(May 28, 2011 at 7:56 am)tackattack Wrote: You realize most churches I've been to have been incorperated.
Of course. Putting my feelings about religion aside, it makes sense that a church as an entity is going to own property (the building, etc) as well as have operating expenses that are not billed to an individual but rather to "the church" as an entity.
Non-profit organizations are structured the same way as a for-profit company except that instead of assets, liabilities and owner equity, it's assets, liabilities and the trust fund for future activities of the organization.
It makes perfect sense to think of a company, church or non-profit as an entity that owns property, assets and takes on liabilities, as well as pay taxes separately than from the owners (the down side of incorporation is you effectively have double taxation but that's the price a business owner knows going in). The important thing to recognize is that this is just an accounting tool. Some idiot judges have started to think "They're an entity? Oh, that must mean they're people too with all the rights protected by our constitution." Conservatives love to whine about judicial activism but this is a real example of that kind of thing.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist