Should religion be tax exempt?

[cynatnite]

I personally lean towards no, but I would like to know what everyone thinks about this.

[Taverner]

1. Even the most devout Christians on DU think it should not...

In fact I've talked to many preachers who think it should be not...

[bigwillq]

2. No (nt)

[guitar man]

3. only if

they keep their sticky hands out of trying to make public policy. I thinks that was the whole reason for making them tax exempt to begin with, now the fundie nutbags always want to use the force of government to force their jesus on my penis...enough!! :grr:

[Ian David]

4. Making churches tax-exempt is part of a contract.

The deal of the contract is, if you accept this tax break, you agree not to use your organization as a political organization.

We remove the tax exemption, then we have a bunch of organizations full of people who believe the person telling them what to do knows the will of an infallible and omniscient deity who wants them to vote a certain way.

[LostInAnomie]

10. The churches aren't holding up their part of the contract.

They've become incredibly bold in the past few decades in telling their flock how to vote and using political power to influence policy.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

16. Growing up in a Southern Baptist church, I can confirm this.

[laconicsax]

20. Then fine them.

Removing tax exemption is basically saying, "ok, because you keep breaking the law, we're just going to get rid of the law."

[defendandprotect]

153. We've made ALL of a churches' real estate holdings and stock portfolios tax exempt . . .

ONLY the church and it's surrounding property -- it's soup kitchen -- should be exempt!

[RKP5637]

41. And many churches today are akin to cult hate groups using political power. Tax free

status is absolutely ridiculous. This country needs to move into the 21st century. Tax free status for churches is absolutely ridiculous, especially in this economy and in the future.

[Wizard777]

33. No, it's part of the first amendment. "Shall make no law" includes Tax law.

[PurityOfEssence]

162. Nope. Not true.

The article reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Taxing them does not prohibit the free exercise of religions; they can exercise themselve 'til they're blue in the face. Taxing them has no bearing on an establishment of religion; it's not a judgment that they're good or bad, or more importantly, that we're in agreement with them.

On the other hand, putting "In God We Trust" on money, IS establishing religion, since it's saying that we, as a people, agree in such a concept. This is PRECISELY against both the spirit and letter of the law. Apologists and theocrats have suckered people into believing that the intent here is to not prefer a particular religion over another, but the intent is quite clear from the founders: it's the very concept itself that we are to stay out of. We are not to endorse by laws that there is a god or any particular other supernatural entity. Funding faith-based charities would also be a problem. In fact ANY official endorsement of religion that's funded by a congressional bill is flying in the face of the intent.

[SDuderstadt]

165. "Taxing them does not prohibit the free exercise of religions"

Congress doesn't agree with you.

[Wizard777]

182. That's not what I based my argument upon. But it can violate free exercise.

Only a superior authority can place a Tax. That's why in the days of old governments paid taxes/tribute to the church. The church was the superior authority. My religion prohibits me from recognizing anything as being superior to God. With the free exercise claus. The government can not require me to do something religion prohibits nor can they prohibit me from doing something my church requires. Both can prohibit the free exercise of religion. But my initial argument was on the establishment claus. The government has no regulatory authority over a church.

[Wizard777]

181. I never said it prohibited free exercise. That's not the only thing protected.

Taxing the church violates the establishment clause. The US Government and even state government has no regulatory authority over a church. The church is a sovereign entity unto it's self. The first amendment makes the church an Sovereign entity equal to the government. We are no longer a sovereign entity SUPERIOR to the government. Before the founding of America and the first amendment ALL sovereign authority came from the church. You were not the king until the church said you were. You were not a country unless the church said you were. The king and country paid taxes/tribute to the church. Even in the case of King Henry VIII when he was at odds with the Vatican. Did he run off and start his own country? NO! He started his own church to provide the sovereign authority for his government. America was the first country to be founded upon the principle of secular sovereignty. The limited sovereignty of the people as opposed to the absolute sovereignty of God. But I can also make a free exercise argument as well. In requiring my church to pay a tax to any government. You place the government above God. I cannot recognize ANYTHING or ANYONE as being above God. I personally don't have a problem with a secular government being equal to the church. But a Government can NEVER be above it.

People like to make the local zoning board argument on this issue. So you can ignore the local zoning board? YES! Yes I can absolutely ignore the local zoning board. Not even the local zoning board has regulatory authority over my church. Congress has even made this more clear by passing a law that basically says a zoning board has no authority over a church. That is a law that is binding upon the government. Not the church. We may submit plans to a local zoning board if we so desire.

[PurityOfEssence]

197. To grant it special status beyond that of other human endeavors is to establish it.

Your premise seems to be that religion is more important than other human activity, and this is not sustained by the constitution.

How can taxing churches be a violation of the establishment clause? Expecting special status is a violation of the establishment clause.

It is not a special act to encumber other business ventures; for religions to have ANY business functions at all, they are no better than other enterprises in the eyes of the founders. They're selling a service, and they use communal resources to do so.

This concept of being more important than the shared endeavor of society is precisely the kind of aristocratic exemption that Article One was meant to preclude.

Maybe YOU cannot recognize any authority above your supernatural guess, but we, as a people, do not recognize that right to be expressed by the government as a summation of our collective belief. That's the point. Do it in your private life, but expecting collusion from the government is to expect aristocratic privilege.

God is NOT a fact. Period. There is no proof of such an entity, and demanding special status without explanation or proof runs contrary to the fairness intended by a pluralist society.

Personally, I feel that those who hold a greater allegiance to a belief system are LESSER members of society than those of us who swear our fealty to the government and its secular laws. They are out for themselves and their kith rather than the broad society as a whole and are not only not superior, but parochial, fractious and inflexible.

In short, the constitution is equating all human endeavors along the lines of their functions, with religion NOT being given a break for being "good". Many of us do not consider it "good", and regardless how much outrage that engenders from the legions of cosmic certainty, it is the protected right under law. Abridging it is an act of social arrogance.

The very act of granting certain human endeavors a selfish and fickle "right" to do as they please is in itself establishment. Talking down to others from a perch of self-defined moral superiority merely fans the flames, and picking and choosing those facts that suit one's pre-ordained specialness flies in the face of the very concept of pluralism.

[Wizard777]

200. Establishment means how we run our business.

Congress can make no law concerning how we run our business. We're not the only ones that get a special exemption, as you call it, in the first amendment. So does the press. They have special status too. What you are failing to understand is that the constitution can and HAS granted special status to churches. The Constitution only prohibits Congress (government)from doing that with laws.

I'll admit that opinion upon the church being a sovereign entity relies upon constructionism. Just like the right to privacy. America was never meant to be a place where people had to part with their customs and traditions. A lot of them come from their church.

God is a Fact PERIOD. I've seen and met Him during a NDE. So your waisting your time trying to convince me He doesn't exist. Besides no court or jury may pass judgment upon church doctrine.

[PurityOfEssence]

206. Establishment in Article One means endorsement by the government

It was to be granted no specialness and guaranteed the same protection as other speech.

What the founders were doing was wiping the slate clean, whereas you seem to contend that they were endorsing religion as something deserving of an untouchable position. They were specifically NOT doing this; they were removing religion from governance. It was a new world for them, and much as the religious language of the Declaration of Independence has been used as a justification for this being a Christian nation, it simply isn't so. The Declaration was a position paper at a time of great strife; the Constitution was the soberly constructed LAW of a new nation, and it goes out of its way to NOT cite godly justification. There are literally only two references to religion in the text: one where religion shall not be a means test for employment or office-holding, and one to express the date of signing. To make the latter point clear, they give the date as the Christian date, as well as expressing it as the twelfth year of the Independence of the United States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion as an endorsed belief of the government and thus its people. That's what this means. It has nothing to do with the inner workings of the various organizations, it has to do with the government taking sides in the issue of whether there is a god or not or which particular group deserves aristocratic privilege.

"An establishment of religion" is not wording for "a religious organization", it's wording for the government's endorsement of religion as official. It's not that Congress shall make no law respecting these cherished and ultra-special pinnacles of enlightened civilization, it means that Congress shall make no law giving religion any force in government. Once again, it is CERTAINLY not an issue of preferring one group over another, it is to make them completely skew with government, while also reassuring the adherents that they will not be persecuted.

Sadly, those who demand religion to have an unquestioned voice in government (and I'm not intending to include you in this group) consider any resistance to their privilege as persecution. Denying special status and social aristocracy is somehow a version of abuse to those who consider themselves above the laws of the inferior.

I must say that I have never heard the interpretation of "establishment" as an entity like a coffee house. Do you REALLY think this is what's meant? It's been hashed over for the past 220 plus years, and the crux of the issue has always been that this is a VERB, not a NOUN. Congress is to stay out of the activity of picking favorites among supernatural belief systems, and is not to take a side for or against the very existence of such things.

The wars of reformation were very fresh in the cultural memory at the time of our founding, and they wanted a government based on rationality and proof.

Verb, not noun.

[Raineyb]

201. To clarify, Churches have been banned from giving political donations by Johnson,

however, as the churches have not been keeping up with their end of the bargain, and the government seems either unwilling or unable to come down on them for doing so I see no reason why they should be allowed to keep interfering in government while being subsidized by the rest of us.

[Wizard777]

203. That was a good call by Johnson. Political donations are a secular activity.

But the separation of church and state is not absolute. Church personnel can participate in government. Case in point. I'm a priest. I vote and I can even run for President or any other political office. But when I vote. I vote as an American. If I ran for office it would be as an American. When I discuss politics it's outside of the church as an American. All perfectly legal and without threat to the churches tax exempt status.

[The Straight Story]

5. Yes (nt)

[baldguy]

9. Why?

[The Straight Story]

22. Tax purchases, not donations. You donate to a church, red cross, etc.

I don't see why we should tax donations - but then again I am not big on taxing everything under the sun. We already tax income, smokes, drinks, food (in some states), etc and so on.

[baldguy]

25. And we should tax the income - of the churches. Just like we tax every other business.

Don't make the mistake of believing a church is automatically a charity.

[The Straight Story]

30. Then tax all non-profits, why single out religion (other than people hate it) ? (nt)

[baldguy]

35. Most non-profits don't exist to enrich those who control them.

When they do, we call it fraud and prosecute those people.

Unless they call their particular fraudulent scam a "church" - then it's OK.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

186. Hate to break it to ya, but that isn't even close to being true.

I work in and with non-profits. There are plenty of people enriching themselves rather nicely in the non-profit world, and it's not illegal in the slightest.

[Hansel]

205. I worked in non-profits for 20 years of my career.

I have not witnessed this on any scale that would be greater than insignificant. So maybe it just depends on the non-profit.

[Johonny]

46. Let the file and run like a non-profit charity.

according to the IRS: Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Not because they are "non-profit". Indeed some of their profits are taxable...

[defendandprotect]

155. Because our Founders singled them out -- and correctly . . .

Separation of Church & State doesn't separate State from

telephone companies, or Hershey bars, or Lingerie --

because none of those businesses claim that "god" speaks to them

and tells them what we should all be doing!!

You might have noticed from time to time that all sense and debate is

dead once someone suggest "that's the way god wants it!" --

Or, "that's what the Bible says..." --

That's why organized patriarchal religion is so dangerous to democracy and

equality for all --

and why we have Separation of Church & State!!

[Renew Deal]

108. Churches aren't business

and they are not in the business of making a profit.

[defendandprotect]

157. The Vatican is worth more than $50 BILLION and you're saying they don't "make a profit"!!

Probably worth waaaay more now --

However, our Founders correctly separated church & state --

Patriarchy is underpinned by organized patriarchal religion --

First, we shouldn't be subsidizing religion, but we should especially not

be subsidizing male-supremacist religion!!

Secondly, church's claim that "god" is on their side -- that's a difficult

argument to defeat re any legislation -- and re democracy/equality for all.

If you're noticed the RCC is not a democracy and does not believe in "equality for all."

And that's why we have Separation of Church & State -- !!

[Lance_Boyle]

190. Really? Or do you maybe want to qualify that remark?

Rick Warren's megachurch is not about profit? The churchy hucksters on TV swindling old ladies out of their social security money are not about profit?

*SOME* churches are not about profit (beyond being able to pay the god-talker). But lots of them are. And it shows.

[iris27]

49. I'm fine with donations to something like the Red Cross not being taxed. But a lot of

churches are basically social groups/country clubs that talk about Jesus. The church I grew up in was certainly one. Great place for networking, sure - excellent extracurricular opportunities for your kids, etc. But the ONLY "charity" work they did was taking special collections once or twice a year for missionaries in other countries (not sure if that was paying for food/medicine or just Bibles). They even closed their extremely small "food pantry" several years ago, which at its peak was one box of canned goods under the church secretary's desk. This was not paid for by offerings but stocked only with food brought in by members and not publicized in any way...basically if you were already a member of the church and fell on hard times and knew it was there, you could get some food, if you were then willing to have everyone gossip behind your back about being broke enough to need the food pantry.

There are some excellent charitable organizations run by religious groups, and a lot of churches that do a great deal of charity work. But classifying all money given to a church as a charitable donation equivalent to money given MSF (Docs w/out Borders) or something is a grave error in the tax system. The people at my mother's church are basically just getting a tax deduction on their country club dues.

[Deep13]

88. Because they're not just donations.

They are fees for operating expenses. The fact that they are usually on an honor system rather than an enforceable bill does not change that. The Red Cross is an actual charity. They collect donations essentially to give them away again, often in the form of wages for people who perform valuable services for those who can't afford it. Those who work there pay taxes on their income. Churches do charity work of course, and they should write off what they do. And as a not-for-profit (if it is one), it would pay not income taxes anyway. The wages of employees should be taxed at the normal rate. They should pay sales taxes on materials. And the dirt should be subject to business property taxes.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Stupidity should never be government subsidized...

Predictable result: You end up with a nation of idiots.

[LostInAnomie]

7. No.

They've become fearless in their meddling in politics and suggestions on who their flock should vote for. They should be taxed.

[Ian David]

8. I think we have to be more aggressive in asserting our right to tax churches who violate...

... their end of the contract.

[Enola Gay]

11. I said "no" because I think you really mean Churches...not exactly the same thing as religion.

Anyway I get your point. :-)

[bigwillq]

14. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[HarveyDarkey]

34. That was my first thought

Churches are tax exempt, not religion. Poorly worded question.

[Deep13]

89. Right, religious institutions.

No one is going to have a meter on his or her mind that starts running just because he or she thinks about divinity.

[Booster]

12. When it becomes blatantly obvious that the person(s) running

the church are living lavish lifestyles, riding around in limos, flying private jets, having houses the size of a Hilton Hotel, and we as a people decide to bury our collective heads in the sand because we don't want to "offend" a person of God, then it's time for us to gather up our guts and say "enough of this shit". In turning our heads to look the other way, we become nothing but enablers of fraud, and say nothing while these sharks take money from people who don't know any better. That makes me ashamed of my country and my fellow Americans.

[RKP5637]

42. +1000, n/t

[defendandprotect]

158. Agree...and not only are we subsidizing churches, we are subsdizing male-supremacist churches!!

This is allegedly a democracy -- "equality for all" -- right . . . ???

[laconicsax]

13. Yes.

If they start paying taxes, then they get a legitimate say in government. Things are bad enough with them having an illegitimate say in government.

Rather than removing tax exemption as a punishment for sticking their noses where they don't belong, fine them into bankruptcy.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Jesus....

do any of you understand why the tax exemption is in place? Have you read the first amendment?

[tammywammy]

43. As you can see by the poll results, no. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

48. I don't care what the poll results show...

people just can't arbitrarily override the constitution.

The "congress shall make no law" part has been interpreted and incorporated to make churches exempt from taxation so that no government can effectively infringe on the free exercise of religion through taxation. Of course, the quid pro quo is that churches may not overinvolve themselves in the political process and risk losing their tax-exempt status.

I say this from the status of a non-believer who, nonetheless, values the idea of free exercise. Have you guys ever taken a civics class?

ON EDIT: forgive me, TW, I completely misinterpreted your post and now see what you were getting at. I'll leave the post up though for people who need an education on the Constitution.

[tammywammy]

50. I agree, there's a damn good reason to not tax churches.

But this is DU and all churches are evil.

We have plenty of laws already on the books for non-profits that cross the political line, they just need to be enforced. :)

[SDuderstadt]

51. Hope you saw the edit on the post you replied to....

My apologies...I completely misinterpreted your reply and I appreciate your understanding of why the Constitution is so important.

[tammywammy]

54. LOL, I assumed you misread it.

;)

All is well.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Well, not really....

how could so few of our colleagues have such a poor understanding of our constitution? What are they teaching in civics classes these days?

[tammywammy]

61. I agree it's sad that so many DUers don't understand the First Amendment. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

65. Believe it or not, the other night....

a bunch of DUers were arguing that "Code Pink" has a free speech right to deny Karl Rove freedom of speech".

WTF? I despise KR, but I also understand that the right to free speech doesn't extend only to popular speech.

[jgraz]

63. Has it ever occurred to you that many DUers may simply disagree with that interpretation?

It says nowhere in the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights -- you know, the thing you're quoting) that churches may not be taxed. One could argue that tax exempt status constitutes a subsidy for religion and thus violates the Establishment Clause.

[MajorChode]

68. It's already been argued

Many have already tried this route and failed. In a nutshell, the USSC ruled that the first amendment neither guaranteed churches tax exemption or prohibited them from it. There have also been a few churches that have unsuccessfully challenged the removal of their tax exempt status on first amendment grounds.

[jgraz]

69. Wow, actual information. Thanks!

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

71. Name the case....n/t

[MajorChode]

95. Already have. See post #64

nt

[SDuderstadt]

101. Dude...

you cited part of the holding in Walz and left out the parts that would undermine your point. You know even less about this issue than you know about the Federal Reserve.

[MajorChode]

109. You cited absolutely NOTHING other than some internet braggarts claim...

of University knowledge which is impossible to verify. I'll give you a little hint on substantive debate, sonny. Try actually proving your assertions first, before you try some lame attempt to discredit the actual provided proof that shows you couldn't be more wrong. It's not my job to prove or disprove your assertions even though I have extended effort on the later. So you can either support your assertions with something better than 'but, but, but...my prof said so!' or you can't. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I could give an ass rats what you think you know, I only care about what you can support with something that resembles verifiable facts and sound reasoning. So far you are all plow and no tractor in that department. Your claims of expertise are worth less than a bucket of warm spit on this forum because they are impossible to verify and even if they were verified, the absolute best you'd have is 3rd hand information.

Cheers!

[SDuderstadt]

111. What the fuck are you babbling about now....

dude?

[MajorChode]

118. Still more pointless rhetoric and zero substance, I see

Please don't stop though. Soon there won't be a dry eye in the house.

[SDuderstadt]

119. Dude...

selectively citing part of a holding is what people should be laughing at.

[MajorChode]

123. Care to show where I "selectively" did anything even remotely resembling your claim?

Post # and exact quotes only, please. Even if I did (and I didn't), judges all over the world 'select' case law on a daily basis, sonny. So it's anyone's guess what you're trying to prove anyway. You should have quit while you're behind, sonny. You are deeper in now than you can ever imagine. At least there's some entertainment value involved.

Time to put up or continue to wallow in your puddle of deceit, sonny. Choose wisely.

[MajorChode]

134. ...sound of crickets chirping...

The silence speaks volumes.

[SDuderstadt]

138. It's been all of 34 minutes, dude...

maybe you're just enjoying your "hobby" and you've lost track of time.

[MajorChode]

140. and still you choose to ignore post #123 instead of attempting to support your baseless assertion

I didn't realize what I asked would be so difficult for you, Jr. Some might say impossible, no?

Cheers!

[SDuderstadt]

142. No, dude....

I don't operate on your schedule....sonny. Night.

[MajorChode]

146. As Adlai Stevenson once said...

"I'm prepared to wait until Hell freezes over..."

If you could have supported your assertions by now, you would have. You won't and you can't.

Sonny's Assertion#1:
'The Constitution provides an agreement by which churches receive tax exempt status.' (paraphrased for brevity)

Sonny's proof of Assertion#1:
1)Appeal to his own authority fallacy. (He allegedly slept...er sat through a Constitutional Law class once and his professor told him so).
2) "Bullshit, dude."

Sonny's Assertion#2(repeated ad nausem):
'Majorchode "selectively" provided a SCOTUS decision and was somehow dishonest about it.' (paraphrased for brevity)

Sonny's proof of Assertion#2:
<sound of crickets chirping>

Sleep tight, sonny.

[SDuderstadt]

148. I said nothing like what you claim in assertion # 1.

Stunning dishonesty.

[MajorChode]

151. Do correct me then, sonny, or are you just going to duck this one too?

I'll help you out. Here is your EXACT quote:

people just can't arbitrarily override the constitution.

The "congress shall make no law" part has been interpreted and incorporated to make churches exempt from taxation so that no government can effectively infringe on the free exercise of religion through taxation. Of course, the quid pro quo is that churches may not overinvolve themselves in the political process and risk losing their tax-exempt status.

I say this from the status of a non-believer who, nonetheless, values the idea of free exercise. Have you guys ever taken a civics class?

Ah, more proof you say? Glad you asked...

So, I call bullshit on you, and here's my counter to your baseless claim:

"The tax exempt status of churches has nothing to do with the first amendment..

Bullshit, dude. It has EVERYTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.

More proof you say? No problemo...

do any of you understand why the tax exemption is in place? Have you read the first amendment?

Your ball, sonny. Don't fumble again.

[SDuderstadt]

152. Simple question, dude...

why does Congress exempt churches from federal income taxation? Have you read the history of that exemption?

If you claim I "ducked" anything, you need to learn to read better. You also need to quit mischaracterizing my arguments and making your typical false claims.

[MajorChode]

184. Oh Sweet Jebus, you need to take your show on the road!!!

You are a riot, sonny! Now you actually have the nerve to falsely accuse me of your own bad behavior? That is rich! I've ran into a few sexual intellectuals on DU, sonny, but I must say none have taken duplicity and projection to such a fine art form as you. Most people when they dig themselves into a hole have an instinct that commands them to stop digging, but not you, sonny! And that's what I really like about you.

First explain how I mischaracterized anything. I posted YOUR words, Jr. Exact quotes here cut and pasted from your own posts, no less. Just how in the hell does one engage in "mischaracterizing my arguments" using your EXACT arguments? Are you now denying these are not your own words? Do you even read your own babble before you hit the send button?

Then try supporting your original assertions with facts rather than weak and unsupported opinions.

Then try explaining in detail why you have mischaracterized my posts on at least a dozen different occasions and NEVER offered the least bit of proof for such false and ridiculous claims despite repeated requests for such proof.

Once those matters are settled, then and maybe then we'll move on to something else. Fair enough, sonny? I don't play your silly games of diversion. You can either support your own assertions, or you can't. It's really that simple, and no I'm not going to let you off no matter how hard you try to worm your way out. And besides I've already answered your question already. If you need a more detailed explanation, I'll be glad to put it in words with fewer syllables, draw you a picture, or whatever else you like, but you will either support your assertions or admit you can't before I provide any of this.

You've ducked everything, Jr., including once again with your last post. Don't worry, though, sonny. I knew you would. I can read you like a book. Here's what will happen next. You will continue to run run away from your own statements just as you have many times before. Next you will accuse me of dodging your questions even though you have dodged every single one of mine.

Cheers!

[SDuderstadt]

189. Dude...I asked you a simple question...

rather than bluster on in your usual incoherent style, why not answer my question? Hint: because to do so will force you to concede the point.

Again, why did Congress create an automatic exemption from federal income taxation for churches?

You can either answer the question or you can keep prattling on that I'm a "sexual intellectual", whatever that means. Your choice, dude.

[MajorChode]

193. Prophecy fulfilled

Either I'm the next Nostradamus, or you are as transparent as a plate glass window.

I can read you like a book and play you like a tune, because you just can't help yourself, but that's what I love most about you. Go back and read my last paragraph that you just skipped, sonny. Your response came right on time just as predicted. I could have wrote it myself. Next you will continue to piss and moan like a 5 yr old because I still won't answer your questions, and you'll continue to pretend you haven't refused to answer my questions in your true hypocritical fashion. I suspect you'll also continue to project your intellectual failings.

Hint for the google impaired:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sexual%20intellectual

Cheers!

[SDuderstadt]

195. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply admit that you can't...

answer my simple question, dude?

You should go back and read my post about how you need to "win". In fact, you spend most of your posts proclaiming that you've won or how you've gotten the better of me, rather than answer my simple question. Maybe you should contact Congress and the IRS and tell them how they've got it all wrong.

Simple question, dude: why did Congress create an automatic exemption from federal income taxation for churches? Were they just being generous? Shouldn't you be writing the IRS and telling them the opening paragraph of their publication for churches is dead wrong?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show me where I ever invoked the 14th amendment in the thread about the Federal Reserve (of which, as hard as it is to believe, you understand even less than you do the Establishment clause) that you managed to get shut down. I've even given you more than 34 minutes and you've still got dick. You're a hoot, dude.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

70. Take it up with the SCOTUS....

they're the final word on the Constitution and I agree with them.

You realize that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, right? Many things are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. For example, the words "fair trial" appear nowhere in the Constitution, yet I would hope no one here honestly believes a criminal defendant does not have a right to a fair trial. The idea of a "fair trial" is a distillation from the provisions providing for counsel, compulsory process, the right to be confronted by one's accuser, the right against self-incrimination, the right to a jury trila, etc.

As I said before, I really don't care how a majority of people or even DUers interpret it...what matters is how the Supremes interpret it.

[jgraz]

72. You do realize that MajorChode has already pwned you on the SCOTUS rulings...

You should probably read his responses before you further embarrass yourself.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Really?

I don't think so. Maybe he should have lectured the professors in my Constitutional Law class.

[jgraz]

75. Wow, you took a Constitutional Law class? Really?

Do people genuflect when you enter a room?

[SDuderstadt]

77. Now, you're being silly....n/t

[jgraz]

79. I'm here all week.

Try the veal. :hi:

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

104. Again, dude...

you selectively cited part of the holding in Walz. Your dishonesty is stunning.

[MajorChode]

116. Come now. Who is really being dishonest here?

I did no such thing, sonny. I cited Walz in its entirety and gave my interpretation of it which is shared by both Constitutional scholars and relevant case law in other cases. I didn't select part of anything, sonny. Now you are just grasping at straws. I find it quite funny, really, but then I get a cruel sense of enjoyment watching those who make braggart claims of intellectual superiority squirm when they've been pwned.

Here we are dozens of posts into this thing and what proof have you provided other than your own braggart claims of personal knowledge? Exactly squat. And don't forget these are YOUR assertions we are talking about here. Not mine. The burden of proof is on you, sonny, and you have failed miserably.

Cheers!

[SDuderstadt]

120. You cited Walz in it's entirety?????

Bullshit, dude.

[MajorChode]

126. There you go again

Have you not figured out that your opinions count for exactly squat, Jr?

You cited....

....


....


what exactly?


<crickets>

[SDuderstadt]

Here are your exact words, dude....

I gotta call bullshit
The tax exempt status of churches has nothing to do with the first amendment. See WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK for further reading and there are other relevant USSC decisions as well.

Maybe Congress and the IRS didn't get your memo. They seem to think the tax exempt status did have something to do with the 1st Amendment:

From the opening paragraph of the IRS publication for churches and religious organizations:

Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business.

BTW, here's a link to all of Walz. Maybe you should read it in its entirety so you can tell Congress and the IRS just where it's wrong, dude.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/397/664/case.html#F4

[SDuderstadt]

78. No, MC cited part of the holding in Walz....

more than a little misleading.

[jgraz]

82. But it is possible to think Walz was wrongly decided.

Read Douglas' dissent. His Fourteenth Amendment argument is pretty hard to refute.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/397/664/case.html

[SDuderstadt]

84. William O. Douglas was one of my heroes....

however, I didn't always agree with everything he wrote. His 14th amendment reasoning was good, but not enough to sway the majority.

[jgraz]

86. My point being...

Just because you think churches should be taxed doesn't make you a Constitutional illiterate. Let me know if you need some help stepping down off that high horse.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Like I said before...

take it up with the SCOTUS. I believe the 1st amendment serves us very well and I'm a non-believer. Are you a member of the ACLU? Despite what RWers think, the ACLU is quite consistent on the issue of free exercise.

[MajorChode]

99. It already has been through the USSC

You are wrong. The evidence was provided. Get over it. Move on.

[SDuderstadt]

103. Dude...

you selectively cited part of a holding. That's almost as silly and dishonest as citing the dicta in a case.

[MajorChode]

128. Sonny...

How long are you going to continue to make such boundless claims with no proof of anything? Are you trying to convince yourself? You're doing a piss poor job of convincing anyone else.

[SDuderstadt]

131. Oh, you're a mindreader too?

Wow.

[MajorChode]

133. Actually I'm doing what's known as asking questions

Which you summarily ignore and instead fill in with childish babble.

It's all part of a grander scheme known as substantive discussion. You should try it sometime for a change. You might actually gain some actual credibility with others instead of what only exists in your mind. Or not. The entertainment value alone is priceless.

Cheers!

[SDuderstadt]

199. That would be...

Mr. "Sonny" to you, dude.

[jgraz]

132. What you said before was "Jesus... Have you read the first amendment? "

Do you think William O. Douglas neglected to read the First Amendment?

[SDuderstadt]

139. Nice strawman....n/t

[jgraz]

147. Clue: quoting you directly is not a "strawman".

[SDuderstadt]

150. Did I imply Justice Douglas hadn't read the 1st Amendment?

Hint: no. It's also worth noting that Douglas was in the minority in the case you cite.

[jgraz]

172. Also not a strawman

Maybe you need to review that concept...

[SDuderstadt]

173. Maybe YOU do....n/t

[jgraz]

174. Ooh, good one.

:eyes:

Seriously, can you explain what a strawman argument is? I'm wondering how anyone who really understands the concept can think my post fits under that definition.

[SDuderstadt]

175. Really....

are you now denying that you implied I was implying Douglas had not read the 1st amendment? I made no such argument. That's the strawman.

[jgraz]

177. Wow.

Y'know, one almost has to respect the way you brazen these things out long after you've been proven completely wrong. However, in this case there actually is a real definition for the phrase "strawman argument" and you clearly don't understand what it is.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

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


Now, if you re-read my post, you'll see I did no such thing. What I did was quote your exact words and show how they lead to an absurd conclusion. That is called reductio ad absurdum and it is a valid and logically sound debating technique that has little to do with a strawman argument.


Please let me know if there are any other basic concepts you need explained. I'm here for ya, buddy.

[SDuderstadt]

178. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"

Did you read that portion? You took my question to participants in the thread and twisted it to apply to Douglas. How in the world do you think I would answer a question as to whether a sitting justice had read the first amendment? Is it reasonable to assume he hadn't read the 1st amendment? Your question created the suggested I implied as much. Your question was a dishonest query, dude. It's really silly to argue you created no strawman.

[jgraz]

179. Does the phrase "quit while you're behind" mean anything to you?

If not, I'll explain it once we're through with "strawman".

[SDuderstadt]

180. No, but it should to you.....

do you honestly deny your question was a dishonest query? Why would you ask such a stupid question?

[jgraz]

192. Can someone please explain the concept of a "strawman" to this poor soul?

I've tried, but even with 20 years of teaching experience, I'm somehow unable to break through.

[MajorChode]

106. You were also wrong in the other thread about your 14th amendment claims

The thread got closed before I could provide the proof. If your ego can handle it, I'll be glad to provide it.

Cheers!

[SDuderstadt]

110. We weren't talking about the 14th amendment in the thread about....

the Federal Reserve, dude. This is just more of your nonsense.

With all due respect, I'm not going to waste time with someone who lists his/her hobby as "alcohol", dude.

[MajorChode]

113. Ah, please do say it's so

It would just crush me if you put me on ignore. It hurts so bad when you say those things, especially coming from someone whose best retort is "dude".

Nothing like quiting after you've been pwned, no?

Have a nice day.

[SDuderstadt]

114. Dude...

you keep selectively citing a portion of a holding. That doesn't qualify as "pwning".

You seem a little obsessed with "winning". That hardly justifies your false claims.

[MajorChode]

117. See post #116

But don't let reality get in the way of a good rant.

I could really care less about "winning", sonny. I've been around the block long enough to know that I'm not right all the time. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. Unlike you, I can deal with it and I have the character to admit when I'm wrong when faced with something that actually passes for evidence.

I'm just enjoying the show, Jr. Do carry on.

Cheers!

[SDuderstadt]

121. Great, dude....

if you really don't care about winning, you'll let it go now, right?

[MajorChode]

124. Didn't one of us already promise to quit?

Yes, I believe one of us already did.

Care to guess which one?

I'm having way too much fun, sonny, albeit mostly at your expense.

Cheers!

[SDuderstadt]

136. I noticed you can't provide the part of the Federal Reserve thread in which I....

invoked the 14th amendment, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

137. Please do....

can you?

[MajorChode]

145. It's possible to think that of just about any USSC decision

There's lots of decisions I think are wrong. However, unless a subsequent decision reverses it or the law or Constitution in question is revised, their opinion serves as the final arbitration in the matter. Certainly there are questions where the court has reversed itself, but they are few and far between. I don't look for Walz to ever change.

[defendandprotect]

161. We are subsidzing religion/church -- and male-supremacist churches, at that!!

This is still a democracy, isn't it?

At the least, shouldn't an equal amount be donated to female-supremacist religions?

[defendandprotect]

160. Agree . . .and this "democracy" is subsidizing male-supremacist religion/churches!!

[defendandprotect]

159. Why should we subsidize male-surpemacist religion? This is a democracy, right .. .??

[MajorChode]

64. I gotta call bullshit

The tax exempt status of churches has nothing to do with the first amendment. See WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK for further reading and there are other relevant USSC decisions as well.

[SDuderstadt]

73. WTF?

Bullshit, dude. It has EVERYTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.

[MajorChode]

96. Well, there's your opinion and then there's the USSC's opinion

Seeing as how the USSC is the final arbiter of such issues, I'll go with theirs, sonny.

Call me crazy.

[SDuderstadt]

105. And I already pointed out you selectively cited part of the holding in Walz....

don't "sonny" me, dude.

[MajorChode]

127. You did no such thing, sonny

You made a false claim, repeated it ad nauseum, and it's still no more true this time than the first time you babbled it. Pretending otherwise is childish.

Treat others with some measure of respect and you might get the reciprocal. Continue to berate others and call them "dude" and get treated exactly how you treat others, sonny. Funny how that works, no?

[SDuderstadt]

144. You don't deserve respect, dude...n/t

[Silent3]

59. I understand the original reason for tax exempt status...

...for churches, but I think there are better ways to make sure government doesn't use taxation as leverage to suppress religion while, at the same time, not ending up with a situation where government effectively subsidizes religion.

It should be sufficient for churches to organize as non-profit organizations for the charitable work they do, but still have those who earn a salary as church employees pay taxes on their income like everyone else does, and have churches pay property taxes at the same tax rates as everyone else in the same neighborhood.

[Jennicut]

80. My husband IS a chuch employee and he pays taxes on his income every year.

We have to report his income made from the church job (his second job) on our taxes every year, he gets a W-2 form from the church he works at. He is the organist and choir director there.

That church is not a business, the money does not go toward anything else but charity and the salaries of the employees there: my husband, the Pastor, his wife as the Sunday school teacher, and the secretary who prints up the weekly church bulletins. How much the church makes is dependent on how much people donate to the church each year. It is not the same every year. I am bit uncomfortable lumping in small little neighborhood churches with megachurches heavily involved with politics.

What I am not sure of is what taxes the churches are exempt from, is it just property taxes?

[Silent3]

112. I believe it's property taxes and salaries for clergy...

...(not salaries for others like your husband), plus a lot more leeway on what constitutes "charity" than most non-profits would get away with, since a church can build a pretty opulent cathedral and call that "charity".

[Jennicut]

125. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

I think the issue is churches that can become megatype churches are the ones that should not be tax exempt. Smaller churches in my opinion should still be tax exempt.

[Silent3]

130. The thing is, I'd take religion out of the equation.

I think you'd still end up with small churches paying little or no taxes (they might need to look for lower tax neighborhoods to avoid significant property taxes), while churches raking in a piles of money for the lavish lifestyles of their pastors and bishops would pay more, and the government wouldn't be in the position of actively promoting religion or having to decide what is or is not a "valid" religion.

[Jennicut]

135. It depends on how high the property taxes are.

In Connecticut, the property taxes are high in practically every town but the major cities. Not all churches here are going to be in New Haven, Hartford, Waterbury and Bridgeport.

[Silent3]

141. At a certain point my answer then is just "tough luck"

Unless the laws are equally applied, and non-religious non-profit organizations get the same tax breaks, I don't see why I should pay higher taxes to support the lost revenue from land and property being used by churches.

Besides, if a congregation is big enough, even just 100 people, taxes for a modest building split 100 ways shouldn't be that big a burden. If they're smaller than that, they should meet in parks or donated accommodations or members' living rooms if they have to... I can't see where there's a reasonable expectation for getting tax-free land and property just because someone calls what they're doing "religion".

[mitchum]

17. Fuck no

[Oregone]

18. They sell a product and make revenue

Maybe their services they provide (charity and the like) should be write-offs, but its a business.

Why let one business sit on land and capital that is not allowed to be taxed because you "believe" in their product, but tax the other businesses you don't believe in?

[MiniMe]

19. I have no problem with a religious organization being a non-profit, as long as they play by the rule

A church should have to play by the same rules as other non-profit organizations

[H2O Man]

21. Yes.

[gravity]

23. They should be treated as a non profit

As long as they stay out of politics and aren't fleecing people of their money, they should be taxed exempt.

[defendandprotect]

163. The Vatican was worth an estimated $50 billion decades ago . . .

they have vast real estate holdings -- many individuals donate property to them --

and stock portfolio holdings --

Only a church and its surrounding property should be tax exempt -- and their soup

kitchens!

[quaker bill]

24. Yes

we once tried this the other way and it did not work. This is why the Constitution is the way it is. People did not come to this arrangement by accident or even as a favor to the church. When the government has an interest in Church income (more Church income = more taxes), bad things always result. Even 230 years ago, we knew better than this. Government should have nothing to do with Churches.

[Lerkfish]

26. As a progressive christian, I say NO.

the abuses of the tax exempt status far outweigh the benefits.

even though it will hurt churches in general, I think a recalibration to a more clear division of church and state is necessary.

[defendandprotect]

164. Additionally, as a democracy/equality for all . .. we're subsidizing male-supremacist religion!!

[Toucano]

27. No. And they should be taxed according to size.

Mega-churches are an abomination and a threat to democracy.

[SkyDaddy7]

28. NO NO NO if...

Your church or religious group is known to be politically active!!

[comrade snarky]

29. Only for the verifiable charity they do

Just like everyone else.

Personally, I don't see a net good from having churches in a community. Some will be decent, some foster hate. Why I should pay for police and fire protection for someone else's club I have no idea.

[Toasterlad]

31. They Should Be Tax Exempt If They Devoted Themselves To Helping Needy People

Which is supposedly why they're tax exempt in the first place. However, with very, VERY few exceptions, all organized religions are just businesses, plain and simple, whose sole reason for existing is to make money. Then of course, the truly arrogant ones, like the catholics and the mormons, will push it even further by insisting on meddling in politics.

It's long past time for a religious reckoning in the United States, and the first thing to go should be the tax exemptions.

[Toasterlad]

32. Dupe

[SargeUNN]

36. they should be held responsible for their actions

From what I have heard, the restrictions of the tax exemption is very vague so almost any group can get this status. If this is true, then it needs to be redefined as to what is out of bounds to stop them from abusing this.

[defendandprotect]

166. I think Pat Robertson lost some of his exempt status because of the Voter Guides???

I'd say that the Pope telling Catholics that if they voted for Kerry they would

commit a sin is pretty much the same!! Or did he say they'd be ex-communicated???

Can't remember!

[AnArmyVeteran]

37. When churches pass out voter's guides or talk politics, they should be stripped of tax exempt status

[AnArmyVeteran]

55. My Baseball Team versus Churches (and I won!)

I managed and played for a baseball team several years ago. The name of my team was the "Mad Dogs". If you saw my teammates you would understand why I chose that name.

We were a great team and often won league titles and we also played in many state tournaments. But one year I went to a city facility to sign my team up for the next season. But just as I got to the window I was told the league was full. I noticed another window still open and accepting teams and asked what that line of people was. They told me that was for the church league. I immediately went to that line and when I got to the front of the line I told them I wanted my team to play in the church league. They asked me what the name of my church was and I told them the "Universal Life Church". I also told them I was the minister of the church, which was true. I pulled a card showing I was a minister from my wallet and showed it to them. The city accepted my application and my team was admitted into the church league.

I didn't deceive anyone to get into the church league. A couple of years earlier my dad talked me into becoming a minister in the Universal Life Church, a 'church' where anyone can become an ordained minister for three bucks. My church was as legitimate as all the other churches in the league. There were Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and even a couple of really fundamentalist churches. The 'mother church' for the Universal Life Church was in Modesto, California. It was our 'Vatican'.

When the season began and we played our first game the opponents from other churches would ask where our church was. I already met with my team to prepare them to play in the church league and how to respond to any questions. I told them if someone asked where our church was I told them to answer, "Wherever two or more of us are gathered". Hey, that's right out of the Bible so I thought what was good enough for Jesus, was good enough for our 'church'.

What got me were the reactions from our opponent churches. They became very arrogant, aloof and confrontational because they believed churches should all be brick and mortar buildings, even though my 'church' was everywhere, just as Jesus envisioned. They also looked at us like lesser human beings because we didn't have a location where we performed our 'services'.

But I did have lots of parties at my house which all my team members came to. I jokingly told them that every time we met it was a church service. And although I often demanded the respect of a 'man of the cloth' as their minister, I usually just got another beer handed to me. A humorous side note: I had twelve people on my team, not including myself. I used to jokingly call them my disciples, but instead of "Mark", "Luke", "Matthew" or "John", I had "Moose", "Rick the Stick" and "Human Funnel".

I mention the above true story because everyone on my team payed taxes and all the city fields were paid for using our taxes. Not one dime came from any of the churches in our league. I didn't think that was fair, so that's why I signed up to play in the church league to play on fields paid for by tax dollars. Not a dime of tithing money from church members were used to build the fields we played on.

I don't believe churches should be tax exempt. Most are for-profit organizations anyway. And every time I drive by one I think about the enormous costs to build all the grandiose structures. In my opinion, if a church is going to be built it should be very plain, just four walls and a roof. I find it hypocritical for Christians to want to congregate in a huge, gaudy buildings costing millions, when all of that money should be used to feed and clothe the members of the churches who are poor and needy. I think it's sad how so many church members seem so eager to entrap themselves in extravagance, rather than have their focus on the true teachings of Jesus.

My baseball team was full of guys who drank and some even smoked pot before the games, but at least they were more honest than the people we played against. And not once did any of my team members talk down to any of our church team opponents, but we were constantly attacked by so-called 'Christians'.

There are hundreds of churches in the medium-size town I live in. Every time I drive by a church their parking lots are almost empty. But even so, new churches keep getting built. I believe no new church should be built until they can fill the ones they already have. Just maybe if they lost their tax exempt status they would begin to be more frugal and start to think about the important things in life, rather than the pomp and circumstance associated with their churches and their services.

One more thing: If we can't take away the tax exempt status of churches, we should at least force them to give a specific portion of their proceeds to the poor, the needy and the sick. The new health care reform bill requires insurance companies to use 80-85% of the money they take in to actually go toward the healing of human beings. Why is it so low? Why just 85%? Why not 100%? If we eliminated the middle men look how many more resources could be used to help those who truly need help? And I consider most churches to be like middle men, taking at least 10% from people, and giving back very little.

[defendandprotect]

167. Like this idea .. .

One more thing: If we can't take away the tax exempt status of churches, we should at least force them to give a specific portion of their proceeds to the poor, the needy and the sick. The new health care reform bill requires insurance companies to use 80-85% of the money they take in to actually go toward the healing of human beings. Why is it so low? Why just 85%? Why not 100%? If we eliminated the middle men look how many more resources could be used to help those who truly need help? And I consider most churches to be like middle men, taking at least 10% from people, and giving back very little.

And, if our government is subsidizing male-supremacist religions, shouldn't an equal

amount be given to female-surpemacist religions?

[WVRICK13]

38. No More Than Any Other Fantasy

how about we make the profits on Harry Potter tax exempt.

[Meeker Morgan]

39. All property owning entities should pay the same taxes.

Real estate taxes, corporate income taxes, capital gains, whatever.

Not a special "church" tax, just a reasonable recognition that it is a business and should be treated as such. If you don't like it, have a church than owns no property and generates no income, like you know who.

But if you have a property owning entity? Tax it like any other.

Furthermore, churches should be subject to the same consumer fraud statutes as other businesses, too. :evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

168. Agree. . . Vatican has vast real estate holdings -- many members donate property to them...

also huge stock portfolios . . .


Further, we are subsidizing male-supremacist religion --

shouldn't female-supremacist religion get an equal amount!!

[City Lights]

40. No. nt

[tbyg52]

44. Yes, as long as they stay completely out of politics

(which they don't and probably won't) and as long as the tax exemption only applies to the costs of running a worship organization commensurate with the size of their membership, and charitable work as long as they refrain from proselytizing (which they don't and probably won't).

On the other hand, as someone upthread said, if they pay taxes they can semi-legitimately claim to have a say, under our wonderful new Supreme Court ruling.....

[Brickbat]

45. Yes, but we should enforce the tax laws that are in place.

[Kltpzyxm]

47. Where's the hell no

option?

Why oh why do we need to subsidize people's fantasies?

[Bluerthanblue]

52. no- and the bible agrees-

Romans 13:1-4, TLB. "Obey the government , for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. For the policeman does not frighten people who are doing right; but those doing evil will always fear him. So if you don't want to be afraid, keep the laws and you will get along well. The policeman is sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for he will have you punished. He is sent by God for that very purpose."


Romans 13:5-7, TLB. "Obey the laws, then, for two reasons: first, to keep from being punished, and second, just because you know you should. Pay your taxes too, for these same two reasons. For government workers need to be paid so that they can keep on doing God's work, serving you. Pay everyone whatever he ought to have: pay your taxes and import duties gladly, obey those over you, and give honor and respect to all those to whom it is due."

[Sebastian Doyle]

53. I'm not sure you need to tax a small neighborhood church

that relies entirely on contributions from its congregation and barely clears enough to keep the lights on and the church heated in the winter.

Now on the other hand, when you have a huge political machine, such as that of the Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists, or any of the various televangelist empires, that's another matter entirely. Their entire purpose is to influence politics AND turn a profit. Those definitely SHOULD be taxed, since the intention is not "God's work".

[Jennicut]

81. That is my exact issue, as my husband works at a small neighborhood church that

is not involved in politics and is not raking in the dough.

[Locrian]

57. where's the "fuck no" option? - nt

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Pryderi]

58. Yes, unless they become involved in politics. n/t

[Xicano]

60. Hell Yes! Religions should be taxed up the ass - no pun intended :P

Seriously though, I think the question should be. WHY should religions not be taxed? Are we not suppose to be a nation based on equality? And if that's the case, then, why is it we treat some businesses (like religious institutions) differently than other businesses? The only argument I feel which qualifies as a valid argument for tax exemption status is religious institutions providing charity. But then many labor unions and other institutions which provide charity are taxed. So then why are these other institutions taxed where religions are not?

This is the United States where government SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. If making a law exempting religion from paying taxes isn't a law respecting an establishment of religion, then, nothing is because the two most primary functions of government are the functions to "tax" and the function to protect.

Respect the Constitution and the principle of equality and tax religions!

[MrSlayer]

62. No, it's history's oldest scam.

Tax the shit out of them.

[harry_pothead]

67. Pay your damn property taxes, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!

[ChaoticSilly]

76. Absolutely not

There's a megachurch here in Memphis sitting on 377 acres of land in a fairly wealthy part of town. That's not including the other properties it owns like the $15 million retirement center right across the street that generates who knows how much tax free income for the church. Every time I drive by I wonder how many homeless people could be housed on all that land.

According to a memo from a 2008 budget meeting posted on the church website, the church had $18 million invested in CD's and money markets. I wonder how many hungry people that would feed or how much medical care that could provide from the interest alone.

I think it's high time we start taxing these churches like the businesses they are.

By the way, if anybody really wants to be outraged, read the politics and social issues on the wikipedia page on the church's previous pastor, particularly the quote on slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Rogers#On_politics_and_social_issues

[spanone]

83. no, they practice politics along with religion. NO

[Deep13]

85. No, no business should be.

They should have an exemption for any actual charity that they do, bu otherwise, they should be taxed like any other business. That goes for the real estate, not just the income.

[harun]

87. Yes, keeps them more independent of the gov't than they otherwise

would be.

Very disappointing so many voted no. The Left could get so much more support from believers if they simply recognized a few of the red lines they should not cross. Democratic Leadership recognizes them.

[defendandprotect]

169. If we're a democracy, why are we subsidizing male-supremacist religions?

Should female-supremacist religions get an equal amount --

You might have noticed, for instance, the Vatican is based on male-supremacy --

is NOT a democracy -- and is not for "equality for all" --

Why would you want to subsidize something so anti-democracy?

[harun]

198. You are accusing a Muslim of wanting to subsidize the Catholic Church.

Just sayin....

The rest of your statement has too many issues/false premises/hate for me to address.

[defendandprotect]

209. Good . . .

do me a favor -- put me on "ignore" --


:evilgrin:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. No more than any other corporation.

[gleaner]

92. I voted no ....

that is one of the most abused areas by religions. They take in money that they really don't have to account for, amass great holdings of land, stock and other commodities, routinely try to use it to influence government and yet they do nothing to fund government. It is probably an idle dream, but most areas of religion should not be tax exempt.

[Tesha]

93. Religions should be required to operate separate 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 operations.

The non-profit but non-charitable portions of the operation (maintenance
of the clubhouse, recruitment of new club members, political lobbying, and
the like) should be funded from the 501(c)4.

Only the actual charitable operations of the church should be eligible for
501(c)4 tax-exempt giving.

All other similar groups (including the NRA and the ACLU) are required
to operate in this way; there's no reason why churches shouldn't also
be required to do so.

Tesha

[AnArmyVeteran]

115. Religions should be prevented from taking people's 401Ks.

Televangelist crooks are masters at getting the most vulnerable to give everything to them in their wills, including homes, estates and retirements. That should be illegal. People at their most vulnerable part of their lives are taken advantage of by corrupt television preachers.

[Tesha]

94. (Duplicate post removed by author)

[Arugula Latte]

97. Tax 'em.

Religion is mostly big business anyway.

[AnnieBW]

98. Beyond a certain income level, yes

I'm the trustee of a Pagan organization. We have an operating budget and reserve that works just fine for us, but would be petty cash for someone like T.D. Jakes or Joel Osteen. So, I think that the rules need to be revised to be fair to smaller religious organizations, but more strict for groups that get involved with politics.

[rkennedy_68]

100. no way

[Renew Deal]

107. Yes for two reasons

Most religious institutions are not for profit. And it helps protect religious freedom.

[defendandprotect]

170. Baloney -- Vatican is worth more than $50 billion . . that's an old figure!!

They have vast real estate holdings -- many members donate property to them.

They also have vast stock portfolios --

Much of this wealth based on pillaging societies and other human beings!

The "religious freedom" we are subsidizing is male-supremacist religion -- !!

Is that really something we should be protecting and sponsoring?

This is still a democracy, right? Equality for all --?

Vatican is not a democracy -- nor does it support the concept of equality for all.

[Thothmes]

204. Neither is the United States

We have a representative government. Article IV section 4 of the Constitution guarantees each state a "Republican" form of Government. The word "Democracy" is not to be found any where in the Constitution of the United States.

[defendandprotect]

208. The Vatican is not a "non-profit" institution . . .

However . . .

In the sense that Separation of Church & State gives us our highest guarantee --

the right to free thought, free conscience, free will -- it is a democracy.

In the sense that our Revolution was based on "life, life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness," -- later removed -- it is intended to be a democracy. All we have to do is

bring that about! Who would want anything less than "Equality for all" --

The French Revolution followed ours -- "Equality for all" --

Meanwhile . . .

You're saying the Vatican and the US government hold the same values ... sexist, racist,

homophobic, anti-Jewish, racist?

In the sense that the "discoverers" were guided by the Papal Bulls --

i.e., enslave or kill the Native American and the African enslaved here -- you're right!

In that sense, Vatican and US govenrment were sharing the same delusions -- slavery!


True, however, that our Constitution is schizophrenic -- we still don't have a Equal

Rights Amendment for women -- and Vatican and Mormon Church fought that with tax-exempt

dollars. It's also a male-supremacist document, written of, by and for males.


Further, we allegedly have a "people's government" and the right to amend the Constitution.

At least to EXPAND rights --

We slso have Separation of Church & State -- however, as you also know, that hasn't barred

corrupt US administrations from handing our tax dollars over to church.

[Toasterlad]

191. Nearly ALL Organized Religions Are For Profit.

Religion is business, no more, no less.

[AnArmyVeteran]

122. Gaudiness should be taxed at 500%!

If a church wants to spend $20,000 on a stain glass window force them to pay a 500% tax on it. It's not needed except to stroke the egos of those who go to that church. Same goes for statues, mahogany pews, elaborate stage designs and $5000 suits worn by preachers. Tax all of them at 500%! Any preacher making more than $30,000 a year should be fired or taxed at 99 percent on anything over $30,000. I thought preachers got into the business to help others find salvation, not get rich. The Catholic and Mormon churches are the worst. Both take a massive amount of money from their flocks. Mormons go to your homes to go over all your finances to make sure they get that 10% and that is 10% of the gross, not the take home. The Catholic church is shameless. They take from the poorest people on earth to funnel it all upward so that the leaders of their church live extravagant lifestyles. Look at the Pope and the millions spent on him every year, not to mention he is surrounded by billions in gold, huge palaces, and ridiculous amounts of gaudy possessions. That's a pretty big payoff to the head of a church which has condoned child rape, child abuse and committed felonies for generations by hiding and protecting the abusers, while attacking the victims, often driving them to suicide just to protect the image of their evil church.

[Old Troop]

129. The power to tax is the power to kill

I think that if this was to happen, all non-profits would have to be taxed at the same rate. I really don't know how the IRS is able (under the 1st amendment) to decide what is a religion and what is not. That said, if religion was taxed and not all non-profits, who would decide what was a religion (and taxed) and what was a nonprofit and non-taxed?

[defendandprotect]

171. Think we can tell the difference between corporations and "god" based businesses . . .

especially when they are male-supremacist churches ---!!

Why should we be subsidizing anything like that --?

Vatican is no a democracy -- no does it support the concept of equality for all!!

[Hekate]

143. Religion is belief and beliefs are non-taxable. Now if you meant to say CHURCHES...

... and temples and synagogues and all the rest, then the answer changes. I think it's time for the big ones to be taxed.

Hekate

[Lucian]

149. Only in churches that don't have a political agenda.

[defendandprotect]

154. RCC and Mormon Church financed campaigns to defeat ERA amendment with tax exempt dollars ...

and evidently something quite similar just happened with Prop 8!!

[Iggo]

156. Hell no.

[old mark]

176. No. Not at all. Starting now. nt

[hobbit709]

183. Neither Jefferson nor Madison thought they should be exempt.

[seabeyond]

185. law enforced. many of the churhes are not political. too many are. the ones that are

should have tax exempt struck down. we have a law that covers it. we need to use that law.

i am not opposed to religion not having to pay tax. many of the groups do a lot of good work with their money and i think that should continue as is. but i want every political voice in religious emvironment to have to pay taxes. we can do it. system set up for that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

187. I heard Thom Hartman tell an interesting story about this a few weeks ago

He said LBJ offered this tax exempt status to churches to get them to stay out of politics. But since that is not working, they need to be taxed.

[Kitty Herder]

188. My state (Utah) could bring in a lot of revenue if it taxed churches.

Especially that big, wealthy church in Salt Lake. Maybe they could afford Medicaid for those who need it.

[Little Star]

194. Hell NO

[branders seine]

202. all the other pedophiles, sedition-inciting traitors and con-men have to pay taxes,

why shouldn't churches?

[trayfoot]

207. Where's the "HELL NO" choice???????