S/O church tax status

[shinyhappypeople]

Grabbing this definition for convenience: 

 

Churches exchange services [illusion of salvation, community] for money. Those that don't make a profit close their doors. Those that do, continue providing their services.

 

 

 

Nope.  They really don't.  That's not how it works at all.  I've already explained how a church is different from a business.

 

 

When you keep repeating a cynical argument that simply is not true, it's hard to have a discussion with you. 

[albeto.]

Nope.  They really don't.  That's not how it works at all.  I've already explained how a church is different from a business.

 

 

When you keep repeating a cynical argument that simply is not true, it's hard to have a discussion with you. 

 

 

The way I see it, a church provides the same kind of service as any self-help seminar. This one operates every week in the same building, drawing on generally historical rituals, and provides a particular community. You're saying it doesn't work like a business, but your scenarios don't reflect the function and identity of business. It simply reflects how churches differ from other businesses. Department stores and Broadway theaters differ in many ways as well, but both are businesses. Further, a specific exchange of money, determined up front, isn't the determining factor of a business. To suggest churches are different is to appeal to special pleading, presumably by virtue of the idea that there's something supernatural going on. 

 

Anyway, I understand we don't agree, and that's okay to not respond to me. I won't assume anything passive aggressive by your silence. :)

[Incognito]

nm

[ErinE]

We aren't going to do anything.

 

The question was why should churches be tax exempt beyond their charitable works. I'm kind of still waiting on that answer. This isn't about PP or Clinton foundation - but another thread can be started if you wish to discuss all non-profits and taxation.

I pointed out in my post many examples of non-profit organizations that don't have an express charitable purpose. A better argument could be made to remove the tax-exempt status for all non profits, but singling out religious organizations specifically seems discriminatory on the basis of religion (running into constitutional problems). Bringing up Planned Parenthood is relevant because it is a non-profit, not a charity.

 

There are many organizations that advocate for specific ideas (including political and theological), and they are still non-profit. The American society, generally, sees benefit to non-profits, even those who don't have charity as their express purpose for existence, and thus we have adopted a tax code that makes exemptions for them. You may specifically see no purpose to religious organizations and I support your right to express those views.

 

I think there should be more logical reasons for removing tax exemptions for churches than what's been discussed in this thread. "I don't see a purpose to religion" isn't enough to convince me. I don't see the purpose in the Junior League, yet I don't seek to take away its tax exemption.

 

I'd also expect an attempt on the U.S. government's part to regulate what is religious versus a charitable activity would run into constitutional problems. From the church's point of view, an argument could be made opening their doors, bringing in the public, and spreading its ideas are charitable activities. Should we tax Alcoholics Anonymous for doing the same?

 

What part of a church's activities do you specifically see as subject to losing tax exempt status?

[MotherGoose]

You can go to a church and receive its services entirely free for your whole life, if you wish. I don't think any businesses operate in that way.

[marbel]

For some reason I couldn't directly quote this from Albeto's post # 115; this is only a small snip:

 

 

 

  Churches exchange services [illusion of salvation, community] for money. Those that don't make a profit close their doors. Those that do, continue providing their services.

 

They are not selling their services. Anyone can walk in and partake without paying anything.  People freely volunteer their time to teach Sunday School, make coffee, clean the floors and toilets.  (Or, there may be paid cleaning staff.)  There are some employees, typically.  Note I'm not talking about mega-churches with layers of staff and boatloads of donations pouring in.  I'm talking about the more typical church of a paid pastor, maybe an associate or assistant (or two), an administrator. No need for full time janitors, groundskeepers, etc.  :-)

 

There is no owner or group of shareholders making a profit.  (An entity may own a building.) 

 

Of course it's true that if a church does not bring in enough money via offerings, the doors will close.  That is about the only way it is like a business.

[Carol in Cal.]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/29/ending-tax-exemptions-means-ending-churches/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=bdaeb429a1-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-bdaeb429a1-83805761#.VZE66pKVbzQ.facebook

[Mommy22alyns]

We aren't going to do anything.

 

The question was why should churches be tax exempt beyond their charitable works. I'm kind of still waiting on that answer. This isn't about PP or Clinton foundation - but another thread can be started if you wish to discuss all non-profits and taxation.

 

 

The point is that there seems to be some underlying anger and hatred for churches in particular - "I don't believe in this religion crap, so I don't want MY tax dollars supporting it!"  Well, guess what?  MY tax dollars go to support things that I don't believe in.  I'm not seeing any clear and convincing arguments for removing the tax-exempt status of churches.  Now what purpose does PP serve, charitably? They DO seem to provide a service in exchange for money.  So...

[Valley Girl]

Yes, I prefer my tax dollars to not support certain religious crap, as you say. I'd also prefer not to waste tax dollars on certain defense crap, to use your expression. However, I realize I don't have a choice to do that, tho I do have the obligation to remind people that this is not a Christian nation, is not a theocracy, no denomination trumps another, and there is a much needed, and lawful separation of church and state.

Bringing PP and the Clinton Foundation in is nothing more than tit for tat, basically D vs R, and has nada to do with churches. It's something that belongs on one of Fox's news shows.

I'm also not seeing a big push for removing the tax exempt status for all churches in this thread. Isn't it more of a " why aren't they subjected to the same rules as similar groups"?

 

EVERYBODY has organizations to which he or she doesn't want to see tax dollars devoted. That's the way it goes. For some, it's churches. For others, it's PP.  It does raise the question of whether non-profits of other types should enjoy special tax status. If it's valid to ask about churches, it's valid to ask about other groups as well. I don't see that as a D vs. R issue although it could certainly--and probably would--quickly devolve into that. It is also probably a different thread.

[ErinE]

I'm also not seeing a big push for removing the tax exempt status for all churches in this thread. Isn't it more of a " why aren't they subjected to the same rules as similar groups"?

Here's why:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Once government begins regulating what constitutes proper religious activity, I think it would violate the "free exercise thereof". You can advocate for the repeal of or change to the First Amendment, but I think it would be a difficult battle.

 

If you read the IRS pamphlet on churches and non-profits, you can see that there's a bright line for exempt status: the organization can neither advocate for nor condemn specific bills or candidates and it is not engaged in an activity that provides significant financial benefit to stakeholders (paraphrase).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Here's why:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Once government begins regulating what constitutes proper religious activity, I think it would violate the "free exercise thereof". You can advocate for the repeal of or change to the First Amendment, but I think it would be a difficult battle.

 

If you read the IRS pamphlet on churches and non-profits, you can see that there's a bright line for exempt status: the organization can neither advocate for nor condemn specific bills or candidates and it is not engaged in an activity that provides significant financial benefit to stakeholders (paraphrase).

 

The 1st Amendment would not necessarily need to be repealed.  The 1st Amendment provides for the protection of religion from government intrusion (excluding a compelling reason to protect the rights of others, for example not allowing human sacrifices) but it does not require that churches be tax exempt.

 

However, you are correct that the litmus test would be require that churches not be treated any differently just because they are churches.  In theory, religious tax exemptions for all could be removed, leaving in place exemptions only for organizations engaging in charitable activities.  Churches would then be able to be exempt for those activities, the same as any other group.

 

Of course this will never happen in our lifetimes, as the process of trying to redefine the tax codes would be a nightmare, and the end result would likely include many secular organizations having their tax exempt status adversely affected as well.

 

The sentence I bolded is 100% correct as has been noted in a few SCOTUS decisions, and is why any new laws to that affect would likely have to be so broad that they would have an impact on many non-religious organizations - there would have to be a clear effort made to make sure religious institutions were not being singled out.

[Mommy22alyns]

Yes, I prefer my tax dollars to not support certain religious crap, as you say. I'd also prefer not to waste tax dollars on certain defense crap, to use your expression. However, I realize I don't have a choice to do that, tho I do have the obligation to remind people that this is not a Christian nation, is not a theocracy, no denomination trumps another, and there is a much needed, and lawful separation of church and state.

Bringing PP and the Clinton Foundation in is nothing more than tit for tat, basically D vs R, and has nada to do with churches. It's something that belongs on one of Fox's news shows.

I'm also not seeing a big push for removing the tax exempt status for all churches in this thread. Isn't it more of a " why aren't they subjected to the same rules as similar groups"?

 

 

Which again... they apparently are.  I'm not sure what your point is right now.  It's been said over and over that churches are NOT businesses, that they DO provide charitable services without the slightest expectation of someone giving anything back to them.  When there are businesses, YES, businesses, that make rather enormous profits AND receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government tax money that are tax exempt, that seems to me to be a bigger problem than your average church who is NOT taking direct government funding being tax exempt.

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If you want to see tax-exempt status revoked for churches, prepare for a fight to remove it from your pet projects as well.

 

*ETA: To your other point, last I checked, Christian churches are not the only religion-related places that receive tax exemptions.  I am sure that synagogues and mosques also receive them, so again, your anger is misplaced.

[MotherGoose]

One could make the argument that planned parenthood and similar organizations do operate as a religion: that of secular humanism. The ideals are the god and they are worshipped with a fevor.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

One could make the argument that planned parenthood and similar organizations do operate as a religion: that of secular humanism. The ideals are the god and they are worshipped with a fevor.

 

One an argue anything if they don't mind being wrong.

 

And I am not sure why that matters considering PP has never requested a tax exemption based on religion.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

*ETA: To your other point, last I checked, Christian churches are not the only religion-related places that receive tax exemptions.  I am sure that synagogues and mosques also receive them, so again, your anger is misplaced.

 

That is common knowledge, and I am fairly certain it is not breaking news to Dot.

 

[albeto.]

I pointed out in my post many examples of non-profit organizations that don't have an express charitable purpose. A better argument could be made to remove the tax-exempt status for all non profits, but singling out religious organizations specifically seems discriminatory on the basis of religion (running into constitutional problems). Bringing up Planned Parenthood is relevant because it is a non-profit, not a charity.

 

There are many organizations that advocate for specific ideas (including political and theological), and they are still non-profit. The American society, generally, sees benefit to non-profits, even those who don't have charity as their express purpose for existence, and thus we have adopted a tax code that makes exemptions for them. You may specifically see no purpose to religious organizations and I support your right to express those views.

 

I think there should be more logical reasons for removing tax exemptions for churches than what's been discussed in this thread. "I don't see a purpose to religion" isn't enough to convince me. I don't see the purpose in the Junior League, yet I don't seek to take away its tax exemption.

 

I'd also expect an attempt on the U.S. government's part to regulate what is religious versus a charitable activity would run into constitutional problems. From the church's point of view, an argument could be made opening their doors, bringing in the public, and spreading its ideas are charitable activities. Should we tax Alcoholics Anonymous for doing the same?

 

What part of a church's activities do you specifically see as subject to losing tax exempt status?

 

Where churches differ from other non profit organizations for me is in "serving" the community. I don't agree this service are beneficial. The detrimental nature of these services provided are most easily identifiable in any major national conflict we have that is largely divided by religious lines. Equal rights regardless of gender, race, and now homophobia have all been ideals fought for and against, justified by religious ideals. [Obviously, as these issues take on the public's attention, values change, ideologies change, and groups change. Obviously there is not 100% track record of religious communities always fighting to suppress rights. Obviously, until this latest civil rights issue, we can assume most people fighting for or against were self-identified xians. I know you know this, but I say this to avoid the inevitable arguments that will come from others if I don't.] The difference is the conservative or liberal element of the belief. The conservatives want to conserve the arguably justifiable status quo, and rely on religious beliefs as rationalizations. Obviously, liberals want to liberate society from the arguably unjustified status quo, and rely on religious beliefs as rationalizations. But we can identify a trend, and we can predict future trends with confidence. 

 

I maintain that these liberal beliefs are in essence a secularization of religious identity, a slow and steady rejection of traditional religious beliefs. Because they are founded in faith based claims, because they are impervious to accountability at the very final argument (God said so/no. Oh yeah? Prove it.), they are unreasonable and irrational and should not be admissible reasons to argue for or against constitutional issues.

 

Or social issues. Or life issues. Climate change, privatized prisons, and science in education come to mind as other examples of religion poisoning the well and holding society hostage to ancient fears of eternal punishment. I disagree this serves the public. I think it damages society and I think it goes against the founding principles of the United States, the principles that value  and appeal to reason and rational arguments - not to kings, earthly or heavenly - to determine the rights of many.

 

 

You can go to a church and receive its services entirely free for your whole life, if you wish. I don't think any businesses operate in that way.

 

For some reason I couldn't directly quote this from Albeto's post # 115; this is only a small snip:

 

 

 

 

They are not selling their services. Anyone can walk in and partake without paying anything.  People freely volunteer their time to teach Sunday School, make coffee, clean the floors and toilets.  (Or, there may be paid cleaning staff.)  There are some employees, typically.  Note I'm not talking about mega-churches with layers of staff and boatloads of donations pouring in.  I'm talking about the more typical church of a paid pastor, maybe an associate or assistant (or two), an administrator. No need for full time janitors, groundskeepers, etc.  :-)

 

There is no owner or group of shareholders making a profit.  (An entity may own a building.) 

 

Of course it's true that if a church does not bring in enough money via offerings, the doors will close.  That is about the only way it is like a business.

 

The details of operation doesn't identify it as a business for me. A service is being offered. A community experience, a self-help speech every Sunday, advice to deal with everyday frustrations, and ultimately, hope for immortality. Its payment plan is non conventional from a capitalist point of view, but the presence of price tags doesn't determine if an operation is a business. However a church comes by its funds is how the exchange works. Private donations, bake sales, volunteer work, tax exemption, whatever. This is the exchange. One doesn't have to deal solely in dollars and cents to exchange something for goods and services.

 

 

The point is that there seems to be some underlying anger and hatred for churches in particular - "I don't believe in this religion crap, so I don't want MY tax dollars supporting it!"  Well, guess what?  MY tax dollars go to support things that I don't believe in.  I'm not seeing any clear and convincing arguments for removing the tax-exempt status of churches.  Now what purpose does PP serve, charitably? They DO seem to provide a service in exchange for money.  So...

 

My taxes contribute to things I find morally objectionable as well. I speak out about religion most only because I am more familiar with it than I am with military operations, economic theory, and things like this. 

 

I don't expect most people to interpret the arguments as clear and convincing, or even valid. I suspect most people on this forum are religious and experience religion as a positive contribution to their lives, and assume this is a universal experience. Even those who are not religious tend to think of religion as being benign or helpful to individuals. But as fewer people fill the pews on any given Sunday, and as more people see the bizarre thinking behind religion, more people will question whether or not these institutions really serve the public or the CEOs. People will take note of things like religious organizations not contributing to the public fund (and other consequences), and questions will likely increase regarding whether or not subsidizing these operations are justified. At the very least, there will be fewer operations to subsidize, but until then, we've got a lot of work ahead of us to insure legislation is based on logical and rational arguments, not faith. 

[Mommy22alyns]

That is common knowledge, and I am fairly certain it is not breaking news to Dot.

 

 

 

From Dot's post:

 

 I do have the obligation to remind people that this is not a Christian nation, is not a theocracy, no denomination trumps another, and there is a much needed, and lawful separation of church and state.

 

 

 

She seems to be particularly bent out of shape over Christian churches, as she called them out specifically, hence my response.

[ErinE]

The 1st Amendment would not necessarily need to be repealed. The 1st Amendment provides for the protection of religion from government intrusion (excluding a compelling reason to protect the rights of others, for example not allowing human sacrifices) but it does not require that churches be tax exempt.

 

However, you are correct that the litmus test would be require that churches not be treated any differently just because they are churches. In theory, religious tax exemptions for all could be removed, leaving in place exemptions only for organizations engaging in charitable activities. Churches would then be able to be exempt for those activities, the same as any other group.

 

Of course this will never happen in our lifetimes, as the process of trying to redefine the tax codes would be a nightmare, and the end result would likely include many secular organizations having their tax exempt status adversely affected as well.

 

The sentence I bolded is 100% correct as has been noted in a few SCOTUS decisions, and is why any new laws to that affect would likely have to be so broad that they would have an impact on many non-religious organizations - there would have to be a clear effort made to make sure religious institutions were not being singled out.

Thanks. From your prior posts, I gather you have legal expertise so I appreciate your insight.

[ErinE]

Where churches differ from other non profit organizations for me is in "serving" the community. I don't agree this service are beneficial.

 

There are many exempt organizations I don't consider beneficial, secular and religious. Yet I'm not advocating for their exclusion. The IRS has a definition for an exempt organization. We, as a society, can advocate for a new definition, but I think it likely many secular organizations would end up being excluded.

[fraidycat]

There are many exempt organizations I don't consider beneficial, secular and religious. Yet I'm not advocating for their exclusion. The IRS has a definition for an exempt organization. We, as a society, can advocate for a new definition, but I think it likely many secular organizations would end up being excluded.

Is there not a difference between "non-profit" and "tax exempt"? The terms are not interchangeable in my experience.

 

This is not just directed at quoted poster. I've not argued against other organizations losing their tax status. Neither have I advocated that churches/religious organizations should. I asked a specifically narrow question which does not automatically make me angry, hate religion, or want only secular businesses to maintain special tax status. I find the specious leaps to conclusion laughable and misleading. I was asking for information on a subject I know little about so I could form an opinion and draw a conclusion. So now I formed an opinion, but it is about posters' ability to converse on topic and not about the issue.

 

Thank you to those who attempted to answer the actual question and not falsely assign motives.

[catz]

I appreciate CR weighing in on the legalities of changing the taxes.  I really don't think we're going to see it happen.  It's a complex and interesting discussion.

 

Where churches differ from other non profit organizations for me is in "serving" the community. I don't agree this service are beneficial. The detrimental nature of these services provided are most easily identifiable in any major national conflict we have that is largely divided by religious lines. Equal rights regardless of gender, race, and now homophobia have all been ideals fought for and against, justified by religious ideals. [

 

You argue incredibly hard against churches and it makes you come down on the side of just wanting to convert the whole country to your way of thinking and I just don't see it that way.  Your line of thinking is going far beyond tax codes.

 

I just want to say, I have come down consistently on the side of pro gay marriage on this board.

 

I attend a UU church.  The plate offerings every week go right out the door because our church earns enough to sustain itself during it's annual fund drive.  Those funds go to places like women's shelters, soup kitchens, at risk youth programming, heck, even planned parenthood.  Our church serves as a homeless shelter for families 1 month a year.  Our church mindfully reaches out to churches of color and conservative churches to promote dialog between groups.  Our church has mindful youth programming.  Our church actively worked with our secretary of state to be one of the early states to legalize gay marriage.  The work our church does reflects the values of the community it serves. 

 

I think even if you don't see the value of churches working in your community, I think they can absolutely have value if it's only to serve the community through comes through the doors every week.  That does not mean I'm in favor of hate speech.  I think many churches are slowly doing work in this area.  There are many liberally minded churches in my area, even some that are not traditionally thought of that way.  If I want freedom of my church, I want to have freedom for all churches. 

 

My kids do almost all their activities through non-profit organizations that lots of people could argue were too narrowly focused and not benefiting the community at large.  I think any program that builds confidence and work ethic in our youth is probably a beneficial one, even if it isn't something my kids would want to do.  And I don't want to see their taxable status change either unless it's for the better of their organization.  I do understand there is a difference between how taxes for non-profits and churches are collected FTR. 
 

[MotherGoose]

One an argue anything if they don't mind being wrong.

 

And I am not sure why that matters considering PP has never requested a tax exemption based on religion.

I'm not suggesting that they have requested a tax exemption based on religion.  However, I am suggesting that if one wants to quibble over the tax exempt status of churches (which I don't) then they might also think about other non-profits that operate even with direct taxpayer subsidies to provide services that others might perceive as based on religious zeal in nature.  I'm really playing devil's advocate here, just something to think about.  I've certainly met people who, in absence of any identified traditional religion, adhere to their political and social ideals with the same zeal, desire to "save" others (ie commit them to the same cause), etc.  And they get direct taxpayer funding for furthering these goals,  not just elimination of paying some taxes as do churches, but it's okay because they don't officially say they are a religion.  Just throwing the thought out there.

[Bluegoat]

I appreciate CR weighing in on the legalities of changing the taxes.  I really don't think we're going to see it happen.  It's a complex and interesting discussion.

 

 

You argue incredibly hard against churches and it makes you come down on the side of just wanting to convert the whole country to your way of thinking and I just don't see it that way.  Your line of thinking is going far beyond tax codes.

 

I just want to say, I have come down consistently on the side of pro gay marriage on this board.

 

I attend a UU church.  The plate offerings every week go right out the door because our church earns enough to sustain itself during it's annual fund drive.  Those funds go to places like women's shelters, soup kitchens, at risk youth programming, heck, even planned parenthood.  Our church serves as a homeless shelter for families 1 month a year.  Our church mindfully reaches out to churches of color and conservative churches to promote dialog between groups.  Our church has mindful youth programming.  Our church actively worked with our secretary of state to be one of the early states to legalize gay marriage.  The work our church does reflects the values of the community it serves. 

 

I think even if you don't see the value of churches working in your community, I think they can absolutely have value if it's only to serve the community through comes through the doors every week.  That does not mean I'm in favor of hate speech.  I think many churches are slowly doing work in this area.  There are many liberally minded churches in my area, even some that are not traditionally thought of that way.  If I want freedom of my church, I want to have freedom for all churches. 

 

My kids do almost all their activities through non-profit organizations that lots of people could argue were too narrowly focused and not benefiting the community at large.  I think any program that builds confidence and work ethic in our youth is probably a beneficial one, even if it isn't something my kids would want to do.  And I don't want to see their taxable status change either unless it's for the better of their organization.  I do understand there is a difference between how taxes for non-profits and churches are collected FTR. 

 

 

Yes, this.

 

There are a lot of organizations that only serve a narrow community, and yet they actually are funded through taxes.  Kids sports are a good example.

 

I think the thing to think about really is what is the state - it is a collection of people that come together for the common good.  We pay taxes to it for that purpose.  Personally I am of the view that in many ways municipal level governments are the most important.  A community organization like a church, non-profit type co-op or club, or charitable organization is actually not that dissimilar.  It may be that they are people with a similar interest or ability, religious beliefs, or who live in a smaller area than a city or county.  What they are doing is pretty much the same thing - they are coming together as a group in order t make their lives as a community, and possible the lives of other people, better in some way.  they are funded through volunteer donations, but the reason for not taxing them is because all that is doing is making their own work harder.  Many municipalities go out of their way to help community organizations get set up and voluntarily take some load off the government - they would be stupid to try and tax people who are doing just that.

 

My parish church is pretty active as well.  The state gets lots of bang for its buck there - and it would be near impossible to separate the spiritual life of the group from the outreach work of the parish.  One comes out of the other.

 

 

 

 

[albeto.]

I appreciate CR weighing in on the legalities of changing the taxes.  I really don't think we're going to see it happen.  It's a complex and interesting discussion.

 

Agreed, on all counts. 

 

You argue incredibly hard against churches and it makes you come down on the side of just wanting to convert the whole country to your way of thinking and I just don't see it that way.  Your line of thinking is going far beyond tax codes.

 

My line of thinking really doesn't take into consideration actual knowledge of tax code, so I too am interested in hearing the opinions of those who are familiar with it. But I disagree that I want to convert the whole country. It's true that I'd love to see my nation appeal to rational thinking and logical reasoning over superstitious beliefs when it comes to identifying and solving problems. I'd love to see my society appeal to those polices that promote the well being of individuals alive today, tomorrow and for the next seven generations, rather than appeal to the supposed well being of an immortal soul, a thing that can only be assumed to exist based on faith alone. I would love to see my nation reject an ancient religion with a terrible track record of accuracy with regard to how the natural world works or its interpretation of the human experience to guide public policy. But I do recognize humans are not 100% rational thinkers. We do have cognitive biases, and we are not generally aware of our own. I'd like to see my country rely on rational thinking and logical arguments for public policy for the very reason Sam Harris writes in A Letter to a Christian Nation. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.†That's not a matter of conversion to another belief, it's a matter of utilizing and applying information reasonably and effectively.  

 

I know this won't happen, human nature being what it is, but I am ever so grateful to be alive during a time when such a previously held taboo (criticism against religious institutions, and religion itself) is being rejected so publicly and so consistently. I think challenging the value of various consequences of this traditionally protected status, like offering economic and political privileges to religious institutions simply because they are religious and therefore believed to be moral and good and beneficial to society, is in line with my general opinions. The tax stuff is just one example of these privileges. 

 

I just want to say, I have come down consistently on the side of pro gay marriage on this board.

 

I attend a UU church.  The plate offerings every week go right out the door because our church earns enough to sustain itself during it's annual fund drive.  Those funds go to places like women's shelters, soup kitchens, at risk youth programming, heck, even planned parenthood.  Our church serves as a homeless shelter for families 1 month a year.  Our church mindfully reaches out to churches of color and conservative churches to promote dialog between groups.  Our church has mindful youth programming.  Our church actively worked with our secretary of state to be one of the early states to legalize gay marriage.  The work our church does reflects the values of the community it serves. 

 

I think even if you don't see the value of churches working in your community, I think they can absolutely have value if it's only to serve the community through comes through the doors every week.  That does not mean I'm in favor of hate speech.  I think many churches are slowly doing work in this area.  There are many liberally minded churches in my area, even some that are not traditionally thought of that way.  If I want freedom of my church, I want to have freedom for all churches. 

 

My kids do almost all their activities through non-profit organizations that lots of people could argue were too narrowly focused and not benefiting the community at large.  I think any program that builds confidence and work ethic in our youth is probably a beneficial one, even if it isn't something my kids would want to do.  And I don't want to see their taxable status change either unless it's for the better of their organization.  I do understand there is a difference between how taxes for non-profits and churches are collected FTR. 

 

 

I have to say, I think your church sounds fantastic.  I think I could get behind everything you say and do. But here's the thing, for every church like yours that believes it reflects the values of the community it serves, there are those who work against the very progress you try and secure. And herein lies the problem. How does a society determine *which* churches are beneficial and which aren't? How does a society determine *which* churches accurately reflect the mind and will of their god? We simply can't, not reasonably, not reliably, and so we give preferential treatment to all - simply for being a church. But as we've seen, this includes multi-billion dollar, transnational business infrastructures. That's nuts. They don't need our subsidies! But we can't reasonably deny privileges to some churches based on economic success. We can however, reasonably deny privileges based on religious belief alone. Charitable works don't operate that way, which is why I don't include them. All the things you talk about above can and should be done by the community for the community. Your church sounds rather inclusive. Your church sounds like it doesn't promote the erroneous idea that terminating a pregnancy will likely give a young mother PTSD. Your church sounds like it doesn't promote the erroneous idea that being gay is a lifestyle choice. But other churches do. And a secular soup kitchen, a secular crisis pregnancy agency, a secular shelter, would be held accountable and stopped from promoting erroneous ideas that are based on supposed divine revelation.

 

It's not reasonable, imo, to provide economic privilege to an industry based on the idea that they're doing the work of God. Working that out in the tax code is something I couldn't begin to consider simply because I am ignorant of how that works, never mind the complexity of the thing. But still I can raise the question, Why are we giving preferential treatment to an organization based on the fact it thinks it's tapping into some supernatural pipeline of morality? I know that probably sounds snarky, but I can't see it any other way. Religious institutions exist and function on the idea that there is a validity in applying information that was revealed through divine means, in some way, in some measure, but I think it's clear we can address the problems of society by appealing to information rather than faith. I think we no longer need to rely on churches to serve the community. In fact, I can't help but wonder if churches should ever pay taxes, would we have enough to create the same kind of social services, only they would all be inclusive and based on evidence and secular reasoning, like your church? I think the answer is yes, to the tune of some $80+ billion every year. I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, but I can't help but wonder what the future holds when the majority of places of worship are affiliated with Islam, and a conservative population won't likely want to subsidize that. That money will no doubt be considered much more useful elsewhere. 

[HomeschoolingHearts&Minds]

NM

[StephanieZ]

I absolutely believe that donations to churches should NOT be tax exempt or deductible. The *vast* majority of church tithes/etc are used for the benefit of the membership, period.

 

I am fine with a church-affliated charitable group that meets all the same IRS regulations as other tax-exempt charities being treated as a charity. 

 

I believe in charitable giving -- that is giving to those outside your own group. I do NOT believe in subsidizing citizens' social/religious/whatever clubs. 

 

 

FWIW, one cannot establish a charity that primarily benefits your own group/business/etc. I can't create a charity to raise funds to pay for animal health care at *just my own* vet hospital. The charity would have to work with many hospitals and not treat one/a few preferentially. (I know, as I've researched this.) I see churches as in the same boat . . . They shouldn't be allowed to be collected funds/etc as a charity when those funds are just benefiting (or primarily benefiting) themselves. 

 

 

I have mixed feelings about whether churches should be treated as corporations/social clubs. I think that's probably the best route, that they should be treated just like a social/community club (like a Running Club, or a I Love Dogs Club), and pay taxes on their stuff, purchases, real estate, etc. I am not sure how that would stand up constitutionally, but if it would be constitutional to simply treat churches as any other social club, then I'd be all for it. I think charities should be required to be spending their tax-preferred resources on purposes that serve those *outside* their own group and not primarily for service of their own (services, buildings, etc) or recruitment (evangelizing).

 

The amount of assets that some "churches" have accumulated in for-profit ventures is insane. Shopping malls, huge tracts of real estate (not just church buildings!!), etc, are owned by these "non-profits" and compete against private investors/businesses. On many levels, that is wrong. 

 

 

[QueenCat]

Nope. We pay for trash bins, the monthly fee pays for the service. Isn't like that everywhere?

 

And on the fire thing - we pay fire service. Again. Isn't it like that everywhere? Our area has very low taxes, so services are paid additionally, and sewer, phone, electric, waste removal, snow removal, etc etc, we all pay for as church members, with tithe.

 

 

Most of the places where we've lived are like yours for trash...... we pay for the service (and can choose from several providers) but we've lived in two places where it was provided by the city.

 

For fire and snow removal, it's always been part of our taxes. We do pay for sewer, water, phone, electric, gas.

[IsabelC]

I really don't see why this issue has to be so complicated. Why not simplify if by granting the tax free status purely on the basis of activities carried out. If a certain church uses half its revenue for generally beneficial activities (eg running a soup kitchen or offering financial counselling to people in poverty) and the other half for religious activities (eg handing out Bibles or maintaining their church building), then only the half used for non religion-specific purposes should be tax exempt. This would provide for churches that are more active in general charitable endeavors to get proportionally more tax relief than other churches that are more focused on promoting their religion.

[Carol in Cal.]

I really don't see why this issue has to be so complicated. Why not simplify if by granting the tax free status purely on the basis of activities carried out. If a certain church uses half its revenue for generally beneficial activities (eg running a soup kitchen or offering financial counselling to people in poverty) and the other half for religious activities (eg handing out Bibles or maintaining their church building), then only the half used for non religion-specific purposes should be tax exempt. This would provide for churches that are more active in general charitable endeavors to get proportionally more tax relief than other churches that are more focused on promoting their religion.

Because the US government tries to stay out of deciding which activities of religious nonprofits are charitable and which are not.  It's a free exercise issue.

 

Also (to some earlier postings), generally churches that own businesses are taxed already on that business property and business income.  For instance, not far from where I live a church has rented out its parking lot during the week to an urban business owner who charges a daily rate for cars to park there.  Because that is the primary use of the lot, even though it's used for church attendance nights and Sundays, the church pays property tax on it.

[Tsuga]

Disagree.  Churches perform many community services so that taxpayers don't have to do it themselves.  This should be encouraged as a matter of public policy. 

 

That doesn't even make sense.

 

Churchgoers are a subset of taxpayers. EVERYTHING that happens is paid for by taxpayers, for taxpayers. Granted, not every single taxpayer gets every single services. We get more out of public school, others get more out of health care. It's not like... there's this mythical "taxpayer" entity out there, and then they pay for something for this mythical mass of "leeches" and that's how it goes.

 

We are the taxpayers, the voters, the public goods and services users. Sure, one person might use parks more, another, road signals and repair, another might be more dependent on the satellite system. But we're all using most of it at one time or another.

 

What churches get is a tax-free operation in order to serve only one subset of the population, which is not open to all regardless of religion, sexual orientation, and in some cases, even regardless of race. So the objection is, you're getting to be a 501 © (3) but you aren't subject to the non-discrimination laws that require you to use that status, that tax-free status, to serve everyone.

 

The idea is, you're basically getting your taxes back to do something nice, and you shouldn't be able to do that ONLY for some people, like, people who aren't gay, or people who are Catholics. It should be equally available to everyone.

 

Now, in some cases, not everyone wants that charity. For example, a soup kitchen might have a prayer before the food is served, and after. But if the prayer is not required to receive the food, that seems to me to be a reasonable use of taxpayer money (as reasonably as any other charitable service).

 

On the other hand, if you must say the prayer to get the food, not cool.

 

Likewise, there may be a shelter for homeless kids that targets LGBTQ youths. They may not pray at the table and they may not have Bibles available. But they can't force people to say "I'm not a Christian" before receiving shelter there. That's not right.

 

They can't impose on your religion in order to provide the services and goods with taxpayer money.

 

I personally would rather pay my taxes and have Christians pay all their taxes, than them pay part of their money to "charity" which is really the charitable act of telling me I'm wrong.

[IsabelC]

Because the US government tries to stay out of deciding which activities of religious nonprofits are charitable and which are not.  It's a free exercise issue.

 

 

 

I don't see why there can't be decisions made on whether activities are 'charitable' or not. Hubby and I run a small business from our home. We can claim tax deductions on our expenses that are directly business-related, such as maintaining a home office and computer lab that are separate from our living areas and personal/educational computer area. I can't say "well actually I should have my entire house and land be tax deductible, because the government shouldn't have to decide which bits are business related." I'm expected to keep adequate records and declare what expenses are for the business. Why shouldn't a church organization do the same?

[LisaKinVA]

I don't see why there can't be decisions made on whether activities are 'charitable' or not. Hubby and I run a small business from our home. We can claim tax deductions on our expenses that are directly business-related, such as maintaining a home office and computer lab that are separate from our living areas and personal/educational computer area. I can't say "well actually I should have my entire house and land be tax deductible, because the government shouldn't have to decide which bits are business related." I'm expected to keep adequate records and declare what expenses are for the business. Why shouldn't a church organization do the same?

 

Because, as you can see throughout previous posts, there are vastly different ideas as to which activities can be considered "charitable."

 

One person says that handing out Bibles, because it is not a secular purpose, should not be considered a charitable activity.  Someone else says that depending upon what the church preaches/teaches, that should not be considered a charitable activity.  The pastor who visits the indigent -- well, those activities may or may not be charitable, because they may or may not go to people outside their "paying" membership.  Others want to tax the buildings, because they don't believe the activities within the church wall are wholly charitable, or maybe they can just be charitable for the percentage of use that goes to approved charitable purposes (they use the kitchen to serve the homeless 3 days a week, so THOSE three days are charitable use and can be deducted, but the other four days a week it's subject to taxation as a business for property reasons, the monthly church dinner may or may not be charitable, especially if it depends upon the proportion of non members it's serving (depending upon how one defines charitable purpose).

 

Once you set your foot down the path of trying to determine which activities are charitable or not, you create a huge problem with a regulatory framework that actually hampers churches from doing anything.  You also increase the actual administrative work of the church to keeping logs of every activity so they can justify their presence.  Part of the beauty of working from the church is the ability of the church to cut through some red tape and simply GIVE (there are certain regulatory frameworks that the church isn't exempt from (health/safety for example), but for the most part, if there is a need (financial or otherwise), the church can simply GIVE. 

 

I have had a home office, but because it wasn't a distinct part of my home and could easily be seen as a dual-use vs. primary use, we were strongly advised NOT to deduct the space for business purposes.  

 

If a church has to seek out additional donations in order to cover the taxes for the non-charitable purposes of the commercial kitchen sitting empty for four days, because it is only used for that purpose three days, they may no longer be able to afford to run the soup kitchen at all.  If the taxes for simply existing are too much, the church building will have to be vacated...there are limits to what most churches can afford and still operate in any manner as a church.

[ErinE]

I understand that many here don't see the benefit of churches and don't see them as a social good. But there's a lot of misunderstanding about how churches and its ancillary services operate and how they're treated under federal, state, and local law.

 

People in these communities are out there, providing goods and services. They have deep supply and distribution networks. Even if large urban cities, where church attendance is dropping, churches are running shelters, distributing food, and providing comfort to the sick, poor, and elderly. They provide apartments for families, assistance with utilities, blankets, clothes, diapers, toys. I've lived in many areas, urban and rural, I've volunteered for them.

 

If you're arguing secular organizations could fill the gap, great! Create those organizations. Buy that property in the center of the city, and go though the expensive, time consuming process of renovation. Develop contacts with the surrounding suburban area, and the many smaller organizations that meet weekly to discuss community needs. Create a committee and phone tree when a snow storm hits and the local shelter suddenly has a desperate need for blankets, oatmeal, and water.

 

The services are no different than what secular or "social club" organizations provide except it's offered by a church. Although some sought to limit the discussion to churches, you can't define exempt entities without including secular organizations. If a book club creates an entity and discusses the Bible, it's exempt so why couldn't a community get together and discuss the Bible?

 

At the federal level, churches ARE treated like social clubs. They are exempt entities: nonprofit and no political support for bills or candidates. From my understanding, pastors and clergy don't pay taxes on church-provided housing, but they make very little money and probably couldn't cover income taxes for a market-based rent for churches located in urban areas. But it is an area where they are treated differently.

 

At the state and local level, many churches pay reduced or no property taxes and that is NOT subject to federal control.

 

If a church is running a business, it pays taxes on that income.

 

Churches are a non-profit and many rely on donations to meet their annual budget. If they lost tax exemption, people would still be out there helping the community, just paying a greater price for it.

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm expected to keep adequate records and declare what expenses are for the business. Why shouldn't a church organization do the same?

Again, the point is not whether the church can keep such records.  The point is that the state has avoided defining what is and is not charitable activity on the part of the church.  The only exception is clearly secular business activity.  This is a peculiarity of the American constitution and our history of religious pluralism.

[PIE!]

This topic seemed to be going nowhere, so I left it for a while, and just now checked up on it. It still seems to be a cyclical discussion.

 

But here is what's been going through my head.

 

Our constitution declares a separation between church and state. I think we all agree that church and state should be separate. Once one starts getting into the other's business, then the other can do the same. 

 

Churches are not supposed to get involved in matters of state. They are not supposed to lobby, or support specific candidates. Whether or not they do has been argued a bit on this thread, but regardless, it is illegal for them to do so.

 

The State stays out of the churches' business. They don't tax them or tell them what they can believe or how they can operate (assuming they're not trying to do human sacrifices or other such practices.)

 

Neither is funding the other. I do not agree with the argument that because churches are not taxed, they are supported by the tax payers' money. I think that is a huge leap. The government does not write checks to churches. They do write checks to many non profits such as planned parenthood, but not to churches.

 

They are separate.

 

 

If churches are taxed, then they should have the right to have a say in government. They should be able to have a voice in where their tax money goes, just like private citizens and businesses that pay taxes. We all know the arguments about taxation without representation. If churches start paying taxes, then they should have the right to lobby and support candidates, and petition for government grants.

 

Since they are not taxed, they can claim no right to representation by the state. The way things are, church and state can be separate. Now, if some churches are breaching their line, that means law enforcement needs to come into play, not that they need to be taxed.

 

If we don't want a theocracy, we need to keep the complete separation between church and state.

 

This will probably just become part of the circle this discussion is going in, but I thought I ought to add my thoughts.

[idnib]

This topic seemed to be going nowhere, so I left it for a while, and just now checked up on it. It still seems to be a cyclical discussion.

 

But here is what's been going through my head.

 

Our constitution declares a separation between church and state. I think we all agree that church and state should be separate. Once one starts getting into the other's business, then the other can do the same. 

 

Churches are not supposed to get involved in matters of state. They are not supposed to lobby, or support specific candidates. Whether or not they do has been argued a bit on this thread, but regardless, it is illegal for them to do so.

 

The State stays out of the churches' business. They don't tax them or tell them what they can believe or how they can operate (assuming they're not trying to do human sacrifices or other such practices.)

 

Neither is funding the other. I do not agree with the argument that because churches are not taxed, they are supported by the tax payers' money. I think that is a huge leap. The government does not write checks to churches. They do write checks to many non profits such as planned parenthood, but not to churches.

 

They are separate.

 

 

If churches are taxed, then they should have the right to have a say in government. They should be able to have a voice in where their tax money goes, just like private citizens and businesses that pay taxes. We all know the arguments about taxation without representation. If churches start paying taxes, then they should have the right to lobby and support candidates, and petition for government grants.

 

Since they are not taxed, they can claim no right to representation by the state. The way things are, church and state can be separate. Now, if some churches are breaching their line, that means law enforcement needs to come into play, not that they need to be taxed.

 

If we don't want a theocracy, we need to keep the complete separation between church and state.

 

This will probably just become part of the circle this discussion is going in, but I thought I ought to add my thoughts.

 

Yes. This is what I was talking about when I posted this LA Times link earlier in the thread, but it didn't get any traction for discussion.

[PIE!]

Yes. This is what I was talking about when I posted this LA Times link earlier in the thread, but it didn't get any traction for discussion.

 

Sorry I missed that. I admit I haven't read all the posts or links on this thread. Thank you for already stating it!

[albeto.]

If churches are taxed, then they should have the right to have a say in government. They should be able to have a voice in where their tax money goes, just like private citizens and businesses that pay taxes.

 

Religious advocacy groups already exist, and their influence has maintained pace with the increase of corporate lobbyists. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Religious advocacy groups already exist, and their influence has maintained pace with the increase of corporate lobbyists. 

But lobbying groups are not tax exempt.

And churches can lose their tax exempt status by advocating for specific candidates, by law.

[albeto.]

But lobbying groups are not tax exempt.

And churches can lose their tax exempt status by advocating for specific candidates, by law.

 

My point is that taxing churches won't unleash a vast new industry of religious lobbyists. They already exist.

 

I wonder if any church has lost it tax exemption status even after publicly declaring their participation in Pulpit Free Sunday. 

[PIE!]

My point is that taxing churches won't unleash a vast new industry of religious lobbyists. They already exist.

 

I wonder if any church has lost it tax exemption status even after publicly declaring their participation in Pulpit Free Sunday. 

 

Should churches be able to actually receive government money through grants? Should candidates start having the official backing of specific churches? And I think if some of the larger churches were allowed to actively lobby for themselves you would see a difference.

 

Again, when churches do breach the line of church and state they should be brought under the penalty of law. I don't advocate churches crossing the line under the guise of freedom of speech. Church and state need to be separate.

[albeto.]

Should churches be able to actually receive government money through grants? Should candidates to start having the official backing of specific churches? And I think if some of the larger churches were allowed to actively lobby for themselves you would see a difference.

 

Again, when churches do breach the line of church and state they should be brought under the penalty of law. I don't advocate churches crossing the line under the guise of freedom of speech. Church and state need to be separate.

 

 

Not public grants, private okay.

They hardly need to, but some already do.

They already do, and we already do.

 

 

I agree with you. 

[PIE!]

Not public grants, private okay.

They hardly need to, but some already do.

They already do, and we already do.

 

 

I agree with you.

I want to give a thoughtful reply, but currently don't have time to read your links. I'll get back to you later tonight when I've got more time for research. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. :)

[albeto.]

I want to give a thoughtful reply, but currently don't have time to read your links. I'll get back to you later tonight when I've got more time for research. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. :)

 

No worries.

 

:)

[PIE!]

So I’ve read your links and you bring up some interesting points.

 

Through this remember that separating church and state are discussions of institutions, not people. I am a member of a church and a citizen of a state, but I am still one person, so what I do personally with my vote will be a reflection of my beliefs, as with every other citizen. I do not separate myself into a church side and a state side, and it would be unreasonable to ask anybody to section off their personality in any way when it came time to vote.

 

1^st link – When any candidate is running for office their background will be brought into play. It would be foolish to vote for someone without knowing their history. Since many Americans are religious, it makes sense many candidates will have religious backgrounds. Since many Americans are religious it also makes sense that many Americans will want to know about those backgrounds. Since people tend to prefer voting for like-minded people, it makes sense that similar religious views might be an attraction to voters. I do not think one’s religion ought to be one’s entire platform (as it unfortunately is sometimes), but expecting people to ignore the religion of candidates isn’t realistic in this country. It also doesn’t have much to do with the taxation of churches, since candidates are running as individuals, and not as official representatives of their churches.

 

2^nd link – We agree here that the law regarding churches endorsing candidates should be enforced. Any church telling its members how to vote should be penalized. If churches are no longer granted their special tax-exempt status though, then they should be allowed to back candidates, as they are no longer a separate entity from the state. That is something neither of us wants to see happen, which is one reason I am against taxing churches. I have a hard time understanding what exactly you want here.  You want churches to be taxed, and you don’t want them to tell followers how to vote. I don’t think you can have it both ways. And again, I realize there are some churches violating the law here, but in my opinion the enforcing of the law is a better solution than figuring that they’ll get away with it anyway so let’s tax all churches.

 

3^rd link – I’ll admit to unfamiliarity with lobbying laws. I was under the impression that churches could not lobby, though citizens who are members of churches are welcome to lobby for their beliefs. This quote sounds reasonable to me:

 

‘“the law treats those who wish to lobby motivated by their religious beliefs the same way it treats those who wish to lobby motivated by their feminist beliefs, their socialist believes, their support for Tea Party ideas and the like. They can raise money to speak out; they can contact elected officials; they can contact heads of regulatory agencies; they can submit amicus curiae briefs — all of the many forms of lobbying — without registering as professional lobbyists.

 

“However, if a church or religious organization sets up an outfit that will employ professional lobbyists, the lobbyists must register like other professionals,†he continued. “That distinction seems both reasonable and fair.â€â€™  

 

People ought to be able to vote and affect change in government according to their beliefs, religious or otherwise. The link does not mention the tax status of groups that lobby based on faith. Someone up thread said that those are subject to taxes just like all other lobbying groups. That seems reasonable. I think we’ll both agree that there ought to be more transparency in lobbying and government in general. I don’t think a lobbying group based on religious beliefs should be treated differently than any other lobbying group. But a church is separate from a lobbying group.

 

I’m a bit fuzzy on how the whole thing works with the involvement of churches in lobbying. Maybe others with more political knowledge and experience can sort it out better than I can. I’m going to leave this thought unfinished, as I don't think I have enough understanding to make sound arguments any direction.

 

4^th link – I’m not a fan of creationism in school. I don’t think taxing churches is the answer here. My original point is that taxing churches would give them more of a foothold in politics, because if they are taxed they can demand the right of representation.

 

So here is how I see it, and you can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

We both want separation between church and state.

 

My solution would be to enforce current laws regarding churches and politics, and push for less murky lobbying rules regarding churches. I’d even be fine (as I originally, but wrongly, thought the law said) if no church funds could go toward lobbying. There would still be faith-based lobbying groups, just as there are many other belief-based lobbying groups, but they would be under the same rules as other groups, and could receive no funding from churches. I would like to push church and state further apart, and I see taxing churches as an invitation for them to be fully active politically.

 

I’m not 100% of sure your stance, but from what I gather you would love for churches to have nothing to do with the state, but since they are going to break laws anyway, they should be taxed like anyone else. I don’t know if you would be fine legalizing complete church involvement in state, but I don’t see any other way for them to be subject to the same taxes.

 

We’ll probably just agree to disagree on this one, but this discussion has made me look into things that I had just assumed before, so it was not worthless. I’m probably not going to be spending much more time on this thread, as it will likely keep repeating itself.

 

Best wishes.

[fraidycat]

This topic seemed to be going nowhere, so I left it for a while, and just now checked up on it. It still seems to be a cyclical discussion.

 

But here is what's been going through my head.

 

Our constitution declares a separation between church and state. I think we all agree that church and state should be separate. Once one starts getting into the other's business, then the other can do the same.

 

Churches are not supposed to get involved in matters of state. They are not supposed to lobby, or support specific candidates. Whether or not they do has been argued a bit on this thread, but regardless, it is illegal for them to do so.

 

The State stays out of the churches' business. They don't tax them or tell them what they can believe or how they can operate (assuming they're not trying to do human sacrifices or other such practices.)

 

Neither is funding the other. I do not agree with the argument that because churches are not taxed, they are supported by the tax payers' money. I think that is a huge leap. The government does not write checks to churches. They do write checks to many non profits such as planned parenthood, but not to churches.

 

They are separate.

 

 

If churches are taxed, then they should have the right to have a say in government. They should be able to have a voice in where their tax money goes, just like private citizens and businesses that pay taxes. We all know the arguments about taxation without representation. If churches start paying taxes, then they should have the right to lobby and support candidates, and petition for government grants.

 

Since they are not taxed, they can claim no right to representation by the state. The way things are, church and state can be separate. Now, if some churches are breaching their line, that means law enforcement needs to come into play, not that they need to be taxed.

 

If we don't want a theocracy, we need to keep the complete separation between church and state.

 

This will probably just become part of the circle this discussion is going in, but I thought I ought to add my thoughts.

Thank you very much for partcipating. This answer finally gives me some food for thought.

[J-rap]

So I’ve read your links and you bring up some interesting points.

 

Through this remember that separating church and state are discussions of institutions, not people. I am a member of a church and a citizen of a state, but I am still one person, so what I do personally with my vote will be a reflection of my beliefs, as with every other citizen. I do not separate myself into a church side and a state side, and it would be unreasonable to ask anybody to section off their personality in any way when it came time to vote.

 

1^st link – When any candidate is running for office their background will be brought into play. It would be foolish to vote for someone without knowing their history. Since many Americans are religious, it makes sense many candidates will have religious backgrounds. Since many Americans are religious it also makes sense that many Americans will want to know about those backgrounds. Since people tend to prefer voting for like-minded people, it makes sense that similar religious views might be an attraction to voters. I do not think one’s religion ought to be one’s entire platform (as it unfortunately is sometimes), but expecting people to ignore the religion of candidates isn’t realistic in this country. It also doesn’t have much to do with the taxation of churches, since candidates are running as individuals, and not as official representatives of their churches.

 

2^nd link – We agree here that the law regarding churches endorsing candidates should be enforced. Any church telling its members how to vote should be penalized. If churches are no longer granted their special tax-exempt status though, then they should be allowed to back candidates, as they are no longer a separate entity from the state. That is something neither of us wants to see happen, which is one reason I am against taxing churches. I have a hard time understanding what exactly you want here.  You want churches to be taxed, and you don’t want them to tell followers how to vote. I don’t think you can have it both ways. And again, I realize there are some churches violating the law here, but in my opinion the enforcing of the law is a better solution than figuring that they’ll get away with it anyway so let’s tax all churches.

 

3^rd link – I’ll admit to unfamiliarity with lobbying laws. I was under the impression that churches could not lobby, though citizens who are members of churches are welcome to lobby for their beliefs. This quote sounds reasonable to me:

 

‘“the law treats those who wish to lobby motivated by their religious beliefs the same way it treats those who wish to lobby motivated by their feminist beliefs, their socialist believes, their support for Tea Party ideas and the like. They can raise money to speak out; they can contact elected officials; they can contact heads of regulatory agencies; they can submit amicus curiae briefs — all of the many forms of lobbying — without registering as professional lobbyists.

 

“However, if a church or religious organization sets up an outfit that will employ professional lobbyists, the lobbyists must register like other professionals,†he continued. “That distinction seems both reasonable and fair.â€â€™  

 

People ought to be able to vote and affect change in government according to their beliefs, religious or otherwise. The link does not mention the tax status of groups that lobby based on faith. Someone up thread said that those are subject to taxes just like all other lobbying groups. That seems reasonable. I think we’ll both agree that there ought to be more transparency in lobbying and government in general. I don’t think a lobbying group based on religious beliefs should be treated differently than any other lobbying group. But a church is separate from a lobbying group.

 

I’m a bit fuzzy on how the whole thing works with the involvement of churches in lobbying. Maybe others with more political knowledge and experience can sort it out better than I can. I’m going to leave this thought unfinished, as I don't think I have enough understanding to make sound arguments any direction.

 

4^th link – I’m not a fan of creationism in school. I don’t think taxing churches is the answer here. My original point is that taxing churches would give them more of a foothold in politics, because if they are taxed they can demand the right of representation.

 

So here is how I see it, and you can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

We both want separation between church and state.

 

My solution would be to enforce current laws regarding churches and politics, and push for less murky lobbying rules regarding churches. I’d even be fine (as I originally, but wrongly, thought the law said) if no church funds could go toward lobbying. There would still be faith-based lobbying groups, just as there are many other belief-based lobbying groups, but they would be under the same rules as other groups, and could receive no funding from churches. I would like to push church and state further apart, and I see taxing churches as an invitation for them to be fully active politically.

 

I’m not 100% of sure your stance, but from what I gather you would love for churches to have nothing to do with the state, but since they are going to break laws anyway, they should be taxed like anyone else. I don’t know if you would be fine legalizing complete church involvement in state, but I don’t see any other way for them to be subject to the same taxes.

 

We’ll probably just agree to disagree on this one, but this discussion has made me look into things that I had just assumed before, so it was not worthless. I’m probably not going to be spending much more time on this thread, as it will likely keep repeating itself.

 

Best wishes.

 

This was a very helpful explanation.  Thank you.

 

[Halftime Hope]

Putting aside the matter of whether or not churches should be tax-exempt, there are rules they're supposed to follow in order to maintain their tax-exempt status. In particular, they're not supposed to get involved in partisan politics. (All this means is that they can't endorse this candidate or that candidate. They can still do things like tell their congregants that abortion or gay marriage or whatever is wrong.)

 

Churches routinely get away with violating that rule, and in a big way, but even when it's brought to the attention of the IRS, they completely ignore it.

 

Can you imagine the IRS ignoring you if you broke the rules? Yeah, me either.

I have been in churches that are majority Caucasian/Hispanic my entire adult life.  Not once, not one single time, have I heard a candidate or party endorsed.  And it isn't even a big topic of casual conversation amongst the members.  My peers tend to do a bit of eye-ball rolling when one guy who never talks to us otherwise makes it a point to remind us to go vote.  As though. LOL!

 

From what I see on news reports, some AA churches locally are extremely politically active and vocal, endorsing candidates and allowing them to speak from the pulpit.

 

I don't know if this phenomenon holds across the country, but that's the lay of the land locally.

[Pawz4me]

I have been in churches that are majority Caucasian/Hispanic my entire adult life.  Not once, not one single time, have I heard a candidate or party endorsed.  And it isn't even a big topic of casual conversation amongst the members.  My peers tend to do a bit of eye-ball rolling when one guy who never talks to us otherwise makes it a point to remind us to go vote.  As though. LOL!

 

From what I see on news reports, some AA churches locally are extremely politically active and vocal, endorsing candidates and allowing them to speak from the pulpit.

 

I don't know if this phenomenon holds across the country, but that's the lay of the land locally.

 

I have been in a church (Southern Baptist) where a certain presidential candidate was publicly and unabashedly endorsed, and there were consistent references (some more overt than others) about which was the "right" party to be supporting.

 

Churches around here do it all the time.  They either don't know or don't care about the prohibition against endorsing.  And I'm not talking about AA churches.  They might do it, but I don't have any first hand knowledge or reliable sources about those like I do with majority Caucasian churches.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Seems rather out dated and unfair to me.  I would be fine with charitable activities being tax free or some sort of credit to be given for that, but a church otherwise is essentially a business.  They often require or at the very least expect membership dues and they often engage in activities to raise money that they use to run the business aspect of their church.  Yes, many do some charity work.  Not all though.  Some do very little in the way of charity work.  Plus which parts are really charity?  Is offering free Bible camp a "charity"?  No, it's recruiting for the club.