Should Churches Remain Tax-Exempt?

[robvalue]

I see, cool thanks. Politics is so complicated.

[Cato]

Negative.....you are not even close.

The reasons Chuches have tax exemptions is because of the First Amendment of our constitution.

Congress first tried to exempt religious organizations in the Revenue Act of 1894, but this act was determined to be unconstitutional primarily due to the apportionment clause. So much for your First Amendment bullshit.

It took the Sixteenth Amendment that removed the apportionment requirement before religions could be exempted. Even then, religions were given tax exempt status because they were considered charitable organization and not because of religion per se. This was first done via the Revenue Act of 1913.

In the Revenue Act of 1938, the Ways and Means Committee documented clarification of the purpose of the tax exemption:

The exemption from taxation of money or property devoted to charitable or other purposes is based upon the theory that the government is compensated for the loss of revenue by its relief from the financial burdens which would otherwise have to be made by appropriations from public funds, and by benefits resulting from the promotion of the general welfare.

Again, tax exemption is not granted because of religion, but because religious organizations were deemed charitable.

In 1969, religions were subject to tax for unrelated business income. This means that income that did not further their charitable arm was taxable.

This is probably also a good time to point out that like other exempt charitable organizations, religious organizations can face penalty and forfeiture of their exempt status if caught "attempting to influence legislation, (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)) and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office".

[Minimalist]

The reasons Chuches have tax exemptions is because of the First Amendment of our constitution.

As usual Woodie you haven't got a fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The government subsidizes millionaire farmers all the time, and for what to protect there interests.

So what? I'm against those, as well.

We've survived a long time without it, I was pointing out a right that comes with paying taxes.

You don't have the right to use government property as you wish simply because you pay taxes.

[Godscreated]

I don't think that they make homeless people pray before they give them a hot meal...

No, but the church services themselves and the promotion of religion are defined as charity by the IRS. That is the problem.

---

We've argued whether the constitution calls for separation of church and state, did you participate in that. All the atheist here said the constitution called for the separation of church and state, seem you three are the only atheist here who believe the constitution doesn't call for that separation. You all should get together on your notes so you can argue alike on such profound doctrine.

When you can translate that into understandable English, I'll respond.

What's not to understand, you and your kudo partners seem to agree the constitution doesn't call for the separation of church and state, all the other atheist believe it does.

GC

---

Not me, it would give the religions a platform on which to debate openly in the view of the public.

GC

The only reason you would see a Satan statue at a city hall is because certain atheists(not all or most) like to troll Judeo-Christians. The religions of the community would realize it is better not to give a venue to atheistic trolls rather than have the opportunity to have their icons displayed at city hall.

Seems to me that a public forum would expose those who are in it to discredit Christianity, this would give our most talented to debate openly with the county watching.

GC

[Cato]

You all should get together on your notes so you can argue alike on such profound doctrine.

We'll commence the activity the day after you and your ilk whittle the 40,000 Christian denominations down to 1.

[Godscreated]

Really, want impede the practice of religion, refusing prayer in school,

For the love of god, the word you are after is 'Won't' not fucking 'want'. It's easy to overlook the rest of your spelling and grammar shite but please, if you only take one thing from this forum let it be the lesson of how to use 'won't'.

I love it when the only objection to one of my post is grammar, for me it means you have no counter.

GC

[Nope]

No one has said that the constitution doesn't basically call for a separation of church and state, we just do not believe that asking for religious organizations to file paperwork is a violation of that separation. After all, religious buildings have to file paperwork for things like building codes etc. No one argues that synagogues and temples should be built to safety codes or that someone would inspect a church to make certain that it might safety requirements. You haven't explained why paying taxes or just filing the form to be a nonprofit is different then filing forms for a church to be built.

The reason that we pay taxes is because pooing our money together is a better way to provide roads, bridges,a police force, an army, an education etc then for each individual to do so on their own. Churches and other religious buildings are part of the community and benefit from the presence of roads and a police force. It makes sense that religious organizations would help pay for things that they use. That has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

[FatAndFaithless]

Giving churches special considerations and exemptions that don't apply to other organizations, based strictly on the fact that they're "religious", is more of a violation of church and state and simply asking them to fill out some damn forms.

[Thumpalumpacus]

For the love of god, the word you are after is 'Won't' not fucking 'want'. It's easy to overlook the rest of your spelling and grammar shite but please, if you only take one thing from this forum let it be the lesson of how to use 'won't'.

I love it when the only objection to one of my post is grammar, for me it means you have no counter.

GC

... or, alternatively, it means that everything else has been so decisively answered that all that's left is mopping up with little niggles.

Trust me, your arguments are as solid as cheesecloth, though not quite so impenetrable. ("Impenetrable" means unable to be penetrated.)