Should churches, synagogues & mosques etc. be taxed?

Should churches, synagogues & mosques etc. be taxed?

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .
Schadenfreude said:
early christian met in the houses of church leaders

as for wine etc., a glass or paper cup is sufficient

bread - you can always bake your own

what did muslims do before there were mosques?

what did christians do before there were churches and cathedrals

jews can celebrate shabbat outside or inside any building of sufficient size
Click to expand...
What they did before is irrelevant. The fact that they built cathedrals, temples, and mosques, the fact that they use wine in fancy goblets and bread prepared according to a specific religious dogma indicates a religious need for those buildings, accouterments, decorations and consumables.

Just because YOU do not see a need means absolutely NOTHING. Same goes for government. Government does not determine what a religion "needs" to properly worship in the manner they believe in. Only the religion has that ability.
 
The Founding Fathers viewed America as a place where religion was free from the oppression of governments. Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Catholics, Presbyterians (not as much, since they were free to practice in Scotland and Ulster), and anyone who was non-Anglican had come here and found religious freedom within at least their resident colony or township.

They would have viewed taxing religious bodies as evil and tyrannical, which is why the government has long established the practice of making them tax exempt.
 
Threedee said:
The Founding Fathers viewed America as a place where religion was free from the oppression of governments. Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Catholics, Presbyterians (not as much, since they were free to practice in Scotland and Ulster), and anyone who was non-Anglican had come here and found religious freedom within at least their resident colony or township.

They would have viewed taxing religious bodies as evil and tyrannical, which is why the government has long established the practice of making them tax exempt.
Click to expand...

first, christian scientists have stated that they think that religions should be taxed

second, what about religious property that is tax exempt but not used for religious purposes

third, i do not hate religions, simply think that they have produced excesses that are hardly needed for religious purposes

e.g., why a gold chalice instead of a wooden cup like jesus and the disciples used
 
Schadenfreude said:
only if the religion is irs sanctioned
Click to expand...
If you are pointing out that simply declaring an organization to be a religion does not automatically qualify them for tax exempt status - that is true. Fo instance, if you were to found the "Church of Profound Ignorance" you would have a few hoops to jump through before the IRS would accept your assertion that your organization is a religion.

Do you object to this? Should anyone, anywhere, be able to simply say "I am founding a new religion" to get tax exemption status? Should I be able to declare myself the Church of Good Luck, declare my family as my congregation, and claim tax exemption for my property? Or, should there be, as there is, a procedure to go through, and minimal standards to meet to be considered a religion for tax purposes?

And, since you bring it up, can you name a single religion which has been denied tax exempt status? Or are you just blowing anti-religion smoke?
 
Threedee said:
The Founding Fathers viewed America as a place where religion was free from the oppression of governments. Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Catholics, Presbyterians (not as much, since they were free to practice in Scotland and Ulster), and anyone who was non-Anglican had come here and found religious freedom within at least their resident colony or township.

They would have viewed taxing religious bodies as evil and tyrannical, which is why the government has long established the practice of making them tax exempt.
Click to expand...

There was actually a great argument over this during the formation of the Constitution, and some people actually DID want to tax churches, or church property. What they eventually determined was, if the government did levy tax on religious institutions, it would be obligated to provide political representation for the interests of the church. You can't tax an entity, then refuse to allow representation in government, that was precisely why we declared independence from England.
 
Threedee said:
The Founding Fathers viewed America as a place where religion was free from the oppression of governments. Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Catholics, Presbyterians (not as much, since they were free to practice in Scotland and Ulster), and anyone who was non-Anglican had come here and found religious freedom within at least their resident colony or township.

They would have viewed taxing religious bodies as evil and tyrannical, which is why the government has long established the practice of making them tax exempt.
Click to expand...

please note that protestant christians had significantly more 'freedom' than other non-protestant religions
 
Schadenfreude said:
first, christian scientists have stated that they think that religions should be taxed

second, what about religious property that is tax exempt but not used for religious purposes

third, i do not hate religions, simply think that they have produced excesses that are hardly needed for religious purposes

e.g., why a gold chalice instead of a wooden cup like jesus and the disciples used
Click to expand...

1) Good for them
2) It should still be exempt.
3) Yes, you obviously do.
 
Good Luck said:
If you are pointing out that simply declaring an organization to be a religion does not automatically qualify them for tax exempt status - that is true. Fo instance, if you were to found the "Church of Profound Ignorance" you would have a few hoops to jump through before the IRS would accept your assertion that your organization is a religion.

Do you object to this? Should anyone, anywhere, be able to simply say "I am founding a new religion" to get tax exemption status? Should I be able to declare myself the Church of Good Luck, declare my family as my congregation, and claim tax exemption for my property? Or, should there be, as there is, a procedure to go through, and minimal standards to meet to be considered a religion for tax purposes?

And, since you bring it up, can you name a single religion which has been denied tax exempt status? Or are you just blowing anti-religion smoke?
Click to expand...

yes, the church of christian psychology was declared a philosophy and not a religion

i think that to solve the problem of tax exempt status and the irs deciding what is and what is not, tax exempt status should be rescinded and all religious organizations be treated equally - why should the government be the decider as to what is or is not a religion

the original intent of the first amendment was to prevent a state religion - making them tax exempt came later and is not in the constitution
 
Threedee said:
1) Good for them
2) It should still be exempt.
3) Yes, you obviously do.
Click to expand...

3 - i do not waste my time hating, i may not like something but hate is a self consuming emotion and a waste of resources

what i do not like most about religions is that i have to pay taxes and to the extent that religions are tax exempt, increases my tax burden
 
Schadenfreude said:
please note that protestant christians had significantly more 'freedom' than other non-protestant religions
Click to expand...

As a Catholic, I am well-aware of the history of prejudice against my Church in this country. Its a large part of why German, Irish, Slavic, and Italian immigrants were hated when they first started coming over. Looking back the fact that so many sold out their faith and enabled Southern bigots to gain political power by voting for Democrats, I think they all got what they deserved. I am ashamed that my Church has done so much damage to the Republic established in 1787, and I accept the fact that I live in a country founded mostly by protestants, the Carroll family and other founding Catholics notwithstanding.
 
Schadenfreude said:
3 - i do not waste my time hating, i may not like something but hate is a self consuming emotion and a waste of resources

what i do not like most about religions is that i have to pay taxes and to the extent that religions are tax exempt, increases my tax burden
Click to expand...

Not true, as you are spending the time to advocate taxing them. We all as individuals get stuck paying taxes, including members of religious congregations.
 
Threedee said:
Not true, as you are spending the time to advocate taxing them. We all as individuals get stuck paying taxes, including members of religious congregations.
Click to expand...

are you saying that people that advocate something to the detriment of some group, do so out of hate and only hate

i want religions taxed to ease my own tax burden and i think that their exemption is unfair to the non-religious

i do not include myself in that category as i was raised believing in christian science and still find many of their tenets useful
 
I was taught, oh so many years ago, that the reason things are the way they are; is because at one time, in many European countries, if the Government then in power didn't like a specific religion, they would raise the taxes on that religion and essentially bankrupt it out of existance.
Therefore: the founding fathers wanted to make sure that no such thing could occur in this new world and wanted to insure that anyone would be able to worship as they saw fit.

AND

For those that don't believe such a thing could happen in the US, in this present day and age, you might want to think about the outcry of taxing the rich more then others.

By the way, this was taught by my History teacher.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I was taught, oh so many years ago, that the reason things are the way they are; is because at one time, in many European countries, if the Government then in power didn't like a specific religion, they would raise the taxes on that religion and essentially bankrupt it out of existance.
Therefore: the founding fathers wanted to make sure that no such thing could occur in this new world and wanted to insure that anyone would be able to worship as they saw fit.

AND

For those that don't believe such a thing could happen in the US, in this present day and age, you might want to think about the outcry of taxing the rich more then others.

By the way, this was taught by my History teacher.
Click to expand...

the solution to avoid the old european solution is to tax all religious institutions equally - who said anything about taxing one more than another anyway
 
Schadenfreude said:
are you saying that people that advocate something to the detriment of some group, do so out of hate and only hate

i want religions taxed to ease my own tax burden and i think that their exemption is unfair to the non-religious

i do not include myself in that category as i was raised believing in christian science and still find many of their tenets useful
Click to expand...

Let me ask you, let's just say for the sake of argument you have a valid point about taxation of churches (you don't, but let's suppose you do).... are you then going to be willing to allow government to provide representation for the tax revenues they would receive? In other words, when churches start funding political campaigns and 527 groups, and we are discussing whether the Catholics or Baptists will control the most seats in Congress... are you going to be alright with that? Because I think a great many churches and religious people would wholeheartedly support your idea of taxing them, if it meant religion benefited from greater representation in government.

Now... I take it, you are probably not okay with this concept, but that brings us back to why we established independence and fought a revolution over 200 years ago. You can't levy a tax and then tell the taxpayer they have no voice in government. It is called "taxation without representation" and the Constitution was written specifically to prevent that. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the standard, as recently as last year, ruling that Corporations could contribute to political campaigns. They would have to rule the same for Churches, if the Churches were taxable entities. Again, I ask you pinheads.... that's what you want? That's going to make you guys happy?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Yep, that's the way!! :good4u:
[/sarcasm]

OR

Just leave it the way it's been for a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long time.
Click to expand...

veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long time people thought the earth was flat

the longer something evil is embedded in society the harder it is to root out - but being there a long time does not make it less evil
 
Schadenfreude said:
veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long time people thought the earth was flat

the longer something evil is embedded in society the harder it is to root out - but being there a long time does not make it less evil
Click to expand...

And now you suggest that not taxing a religion, is evil.

Do they hand out your meds in the morning, the evening, or both?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top