Do Churches Deserve Tax Breaks?

[Didymos Thomas]

Sure churches should be exempt from taxation.

But churches should also be compelled to publicly publish all of their financial records and also be compelled to run as not-for-profits with all surplus of income contributed to charitable causes and efforts; they might maintain a homeless shelter with surplus, or donate food to some starving part of the world.

These mega-churches raking in millions of dollars should be demolished. Many pastors deserve jail time.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Giving churches tax breaks violates the separation of church and state.

In my opinion there are no just "religious rights", rather all of these rights are simply guaranteed by other basic rights.

Churches should be treated as any other organization without consideration for its religious affiliation.

With that said, I consider taxation theft (there's a thread you won't get me out of), and believe that all persons and organizations (not stealing from others through government subsidy) deserve tax breaks.

[ariciunervos]

I don't know about other countries but here priests bless new cars, new apartments, new buildings, etc with `holy' water in exchange for cash. They sell grave sites at huge prices, and at weddings, burials, christenings, etc you gotta pay the dudes officiating and it's pretty expensive. Once a year they walk from door to door throwing holy water in every room of the house and some people give them money for this ...
I don't know about it ... It's kinda strange, I mean these guys are regular guys like you and me, they wear jeans and boots under the black priest robes, they got sport cars, etc. I say tax the motherfookers.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Sure churches should be exempt from taxation.

Hi Didymos Thomas. Your positiveness suggests you completely agree with the common belief that churches are entitled to the exemptions because they provide valuable extra-governmental services to the community. Please confirm whether that is so. It might also be helpfuI to find out where you stand on the issue of political activities by the churches. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

In my opinion there are no just "religious rights", rather all of these rights are simply guaranteed by other basic rights.

Hi Mr. Fight the Power:

Do you think the other basic rights would bar the government from establishing a single state church? If so, please explain. Thanks!

[Didymos Thomas]

Hi Didymos Thomas. Your positiveness suggests you completely agree with the common belief that churches are entitled to the exemptions because they provide valuable extra-governmental services to the community. Please confirm whether that is so. It might also be helpfuI to find out where you stand on the issue of political activities by the churches. Thanks!

You bet, thanks for the question!

I do think that some churches do, and more importantly that churches can, provide valuable extra-governmental services. Most essentially, I think that Jefferson's "wall of separation" argument is convincing, and I also think that at least most people have spiritual needs, and the majority of those with spiritual needs prefer organized congregation to the lack thereof.

As for churches and political activism, I am honestly torn. I have never felt comfortable with political endorsements from the pulpit, even when I agree with the endorsement. However, I also think that spiritual leaders have a responsibility to address relevant social conditions; for example, I cannot imagine criticizing ML King Jr.'s political activism.

But I can rest easily with any sort of political activism from a church or similar spiritual institution so long as that institution does not have a financial influence in politics, or the financial resources to influence politics. Instead of using church institutions as political action committees, spiritual leaders should form separate action organizations to collect and handle money for said organization. Most basically: The church, temple, ect should be financially impotent in all matters outside of non-partisan charity.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Instead of using church institutions as political action committees, spiritual leaders should form separate action organizations to collect and handle money for said organization.

Hi again, Didymos Thomas:

At the outset of this discussion I said churches “are barred from engaging in excessive political lobbying and any political campaigning.” Thanks to you, I see I was mistaken. It seems to me like the churches can eat their cake and have it too. Through their PAC conduits they can campaign and lobby pretty much all they want and keep their tax exemptions.

Can you really “rest easily” with that sort of activism? Surely you would not expect the PACs to acr independent of the pastors’ wishes. Don’t you think that Justin may have been on track when he said: “Churches may as well get into laundering money because that’s sort of what it is.”

[Khethil]

For some reason, this issue keeps popping back into my head since I posted my response a few days ago. But the more I think about it, the more I'm conflicted.

1. As a small, altruistic "club" - so to speak - your local community church helps folks in a way that's no different than if we were all to gather and start handing out food. I think about such quaint setups, whose only function is community support and say, "Let them keep their tax-exemption! This is good stuff"
2. Then I look at the multi billion-dollar religious organizations; the various grotesqueries - bloated and corrupt (exaggeration) and say, "Heck no! Make these leaches pay like the rest of us".
3. And of course the atheist in me says, "uh... no free lunch man, especially for spreading that kind of thing".

So I'm gonna take it all back and say "I just don't know". Hopefully some of your responses will help me clarify my position.

Thanks

[jgweed]

There is no reason not to tax both church property and income designed to perpetuate itself; a reasonable view of exemptions for funds devoted to charitable works, but taxing all other funds as income seems better.
Many churches have fleets of cars or buses, huge buildings seating thousands of people, media studios, and a large staff that seems to fit the business model more than it does a picture of a wooden church with a pipe organ and a hundred members or so joined in prayer or for an ice-cream social in the evening.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Dewey

Hi Mr. Fight the Power:

Do you think the other basic rights would bar the government from establishing a single state church? If so, please explain. Thanks!

It depends very much on how it goes about doing it. If this government church pays for itself and no one is compelled by the government or other entity to belong to this church then I see no issue.

Once we get into that realm, however, we are beginning to lose the qualities that make the government what it is.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Khethil

1. As a small, altruistic "club" - so to speak - your local community church helps folks in a way that's no different than if we were all to gather and start handing out food. I think about such quaint setups, whose only function is community support and say, "Let them keep their tax-exemption! This is good stuff"
2. Then I look at the multi billion-dollar religious organizations; the various grotesqueries - bloated and corrupt (exaggeration) and say, "Heck no! Make these leaches pay like the rest of us".

These certainly display why you are confused. You are concentrating on the "religion" issue, when, for both of your scenarios, religion matters nothing to your justification.

Confusion will always arise when you attempt to add value to a variable that simply isn't in the equation.