Tax the Churches!

How so? How do I get differential tax treatment? I'm taxed on all the income I earn. I do not get special deductions, only the one's that eveyrone else gets.

I live in church owned housing. Therefore, I do not pay rent. However, I have to declare the fair market monthly rental value as income, and pay taxes on that.

Not sure what you're getting at...

How Iranian of them.

NOW THERE IS a good point. Kenny et al are outraged that churches don't demonstrate where they spend their money, but have you seen any transparency in the "stimulus" spending?

...please...

The vast majority of churches are very open about where the money is being spent. We have an independent audit each year. Our quarterly and annual financial statements are public record. It's that way at most churches. Yes, there are organizations out there that abuse their tax-exempt status. But please don't paint all of us witht he same brush.

Bold!

Couldn't agree more!

People riping you off are those NOT paying their taxes or avoiding it. There's more money there than any you'd get from taxing political helping churches.

Not religions that state they are Christian dabble in politics or go to war. You must know that in all your research.

@J_jammer

Sorry, but I'm not understanding what you're saying? But I assume you're asking about christians and their history, there was a little something called the Spanish Inquistion.

Let me get more specific.

Name a religion that has NEVER been in a war.

"Let me get more specific.

Name a religion that has NEVER been in a war'

Buddhists

are you sure?

Is that how u justify things? "Name one religion that hasn't gone to war", so you admit religion is nonsense an none of them practice what they preach? Ok then... I agree.

Buddhism is NOT a religion.

QUOTE
It is {not} a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."
Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents.
A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others.
The starting point of Buddhism is reasoning or understanding, or, in the Pali words, samma-ditthi.
END

Buddhism is more of a secular approach to reason and awareness of self and one's place in the universe than it is some form of religion. You may as well include "atheism" or "science" or "democracy" as religions if you are going to include Buddhism.

QUOTE
To the seekers of truth the Buddha says:

"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them.

@curtisreed
"Buddhism is a religion or spiritual philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha (Pali/Sanskrit "the awakened one"). Adherents recognize the Buddha as an awakened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end suffering, achieve nirvana, and escape what is seen as a cycle of suffering and rebirth. However, Buddhist schools disagree over the historical teachings of the Buddha, and on the importance and canonicity of various scriptures."

Like the way you spin shit to fit your perspective.
Ever think about running for office?

I ask the question because there is an answer. You stated that you know and you researched religions, and I'm now very sure that that isn't even a true statement from you because of your lack of an answer.

My comment wasn't to you either.

So I'll be kind and ignore the last bit.

sry

took it that way since it followed mine.

think we should all start using the "@ whoever" when we respond.
i am guilty of not doing it also.
threads do get muddled.

I should have @. I was being lazy.

Because people shouldn't be under the guise that everyone thinks it's a great idea. I didn't state that it wasn't worth putting up on Current. It is worth that. You should research. Not all religions are as you state. Your comment shows you don't know enough about religion only what allows you to justify your dislike.

that's the kind of statement I'd expect a second grader to write. "why can't people just have one basis of belief"?! Really? You have to ask?

and I suppose you are the person to tell the world what that ONE basis of belief is?

the problem is NOT too many individual forms of belief: it's too many people trying to tell everyone else how to believe.

As if you know Jesus well enough.

Manu, you've smoked one too many joints. I haven't seen any statement of that kind. Maybe you are confusing Catholic comments.

The Church did NOT say they would cut back on helping the poor. They did say that if government healthcare required abortion the Catholic hospitals would have to reconsider if they could continue in practice.

Maybe you found an article I haven't seen. So put up or shut up. What Church said that if Gay Marriage was passed they wouldn't help the poor?

Prove it.

Ouch! "I smoked too many joints"... Getting a little personal aren't we. Lol. Anyway, here you go. Nothing to do with abortions but gay marriage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943....

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

I accept you apology. Lol.

Thanks for such a civil reply, we don't always get that on here. Lol.

I agree it's not right to blame everyone for the acts of a few, but it seems like the ones on top of the Vatican heirachy were knowledgable of these abuses. That's my concern. Also, it's a slippery slope for people that get tax advantage for religious purposes, like Im sure in America only, Scientology gets tax breaks. And how does one audit a church when donations are easy to hide.

And molestors have a safe haven in the church. Maybe not as much now, but religous figures have always been respected forces of a community. They are trusted. And it's good to see them become more liberal about priests getting married.

But end of day, tax is good. It's valuable land that could be used by others. Seperate church and state, and treat churches like any business. My opinion.

And the other thing was where in the Bible does it forbid homosexuality? One of those things I can't find. If you're religious, any religion can you send me to place to find that answer. Thanks.

You understand one shouldn't blame all for the few and yet you say "BUT" which is just stating "oh ignore what I said before about how it's wrong to blame others for other people's wrongs."

---about the MISUSE of scripture....
and? They misused it.

Manu, again, I'm not religious and don't really care to argue about homosexuality from a Biblical perspective, but I read the article you provided, and then researched other texts about the subject. I found one that was very amusing.

this text explains Leviticus 18:22 from both the "conservative" and the "progressive" interpretations.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

It appears very clear, even when the author provides the old Hebrew and a literal translation. Here is what the author says are the conservative and liberal interpretations:
"If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males.
If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves. "
What I find amusing is that there is no mention of Pagan temples in L 18:22. The progressives have seized upon 18:21 and tried to carry forth the meaning to change the interpretation. 18:21 "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD."

The point being, the Bible does have a number of scriptures against Homosexuality in which the meaning is obvious to any reasonable reader. The attempts to change the meaning are rather transparent re-writing of the Book.

You certainly are not after that other comment you made after this one.

And Jesus is not God to everyone. You're going to have to get specific instead of over generalizing.

I'm no defender of the Vatican, but are you aware of the vast amount of charity and good deeds the Catholic Church has done and does all around the world? Ever heard of Saint Teresa? Saint Patrick? Saint Nicholas? How about Bishop Desmond Tutu? Salvatorian Archbishop Oscar Romero?
Your comments reveal a profound ignorance.

And if you expand this further, away from Catholics, you will find VAST amounts of charitable donations by church congregations that is funneled through churches into very generous causes.

they do a MUCH better job than your beloved government has ever done.

Manu, "ignorance" is not an insult. No one knows everything, so everyone is ignorant about something, it simply means (or was intended) to mean not fully informed. That would have been a nicer way to say it, maybe I should have reconsidered my wording.

"I wish religion went away, because I really don't think people understand it. If I am more loving and forgiving then your god, you should reevaluate your beliefs."

I was referring to that statement: although I am not religious, I think a totally secular world would be a disaster. Obviously the Catholic Church and many Muslim Imams, Jewish Rabbis, etc. have "distorted" and "perverted" their religion, and especially once bureaucracy takes control of the religion it gets f*d up. But in general I think the collective wisdom of thousands of years' experience gives us a much more reliable framework than the whims of Humanism and securlarism etc. A church may wander from the teachings of Jesus, but the wisdom in the religion will eventually prevail.

You mention the Inquisition, which is a good example. The Roman bureaucracy took control of the religion and interbred with European monocracy but the religion rigelf through the reformation and the formation of Protestant sects. Some racists tried to hijack the religion and use it to rationalize slavery and genocide, but the teachintgs eventually restored reason and compassion and won out. Slavery was abolished due to the teachings of religion (Christianity), NOT due to humanist beliefs or compassionate kings. Segregation was overcome through the application of Christian values by leaders like Dr. ML King, not the rantings of Black Panthers or Malcom X.

If you need examples of the horrors perpetrated by secular governments, look no farther than to Nazism, socialism, and communism.

You're absolutely right that this is backlash for the Christian right hijacking our government at all levels. I hope all churches have to start abiding by the same scrutiny as all other non-profit organizations in America.

I agree. If a church donates money to a politician, I believe they are in violation of their 501-c3 rules and probably should be considered a PAC.

However, educating people about abortion or for the environment is NOT "political" activity, anymore than defending human rights, defending the constitution, treating AIDS victims, or trying to garner international support to end hunger, etc.

what we have here is a lot of religion-hating fanatics who just hate churches and Christians and want to poke a stick in their eye

Curtis, the stuff you said about poking a stick, I wanted to address that.

The reason people are so hostile to churches right now is that it is a backlash for all the abuse over the years churches have done to people, families have done to one another in the name of Christ. I was bashed with the bible, literally. I have been scandalized, berated, castigated, punished, demoralized and judged by people with bibles. I have some hostility still for what was done to me, but I still say that some churches are authentically engaged in ennobling the human condition.

That is why I stated that if a church is engaged in political action they should be scrutinized and regulated. If the church exists solely to do charity work, then by all means they should maintain their protected status.

I know so many people who are the walking wounded of so many evangelical churches who have done savage things to them to destroy their self esteem, their self confidence, and their identities. Those evil churches are the ones that I target with my hostility.

Nothing like returning the favor.

He would render unto to Ceasar what is his.

@pjacobs51, that is absolutely brilliant.

It can work, you can declare you home your church and that your family are your congregants. Businesses can declare themselves religious organizations making a profit to feed the poor. Providing jobs while doing charity and doing it all non-profit.

Hell that is just brilliant. Why does every business have to be for profit? Why do non profits have to rely on donations? Why can't they produce products, provide services and claim the profits to fund the charitable activities?

This idea deserves some serious consideration.

Ministers pay taxes.

That idea only works in sarcasm.

JohnA, thanks man I knew we agreed on some things and this is big!

All Muslims are not that way, just the ones you see on your cable news station, there are actually more White Cristian males who have attacked this nation, and will attack this nation more then anyone else.

You're justifying attacking people as long as someone is doing it worse?

Acutally churches SHOULD be lobbying for Pro-Life positions, silly!

Or have you people forgotten that the abolitionsists were primarily Christians and their churches?

Convenient how you forget that past crimes against humanity such as slavery were promoted by profit oriented considerations and opposed by the morality of Christianity.

And note it wasn't Islam or Judism that led the charge, it was Christians.

Pro-Life issues are central to Christian morality. If you can't see how it is morally right to defend the lives of the unborn, when an estimated 50 million of them have be I have to wonder about your mental clarity.

And on the other side of the equation is a "non-profit" that actually makes money off the abortion industry (Planned Parenthood). The PP director who recently resigned, creating a tremendous bru-ha-ha, is just hte latest example of someone coming to her senses about this abhorrent modern equivalent to slavery.

People already pay these guys already when you look at the grand scheme of things........I mean the Vatican itself ties in with that which control the lot of the world's finances.....just on an estimated scale, you could easily come to the realization that churches around the globe are so well off with it comes to their monies..........

If you can not see that religion has crossed the line in our government then you haven't been paying attention.

I do not believe that this was really a Church. It was set up as a way to take advantge of the tax loophole provided to legitimate churches. Of course we can count on politicians taking every advantage possible.

The time is now when they won't get the hell out of the way in passing a robust public option and they try to cloud the issue with abortion. These people and their invisible higher power are infringing in a chance of a lifetime to do good for their fellow man. What kind of fucking GOD do they pray too!

Unfortunately if you can not even get these people to understand that they have an imaginary friend that gives them bad orders, there is pretty much not much of a chance to reason with them.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. I'm a member of the clergy, and I most certainly DO pay taxes - federal, state and local income tax, FICA, Medicare, just like everyone else.

Question: do you pay or does the church pay for you?

Is your income from the church? Or is this an outside job?

I pay, and I am an employee of the church. I receive a W-2 just like I have at every other non-church job I've held. I've paid taxes at every church I've worked at. Every single pastor I know pays taxes. Not sure where you're getting the idea that somehow we get off "tax free."

I am confused. Your job is minister and you pay taxes or you are employed by the church in another capacity?

I was hired by my church to be their Senior Pastor. I receive a paycheck from the church twice a month. My taxes are withheld from each paycheck. In no way whatsoever do I not have to pay taxes. I pay the same taxes everyone else does. This is true of every single minister I know, and has been my experience at every single church I've served.

They drew first blood!

And by the way in many cases non-profits do pay taxes read the article.

People who use things like "commie" as an epithet can barely read, so don't waste your breath kenny.

kenny, I did read the article. The primary difference I gleaned from it was the chruches don't have to report in the same way. Big difference between taxing non-profits and asking them to report how the money is used. I wouldn't have any problem with making them all report the same way.

But I do dislike the clearly anti-religion attitude that certain quasi-fascist individuals pursue, it just seems that they arrogantly hate religion and the religious in all their manifetations and want to do anything they can to harm them.

Mind you, I'm not religious, so don't think I'm another "Jesus freak" defending my church or something similar. I just think they have an important role to play and they are not businesses (generally) like other corporations. They rely upon charity and they do very good deeds around the world. To hate churches in general because of a few idiots like Hagerd and some of the other infamous precher millionaires is like saying that all Muslims are terrorists.

I'm sick and tired of people lumping all of religion as one.

That's like saying all liberals are stupid, whorish morons who can't think outside of the box.