- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 47,477
- Reaction score
- 53,180
- Location
- Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Freedom of worship and religion is a Constitutional right. We honor the constitution by not taxing churches and other places of worship like mosques and synagogues. The church doesn't run the state and the state doesn't run or infringe upon the church. Giving the government power to tax churches is infringing upon a right to worship since churches and places of worship would have to pay taxes to provide a place for people to do so. The government could indirectly outlaw churches and public worship by taxing them to an unbearable level. Most churches have very very tight budgets and they are accountable to the congregants who typically have the ability to vote on financial issues or appoint deacons/elders to vote on them. It's an internal accountability, not an accountability to the government.
Now, if the "church" was actually a for profit business operating under the guise of a church to avoid taxation that is one thing.
The wording of the poll is horrible, suggesting that a no vote mean you're anti-Constitution. If only one type church was made tax exempt, that would violate the Establishment Clause. If all churches are treated the same, there is no constitutional violation.
Do you equally oppose CCW permits? If go to curch taxation is taboo then so should keep and bear arms taxation. Why is it fair and just to allow property owned by a "church" to recieve public services yet be exempt from the taxation used to support those services?
Because churches are charitable organizations and charitable organizations should be able to receive tax exempt status. CCW permits have nothing to do with charity.
A tax exemption is a "break", similar to a subsidy.A tax exemption is not a subsidy.
The reason churches are usually tax-exempt is because they often engage in charitable aid, and are a protected institution, as in "the power to tax is the power to destroy".
Do you equally oppose CCW permits? If go to curch taxation is taboo then so should keep and bear arms taxation. Why is it fair and just to allow property owned by a "church" to recieve public services yet be exempt from the taxation used to support those services?
While I get what you mean, I don't believe most churches follow the mega church model.
Those that unjustly enrich themselves, usually get caught, some way or another.
The only legitimate reason I can see for not taxing churches is religious bias, which would conflict with the First Amendment. If the wrong people don't like a particular church or religion, they can paper-**** it into extinction. The IRS needs to be downsized, not given more power.
"Go under" ??Really? Odd. In my entire county, I can only think of one actual "mega-church"... but there are hundreds of small churches that get by on a shoestring budget and would probably go under if they had to pay corporate tax rates.
As for charity, every single soup kitchen and homeless shelter I've ever seen in my area is funded and run by a local church.
If a Church supports a gov'ts war the gov'ts will support the Church. I think organized religion has caused more wars than any other historical reason. Sunnis and Shiites. Jews and Muslims. Christians and heathens. Hindus and Sikhs. The list is long. No tax exemptions for any church building over $40,000 in value.
Consider a mega church with a building that rivals a country club and the pastor preaching his israel prophecy and has a few charitable side shows run by earnest naive members.
Yet ... he enjoys his flock adoration, the women, the 7 million dollar property, the "christian" cruises paid for and tax free. He is nice looking, loves the stage and charismatic and his wife (formerly his babysitter) sells her base trinkets and crafts through the church.
There is no front for terrorism or nothing on the sick level of Westboro ... just simple narcissism and greed. Why would this be tax exempt with closed books?
Billions of dollars and properties are tax exempt with closed books under the guise of churches.
If they truly are a complete charitable organization they would qualify by filing the same as any other not for profit.
It is unconstitutional and gives a bias. Why should a non religious based organization have to file and open their books and any church just get a blind faith pass.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
It is unconstitutional and gives a bias. Why should a non religious based organization have to file and open their books and any church just get a blind faith pass.
If they truly are a charitable organization, they wouldn't be able to afford the mega churches. They're supposed to spend their funds proselytizing and aiding the less fortunate, ergo they should be broke all the time.
It would be unconstitutional to tax one church because the pastor looks nice and you don't like his wife, while not taxing some other church because you don't percieve that guy as a rich douchebag. It is a religious organization, because it's a church.
Without specific examples of what you're talking about, your argument is invalid. On Fairmont pkwy there are two megachurches, and guess what? They're most definately religious organizations since every service provided is religious in nature. Whether you like the people who run it or not is entirely irrelevant.