NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the LDS thread... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=574270)

Should churches be tax-exempt? Why or why not?

My answer later and Poll Coming

If they are largely profit based businesses, like Scientology, probably the LDS, and shit loads of other churches.

If they are largely profit based businesses, like Scientology, probably the LDS, and shit loads of other churches.

I take it you forgot to preface your comments with a "no"...

No. They should not.

I take it you forgot to preface your comments with a "no"...

I don't think we should boil it down to whether all churches are taxed, or none of them are. Any organisation or division of a larger collective organisation who's main motive is profit should be taxed. Any organisation who's main motive is things like community outreach and charity should not be taxed. This will lead to some Churches or Church organisations to be taxed, and other Churches or Church organisations not to be. Simple.

Tax them. A lot of church business is pure profit making. Marriages, Funerals, selling burial plots, etc. They are making an income, and should be taxed like any other business. Charitable stuff can be a tax deduction.

All you conservatives out there. Isn't protectionism wrong? By giving churches tax breaks, you make the inefficient. At least according to Adam Smith.

Churches Should be taxed as any other buisness. However, any money they actually DO use for charitable purposes should be deductible.

Churches Should be taxed as any other buisness. However, any money they actually DO use for charitable purposes should be deductible.

Pretty much this.


I dont know why religion gets a free pass. Everything else pays taxes.

If you want Church and State to be separate- yes you should keep them tax exempt

I don't think we should boil it down to whether all churches are taxed, or none of them are. Any organisation or division of a larger collective organisation who's main motive is profit should be taxed. Any organisation who's main motive is things like community outreach and charity should not be taxed. This will lead to some Churches or Church organisations to be taxed, and other Churches or Church organisations not to be. Simple.

So, its a no with an addendum...

No. Let them write off their charitable works just like everyone else does.

If you want Church and State to be separate- yes you should keep them tax exempt

Arguably by giving Churches special treatment they are not seperate from the state.

I dont understand how not giving religion a free ride violates Church and state...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Dont see anything in there about tax exemption.

But such knee-jerk "OMG TEH ATHEISTS ARE OUT TO GET RELIGION AND ESTABLISH A CHURCH OF ATHEISM!1!1!" are exactly the kind of responses Iwas expecting from a lot of posters here, such as you.

Churches Should be taxed as any other buisness. However, any money they actually DO use for charitable purposes should be deductible.
My position exactly



If you want Church and State to be separate- yes you should keep them tax exempt

I don't follow, explain please how removing tax-exempt status (special treatment from government) would mean an end to separation of church and state?

I concur with those who say "Make them pay taxes, and write of charitable work." Really, their tax exempt status is a violation of Separation of Church and State. Especially given that, invariably, some religions will be left out of this status.

to be honest I've never seem the village vicar riding anything better than a Mountain bike so I fail to see whats to tax :confused: (hell even the catholic church is skint)

beyond allowing churches access to buisiness grants and such which sounds like its would cost more money

Pretty much this.


I dont know why religion gets a free pass. Everything else pays taxes.

Non-profits don't.

If a church is a non-profit they shouldn't pay taxes.

Non-profits don't.

If a church is a non-profit they shouldn't pay taxes.
^This.

^This.

^This.

But such knee-jerk "OMG TEH ATHEISTS ARE OUT TO GET RELIGION AND ESTABLISH A CHURCH OF ATHEISM!1!1!" are exactly the kind of responses Iwas expecting from a lot of posters here, such as you....They do know that Atheism isn't a religion, right?
...And that having a 'church' of Atheism' doesn't make any kind of sense.

...And that having a 'church' of Atheism' doesn't make any kind of sense.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ :p

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ :p

Just because one exists doesn't mean that it makes any sense.

Making sense has never been an attribute I associate with churches...

I concur with those who say "Make them pay taxes, and write of charitable work." Really, their tax exempt status is a violation of Separation of Church and State. Especially given that, invariably, some religions will be left out of this status.

I'd be interested in finding out how a religion qualifies as a "recognized" religion in the U.S. Regardless, I agree with everyone else who says they should simply write off their charitable work.

Hey Atheism is truly a non prophet organization

I'd be interested in finding out how a religion qualifies as a "recognized" religion in the U.S. Regardless, I agree with everyone else who says they should simply write off their charitable work.

Do you also agree with that in regards to say, Planned Parenthood, or the Red Cross?

Do you know anything about taxes and non-profits?

No.

as churches are often commercial ventures tax them as much as you would any corporation. allow rebates on what can be proved to be charitable work

I think churches should have to pay taxes, but be exempt for their charitable programs and community service programs and endowments. Also, donations that go directly towards such programs and towards salary and housing of clergy and maintenance of the physical churches (your classic church roof fund drive) should not be considered taxable income, imo.

However, dividends or earnings on investments should be taxable capital gains just like everybody else. Income from sale of valuable property, like art collections or documents, should be taxable. Income from non-religious business enterprises should be fully taxable. The amount of donations that go to uses other than what I mention above (and instead, say, gets fed into an investment fund) should not be tax exempt. And especially, income from non-church real estate (such as commercial properties or rental residential properties owned by a church) should be fully taxable, AND they should have to pay property tax on such real estate.

Just because one exists doesn't mean that it makes any sense.

cosmic.

Making sense has never been an attribute I associate with churches...

then what do you call theology?

as churches are often commercial ventures

source? even the catholic church is skint and as such it doesn't seem this genuis money making scheme is working

then what do you call theology?

An attempt to find sense where there isn't any...

Hey, I never claimed to not be biased against religion...

I don't see why churches should get a free pass while everyone else has to pay taxes. All churches should lose their tax-exempt status and be allowed to write off their proven charity work like any other business.

Most churches are too politically active these days instead of concentrating on reaching out to their members and new ones. That is reason enough to take away their tax-exempt status.

Non-profits don't.

If a church is a non-profit they shouldn't pay taxes.

A lot of churches do make profits however.


Non-profit organizations provide essential community servives. Religion is not an "essential" community service.

...They do know that Atheism isn't a religion, right?
...And that having a 'church' of Atheism' doesn't make any kind of sense.

Im aware. Its all meant to be rediculous.

Do you also agree with that in regards to say, Planned Parenthood, or the Red Cross?

Planned Parenthood does not make a profit, and the Red Cross is soley a charity organization.

Churches are not.

If you want to compare a church to group whose sole existance is in providing humanitarian relief to poor people, youre on crack.


Do you know anything about taxes and non-profits?

Do you?

Churches should get just as many tax breaks as Honest Joe's Used Hubcaps. *shrugs*

Yes, they should be tax-exempt.

Nation of Quebec;14258412']Most churches are too politically active these days instead of concentrating on reaching out to their members and new ones. That is reason enough to take away their tax-exempt status.The tax-exempt status of churches that are too politically active should be revoked, but the ones that are not too politically active should not have their status revoked.

To revoke their status would legitimize their political activity and illegitimize the separation between church and state.

If you want Church and State to be separate- yes you should keep them tax exempt

The separation of Church and State does not require that churches be tax exempt. To the contrary, special treatment of churches violates the separation of Church and State. Churches have a tax-exempt status because they are considered charities and SCOTUS has allowed such status on the grounds that the fact that it aids religion is incidental. See, e.g., Walz v. Tax Comm'n (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=397&invol=664), 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The First Amendment does not require that church activities or property be tax exempt. See, e.g., Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. California Bd. of Equalization (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=493&invol=378), 493 U.S. 378 (1990); Hernandez v. Commissioner (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=490&invol=680), 490 U.S. 680 (1989).
In fact, a sales tax exemption specifically for religious publications has been held to violate the Establishment Clause. See Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=489&invol=1), 489 U.S. 1 (1989).

The separation of Church and State does not require that churches be tax exempt.Short of implementing a theocracy, what do you think would be a violation of the separation of church and state?

Short of implementing a theocracy, what do you think would be a violation of the separation of church and state?

Um. Lots of things. Talking about just the Establishment Clause: organized or led prayer in school, teaching creationism as science, "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, most government displays of the 10 Commandments, etc. For starters, see see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Your question implies that if I don't believe tax exemptions for churches are required by the First Amendment, I must not believe in the separation of Church and State. Perhaps if you read what I wrote more carefully and/or checked the cases I linked, you'd see that this is not the case.

Now a tax that singled out religion or significantly burden the exercise of religion would be a different case, but a generally applicable tax applying to church property or activities is not necessarily contrary to the First Amendment.

Yes, they should be tax-exempt.

The tax-exempt status of churches that are too politically active should be revoked, but the ones that are not too politically active should not have their status revoked.

To revoke their status would legitimize their political activity and illegitimize the separation between church and state.

I am curious as to how "too politically active" is a relevant concern if tax exemption is required by separation of church and state.

As the law stands in the U.S., churches are tax-exempt pursuant to statutes regarding charities and must abide by the restrictions placed on such organizations.

Your question implies that if I don't believe tax exemptions for churches are required by the First Amendment, I must not believe in the separation of Church and State. Perhaps if you read what I wrote more carefully and/or checked the cases I linked, you'd see that this is not the case.

Now a tax that singled out religion or significantly burden the exercise of religion would be a different case, but a generally applicable tax applying to church property or activities is not necessarily contrary to the First Amendment.

Exactly, too many people seem to have the idea in their head that seperation of church and state means that churches don't have to answer to the government at all, which is just ridiculous.

Your question implies that if I don't believe tax exemptions for churches are required by the First Amendment, I must not believe in the separation of Church and State.Did it? It wasn't meant to. I understood that the point of your prior post was to say that the repeal of the tax exemption would not violate the separation of church and state.
My objection to this is that I believe the repeal of the tax exemption would lead to an increased amount of political support for things such as school prayer, displays of the Ten Commandments, etc.

A lot of churches do make profits however.
And I already said that churches who could not follow the current rules for non-profits should be taxed.

Non-profit organizations provide essential community servives. Religion is not an "essential" community service.
Many of the churches in my area provide essential community services. Free clinics, English lessons, GED prep, food, water, shelter, heat, clothes, after school programs, abortions and sexual health needs, etc.

Planned Parenthood does not make a profit, and the Red Cross is soley a charity organization.
So?

Churches are not.
And again, MANY churches do more charity work than they do anything else, many of them exist such that if they were required to operate under non-profit rules they would pass those tests.

If you want to compare a church to group whose sole existance is in providing humanitarian relief to poor people, youre on crack.
Since many churches do exist with the mission in mind to provide humanitarian relief....I must not be on crack to believe that it could happen. Nice ad hominem though, you're really getting better at it.


Do you?
I know quite a bit about it, both because I was educated in the tax sides of it when I was an enrolled agent and also because I used to run one until last year.

My objection to this is that I believe the repeal of the tax exemption would lead to an increased amount of political support for things such as school prayer, displays of the Ten Commandments, etc.

Why? How?

Did it? It wasn't meant to. I understood that the point of your prior post was to say that the repeal of the tax exemption would not violate the separation of church and state.
My objection to this is that I believe the repeal of the tax exemption would lead to an increased amount of political support for things such as school prayer, displays of the Ten Commandments, etc.

Why, they still wouldn't be allowed to do these kind of things (not that its stopped them so far :()

Why, they still wouldn't be allowed to do these kind of things (not that its stopped them so far :()It is true that various Supreme Court decisions have said that these things are not allowed. However, at some point new justices will have to be appointed. Religious organization would, of course, make efforts to have a justice that is sympathetic to their position appointed. Since there would be a reduced distinction between the way a religious group and, say, an corporation is treated, there would be less of a reason to not appoint a justice that would advance the cause of the religious groups. I make this argument because I believe that a general repeal of the tax-exempt status of churches would alter the way their actions are perceived by those in government.

Edit: It wouldn't necessarily have to be a Supreme Court Justice. The legislature would also be more likely to pass laws that support the agenda of the religious groups.

It is true that various Supreme Court decisions have said that these things are not allowed. However, at some point new justices will have to be appointed. Religious organization would, of course, make efforts to have a justice that is sympathetic to their position appointed. Since there would be a reduced distinction between the way a religious group and, say, an corporation is treated, there would be less of a reason to not appoint a justice that would advance the cause of the religious groups. I make this argument because I believe that a general repeal of the tax-exempt status of churches would alter the way their actions are perceived by those in government.

Edit: It wouldn't necessarily have to be a Supreme Court Justice. The legislature would also be more likely to pass laws that support the agenda of the religious groups.

Sorry, I am still not seeing how eliminating tax-exempt status equals more religious involvement in government.
They are already doing / trying to do what you are afraid of having happen if the tax-exempt status is abolished.
Show me where you are making the connection, because I'm not seeing it.

Sorry, I am still not seeing how eliminating tax-exempt status equals more religious involvement in government.
They are already doing / trying to do what you are afraid of having happen if the tax-exempt status is abolished.
Show me where you are making the connection, because I'm not seeing it.If churches pay taxes in the same way that any other group does, they could legitimately make the argument that their concerns should be addressed in the same way that any other group has their concerns addressed.

If churches pay taxes in the same way that any other group does, they could legitimately make the argument that their concerns should be addressed in the same way that any other group has their concerns addressed.

Except they would still be prevented by law from having the government endorse their view.

Once again, not that they recognize that restriction now...

Except they would still be prevented by law from having the government endorse their view.Until those laws change, that is.

Until those laws change, that is.

Why are you so convinced that they would?

Why are you so convinced that they would?Because of the increased likeliness that they would, due to the reduced amount of hostility towards the positions of the religious groups.
Perhaps I need to rephrase. One of the ways that the separation of church and state manifests itself in the mind of the average person (if not by law) is the tax-exempt status of churches. Because the tax-exempt status would be removed, the separation of church and state in the mind of the average person would be reduced.

Because of the increased likeliness that they would, due to the reduced amount of hostility towards the positions of the religious groups.
Perhaps I need to rephrase. One of the ways that the separation of church and state manifests itself in the mind of the average person (if not by law) is the tax-exempt status of churches. Because the tax-exempt status would be removed, the separation of church and state in the mind of the average person would be reduced.

OK, that's stupid as hell, but I see what you are saying now, and on that at least you are probably right.

A lot of churches do make profits however.


Non-profit organizations provide essential community servives. Religion is not an "essential" community service.



Eh, the trick here is the definition of "essential". Reasonable people can disagree, but I've seen religion play a very constructive role in people's lives. Isn't that almost in the mold of other non-profit charities and other government services? While I don't enjoy seeing televangelists make religion into a commercial venture, I've also seen plenty of churches be very active in their community- acting as homeless shelters, etc.

I'd react to a blanket church tax the same way I'd react to a charity tax or a cut in library funding- these certainly don't benefit everyone in the community, but they remain extremely useful for those who choose/need to use them. I'd support the taxation of the churches who do run themselves as businesses, but that would be a definite violation of the separation of church and state.

Eh, the trick here is the definition of "essential". Reasonable people can disagree, but I've seen religion play a very constructive role in people's lives. Isn't that almost in the mold of other non-profit charities and other government services? While I don't enjoy seeing televangelists make religion into a commercial venture, I've also seen plenty of churches be very active in their community- acting as homeless shelters, etc.

I'd react to a blanket church tax the same way I'd react to a charity tax or a cut in library funding- these certainly don't benefit everyone in the community, but they remain extremely useful for those who choose/need to use them. I'd support the taxation of the churches who do run themselves as businesses, but that would be a definite violation of the separation of church and state.

It wouldn't be a blanket church tax, it would be churches paying taxes on their profit and on their property, just like everyone else does. And, although this has been addressed a number of times already, how would eliminating a special protection of the church be violating the separation of church and state?

I agree with the line of thought that churches should be taxed and just get tax deductions on charity work.

Let each Church decide for itself whether to be considered a Tax-free Non-Profit organization, or a taxed business, and then require them to follow the laws set down regarding each type of organization.

Eh, the trick here is the definition of "essential". Reasonable people can disagree, but I've seen religion play a very constructive role in people's lives. Isn't that almost in the mold of other non-profit charities and other government services? While I don't enjoy seeing televangelists make religion into a commercial venture, I've also seen plenty of churches be very active in their community- acting as homeless shelters, etc.

I'd react to a blanket church tax the same way I'd react to a charity tax or a cut in library funding- these certainly don't benefit everyone in the community, but they remain extremely useful for those who choose/need to use them. I'd support the taxation of the churches who do run themselves as businesses, but that would be a definite violation of the separation of church and state.

I would like to point out, because I haven't yet, that you neither have to provide an essential service or humanitarian aid to be a non-profit. I am a member of various non-profits who do neither.

I agree with the line of thought that churches should be taxed and just get tax deductions on charity work.

What counts as "charity work"? Was it charity work when my husband and I went to an older neighbor's house and winterized it last Sunday? He's not a charity, we can't mark it off on our taxes. Would a church be allowed to? If so, wouldn't we have to come up with special rules for churches? Isn't that what's happening now? Oh, yeah, it is.

It wouldn't be a blanket church tax, it would be churches paying taxes on their profit and on their property, just like everyone else does. And, although this has been addressed a number of times already, how would eliminating a special protection of the church be violating the separation of church and state?

Sorry, bad wording. By 'blanket", I was meaning a church tax that applied to all churches. I really don't know why I threw that in there.

And a tax on only certain churches (the really commercial ones) would be a violation of church and state because, no matter how justified it would be, it is still the state arguably showing preference on religion. A universal church tax (hence my "blanket" tax) that would tax all churches like businesses wouldn't be a violation of church and state, but would just be a bad idea in general.

It doesn't matter whether the government "grants" or takes away tax exempt status from them anyway, because all taxes are inherently non voluntary and extortion, and therefore are illegal.

What counts as "charity work"? Was it charity work when my husband and I went to an older neighbor's house and winterized it last Sunday?Nope
He's not a charity, we can't mark it off on our taxes. Would a church be allowed to?Nope
If so, wouldn't we have to come up with special rules for churches?It would be a cost of doing "business" for them and thus would cut into their profits
Isn't that what's happening now? Oh, yeah, it is.And that's the problem a lot of us have with the current system, it at least is a problem I have with it.

There's always a happy medium. Perhaps certain activities can be taxed; political activism for example, while other activities can be untaxed. Perhaps property can be taxed, but income can be untaxed. I accept tacos as payment. :)

Sorry, bad wording. By 'blanket", I was meaning a church tax that applied to all churches. I really don't know why I threw that in there.
And yet you go back to it (see below)
And a tax on only certain churches (the really commercial ones) would be a violation of church and state because, no matter how justified it would be, it is still the state arguably showing preference on religion.
Why? What we are suggesting is that churches have to meet the same standards for tax exempt status as any other non-profit organization.
A universal church tax (hence my "blanket" tax) that would tax all churches like businesses wouldn't be a violation of church and state,
True, because it wouldn't be a tax on churches, it would be churches losing their special protection.
but would just be a bad idea in general.ok, why would it be a bad idea?

It doesn't matter whether the government "grants" or takes away tax exempt status from them anyway, because all taxes are inherently non voluntary and extortion, and therefore are illegal.

You are basing this on what exactly?

I feel the need to point you to the 16th Amendment (It'll show why you are wrong).

Of course churches should be taxed. Tax them the same way you would tax any business enterprise. If they actually use their donations for something worth while give them a tax break. Otherwise tax the hell out of them.

Why? What we are suggesting is that churches have to meet the same standards for tax exempt status as any other non-profit organization.

The problem is that churches aren't just any other non-profit organization because of the religious role they play. This makes it very hairy when you start to tax some churches for their activities and not others- because somewhere, there is always someone who believes that their church isn't being commercial at all, and that it's just doing the work of God. This suggestion...
Let each Church decide for itself whether to be considered a Tax-free Non-Profit organization, or a taxed business, and then require them to follow the laws set down regarding each type of organization.
...might work. If this were implemented, then I might be able to see progress in this area being made. If not, then it's one person being judgmental about another's religion and the way they practice it. While we both would agree with that judgment, it still would be one person meddling in another's religion.


ok, why would it be a bad idea?

Because, as I stated in my first post, churches do give back to the community just as much as many non-profit organizations do.

The problem is that churches aren't just any other non-profit organization because of the religious role they play. This makes it very hairy when you start to tax some churches for their activities and not others- because somewhere, there is always someone who believes that their church isn't being commercial at all, and that it's just doing the work of God.
We aren't talking about peoples perceptions, we're talking about legal reality...
Because, as I stated in my first post, churches do give back to the community just as much as many non-profit organizations do.
And what I am suggesting is that churches have to qualify as a non-profit organization the same way other non-profits do, rather than being rubber-stamped based solely on the fact that they are a church.

And what I am suggesting is that churches have to qualify as a non-profit organization the same way other non-profits do, rather than being rubber-stamped based solely on the fact that they are a church.

Seconded.

"A tax-exempt religious organization is a legal entity or vehicle created and operated exclusively for religious purposes, no part of the net earnings of which insures to the benefit of any private individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in or interfere in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

Since people seem to be confused, above is the current standard from the IRS for religious tax-exemption.

Since people seem to be confused, above is the current standard from the IRS for religious tax-exemption.

And who, pray tell, do you think is confused about that?

We aren't talking about peoples perceptions, we're talking about legal reality...

And what I am suggesting is that churches have to qualify as a non-profit organization the same way other non-profits do, rather than being rubber-stamped based solely on the fact that they are a church.

I think that in the legal sense, the Constitution would strike down the taxation of some churches. At the end of the day, it's still the government passing judgment on how some churches operate.

Since people seem to be confused, above is the current standard from the IRS for religious tax-exemption.
Thanks. However, I think it's only partially relevant. It is certainly applicable to what the rule are NOW (LDS, take note).

However, it does not tell us how the IRS accounts for religious organization activities to judge what amounts to the "benefit of a private individual" (all salaries for clergy, or just the fleets of limos of some televangelists?), or what constitutes a "substantial part of the activities" in judging appropriate political speech, etc. The question has been raised whether churches do have to account for that or whether they get a blanket pass the moment they are legally recognized as religions, which they get to keep unless the IRS is moved to investigate them.

Also, it does not address the OP question, which is what we think the tax status of churches SHOULD be, not what it is now.

I think that in the legal sense, the Constitution would strike down the taxation of some churches.
Why? Where does it say in the constitution that churches cannot be taxed?
At the end of the day, it's still the government passing judgment on how some churches operate.
And? If some churches can't meet the criteria that other non-profits have to meet, then maybe they should change how they operate. All churches would have to meet the same criteria, therefore no discrimination. The only difference really would be the fact that churches wouldn't automatically qualify as tax-exempt.

Thanks. However, I think it's only partially relevant. It is certainly applicable to what the rule are NOW (LDS, take note).
For me it was simply a refresher of the exact wording, I already knew what the general rule was...
However, it does not tell us how the IRS accounts for religious organization activities to judge what amounts to the "benefit of a private individual" (all salaries for clergy, or just the fleets of limos of some televangelists?), or what constitutes a "substantial part of the activities" in judging appropriate political speech, etc. The question has been raised whether churches do have to account for that or whether they get a blanket pass the moment they are legally recognized as religions, which they get to keep unless the IRS is moved to investigate them.
I believe the criteria is no more than 25% of their gross although I couldn't tell you where I'm remembering that from, so I cannot vouch for its accuracy... :(
Also, it does not address the OP question, which is what we think the tax status of churches SHOULD be, not what it is now.
You actually expect people to address the question of the OP? I simply hope for it... ;)

Thanks. However, I think it's only partially relevant. It is certainly applicable to what the rule are NOW (LDS, take note).

However, it does not tell us how the IRS accounts for religious organization activities to judge what amounts to the "benefit of a private individual" (all salaries for clergy, or just the fleets of limos of some televangelists?), or what constitutes a "substantial part of the activities" in judging appropriate political speech, etc. The question has been raised whether churches do have to account for that or whether they get a blanket pass the moment they are legally recognized as religions, which they get to keep unless the IRS is moved to investigate them.

Also, it does not address the OP question, which is what we think the tax status of churches SHOULD be, not what it is now.
The IRS is always vague because it benefits them to be so. They will get really specific when you get into trouble. If you feel a church is breaking the rules you should report them to the IRS.

As it stands now non-profits have to fill out statements and turn them into the IRS yearly. Churches included IIRC. They aren't rubber stamped any more than I am for deducting my clowning supplies.....I do it every year and conceivably every year someone somewhere looks at it. If there is ever a problem or question I'll get audited. Non-profits can and do get audited as well. Churches fall under the same type of non-profit that most charities you are familiar with do.

The IRS is always vague because it benefits them to be so. They will get really specific when you get into trouble. If you feel a church is breaking the rules you should report them to the IRS.

As it stands now non-profits have to fill out statements and turn them into the IRS yearly. Churches included IIRC. They aren't rubber stamped any more than I am for deducting my clowning supplies.....I do it every year and conceivably every year someone somewhere looks at it. If there is ever a problem or question I'll get audited. Non-profits can and do get audited as well. Churches fall under the same type of non-profit that most charities you are familiar with do.

Yes they are...

Obtaining 501(c)(3) status

Some organizations automatically acquire 501(c)(3) status upon filing of proper organizational documents (e.g., articles of incorporation as a church), at least until annual income exceeds a statutory threshold.

IRS form 1023 (pdf) (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf)

Yes they are...



IRS form 1023 (pdf) (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf)

And I didn't even have to file organizational anything for my entertainment business, I just started deducting prosthetic noses and grease paint one year. :p

And I didn't even have to file organizational anything for my entertainment business, I just started deducting prosthetic noses and grease paint one year. :p

BS, either that or someone should report you to the IRS,

BS, either that or someone should report you to the IRS,

What form exactly do you think I should have filled out?

What form exactly do you think I should have filled out?

If your business is (as you are implying) a 501(c)(3) non-profit then the one I linked to. If your business isn't then I do not know and your personal experiences have absolutely zero bearing on the discussion and can be ignored as nonsensical BS.

If your business is (as you are implying) a 501(c)(3) non-profit then the one I linked to. If your business isn't then I do not know and your personal experiences have absolutely zero bearing on the discussion and can be ignored as nonsensical BS.

Sorry for the confusion. I ran a 501(c)(3) up until last year, I am not running it anymore. I do have 6 of my own businesses. My businesses aren't "rubber stamped" any more than Churches are. Churches are not "rubber stamped" any more than my 501(c)(3) was nor are they "rubber stamped" any more than the other 501(c)(3)s that I am involved with to varying degrees.

The fact is churches are not treated "more special" than other 501(c)(3) organizations or even more special than individuals or profit businesses.

Edit: arg! So, upon further looking.......churches do not have to fill out a 990.......didn't know that, every single church I've ever been a member of has.......not sure where that got confuzzled in my brain......but I think churches should absolutely have to fill out a 990 each year and I'm uncertain why they do not. It's wrong.

Sorry for the confusion. I ran a 501(c)(3) up until last year, I am not running it anymore. I do have 6 of my own businesses. My businesses aren't "rubber stamped" any more than Churches are. Churches are not "rubber stamped" any more than my 501(c)(3) was nor are they "rubber stamped" any more than the other 501(c)(3)s that I am involved with to varying degrees.

The fact is churches are not treated "more special" than other 501(c)(3) organizations or even more special than individuals or profit businesses.

Can you even read? I am assuming you can since you are managing to respond to my posts.
Obtaining 501(c)(3) status

Some organizations automatically acquire 501(c)(3) status upon filing of proper organizational documents (e.g., articles of incorporation as a church), at least until annual income exceeds a statutory threshold.

All you conservatives out there. Isn't protectionism wrong? By giving churches tax breaks, you make the inefficient. At least according to Adam Smith.

Yet Adam Smith was not a promoter of Conservatism.

I dont know why religion gets a free pass. Everything else pays taxes.

Really? Everybody else except for churches?

Cuase churches shouldnt exist. But other than that they use that money to buy stuff for themselves. Therefore it should be taxed.

Non-profit organizations provide essential community servives. Religion is not an "essential" community service.


Bullshit its not.


Churches should stay tax exempt. Any profits should be used to improve the church, expand charity, etc.

This is for all churches and religions.

Not just Christianity.

Bullshit its not.


Churches should stay tax exempt. Any profits should be used to improve the church, expand charity, etc.

This is for all churches and religions.

Not just Christianity.

OK, how is religion essential to a community?

I find it at odds to keep a seperation of church and state by not letting the church interfere with the state by making the state intefere with the church.

Clearly, it's best to understand that to keep the church a seperate entity than the state, we shouldn't allow the state even a toe-hold; if only to prevent the gigantic wall we call 'the seperation' to be overwhelmed by Born-Again Christians using the excuse 'well, we get taxed suckahs' for all sorts of awesome ideas.

Obviously, people here just hate churches, and refuse to look at it logically. Which is too bad.

OK, how is religion essential to a community?

501(c)(3)'s need not be essential to the community, nor do they need to be involved in humanitarian work.

OK, how is religion essential to a community?

How isn't it?

Also, what Smunkee said.

501(c)(3)'s need not be essential to the community, nor do they need to be involved in humanitarian work.
I didn't say that they did, I was addressing Trollgaard's statement, nothing more, nothing less.
How isn't it?

Also, what Smunkee said.
You made the claim, now back it up.

I didn't say that they did, I was addressing Trollgaard's statement, nothing more, nothing less.

You made the claim, now back it up.

Nope. KoL claimed it wasn't without proof.

Nope. KoL claimed it wasn't without proof.

Point, however I cannot answer for KoL.

Do you also agree with that in regards to say, Planned Parenthood, or the Red Cross?

Do you know anything about taxes and non-profits?

No, I don't (know anything about taxes and non-profits). I don't even really understand my own taxes... the government takes money from my paycheck and assures me it's the right amount. :(

I see where you're coming from, and I think my bias against the LDS Church led me into a bold statement where I don't really have much evidence. It does seem, though, that LDS members pay a compulsory tithe, the Church should have to pay one, too. There should also be limits on how huge and gaudy one can make a church (don't think I'm not talking about you too, Chinese Baptist church!).

taxing them will make them become more open about where their money goes. For every donation made in the church do you know or can you find out how much is spent on what?

Bullshit its not.

Really? A community cannot function without religion? Communities lacking in religion are somehow less then those with it?


Care to explain how magical sky faries make a community superior?

Can you even read? I am assuming you can since you are managing to respond to my posts.

Maybe her super genius kids read them to her?

I agree with Dyakovo. Make churchs apply for it at the very least.

Seconded.
3rd ed


Really? Everybody else except for churches?

Doesn't that also include 40% of the population of the United States?

OK, how is religion essential to a community?

That is where the line is drawn...."how is it essential?". You need Power, Water, Police, Fire Departments in a community. You don't need Hospitals, Schools, or a Transit System at first, but you will eventually have to have it.

With religion, you don't really ever need it...but people kinda, well...expect it to be there, in some respects it is a want that is classified as a need. Religion is important to those who practice it, and not to those who don't.

I find it at odds to keep a seperation of church and state by not letting the church interfere with the state by making the state intefere with the church.

Clearly, it's best to understand that to keep the church a seperate entity than the state, we shouldn't allow the state even a toe-hold; if only to prevent the gigantic wall we call 'the seperation' to be overwhelmed by Born-Again Christians using the excuse 'well, we get taxed suckahs' for all sorts of awesome ideas.

Obviously, people here just hate churches, and refuse to look at it logically. Which is too bad.

I don't think they hate churches, they hate their tax-exempt status.

Really? A community cannot function without religion? Communities lacking in religion are somehow less then those with it?

Care to explain how magical sky faries make a community superior?


Well, in some respects, cities with religions tend to be more culturally sophisticated than those that do not. Cities that have many different blends of religions are very well cultured and diverse. A community can function without religion, but it seems to function better when the practicers of a religion have that religion in their community.

So basicly, it is not nessecary for Atheists, but it is a need for All other religions to have a place of worship (except for the Quakers :)).

Yet Adam Smith was a promoter of Conservatism.

Source?

Source?

I meant to say was not.

It’s a hard one; my local CofE church and many others in the area struggle to get the cash to keep the roof up. But then again Durham Cathedral is one of the biggest landowners in the country, and is tax exempt.

In the end, yes I think churches should be tax exempt. I mean why not, not like we would get much cash from them and you cannot compare a church with a regular business.

In the end, yes I think churches should be tax exempt. I mean why not, not like we would get much cash from them and you cannot compare a church with a regular business.

Tax-exemption is an implicit subsidy towards whatever is exempted. Subsidies should exist for good reasons, such as providing charitable services to the local community.

to be honest I've never seem the village vicar riding anything better than a Mountain bike so I fail to see whats to tax :confused: (hell even the catholic church is skint)

beyond allowing churches access to buisiness grants and such which sounds like its would cost more money

Put Incorperated at the end of The Roman Catholic Church.

Now you have a profit earning organization with an income that rivals or surpasses that of McDonalds.

Put Incorperated at the end of The Roman Catholic Church.

Now you have a profit earning organization with an income that rivals or surpasses that of McDonalds.

That's putting it mildly. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the richest organizations in the world. They've been hoarding land and wealth for 1500 years in the name of their clergy. If they sold it all they could probably end world hunger.

And that's just one church. Which is exactly why these organizations should be taxed. Its not like they NEED all that money.

That's putting it mildly. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the richest organizations in the world. They've been hoarding land and wealth for 1500 years in the name of their clergy. If they sold it all they could probably end world hunger.

And that's just one church. Which is exactly why these organizations should be taxed. Its not like they NEED all that money.
They are doing a shitty job hoarding land if all they have after 1500 years is just enough land to encompass their buildings.

That's putting it mildly. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the richest organizations in the world. They've been hoarding land and wealth for 1500 years in the name of their clergy. If they sold it all they could probably end world hunger.

And that's just one church. Which is exactly why these organizations should be taxed. Its not like they NEED all that money.

And that's because everyone gives them everything for free, oh wait...

it really just depends. i think not for profit functions should be exempt of course, like any other not for profit, while bussiness type ventures, faith or no faith, should of course be taxed just like any other bussiness.

No, I don't (know anything about taxes and non-profits). I don't even really understand my own taxes... the government takes money from my paycheck and assures me it's the right amount. :(
It's okay, most people don't know how much they pay in taxes or how the government figures out how much they owe, or where that money the government takes out goes or what happens to it. I made a lot of money for a few years because people don't know this stuff and don't want to know it.

I see where you're coming from, and I think my bias against the LDS Church led me into a bold statement where I don't really have much evidence.
The LDS are quite possibly breaking the rules, I believe they are going to be audited. If they are breaking the rules the IRS can be very harsh.

It does seem, though, that LDS members pay a compulsory tithe, the Church should have to pay one, too. There should also be limits on how huge and gaudy one can make a church (don't think I'm not talking about you too, Chinese Baptist church!).
The parishioners making "mandatory" tithes is the business of the church and the congregation. It's not the government's job to punish the church for practicing it's religion. Likewise there are often community standards that go into building permits, churches as far as I know are not exempt from things like that. (i.e. when I used to co-own a restaurant there were rules about how tall our marquee could be and such)
taxing them will make them become more open about where their money goes. For every donation made in the church do you know or can you find out how much is spent on what?
No need to tax them. The IRS could just require them to fill out a form 990 reporting all their income/spending each year.
Really? A community cannot function without religion? Communities lacking in religion are somehow less then those with it?


Care to explain how magical sky faries make a community superior?
Again, the test for being a non-profit is not "being essential to the community". My home-owners association is a non-profit. It's not essential, it's not a charity, it's not engaged in humanitarian aide.



Maybe her super genius kids read them to her?
Maybe you can learn to debate/communicate/exist without flamebaiting me?

Again, the test for being a non-profit is not "being essential to the community". My home-owners association is a non-profit. It's not essential, it's not a charity, it's not engaged in humanitarian aide.



Thats adorbale, but has nothing to do with Trollgaard's post.

If you want to start a thread about what non-profits shouldnt be taxed, Ill be glad to pop in and show you that my beliefs are conistant.

For now however...


Tax churches. At least make them pay property tax.

Really? A community cannot function without religion? Communities lacking in religion are somehow less then those with it?


Care to explain how magical sky faries make a community superior?



Maybe her super genius kids read them to her?

I agree with Dyakovo. Make churchs apply for it at the very least.

Thats adorbale, but has nothing to do with Trollgaard's post.

If you want to start a thread about what non-profits shouldnt be taxed, Ill be glad to pop in and show you that my beliefs are conistant.

For now however...


Tax churches. At least make them pay property tax.

*sigh*

Smunkee is simply explaining the relevant considerations of tax-exempt status under the current regime. No need to be so insulting and condescending -- especially when (whether it is relevant or not) she's demonstrated a better grasp of that subject than you have.

Smunkee raises the rather straight-forward point that churches shouldn't necessarily be taxed just because they are churches. (In fact, that would tend to violate separation of Church and State). But rather, they should be judged under neutral criteria of taxability.

Smunkee raises the rather straight-forward point that churches shouldn't necessarily be taxed just because they are churches. (In fact, that would tend to violate separation of Church and State). But rather, they should be judged under neutral criteria of taxability.

Thats great for Smunkee. However, no one has said tax them because theyre churches. Ive said they shouldnt get a free pass, and I stand by it. What most of us are saying is that being a church shouldnt get you an auto-exempt, as Dyak showed is currently the case.

I havent seen Smunkee argue they "should be judged under neutral criteria of taxability." Ive seen her, at least implying, that they should be tax exempt just because they are a church.

Smunkee raises the rather straight-forward point that churches shouldn't necessarily be taxed just because they are churches. (In fact, that would tend to violate separation of Church and State). But rather, they should be judged under neutral criteria of taxability.If they make above a certain amount, tax them for it. (Deductibles for charity acts.)
If they don't make above that certain amount, don't tax them?
Something like that?

Yes they are...



IRS form 1023 (pdf) (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf)

Thats What most of us are saying is that being a church shouldnt get you an auto-exempt, as Dyak showed is currently the case.

I havent seen Smunkee argue they "should be judged under neutral criteria of taxability." Ive seen her, at least implying, that they should be tax exempt just because they are a church.

With all due respect to Dyakovo, what is quoted as definitive is from a Wikipedia article and not the document linked in that post.

Nonetheless, the statement that churches are generally assumed to be 501(c) organizations is correct. So are some other organizations.

FWIW, I am not at all convinced that churches should be taxed. Although treating them as presumptively a charity is a bit fictional, it is essentially true.

I think this first quote fits perfectly:

"I don't think we should boil it down to whether all churches are taxed, or none of them are. Any organisation or division of a larger collective organisation who's main motive is profit should be taxed. Any organisation who's main motive is things like community outreach and charity should not be taxed. This will lead to some Churches or Church organisations to be taxed, and other Churches or Church organisations not to be. Simple." (Hydesland)

Planned Parenthood does not make a profit, and the Red Cross is soley a charity organization.


planned parenthood is politically active.

I think the issue is in this case a church has chosen a side you don't like. and rather then answer their ignorance with truth and knowledge you'd prefer to deprive of a way to get their ignorance out.

Such a strategy will simply make their ignorance seem like truth and inflame their supporters with greater power.

I think this first quote fits perfectly:

"I don't think we should boil it down to whether all churches are taxed, or none of them are. Any organisation or division of a larger collective organisation who's main motive is profit should be taxed. Any organisation who's main motive is things like community outreach and charity should not be taxed. This will lead to some Churches or Church organisations to be taxed, and other Churches or Church organisations not to be. Simple." (Hydesland)

As usual, Hydesland's "simple" answer is anything but simple upon reflection. Either this is simply the test we apply now to non-profit organizations or it is a whole new scheme -- which raises many questions: Who judges "main motive"? What is "main motive"? What is "community outreach"? What is "charity"?

Nonetheless, the statement that churches are generally assumed to be 501(c) organizations is correct. So are some other organizations.
.

And those other organizations should have to apply for tax exempt status too.

And those other organizations should have to apply for tax exempt status too.

it is part of the incorporation as a church process.


BTW Scientology is not recognized as a religion or a church in the US. they earn non profit status only on those things they do as charity.

And those other organizations should have to apply for tax exempt status too.

So now your objection is not to tax exempt status, but merely to whether one should have to file IRS Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf) regardless of type or size of organization?

it is part of the incorporation as a church process.

As has been addressed, they are actually rubber stamped.


BTW Scientology is not recognized as a religion or a church in the US.

Unless this is very recent, this is wrong.

So now your objection is not to tax exempt status, but merely to whether one should have to file IRS Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf) regardless of type or size of organization?

My main objection is the tax exempt status, but that has mostly to do with my bias.

I am willing to settle for them to just file said form.

As has been addressed, they are actually rubber stamped.

You are using the term "rubber stamped" pretty freely. Regardless, the filing of articles of incorporation is not nothing.

As has been addressed, they are actually rubber stamped.
some federal law says they cant be investigated for tax purposes unless they have good reason to suspect they are in violation of the tax code. its on the IRS website about tax free status.



Unless this is very recent, this is wrong.

my bad but they weren't recognized as a church until 1993 (god I feel old now)

When a church is appropriately returning it's funding to the community to help those in need, no. However, if it is a mega-church that is yielding millionaire pastors and ministers with prime time television spots and equivalent, then yes.

There was a mega-church who spent 10K a month in electricity bills on Christmas lights. When a few homeless people were "trespassing" on their property and staying warm by the some of the larger lighting elements, they were removed by police. So... ummm... where is the money going again aside from promoting their organization through missionary and door-to-door recruiters? Seems like a business. Also, churches who care to meddle in politics should, and do, have their tax-exempt status taken away.

You are using the term "rubber stamped" pretty freely. Regardless, the filing of articles of incorporation is not nothing.

Is there a term youd rather I use?

When a church is appropriately returning it's funding to the community to help those in need, no. However, if it is a mega-church that is yielding millionaire pastors and ministers with prime time television spots and equivalent, then yes. those pastors and ministers pay taxes. Now if say the church was building them a home with jacuzzi there would be issue. Size and how much they pay their employees is not an issue.


There was a mega-church who spent 10K a month in electricity bills on Christmas lights. When a few homeless people were "trespassing" on their property and staying warm by the some of the larger lighting elements, they were removed by police. So... ummm... where is the money going again aside from promoting their organization through missionary and door-to-door recruiters? Seems like a business. Also, churches who care to meddle in politics should, and do, have their tax-exempt status taken away.

missionary programs is regarded as not for profit as the church thinks they are saving people's souls.
also involvement is allowed if it is considered a core value of the non profit organization's principles. Such as planned parenthood opposing restrictions on abortions.

Is there a term youd rather I use?

How about a word or phrase that accurately describes the situation, which is they do have to apply for tax-exempt status, and the form(s) they fill out are quite involved.

those pastors and ministers pay taxes. Now if say the church was building them a home with jacuzzi there would be issue. Size and how much they pay their employees is not an issue.
Do they pay taxes? In what way and on what? Where do they get those big fancy houses, and who does actually own those limos. As far as I know, this is an open question. It is not immediately obvious whether income or property tax is being paid on all that stuff.


missionary programs is regarded as not for profit as the church thinks they are saving people's souls.
Which has what, precisely, to do with the kicking out of homeless people for "trespassing" during Christmas?

also involvement is allowed if it is considered a core value of the non profit organization's principles. Such as planned parenthood opposing restrictions on abortions.
Planned Parenthood is not a church, and not restricted by the separation of church and state.

It is my view that whether or not a church should be automatically tax exempt just because it is a church has nothing at all to do with how much and what kind of political activity it should be able to engage in. Any non-profit can apply for a tax exemption, but NOT every non-profit can be involved in politics. If the non-profit is a church, then it is not permitted to exceed a certain level of activity in politics for reasons other than taxation. But the fact of the matter is that churches get a privilege that political organizations do not, and a group cannot be both a church and political organization at the same time, in the eyes of the government. It can have either its tax privileges or political involvement, but not both.

Do they pay taxes? In what way and on what? Where do they get those big fancy houses, and who does actually own those limos. As far as I know, this is an open question. It is not immediately obvious whether income or property tax is being paid on all that stuff.

there have actually been people busted when the stuff they use privately is church owned. a Limo can be church owned if its only for work purposes. The government can and does investigate individuals employed by a church much more freely then the church itself.


Which has what, precisely, to do with the kicking out of homeless people for "trespassing" during Christmas?
why does being a non profit organization mean they must let any and everyone sleep on their property.


Planned Parenthood is not a church, and not restricted by the separation of church and state.

that's not what was intended by separation of church and state. What was meant was turning over of civil functions to a church. there is really nothing against a church influencing individuals in an election.


It is my view that whether or not a church should be automatically tax exempt just because it is a church has nothing at all to do with how much and what kind of political activity it should be able to engage in. Any non-profit can apply for a tax exemption, but NOT every non-profit can be involved in politics. If the non-profit is a church, then it is not permitted to exceed a certain level of activity in politics for reasons other than taxation. But the fact of the matter is that churches get a privilege that political organizations do not, and a group cannot be both a church and political organization at the same time, in the eyes of the government. It can have either its tax privileges or political involvement, but not both.

many political organizations are Tax exempt. Green peace, Peta, and so on.
because they also do charity work. The law allows church to be political provided a substantial part of their income doesn't go to politics.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

given the size of the worldwide Mormon church 30 million is likely not a substantial part. though an audit is called for.

that's not what was intended by separation of church and state. What was meant was turning over of civil functions to a church. there is really nothing against a church influencing individuals in an election.


This is wrong.

This is wrong.

care to link a SCOTUS ruling on the matter then ?
Or can we assume your talking out your ass.

care to link a SCOTUS ruling on the matter then ?
Or can we assume your talking out your ass.

Im refering to your reasoning for the existance of the seperation of church and state.


Youre one to accuse someone of talking out their ass, by the way.

Im refering to your reasoning for the existance of the seperation of church and state.


Youre one to accuse someone of talking out their ass, by the way.

interestingly enough i posted a link where the IRS says a church is allowed to be involved in politics provided it does not make up a substantial amount of their income.
So a government regulation says its ok, I am willing to bet the legal definition of separation of church and state is closer to what I presented then what you have.

for the most part the only thing you get is the lemon test for separation of church and state in regards to Scotus rulings.

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.


1. would not be an issue against a church. Though could question the validity of say prop 8 that's not subject of discussion here today.

2. has to do with government actions.

3. again government actions.

As far as separation of church and state go SCOTUS has ruled on things to block government funding of religious classes, and other government actions. There really is not a ruling limiting the church. there are regulation which state they can not use a substantial part of their income to fun political action. And that they can not back a particular candidate up for election.

Should churches be tax-exempt? Why or why not?

No one (person or organisation or company) should be entirely tax-exempt. Single actions of the taxpayer (like charitable actions, non-profit initiatives etc) should be discounted from the general income, but to give an organisation a tax-exempt status because it claims to be a religious organisation violates the separation of State and religion.

No one (person or organisation or company) should be entirely tax-exempt. Single actions of the taxpayer (like charitable actions, non-profit initiatives etc) should be discounted from the general income, but to give an organisation a tax-exempt status because it claims to be a religious organisation violates the separation of State and religion.

As defined by law in the US? no.
changing the law to that I could see.

As defined by law in the US? no.

I'll take your word on it, I'm no expert in US laws.

I'll take your word on it, I'm no expert in US laws.

in the US its a vague notion and the rulings on it come from letters of Thomas Jefferson.

This far all rulings have been to restrict government action. Though churches often do have to pay taxes if part of their expenditures are taxable. Just being involved politically is not taxable in itself.
Otherwise environmental and reproductive rights groups would owe a fair bit more taxes as well.

This is wrong.

Hardly. Just how do you imagine a religous voter keeping his faith based belifes out of his choie in how the country is run?

Hardly. Just how do you imagine a religous voter keeping his faith based belifes out of his choie in how the country is run?

I already addressed I was refering to G&D's arguement on the existance for the first amendment. It was not written so that "all civil functions could be turned over to a church".

interestingly enough i posted a link where the IRS says a church is allowed to be involved in politics provided it does not make up a substantial amount of their income.
So a government regulation says its ok, I am willing to bet the legal definition of separation of church and state is closer to what I presented then what you have.

for the most part the only thing you get is the lemon test for separation of church and state in regards to Scotus rulings.


1. would not be an issue against a church. Though could question the validity of say prop 8 that's not subject of discussion here today.

2. has to do with government actions.

3. again government actions.

As far as separation of church and state go SCOTUS has ruled on things to block government funding of religious classes, and other government actions. There really is not a ruling limiting the church. there are regulation which state they can not use a substantial part of their income to fun political action. And that they can not back a particular candidate up for election.

*sigh* A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ....

The Constitution, including the First Amendment, addresses government action (i.e., "state action") and not that of non-government institutions.
So, yes, the Lemon test looks at the relevant state action.

That in no way supports your conclusion that church intermingling with the state fails to violate the First Amendment.

I'll resist my usual urge to drop in a bunch of SCOTUS quotes that are relevant.

The bottom line is that tax exemptions for churches are necessarily neither required nor forbidden by the First Amendment. Depending on the tax and the situation, however, they can be required or forbidden.

Hardly. Just how do you imagine a religous voter keeping his faith based belifes out of his choie in how the country is run?

It's simple, really. Either you have a secular reason for something, or you don't. If you don't, it shouldn't be law.

You are using the term "rubber stamped" pretty freely. Regardless, the filing of articles of incorporation is not nothing.

I started it actually. My problem is that the "default position" for churches is that they are tax-exempt, what I would like to see happen is that they have to go through the exact same process from the get-go as any other non-profit. I really don't that that is too much to ask.

Inspired by the LDS thread... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=574270)

Should churches be tax-exempt? Why or why not?

My answer later and Poll Coming

Churches tend to rely on the generosity of their congregation. so no.

However, if the church is getting income from other sources... then yes.

No, They collect vast amounts of income and should be taxed as any other business would...

Income, Employees, and Customers...what more do you want?

When I look at 'megachurches', TV churches, and generally institutions where money isn't being used in ways I think are useful to wider society, then I've the strong urge to say, "tax 'em!".

But then I think closer to home. I was brought up in the Church of Scotland (the Kirk) and, although I no longer share their faith, I've seen, and continue to see, the genuinely good work that churches do for the wider community. Drug outreach programs, soup kitchens, women's and homeless shelters, jobs for the physically and/or mentally disabled, AIDS/HIV work, half-way houses, etc. None of the programs are reliant on the participants being Christian, and there is no evangelical subtext to the work.

A quick search of their website doesn't reveal any figures (as good, dour Scottish Presbyterians, they won't be advertising it), but I remember my mother, who is involved in allocating money to some of the Kirk's charitable institutions, a few years back saying that the amount of money the Kirk spent on charitable work within Scotland was significantly larger than the State's share. (Though memory may be playing tricks, this doesn't hugely surprise me.)

The vast majority of money for these projects comes from the pockets of parishioners; which seems to me like a charitable, and thus tax exempt, donation. Perhaps not all churches in the Kirk are as altruistic as my own town's is, and perhaps not all denominations are as charitable as the Kirk, but having a blanket non-exempt status on the money the Kirk uses would be seriously harmful to Scotland.

I imagine the case is similar in many places. Like 'em or not, often a local church is the biggest charitable support a community gets.

You want into the political arena? You want to be able to tell your parishioners who to vote for and give money to the candidate that tows your religious line most to your liking? Then pay your admission like the rest of us. Tax 'em.

You want into the political arena? You want to be able to tell your parishioners who to vote for and give money to the candidate that tows your religious line most to your liking? Then pay your admission like the rest of us. Tax 'em.

That, or allow lobbying firms and PACs tax-exempt status. What a wonderful mess that would be, eh?

That, or allow lobbying firms and PAC tax-exempt status. What a wonderful mess that would be, eh?

The Dystopian Nightmare part of me...REALLY wants to see that happen, lol...