Isn't it about time we started taxing the churches?

Ever since Dubya visited the Vatican last summer and was photographed whispering something in the senile pope's ear, the Vatican has been violating the separation of church and state clause of our Constitution and interfering in American political and legal matters.
Something the Vatican has never done before. The Vatican has since Dubya's trip engaged in the same kind of activity as portrayed in the Godfather III movie, where it accepted bribe money from Michael Corleone to give its blessing to the Corleone family's business activies, endowing an Italian-American crime family with legitacy. IOW, the Vatican has proven it can be bought, and any competent investigation would undoubtedly disclose right-wing bribe money funnelled into the Vatican's coffers.

First, it was the rabid public statements condemning gays and gay marriage timed to coincide with Dubya's doomed anti-gay Marriage Amendment political campaign stunt last summer.

Now, during the past month, after remaining silent during 8 years of legal battles in Florida courts, and only after the fundies joined forces with Dubya & his Congressional Repuke cohorts to try to make political hay out of the Schiavo case, the Vatican has once again inserted itself into our political and legal systems, acting as nothing more than a lapdog of the non-Catholic fundamentalist right-wing nut-jobs in this country (who represent only 18% of the country in a recent CBS poll about the new law Congress passed granting standing to the Schindlers in federal court), condemning our legal system and our "society".

See: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05030702.html

It's bad enough that this Cardinal chose to take sides in this legal battle but note the lie underlying all the assumptions made: that Terri Schiavo would suffer a "cruel" death "inflicted" on her and experience great "pain" and "suffering" - Terri Schiavo doesn't feel a thing - she's brain dead and cannot "suffer" any "pain" according to all medical and legal records.

Well, if the Vatican is going to violate our Constitution and interfere in our political and legal systems like that, then the Catholic Church should be taxed, as it is acting as a lobbyist and secular arm of a dominant but extremist branch of the Republican Party.

Of course, the same goes for every Christian church of any denomination or which fails to define itself as a donomination per se, which has similarly interfered in our political and legal systems for so long in violation of our Constitution's separation of church and state provisions.

I say tax every last one of those obviously now quite insane and corrupt organizations. They no longer deserve a free ride. THAT could balance the budget in a jiffy!

Religion is the biggest swindle ever perpetrated on and by humans.

Our government should not be an accomplice in fraud.

Do you realize how difficult it is to prove which churches/religions are interfering in politics through so many front groups and 527 PACs? Don't bother going to the expense of figuring out who is doing what through which organization. Tax them all! Including Rev. Moon and all his nefarious little groups.

It's a completely arbitrary rule. Why churches? Why not bowling-alleys too?

It's a critical difference.

There is no easy answer to this question, on one hand it would be nice if the government treated them like everyone else, but the fact is that religions do get more leeway because the government has less ability to regulate them because they are constitutionally protected from government intervention.

for people who might not ordinarily have much of a community. The best churches have outreach programs that do a lot of good in their communities. I'd be against taxing any church's primary property as long as that church stays the hell out of politics.

However, a lot of churches own a tremendous amount of commercial property, meaning strip malls, apartment buildings, even nursing homes. As it stands, that property is untaxed because it's church owned. That is the abuse that needs to stop immediately. All property that isn't a part of the church itself should be taxed. Period. Churches try to dodge by citing a strip mall as the church's future expansion site. Fine. As soon as they bulldoze the mall and start construction on a new church, the taxes can be abated.

My post is really confined to the issue of churches interfering in American politics and the American legal system. It appears that far too many churches are guilty of this transgression as I write this.

The other abuse you cite is another issue entirely, which I happen to agree with you about.

would be chastising some that deserve it, but hurting far that do not.

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/liberalchristians.htm

Tax only the churches that interfere in our political and legal systems.

I also think any land owned by churches as commercial property should be taxed.

otherwise it would be penalizing the non-political churches because of the corporatization of the right wing churches, and they don't deserve it.

I don't think that the entire Catholic church deserves to be penalized either.

how do you induce the Vatican to quit meddling in our political and legal affairs without taxing the entire Catholic church? We're not speaking about one lone televangelist here.

Including the sale of church goods. UNLESS the sale of church goods does not involve profit. In their case I would allow the expense of accounting and other expenses related as long as it is reasonable to determine cost of religous goods sold. Another option would be that the sale of religous goods would be primarily for members only. Sales of religious goods to outsiders would be permissable as long as they do not advertise or actively sell outside the church.

I wonder how many use the church as a front for the actual owners?

Crack down on the ones that violate the rules, but churches do a lot of good. Mine provides space for virtually every 12 step program to meet, we support a soup kitchen, we donate to the Red Cross and other outreach agencies.

The title of this reminds me of the lunatic group in the movie "Foul Play" that was trying to kill the pope. It was something like "Tax the Churches League". They had previously tried to kidnap the Rev. Billy Graham. It was hilarious, one of the few funny movies that Chevy Chase made (that and "Caddyshack").

They provide space for worthwhile community programs.

taxing all churches - just those that interfere in our political and legal systems.

The custom, or principle if you will, of not taxing the churches comes from a long past time when the church was a power equal to, and in some cases more powerful than, the state.

The church had its own law, and it made its own decision on when to support the state politically and financially. The state left the church alone in more ways than one. The power to tax was only one of them.

The church also served the needs of the people in ways the state either couldn't or wouldn't. Nearly everyone was a part of the church, had call on the church's charity when in need, and had the church been taxed, it would have fallen upon the people to tithe more heavily to support that. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Whatever wealth the church had at the time was limited to the real estate on which the church stood and the gold and silver in its coffers.

We're a long way from that time. Churches have far-flung holdings outside their immediate grounds, they have in many cases investment portfolios; in some cases, they're corporations with numerous employees and their own broadcasting systems.

Now, not taxing the churches is indirect support of religion; moreover, if the churches now want to get into politics, they've given up their claim on separatism and should pay their own way.

AND while we're at it, the religion businesses should have to abide by the same discrimination laws as any other business. After all, they want public funding, right? If I were a Catholic woman, shouldn't I have just as much opportunity to rise up the Catholic corporate ladder as men do? It's my right as an American, isn't it?

What these idiots don't realize is that seperation of Church and State protects BOTH the Church AND the State, not just the State. So they want to blur the lines? Fine, then let's go all the way with this bullshit.

I agree, it's funny that churches, which allege themselves to be a source of Good in society, always get to be exempt from anti-discrimination clauses. It's upsetting that we have to make exceptions for churches' moral retardation as society becomes more equitable and just.

church exemption?

As a matter of fact, I believe it is already illegal for a church to advocate for one candidate over another. Otherwise, the IRS can revoke their tax-free status. They cannot specifically mention the candidate's name, so they use code words. How the definition cannot be at least broadened to attack this tactic is beyond me.

but not the candidate.

That's the tripwire. If they support one party over another in a specific election, then they've crossed the line. The problem is that preaching a conservative message can't be considered "political activity" no matter how much you don't like it. If their Wednesday Night Bible Study turns into a political meeting, it's still not necessarily going to be breaking the law if the discussion is on general party-building activities and not activities designed to change the outcome of any specific election.

For example, my church allows my Ward Club to holds its annual spaghetti dinner in the basement. The money we raise goes to increase the strength of the Democratic Party in our Ward, but not to support any specific candidate. They're not breaking the law. But if the church allowed a political candidate to come in and deliver a stump speech from the pulpit on a Sunday Morning, then they'd have violated the law.

If you start taxing churches because of their general support to one party or another, you've opened a Pandora's box of tax issues that would effect every non-profit corporation in the country, including many of the people that we like the most -- the National Organization for Women and the Sierra Club, to name just two.

...with various issues that the church is promoting...and then "which" candidate is supporting that issue. Obviously pretty easy with issues like abortion.

One strong leader and a few thousand people can win this battle legally and legitimately. If our tax money is being used to support religious groups, it seems to me that those organizations are no longer private. If my money is going to their venue, then I should have a voice in their venue.

Someone should put up a website listing of all religious groups that are accepting funding from the government. Next, local volunteers should go to their religious services and take the following actions:

Week 1: Put fliers on all the cars in the parking lot warning that if they do not cut off Federal funding they will have their church services interrupted each week until they do. Explain our case, that if they want our money they will have to deal with us, too. Encourage church members to pressure church leaders into contacting our organization and publicly pledging not to accept any more funds (success in this campaign is easy to measure). If they fail to make that promise, then...

Week 2, 3, 4, etc.: A few individuals should walk into church services and interrupt them. Let them know that, since they get public money the public should have a voice. Force them to deal with that. Direct them to the website for more info. What are they gonna do, throw you out? Implement security? Great. Make them DEAL WITH US. I’m telling you, we can really rain on their parade. Imagine, a church with a security force. Church members will not stand for it. We will have made our point.

The result:

We teach religious people that separation of church and state is good for them, too. They cut the ties with government, we publically thank them, leave them alone, and wish them well. We shift public opinion and win this battle!

I'm not the person to lead this. I'm leaving the country soon. But if there are any future Martin Luther Kings in the house this would be a very good start.

That idea scares the hell out of me.

I agree with much of what you said, but the idea of being responsible for a militant church makes me feel sick.

I see bad thing coming from that. Wrong things.

Very wrongbad things...

Most every American is brainwashed to some degree.

in the first place. We know the benefits.

constitution? Where does the constitution say what Churches can and cannot do?

freedom of religion to name a couple.

The church cannot "violate" the separation between church and state, since a church can not make the state sponsor a religion. The constitution refers to the government's powers and what it can and can't do, so only the government can violate this. There is also no clause in the constitution that I'm aware of that prevents a church from commenting on government policy. Having said this, if their tax exempt status is dependent on them not involving themselves in politics, then no tax exempt organization should be allowed to support or oppose any government policy or proposal. PETA, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and the NRA are all also tax exempt organizations that have commented on political policy from time to time. Should they also be prevented from doing so? As far as I can see, although I don't like what the Vatican says, I don't see that they have violated any laws that others with tax exempt status don't violate.

between issue advocacy, lobbying and poltical activity.

The other thing to remember is that there are different types of tax exempt organizations. The lobbying limits and the political prohibition only really apply to Section 501(c)(3) organizations--the ones that take tax deductible contributions. Other organizations, specifically Section 501(c)(4) organizations, which include the NRA, People for the American Way, AARP (just about any membership organization like that) have different limits. Many have an affiliated "foundation" and an affiliated "PAC" so they have to separate the different functions and the different monies into different pots.

When the Vatican makes a statement in favor of one thing or against another, wouldn't this be issue advocacy and not lobbying or political activity. This, I'm not so sure about. My primary point was that the Vatican cannot violate the Constitution, since the US constitution has no authority over what the Vatican says or does, and that the Vatican has no constitutional responsibilities to separate church and state, though I do see where it could engage in behavior that would violate it's status as a tax exempt organization.

However, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, I believe, is the organization of the Roman Catholic church in the US, and it is subject to US law. Also, the way the US Catholic Church works is that USCCB has what's called a "group exemption"--its a parent, and there are lots of subsidiaries that fall under the umbrella of the parents' exemption--think every parish, every Catholic school, every Catholic hospital, every Catholic nursing home, every convent... etc. You get the idea.

You'll notice that no churches signed the Constitution. It is a document limiting the government, not a document setting down rules for everybody.

Just that their tax exemption-- which is a matter of legislative grace-- requires them to stay out of political campaigns as a matter of their exemption. Just like all other 501(c)(3) organizations. So there's a choice--pay tax and do what you want, or pay no tax (and get tax deductible contributions) and live by the rules.

There are, however, some that argue that the tax exemption for churches is rooted in the first amendment, in that the act of taxing itself is excessive entanglement under the Lemon v. Kurtzman test. In fact, certain filing and administrative rules have been made for churches, as opposed to other 501(c)(3) organizations, due to 1st A. concerns.

Sorry, I lose track of who is saying what.

My disagreement with the statement that I was originally replying to was that the church has no obligation to do anything to separate church and state, and if someone wanted to complain about this, their outrage should be directed at the government officials who are listening to the Vatican as opposed to the Vatican itself.

I guess I sort of overstepped things in making my comparison between their advocacy and that of other tax exempt groups. I was not aware of the different tax status of the religious vs. secular interest groups.

that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote? Wouldn't they they be expressing their political views if they did?

Of course religious people can vote! And they can express opinion, too.

Separation of church/state has nada, zip, nothing to do with a religious organization expressing a political opinion. It's 100% legal for them to do so.

Is that we tax all organized religion which has an "profit margin".

Where its revenues exceeds its costs to operate.

All tax money from religious organizations should be used to ONLY fund social programs, education, and community centers within its own communities. The tax should not be federalized, but rather collected by the state and evenly dispersed to each district. Now surely the church wouldn't oppose the funds going to help fund the people in its communities in need would they?

Try that and we would not be able to get any candidates elected to anything except in the most extreme districts.

And that other poster's idea about interrupting church services would be political suidice. The media would be all over it as activists attacking churches and the blame would fall on the Democrats. BAD IDEA.

political football, or encouraging anyone to take on mercenary activities like disrupting church services.

...be political suicide for whomever proposed it.

Churches can't spew their liberal hate and keep the tax exempt status.

and more churches have crossed the line into political reactionism (the Repukes falsely call it "activism") and are now abusing and attacking the legal process in the Schiavo case as well.

Isn't it time we started taxing corporations!!

No more loopholes!!

the comment that the Pope is senile. That's a non-constructive opinion, IMHO, and seems to disparage elderly people. He's 80 years old and as sharp as a tack. Why do you say senile? Whether you agree with him or not, he has not shown any signs of senility.

long time. He has difficulty moving and speaking and I cannot believe that he would be doing *'s bidding were he not also suffering from some form of senility. In the past, when his speech was clear, he never stooped to pandering to some politician's political agenda, as he has since last summer, after *'s visit. I seriously believe *'s cronies bribed cardinals who have put words in the pope's mouth, and the pope doesn't appreciate what he's saying or the repercussions of what he's saying, as his actions since that visit mark a sharp departure from his livelong practices.

has nothing to do with being ill in mind. And furthermore, advanced age should not be used as as proof of either. He's 80+ years old and I'll bet he can speak more languages and converse intelligently on more subjects than you and I combined. It's a common mistake, but don't fall into the trap that old age automatically = mental deficiency.

Don't attribute to me some ageist bias I neither have nor have demonstrated, please.

And no, I'm not equating his physical and mental health - Reread my post - I'm talking about his conduct during the past year being completely at odds with his conduct throughout the rest of his career.

Can the church take a stand against drinking? That is political. Some states have dry counties. And in the 1920's there was prohibition.

Drugs. Some people want to legalize all drugs.

Prostitution? Same thing.

Gambling? Legal some states, illegal in others.

Pacifism? That is really politically charged.

Every significant topic in life has political overtones, and some are downright political.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of any part of the gov't passing approval on the pastor's sermons. The old Soviet Union used to do that.

I have really serious first amendment problems with that.

Religious and educational, lobbying and political activities

In general, a church may take sides on any issue it pleases--it is perfectly legitimate for a church to take a position on any of these issues.

Under Section 501(c)(3), a church may do only a very small amount of lobbying. Lobbying is defined as contacting a legislative branch offical (or an executive branch official drafting legislation for introduction) regarding legislation. So... gambling is bad. Fine. Contacting a legislator to draft legislation to ban gambling. Lobbying. Urging petitioners to contact said legislator and urge him to vote for the legislation. Grassroots lobbying. You can do a little of it, but not very much.

Unlike Lobbying, Section 501(c)(3) absolutely prohibits political activities. However "political has a ver limited definition." It means intervention in political campaigns for office only. So-- vote for Senator X because hs voted to pan gambling is prohibited political activity.

The trick comes when someone stands at the pulpit and says

Abortion is evil
Abortion is the single most important issue facing the country
When you vote, think about abortion.
Vote next tuesday

Political activity--I think so, but that's where the grey lines are.

He came out against the Iraq war after all and every other position he has articulated is consistent with Catholic teachings and practices that have been in place for many years. The Catholic church has also been a rather positive force for fighting poverty and bringing about social change and justice in Central and South America.

Their positions on abortion and birth control aside, they are fairly liberal compared to the Falwells and Robertsons who deride Catholicism as a cult when they think nobody is listening. I have a ton more respect for the Pope than I do for Bush. At least I can recognize that the Pope is a man of consistent integrity, intellect and grace even if I disagree with him on some things.

If you want churches out of the politics business then you'd best not start taxing them because paying taxes would only grant them a blank slate to get even more involved in politics.

I say TAX them. When I give to a politician or DFA or the DNC, it is NOT tax deductible. Why should religious people's donations that end up pushing for political ends (i.e. the Catholic church in my state funding the vicious proposal 2 which has had the effect of yanking adults AND children off of health care programs) have their donations be deductible?

Last time I checked, the First Amendment prohibited government establishment of religion and encouraged free speech. Government officers can violate the Constitution, but the Vatican is not bound by it. Of course the Church is going to comment on current events - or is anything that the government or the courts touches now out of bounds?

Also I'd like to point out that the Vatican is hardly George W. Bush's lapdog. The Vatican has always taken a stance against homosexuality, but also took a stance against the war in Iraq.

Finally I have a question for you. If a preacher said to his flock, "Poverty is the most important issue facing this society. Keep that in mind when you vote," would you want his church's tax-exempt status removed? Obviously, he is endorsing one party over the other...

And those allowing the others to do it will get off their asses and DO something about this GOP Fundie problem.

message is identical to the language used by the fundies in league with the GOP. As a renegade Catholic, I find that most bizarre and disturbing.

only for endorsing candidates.

Although, it would serve them right. Maybe then they would learn that the Separation of Church and State protects them from the government just as much as it protects the government from them.

not take communion because he didn't condemn abortion. That caused many Catholics to vote against Kerry. Well, I'd say that was POLITICAL and every church that voiced that opinion SHOULD PAY TAXES!

and if you really want to get an eyeful, take some time and look at the Latter Day Saints church funds, the businesses they own for profit are amazing!!!

:mad:

Not unless you dislike the separation of church and state.

This is such a convoluted issue, and many here have posted thoughtful responses to a difficult situation.

If the goverment is beginning to sponsor a state religion, they are the ones in violation of the constitution, not the church. The Pope does NOT answer to **, nor does he have his ear. The real enemy here, if any, is **. We should be looking at his "faith-based initiatives" to be sure they are constitutionally sound.

If certain congregations/parishes are engaging in political activity, they should be reported to the IRS. The IRS has NO MERCY for those churches who violate tax code. Trust me on this - if they know some are violating their privelege, their 501-c-3 WILL be revoked.

Despite outward appearances, most churches are small-membership ones, barely keeping up with their expenses. The mega-churches, however, are suspect, as are those with "high profile" leaders.

Taking broad swipes at religion or denominations serves very little purpose, other than to inflame discussion here at DU (and I believe, it is a violation of DU rules). Unless we are specific as to whom we are talking about, it appears that the question is asking if we support taxing ALL churches.