Do you think churches should be taxed?

"This is a no-brainer, yes yes yes."

Agreed. If they can afford to have a marketing plan and advertise on TV, they can afford to pay their fair share of taxes.

oral roberts university of tulsa, oklahoma is worth about 250,000,000.00 dollars. tax free

IMHO, the most important part of the article:
"... Any politician that campaigned on taxing churches would be fried mincemeat..."

yes and i belive in jesus.

I think that Churches should be taxed for the property and such, but I am less enthusiastic about taxing churches on their income. I think that if a church tries to politically influence its flock then it should pay a tax on its income.

First of all, pastors pay taxes on their "million dollar homes," if they own them, as well as income tax.

Second, the vast majority of pastors are solidly middle class or below, not millionaires or even modestly rich by any stretch of the imagination.

Third, megachurches and charlatans aside, what on earth makes you think churches are "for profit?" They keep up their church buildings and their staff and their religious programs and then they give a shit-ton of what's left over (which is not much) to charity and in community service.

Finally, taxing churches would be pretty obviously in violation of the First Amendment. Taxation would be an onerous burden on organizations that - by a huge margin because the rich megachurches that you mention are a statistically insignificant slice - are dedicated to public service.

Unfortunately those that only use donations for charitable works have to pay the price for those that have gone beyond that and crossed the line into meddling in politics and business.

Tucker Carlson?, I never did like your show lol. Obviously I am talking about the megachurches. Did you think I was talking about the little churches. Even if i was, their taxes would be proportional just like yours and mine right? Also you are wrong and vague with the "shit-ton" numbers. Also vague about the "statistically insignificant slice" which is analagous with the upper 1% of the wealthy american billionaires. Also, "onerous burden" is a vague opinion. Also, but not lastly, for now violation of the first amendment is exactly what i'm talking about so i'm glad you brought that up again. As they are continuously influencing politicians and government to further their profits and expand their empire they therefore should be taxed! A little quote from a fellow conservative you may remember: Barry Goldwater 1981, "They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%....if you disagree with them(the churches/religion) they threaten you with loss of money or votes or both." .

This post is not meant to bash churches. But, I think you are insulting people's intelligence if you try to make it out that churches are not making money. Clearly they own a large part of the globe and are well into the billions if not trillions in assets and financial holdings. To say otherwise and distract by talking about the"little guy" is absurd and again insulting.

Absolutely I do. The days of the little community church, with the shabby parsonage are gone. Chrystal Cathedrals seem to be more common now. Tax them.

The most bothering thing is that the Churchs are put on land that would be generaly taxed. Now the government will get the rightful tax on the churchs land but since the can't get it from the church they get from local taxpayers. The local taxpayers probley do't go to that church and may not even be in that religion.
I'm an Athiest and I'm paying for local churchs. How does that make sense?

The idea of taxing a none profit organization is absolutely disgusting, and this is coming from an atheist. I understand why America is going the way of the Dodo now. You people are so spiteful and angry that you would take a cheap shot against ALL of the religious organizations in the country just to get back a few. Agreeing to this is 100% certified admission of a religious prejudice.

A huge percentage of churches or religious institutions don’t even pay their clergy! The bulk of the contributions goes to maintenance, bills, and don’t forget the all important charitable works. Do you seriously believe taxing contributions is going to do anything for the people? Can you really be so hatefully blind that you endorse an unfair taxation of a soup kitchen so that a politician could squander that money on a tricked out limo?

No.

If they are to pay only those that dabble in politics. Making others pay just because someone hates religion is not a wise or fair thing to do.

When churches get into politics they should absolutely get taxed. This whole notion of churches taking back the government and the country is a load of crap. This country was founded with a wall of separation between church and state. For the past 12 years and even more there have been religious evangelical political action committees that have have poured millions of dollars into political campaigns and supported candidates through the power of the pulpit. They should not be allowed to influence government to create classes of people with special rights.

Churches have enjoyed special rights for long enough, if they are making a profit and their pastor is driving a Rolls Royce and a Private Jet, I think that there is something most definitely wrong with that picture.

Wow there are a lot of vague generalizations being thrown around just for the sake of argument. There are countless denominations of any faith that take no active role in politics whatsoever. Defending those organizations which are not part of the problem is not an assault on intelligence it’s an assault on ignorance.

Again you cannot claim that all houses of worship have evolved into “mega churches.” Congregational gatherings are not a recent occurrence by any stretch of the imagination. . Nor can you simply assert that a mega church is an evil institution because the term itself is a wide generalization that covers many denominations all with their own reason to gather in large numbers.

Lastly the idea that all religions or even the majority allow for the head of affairs to squander church funds for themselves is again a wide generalization. A good example would be Jehovah Witnesses. Their elders (preachers, or basically the ones who give the majority of talks-or sermons) are not paid for their service nor are they provided accommodations.

Those guys have their owns jobs yet find the time to hold service three times a week plus preach the good word (as they call it) on Saturday and Sunday.

Sweet Jesus how can you use Wright and Hagee as a basis for your defense? They’re both directly tied to politicians because they have politicians within their congregation. That doesn’t mean ALL religions have a stake in politics. If that’s the case where are our pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist (you get where I’m going) politicians? What’s their agenda and how much money are they spending to back it?

And come on supposed charitable works? Please the private sector has ALWALYS managed charitable programs far better than any politician or bureaucracy. The idea that we should depend solely on a welfare state mentality which demands taxation and asserts that lives and income are owned by the state is absolutely un-American. That’s part of the reason why private charities are not taxed because people should be allowed to give money to the needy without fear that the government is going to throttle that selfless act.

Most mega churches are located in Africa and Asia, and I guarantee those regions know all about the poor.

Lastly as an atheist myself I do not believe its my place to judge anyone because on faith or lack there of. Only the fanatical and self absorbed rate people by such dealings.

ricky84,
Retract your claws, wipe the foam off your mouth, and read the text. I said this wasn't a reason to bash churches, just an honest question about churches revenues that aren't really accounted for and are the churches really helping as much as they could. At the top of the post it even proposes taxing proportional to the charity the church provides. You are projecting a great deal and YOUR arguments are vague and flawed.



"The New Testament reports that Jesus rarely used fancy modes of transportation to get around. He walked most of the time, although Matthew and other gospels mention that he once rode a borrowed donkey into Jerusalem, where he burst into the Temple and tossed out the money changers.

Nearly 2,000 years later, some who claim to speak in Jesus' name are taking a different view. Consider Bishop Eddie Long, who pastors a megachurch in Lithonia, Ga. With a salary approaching $1 million a year and a nine-bathroom mansion situated on 20 acres, Long's choice of vehicles reflects his opulent lifestyle: He drives a $350,000 Bentley.

Far from casting out money changers, Long is likely to join them. In a 2005 profile in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he defended his high-flying ways, insisting, "I pastor a multimillion dollar congregation. You've got to put me on a different scale than the little black preacher sitting over there that's supposed to be just getting by because the people are suffering."

Long's lack of humility has probably done him no favors. At the time, U.S. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), expressed dismay.

"When I hear about leaders of charities being provided a $300,000 Bentley to drive around in, my fear is that it's the taxpayers who subsidize this charity who are really being taken for a ride," he quipped.

In November, Grassley, who serves as ranking minority member on the Senate Finance Committee, ramped things up a bit. He announced that he is seeking detailed financial information from six mega-ministries, Long's among them."
link for above
http://www.alternet.org/story/72539/?page=entire

They DO dabble in politics all the time. And many churches drive the Republican base. To waste money on researching which individual church does or does not have a political agenda is a huge waste of money. Absolutely they should be taxed. And every church of every religion should be taxed. Churches are a multi-billion dollar business. Anyone who thinks they shouldn't be taxed are absolutely nuts.

YES! What kind of backwards-assed state wouldn't?
Separation of church and state!

Seriously how contradictory is it to say that I’m projecting anything when you state that I’m bearing claws and foaming at the mouth? I’m going to move on because I did really come here to trade cheap shots. I suggest you should do the same and do not continue with that bull.

The fact that people support a church of their own volition is proof enough that a church (in their eyes) is doing exactly what they need to do. However you would have me believe that our government should tax a religious organization because they do not meet up to your standards?

I think that a dangerous train of thought that will undoubtedly lead to a government infringing upon a persons right to practice their religion. What’s next then? Should we burn Muslims, Buddhists and Catholics because they don’t allow women to become members of the clergy? I mean it makes since right?

You cannot revoke a tax exemption status just because it’s a religious organization no matter how much you despise religion. That’s just not how the world works. Why is this so hard to understand? Freedom of speech does allow a clergyman to endorse a candidate outside of the church. It however does not allow a tax exempt charity to openly endorse a candidate.

A church or any other tax exempt charity also has the right to discuss policy issues. Like it or not you cannot deny an organizations freedom of speech because they’re argument does not jive with your own. Before the civil rights movement a lot of churches spoke out against racism. Those same evangelicals you hate (Jehovah Witnesses) were extremely supportive of equal rights. Why am I, an atheist, the one that has to bring this up?

The truth of the matter is that the majority of clergy and their followers oppose the politicization of religious organizations. Even among evangelicals the majority support the laws in place. Only TV evangelicals want to change the laws so they use church donations to fund political candidates. In my opinion it’s shameful to suppose that congregants are always of one mind and support whoever their clergy deem the appropriate candidate. THAT IS PROJECTION.

Oh yeah claiming that we should tax a church -or charitable organization- based on the amount of charity it provides also shows a clear lack of understanding. If you revoke tax exemption to a proportional standard then you’re render tax exemption worthless. Now scientific organizations suffer because they focus in a particular field instead of covering everything in the universe. What about educational institutions? A museum that focuses on the history of African Americans only receives a 13% tax exemption because blacks only make up 13% of the population.

No,it doesn't make sense. Your reasoning and logic and train of thought that leads you to "burn muslims...." is so far from anything that I am suggesting and frankly sounds "dangerous" that you could so quickly jump to that conclusion. I abhor violence (a diametrically opposed view of many religions by the way) and for you to suggest otherwise is insulting, presumptuous, and distracting. Please do move on or restrict your opinions as to the question stated---taxing churches.

Moreover, our "christian nation" have displaced and/or murdered 5 million iraqi's on the basis of liberation, terrorism, and oil of course. So, go ahead and defend the "faith" and there good intentions and vote for Mccain. But that is another topic altogether. You may claim I am disgusting for proposing taxes on billions of dollars, but you are naive in thinking the churches are completely altruistic.

I think what we are talking about here is demanding accountability from tax exempt organizations. All of these churches need to be transparent with their finances and should be required to post their financial statements to show the members, the community at large, and the government that they are being good stewards with the special status they enjoy.

Churches who want to remain secretive should be disallowed their special status. If Churches are truly non-profit and truly are engaged in charity work, then they should be left alone to continue to be ambassadors of the love of God.

But churches, religious institutions, and religious groups that are not publicly disclosing their finances should be cracked down on hard.

If I were establishing the standards and guidelines, this is how I would proceed. I would send out a bulletin to all the tax exempt organizations to begin disclosure to a central clearing house where anyone could go and check up on a churches activity to see if they are complying with the law. Enforcement should be undertaken after two warnings.

Churches should also be allowed to be independent in the way they deal with what they consider moral issues and be allowed to operate like a private club; if they choose to keep unbelievers of their faith out, they should have that right guaranteed under the constitution. But if they are providing services to the general public, then they should not be allowed to discriminate in those services.

For example, a soup kitchen that doesn't feed gay people, that should not be allowed. A food bank run by a religious organization that won't dispense food to gay people, that should not be allowed. But a church that offers marriage services only to its members who believe in their faith, they should be allowed to say no to providing that service to gays.

The line is in that when they are doing charity, it should have no strings attached to faith. Charity should be given freely to all regardless of their status as a believer. If these churches or religious institutions are engaged in activities that in the secular public arena are discriminatory then they should loose their special privileges.

All non profit organization including Churches report to the IRS.

It is up to their membership to demand the financial information they want.

Unless a business is a public organisation trading on the stock market, their financial information is private.
(especially from their competitors.

It is the same for non profit.

This post is just fueled by anti religious sentiment and full of non sense.

Oh wow I would never vote for McCain. Ha! that' is pretty funny though koko.

And again with the wide generalizations. You cannot argue that the Christian nation have displaced and murdered millions of Iraqi’s. That blame rests on the shoulders of the Bush administration and PNAC. To confuse the two or lump all Christians and religious folk into that category is completely unfair and untruthful.

The amount of money that a charitable organization holds means nothing to this argument. Charities are funded by the donations of free people and should be protected from taxation. This is a democratic state we do not infringe upon the rights of free people. You have no right to that money.

This article is based of a BLOG that unjustly frames religion in a ridiculously narrow perspective. Even if you do base your argument upon that fallacy you simply cannot tax private interest that is protected by law. You can’t argue around that.

TV evangelists and some church leaders do say horrible things. As long as they do adhere to the IRS guidelines for a tax exemption they are allowed to say whatever the hell they want outside the church or charity. You cannot strip someone of their freedom of speech because they are influential.


“But you are naive in thinking the churches are completely altruistic.” No I’m just not a religion basher who unfairly demonizes everything that religion is involved in. Without the social and charitable deeds of the religious institutions Western civilization would not exist. Everyone civilization the world over has relied on its religious institutions to collect and pass on its knowledge.

You would never tax a Museum even though the word and idea itself is derived from Goddess’ or Muses of Greek mythology. True to this day some of the greatest institutes of higher learning were not founded by the government they were founded by religious organizations.

@Jubal. I will also agree that the government should take great strides to ensure that tax free bounds should not be given to overly secular churches. . Some guys just don’t deserve such breaks. However if they want to spend their own money funding such endeavors we should not deny them that right. I’m pretty sure I don’t have to comment at length as to who those particular individuals are. I think we already covered that.

ever heard of the separation of church and state? despite OUR opinions, they will and should remain untaxed.

Yes of course! I can't believe they haven't been paying for this long already! The tax man doesn't discriminate color or sex, but apparently religion? All in all church is a business when i comes down to it. So there should be no loopholes or any way around that! I don't think i need to elaborate any more so than that.

If I have to pay... Why not?

I'm sure god can afford it.....

Keep writing Ricky, the more you write the crazier you seem. I stopped reading at, "Without the social and charitable deeds of the religious institutions Western civilization would not exist...", LMAO.

Oh wow you just can’t have an honest debate without taking cheap shots can you? There is nothing crazy about what I’ve sad. My position isn’t based some random fucking blogger like you. It’s supported by the actual government. And look there is nothing funny about not understanding American law or the history of the Western civilization. Please go read a book or learn to offer a reasonable rebuttal.

Typing LMAO is a poor substitute to making a valid point.

@ Ricky84 and jubal
I am an atheist and I agree with most of what Ricky84 and jubal have said. While I loathe the infamous megachurches and their despicable leaders (such as mentioned in the lead in article) I think that it is unfair to punish all nonprofit churches by imposing a tax. Churches (especially the smaller ones) provide many invaluable services to their communities. I recently donated some clothes and toys to a local church that my neighbor goes to that has a great reputation for helping the needy.

jubal's point about stricter transparency measures seems like a better idea to me. Keep in mind the repercussions that might affect the unfortunate people if smaller organizations have less DONATED capital to work with.

I certainly abhor the actions of the religious right and the way in which certain Christian groups have seemingly hijacked certain aspects of the political arena. However, I feel that it would be a mistake to impose taxes on the whole spectrum of nonprofit religious organizations.

I wonder how the proponents of church taxation would have explained the proposal to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his Dexter Avenue Baptist Church? Sure, some megachurch leaders are detestable scoundrels and even more so when they inject nonsensical arguments into politics. But in the spirit of one of the most highly political religious leaders in our nations history we should fight them with our words and actions while not losing sight of the impoverished.

Oh, Ricky, so tiresome and arrogant. And now you've resorted to profanity in a "debate".I think you made your point albeit convoluted and weighing in on the "what would we do without religion" point of view. You haven't offerred anything but twisted words, vague generalizations about how "the western world" owes itself to religion, and silly opinions masquerading as facts and current government laws that can't be changed. (You seem to think you have provided some sort of education on american law, did I miss something substantive?). You mention "demonizing all religion..", "hate", and have not only put words in my mouth but tried to imply what I think and believe. It is arrogant presumption at best. A debate? When you immediately jump from taxing churches to"what's next, burning muslims?" I don't think you are rational enough. You have relegated this to a personal attack by your very first post:

"The idea of taxing a none profit organization is absolutely disgusting, and this is coming from an atheist. I understand why America is going the way of the Dodo now. You people are so spiteful and angry that you would take a cheap shot against ALL of the religious organizations in the country just to get back a few. Agreeing to this is 100% certified admission of a religious prejudice."

There is no conspiracy, spitefulness, or anger.I think any sane person who sees a pastor with a huge mansion and a $300,000 car would question if the church was actually handling their tax exempt status honestly.Your perception that this is a religion bashing, demonization of all religion is, as already stated, wrong. Also, to argue that the only solution offerred is to tax all churches to the point that they will no longer be able to function is not my view nor is it implied in anything I have said,and shows shortsightedness and extremism. It also shows "the lack of understanding" you have in the ability to evaluate and solve problems.

You ,however, have demonstrated clear "spitefulness and anger" so much that you missed the point which is about the corrupt churches. I don't wish to converse let alone debate(and there is no debate by the way, some if not all churches should be taxed on their income) with someone like you. "Oh wow i would never vote for Mccain" , but you would vote for Ron Paul.over Obama? Another example of how conflicted and confused and illogical you are.

P.S. It's not my job to post what the senate finance committee has found so far with the investigation of how the 6 largest megachurches may be abusing their tax exempt status, or the Jim baker scandal of embezzelment of 127 million dollars, or Oral roberts asking for 8 million dollars and receiving it from his flock, or any of the other information which can be found relatively easy on the internet. You clearly are against the idea of taxing churches and I am not. Keep espousing your atheistic philosophy of how religion is so important to society if you wish, but leave me and my want of a reasonable audit out of it.

If any of these mega church leaders were stripped of their tax exempt status it would not be because their accommodations were dis-proportionate to the amount of charitable work they do. You can however tax a minister when his/her compensation is deemed unreasonable. Therefore if your church brings in huge amount of money then you are allowed to have a larger wage.

It is incredibly insincere that a church leader would drive a Bentley. Yet if they run a multi million dollar religious organization which would allow for a reasonable salary that could afford those luxuries then you have no argument. Ultimately the IRS is the judge. If they decide to remove a tax exempt status then good I’m not arguing that.

None of this is all that important given the fact that this article is still about taxing churches. You cannot tax certain churches and not others. You can’t proportionally tax churches based on size. You can’t proportionally tax churches based on their charitable deeds. Religion is in itself protected from taxation.

I’m so happy to know you find me tiresome. Anyone that has such a negative reaction to the sound logic of the first amendment needs to take a nap and get their stuff together.

Again your arrogance has left me astounded. You apparently have everything already worked out, why don't you just type up your report and send it in to the Senate Finance Committee. I'm sure they'll be appreciative.
"You cannot tax certain churches and not others. You can’t proportionally tax churches based on size. You can’t proportionally tax churches based on their charitable deeds. Religion is in itself protected from taxation."---These are the current laws. Are you really trying to tell me that laws, regulations, legislature,bills, ammendments can never be changed? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that in no way, no how, a system of taxation could not be developed like it is for the 300 million individuals currently residing in the United States based on their individual incomes??? Really? So everything is just set in stone from now to eternity???? And this would obviously translate to all other parts of the c