Let's tax churches.

[Baba Yaga]

The debate is also somewhat of a personal one for me, I admit. As someone that comes from a dirt poor, religiously fundamentalist family background, I can tell you that religion never really helped us. Growing up watching my family give what little hard earned cash they had to churches, or some holy man they saw on TV never made sense to me as a child. I understand that all donations are optional, but there is often strong community, social, and "divine" pressure for them to do so. It's upsetting to me when I think of someone who can barely afford groceries, but still gives 5 dollars every Sunday because he feels "called" to do so, or that if he does he might get a break in this life, and if not perhaps the next. It upsets me that in a little white church in a small town, there's a poor family that feels pressured to give tithe because they don't want to be looked down upon by the rest in their community. So, you'll have to forgive me if I'm not taking the occasional work of religious charities very seriously as any sort of justification for a tax exemption. It would be morally reprehensible if churches didn't give to the poor, considering that more often than not, they are literally built on their backs. Is it really a coincidence that the poorest nations on earth have the highest rates of religious fervor? For me, the issue of taxing churches isn't just a question about economic benefit or constitutionality, it's a moral one. I view it as an injustice that churches are not taxed.

It's splendid that a lot of churches do give money to the poor. I've heard of churches that have paid rent for people facing eviction, funded the operation of a child in need of life saving surgery, rebuilding homes after tornadoes have struck, and so on and so forth. I am aware and acknowledge these acts of "brotherly love" as one could call it, but it vastly pales in comparison to the obscene amount of wealth organized religion parasitically sucks away from the lower class every year. Is it not reasonable then that any religious organization claiming tax exempt status as a non-profit entity must operate underneath a certain cash threshold, or lose their tax exempt status?

 

[Maedar]

Sure, Lutz, you stand by the Supreme Court when it comes to decisions you like, such as this one.

But as far as the ACA and Roe v Wade go, you stand by the side of the dissenters, and claim that the ruling is a mistake that will be corrected, citing the Dread Scott case (a very bad example, as that was not undone by the Supreme Court, but by the Emancipation Proclamation).

Baba Yaga, want to know something odd? Elvis Presley also came from a dirt poor, poverty-stricken family, and he had the opposite view. He was a devoted Christian all his life who donated to church charities often. In fact, you may find this hard to believe, but he hated it when people called him the King. As far as he was concerned, only one man deserved that title, and I'm guessing you know who it was.

Despite his poverty, Elvis had faith in his church and what the priest said (maybe his was a little nicer than most). (And of course, he was known to have a bad temper and to indulge more than he should have when he became rich, not exactly a model Christian.) Still, I guess everyone is entitled to his opinion.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Sure, Lutz, you stand by the Supreme Court when it comes to decisions you like, such as this one.

But as far as the ACA and Roe v Wade go, you stand by the side of the dissenters, and claim that the ruling is a mistake that will be corrected, citing the Dread Scott case (a very bad example, as that was not undone by the Supreme Court, but by the Emancipation Proclamation).

Baba Yaga, want to know something odd? Elvis Presley also came from a dirt poor, poverty-stricken family, and he had the opposite view. He was a devoted Christian all his life who donated to church charities often. In fact, you may find this hard to believe, but he hated it when people called him the King. As far as he was concerned, only one man deserved that title, and I'm guessing you know who it was.

Despite his poverty, Elvis had faith in his church and what the priest said (maybe his was a little nicer than most). (And of course, he was known to have a bad temper and to indulge more than he should have when he became rich, not exactly a model Christian.) Still, I guess everyone is entitled to his opinion.

What exactly is your point, though? Churches don't exploit poor people because Elvis?

 

[Maedar]

What exactly is your point, though? Churches don't exploit poor people because Elvis?

Some do, some don't. Yaga, It's like this. There are great movies, like Titanic, okay movies like Stand By Me, bad movies like Suburban Commando, and stuff like Freddy Got Fingered where you want to lynch the director.

With churches there are great churches who want to help people, good churches who want to, but try to get as much money as they can, bad churches that are a little too greedy, and fraudulent corrupt churches who are only in it for the money.

Get it?

 

[Murder Doll]

Just so I know what the opposition is thinking.

What would you even tax when it comes to the church?

 

[BigLutz]

The question here was whether the law should be changed, so your argument of "But it's the law!" is incredibly silly and missing the whole point of the debate.

I genuinely want to write something less patronizing, Lutz. However, it's posts like that and many others that just make me not want to engage with you at all. I asked you why you stand by the Supreme courts decision, and went on elaborating the problems with said decision and why they maybe got it wrong, and the only thing I got in response was basically "The supreme court is right and it's the law. Shutup and go home." *Throws hands up in the air*

I find their logic rather sound as well. Their decision is which creates a greater separation between the Church, and the IRS or State in this matter. The church paying money to the IRS or the church not paying money to the IRS. Clearly not paying money provides greater separation than paying money.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Some do, some don't. Yaga, It's like this. There are great movies, like Titanic, okay movies like Stand By Me, bad movies like Suburban Commando, and stuff like Freddy Got Fingered where you want to lynch the director.

With churches there are great churches who want to help people, good churches who want to, but try to get as much money as they can, bad churches that are a little too greedy, and fraudulent corrupt churches who are only in it for the money.

Get it?

"Some do, some don't" is highly misleading. The amount of money Americans donated to religious organizations in 2005 was 93.2 billion dollars.

www.charitychoices.com/chargive.asp

That's $1391 per person. That number in 2012 was roughly a little over 100 billion. Considering that religious organizations are exempt from 990's, none of us really know whether any of that money actually went to charitable causes. We can safely assume that a lot of it probably didn't. Compare that with the wealth of the Catholic church in the United States alone, which is 170 billion. When you're staring down a chasm that wide, "some do, some don't" is a woefully inappropriate response. This isn't even taking into account that church tithe in the U.S. is at an all time low.

Oh, and patheos had a really decent article in favor of taxing churches, if anyone's interested.

www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2006/10/tax-the-churches/

It sums up a lot of what I have to say, and honestly, I didn't even know that clergy were exempt from federal taxes on housing, or that religious employers are usually exempt from federal and state unemployment taxes.

 

[BigLutz]

"Some do, some don't" is highly misleading. The amount of money Americans donated to religious organizations in 2005 was 93.2 billion dollars.

www.charitychoices.com/chargive.asp

That's $1391 per person. That number in 2012 was roughly a little over 100 billion. Considering that religious organizations are exempt from 990's, none of us really know whether any of that money actually went to charitable causes. We can safely assume that a lot of it probably didn't. Compare that with the wealth of the Catholic church in the United States alone, which is 170 billion. When you're staring down a chasm that wide, "some do, some don't" is a woefully inappropriate response.

What constitutes a Religious Organization though? Is the Salvation Army and other strict religious charities considered a Religious Organization?

 

[Maedar]

$1391 per person??

Good lord, Yaga, I'm certainly not struggling to get by, and I didn't donate nearly that much to church charities last year.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

I find their logic rather sound as well. Their decision is which creates a greater separation between the Church, and the IRS or State in this matter. The church paying money to the IRS or the church not paying money to the IRS. Clearly not paying money provides greater separation than paying money.

That is a bizarre understanding of what the separation of church and state means. If churches have special privileges that allow them to avoid paying tax in situations where other, relevantly similar organizations would have to pay it, the state is de facto subsidising churches. This means that there is less separation, not more.

 

[BigLutz]

That is a bizarre understanding of what the separation of church and state means. If churches have special privileges that allow them to avoid paying tax in situations where other, relevantly similar organizations would have to pay it, the state is de facto subsidising churches. This means that there is less separation, not more.

It is a understanding of what the Supreme Court reached, taxing something requires greater involvement between a church and the state with the church having to deal with the IRS than not taxing them at all. You can call it a subsidy or whatever but the goal here is to minimize the level of interaction between the two groups not heighten it

 

[Carlisle]

How far does separation of church and state go? If the government is going to have no involvement in the church, then the church should have no involvement in governmental affairs. Unfortunately, churches get all too involved in political issues, such as gay marriage and abortion. Should the government have the right to investigate churches for reasons other than tax audits? The Catholic church is a filthy organization of pedophile perverts and pedophile rape enablers and I would highly support an FBI investigation into this "church" to discover the decades of cover up.

 

[BigLutz]

How far does separation of church and state go? If the government is going to have no involvement in the church, then the church should have no involvement in governmental affairs. Unfortunately, churches get all too involved in political issues, such as gay marriage and abortion. Should the government have the right to investigate churches for reasons other than tax audits? The Catholic church is a filthy organization of pedophile perverts and pedophile rape enablers and I would highly support an FBI investigation into this "church" to discover the decades of cover up.

There is a difference between a criminal investigation and merely paying taxes, also I think you are confusing churches which is straight preaching and activist religious groups that are utterly disconnect from the church but is filled with people of the same religious faith

 

[Auraninja]

There are two fundamental problems with taxing churces.

1. As already mentioned, there is a separation between church and state. It doesn't matter if you are an antidisestablishmentarianist*; you can't going into a sector that was never a part of the scheme in the first place.

2. Since there is no established religion in America, how do you treat all religions equally? Would you construct the same flat tax with a Baptist church and the local Buddhist mediation ground, or would you progress the tax in bigger churches, clearly making them the more of the influence of the economy?

*That's just me trying to add a little humor. Ignore it if it doesn't please you.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

It is a understanding of what the Supreme Court reached, taxing something requires greater involvement between a church and the state with the church having to deal with the IRS than not taxing them at all. You can call it a subsidy or whatever but the goal here is to minimize the level of interaction between the two groups not heighten it

It might be the goal of the Supreme Court to "minimize interaction," but it's a morally flawed goal. The goal should be guaranteeing equal rights to all organizations with ideological motivation regardless of whether they are a church or not.

If corporations did not have to pay taxes, would you seriously praise it by saying, "Now there is less interaction between corporations and the state"? Do you know what a state with minimal interaction with other organizations is like? It's a state that doesn't regulate anything, a kind of anarchy. Churches need regulation just like other organizations.

 

[BigLutz]

It might be the goal of the Supreme Court to "minimize interaction," but it's a morally flawed goal. The goal should be guaranteeing equal rights to all organizations with ideological motivation regardless of whether they are a church or not.

If corporations did not have to pay taxes, would you seriously praise it by saying, "Now there is less interaction between corporations and the state"? Do you know what a state with minimal interaction with other organizations is like? It's a state that doesn't regulate anything, a kind of anarchy. Churches need regulation just like other organizations.

Thing is we do not have laws requiring the separation of corporations and state, we do have church and state in which the goal means between more or less separation in a given activity, less is preferred. Does that mean churches are free from all regulation? No. It merely means between paying taxes or not paying taxes, the lower road was agreed upon.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

Thing is we do not have laws requiring the separation of corporations and state, we do have church and state in which the goal means between more or less separation in a given activity, less is preferred. Does that mean churches are free from all regulation? No. It merely means between paying taxes or not paying taxes, the lower road was agreed upon.

Like I said before, it is a bizarre understanding of what the separation of the church and state means. Or more specifically, it's in contradiction with the morally relevant definition of the term. Maybe the Supreme Court is using their own dictionary for this, but that's just semantical trickery.

Subsidising churches over other ideological organizations is immoral because it places churches in a better position for no morally acceptable reason. Your semantical trickery doesn't change that fact. And because the law is interpreted in a morally flawed way, the interpretation or the law itself should be changed. That's all there is to it.

 

[BigLutz]

Like I said before, it is a bizarre understanding of what the separation of the church and state means. Or more specifically, it's in contradiction with the morally relevant definition of the term.

Subsidising churches over other ideological organizations is immoral because it places churches in a better position for no morally acceptable reason. Your semantical trickery doesn't change that fact. And because the law is interpreted in a morally flawed way, the interpretation or the law itself should be changed. That's all there is to it.

Churches are placed in a better position is because we hold religion to a special standard, the Separation of Church and State is a two way street, the Church gets benefits that ideological organization's do not, but the Church is also deprived of specific benefits involving the Government that other ideological organizations get. The problem or anger I am seeing here, not specifically from you but others, is that the Separation of Church and State now is seen as something utterly non beneficial and restrictive to the church by atheists, they are restricted form X or Y because of such separation, yet when it is turned around and the church benefits from it, suddenly the Separation of Church and State is unfair.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

Churches are placed in a better position is because we hold religion to a special standard, the Separation of Church and State is a two way street, the Church gets benefits that ideological organization's do not,

And I'm saying that it's wrong and should be changed.

but the Church is also deprived of specific benefits involving the Government that other ideological organizations get.

I would be willing to place them in the same position as other ideological organizations. And I haven't seen anyone else object to the idea either.

The problem or anger I am seeing here, not specifically from you but others, is that the Separation of Church and State now is seen as something utterly non beneficial and restrictive to the church by atheists, they are restricted form X or Y because of such separation, yet when it is turned around and the church benefits from it, suddenly the Separation of Church and State is unfair.

I haven't seen anyone object to giving churches equal status.

 

[BigLutz]

And I'm saying that it's wrong and should be changed.

And you have the right to say that, that does not mean it will be because of what the law says.

I would be willing to place them in the same position as other ideological organizations. And I haven't seen anyone else object to the idea either.

I haven't seen anyone object to giving churches equal status.

You do understand what that would do correct? Suddenly Churches would be able to endorse candidates in service, they would be able to advertise said endorsement in flyers, TV and Radio Ads, they would be able to create PACs for such endorsement created by money given at service, they would be able to run GOTV efforts for a candidate as long as they do not coordinate those efforts with them. You would essentially allow churches to become a unofficial arm of political parties. And that does not even begin to broach the other things that churches have not been able to do that they could do with such power.