Should churches lose their tax exempt status? (legal, dollar, politicians)

[bluesjuke]

"Should churches lose their tax exempt status?"


Nope.

[smartalx]

Wow! There is a lot of ignorance here. So many people think that churches shouldn't be allowed to voice their views on a political issue, or to fund a political entity or position, and if they don't keep their big mouth shut, they should lose their tax exempt status.

I've got news for you. The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. The first amendment protects our right to practice our religion. It protects our right to use our religion to guide how we vote. And surprise surprise, it protects politicians' rights to legislate based on their personal moral views, which were probably largely learned as a child from religion. Ron Paul voting against abortion is not violating any constitutional rule. In fact, telling any politician that he can't vote a certain way just because it happens to coincide with a certain religious point of view is tantamount to fascism. If it's "illegal" to vote against... say... gay marriage, then the vote itself is a fraud.

Let me ask you this one question, if church and state was TRULY separate, how on EARTH could any Christian be a politician? Could a Buddhist monk become a politician? Could a.... satanist? So if church and state were truly separate, then the only people who could hold office would be atheists. And we would all be living under the thumb of atheism. You don't think that would start to violate our first amendment rights?

Let me educate you on the procedure our founding fathers laid down for us. Politicians vote how they promised they would. They follow the views they expressed in their campaign. They are not allowed to vote on the constitutionality of anything. In fact, constitutionality shouldn't even enter their thinking. Their thinking should be "is this right." That's it! THEN the COURTS are charged with deciding if a decision or law is constitutional.

Let the politicians do their JOB! And leave the constitutionality to the courts. Let the people vote their conscious. Let the churches protect their interests.

The corporations are allowed to manipulate congress, and I think we can all agree that their interest is entirely selfish. At least the churches aren't killing anyone for profit. The churches' end goals are goodness. The corporations' goals are greed.

[Escort Rider]

The separation of church and state is indeed in the Constitution, but it comes down to how we define "separation". Just as all individual citizens have the right to choose to practice a religion, or none at all, the state has no right to establish any religion, which means it cannot favor one religion over another. Public schools may teach about religion but may not teach that one religion is bad and another good, or that one religion is true but the others false. Government employment (hiring) may not favor or disfavor anyone based on his religion, unless Tuesday is a regular workday and his religion forbids him to work on Tuesday, which is the kind of conflict that the courts have been called on to resolve, as your OP points out.

Thus religion and government are kept separate. This rankles many religious fanatics, but it actually protects their beliefs.

[FreedomThroughAnarchism]

All the Church(es) needs to do is set up a shill PAC organization, just like Planned Parenthood does. Then they can feel free to politic all they want. Not that PP confines their politics to their PAC, which is why the IRS keeps yanking tax exempt status from their organizations across the country on a regular basis. That organization (or "organization(s)" [plural], as they like to pretend) is as crooked as three dollar bill.

So sure, I'm for having the IRS do the same thing to churches when they are crooked (shouldn't be hard to find). It's largely a thinly veiled shell game, anyway. Nobody genuinely believes these shell organizations are really autonomous entities in anything but name only. All part of the legal fiction we allow in our legal system with respect to the personhood of organizations. Gaming the system and funny bookkeeping is the name of the game.


Either that, or we could go the exact opposite route and question the entire premise of why tax exempt status should be revoked from political organizations to begin with. What's the is-->ought connection there that logically demands that that conclusion must follow from the premise. I think this policy may be in need of serious reevalution. It seems premised on the idea that that organizations money is governments to begin with, and hence by not taxing them, it amounts to an alleged "subsidy" of politics. Of course, I think the only people who buy into that rationale are the people who really think your money, your businesses money, your organizations money, is not really yours, but is the governments, unless they so generously choose to let you keep it (Oh, thank you, kind master).

[redroses777]

Originally Posted by kentuckydad95

Seeing as I believe organized religion as being the world's largest Ponzi scheme, I believe they should be paying taxes. Considering how they pretty much tell people how to vote in elections, for one reason. What do you think?

NO! I lost my job and quit with the whole Christianity/Church thing when I moved back to my home state. About a month ago, I considered suicide because I couldn't find a job. No one cared about me. The government didn't care, family didn't care, no one. I went to church and found people who cared about me, even though I am unemployed. I even found people that could help with the job search and entered counseling to deal with unemployment related depression. And no, my church didn't charge me for counseling. I came back to Christianity and God as a result of this help. If my church wouldn't have been there for me I would have attempted suicide.

I can honestly say that churches do more for communities than any government social program. I got more help from my church than I ever received from the ue office. The unemployment office could have cared less about me or even my employment situation.

And besides, do our politicians need more tax money to waste? I think not. Anyone is DREAMING if they think the politicians would use extra tax dollars to pay down the deficit. Have they ever used extra tax money to pay off the deficit? NO!

[handog]

Originally Posted by kentuckydad95

Seeing as I believe organized religion as being the world's largest Ponzi scheme, I believe they should be paying taxes. Considering how they pretty much tell people how to vote in elections, for one reason. What do you think?

Churches should pay taxes! Here you go.

"Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Ponzi scheme ? Tell people how to vote?

Don't spend much time in church do you"....

[Creekcat]

Think about it, if churches, synagogues and mosques were taxed, they would start doling out the political contributions. Would you like that? Could mean fewer Liberal-minded politicians. So really, think about your answer before you answer. There's not many politicians that doesn't like political contributions, no matter the source of the money.

[handog]

Originally Posted by Creekcat

Think about it, if churches, synagogues and mosques were taxed, they would start doling out the political contributions. Would you like that? Could mean fewer Liberal-minded politicians. So really, think about your answer before you answer. There's not many politicians that doesn't like political contributions, no matter the source of the money.

Okay, let me think....Creecat or God hmmm


Ya, I think I'll stick with my original answer

[Fullback32]

Originally Posted by smartalx

Wow! There is a lot of ignorance here. So many people think that churches shouldn't be allowed to voice their views on a political issue, or to fund a political entity or position, and if they don't keep their big mouth shut, they should lose their tax exempt status.

I've got news for you. The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. The first amendment protects our right to practice our religion. It protects our right to use our religion to guide how we vote. And surprise surprise, it protects politicians' rights to legislate based on their personal moral views, which were probably largely learned as a child from religion. Ron Paul voting against abortion is not violating any constitutional rule. In fact, telling any politician that he can't vote a certain way just because it happens to coincide with a certain religious point of view is tantamount to fascism. If it's "illegal" to vote against... say... gay marriage, then the vote itself is a fraud.

The issue is not one of separation of church and state per se. It is a matter of federal tax code.

The only thing houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. This restriction, which is found in federal tax law, is not limited to churches and other religious ministries. In fact, it is applied to every non-profit organization in the country that holds a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contrary to the claims of many in the Religious Right, the IRS is not singling out houses of worship for special regulation. Thousands of educational, scientific, charitable and literary organizations hold the 501(c)(3) status, and all must abide by the legal requirement barring involvement in elections.

Why does this rule exist? The answer is obvious: Non-profit organizations receive tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious. That tax benefit comes with conditions. One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics. This is a reasonable rule, since tax-exempt groups are supposed to work for the public good, not spend their time and money trying to elect or defeat candidates.

This regulation is also designed to protect the integrity of the election process. Special types of organizations already exist to help political hopefuls win public office. Those groups, such as Political Action Committees, have a different tax status and are organized under a different set of rules than 501(c)(3) groups, rules designed to ensure that the nation's campaign-finance laws are followed. Blurring the distinction between these two types of organizations would harm both religion and politics.

The interesting thing about all this is that certain religious institutions have blatently ignore these stipulations...especially the Pat Robertson's and James Dobsons of the world. They should have had their 501(c)(3) status revoked YEARS ago.

[Theophane]

Generally speaking churches deserve to be tax-exempt because they serve their congregations and their communities. If a church can't or won't do that, it doesn't deserve to be tax-exempt. Simple.