Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Campaigning from the pulpit already happens, and both you and I know that.
I have NEVER seen it and if it is done it is illegal and a church's tax exemption can be removed. Can one find a case where someone is willing to break a law? Of course. That happens with all laws. Tax the church and it becomes legal for all.
I give catholic services credit in my metro city. If they did not provide the services that they did, St. Louis would be in a much worse place than they already are. That said, the churches in my city (St. Louis County is split up into 90 separate cities) which I subsidize since they don't pay property taxes, don't do a single thing for the community they leech off of. One of them is the Baptist church that I grew up in. There is no reason they should be tax exempt as they do nothing for anyone but themselves. My parents got a charitable deduction at tax time, but what they really paid was membership dues to a club.
On a separate note, universities and churches should have to pay for the same services as anyone else. Washington University, St. Louis University and churches have bought up so much prime real estate in St. Louis that they will never see real estate tax revenue from again. It isn't right, that everyone else is footing the bill for their police, fire, ambulance, etc. services.
Just imagine the power Universities would have with the ability to hand out campaign literature along with class schedules.
Looks like church membership is falling off the cliff. Only a 1/4 in that old paper (2004) offer music performances, soup kitchens, and educational tutoring. Now what music performance have to do with relieving municipalities of costs I have no idea. And I am willing to bet the educational tutoring is primarily to members.
I do give some kudos to Catholic Social Services. Rightfully so, I bash the Catholic Church as a criminal organization for not turning in their sexual predators, but CSS does provide services to anyone, and do not prothlesize to non-Catholics.
Look, I know that some churches provide some real work, and those that do, I have no problem giving exemptions to. However, if the work is only to members, the veracity of what they are doing really becomes an issue. Summer Bible camp as a benefit to the community? Hardly. It benefits the church only in indoctrinating a new generation.
Please note from the conclusion of your paper:
"Finally, it should be noted that as impressive as congregations are in the social services arena, they cannot be a substitute for the public sector. It is not known whether most religious congregations are capable of, or desire to expand their current provision of various services. This unknown factor suggests that any expectation that religious congregations can be a panacea for reduced public welfare spending is premature and unwise."
Unless churches show demonstrable contributions, and some do, which I acknowledge, they should help offset their fair share of cost to the municipality. Otherwise, why should we, as a community provide them with fire protection or police protection???
Can you at least acknowledge that not all churches reach out, but are insular, and the only services are self-serving and to their members? That is not community help at all.
Dispute
The plaintiff, Frederick Walz, an owner of real estate in Staten Island, New York, brought suit in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term, seeking to enjoin the New York City Tax Commission from granting these exemptions. The plaintiff contended that the exemptions indirectly required him to make a contribution to religious bodies and thereby violated the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Reasoning
The Court held that there was no nexus between these tax exemptions and the establishment of religion, and that federal or state grants of tax exemption to churches did not violate the First Amendment:
<snip>
the exemptions for religious organizations created only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less of an involvement than would be created by taxation of churches, and the effect of the exemptions was thus not an excessive government entanglement with religion.
I have NEVER seen it and if it is done it is illegal and a church's tax exemption can be removed. Can one find a case where someone is willing to break a law? Of course. That happens with all laws. Tax the church and it becomes legal for all.
You OK with that?
Apparently your president is. He's been harping against the Johnson Amendment for years, and told the IRS not to enforce it.
The evangelicals are happy.
Beside, paying local property taxes has no effect on income taxes, and that is what the Johnson amendment is all about. Churches already pay State sales taxes, right? Where is the uproar about "1st Amendment" infringement there?
There is none because the 1st only applies to federal taxes. Hence, property taxes are constraint only by the various States constitutions, and not all of them have it in theirs.
It's actually called a PILOT--payment in lieu of taxes. I worked for a quasi-governmental public transportation agency, non-profit. They were not subject to property tax, but pay PILOTs on their properties.
PILOT is gaining momentum in Pennsylvania, especially in the county seats, where so much of the property is owned by non-profits and government, and in college towns. I've heard of some organizations, especially those with sizable property, making voluntary payments, but I don't believe it's widespread here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
Churches already pay State sales taxes, right?
In most states, if not all, non-profits can get an exemption from paying state sales taxes; details vary by state.
Looks like church membership is falling off the cliff. Only a 1/4 in that old paper (2004) offer music performances, soup kitchens, and educational tutoring. Now what music performance have to do with relieving municipalities of costs I have no idea. And I am willing to bet the educational tutoring is primarily to members.
I do give some kudos to Catholic Social Services. Rightfully so, I bash the Catholic Church as a criminal organization for not turning in their sexual predators, but CSS does provide services to anyone, and do not prothlesize to non-Catholics.
Look, I know that some churches provide some real work, and those that do, I have no problem giving exemptions to. However, if the work is only to members, the veracity of what they are doing really becomes an issue. Summer Bible camp as a benefit to the community? Hardly. It benefits the church only in indoctrinating a new generation.
Please note from the conclusion of your paper:
"Finally, it should be noted that as impressive as congregations are in the social services arena, they cannot be a substitute for the public sector. It is not known whether most religious congregations are capable of, or desire to expand their current provision of various services. This unknown factor suggests that any expectation that religious congregations can be a panacea for reduced public welfare spending is premature and unwise."
Unless churches show demonstrable contributions, and some do, which I acknowledge, they should help offset their fair share of cost to the municipality. Otherwise, why should we, as a community provide them with fire protection or police protection???
Can you at least acknowledge that not all churches reach out, but are insular, and the only services are self-serving and to their members? That is not community help at all.
Since the paper didn't explain about the music service, we don't know. However, my educatd guess is that they go to nursing homes, homeless shelters and the like to perform and give these people some happiness. When my mom was in a home, these programs were what she enjoyed the most. She was not in a religious home, but church groups came to visit and sometimes put on a program. And of all the services the paper discusses, you jump on music.
And I would bet you lose. Since you do not attend church, how do you know what churches do? Lots of public groups, e.g libraries recruit from church groups to do tutoring. I have to say I do not understand your hostility to churches, in general, with the apparent exception of the "United Church" in your community.
As do Lutheran Social Services and the social service departments of many churches. Too bad you don't know anything about churches. LSS has helped many Muslim Somali refugees in Minneapolis and other communities.
Talk about moving the goalposts! Who in this thread ever suggested such a thing? Now I have seen libertarians here on CD suggest the churches provide pretty much all social welfare, but not in this thread, and I have gone on record as being against that as impossible. Many churches are struggling just to stay afloat.
According to the link, about 90% do provide community service. Could you at least acknowledge you are totally uninformed about what churches do, and accept some willingness to learn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
Apparently your president is. He's been harping against the Johnson Amendment for years, and told the IRS not to enforce it.
The evangelicals are happy.
Beside, paying local property taxes has no effect on income taxes, and that is what the Johnson amendment is all about. Churches already pay State sales taxes, right? Where is the uproar about "1st Amendment" infringement there?
There is none because the 1st only applies to federal taxes. Hence, property taxes are constraint only by the various States constitutions, and not all of them have it in theirs.
No, churches are exempt from paying sales taxes, just like the Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, public and private non-profit schools, etc. There's no uproar because there's no "there" there.
As far as state constitutions, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo..._constitutions "Under the doctrine of Incorporation, the first amendment has been made applicable to the states. Therefore, the states must guarantee the freedom of religion in the same way the federal government must.
Many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution, though the exact legal consequences of this right vary for historical and cultural reasons. Most states interpret "freedom of religion" as including the freedom of long-established religious communities to remain intact and not be destroyed. By extension, democracies interpret "freedom of religion" as the right of each individual to freely choose to convert from one religion to another, mix religions, or abandon religion altogether."
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
Thanks, and that bolsters my point exactly. Most property tax exemptions come about as a result of State constitutions.
Because property taxes are local. There is no federal property tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
PILOT is gaining momentum in Pennsylvania, especially in the county seats, where so much of the property is owned by non-profits and government, and in college towns. I've heard of some organizations, especially those with sizable property, making voluntary payments, but I don't believe it's widespread here.
In most states, if not all, non-profits can get an exemption from paying state sales taxes; details vary by state.
I believe the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which owns a LOT of property in Pittsburgh, pays some sort of "cash in lieu of" taxes.
The headline! "Possibly the Most Interesting Group You’ve Never Heard Of"
Listen. I would never deny there are people out there with all manner of notions I am not aware about. This is another example, and I was not aware for what I think is obvious/good reason. I was only noting the problem with the concept of a "Christian Left" group, much like the problem with the Flat Earthers (who I AM aware about). Doesn't mean either makes much sense all considered.
In any case, the more common political reality, is that people who are more inclined toward traditional Christian thinking, faith, have difficulty reconciling themselves to vote other than Republican largely because the Democratic platform is more accepting of the LGBT community and pro-woman's choice.
I have a very good friend, as fine a human being -- kind heart -- that I know. Nevertheless he told me not too long ago he simply could not support Democrats because he can't accept that "anything goes" thinking when it comes to gays.
A fine human being, but too bad so many good people can't "live and let live" exactly as your "Religious Left" article describes.
Too bad the "live and let live" people among most Christians are so rare...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
