status should be revoked.

And those phony "universities" like Liberty "University" and Regent "University" and Bob Jones "University" and other religion-slanted outfits that teach a religion-slanted curriculum, ABSOLUTELY!

Notre Dame
Marquette
Gonzaga
Georgetown
Holy Cross
Boston College
Xaiver.....ad nauseum

a campaign in favor a particular candidate?

Many of our religious organizations are international. A foreign part of the religion could funnel money to some of the PACs and thus, interfere in our elections, in our points of view on politics and be protected by Citizens' United.

This is definitely not acceptable.

like every other type of non-profit does. I've always worked for non-profit health care organizations (which manage to keep what needs to be confidential private) and they all have a board of directors and are required to file an annual report with the IRS which is PUBLIC.

True churches shouldn't have a problem with this. Theocratic bent pseudo-christian politicking organizations.....not so much. I wonder what Pat Robertson's books would look like??

There is just no way to cull out the "political" from the dogma. there has to be a solid separation church and state, the tax exempt status has been totally abused and its time to stop it. I am a church goer but I am totally sick of my particular affiliation sticking they're nose in and using and being used by the republican party, its not right.

I agree absolutely

Tax the Churches!

FZ saw through the bullshit better than just about anyone.

Churches in general are basically like any other social group with a small amount of outreach and service outside the immediate congregation. If you look at the staffing levels of a typical large church, you will see most of the staff dedicated to the primary purpose of serving the needs of the congregation. It really makes no sense to extend tax exept status to such an arrangement (assuming you do not run afoul of the 1st amendment).

I would love some organization to sue and the first amendment is one way to go.

I concur. But when I posted such a view on some site years ago, some nutty fundy came back with



(are you sitting?)




"But it says "the FREE exercise thereof".


I never thought of that "free" in that passage meant "no charge"!

All churches of a certain size (big) should pay taxes. All church businesses should pay taxes.

No court would allow it even if someone passed a law. Chief Justice Marshall said the "The power to tax is the power to destroy" in McCulloch v. Maryland an unanimous Supreme Court decision which still stands.

If churches could be taxed then in theory they could be destroyed which is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Will the state destroy me?

Religion is specifically protected. In fact the 16th amendment specifically allowed the taxation of income so by definition income taxes can not be unconstitutional. I can't see in the future so I have no idea whether the state will destroy you.

Do you believe that non-religious non-profit organizations should be taxed?

The tax exemption is due to their non-profit status, not their religious status.

It is a blatant violation

I'd rather we kept a strong separation of church and state rather then rely on churches to get out the vote.

the passing of Amendment One. Tax the hell out of them, like any other church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.

..

This has already been the subject of a Supreme Court decision, and it's unlikely to be changed without a dramatic change on the court.

This is from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation":

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


The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Walz, a self-described Christian who did not belong to any church and owned real estate in Richmond County, N.Y., sued the tax committee over property tax exemption for churches. Walz claimed he and other taxpayers were forced to indirectly subsidize churches.

The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Burger, held that the tax exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege given to other nonprofit organizations:

"The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. The State has an affirmative policy that considers these groups as beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life and finds this classification useful, desirable, and in the public interest. Qualification for tax exemption is not perpetual or immutable; some tax-exempt groups lose that status when their activities take them outside the classification and new entities can come into being and qualify for exemption."

We all have heard of isolated incidents where the IRS goes in and takes away an individual parish or church pastor's ability to be tax exempt. I remember back in the Georgie Pordgie era, some minister in the MidWest preached against the Iraq war. For that, his church's ability to be tax exempt was yanked away from them.

Have no idea how it played out. It was a major denomination - forgetting if it was Presbyterian or Methodist. SO did the top Presbyterian or Methodist church officials sue the IRS? Did those officials replace that minister so that the church property he oversaw would not be taxed on state and city tax rolls? Don't have those answers.


But it does seem to me if pastors preaching anti-war can be hassled by IRS, then so can pastors preaching to the Catholics audience that Obama is the devil due to being for contraception being paid for by employers or insurance.

And what about all the Mormon monies that funded Prop 8 here in California, that sought to ban gay marriage? Shouldn't the Mormon Church lose its tax exempt status until it leaves the subject of gay marriage out of its preaching, or at least stops funding major political initiatives that end up on the ballot?

but not to specifically promote a certain candidate.

did the IRS go after an individual minister and his congregation and their tax exempt status if he was preaching against the Iraq War (which is an issue, not a candidate?)

That is what baffles me.

In fact, I believe it has only happen once, in 1995.

If you have other information, I am interested, but I don't think so.

That Church its tax exemptions. Forget if it was in Kansas or Missouri. The minister was actively preaching against the Iraq War. Till Tuesday, I'll be busy with phone banking for elections, but will find citations for you then. (Iraq War means it happened way after 1995.)

I'd argue that "Ain't gonna be no homos in heaven..." is immoral and a detriment to the community at large.


I'm not saying you are wrong - we probably won't ever get to take away churches cushy free ride.

But that don't mean I gotta like it.

The decision is simply saying you can't single out churches for non-exemption as long as they meet the guidlines established under the tax code by congress.

Congress is still free to change the classification and standards of what qualifies for tax exempt status anytime they want.

It basically means that if you want to remove the church tax exemption, your remedy lies with the legislative branch, not with the judicial branch.

The court was only asked if granting churches tax exempt status violates separation of church and state. The court said no.
If you look at the tax code:

To remove the first word. Period.

The debate alone might achieve some of our broader goals.

The remedy to correct the state's sponsorship of religion lies with the legislature at the state and federal level.

against religious groups -- which are guaranteed protections under the Constitution, unlike groups that foster amateur sports, for example.

Maybe you'd get a different answer with a radically different Supreme Court, but not with any middle-of-the-road or Conservative court.

But the Constitution is ambiguous - the line between Establishment and Free Exercise clauses is very broad. At the very least, we need to revisit the debate.

...against anyone because they can still qualify for the exemption on secular grounds, just like everyone else. Treating everyone the same is not discrimination. In fact, it's the polar opposite of discrimination.

And taxing them has been viewed as unconstitutional interference with the freedom of religion.

But I can't agree with it.

I am God the Magnificent, who is always broke and in need of your last buck!

Even as a Christian that supports my church, I think religious institutions are nothing more than businesses. Their business is the servicing of religious beliefs. Those activities should be taxed at the same rate as any other business. These mega-churches with thrones from which their poofy-haired hateful spokes people speak should be taxed.

I am not opposed to tax exemptions for their truly charitable activities, e.g. feeding the poor. housing the homeless, etc. as long as those activities do not involve any kind of mandatory "religious indoctrination".

If the church participates in partisan politics the IRS can already tax them. So this is already to go. Just have to enforce it.

AFAIK, The parsonage exemption requires a change in law. Anybody know for sure? This allows religious scammers like Bennie Hinn, the Crouch's, and a myriad of other preachers to scam poor people out of their money to pay for luxury homes, cars, planes, and other extravagances. The parsonage exemption should be limited, or outright repealed.

I think you are the one who looks ignorant.

what a waste of time and resources...

Make them have to pay property taxes. The charitable work only qualifies if done in America.

She's still a loon, but she's absolutely correct.
K&R

Render unto Caesar, and all that stuff.

DAmned inconvenient, agreed.

-- Mal

Churches are not taxed because they are non-profit organizations.

Your local Little League baseball organization is not taxed either. It is also a non-profit. It is not because there is some kind of "separation of baseball and state."

I think churches should receive a tax exemption only to the extent they are doing bonafide charitable work. For instance, if a church dedicates 10% of their resources towards running a soup line, they should receive a 10% tax deduction of their overall income. They should also have to qualify for that exemption just like any other 501(c) organization. Receiving a blanket tax exemption simply becuase they do religious work is wrong.

idea. There are some churches that do a lot of good outside of their 4 walls and I'm not sure that it's always fair to lump them all together.
That being said, I see some of the mega-churches around here and wonder if they're being built for the glory of God or man. Huge, sprawling complexes that are not only paying taxes on money they collect, but not paying property taxes on acres of prime land.

All of it is tax free. What the Mormans and Catholics do with their tax exemptions makes the mega-churches looks like small time street huslters.

So that should get you a solid 10% of the population.

Should it happen? Yes. Will it? Hell no.

Yes! But it ain't gonna happen.

They are just PACs themselves for the most part.

They have more money than God!

Religion is not threatened in any way in America,
it's time for them to pay their fair share or else
they can sit down and shut the fuck up !

I think we should toss out the carnival barkers (clergy) and convert all churches to shelters for the homeless, abused spouses/kids, etc.

churches are businesses. They're just selling dogma and ideology instead of cookies or car mufflers. They should have been taxed as a business all along.

Some (all?) are scams.

FYI...

There is a property tax exemption on "rectories".

This means Jerry or Pat can build a huge sprawling mansion with pools and a golf course and not pay property taxes on it all if they live there.

due to the first amendment.
But I do think donations to the Church should NOT be deductible!

I am so sick of right wing Christian hate and interference in government

Loud mouth Dolan is the last straw. His hypocrisy is disgusting.And now learning he paid off

pedophile priests...well I would love to see him prosecuted and behind bars

Is that when this was written, ministers and preachers primarily lived off the generosity of their congregations who were, for the most part not too wealthy, themselves. These churches actually took the idea of "Christian charity" seriously, as well; no matter how ramshackle the church, a beggar could at least ask a bowl of soup or a dry place to spend the night.

And in truth, I support tax exemption under that logic. However a lot has changed in the last 236 years, and this is no longer the standard for the majority of churches. Granted there are plenty of small, charitable churches in communities across America. But there are also more than anyone's fair share of monumental temples to wealth, as well.

It's an innovation that the writers of the law centuries ago did not and probably could not have predicted, and it needs to be adressed; I just have no idea how.

Perhaps tie tax rates to actual charitable practice. The bigger an unconditional slice of the tithe you return to the community (i.e., no religious strings attached to your charity), the lower your taxes are.

was the creation of 501(c), now if people want to revoke the 501(c)(3) clause, I think the quick lesson of unintended consequences would be flapping hilarious.

in screwing things up between her and her son. She rejected her son for a long time after he came out of the closet(based on her interpretation of the teaching on that...the whole Leviticus thing and such, although she didn't actually put the kid to death)and only reconciled with her son after leaving Catholicism(it was dicey for her to be a practicing Catholic and write vampire novels, but let's not explore that right now...)

I say that as a recovering Catholic.

I clearly remember my wonderful fifth grade teacher being shunned by the other fifth grade teacher, a Catholic nun, as Mrs G had divorced and remarried.

Meanwhile our pastor was molesting the alter boys.

Go figure.

two wrongs will not make this right.

How is using our tax dollars to support churches separating the church and state?

Their properties and businesses should be taxed.

as of now, they should have no right, but by caving in and deciding to tax them, they will use it to destroy the argument that the two should be separate.

The tax exemption is already a government intrusion, requiring those of us who may not believe to subsidize those that do. We all foot the bill for their activities now, and they have become increasingly political. We should not (and should never have been) subsidizing them - I'm sorry.

As individuals we still remain separate FROM the state ourselves. Paying taxes doesn't make you into government property.

Not totally sure about the others.

Yes, Why should churches be tax exempt, when they spend their riches on requiring non members to adhere to their believes. Christian, Muslim Jewish, etc they should pay for services that they receive from government. The state should not support any religion (especially with tax exempt status).

it is unconstitutional

Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong overdue for Unca Sam to start passing around a second collection plate.

Should have been done years ago!

Thanks for asking.

Not only for those that engage in political activity, but all of them. Why is this not establishment of religion by the state?

... or figure out payment in lieu of taxes.

Some churches give much to the community, and yet, it's an unequal playing field.

more influential.

There are some powerful non-profits around here with an awful lot of influence...

including influencing politicians as much as they see the need to, and a whole lot more.

And if you don't think churches can say and do anything they so please, please read the headlines a little more closely.

I agree they should be defined....

They are NOT all held to the same standard, and that's a game that each state legislature plays, in particular with hospitals.

Completely agree. And ironicly, they'll spend enough on politicians that they'll probably get their taxes back in breaks and loopholes anyway

I'm ok with churches being tax exempt provided that:
(1) they stay out of politics, and
(2) the preacher's salary is reasonable (and there is no evidence of nepotism in staffing), and
(3) the church uses a minimum amount of its contributions in direct aid to the needy in the community the church serves.

Last I heard, she had joined a Christian group, changing her writing style and subject.

Is this quote before that change? Or is the quote current, marking a rejection of her recent religious enthusiasm.