Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Real Shared Sacrifice: It’s Time For Churches To Pay Taxes
For the past two years, there has been a fair amount of talk concerning shared sacrifice. In theory it is a reasonable concept, but in practice it is non-existent. Republicans think it is reasonable for 98% of the population to share the sacrifice so the wealthiest 2% can avoid sacrificing anything. However, there is another class of Americans who avoid sharing or sacrificing and it is high-time they start contributing to America and stop living off the government dole. As more Americans are telling the government to increase taxes on corporations and their wealthy owners to pay down the deficit, create jobs, and rebuild America’s struggling economy, a silent cult of welfare recipients escapes the public’s ire regarding shared sacrifice.
Americans are complaining that the wealthy and corporations pay too little in taxes, but at least they pay something. The religious community though, is paying nothing and it is time they start contributing to their community, state, and Federal governments for the resources they consume and damage they have wrought on this country. It is finally the time to eliminate the tax-exempt, non-profit status of every church in America whether it is the vile Southern Baptist Convention affiliates, Islamic Mosques, Jewish Tabernacles or Buddhist monasteries. At the same time, the tax code must be revised to eliminate the double-dipping statutes that allow the clergy to avoid paying the same rate of income tax as the rest of the American population. Religion has taken welfare from the American people long enough and with communities laying off fire fighters, police officers, and school teachers while struggling to make ends meet, churches of every denomination are enjoying government entitlements working Americans never receive.
There is absolutely no valid reason to give churches tax-exempt status; in fact it is unconstitutional. Religious fanatics and normal people alike give myriad reasons for why churches should not pay property tax or income tax, but they are all based on the belief that religious people are special and deserve taxpayers’ largesse. Many Americans say that churches and the clergy are doing god’s work and warrant special privileges. If they are doing god’s work, then let god give them welfare now or make them wait till they die and go wherever they think they’re going for their reward. There are other Americans who claim Christian churches deserve welfare because they are doing good work in their communities. Nurses, teachers, fire-fighters, and police officers really do good work in their communities but they are not exempt from paying their fair share in taxes.
In nearly every city in America, there are giant churches sitting on prime real-estate or agricultural land and they pay absolutely nothing in property tax even though they benefit from taxpayer-funded services like roads, law enforcement, schools, and fire protection. In most cities, when churches sponsor evangelical activities, they demand and receive police officer-assisted traffic control and often block off public streets for their events. Who pays for the police officer’s overtime pay for such events? Taxpayers foot the bill with property and sales tax dollars that they are not exempt from paying because they are not special and are not doing god’s work.
There are members of the clergy who argue that not all churches or preachers are wealthy and it is unfair to portray all churches as equal. That argument does not hold water because all taxpayers are not equal either and regardless if a family lives in a $50,000 home or a million dollar palace; they have to pay property tax based on the assessed value of their property. Some of the mega-church complexes are worth millions of dollars and they pay no taxes. Other members of the clergy argue that regardless the size of the church, they do not profit from their god-work and should be exempt from taxation. It is patently absurd that a preacher who gives one or two sermons a week, owns a home and drives a luxury car is not profiting from their work. Except for the extremely wealthy and drug dealers, there are very few Americans who have no job or visible sign of income and still own their own home or drive expensive cars. Someone is profiting from selling superstition and campaigning from the pulpit to elect conservatives who give welfare to the wealthy and religious groups. It is time to end the tax-exempt, non-profit status for these swindlers.
Any two-bit charlatan with a bible and a cross can sign a piece of paper and avoid paying taxes on the money they fleece from their congregations. The tithes and contributions from congregations are also tax-deductible because the government sees fit to give write-offs for religious contributions because churches are non-profit organizations. The clergy not only avoids paying tax on profits from their fear-mongering sermons, they get tax breaks on their income because they are…special and do god’s work? A while back, the wretched Southern Baptist Convention preacher, Rick Warren, complained that working Americans who pay no taxes want to raise taxes on 50% of Americans who do pay. Warren is a scumbag for his un-Christian hatred of the poor, plus the obscene preacher gets tax breaks working-class Americans never see, but Warren never mentioned that in his attack on the poor.
America has a revenue problem and it is unfair that churches and their clergy are not paying their share for the resources they use. In Sacramento California, the sheriff made public service announcements telling residents to arm themselves and pray if they were assaulted or robbed because the city and county had to lay-off officers because of budget cuts. Instead of revoking church’s tax-exempt status and making them pay their share of taxes, county officials issued firearm licenses so taxpayers could protect themselves. Many people claim that if churches and the clergy are not campaigning from the pulpit, they should not lose their tax-exempt status. That is nonsense because whether or not a nurse, teacher, fire-fighter, or police officer works for a political campaign, they still have to pay taxes.
Churches and the clergy have had enough welfare from taxpayers and it is time to cease the obscene non-profit, tax-exempt status. The ridiculously unconstitutional practice must stop immediately and churches should be audited and taxed retroactively from the time the church filed the non-profit form with the IRS. In communities and states, teachers, nurses, police officers, and fire fighters who actually perform a service and do good work are being laid-off while churches and the clergy get tax-exempt status and breaks for preaching fear and discrimination. The Constitution is quite clear that religion is not privileged and should not receive anything from the government; that includes exemption from paying taxes. However, as long as Americans revere the clergy and their obscene mega-churches for doing god’s work, nothing will change and that is the biggest outrage of all. It is time to correct this outrage by eliminating tax-exemption for all churches starting with Rick Warren and his mega-church for being an insensitive dirt-bag and deviant anti-tax crusader.
When the Constitution's framers wrote the Bill of Rights, they had a profound purpose for the first amen ...
The nation’s tax system offers many benefits to every citizen and none is more important than a sense of ...
The simple phrase "All men are created equal" has been called an immortal declaration, and perhaps the s ...
Most Americans comprehend that when two parties enter into a contract, they are legally bound and commit ...
One of the benefits of citizenship in America is the protection afforded to every resident based on prin ...
Sher
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
I totally agree!
shannon
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Sadly there id abuse of tax exempt for churches, but there are churches that do ease the suffering of the poor. I had $10k of hospital bills paid by some baptist organization when I tried to drink myself to death. I didn’t even believe in God and I disagree with the Baptist on many issues. But I am grateful God used them to help me when no one else could. Most organizations do very little to really help their communities compared to what the church does dollor per dollor. Hold those 2 numbers next to each other and ask if it would really make since to to tax them like Bank of America or Wal Mart. But yeah the mega church in the city my dad lives in blows up millions of dollars in fireworks each year for the 4th of July. That is absurd.
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Really? How come it is just the opposite everywhere else? I find it really interesting that they would help you to such an extent, when that is very much the exception to the rule.
As a general rule, the churches don’t have the resources to help and tell everyone so, and they demand you give back (if you work their math out, they expect more than they get – make a profit off their investment).
The government is the only ones with the resources to really help people, although the “Good Christians” try to block that too (look what the Republicans and Tea Party are doing, especially to Health Care reform)… when my wife got cancer (twice) years ago, “Good Christians” fought tooth and nail to deny her the medical care she needed, and eventually got the loopholes closed that saved her life.
How do we know they were “Good Christians”??? All we had to do is look at all the posters and plaques advertising religion in their workspace. They dominate the social services in this area, and have done so for many years.
I was still too brainwashed to see the connections back then – I was too upset that my wife had cancer and we couldn’t get it dealt with. I figured (wrongly) that the Republicans had said that if people really needed help, they could and would get it and wrongly blamed “government bureaucracy” for the problem (listening to Rush Limbaugh and the “Good Christian” preachers – who blamed the government for everything bad). I didn’t catch on to the fact that the people we had problems with were very “Good Christian”. The churches? They wouldn’t lift a single finger to help (my wife is still angry at a couple of them who actually seemed to try to make things worse for her).
Bob
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
I think your frustrations towards “Good Christians” should be directed at the health insurance company rather than any religous group.
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Health Insurance Companies? If the damned “Good Christian” business owners were willing to pay a decent wage and treat their employees fairly, I could have afforded health insurance. Their idea of fair treatment was a fist in the mouth when I interrupted a conversation about angels – I have the scar to show for it. Oh, and getting thrown against a wall because I dared disagree about them keeping my personal tools. I’ve got plenty of stories about some of the “Good Christian” business owners in this area… they were why I started my own because I got tired of being abused (did I say that they constantly insulted their employees and denigrated anything they did?).
(And minimum wage was considered being quite generous… and some I worked for took out for unemployment insurance, taxes, and other things, reducing our paychecks to far less than minimum wage.)
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 11:18 am
I forgot to add about that “Good Christian” business owner who punched me in the mouth… I was able to get our pastor to arrange a meeting between the three of us, because of the physical, mental, and emotional abuse. To my horror, instead of being about the abuse, the meeting was about my “not being submissive enough to your betters”. Both the pastor and the “Good Christian” businessman were all over me about that.
ryan
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
i think it’s about time…
rednail64
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I’m sorry about your wife’s cancer, and it is obvious from your tone that you were deeply hurt.
Please do not paint all Christians with the same brush. It is not “just the opposite everywhere else”. I encourage you to seek out a Christian community (church) that practices outreach and living out the word and works of Christ. They are out there.
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
I WILL paint all “Good Christians” the same because they ARE all the same. They try to force their politics and religion on others and wreck lives, hearts, and souls. They claim to help others and just hurt them. I know… I’ve seen decades of it (what you read was just ONE event out of MANY – read some of my other entries).
(I distinguish between the “Good Christians” who are actually anti-Christians, and REAL Christians, who are actually quite rare and who never push their faith on others.)
I finally wised up only a few years ago, and discovered that the people I’d been taught were evil and harmful and that would hurt us – the liberals and atheists and non-Christians, actually treated us like we were real people and not things to be used and abused… and they acted like the “Good Christians” wanted to think they acted. In other words, the liberals, atheists, non-Christians, Pagans, you name it – acted far more “Real Christian” than almost all of the people I’d known before in over 40 years of life.
I’m still not used to being treated like a human being, by the way. (I wish I could bold things on this blog… I wish to stress the previous paragraph quite strongly.)
For one thing, FINALLY people listen to me and don’t start blaming or condemning or preaching at me. They try to help me find ways to cope with my physical limitations (and function in spite of those limitations), rather than telling me I can do things I cannot, or denying that I have those limitations, or telling me that “If you had faith, God would HEAL you!!!” or telling me “You wanna Pity Party? You wanna Pity Party? Everyone hurts a little now and then, stop complaining!” or “There’s nothing wrong with you, GET BACK TO WORK!” That’s a very common experience for disabled people with the churches, BTW. Think about that.
I finally have people who actually try to help (without expecting something in return) and who actually WANT us around (and not just our tithes and offerings and labor) and value us as people rather than as servants/sources of labor. People who were friends and who WANTED to be friends, rather than people who were friends because they could get something out of us (or use us).
As far as community, I belong to a UU congregation. I’d bet that you will (like the rest of the “Good Christians” in this area) denounce me as belonging to a false religion and probably tell me I’m going to hell because of it (I hear that regularly). I am a UU Christian.
JP
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 10:35 am
I am terribly sorry for your difficulties. The bible tells us that calamities befall us all. There are so many so called Christians who believe and act in a way that has nothing to do with the “way” as referenced in the bible. Anyone who votes or seeks political office is not a true christian. Jesus said to be “no part of the world”. The world we live in is controlled by and ruled by the Devil or Satan. One day that will change and all the wrongs that have ever happened to anyone will be righted.
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 11:27 am
No, it’s controlled by the “Good Christians”, and as I learned in my late 40s, the people in “that world” are far more Christ-like than any of the ones I encountered in the churches (present UU church being the exception).
The people in “the world” are kind, caring, generous, forgiving, loving, accepting… the real 1 Corinthians 13 people. (They’re human too… just as “Good Christians” are… but they haven’t poisoned themselves with all of the hate and judgmentalism and religious supremacy of the churches.)
I can say this about “the world” too… when people make mistakes or are wrong, they admit it and even ask forgiveness and try to make things right -and they forgive others. The “Good Christians”??? They insisted I be punished for the slightest mistake and when I apologized for the slightest mistake, said “I’m sorry doesn’t cut it- WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT!!!???”
I just wonder how long I survived if I’d done something deliberate. Oh… but when those “Good Christian” leaders deliberately do something wrong, “You MUST forgive them!!!” “If you don’t bury it in God’s forgiveness, you’re sinning against God!!!”
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 11:35 am
I might add that I’ve been in churches all my life, and the FIRST time I was forgiven for a mistake was in my late 30s, and I was forgiven by someone not in a church.
I still remember how much that hurt. And how good it felt. Almost 15 years later.
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
A second addition – the “Good Christians” actually DELIBERATELY caused some of the calamities in our life, and I learned about it because one of those “Good Christians” woke up to the lies and became a walkaway. When I encountered him about four years after I’d walked, he apologized for being part of the things they’d done – like blocking me from getting a decent job while preaching at me that if I had more faith, I would find employment.
Shortly after that, we caught them trying to break up our marriage. It wasn’t a fun time for us. (They’ve tried to coerce us into returning to the “Good Christian” churches several times since then.)
So the Bible says that calamities befall us all? You “Good Christians” just have to make that happen, right??? And make sure it keeps happening, right???
You sound just like all of the other “Good Christians” I’ve known for most of my life, to my grief.
Kate
Sep. 13th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
Involve yourself in your government, lest the Caesar rename himself Nero and start burning you at his garden parties.
Chris
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
“I didn’t even believe in God and I disagree with the Baptist on many issues. But I am grateful God used them to help me when no one else could.”
You don’t believe in god, but you are grateful god used them? Something doesn’t make sense here.
Berrymoore
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 4:13 am
REally? I don’t believe a word you are saying. I have never heard of any church or church group, especially any baptists, doing any such thing for a drunk. Try telling your lie somewhere else. Not buying it.
redcleric
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
If you don’t believe it, it’s because you probably haven’t spent any adult time among churches–Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians or Catholics…. They all do such things
Redcleric
Kate
Sep. 13th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Episcopals (my church), Catholics, Presbyeterians, and to a great extent the Methodists and Lutherans…never heard of them?
Alex
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I’m an atheist, but I cannot condone taxing churches when they do, in fact, do a lot for the less fortunate. Churches & temples are used as overflow from homeless shelters during cold snaps here – saving people who would otherwise freeze to death – many have soup kitchens and handouts, they co-ordinate w/ the food bank and salvation army, and several congregations send their youth across the pond to do things like dig wells and build schools in third world countries. While were at it, why not tax charities?
It would also be a violation of religious freedom, but who cares about that?
Soporifix
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 12:20 am
Churches can take tax deductions for charitable work just like any other organization or person. But they should not receive an exemption solely for religious activities, especially when those activities have an implicit or explicit political motivation.
And no, it would not be a violation of religious freedom to tax religious institutions. Religious freedom applies to individuals.
SteveInChicago
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
A lot of churches do some amazing charity work, including a lot of work with the poor. My girlfriend works for an association that has a foundation which engages solely in tax-deductible charity work, and that isn’t taxed. The books are kept separately. I see no reasons why churches can’t be taxed in the same way.
Berrymoore
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 4:15 am
You are obviously no atheist. You could say the exact same thing for nurses, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, or elected officials, but, obviously, you did not read the article.
Mike
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
I agree however we need to tax Indian reservations as well.
Soporifix
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 12:21 am
Indian reservations are not taxed because the Indians were here before the United States existed.
Realist
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 5:03 am
No, Indian reservations are not taxed because they are agreed to by treaty, which is every bit as binding in us law as the constitution.
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
I just wish the conservative politicians and bureaucrats thought like you do.
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 10:18 am
To be more accurate, Tribes are NATIONS. As in having equal footing with the US Government. That’s why we have had treaties (which were for the most part kept by the tribes, but ALL were broken by the US).
And by the way, we pay taxes. The only Native Americans who don’t pay taxes live on federal reservations and live on welfare (which is a hellish and demeaning existence and the damned Republicans/conservatives want it that way – and made it that way). If you work (and we prefer to earn our own way), you pay taxes. Period. There are a LOT of people living off of reservations, and a lot of the people living on the reservations work (or want to).
Otherwise, the point is accurate, especially when you understand that the land (and my people’s possessions for the most part) were taken literally at gunpoint in most situations and without just compensation (usually without any compensation of any sort). In the southeast, our ancestors lost farms, ranches, and businesses as well as all of our lands (recently we were offered something like a dollar an acre for the land in Georgia, Alabama, and north Florida… and since we rejected it, we’ve had nothing but trouble). As recently as in the early 70s, “privately held” Indian lands were confiscated for “back taxes”. And, of course, we didn’t have freedom of religion until 1979/1980, when it was specifically given us under Federal law (which the “Good Christians” fought tooth and nail). For my tribe, that’s when we finally got the right to EXIST and regained our civil rights – denied us since the early 1800s.
I find it very offensive that someone would call for taxing the tribes. But then, “conservatives” don’t want us to exist anyway – and they don’t like people hearing or remembering that we are the poorest group of people in this nation (as a member of my tribe said – last hired and first fired). They also don’t want people to know that for the most part, my people were never justly compensated (in the eastern US, never compensated at all).
Jeff
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 6:14 am
The tax exempt status was (barely) OK when there was a true separation of Church & state. Now with so much religion being tossed into the political ring, it’s only fair that they pay their share.
publicservicelawyer
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I hate religion as much as the next guy, but I feel compelled to point out that most social clubs have nonprofit status. Fraternities and sororities, the Junior League…etc. Most of them are not the cash cows that religious organizations are, that’s true – although some other nonprofits certainly are (see: hospitals and universities, to name a few). Also, there are a LOT of executive directors/presidents/CEOs of nonprofit organizations that make a sh*t-ton of money (for example, the president of a certain small nonprofit hospital here in Washington was the highest-paid administrator in the state at one point).
What bothers me about churches specifically is that nonprofits are ostensibly not allowed to lobby and do other political activities, and churches do that every day.
Basically, our tax structure is broken in every way imaginable. I think it needs to be rewritten from the ground up – with, say, a five-page limit!
SinghX
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Churches were active during the Civil War era in the effort to abolish slavery as well the religious apologists who were for slavery in the churches of the South. Churches have pressed for laws against gambling, Sabbath-breaking, alcoholic beverages and prostitution…Today, they lobby and spend millions to enact laws against gay marriage, women health and abortion, Sharia law on and on…they never quite get the hang of liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or religion, do they?
Taxing their property would be the first thing in the right direction.
And why should they object? I’m sure all the “teabag patriots” knoooow that in 1763 (Boston), the Puritans implemented property taxes to pay for the church and the religious education of their children. Regardless of one’s religion, it was mandatory that EVERYONE pay the property tax.
So, what’s their defense? Here’s a quote from a guy who lives in Oklahoma, an “expert” in the area of church taxes who has said:
“Recently I have begun to notice, on the Internet, more demonization of churches because they are tax exempt. I have found accusations that it is unconstitutional for churches, that claim that the special treatment is an establishment of religion, that churches are rich, that their gains are ill-gotten, that giving churches tax-exempt status creates a theocracy, that they steal services from cities, and that church property takes up all the prime real estate.
All of which are false, of course, but in a corrupt, un-Godly culture that is desperate for cash, I expect these mantras to intensify.
Randy W. Bright”
Yeah, that’s the ticket; it’s the “un-godly cultures” fault!
SinghX
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Correction: Randy W Bright is not a ‘tax expert’; he is a professed expert in church related issues and he designs churches professionally (church architect). He writes all kinds of articles on evangelical issues, but mostly, he tells people to build more churches! I liked his tripping over his own, admitted facts as “un-godly” and, that every body is out just for “the cash” attitude–at least he’s honest about his intent.
Linwood Kennedy
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
I am sorry that your experience with churches (and Christians) has been as you describe. The views you attribute to churches does not apply to all religious denominations or churches. There are churches that support gay rights, even ordain gay clergy and sanction gay mariage and work for a woman’s right to choose what alternatives she and her doctor believe to be in her interest when pregnant and who have supported for years equal rights for all people with regard to race or ethnic background, gender, sexual preference, economic status, political views, who work to promote peace instead of war, who advocate fair labor laws and speak out about the vast gulf between the very rich and the poor, etc. Look at the web site of the UCC (United Church of Christ). Granted not every member agrees with these views since the UCC does not believe that it can tell people what they must believe and is open and welcoming to all people but the official position of the UCC is as I have described. Sorry that we who say we are Christians have not always been very Christian or sometimes not even very loving and accepting. Also, check out the church’s role in the founding of hospitals, universities, children’s homes, homes for the elderly, soup kitches, homeless shelters, battered women’s shelters etc. We have the same problems expressed in comments above with the religious right and extremist whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim,or others of no religion at all. We are not anti-science or anti-evolution or anti-environmentalist. Some of us Christians believe that all human beings are God’s children, including those those of other religons or who claim no faith at all. Forgive the long reply but not all religious people of whatever religion can be painted with the same brush. As Karen Armstrong points out in her books, all of the worlds’s major religious at their core and in their original intent have one thing in common–compassion.
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Two churches I would very quickly grant as having Real Christians, the UCC and the UU churches. (I’ve not had any personal first-hand experiences with UCC churches, except one preacher who kept trying to dominate the conversation – but even then he wasn’t authoritarian and his statements weren’t offensive. The second-hand reports I’ve heard and read were quite positive, and I love the UCC advertisements I’ve seen.)
There are a couple of other denominations which are quite small, that I might also admit.
None of them are Pentecostal, Dominionist, or fundamentalist in any way.
Bill in VA
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Social clubs do not pay income taxes because they are non-profits, but they do pay sales taxes on food and beverages as well as property taxes. Churches pay no sales taxes or property taxes which is the point of this excellent article.
Joe Bowker
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
I am an Agnostic-Atheist, so naturally, as a Citizen, a Disabled Vietnam Veteran, who paid for his citizenship, I believe the Churches should pay all Taxes, except that which they take in the Basket during Services.less than $200.00. But the Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, and Temples are the biggest Tax Evaders in the Country. And there is no reason why. Also, they should pay Taxes on the Gold and Silver, and Paintings, etc every year, that they flaunt while Americans starve. This is long overdue.
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
I disagree to this extent… some of the smaller churches (like our UU church) couldn’t afford to pay taxes… we barely survive as it is (and we’re the main, if not only voice of liberalism in this county). This would hurt a lot of poor people in this county, and weaken a voice (maybe the main voice) which is really on their side.
Enforcing the non-profit rules for ‘faith-based organizations” would be an easier thing to sell, and would weed out a lot of bad apples (and I’d agree with anyone who argues that most of the churches fit that description). At the least, it would force them to clean up their act, although I would also admit that most would try to find ways to get around the rules.
Requiring ministers to pay taxes on their pay… that I might get behind. Again, there are ministers who are poor and barely make enough to get by… and who do a lot of good (spoken as a social scientist who knows well and first-hand the false “good” the fundamentalists/dominionists do to society).
Reynardine
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Accord!!!
Viral Tarpara
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I agree totally with this sentiment. There are numerous 501 c3 charitable organizations besides churches that actually have no basis in dogmatic religions. The fact that there are large bad apples should not negate the impact that assessing tax on charities would have an overall negative and contracting effect on all charitable activities. It is hard enough to operate many small charities on the backs of unpaid volunteers, having to have a fixed stream of revenue to offset property taxes would be a disaster.
The point of this article is that there are bad actors in current landscape. Putting politics asides, the government should set better standards and enforce existing standards regarding political speech in 501 c3 matters. Equating all 501 c3 organizations to fundamentalist churches, mosques, and synagogues is a false choice.
Steve
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
“weaken a voice..”? You shouldn’t have a voice at all. Thats called representation withOUT taxation. The reason People wanted to break apart from Britain and is the exact thing that religious orgs in America are being granted.
And what’s everyone trying to argue against Paying taxes for the smaller churches. It would be percentages of the revenue and the issue is mainly with the largest religious orgs.
Sorry, you gotta pay something no matter how little or how many good deeds are done.
Karoli
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
While I usually agree with you on most things, RMuse, I don’t agree on this one. Churches’ tax-exempt status isn’t the problem. The problem is our lax regulatory attitude toward their institutional participation in politics.
I want churches to remain tax-exempt in order to keep them apart from the political process and reinforce church-state separation. What should happen is that the current rules about political speech should be clearly modified so that churches, as an institution, do not have the right to mount political campaigns against people they don’t agree with.
Pablo Plasencia
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
I have to make a correction as a former clergyperson: I had to pay taxes as a “self employed” person. Because of my status as a cleric, I was not allowed to take deductions that a self-employed person who did not work as a cleric could.
It is a misconception to say that clergy do not pay taxes. To be sure, there are those that would abuse any corporate structure: taking a vehicle registered in the church’s name for personal use and so on. God knows that there are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” that seek to fleece the flock. They should be called out and brought to account for their sins and criminal activity. But, they should be held to neither a higher or lower standard than any other member of another profession. And, from my nearly 20 years experience, they are the minority.
I do agree that churches should pay taxes. But let’s don’t promulgate a misconception about the clergy to make that case.
Mykelb
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I have been saying this for YEARS. The problem is not the tax code, it is that the IRS has been so squeezed for money/resources (by the Republicans) that they don’t have enough enforcement officers to investigate and take away the 501c3 status of churches that violate the law. Since the law is not being enforced, it needs to be scrapped. Let the Joel Osteens, the Catholic Bishops, the SBC billionaires pay their fair share just like the rest of us slobs.
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
One thing about that… when a liberal-leaning Episcopal priest preached a sermon involving a debate between Jesus, Kerry, and Bush, they went after the church. Yet they don’t go after the dominionists (unless they get TOO obvious and offensive).
Selective enforcement is as much a problem as lack of resources.
Hubert Thompson
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
This article is confused. Churches DO pay water bills, garbage bills, sewer bills, etc., for the local government services they use. Ministers DO pay income tax on their salary & sales tax on what they buy. Church members pay taxes, along with everyone else, that pay for the public schools and police and the roads they drive on. So what are you talking about? All non-profit groups, including private schools and universities (some with billion $ endowments), ethnic clubs, fraternal lodges, humane societies, hospitals, etc., as well as churches, temples, & synagogues, are exempt from property tax on their real estate, because society recognizes that they are supported by gifts from our taxpaying neighbors who are their members. Do you really want to tax people a second time because they gave to charity? You could not tax religious groups’ property without taxing all other nonprofit groups’ property. Is that what you want? And you want to give up the personal income tax donation for charitable giving too, I see; that’s going to be popular. And in the case of religious organizations, it’s also blocked by a little thing we call the 1st Amendment. You want to repeal the Bill of Rights while you’re at it?
john
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
amen
SinghX
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
The churches received a “pardon” on taxes during the great depression because it was obvious; every penny they had and took in was used feeding, medicating, housing the poor; churches and the government worked hand in hand at that time.
In 1954 the Johnson Bill was introduced as a away to find church abusers and the 1st Amendment was used to over-turn it (see Barry Lynne’s argument for revisiting it).
Today, watching the movie “Religiolous” and hearing preachers pronouncing that “god wants me to wear alligator shoes and gold rings” I’m pretty sure the money isn’t going to the soup kitchens, etc. There are thousands of examples like this that can be sited(can’t remember that church-family in Phoenix that bilk people for millions and paid themselves “abundantly”) but the issue is PROPERTY TAX on all real estate.
These mega-church properties should be pulling up their expensive landscaping to plant gardens to feed others, set up temporary housing for the homeless, instead they make people “qualify” before helping them (see Saddleback Church). There’s a certain large religious group that resides primarily in one state…you know, the churches of no windows, the ones that do not invite anyone from the community to worship with them, the ones who only provide if you are a member on their “list”…yes, audit them, tax them. Revisit the Johnson Bill and revise it so that the freedom of speech prevails, but always know, there is no freedom which is “free”.
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Absolutely. I’ve posted in a response lower in the thread about where the money collected (sold as going to help people) actually goes when it’s a “faith-based” organization.
Preachers and “Ministers” get the lion’s share. Especially as they often double as the director of the shelter/”ministry” that their church sponsors.
LK Snider
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
“And you want to give up the personal income tax donation for charitable giving too, I see; that’s going to be popular. And in the case of religious organizations, it’s also blocked by a little thing we call the 1st Amendment.”
Since about only one in four people actually have enough deductions to itemize on their tax returns, and not all of those who do actually claim charitable deductions, eliminating the charitable deduction would not be the “mind-blowing” event you think. And for those people who won’t donate because they no longer get to deduct those donations…it isn’t “charity” if you expect someone to give you something for it, including the U.S. government. And although the First Amendment may protect your right to give money to a church as you please and you can call it “free speech”, contrary to your point, it doesn’t guarantee you a right to deduct that “donation” on your tax return. Nor does it give a religious organization a free pass when it comes to taxation or the lack thereof…that was created by legislators and was not the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Linwood Kennedy
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
And what many do not know is that clergy pay self employment taxes (twice the amount paid into social security by employees).
S Ben Rich
Sep. 11th, 2011 at 1:22 am
Religion is a business. Businesses are supposed to pay tax on income and property taxes on assets. Religion has income from donations and fund raising, including selling so called religious products, books, tapes, prayer cloths, special blessings, etc, etc. Religion has property which accounts for million and billions of dollars. They spend tax free dollars to build tax free buildings which brings in more tax free income. Any business including the religion business is part of the community, whether the city, state or country. And they have an obligation to share in the costs associated with that community,such as; Police, fire, hospital and related services. If they do good works with the money they take in they should be given a tax break for that, things like; feeding the poor, paying medical bills, etc. They should not be allowed to just give huge compensation to preachers, asst. preachers, family members of preachers, etc. We all should be able to get tax credit for donations to legitimate, charitable organizations. Telling people what to believe and how to vote is not a charity, it’s part of the business.
dmx
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Why not start “small”. Don’t try and take on the U.S. Tax Code. (It’s bigger than the entire known universe, for starters.) Let’s have churches pay property taxes. These taxes pay for the services they directly receive every day and benefit the communities they own property in.
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
That’s what I’m talking about… if we had to pay out any more, our church would probably have to close its doors, unless we got a miracle and “less poor” people started helping. That would eliminate one of the few voices that truly supports the poor (and doesn’t blame them for everything from the economy to hangnails).
Sally
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
I attend a small Brethren church that sits on two prime lots in my town. We also own a home across the street that was off the tax roles for years whether we had a pastor in there or not. We are now renting it, so we are paying taxes on the house. I think the rental would also cover any property taxes we might owe. I think that is perfectly reasonable…it would give cities and towns a new revenue source when the feds are acting like spoiled children. We are the voice of pacifism in our town, and that would continue. Frankly, if it got to where we couldn’t pay property taxes, we could sell the ‘parsonage’ and maybe a lot. I’d support all of that.
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
We don’t have those options, and have unmet needs (like a roof that needs repair). So even the slightest extra expenditure forced out of the “church coffers” would be devastating.
DMX
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Apparently your particular religious organization is so marginal that any additional expense will destroy it. So why get upset about property taxes? Paying property taxes is no different from paying your electric bill, or paying for a new roof. If your electric company will donate all your electricity to you or your roofer will work for free, then God Bless You. But why should local taxpayers be giving you something no one else gets? And let’s not even mention the separation of church and state issue.
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 10:24 am
“Destroy it”… you’d like that, wouldn’t you DMX?
The “Good Christians” want us destroyed because we’re Unitarian Universalists and don’t fit their mold (and are in direct opposition to the things they do). I’ve heard fundamentalist atheists call for the destruction of all religions because they don’t believe in them.
Which are you?
Poverty admittedly is a marginal existence. Why make it any harder for the poor?
Kate
Sep. 13th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Sounds like my church (a tiny stone church of the Episcopal flavor, doesn’t even seat 100 people when packed full). We barely had enough money to construct the gathering hall (which does double duty as a cafeteria and clinic waiting room (we run a completely no-cost clinic two days a week for any residents of our county)) and offices (that also double as basic patient care rooms)…before that we were running all our affairs out of a double-wide trailer in the back yard.
We’re still struggling to make ends meet, even after massive, unbelievably generous (considering their income) donations from parishioners. Sheer grace of God that we managed to pull through the past year.
Throw property taxes into that? We’d go down like a cheap whore on a rich man. We’d be done for.
As soon as I get myself situated in a decent job, I plan on giving a thousand a month back to the church (I swore to myself that I would do that, they’ve helped me medically, emotionally, spiritually…every way a person can be helped)…but that still won’t be enough. Have to face the very real fact that we might have to wear some very thick coats to Christmas Mass, the heat might be turned off if we can’t pay the bills.
Mikeyhatesit
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
This is what I love about this site- I just ranted in the comments of the “Religious Test” article, hit send, and realized I had another thought. When I refreshed the home page, I find Rmuse’s article discussing exactly what I wanted to add. Awalkaway & Karoli both mentioned the points I would have added to that superlong rant. Thank you, Politicus for assembling a prescient group of rational thinkers!
Yes, churches need to stay out of politics precisely because of the amount of influence they can wield. They should be non-profit, held to specific standards of political neutrality.
Aren’t most faiths supposed to be about the core of a person, and improving that? The soul, or whatever one wants to call it, should focus on being the best that it can be, right? So I do feel that centers of worship can do good things for the community, like eliminating poverty and violence. As long as they try to improve things for everyone, regardless of faith, I’d be ok with certain exemptions. But they still need to pay municipal taxes, because that is another way to contribute.
Plus, even as a kid, I never thought having a gift shop that turns a profit looked good, unless the proceeds actually went to a philanthropic program, as opposed to mansions and luxury cars for the staff… Ostentation is never a good look for someone who’s supposed to care for the needy.
S Ben Rich
Sep. 11th, 2011 at 1:33 am
I agree 100% and I will give you an example. John Hagy of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio. He lives in the same gated community as David Robertson and other Spurs. He drives luxury cars and he pays very little in taxes. Plus, and I attended one of his sermons, he rants about liberal, homosexuals and people who believe differently from him. He is one of the factors who keep the poor, poor by leading them to Republican candidates who will fight for the wealthy and you know what on the poor.
Scotia Colleen
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
I agree and this is a great essay! I really never thought of this idea before but it makes sense to me. Besides, in my view God never intended for these churches, temples, mosques or whatever to be built. Time for them to pay their fair share for the common good.
Eykis
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
As a resident of the Bible Belt, Land ‘O MegaChurches, the South, there is some kind of church on every corner, in every strip mall, unused building, paying zero property taxes or income taxes. These mega-teevee churches actively promote politics and have their weekday evenings chock full of “special guest speakers” whom they PAY to come and speak about politics, 99% right-wing BS. They receive free promotion and airtime on Hate Radio, commericials for churches always seem to be followed by the “gun stores, shooting ranges, self-defense classes, get your gunz out” advertisers.
They should be REQUIRED to pay income and property taxes if they have congregations over 150 people. There are churches in Nashville that boast 30,000 members where their sanctuaries are stadiums and are filled to the brim to the extent they hold services on Saturday and Sunday – all the while claiming to be non-denominational. They are the DOMINIONIST churches.
Then, while at work, particularly in a law firm or company of any size, these dominionists are CONTINUOUSLY sending out emails (okay by management) where these same Dominionists BEG for money for their so-called mission trips. Everyone is expected to give anything from money to musicial instruments. When the mission trips occur, there are then constant emails regarding the “the faith these people show by placing themselves in danger” in PLACES where they are NOT WANTED.
I have NEVER understood why these “church people” feel the need to go into other cultures and “spread the Word”. That is something that has confused me my entire life and I grew up in the Catholic Church. I got into a lot trouble in catechism class for asking questions like, “Why is this God better than their God”.
TAX THEM ALL, THEY ARE POLITICAL LOBBYISTS, particularly the mega-churches.
Hugh Askew
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Interesting, ignorant, bunch of opinions here, in the main.
If you want to tax churches, then you will have to tax ALL non-profits – including, but not limited to, Planned Parenthood, labor unions, food banks, Boy Scouts, veterans organizations, etc.
Then, you will have to remove ALL of the restrictions, on all of the non-profit groups – churches included – regarding political speech, campaigning, lobbying, etc.
Add to that the fallout from folks having to cut back on the giving to non-profits, because their gifts would no longer be tax-deductible. I’m sure that will work well for everyone.
In short, unless the author intends to target ONLY churches, there ain’t a prayer of it happening. Targeting only christian churches is surely unconstitutional, but I doubt that will stop the writers tirades, such is his hated. Interesting, that he is preaching to the choir. Perhaps he would qualify as a non-profit?
LK Snider
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Your choice to donate to a religious organization is your choice…and if the only reason you give is for the tax deduction, then it isn’t a charitable donation, it’s a tax incentive. And your choices should not be subsidized by the American taxpayer in the form of tax deductions.
Ninjayogi
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I am a fundamentalist christian, so here is my take. Most churches have a congregation of several hundred people or so in them, some of the mega-churches have tens of thousands of parishioners. If you go to any church, or at least any one that I have ever been too, no one ever talks politics. Do you know why, because if they do they will lose their tax exempt status. So…. Take away their tax exempt status, I dare you!!! Once you do, they will all become bastions of christian political activism. Imagine preachers and congregations all over the country getting on the same page about what needs to be done, tens of millions at one time. IT would be awesome. So before you make blind prejudicial statements about what should be done, put more research into it because by getting your wish you could start your own nightmare.
Sarah Jones
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I don’t know where you live, but where I live, churches tell you who to vote for in the signs outside of their building and they accuse Obama of being a Muslim and they advocate for Republican policies and they fight legislation like Prop8. IF they are doing those things do you think they deserve to be tax exempt and why do you suppose Jesus wants political power?
Ninjayogi
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Christians want people who are in office who represent them, just like you. If there are churches that are doing this, which I doubt, put you money whee you mouth is and turn them into the ACLU. I live in Illinois right in the bible belt, and while individual people will put signs in their yard, and make comments about Obama absolutely no churches do. BTW I voted for Obama, which is obviously not advocating Republican policies so all Christians aren’t against Obama. Does Jesus care about politics? Read the bible I think you would find that he did. Become educated about other people belief systems instead of arrogantly assuming that yours is the only right and just way. Based on your comments I can honestly say that you are no better than those people you are complaining about.
Sarah Jones
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
“just like you”. You know nothing about me but assume you do because I don’t think churches should be telling people how to vote so you assume I am not a Christian while denying that churches do this stuff? Prop 8 ringing a bell? Way to be American. Pool closed.
Jay
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Churches that tell people who to vote for can lose their tax exempt status.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
I hate to say it but the Bible belt is a little bit south of you. And down here in Baptist churches they bash president Obama every Sunday. So yeah, they need to be paying taxes
LK Snider
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
You’re damn right they should!
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
I am a Christian (born with a relationship with God, which the fundamentalists/dominionists have tried to kill) and I disagree with you.
I’ve seen too many evil “Good Christians” who advertised their faith yet did what they could to micromanage (and destroy) the lives of the people around them. Something else I’ve observed… the prevalence of pedophilia among “Good Christian” churches… the more fundamentalist or dominionist, the more likely little girls will be raped by the pastor or someone in a leadership position. The more people advertise their faith and try to force it on others (which is what having a “Good Christian” representative would entail), the more likely there is some really dirty laundry hidden behind the scenes.
If you wish to REALLY be Christian, focus on what Jesus DID, and on the people He cared for, and stop trying to force Him on everyone else. If He IS the Son of God, then you don’t need to help Him reach other people – deal with your own soul and your own issues; you don’t have the right to dictate what others should be doing/dealing with and especially shouldn’t be interfering with their relationship with God. If Jesus isn’t the Son of God, well, you should at least try to follow his teachings and help the people he tried to help (and if He isn’t, wouldn’t it be rather stupid to try to force Him on others?).
My faith is close to being moribund, thanks to the “Good Christians” and their churches. Regarding their behavior, the word offensive is too mild.
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I walked away from “Fundamentalist” churches, and every one – EVERY ONE pushed politics (conservative Republican and I hear they now advocate for the Tea Party and the “Constitution Party”). Even the mainstream churches down here did… or they had “Fundamentalist Christians” in the church who did so with tacit approval from clergy (the churches in this area are mostly steeplejacked). I don’t believe in a “Fundamentalist” church that doesn’t. I also have come to strongly believe that “Fundamentalist Christian”= LIAR and deceiver. (To the point where they deceive themselves.)
No, based upon my experiences, if we cracked down on the unlawful activities in the churches, they wouldn’t become bastions of “christian political activism”, they would take up arms and start MURDERING everyone they didn’t like. Yes, I am saying that they would start committing TERRORISM once we try to get them to obey the law. Shoot, they’re doing it already – ever hear of “The Army of God”???
You see, “Good Christians” already have threatened elderly members of my family (ordered them to “shut him up!”), torched my workshop, poisoned some of my kitties, and spraypainted hateful (racist) graffiti on my driveway. They’ve blocked me from getting jobs in the past (may be still doing so), tried to break up my marriage, and so on. So I KNOW how vicious and hateful (and violent) “Good Christians” are. Oh, I should call them right – FUNDAMENTALIST “Christians” (IMO fundamentalists and dominionists are anti-Christians).
Why did they commit those terrorist acts against me? Because I dared disagree with them and said things like “You can accept that evolution is a fact (IT IS) and still believe in Jesus”.
Zeus2You
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
I think it’s shameful that anyone would consider these ideas seriously. We’re talking about a group of our fellow citizen who are forced everyday to live with a grave mental illness.
I personally feel so sorry for them. Can you imagine the stress of being constantly watched and graded by an invisible friend in the sky or the self loathing that must accompany being required to answer facts with “but, but… this book I’ve never actually read completely says different, or at least that’s what this other guy said.”
These people deserve our tears and pity not more worries and responsibilities.
Ninjayogi
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
ROFL!!! Seriously…
Panorama
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
This is one the main reasons I joined and practice under the Church of the Subgenius. They pay their taxes.
Michael Clark
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
I don’t know where you got your information, but i have never gotten a break on my income tax in all my years as a pastor. i pay the same income tax that my neighbors do. and, if i’m lucky enough to get a tax break, then i’m like all other americans who occasionally get tax breaks (earned income credit, non-profit donations, etc.). so get it right! i pay the same income tax you do.
A Walkaway
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
And I’ve heard several pastors brag about not paying taxes (when they thought none of the people listening to them would advertise the fact – if they did, suddenly “I pay taxes like everyone else!”).
If you do so and voluntarily (and accurately report your income), you are more worthy of respect than most.
Bob
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Sure, as soon as the NAACP, RAINBOW (to name a few) and any minority, or majority owned not-for-profit follow suit. Instead of stupid ideas like this article, raise taxes on people that make more than 100K, but then again its not higher taxes that will get us out of this hole we’re in. Create tarrifs for products made in China, stop buying things made in China from Walmart, and for God sake abolish Unions, they’re costing us (the consumers) jobs and more money. Stop letting china steal our technology and resell it to us at a lower cost. Setup a Tax code that would allow our industry to rebuild the lost jobs. Make Made in America mean something again. /end rant….
Church
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
If churches must now pay taxes, churches get to call out the corrupt politicians for the motherless bottom feeding criminals that they are and no more “you can talk about this but not that in church”. Is it a deal?
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Which church are you?
john
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
the situation is far worse than not paying taxes, with W’s faith based initiative we are paying THEM
Dana Corby
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
I am not anti-religion. But I have been advocating for taxing the churches for all the sensible reasons listed in this article for a good 30 years. It would go a long way not only toward filling the public coffers but toward eliminating much hypocrisy and corruption. If one’s livelihood depends on one’s popularity, one tends to give the audience what will keep it coming back and coughing up, true or not. Thus the institution of paid clergy corrupts the very religions it strives to promote. If you love [insert deity name here] and believe you are fitted to promulgate your faith, by all means do it for the love of doing it and support yourself elsewhere. Otherwise, you’re in it for the money and power and ego-boo, and do not deserve to be in a position of authority over anyone.
mentiroso!
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
since when do priests own luxury cars? mine owns a 98 Camry…
SinghX
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 8:35 am
The head honcho of the Catholic Diocese in Phoenix was driving his new Benz drunk when he hit a child a couple years ago…and funny thing is, he got off. Maricopa County has the strictest drunk driving laws in the country, but, I guess Sheriff Joe thought it wasn’t worth it to put him in “tent city” like everyone else who would have committed the same crime.
Jay
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
What’s really obscene is the call for churches to pay taxes, or clergy to have a housing allowance tax break ended. Here’s why:
1. Most churches are poor and (aside from salaries and upkeep) spend all their resources supporting those who are ignored by society.
2. Most clergy make less than similar education would afford them in a secular field. I know this. I am a pastor.
3. Most pastors work more hours than most in similar secular fields. I average 55-60 hrs per week, no overtime pay.
4. The government would would be worse off if churches paid taxes. Many poor would no longer receive their assistance and church income would not bring in much tax revenue.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Let me ask you this, and not in an accusatory manner. Republicans are telling people that the churches will take care of their needs and they wont have to pay taxes to help the poor.
However in order for the churches to do this they must get vast amounts of money from the government. How do you feel about the churches supplying help to the poor and the unemployed, in lieu of the government doing it?:
LK Snider
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
What I see around here are churches that build bigger and bigger buildings, and offer programs for their congregations. The buildings are generally empty except for a couple days a week and the outreach to the community is sparse. Where does the money go? Into the building fund…to build an even larger building on another piece of property so they can get even more money. Yes, their are many good Christians in the world, and some of them don’t even belong to a christian faith, but their morals and acts are more Christ-like than many so-called believers. However, many church members, because I won’t call them “Christians” act as though christian behavior is only necessary on Sunday, and/or Wednesday, and doesn’t apply to their public or professional acts. As long as they “go to church”…all’s good. Oh and let’s not forget that “their” religion is the ONLY RIGHT religion. Their “Reader’s Digest” version of the Bible is made up of the passages which denounce the actions of others while ignoring their own ignorant beliefs.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
And the ministers are millionaires.
The Tim Channel
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 4:43 am
Wrong on so many levels. Let’s recap.
1. If your church ‘fails’ because of the burden of a few percent in taxes, you’ll be forced to get a (real) job that pays more than you make now. Your failure will be a result of YOUR lack of ‘pastor skills’ as you will note that many successful churches still remain.
2. You’ll be making more money (according to you) and so will the state–on the taxes you’ll be paying that you formerly didn’t. You’ll apparently also be working fewer hours. This extra money and free time you find yourself awash in? Give it to the poor if you think God would be happy with that. You won’t be taxed on money you give directly to poor people instead of the church.
3. The taxes from all the former pastors now making more money and paying taxes, as well as the taxes from all the churches that won’t fail, will be used to provide for the services that you say you currently provide. The only difference is that people in need won’t have to pray to an imaginary God to get it.
As to you personally? Well, we’ve never met, but I expect you are an outspoken and gregarious type of person. The type of guy who doesn’t mind meeting and greeting people on a daily basis. Wal-mart is always looking for that type of person. All preachers ought to work a year or two at the nation’s largest employer so they can get a feel of how their congregation sees the world. I’m betting that there would be a lot less angst thrown at the working poor from the pulpit if that were the case.
4. Public prayer is against Christianity in the first place, as noted in these amazingly unambiguous verses:
Gospel of Matthew chapter 6, verses 5-6
When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Enjoy.
Roxane Paczensky
Sep. 9th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
These economic times are probably the worst times to start taxing churches who do charitable works. Their charitable works are the last redeeming feature they have, because less and less people believe in their gods anymore. Taxes could be applied to the business arms of their operations however, and they avoid those taxes because everything they do is lumped together. We should require all faiths seperate off their charity functions from their business functions and tax the business side of what they do at the same rates as everyone else. If hey operate both chaaritable services and business services out of the same location the percentage of use that locaation is devoted to business should be taxed according to the taxation rules everyone else must abide by.
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 10:57 am
The problem is, the churches long ago learned how to hide their “business arm” under their “Charitable works”. The bad ones do this deliberately and very creatively.
Then there is the very real problem with the “Charitable works”. One of the things I learned in my graduate work was that a general rule of thumb is that the more religious an organization was, the worse they treated people. I regularly got reports of theft by “Good Christian” groups – stealing from homeless people (in dominionist-run homeless shelters). Another nasty trick from the dominionist-run shelters was requiring cash for services… so much for a place to sleep, so much for a shower, so much for a bit to eat, and so on. You don’t pay, you don’t play. (Fundamentalist-run organizations are only very slightly better, and mainstream church organizations only marginally better.) I have documentation of flat-out blaming homeless people for their homelessness – and the words used are cruel and abusive (confidentiality forbids me from releasing the documents to the public, however). I also have evidence of the most cruel form of coerced proselytizing… but as I’ve learned over the years, that’s typical of “Good Christians” anyway. They do so love a captive audience, especially one that is vulnerable and susceptible to mental and emotional abuse.
Another nasty commonality to religious-based shelters and programs for the poor are repressive and invasive rules. For a while, homeless people were not allowed to have cell phones, or even anything ‘nice’ (“You’re too poor to have luxury items!). Problem is, not having a phone made getting a job that much harder because prospective employers couldn’t reach them. Homeless people in general face having any pets confiscated and destroyed “because they can’t take proper care of them”… and the more religious an organization is, the more they pressure people to ‘give up’ “things” like little ones that love their person (granted, most shelters won’t accept pets anyway). The more religious, the more likely they will try to enforce conservative “Family values”, and I’ve interviewed single-parent families where they tried to force the parent to give up the children for adoption (or pressured them to get married) – yes, they were breaking up families that didn’t fit their stereotype. (If it was a gay couple, forget it!!!) One single father (disabled) I interviewed was nearly in tears because he’d finally found a shelter that didn’t try to force him to give up his (young) teenage son – the more religious ones tried to take his son away!!! He didn’t fit their stereotype, and they didn’t want to accept his disability, although he was lucky enough to get on Social Security.
(They also often push people to get on disability and food stamps, and then require those for the “services” they provide.)
On their “Charitable giving” funds… they’d take in thousands and thousands of dollars, most of it would go to the top person (or people) in the organization, and a little bit would trickle down to the people in need. One organization I “looked at”, over 60% of the money for salaries went to the director of the organization, a major portion of what was left went to the next rung, and those below them didn’t make enough to survive if they didn’t have second jobs (or a spouse with a good income). The structure of that organization was very pyramid shaped, by the way… one director, a handful on the next rung, a third rung, and then the wide bottom rung with caseworkers and other employees (including clients). I’ve also encountered organizations where they solicited funds to help the homeless and very poor, but as I found out (from what was told by clients who are more observant and intelligent than they give them credit for), much if not most of those funds were plowed back into the church and to the preacher – and used for proselytizing and attacking other churches.
BTW… the organization with the pyramid structure? The director had a large six-figure income. The next rung, five-figures. The staff and caseworkers? Not so much – insufficient for a single person to live and rent a single-bedroom apartment in the county.
Philly2tone
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Maybe we should address the 47% of Americans who don’t pay any income tax first?
Berrymoore
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 4:22 am
Like who? Got that info from Fox News, huh? And, you believe them? WOW.
Ashe
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 3:33 am
I think the logic behind that argument a bit weak. Workers pay taxes but the government rarely acts in their interest. Business pays taxes but Government often acts in ways which reduce the money they get from business. In the end the elected bit of government acts in the interest of those who fund their campaigns; not those who pay for the governments activities. The churches already contribute to campaigns. Through direct donations as well as contributions of volunteers.
The Tim Channel
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 4:18 am
The churches have been trying to eliminate the wall between church and state. Little did they know that folks like this author would use the holes they’re cutting to undermine the very attack the church was engaged in.
Tax the churches like you tax any business. Enough with all the fanciful nonsense. They’ve proven that for the most part, they’re a political movement, not a religious one.
Enjoy.
matt
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 6:24 am
This is an absolutely terrible idea. Separation between Church and State does not just mean the State is Independent of the Church. The activities of the Church SHOULD NOT be regulated by the STATE. 501(C)3′s are tax-deductible–that includes churches. Should everything you donate be taxed?
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Thanks for showing your dominionist tendencies.
Churches influence government, but government has no business regulating churches? BULLSHIT!
I don’t want to live in your “Good Christian” world… and have the right not to (and don’t tell me to leave either).
Josh Cheney
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 7:53 am
As a follower of Christ, and a member of a church, I would simply like to say that you are making generalizations about groups of people who self-identify, and those generalizations are no more valid than generalizations about people who call themselves “good drivers”. Simply because someone has chosen to incorporate their organization under a particular banner doesn’t mean anything, because to the best of my knowledge there is no assessment, objective, or subjective, as to whether that organization effectively implements the ideals that they purport to uphold.
I give money to my church, and a number of other faith-based organizations, not because of the tax break, but because of the work that I see, and assist in, doing. I see the budgets, and I’m aware of where my money is going and what it is being used for. There is no possible way that an outsider can look at what we do in each of those organizations and claim that they exist for any reason other than their stated purpose.
As an example, one of the organizations that I support is Neighbors First (www.neighborsfirst.org). We are currently working on securing housing for an elderly lady whose home is basically falling in around her. She has a single faucet that runs cold water in the house, and uses an outhouse in her backyard. Would the state be able or willing to help her retain her dignity and ability to live independently? No. We are providing her with a new place to live, a proper septic system, a new well, and a shining example of what Christians are supposed to be doing.
in 2010, 94% of every dollar that was given went directly to projects. Tell me, is there any governmental agency that is that efficient?
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Read my reply a few posts up. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
94%???
BULLSHIT!!!
SinghX
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
You said, “…As a follower of Christ, and a member of a church, I would simply like to say that you are making generalizations about groups of people who self-identify, and those generalizations are no more valid than generalizations about people who call themselves “good drivers”….
[Almost all the comments her are directed toward specifics (not "self-identified) that are identifiable; no where near "generalizations". Secondly, your ambiguous run-on sentence is the perfect example of what T. Roosevelt warned us against; " using weasel words" (I think it's the same as "Walkaways' comment).]
You said…”Simply because someone has chosen to incorporate their organization under a particular banner doesn’t mean anything, because to the best of my knowledge there is no assessment, objective, or subjective, as to whether that organization effectively implements the ideals that they purport to uphold…”
[The entire article has nothing to do with "incorporating" anything or anybody. The article is an objection to a group of people who, for the purpose of spirituality, have (arguably with intent) created more than just a place to worship, but a place that brings in income and supports a business structure AND, that they are not taxed. Period.]
[It DOES indeed means a lot when people who organize under the banner of "worship" (self-identify...I like that one!) ban together to preach/judge "asses" others "subjectively" under the pretext of their "branded" morality. These "good christians" (as my friend "Walkaway calls them) collect very large sums of money to spend on their "projects" in oders to "effectively implement their ideals"...Prop 8 is a perfect example.
These "self-identifies worshipers" are not merely "selling their product" in our communities, but using their "product" to strip people of their "dignity" and their "ability to live independently". If they get their way, millions of gay people will be socially and economically discriminated against (even punishment) as this is their "shining example of there efforts" to organize "good christians" on a project of what they're supposed to be doing.]
If your in a group that is “self-identified” and are directly contributing to one person’s life in your community, good for you. However, there are thousands of “openly” secular groups just like yours doing the same thing, some funded by “government” under a variety of different agencies, like the police/fireman/army reserve family support groups, to name few…
Tom
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 8:14 am
Spiritual growth and activities do not require dedicated buildings, complex organizational structure that diverts attention, or money. The most meaningful and sincere spiritual endeavors that I have experienced have involved small group meetings in homes or after-hours offices or 12 step groups that shun such trappings and distractions. All organizations that build organization and fundraise seem to stray from their original altruistic intentions.
A Walkaway
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 11:02 am
While that is correct in some ways, at the same time the dominionist churches use “cell churches” to spread their control and influence. As researchers have found, the “cell church” is the absolute worst for coercion and brainwashing – they’ve been found to even completely invert people’s personalities (to one that is more easily controlled and manipulated).
Even the 12-step programs are considered suspect at some level, and should be watched carefully.
Otherwise, I’d agree…
SinghX
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 8:43 am
This is a great discussion! I’m linking to a sight that answers a lot of the ‘back and forth’ head on with facts. There may be some you agree and some you disagree, but these folks have done some homework.
taxthechurches.org/
Brian
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 9:41 am
I don’t want the churches taxed. Sure there is abuse here, there is always abuse in every system. However, I also despise being lumped in with the abusers. Whenever the topic of “church” and “state” come up people like Perry, the right wing, and the extremist evangelicals are brought up. I am a church going liberal democrat. I don’t think my church should be influencing public policy, and I don’t think the state should be influencing my church. Period. If some politician wishes to proclaim their faith as a bridge to voters shame on them. Your faith is yours, using faith or your religion for political gain will be handled later by God. For non-believers this is a hard thing to grasp I know. For the extremist evangelicals it is even harder to grasp. Your intention, your drive, your choice in life is the ultimate governor of your reception and judgement. It matters not how others judge your faith, only God. Religion and your faith in God is ultimately your personal choice and should be something intimate between you and your God. Involving the state, grandstanding on your belief, or using your religion as a sounding board for all that is wrong in the world is actually what is wrong in the world. Separate. Apart. Removed. My state provides services through my taxes. My church provides a framework for worship through its teachings. Do not cross the streams! I live by my faith and respect the laws of my state. I ask no more of any other man, woman or child. This conversation needs to end and we need to get on with living our lives in the best way we see fit for our country, our state, our city, our neighborhood, and for our church or lack there of. End of story.
SinghX
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
…”Do not cross the streams! I live by my faith and respect the laws of my state. I ask no more of any other man, woman or child. This conversation needs to end and we need to get on with living our lives in the best way we see fit for our country, our state, our city, our neighborhood, and for our church or lack there of. End of story.”…
Wow…End of story? Everybody should just “shut up” and let these abusive churches alone do whatever because, after all there are “abusers” in every system? So…Silence,looking the other way is your answer, huh?
I find it hard to comprehend that a “liberal democrat” who professes to “live by your faith and respected everyone”, sounds as if they are a wee-bit threatened, and, are definitely threatening others by telling everyone to just “shut up”, end the conversation, get on with your lives and just mind their own dang business…you’re not so silent now.
How come?
The stream was crossed along time ago. Once the radical fundamentalist jumped in screaming that their mythological beliefs were absolute truths/”scientific facts” in order to justify their bible as a “rational” way of life, the water was polluted….
All the while, you and other “good christians” enabled them, looked the other way at their “unchristian” behaviors, their killing abortion doctors, protesting at soldiers funerals, threatening gay people…you looked away, silently. You made your “personal choice” as a “christian”.
So,don’t come here telling people who want to do something about these “bible barbarians” that…”This conversation needs to end and we need to get on with living our lives in the best way we see fit for our country, our state, our city, our neighborhood, and for our church or lack there of. End of story…”
luqman
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 9:41 am
This is a terrible idea and will never work. It will infuriate people of all religions and cause them to vote against the Dem party for this reason alone. I think your energy would be better focused elsewhere. Also my church, which welcomes people of all sexual orientations and economic status gives way more back to the community than we take. We use the large kitchen to make meals for the sick. We use the building to warehouse dry goods for the poor. We use the meeting rooms for AA and GLB support meetings. Our church is the hub of our activities. It wouldn’t work to divide it into individual homes. Focus people. We have real problems in this country and church taxes aint one of em.
Evan
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 10:05 am
This is not a reasoned argument in favor of changing tax policy. It is an anti-Christian screed. Hopefully most readers will give it exactly the level of consideration it merits on that basis.
Frank
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Revenue problem?? It’s a SPENDING problem!!
Look at the huge increase in spending since 2008 –
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil...
Bring us back down to around the 2001-2007 spending levels and we’ll be okay. a planned 8% annual increase in government spending in insane.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 11:06 am
You fail to note 2 things.
Revenues have fallen since the unemployment started rising in 2007
The current spending is in response to the lack of revenues and was meant to start spending in the economy by creating jobs.
You may notice that the change in both spending and revenues started before Obama
SinghX
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
You may have noticed that all the trolls-defenders of the sky-god machine that have shown up…there goes the neighborhood!
(close your ears “Walkaway…this is not for you, dear)
We can’t have anything nice without “them” showing up, gesticulating “authoritatively, shouting down the “blasphemy” with their “church bulletin” talking points, frightened out of their ever-lovin’ mind-controlled little minds that their institutionalized gravy train might be visited upon by “secular” law or, heavens forbid, be “unconstitutional”!
There is consolatory bi-partisan effort on these “good christians” part, no discussion, a ‘I-see- your-point’, or, maybe we “Good Christians” could do something differently to help our country together, not even a little ‘I’ll-talk-to-my fellow-parishioners’…In the immortal words of Captain Hook,
“NO, bicarbonate of soda, NO!!”
No, because we’re “those” people, those (yuk) “non-believers” and therefore, those of the up-right christian sort of superior mind set, those who bleat at the rest of us like the Pod people invasion from Mars, they KNOW what’s best to cluck at us all times. Certainty, my friends; they have “certainty”!
We can’t “breath” without one of “them” reminding us how much they “do for the chilllldren” (I remember the Priest in Ireland justifying giving the children guns) or how wrong minded we all are…tsk, tsk…
Welcome, welcome to the beginnings of “A Handmaiden’s Tale”… “It Can’t Happen Here”.
…there goes the neighborhood.
(I enjoy a good old fashion “shun”, don’t you?)
A Walkaway
Sep. 11th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
ROFLMAO! Seriously!
I just wonder how long it will be before the internet stalking, the violations of the rules, and so on (seen before from the same types).
If they can’t argue you down, can’t shout you down, then they’ll start the dirty stuff and try to scare you down (and if that doesn’t work, try to cut you down).
SinghX
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Oh, I’m just getting warmed up! I ran a forum for x-cult members for many years. I consider myself a “success” due to the large numbers who “graduated” and moved on; they know what to do and what to say it…I’m proud of’m.
Funny story (oh, indulge me)…I was home one day and 2 JW’s came to my front door to do their “business”. One was walking with a cane and the other, well…bless her heart…
I said, “Yes indeed, it is your lucky day ladies! Here’s my card”. I continued…”You probably will need my services someday as there will come a time when you look at yourself, your children and say enough is enough…and I will be there for you, God as my witness”.
The look on their faces when they saw the “D” word on the card was priceless…the one with the cane ran down the drive way without her cane (I healed her, Hallelujah!) while the other yelled “wait up”. They never darkened my door again…
Remember, they’re more afraid of you than you are of them…
Brown cow
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 11:03 am
I agree with Tom. The huge churches on 50 acres or more of land should easily be able to pay property taxes. The small churches with few members can meet in homes or other places. I believe Jesus said wherever 2 or more of you meet in my name that becomes a church (or something like that).
Charles
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
It’s about time, for people to really think churches are not money makers and a business is silly. Really people, wake up.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
the Catholic and Mormon churches are among the wealthiness organizations around. The catholic church is one of the largest landowners in the world
Churches at the top are business’s plain and simple. If they wernt they wouldnt exist
Books
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
I question why some of you are so angry, as in psycho angry?
The fact is the Churches are the last resort for those the government welfare system has let down.
If you don’t believe me go down to your local skid row and live on the street for a week. See who offers you help. I promise you it won’t be a government paid employee, it won’t be a liberal or conservative do gooder. It WILL be a member of a faith based organization. So UNLESS you are willing to get off your backside and take the place of those who are helping the needy find another target.
Dusten
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
AMEN!! Thank you!
SinghX
Sep. 11th, 2011 at 12:45 am
Are you calling “liberals” backsliders? Isn’t that what you meant, isn’t that your code?…Are you generalizing that all liberals aren’t doing their part, so by using your fear and intimation “code” you’ll threaten by the backdoor using sweeping generalizations?
A Walkaway
Sep. 11th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
I suggest you read what I’ve written elsewhere, and instead of listening to church LIES, do some serious reading about their activities on “skid row”.
I have far more than a layman’s knowledge on the topic. I studied homeless programs and shelters. I RESEARCHED them.
Even the term “Skid Row” refers to old-school thinking about poverty and old homeless programs. Programs that have been shown to be a failure time and time and time again.
Want some good references? Here is the reference list from one of my papers:
___________________
2005 Changing Course (Perhaps) on Housing. New York Times (1/1/1985 to present) 28
Abelson, Elaine S.
1999 HOMELESS IN AMERICA. Journal of Urban History 25(2):258-270
Alexandre, Michele
2008 “LOVE DON’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE”: ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR A MORE EQUITABLE MODEL OF URBAN REDEVELOPMENT. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 35 (1 ):1
Allard, Scott W. and Danziger, Sheldon
2003 Proximity and Opportunity: How Residence and Race Affect the Employment of Welfare Recipients. Housing Policy Debate 13(4):675-700
Anderson, Elaine A. and Koblinsky, Sally A.
1995 Homeless Policy: The Need to Speak to Families. Family Relations 44(1):13-18
Andrea Whittaker and Cathy Banwell
2002 Positioning policy: The epistemology of social capital and its application in applied rural research in Australia. Human Organization 61(3):252 UR –
Axelson, Leland J. and Dail, Paula W.
1988 The Changing Character of Homelessness in the United States. Family Relations 37(4, The Contemporary Family: Consequences of Change):463-469
Bahr, Howard M. and Houts, Kathleen C.
1971 CAN YOU TRUST A HOMELESS MAN? A COMPARISON OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND INTERVIEW RESPONSES BY BOWERY MEN. Public Opinion Quarterly 35(3):374-382
Barton, Angela Calabrese
1998 Margin and Center: Intersections of Homeless Children, Science Education, and a Pedagogy of Liberation. Theory into Practice 37(4):296-305
Belcher, John R. and Singer, Jeff.
1988 HOMELESSNESS: A COST OF CAPITALISM. Social Policy 18(4):44-48
Berlin, Gordon and McAllister, William
1992 Homelessness: Why Nothing Has Worked–And What Will. The Brookings Review 10(4):12
Betson, David M. and Michael, Robert T.
1997 Why So Many Children Are Poor. The Future of Children 7(2):25-39
Bloom, Alan.
2005 TOWARD A HISTORY OF HOMELESSNESS. Journal of Urban History 31(6):907-917
Brett, John A.
2006 “We Sacrifice and Eat Less”: The Structural Complexities of Microfinance Participation. Human Organization 65(1):8-19
Bunis, William K., Yancik, Angela, and Snow, David A.
1996 The Cultural Patterning of Sympathy toward the Homeless and Other Victims of Misfortune. Social Problems 43(4):387-402
Burt, Martha R.
2008 Evaluation of LA’S HOPE: Ending Chronic Homelessness through Employment and Housing Final Report. Electronic Document, www.urban.org/UploadedPDF..., accessed Apr. 16,2008
Burt, Martha R. and Cohen, Barbara E.
1989 Differences among Homeless Single Women, Women with Children, and Single Men. Social Problems 36(5):508-524
Carstens, C. C.
1907 The Salvation Army-A Criticism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 30(Social Work of the Church):117-128
Clampet-Lundquist, Susan
2004 HOPE VI Relocation: Moving to New Neighborhoods and Building New Ties. Housing Policy Debate 15(2):
Clampet-Lundquist, Susan
2007 No More ‘Bois Ball. Journal of Adolescent Research 22 (3 ):298
Clydesdale, Timothy T.
1999 Toward Understanding the Role of Bible Beliefs and Higher Education in American Attitudes toward Eradicating Poverty, 1964-1996. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(1):103-118
Conley, Dalton Clark
1996 Getting It Together: Social and Institutional Obstacles to Getting off the Streets. Sociological Forum 11(1):25-40
Cooley, Charles H.
1918 Political Economy and Social Process. The Journal of Political Economy 26(4):366-374
Culhane, Dennis P.
1992 THE QUANDARIES OF SHELTER REFORM: AN APPRAISAL OF EFFORTS TO “MANAGE” HOMELESSNESS. Social Service Review 66(3):428-440
Danseco, Evangeline R. and Holden, E. Wayne
1998 Are There Different Types of Homeless Families? A Typology of Homeless Families Based On Cluster Analysis. Family Relations 47(2):159-165
Danziger, Sheldon and Gottschalk, Peter
1986 Do Rising Tides Lift All Boats? The Impact of Secular and Cyclical Changes on Poverty. The American Economic Review 76(2, Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association):405-410
Davies, C. S. L.
1966 Slavery and Protector Somerset; The Vagrancy Act of 1547. The Economic History Review 19(3):533-549
DePastino, Todd.
2003 Citizen Hobo: How a Century of Homelessness Shaped America. U. of Chicago Pr.
Division, Human Resources United States General Accounting Office and Fogel, Richard L.
1985 Homelessness: A Complex Problem and the Federal Response. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 44(4 ):385-389
Eades, Jerry
1990 Power, Paradigms and Poverty. Anthropology Today 6(2):15-16
Earls, Felton
2000 Urban Poverty: Scientific and Ethical Considerations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 572(53-65
Elliott, Marta and Krivo, Lauren J.
1991 Structural Determinants of Homelessness in the United States . Social Problems 38(1):113-131
Fabricant, Michael. and Kelly, Michael.
1986 NO HAVEN FOR THE HOMELESS IN A HEARTLESS ECONOMY. Radical America 20(2):23-34
Farber, Henry S., Haltiwanger, John, and Abraham, Katharine G.
1997 The Changing Face of Job Loss in the United States, 1981-1995. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics 1997( 55-142
First, Richard J. and Toomey, Beverly G.
1989 HOMELESS MEN AND THE WORK ETHIC. Social Service Review 63(1):113-126
Goetz, Kathryn W. and Schmiege, Cynthia J.
1996 From Marginalized to Mainstreamed: The HEART Project Empowers the Homeless. Family Relations 45(4):375-379
Golden, Stephanie.
1990 LADY VERSUS LOW CREATURE: OLD ROOTS OF CURRENT ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMELESS WOMEN. Frontiers 11(2):1-7
Goodrich, Barbara
The Calvinist Work Ethic. Electronic Document, carbon.cudenver.edu/~bgoo..., accessed Nov. 12,2006
Greenbaum, S. D.
1982 Bridging ties at the neighborhood level. Social networks 4(4):367-84
Greenbaum, Susan
2002 Report from the Field Social Capital and Deconcentration: Theoretical and Policy Paradoxes of the HOPE VI Program North American Dialog 5(1), 9-13.
Haveman, Robert and Bershadker, Andrew
1998 Self-Reliance as a Poverty Criterion: Trends in Earnings-Capacity Poverty, 1975-1992. The American Economic Review 88(2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association):342-347
Heyman, Josiah McC.
2004 The Anthropology of Power Wielding Bureaucracies. Human Organization 63(4):487-500
Hill, Christopher
1952 Puritans and the Poor. Past and Present 2):32-50
Hopper, Kim
2006 Redistribution and its Discontents: On the Prospects of Committed Work in Public Mental Health and Like Settings. Human Organization 65(2):218-226
Hudson, Winthrop S.
1949 Puritanism and the Spirit of Capitalism. Church History 18(1):3-17
Hyatt, Susan Brin and Lyon-Callo, Vincent
2003 Introduction: Anthropology And Political Engagement. Urban Anthropology & Studies of Cultural Systems & World Economic Development 32 (2 ):133
Iceland, John
1997 Urban Labor Markets and Individual Transitions Out of Poverty. Demography 34(3):429-441
Joseph, Mark L.
2006 Is Mixed-Income Development an Antidote to Urban Poverty? Housing Policy Debate 17(2):
Kaughman-Levy, D and Poulin, M
Evaluability Assessment: Examining the Readiness of a Program for Evaluation. (Program Evaluation Briefing Series No. 6). Electronic Document, www.jrsa.org/pubs/juv-jus..., accessed Jan. 3,2009
Kirchheimer, Donna Wilson
1989 Control of Social Spending: Gates and Gatekeepers. Public Administration Review 49(4): 353-361
Kluegel, James R. and Smith, Eliot R.
1981 Beliefs About Stratification. Annual Review of Sociology 7(29-56
Kodras, Janet E.
1997 The Changing Map of American Poverty in an Era of Economic Restructuring and Political Realignment. Economic Geography 73(1):67-93
Kusmer, Kenneth L.
1995 THE HOMELESS UNEMPLOYED IN INDUSTRIALIZING AMERICA, 1865-1930: PERCEPTION AND REALITY. Amerikastudien/American Studies 40(4):667-694
Kusmer, Kenneth L
2002 Down & out, on the road : the homeless in American history. New York : Oxford University Press
Lee, Barrett A., Jones, Sue Hinze, and Lewis, David W.
1990 Public Beliefs about the Causes of Homelessness. Social Forces 69(1):253-265
Lee, Barrett A., Lewis, David W., and Jones, Susan Hinze.
1992 ARE THE HOMELESS TO BLAME? A TEST OF TWO THEORIES. Sociological Quarterly 33(4):535-552
Levy, David W.
1983 SEND THESE, THE HOMELESS, TEMPEST-TOSSED, SOMEWHERE ELSE. Reviews in American History 11(1):138-142
Lewit, Eugene M. and Baker, Linda Schuurmann
1996 Homeless Families and Children. The Future of Children 6(2, Financing Child Care):146-158
Lindsey, Elizabeth W.
1998 The Impact of Homelessness and Shelter Life on Family Relationships. Family Relations 47(3):243-252
Littles, Spigner
Lecture II History of Helping, Elizabethan Laws and Five of the Helping Professions
. Electronic Document, www.ou.edu/cas/hr/online/..., accessed Nov. 12,2006
Lyon-Callo, Vincent
1998 Constraining responses to homelessness: An ethnographic exploration of the impact of funding concerns on resistance. Human Organization 57(1):1
Lyon-Callo, Vincent
2000 Medicalizing Homelessness: The Production of Self-Blame and Self-Governing within Homeless Shelters. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 14(3):328-345
Lyon-Callo, Vincent
2004 Inequality, Poverty, and Neoliberal Governance: Activist Ethnography in the Homeless Sheltering Industry. Petersborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press
Lyon-Callo, Vincent and Hyatt, Susan Brin
2003 The Neoliberal State And The Depoliticization Of Poverty: Activist Anthropology And “Ethnography From Below”. Urban Anthropology & Studies of Cultural Systems & World Economic Development 32 (2 ):175
Mitchell, Don.
1997 THE ANNIHILATION OF SPACE BY LAW: THE ROOTS AND IMPLICATIONS OF ANTI-HOMELESS LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES. Antipode 29(3):303-335
Moore, Charles H., Sink, David W., and Hoban-Moore, Patricia.
1988 THE POLITICS OF HOMELESSNESS. PS: Political Science & Politics 21(1):57-63
Morduch, Jonathan
1994 Poverty and Vulnerability. The American Economic Review 84(2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association):221-225
Nadeau, Kathy
1999 “Beyond the Dumping Ground” a critique of the Ecclesial Community Model as a Strategy for Development in an Urban Site. Human Organization 57(2):153-160
National Coalition for the Homeless
2006 NCH Fact Sheet #2: How Many People Experience Homelessness? Electronic Document, www.nationalhomeless.org/..., accessed
National Coalition for the Homeless
2007 Hate, Violence, and Death on Main Street USA: A Report on Hate Crimes and Violence Against People Experiencing Homelessness, 2006. Electronic Document, www.nationalhomeless.org/..., accessed
Nichols, Laura. and Gault, Barbara.
2003 THE IMPLICATIONS OF WELFARE REFORM FOR HOUSING AND SCHOOL INSTABILITY. Journal of Negro Education 72(1):104-116
Nilson, Linda B.
1981 Reconsidering Ideological Lines: Beliefs About Poverty in America. Sociological Quarterly 22(531-548
Nunez, Ralph.
2001 FAMILY HOMELESSNESS IN NEW YORK CITY: A CASE STUDY. Political Science Quarterly 116(3): 367-379
Nunez, Ralph and Fox, Cybelle
1999 A Snapshot of Family Homelessness across America. Political Science Quarterly 114(2): 289-307
O’Brien, Robert T.
2006 Unemployment and Disposable Workers in Philadelphia: Just How Far Have The Bastards Gone? Ethnos 71(2):165-190
Peters, Mark
1990 Homelessness: A Historical Perspective on Modern Legislation . Michigan Law Review 88(5): 1209-1244
Phelan, Jo, Link, Bruce G., Moore, Robert E., and Stueve, Ann
1997 The Stigma of Homelessness: The Impact of the Label “Homeless” on Attitudes Toward Poor Persons. Social Psychology Quarterly 60(4):323-337
Phelan, Jo, Link, Bruce G., Stueve, Ann, and Moore, Robert E.
1995 Education, Social Liberalism, and Economic Conservatism: Attitudes Toward Homeless People. American Sociological Review 60(1):126-140
Popkin, Susan J., Buron, Larry F., Levy, Diane K., and Cunningham, Mary K.
2000 The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed-Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants? Housing Policy Debate 11(4):
Rafferty, Margaret
1989 Standing up for America’s Homeless. The American Journal of Nursing 89(12):1614-1617
Rafferty, Yvonne
1995 The Legal Rights and Educational Problems of Homeless Children and Youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17(1):39-61
Ringheim, Karin.
1993 INVESTIGATING THE STRUCTURAL DETERMINANTS OF HOMELESSNESS: THE CASE OF HOUSTON. Urban Affairs Quarterly 28(4):617-640
Rossi, Peter H. and Wright, James D.
1989 The Urban Homeless: A Portrait of Urban Dislocation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 501(The Ghetto Underclass: Social Science Perspectives):132-142
Rossi, Peter H., Wright, James D., Fisher, Gene A., and Willis, Georgianna
1987 The Urban Homeless: Estimating Composition and Size. Science 235 (4794):1336-1341
Rossi, Peter Henry
1989a Down and out in America : the origins of homelessness. Chicago : University of Chicago Press
Rossi, Peter Henry
1989?b The family, welfare, and homelessness. Chicago : Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago
Schneider, John C.
1989 HOMELESS MEN AND HOUSING POLICY IN URBAN AMERICA, 1850-1920. Urban Studies 26(1):90-99
Schram, Sanford F.
1991 Welfare Spending and Poverty: Cutting Back Produces More Poverty, Not Less. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 50( 2):129-141
Schutt, Russell K., Meschede, Tatjana, and Rierdan, Jill
1994 Distress, Suicidal Thoughts, and Social Support Among Homeless Adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35(2):134-142
Singer, Merrill, Hurtas, Elsa, and Scott, Glen
2000 Am I my Brother’s Keeper?: A Case Study of the Responsibilities of Research. Human Organization 59(4):389-400
Sosin, Michael R.
1992 Homeless and Vulnerable Meal Program Users: A Comparison Study. Social Problems 39(2):170-188
Susser, I.
1996 The Construction of Poverty and Homelessness in US Cities. Annual Review of Anthropology 25(411-435
Teaford, Jon
2000 Urban Renewal and Its Aftermath Housing Policy Debate 11(2), 443-465.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald and Roscigno, Vincent J.
1997 Uneven Development and Local Inequality in the U. S. South: The Role of Outside Investment, Landed Elites, and Racial Dynamics. Sociological Forum 12(4):565-597
Turner, Suzie.
1986 RECOGNITION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS OF THE HOMELESS. Journal of Law & Politics 3(1):103-126
Wagner, David and Cohen, Marcia B.
1991 The Power of the People: Homeless Protesters in the Aftermath of Social Movement Participation. Social Problems 38(4, Special Issue on the Underclass in the United States):543-561
Williams, Brett
2004 Debt for Sale: A Social History of the Credit Trap. Philadelphia, Penn.: University of Pennsylvania Press
Williams, Jean Calterone.
2005 THE POLITICS OF HOMELESSNESS: SHELTER NOW AND POLITICAL PROTEST. Political Research Quarterly 58(3):497-509
Wolch, Jennifer R., Dear, Michael., and Akita, Andrea.
1988 EXPLAINING HOMELESSNESS. Journal of the American Planning Association 54(4):443-453
Wolfe, Alvin W.
2000 Welfare Reform: Self-Sufficiency or What? Practicing Anthropology 22(1):2-6
Wong, Yin-Ling Irene and Piliavin, Irving
1997 A Dynamic Analysis of Homeless-Domicile Transitions. Social Problems 44(3):408-423
Wright, James D. and Lam, Julie A.
1987 HOMELESSNESS AND THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING SUPPLY. Social Policy 17(4):48-53
Wright, Susan E.
1993 BLAMING THE VICTIM, BLAMING SOCIETY OR BLAMING THE DISCIPLINE: FIXING RESPONSIBILITY FOR POVERTY AND HOMELESSNESS. Sociological Quarterly 34(1):1-16
Wright, Talmadge
2000 Resisting Homelessness: Global, National, and Local Solutions. Contemporary Sociology 29(1, Utopian Visions: Engaged Sociologies for the 21st Century):27-43
www.census.gov
2008 Historical Poverty Tables. Electronic Document, www.census.gov/hhes/www/p..., accessed Apr. 6,2008
www.homelessofhc.org
2007 2007 Census Demograpics and Comparision to 2005.pdf (application/pdf Object). Electronic Document, www.homelessofhc.org/pdf/..., accessed Apr. 6,2008
www.nationalhomeless.org
2008 Universal Living Wage Effect on Business and Taxpayers. Electronic Document, www.nationalhomeless.org/..., accessed Apr. 6,2008
Soodonim
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
This is poor reasoning, and obviously motivated by a dislike of various religious expression.
Religious organizations do not pay taxes as a matter of separation of church and state. The reason we find it objectionable when, for example, the mormon church throws millions against gay marriage is because religion should not be involved in politics in this way. But if religious organizations pay taxes, then they have every right to participate in all facets of political life. Otherwise it would be internally inconsistent, and taxation without representation. Separation of church and state needs to be maintained, and not forcing religious organizations to pay taxes is part of that maintenance. Allowing personal distaste for religion stand in as reason for taking assets away from someone is a horribly irresponsible act of cowardice.
bobzilla
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
but they even with this (seperation) they still throw millions messing with the political mumbo jumbo might as well get them to support the goverment instead of the politicians whose ear they whisper antigay legislation into while they pad his wallet
Venialis
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Where did you get the idea that clergy don’t pay taxes? Not only do they pay income tax, they also pay self-employment tax, so their FICA is twice that paid in public work. This article is just hate-filled rhetoric. Shall we eliminate the tax-free status of all non-profits? If we do, they will ALL go under.
Vic
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
I would give this article at least some merit if it proposed taxing ALL charitable organizations. Or maybe we can also stop making charitable contributions tax-deductible, too.
Do you fools realize how much charity work is done by churches? Of course not – and of course you would rather just have the “government take care of it” because they’re SO efficient.
bobzilla
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
BUT THEY ARE DOING GODS WORK. DAMN YOU HEATHENS TO HELL WITH YOUR ATHEIST WAYS MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR POOR PATHETIC SOULS…
lol just kidding nice article and makes sense they should be taxed like the rest of us and like the guy at the top said about the work they do some might not even end up paying much as charity work i believe can be written off
(i dont pay taxes so im guessing)
Brian Ellenberger
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Why target churches instead of all non-profits and charitable organizations? Why aren’t you complaining about the ACLU or PETA? Bigotry that’s why.
The reason why charitable organizations do not pay taxes is because their income comes from everyday citizens whose income HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED. You are not taxing “evil churches”, you are double taxing the people who believe in those churches.
The only explanation for your double treatment of religious organizations is bigotry and intolerance.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Is that like the money you give General Motors thats already been taxed yet they get taxed?
Mike
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
But what are churches? They are up of people who have already paid taxes of one form or the other, who have voluntarily given of their time and (already taxed) money to form an organization of like-minded individuals with similar goals. Their employees pay taxes (many are considered self-employed, and pay more than most of us as a result).
They are no different from a union, civic club, March of Dimes, GLAAD, etc. You have every right to disagree or be disgusted with their creed or message. But to decide that, because you do not like their ideas or goals, you should treat them different from any other non-profit is ludicrous.
You don’t like what they have to say? Don’t give. Give to someone with an opposing message. But remember that like any other organization made up of voluntary members, those who abide by the rule of law have ALREADY paid their taxes. Should we double-tax them because we disagree with them? That would be a slippery slope indeed.
A Walkaway
Sep. 11th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Ah, but unions, civic clubs, March of Dimes, etc. don’t try to force their religion or ideology on other people. At the “worst”, those organizations work for fair and equal treatment for their own (and if you think employers and the rich don’t abuse and exploit working-class people, I give you this advice: don’t buy any bridges or gold bricks). Or, they HELP people, without requiring that the helped be subjected to hard-sell proselytizing or that they convert.
If the “Good Christians” would read what has been written in this thread and realize that their efforts to force themselves and their beliefs on others is as counterproductive as it really is (and see just how harmful they are to others), maybe they’d do what they love to prattle and shout at innocent bystanders: “REPENT!”. If they would see how horrible and abusive they REALLY are, then maybe they’d start trying to be Real Christians and try to emulate Jesus, instead of trying to ram Him down every throat they can.
That would, of course, require that they turn their backs on all of the nice conservative memes they cherish and start thinking (and examining their conscious and studying ethics and LISTENING to others), which is the inverse of what people see now. It would mean that the rich Pastors would have to let go of their greed and learn to be true servants (a servant richer than his/her master???). It would mean pissing off the rich and powerful and loosing access to easy/quick money. It would require a change of heart… reversing one’s direction, which is the meaning of the word “Repent”. Then they might find themselves being real agents of positive change, rather than inflexible and cruel defenders of the status quo.
It would also mean they’d stop selling their souls for pottage.
I pray that the “Good Christians” would see themselves as others see them. That would be painful, but having that happen can also be very healing and strengthening.
SinghX
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I used to think, rationally, that there would be a time, place, a way for these “Good Christians” (all cultist) to see themselves as they are seen in the light of day called reality, but…their fear of reality and people who won’t play into their “face”, their “persona” is phobic. Their only coping mechanism is a “program” made up for them by someone else whom they mimic; that is not the purpose of religion in terms of “coping” with uncertainty. If they had no other “good christian-folk” around, they wouldn’t know what to do, how to act, what to say, how to “feel”. So much of their personality is a “program” based on a one-sided fear. Having mental, physical, spiritual balance is not even on their radar, none of it has sunk in (just look at Rick Perry’s face)…just greed, guns and geezus.
You’re right–a greedy preacher would have to have to let go of the money that’s not his/hers in the first place…what happened to it is better to give than receive? I digress…
Everyone else can see the problem lies with in fact that these “good christians” cannot see who themselves as ordinary beings; they cannot comprehend that they’re not special, privileged (you can’t tax me, niner-niner-niner). They are told individuality is “sinful” instead of the gift of freedom that is inherent to each of god’s creatures.
As my friend says, “They’re contribution to society is life-denying; they think they own the creations creator. Ha! Jokes on them!”
Steven Blackledge
Sep. 10th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Does the opinion have to be made with all the slandering. I do not agree with the body of Christ attaching themselves to any form of government. Nor do I think it is right for individuals who minister for a living making millions while doing so. Jesus Christ said that He gave freely and we should freely give. It is not a job anyway, but a way of life. The ephasis with most donominations is that they have to go bigger, in order to make more money to be able to entertain the brethren. Lets face it, the bible for most is not good enough anymore, so comic preachers and those who speak smooth things are sought by the general populas. Some kind of gimic is needed to keep individuals within the walls of a congregation. It is sad because the message of the gospel has been corrupted and the people are not being fed, nor do they want to be fed, true spiritual food for their edification in order to grow in grace and knowledge. Anyway, churchianity today is not based on the way congregations met in the NT, but derives itself from Babylon. All should be done in order, but all should be able to utilize the gifts from our Creator gave us through His Holy Spirit.
SinghX
Sep. 11th, 2011 at 12:36 am
…I have found in my practice and research that the first thing out of a cultist mouth when confronted by “outsiders” on their behavior, not belief, is called “stop thought”. They accuse their opponent of “SLANDER”…everything is “slander” when it’s in opposition to what their ministry tells them…no thinking, stop all words, stop your thoughts because it’s all “SLANDER” (fingers in the ear time)…then the preaching starts and makes you glaze over which, of course, stops all conversation. It’s an endless closed loop that cultist aren’t even aware of until they leave the group, or…SLANDER by saying the truth to authority.
kapauldo
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 8:16 am
(posted to pikk) Agree or Object? Real Shared Sacrifice: It’s Time For Churches To Pay Taxes [POLL] – www.pikk.com/c0388
redcleric
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Great idea, If we can tax the churches then the church will have no problem in working to influence the campaign or election results they want. Like a union then can organize groups, PAC’s and the garner contributions to put into office the people they want… Now if THAT sounds like a separation of Church and State, [the answer is Yes] that would be legal outcome of any attempt to tax the church. BTW how many want recognized ‘state’ religions such as LDS in Utah or Southern Baptist in Texas with a portion of the state money going to pay the salary of the pastors?
Because that is what the separation of church and state WAS all about when it the 1st Amendment was written.
redcleric
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
BTW I’d like to echo the statement that this would mean ALL non-profits would have to have equal status… I can imagine the joy at the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, ACLU and AARP with the news that this would be happening. Can you imagine the response to Katrina would have been without churches and the Red Cross… yep, we’d just leave it to the government cuz they do such a great job. LOL
SinghX
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Religious organizations are not accountable to the citizens who subsidize them. If churches engage in charitable work that benefits the community, do all citizens have an interest in supporting such endeavors with, say, various tax exemptions? Of course. This is the sound basis for tax exemptions for non-profit organizations, whose activities and finances are subject to IRS audit and public scrutiny. In the case of religious organizations, however, THEIR BOOKS ARE CLOSED!
Non-church groups receiving tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement itemizing where the money has gone. The IRS automatically waives the 990 requirement for churches. Tax-exempt status is a privilege – not a right – and churches should be held to the same standards as other non-profits – if not higher standards. Churches costs the taxpayers more money to monitor, uncover and fight the abuse it invites – none of which would be necessary if such unenforceable loopholes in our tax code never existed.
luqman
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Every one of us takes for granted certain ideas that have not been proven by science. Many of you who hate the church for proselytizing are the same ones that try and force your opinions and beliefs on others. Your choice of environmental policy, your choice of economic policy your social beliefs can all be logically challenged. So lets not attach churches for believing in something and acting on it. Lets challenge their actions in the context of their beliefs. Many churches already do far more for their communities than any their tax dollars would. You can’t win this argument based on the fact you don’t like Christians. Some of my Christian friends are the best liberals I know. You are cutting off the nose to spite the face.
SinghX
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Hilarious! Social beliefs can be logically challenged? And church beliefs, well, they certainly can’t be “logically challenged” (say this in a Rush Limbaugh voice) because after all, there is no logic, fact, science involved what so ever. You’re dealing with a mythos system perpetuated by people to control people via an invisible sky-god machine; religion is not science, truth or reasoning…you can’t win any argument based on the idea that belief trumps logic or vise verse…you’re arguing apples based on oranges! (writing this out is like watching paint dry…)
No, let’s not challenge “beliefs”–let’s “challenge” behavior! Because, this is not about belief, it’s all about the behavior that stems from the “belief”.
Laws regularly regulate human behavior that is primarily aberrant (for the sake of argument). Why not challenge the bad behavior of a Christian Nation who are basing their argument on, “Satan will take over if we “Good Christians” don’t take over Amur’ka for Jesus”…is that what churches are supposed to be doing for our American communities? Taking over for the sky-god myth? Bleeding everyone dry over some aberrant fundamentalist “belief”? What’s there to like?
And, please don’t try to change the subject to ‘the government’ upon who’s trough the faith-base Christian Nation partake to the tune of billions.
The argument is the all about the aberrant behavior of Christian Nation; it’s greed, it’s ownership of proselyting, it’s selling “certainty” where there is none, it’s power grab for privileges exclusive to themselves. What is there to like?
Oh, and some of my best friends are non-human…
joe yo
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
It’s disgusting how liberals will do this to the people who help the poor. I thought liberals were all about the people. i guess i was wrong. the church receives no pay, and pays none in return. the writer of this article is wrong about the constitution. the constitution DOES say that church and state are separate. stop lying and be nice to the people who help poor starving african children, not fat moochers.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
How is taxing the church part of separation of state and religion? The church takes in huge quantities of moola and not very many help the poor.
joe yo
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
taxing the church means that it should receive something from the gov. that’s what makes it. our founding fathers (which liberals wouldn’t know about) made this law on purpose. also, a lot of welfare and medicaid goes to fat people and drug addicts.
joe yo
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
so don’t pull the “it doesn’t go to what it is supposed to” card on me. the gov is notorious for making sure money goes in the wrong place.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
So your Iranian?
You are hilarious
BTW my tax dollars go to help Africans in need as well. I get taxed. And I dont get anything from the government. Time to reread your talking points
joe yo
Sep. 12th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Also, churches would have a say in the politics a lot more. no taxation without representation.
K
Sep. 13th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I like how you only focus on churches…you’re contempt for christianity is obvious…maybe someone who is a bit more objective should argue this point.
C
Sep. 13th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
How did you get to contempt of Christianity? Near as I can tell, they made a point of all religions being taxed. Now we do have a majority of Christian churches, and if that fact makes it a “contempt” for you; then we do not need to chat. You are not arguing from a solid position.
L Neal
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Umm,
The article clearly says CHURCHES. Other than Christianity, there are no mainstream religions that call their place of worship a “church”. Judaisms are synagogues, Islams are mosques, Buddhisms, Hinduism,etc.. all call theirs temples.
robert chadis
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
but the meaning is clear…churches is common usage for all establishments of religion in context of this discussion.
i agree with the article.
Werrf
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 8:02 am
The article also talks about “…Islamic Mosques, Jewish Tabernacles or Buddhist monasteries”. Kindly read.
Glen
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 9:00 am
I understand where you are coming from this article and somewhat agree, I do belong and devout to my religion, however they do provide services that neither government nor the private section can or will not. But the one thing that the article has fail to mention is that there are really big private tax exempt organizations that pay nothing in taxes because they help some people while their executives or administrators are way over paid, the question is: we want to know what companies are in this category the answer is the Hospitals, they have become more tight wad with their charitable services but continue to rake in the money. Meanwhile health care costs have skyrocketed for the last 30 years, but the benefactors have profited from them handsomely and are totally tax exempt. These overpaid executives’ needs to have their pay cut to make sure that they pay their fair share in taxes as well, in my honest opinion this is exactly what the doctor has ordered.
Joe
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 2:03 am
You cannot tax churches.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. THe constitutions prevents the taxation of churches.
Get the military out of the middle east.
L Neal
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
The taxation of churches is not Constitutional because the first amendment prohibits it. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. It’s plain language, Congress cannot tax them because once a church files the papers that declare it “an establishment of religion” Congress can’t do anything to them. Locals can tax church property, but most state Constitutions mirror the Federal one as to this situation. The highest law of the land in the USA IS the Constitution, so unless you can get an amendment through changing it, it’s illegal to tax a churches income. Which, by the way, ALL gets spent anyways, that’s what “non-profit” means, everything after expenses goes to church ministries, like food pantries, clothes closets, shelters, heating or emergency funds, etc…
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Good grief. Tell me you didnt write that. If the govt taxes a church, it is not establishing a religion ffs.
Tracy Bogert
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Don’t want to burst your bubble but the constitution says nothing about taxing churches.
The Godless Monster
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 6:44 am
Genius, sheer genius. And where did you obtain all of this wonderful information? Did you simply wish these “facts” into existence? Are you a magic assclown?
Anona Moose
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Oh horsesh!t!! Maybe the big million dollar TV churches but those little community churches that help feed the poor and destitute need to be left alone, period. The big guys are in it for the money but they do pay their share of taxes. Just because you are a minister and get a salary doesn’t make you exempt and it never has. I used to do taxes as a side job and ministers do pay taxes. The only thing that is exempt is the actual church because it has always been a source for helping the poor. If it hadn’t been for a church helping my family when I was a kid we would have starved to death.. We don’t need more taxes, we need less spending! WAY LESS!
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 14th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
And far more revenue
Davey
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
— Not sure why my comment wasn’t posted, so I am posting again —
Your whole “rant” is a farce… since when do fire departments, public schools and police stations have to pay property taxes?
Churches are pillars to a community, and why should one have to pay taxes to help people? Believe me, there are a number of things churches and non profits in general have to pay for like everyone else, and many if not most churches are on limited budgets as it is. By taxing them, it would certainly do much harm and burden communities. My pastor went years without even getting paid to be our pastor, because my church simply didn’t have enough means to pay him.
One other point you don’t bring up, is that churches do not require people to pay for their services. It is not like a hospital where you get “helped”, but then receive a bill for $20,000 in the mail.
Anyway, why do you only single out churches or religious institutions? Do you believe that ALL not profits should not pay taxes, regardless whether it is a church or not? Non profits serve to assist in many matters that the government simply can’t afford or manage to do. So why would the government want to burden those who’s mission is to help people who don’t require payment for their services?
I know there are certainly cases were some churches or non profits cross the line, but a few bad apples should not spoil the bunch.
Anyway, the government is not going to start taxing churches, it would be dead on arrival in any proposals from Congress. So keep on dreaming, or squawking about frivolous or irrelevant points…
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
churches do not give you services that rate it $20,000.
Churches provide far less help you allude to. The business of running a church these days precludes most of them from doing anything except for volunteer work such as taking up food for poor families on holidays
I can tell you why your comment was posted, it starts out with your whole rant is a farce.
And you are right the government is not going to start taxing churches. However there are a great many people who think they should
Davey
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
So you know how much work all the churches are doing? So HIV/AIDS work, setting up orphanages, substance abuse programs, after-school programs, feeding and clothing the needy, providing assistance during disasters, grief counseling, help and support to seniors and nursing homes, positive outreaches for teens, help combating malaria, support to refugee families coming to the US, work/study programs, the list goes on…
I know churches and ministries who are doing all of these things. But you just like to put everything in a nice little box, and say people should have their their religious practices taxed, even though it hasn’t been an issue for a couple hundred years…
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
I do? Really? Oh Gosh!
There are no churches around here doing that. Of course they are all Baptist here.
Brandon
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
I think that if you think churches are the big tax break in the room you must also consider Higher Education which gets the benefits of tax free status, huge endowments and they destroy students with rising costs of tuitiion. just saying.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Not a bad thought.
seektruth
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Why not make all the non-profit orgs pay then? Not really a solution. Think how much tax revenue we (esp. California) would have if _illegal_ immigrants paid taxes. I’m obviously a conservative (a minority here I know), but I support letting the illegal’s stay IF they get legal AND pay their taxes like the rest of us. I also believe the gov is corrupt, BOTH sides. They only really care about their own money & power.
Todd
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
I vote that the mega churches pay their share of taxes, and while the IRS is interested in collecting more $$, they need to close the tax loophole of the scientology cult.
Sherri
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
I am not an expert in US tax system, but in canada, when I give to my church it is tax deductable IE I pay no tax on it. So if I pay no tax on it, and the Non profit pays no tax, then it is really a loop hole in the system. Maybe there shouldn’t be a tax deduction for the individual or corporation that is donating in the first place. Then there would be no issue with a non profit not paying taxes on donations, as the taxes would already be paid.
What the Large religious institutions should be paying taxes on (and as I said I don’t know if this is the case) are the profits from its earnings and investment incomes. With individuals and Corporate donations if there is no exemptions then the taxes would already be paid, and all bases covered.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
The mormons and the catholic churches are the biggest land owners in the US. I think that should be taxed
That guy
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 3:46 am
If you could provide me evidence for that claim, I’d be more persuaded to your argument.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 8:33 am
if you could use Google you could probably do it for yourself.
MCM
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Big chuches making millions … small churches making stuff all.
“MEANS TESTING” … end of argument.
John Donaghue
Sep. 15th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
If taxing churches is heavy on your heart then you should do all the leg work for The U.S. House and Senate to get the Laws and Regulations changed. There is no member of Congress that is going to do the leg work. They have enough work with current bills in Congress and to go looking for more work. You make some very good arguments for taxing churches, but now you should stop complaining and put together an airtight proposal for Congressman and Senators. Complaining is one thing, but gathering facts about a new law is a lot harder. One needs to look at new laws from many view points to close all loop holes.
arnold schwertman
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 5:57 am
if they break things to state level who will help the poor ?
KAMRAMNA
Sep. 16th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Hey, I’d love to see this come to pass … I’m not going to hold my breath. Good luck … the first thing someones gonna do is bring “You Know Who” into the equation … after that you are “toast”. Lo ciento mucho.
denise clark
Sep. 17th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
All these poor disallusioned “christians” thinking you are just talking about their church. I read the article and you clearly pointed out other religions. Boy, they sure get their panties in a wad when there is any mention of taxing the god they worship. Whatever, yall are getting ripped off twice. Once when you actually go to “church” and listen and believe all the lies and fantasy that spews from the mouth of whomever is on the pulpit, and second when the government doesn’t tax them. And yes, I am an Athiest, or better yet, someone who doesn’t believe the lies and fantasy stories that brainwash the multitudes of fools who don’t question anything they are told. Sheeple.
Richard Dauphinais
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
@Denise. And of course a non-believer has to open their yap. How do you know that there is not a God? Who told you? Where is the evidence either way. How dare you come here and say we are disallusioned. You have no right trying me or anybody else what to believe. So I hope you have a Merry Christmas if you believe our not.
Richard Dauphinais
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 9:31 am
If you want to tax churches then the separation of church and state doesn’t exist anymore violating the constitution.Then you will have the atheists. Pissed because you would have to say Merry Christmas again.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 18th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Separation of church and state does not involve taxation
I am an atheist and I say merry xmas to people at that time of year
That guy
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 3:20 am
Of course, it makes me curious as to why you say “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays”. I would think the phrase would be an empty expression seeming as you ascribe little meaning to it. Why not just stick to “Have a nice day”?
As for constitutionality, look no further than the First Amendment. Some religious institutions could interpret the imposition of taxes as an inhibitor to the workings of said institutions, and if people honestly believe their salvation or well-being is intricately tied to said organizations, one could argue that imposing taxes on religious organizations is infringing on their right to freely practice their religion or uphold the expressions of their faith. Thus by taxing said religious groups, it could be argued that the government is infringing on the civil liberties of both the clergy and its followers. Hence, all religious organizations would be at a disadvantage for existing in this country; therefore, the most devout practisers of a faith could, in a sense, claim a violation of church and state, not by the supplanting one religion with another, but by putting a set of ideals embraced by one part of the population (that of religion, of course) at a direct disadvantage with another set of ideals held by another part of the population (that of the academic/non-religious community), thus causing a disparity in the treatment of two generally conflicting beliefs, especially given that many similar circumstances are found within the academic community as well. (Does anyone know what we were supposed to learn in college nowadays? I should have gone to trade school!) I dare say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 8:32 am
why should it make you curious? Why should entering into a spirit of giving and being nice towards others make you curious? You don’t have to be a Christian to be included in a spirit of giving during the time of Christmas. It’s human nature as much as its religious.
As far as I’m concerned anyone could look at the First Amendment say that you should not tax churches. However churches are entities within income just like any other business. when a business is taxed we don’t look at it and say well you make pottery therefore we will not tax you.
Nate
Sep. 19th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
While indeed some churches are big business and some are tax dodges, many are sincerely trying to help their communities. We are turning against each other, when we should be turning against the war and the corporations that continue to receive no-bid contracts from the pentagon while over billing and defrauding us (cf, KBR, Haliburton, Xe, Lockheed, et al). These companies routinely pay fines for their corruption, but remain preferred providers.
Why isn’t defrauding the pentagon treason?
Eisenhower was right about the military industrial complex, and until we get it under control, we’re doomed.
Churches are quite innocuous in comparison.
Quik Hit
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 8:54 am
First have EVERYONE who does not currently pay taxes pay their fair share. No more sucking off the teat of the worker’s tax dollars. Once all the real deadbeats start paying, then we can have this discussion.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 20th, 2011 at 10:35 am
I think it is funny as heck when people say the things that you say. You have no idea who the people are that do not have to pay taxes do you? They are the people who are making the lowest wages in the country. And the reason that there are so many of them is because there are so many people making the lowest wages in the country. With their wage, the tax schedule says they don’t pay. Why don’t you work to bring their wages up so that they have to pay taxes? They also include people who are on welfare because they cannot get work thanks to people like you.
You probably shouldn’t be involved in the discussion to start with
dumbass
Sep. 21st, 2011 at 3:02 pm
non profits are not taxed because the majority do not take in much money. They need all they can get to survive. They do not make a profit, which is why companies are taxed.
What the government needs to do it keep with taxing the companies and not let them get out of it. And how about all those stinking politicians that don’t pay their taxes. If they would collect what they are owed, we would be a lot better off.
How about cut freaking spending? Why are there grants out there to study how fast ketchup pours? The government wastes more than it produces. There is no need to give them more.
fisheye
Sep. 21st, 2011 at 7:36 pm
I think that the standard for taxing churches should be if the church is open to the public. Locally I know of one church estate that is behind a wrought iron fence. If they profit, because they are exempt; the public should have use of the property. Anybody should be able to come and go as they please (with the exception of closed during night hours for security reasons).
With churches that have many real estate holdings; but only one public church – only the church should be exempt. I just don’t know how they can claim the church is for God’s work and they don’t open it up for God (or anybody else).