of, despite saying you are "unsure" -- is Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights.

Religions which are not "main stream," and which indeed started in people's living rooms, can qualify for the exemptions. Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam is one example.

The group of laws which guide the decision-making policies (which I am not suggesting are fair) are the ones reached by federal courts, the US Supreme Court in particular, in what is known as "Constitutional law."

People can certainly disagree with many parts of the rulings that comprise this area of law. However, mere disagreement is of zero value, unless one is involved in challenging that area of law. And, at this point, not only has the law been fairly well established (no matter if one agrees with it or not), but there is no indication that any current or near-future cases have a snowball's chance in hell of changing them in the manner that the OP rhetorically suggests.

[davsand]

39. Actually, I have heard it stated that the IRS as a whole is prohibited Constitutionally.

Never really thought that argument held a lot of water, personally, but it is out there and is particularly popular with the Libertarian crowd...

Maybe I see it a bit more because I deal with Property Tax Exemption issues on a regular basis and it often falls to my office to help these organizations file application paperwork for their properties. In our state, IRS 501 (C)3 status is NOT required for property tax exemption, but it does play a role in state sales tax exemption determinations (thankfully nothing I deal with.)

Anyhow, if poor old Reverend Willa Mae takes a notion that she and her 20 or 30 parishioners should become a recognized church (in spite of being together for so many years...) they have to go thru a bunch of hoops to even file for exemption from the IRS. It becomes even more problematic if Rev Willa Mae never made it much past High School and lacks any sort of recognized divinity education much beyond what she got from reading the Bible every night of her 70 some years.

Now, what if Rev Willa Mae has 200,000-300,000 parishioners? Does THAT give her any more credibility here? What IF she went thru ten universities and holds a doctoral degree conferred directly by the most acclaimed religious institution on the planet?

Now, let's say that we are not discussing poor old Reverend Willa Mae (or even just Rev Willa Mae,) but rather, Father Divine and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. We will not go into any discussion of what their worship services are like but envision any number of unsavory activities that come to mind and you are probably gonna be on target...

I'm not being snarky here, but you have to recognize that the very act of exempting churches set up a situation where SOMEBODY will be deemed "not acceptable" for exemption if there is to be any legitimacy to that exemption.

Is it up to ANY part of our government to establish WHAT constitutes a "proper" church??? Is it up to ANY of us???? WHO, exctly gets to decide that? To the members of poor old Rev Willa Mae's church and the members of Father Divine's congregation that is a pretty important constitutional issue, I'd think.

Seems to me that the fundamental idea behind the entire First Amendment is that we should NOT be doing that.

Again, I could be wrong, but that is my opinion.


Laura

[H2O Man]

40. I've had experience

dealing with securing the tax status for a couple of non-profit groups, though neither was "religious." I did not consider it to be particularly fun.

One of the groups that I worked with was a Native American support group, which at times was involved in legal cases on the state and national level. From this, I am aware of things such as the 1978 Indian Religious Freedom Act. One suspects that if the Constitution were interpreted the way that common sense would suggest, there would be no need for a federal law that provides one group with the "rights" that are defined in Amendment 1. And, of course, the law alone does not provide what it states in theory: case after case has had to be undertaken, in order to try to "put teeth" into the law. (The same is true for the Native American Burial Protection and Repatriation Law.)

My point is certainly not to say the laws have been, or are now, interpreted in a just manner. Rather, I'm attempting to point out that we do best when we deal with the reality of the situations we face today, and to have reality-based ideas for making progress in the here-and-now, and in the future. This is distinct from the sure-to-be-applauded, but shallow and unrealistic calls that pop up on DU routinely, calling for the end of tax-exemptions for churches.

[fascisthunter]

129. Wouldn't Doing Away with a Church's Tax Exempt Status also ...

be precedence for religion's involvement in government ending the Separation of Church and State?

[JVS]

73. The problem is that the assumption that 501c3 status is granted for being a church is erroneous.

The issue isn't about religion, it's about the nature of the organization being non-profit. Think-tanks are also filed under the 501c3 status, and if an organization still wants to be more political there is 501c4 status for groups such as AARP, move-on, the NRA, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501c3#501.28c.29.283.29

[WCGreen]

127. It's a tax issue and not a constitutional issue...

They are free to do what they want but since they exist because of the tax code, they can't use that exemption to campaign...

[geckosfeet]

2. Pay the piper. I don't care who you pray to. Your organization has some

political involvement.

[hisownpetard]

4. Churches should not be tax-exempt, period. They should pay their share, like any other

company and/or citizen.

[CreekDog]

19. you can't take away tax exemption from churches and not other non profits

but i think for churches to maintain that status, they should not participate in any electioneering (rather than simply staying out of partisan races).

[cboy4]

5. Is that Sarah Palin who cast the first "No" vote?

Maybe she's practicing in case she's in charge of the senate. :eyes:

[JVS]

12. No, that was me. See #10 for why.

[cboy4]

15. Excellent satire JVS.

:thumbsup:

[marmar]

6. I know that the Churches have really been pissing me off with their Anti-Prop 2 (stem cell research)

..... propaganda in Michigan. And because they're not taking a position against a specific candidate, they're allowed to spout all the lies and disinformation they want.
I'm about ready to form a new group: the "Tax the Churches League"

[cboy4]

7. I'll sign up for that group dude for real

!!

[Bozita]

126. The Catholic Church has pumped about $5 Million into anti-Prop 2 coffers in Michigan.

[mitchum]

8. They never should have had it to begin with

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[RB TexLa]

10. I can see the headlines from history now. "Dexter Ave. Baptist church seized by Alabama

dept. of Revenue, sold at auction to local Citizens Council"

[cboy4]

16. Don't churches have to pay their local property taxes, and

utility bills and other expenses?

You think income tax could be its demise?

Is that your point or am I missing something?

[davsand]

34. Most churches do NOT pay property taxes.

Prime real estate with large (sometimes ornate) buildings is going untaxed because it belongs to a church. YOU As a taxpayer (member of that particular church or not) subsidize that church because you pay more taxes to cover that part they are exempted from.

Every time you (or anyone else--this is not directed at you particularly, cboy4) get pissed off at something an especially wingnut church says or does, it might make you feel even more unhappy to think YOU are helping foot the bill so THEY can act like assholes.

I especially love to contemplate that when I hear about churches protesting woman's clinics or bashing the GLBT community...



Laura

[cboy4]

37. Ah....thanks for the info. Laura,

And yea, you're right, it does make me feel even more unhappy. x(

[Critters2]

50. How do you feel when churches support the GLBT community,

or give to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights? Churches who do that would cease to be if you got your way. The fundy megachurches would scream "persecution" and grow even larger.

[davsand]

63. It is only ok if they represent MY values. (Sarcasm alert!)

I was worried that there will be people who miss the intent behind that comment, so forgive me for the sledge hammer approach...

My main point is that in ANY of these conversations about churches' exemption from taxes--be it Federal (IRS code) or local taxes--it is a matter of somebody placing or making a value judgment about that particular church and how or what they do.

Much as I celebrate any organization that works to "elevate" us all, I question if it is possible for the government to legitimately determine who should be exempt and who should not. Seems to me that with judgment of exemption we are establishing or conferring a governmental recognition (or endorsement) of a given church and by extension a criticism of another. THAT is directly contrary to the First Amendment.

Please, understand, my argument here is not about a criticism of churches, their activities, or the intentions of the parishioners. Every church will be a reflection of its denomination, the people who go there and the minister/reverend/priest/high priest/rabbi/mullah/insert correct term for religious leader here. Some of them I agree with and others I do not. It isn't up to ME to decide their merit, and I don't think it is up to anyone else to do either.


YMMV.

:hi:


Laura

[cboy4]

68. There would be and should be no exceptions.

Wanna be politically involved?

Then get out the checkbook.

Because I'm tired of subsidizing wealthy religious institutions like the Mormons and Catholics, with this country in 10-trillion dollar hole.

[Critters2]

91. There's no actual tax code pertaining to churches.

This would mean taxing all 501(c)3s. No tax-exempt donations for you!

[TankLV]

75. Not "most" - ALL churches don't have to pay ANY local, state or national taxes. Period.

That's why it's called "exempt"...

[Critters2]

49. Property taxes are the main tax exemption churches and other 501(c)3s benefit from.

Despite what you hear here, very few churches take in any profit (income). Most benefit at a deficit or are just barely making ends meet. So, they'd pay little or no corporate income tax. And they do pay FICA and other taxes on behalf of employees.

[katandmoon]

11. The tax exempt status of churches essentially forces all taxpayers to support them

Because what they get out of paying taxes for, we are forced to make up the difference. And they use all the same government services the rest of us do.

Tax all their asses and stop forcing the rest of us to subsidize. They can still believe whatever the fuck fairy tale they want to believe.

[Brazenly Liberal]

14. other - they should not be exempt regardless of this issue

I have given it a great deal of thought and just canNOT figure out why on earth religious organizations should be tax exempt.

[DailyGrind51]

17. Only if they take partisan political positions.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. does that include preaching and teaching

what is in their religious texts?

sP

[DailyGrind51]

85. No, only if they use scripture to advocate for a specific Party or candidate.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. what? tax them like a corporation on their profits?

guess how much profit my church shows annually? ZERO...not one red cent. And I would be willing to bet that many churches are the same way.

Now, if you want to tax a church like the Mormon church on the monies they invest in political advertising, then okay...that might work...

sP

[SidDithers]

21. In Canada, they would lose their status as organizations...

with the ability to issue charitable donation receipts for donations received. Donors would not then be able to use their donations to churches as deductions when calculating personal income tax. Don't know if it works the same way in the US.

And if they lost all tax-free status, then they could say and do whatever they wanted, so the question in your follow up post below becomes moot.

Sid

[ProdigalJunkMail]

23. so, your intention is to kill churches, then?

that will never fly in the US and would lead to something that people suggesting these sorts of actions would not be happy with...

sP

[SidDithers]

30. No, churches will still exist...

and members will be free to donate as much as they want to support them. The donations just won't be subsidized by being tax-deductible.

Sid

[Critters2]

53. It would kill churches. nt

[riverdeep]

86. And this would be bad because...?

[Critters2]

90. Well, none of the atheist organizations in town have taken any of the shifts

at the homeless shelter. For one.

[Critters2]

102. Hmmm. crickets.

Just as I thought.

[spoony]

93. Mmm hmm...figures.

A lot of this 'movement' is about an agenda that has nothing to do with tax equality or fairness.

[Critters2]

52. It works the same way in the US. They're tax exempt under clause 501(c)3

in the tax code, the same as other non-profit corporations. A lot of DUers seem to think there's some special provision for churches. There isn't.

[LeftyMom]

47. Property tax.

[Critters2]

51. In 22 years, I've never served a church that showed a profit.

Yet DUers assure me that churches are just raking in the big bucks!

[cboy4]

66. That could be one way of doing it I suppose....But what about

the churches that are actively involved in politics, yet don't contribute monetarily?

They need to be taxed some how. And they should be taxed.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

78. i think if a church is actively involved in politics

then it should lose its tax exempt status (as i think the rules state). i think doctrine-ally they should be able to preach as they want...but as soon as that preaching becomes advocating for a candidate or a particular vote (as we are seeing from the Mormons in CA) then it is time for them to get fined heavily or lose said status altogether...

sP

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. and to complicate my previous post...

what would constitute political speech? preaching about abortion? or what about speaking out against the death penalty? or what about a call to give to the poor? is quoting Leviticus going to trigger a big tax payment?

hmmmmm...

sP

[HamdenRice]

22. Of course not. What a preposterous idea. Religious charity is important.

Better to enforce the "no politics" rule than getting rid of the tax exempt status for religious institutions.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. but most of the people that pose this sort of question

would totally reject the idea that churches do any good at all...

sP

[Zhade]

45. No, we reject the idea that you NEED churches to do the good.

And we're right - you don't.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

61. organized charities

can bring much more in resources to a need than an individual...rarely does one person build a school or open a food service program or open a shelter. so, yeah, churches do a lot of good...and then if you have a secular organization doing the work, well, do you tax them too???

sP

[spoony]

94. Bull fucking shit, we need everyone who does good to keep doing it

and more to do good on top of that. And it still won't be enough, but it's a hell of a lot better than working to destroy groups that try. Fuck anyone who would cripple those efforts to make a political/religious/anti-religious point.

[Zhade]

96. I just realized my typo - take out "the" before "good".

I agree that churches do good, but not that churches are needed to do good.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. How much of their resources does the average church devote to charity?

The churches near me are monstrosities with all the bells and whistles for their members but I don't see them doing much of anything for the community. If they do it comes with a large dose of proselytizing.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

27. so a church should not be able to spread it's message?

our little church built three school and sank dozens of wells in several places in Africa this year and also did a lot of church planting in Europe. The message of the Gospel was shared in all those places...should we have not been able to do that???

sP

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. Why couldn't you sink the wells and build the schools without it?

Why couldn't you let your good works stand on their own? And when you did "spread your gospel" was participation purely voluntary? Or was there even the slightest element of coersion to it?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

42. well, let's see...there is the whole command

to spread the gospel...

and no, the wells were sunk and schools were built with no preconditions...no conversions required...no bibles you HAD to take home...just the offer of the Word...

sP

[mrreowwr_kittty]

46. Yes I see, there is the whole command to spread the gospel.

Therein lies the problem.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

60. so, your problem is with christianity in general then

ok

sP

[spoony]

95. Yeah they're not exactly subtle about what's behind it all

are they?

[TankLV]

76. not with MY money!

you can do what you want with YOUR dime...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

80. and i do...what's your point?

i mean, you don't like the republican party...don't give to it!

sP

[HamdenRice]

29. I've never been to a mega church, but from what I've read, they provide ...

charitable services to members -- from AA to budget counseling, from mens' groups to day care.

Also, the law has always seen religious instruction itself as a form a charity in the category of education.

If you revoke the charitable exemption for religion, then what's next -- let the fundies revoke it for universities, liberal foundations, human rights organizations, non-profit scientific research institutions, and animal welfare organizations?

Let's let each "side" revoke the charitable exemption from charitable institutions that promote the ideas of the "other side" it doesn't like.

Yeah, that'll work.

I try to be open minded, but to me the very idea of revoking tax exempt status for churches is beyond silly.

[Critters2]

54. I just got home from taking a couple bags of groceries to a woman

with two young children, who needed food. I then spent the evening listening to the difficulties in her life, and brainstorming as to which local agencies could help her best. Then learned she didn't have a thermometer to see if one of her kids had a fever. So, I went to Walgreen's and got one.

Religion never came up in the whole discussion. And she's not a member of my church.

I guess I'm not doing it right. Thanks for setting me straight.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

57. Don't tell it to me. Tell it to Rick Warren.

Peace.

[cboy4]

72. You're an example of how churches and religious organizations

should operate.

The problem is *some* chose to behave in an unchristian manner.

And they should have their asses taxed.

If the people belonging to the church don't wish the IRS do go down this path, then they should start speaking up and telling the church to STFU.

Simple.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

81. agreed!

a church should stay out of politics...or lose their right to tax exempt status...but churches who don't politic should be left to do the work they choose.

sP

[cboy4]

65. Yea, and how do you enforce the no politics rule without

the possibility of consequences for violating that rule?

What's preposterous is your suggestion that religions can no longer be charitable if they don't pay taxes .. especially the major institutions like the Mormons and the Catholics and the Baptists who are very involved politically.

The results of the poll show how out of touch you are with other progressives.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

67. but if you remove the tax exempt status of ONE

organization you have to remove them all...otherwise you are just taxing religion for being religion...is that what you are proposing?

sP

[cboy4]

83. I'd like to first see churches warned. I want to see a strong

warning that if they want to continue down the road of political involvement, then they should expect to pay the Internal Revenue Service for its percentage of taxes.

And then we go from there.

I, for one, have no problem with taxing religion for "being religion."

What's wrong with taxing religion if its politically involved?


on edit....I think we sorta agree with each other per your post above

[ProdigalJunkMail]

84. the problem i have with it is that it is taxing an idea

and whether you like it or not it ends up on a road no one wants to go down. i agree with nailing organizations that break the rules...but those that don't, let them be.

sP

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[asteroid2003QQ47]

33. Deleted message. Ha ha, Serves you right you idiot! Don't ever...

challenge the status quo.
--------------------------

In the letter, dated January 3 1954, Albert Einstein wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

[cboy4]

38. I can only imagine what was written

:eyes:

[acmavm]

35. Long overdue!

[Igel]

41. Show that they violate part of the code.

Therein's the problem: I don't think they have on this issue.

A constitutional amendment isn't legislation. It's a public vote on an issue.

A constitutional amendment isn't partisan, nor is it a candidate running for office. It's a public vote on an issue.

Offhand, I don't see where they've done anything to run afoul of the regulations. They don't do anything wrong, they don't get punished.

Now, perhaps you think the regs and the law should be rewritten. Perhaps they should. I personally don't think so, but I can remember that black churches were important in the 1950s and '60s when it came to the civil rights struggle, and many were involved in the '80s and beyond in the 'sanctuary movement'.

I'd also note that Obama got some earmarks for some churches in his area for preschool programs and the like. Surely this is also a bad mixing of church and state? I'm not sure I think so. In any event, I don't think it was illegal, and I'm not one for having the government punish people for doing something not illegal.

[spoony]

43. The question...

...is how much people are willing to harm those that do good in order to strike out at those whose politics they don't like.

Are we going to punish impoverished churches that preach the social gospel because it overlaps with political issues? Are we going to cripple their ability to keep often-floundering programs for their communities afloat?

The churches people are rallying to tax usually take in a good deal of money, and won't be hurt by taxes. They'll act just like corporations and protect and hide and loophole their way out of most taxes anyway. As usual it will be the poor--and usually liberal--organisations that will bear the brunt of such efforts.

[cboy4]

48. Interesting points spoony....I'd want to learn a lot more

before I supported an across the board tax exemption revocation.

But something needs to be done.

[spoony]

58. I think the regs need serious retooling

There are some squirmy words in them like "substantial" that I suspect could be debated by any lawyer worth their salt. "Well, we did ads for this proposal but it didn't take up a substantial amount of our blah blah..." I think it should be flatly: don't take stances on specific legislation or candidates. It'd eliminate some of the blurriness and allow them to still talk about issues. It's a...thorny path. But I know that "my" church is barely standing, and would rather cut anything but it's food pantry etc, but a stiff tax breeze would seriously damage the finances.

[Initech]

55. After seeing my town absolutely littered with Yes on (h)8 graffitti, I say abso-fucking-lutely.

[Critters2]

44. The UUs and UCCs were littering your town with this graffiti? nt

[Initech]

64. No UUs or UCCs where I live, but there are a few hardcore fundie organizations.

Actually I think it depends on how political they are in order to get their tax exempt status revoked.

[Critters2]

88. Not exactly. Tax exempt corporations, churches and others alike,

are allowed to take public stands on social issues and referenda, like Prop 8. They cross the line when they specifically endorse an individual candidate or party. They have every right to campaign on Prop 8--pro or con.

[orleans]

56. only if they push/promote republikas

:evilgrin:

[Unrepentant Fenian]

59. A dead friend used to havea great expression.....

"Hang all the Monarchs with the entrails of the clergy" Gale Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam (Gale May he rest in peace).

[cboy4]

62. Wow. A landslide.

:wow:

[LanternWaste]

69. My tiny little church would soon have to close its doors...

My tiny little church would soon have to close its doors were it taxed as such.

And though my church has little to nothing to do with politics, I'm sure a lot of people would be that much happier were it the case...

[cboy4]

77. I wouldn't wish for your tiny little church to be taxed if it's

not actively involved in politics .. especially donating money to causes.

Otherwise, you folks would always have the option of having bake sales to raise your tax dollars.

[TankLV]

79. Too bad.

Tell it to someone who would care...

I don't want to be FORCED to subsidize you and your damn church, like I am now...

do it on your own dime.

Can't? Then tough shit.

There are a LOT more important and vital things my money should be going to.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

82. wow...chip much? n/t

[LanternWaste]

97. Actually, in the here and now...

Actually, in the here and now, it would seem "too bad" for you, as my tiny little church isn't paying taxes.

Or, as you so eloquently put it, "tough shit".

Have a great day :hi:

[IsItJustMe]

70. Yes, they should. Churches are constantly in political issues in this country and there is no way

they can be separated out of it. For their own freedom of speech, and for the secular plurality of the health of this nation, it needs to be done.

[TankLV]

71. Should have lost it LONG ago...

Get rid of "God" in the pledge and currency, too...

RETURN them to what they ORIGNIALLY were...

[earth mom]

74. Where's the HELL YES option?

I'm sick of these churches lying and cheating! And don't say they aren't because what they are doing is illegal! :grr:

[riverdeep]

87. Many European countries have much less participation in church involvement.

And yet, their societies have far more of a safety net. Their distribution of the rich and poor is far less extreme. While churches do some good works in other countries, they also promote some of the problems in the first place. Take South America, the religion told them to have as many children as possible, that birth control is evil, that abortion is a gateway to hell, etc. So there are tons of street children. Then they come in and help them out. Yay religion!

I will say that atheists, for example, don't tend to have charitable work tied in under the umbrella of their belief system. They also don't really tend to 'cluster', so they are often invisible in a community. You don't really drive by and see a building dedicated to atheism. The charitable work they do, is often done under other organizations so the atheism never comes up. Maybe they should do some of those things as a form of better PR. An atheistic soup kitchen where you can just eat.

What I'm getting at, the demise of churches if they occur, wouldn't set this country into moral ruin.

[Critters2]

89. Most European countries have tax-supported churches.

Most European countries have state churches. I do NOT want the state signing my pay check, thank you very much.

[Pastiche423]

92. If they even breath a word of politics

then tax the HELL out of them!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

98. what happens when doctrine and politics collide?

is a church allowed to preach/teach doctrine?

sP

[Pastiche423]

103. I am agnostic. I stay away from those places

So, I don't understand your question.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

105. well, there are passages that can be used to support

opinion from anti-gay, opposition to legalized abortion, render unto Caesar, give to the poor...there are all sorts of things that can come up not only in doctrine but also in politics...

the question is, if a church believes, based on it's interpretation of scripture, that being a sexually active homosexual is a sin...would they be able to teach that and preach it to their adherents?

sP

[Pastiche423]

106. I don't give a shit what a church believes

In this secular nation, we have a little some thing called:

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

112. but that really doesn't answer the question

there are some areas where church and state collide as described. can a church preach it's scriptures and doctrines even if they could be interpreted as political speech? and i mean this as long as they are actively campaigning or contributing to campaigns (be they electoral or legislative).

sP

[Pastiche423]

114. What part of Seperation of Church and State

do you not understand?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

115. can you simply answer a question or do you have to

try to go down the semi-insulting route?

If a topic that the church teaches on is ALSO considered a political topic, does the church have to stop teaching on that topic?

A simple yes/no will suffice...

sP

[Pastiche423]

117. YES

[ProdigalJunkMail]

118. thank you for clarifying

it is good to understand that you would be for the destruction of church doctrine if it conflicts with popular political will...

sP

[Pastiche423]

123. It is LAW!

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.<1> The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.<2>

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.<3> The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,<4> and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.<5> This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

P.S. The only destruction of church doctrine, is the church's own fault.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

124. but you said where a church doctrine

coincides with political ideas, the church has to give way...that is not freedom of religion...you plainly said that the church would not be able to teach (to it's parishioners within the context of the church alone) those doctrines...

you can't have it both ways...and it is not law...at least not the way you seem to want to implement it...

sP

[Pastiche423]

128. Please go away

You are now lying about what I said. Everything I said is there in black and white for all to see. And they will see that you are trying to put words in my mouth.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

130. yep...they will see a yes/no question

where you answered yes and now claim otherwise... please go away??? you have got to be kidding...of course, that would seem to be your attitude toward churches as well...

yep, everyone can see...

sP

[Deep13]

109. politics win.

That's the whole point of this law.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

113. so to you this means that a church cannot

preach/teach that homosexual conduct is wrong? am i understanding you? and i do mean purely within the church...not actively participating in or contributing to a campaign be it electoral or legislative...

sP

[Deep13]

120. They can do whatever they want.

That does not mean they can do it with a tax exemption. And I see no public policy reason to be granting bigoted organizations tax exemption. We don't grant the Klan a tax exemption and their basis is religion too.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

125. the klan pays taxes??? interesting... n/t

[Wizard777]

99. I would think that "no law" includes tax law.

[Deep13]

111. Which part of the 1st Amend. do you mean?

Freedom OF religion?
Freedom FROM established religion?
Freedom of speech?
Freedom to peaceably assemble?

[Tesha]

100. Churches should be required to split their finances into two parts:

o A 501(c)4 part that handles all the money involved
with maintaining the clubhouse for their members,
running their lobbying operations, and the like, and

o A separate 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization for
the small amount of truly-charitable work that the
churches actually do.

Tesha

[Deep13]

110. Agreed. And no property tax exemption.

I'm tired of paying extra to give religions a break.

[gollygee]

101. Most churches run on shoestring budgets

the progressive churches would all fold, and only the Mormon Church and other ones with a lot of money would survive

[Ladyhawk]

104. I'm an atheist and I don't go to the local UU Church BECAUSE it is mostly about politics.

Not even the Unitarians should be exempt from the separation of church and state and I agree with them 90% of the time. I even gave them my own political spiel the last time I was there and realized--belatedly--that I had wiped my ass with the Constitution. I tried to say something about the separation of church and state and one of them told me that it only worked one way. The state wasn't supposed to mess with the church. That's the same bullshit spouted by the right wing and it's dead wrong.

If any church wants to get involved politically, they need to forgo their tax exempt status.

So, I was thinking the UU Church might be a place of sanctuary for me...I guess not. There's no sanctuary here is red county Kah-lee-foh-nee-ah.

[AngryOldDem]

107. Should have lost it a LONG time ago. n/t

[Deep13]

108. Churches (etc.) are not really charities.

Charitable tax exemptions have always been granted tax exempt status because it has been assumed that spreading religion was charitable. Supporting ones one social club is not a charity. Supporting efforts to enlarge that social club is not charity. Frankly, churches should have to justify charitable status by showing most of their funds go to feed and care for people just like any other charity. Otherwise they should be taxed as property owners and businesses, which is what they are.

[FM Arouet666]

116. YES Tax every damn one of them

Tax every last pew and bible in this country. Every penny in the collection plate should be divided up and a portion given to uncle sam. You are free to believe as you wish and establish and support any religion that your little heart desires. But, it is time to pay up.

And the argument that religious charity would be negatively affected. Fine, take all the money from taxing religious organizations and support secular charities. Like light beer, less calories with the same great flavor. Less proselytizing with the same good deeds.

[TWiley]

119. Then bulldoze the ones who resist !

[Ms. Toad]

121. Prop 18 is neither

legislation nor a candidate for public office.

You can argue over whether it should be the rule or not - but that is the current rule.

If a church is advocating for John McCain, for example, it would be in violation of the second quoted portion.

If a church was using a significant portion of its resources or time to lobby congress (either state or federal), it would be in violation of the first. Either would be grounds for removing the 501(c)(3) status.

[KoKo]

122. My Episcopal Church stood by...only allowing a few to voice out against Iraq Invasion

...so I say LET THEM ALL LOSE IT! Those who were SILENT along with those on the Right who were VOCAL!

Let's have some penalties payed for those who are "compliant" along with those who VOCALLY COMMIT US TO INVASIONS of Sovereign Countries!