Christianity and Accountability

[Tinker Grey]

Taxes on roads are paid for through gas taxes, not property taxes.

There is simply nothing that churches need to pay to society. Freedom of religion is an inalienable human right.

Freedom to worship doesn't entail a free ride.

 

[FireDragon76]

Should a government tax at all, then?

Taxation should be according to reason, not animus.

 

[FireDragon76]

Freedom to worship doesn't entail a free ride.

That statement is dripping with contempt and proves my point.

Freedom to practice ones religion is enshrined in the Constitution. If you have a problem with it, you can always move to North Korea, where they share similar attitudes.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Freedom to practice ones religion is enshrined in the Constitution.

Which does not entail a free ride. See the court case cited above.

If you have a problem with it, you can always move to North Korea, where they share similar attitudes.

Drama much?

 

[FireDragon76]

Which does not entail a free ride. See the court case cited above.


Drama much?

While I no longer go to church, it is not out of hatred. I love the people at my former congregation and realize many of those people need that church to be there. They operate on a shoestring budget and simply have nothing to tax, between all the power bills and paying janitors (who aren't members of the church)

What you are talking about in the abstract is really quite monstrous when it comes to its application.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why should a religious organization get to take advantage of what my taxes pay for? Everything they get, they get by piggybacking on my dollar. I don't consent to that.

Should a pastor pay taxes on his income? (It is not required, though some do.) Is it a hindrance on the free practice of religion if he is required to? What about on his housing allowance? What about on her car allowance?

I think my paying taxes is a hindrance on my free exercise of atheism. (Note for the purposes of interpreting the 1st amendment, SCOTUS has ruled that religious stance -- not being religious -- is protected.)

If a church gets road maintenance, power lines, etc., they should pay taxes. They needn't pay taxes on every facet of their budget, but they should budget for property taxes to cover infrastructure costs.

Pastors do pay taxes on their income. They only are allowed to exempt some of their income proportional to a parsonage exemption, if the church does not provide a parsonage and gives them a parsonage allowance instead. I actually opposed the expansion of this exemption, as I do believe that ministers should actually serve their congregations and not use religion to enrich themselves beyond what is reasonable to support their vocation. That ministers should pay property taxes the same as everybody else.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Pastors do pay taxes on their income. They only are allowed to exempt some of their income proportional to a parsonage exemption, if the church does not provide a parsonage and gives them a parsonage stipend. I actually opposed the expansion of this exemption, as I do believe that ministers should actually serve their congregations and not use religion to enrich themselves beyond what is reasonable to support their vocation. That ministers should pay property taxes the same as everybody else.

Look. I'm willing to allow churches that actually do community work, e.g., soup kitchens, to get a break, but they need to provide records and evidence of this. They should not get off just on their say-so. The tax break should be proportional to what they actually contribute.

I reiterate that tax breaks were not a given between 1789 and 1894, that the court case cited above doesn't find tax exemption necessary to the free exercise of religion.

I don't hate the church. My spouse is the children's minister at the church I used to be an elder at. I have fond memories of being there. Nevertheless, I think that most churches coast on the idea that they are a church.

The previous pastor of that church paid no FICA because of some exemption (I may be misremembering which tax he was talking about--it's been more than a decade). He later expressed regret because the decision to do so seemed to him spurious upon reflection. But, for reasons I don't recall, once the decision had been made he couldn't go back on it (according to him.)

There're all sorts of loop holes.

Again, I will reiterate, free exercise of religion doesn't not imply lack of financial responsibility.

 

[FireDragon76]

Look. I'm willing to allow churches that actually do community work, e.g., soup kitchens, to get a break, but they need to provide records and evidence of this. They should not get off just on their say-so. The tax break should be proportional to what they actually contribute.

I reiterate that tax breaks were not a given between 1789 and 1894, that the court case cited above doesn't find tax exemption necessary to the free exercise of religion.

Could you re-post a link to that court case? I tried finding the link, but I was unable to.

There're all sorts of loop holes.

I'm all for closing loopholes. I detest the legal privileging of Evangelical Christianity in this country, especially as so many other religious groups do a great deal of public good without the noxious politics. I just think we need to be careful what we ask for. As I pointed out, freedom of religion does benefit atheists and freethinkers, as some actually do choose to participate in religious institutions. The Supreme Court has judged that religion isn't merely about belief in God, but can include beliefs of equivalent importance.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Could you re-post a link to that court case?

Here you go

But not roads or emergency services. Profit is irrelevant. Their property has value and it has value because of societal infrastructure. They benefit from MY taxes. They should pay their own.

"Free" doesn't imply lack of financial burden. It means without restriction. Cite: Tax exemptions | Freedom Forum Institute

The Supreme Court has made clear that a tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment’s free-exercise and establishment clauses. The Walz Court said that the long history of tax exemption for religious organizations in no way creates an entitlement to any such exemption.

While SCOTUS has allowed tax exempt status, it is not inherently necessary.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here you go

All I see is talking about how there are reasonable limits on what can be considered tax exemptions for free exercise of religion, which I don't disagree with. However, a place of communal gathering is a reasonable part of a religion, whether it be a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple.

 

[FireDragon76]

According to this article, it seems like there's no real Constitutional case for revoking tax exempt status of churches in general:

Tax Exemption of Churches - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Yes, there's a great deal of inveighing and lamentation, but the substance of the article is that the courts consistently find a basic right to practice ones religion without the government meddling in how the religion conducts itself. The only time the government should intervene is when there is an overwhelming public interest at stake, such as when a church endorses a political candidate.

 

[Tinker Grey]

All I see is talking about how there are reasonable limits on what can be considered tax exemptions for free exercise of religion, which I don't disagree with. However, a place of communal gathering is a reasonable part of a religion, whether it be a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple.

My quote within a quote in my last post (and, of course, my original post) came from cited website.

The Supreme Court has made clear that a tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment’s free-exercise and establishment clauses. The Walz Court said that the long history of tax exemption for religious organizations in no way creates an entitlement to any such exemption.

"Tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment's free-exercise and establishment clauses." There is no entitlement.


Ergo, it is not fundamentally unconstitutional argument that they ought to pay taxes.

 

[FireDragon76]

My quote within a quote in my last post (and, of course, my original post) came from cited website.



"Tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment's free-exercise and establishment clauses." There is no entitlement.

Context is everything. New York was dealing with what was basically a con-man trying to game the system and claim his house as a church. The plaintiff wasn't even a minister of any real religion.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is not persecution.

This is, in fact, Biblical.

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

A guy named Jesus Christ said that.

And I would argue that's not fully articulating a political ethic for Christians, especially divorced from a wider context like that. If Caesar wants my spouse, children, or internal organs... I'm not obligated to give that to him.

You really haven't drifted far from the fundamentalism you claim to reject.

 

[FireDragon76]

BTW, here's a different view of the Walz case than what Freedom From Religion Foundation is presenting (for largely polemical purposes):

Why don't churches pay taxes?

Note the bolded. This is the Court's own language:

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches “creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” The Supreme Court also said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here's IRS guidelines for tax exempt status for churches.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

It's interesting that the IRS reserves the right to revoke tax exempt status for religious organizations that engage in substantial amounts of attempts to influence legislation. How many Evangelicals escape the IRS baffles me, in this regard, as many of them have politics as a cornerstone of their religious practices (and I am not defending them earlier, merely pointing out that religion in the US is more nuanced than "Church bad!"). I guess because they typically engage in every other manner of manipulation, all but to avoid saying "call your Congressman now!" that they can squeak by.

 

[FireDragon76]

BTW, the former president of the group Americans United for the Separation of Church and state, the Rev. Barry Lynn, was a congregationalist minister. There are many religious people in this country that are not the enemy of civil liberties, that are dedicated to a liberal society. So you might consider that before making sweeping demands on "churches".

For every megachurch pastor that has two or three jets and multiple homes, there are urban and small town churches with aging congregations that can barely keep their doors open. It's insensitive and cruel to try to unduly burden these organizations, even if they are probably ultimately doomed in a secularizing society, since so many actual people, many of whom are quite vulnerable, depend on them for their social support and a modicum of psychological wellbeing.

 

[muichimotsu]

Taxation should be according to reason, not animus.

Who's saying it's animus except you based on interpretation of online tone? I'd say churches should be taxed, though perhaps there can be compromises in that certain things shouldn't be taxed under the understanding they fit into non profit aspects versus others that are more explicitly public in nature.

I vaguely seem to recall there still are taxes to a degree with churches, but it's usually much more limited in nature; the question becomes whether that limit is too easy for churches to exploit by loopholes, etc.

 

[FireDragon76]

Who's saying it's animus except you based on interpretation of online tone? I'd say churches should be taxed, though perhaps there can be compromises in that certain things shouldn't be taxed under the understanding they fit into non profit aspects versus others that are more explicitly public in nature.

I vaguely seem to recall there still are taxes to a degree with churches, but it's usually much more limited in nature; the question becomes whether that limit is too easy for churches to exploit by loopholes, etc.

On consideration... I agree we need to have more dialogue about responsibility of churches to the wider society. I fully support that, and it is something that many Christians need to confront. I just wish critics of churches would see the other side's perspective before they jump to hasty conclusions.

 

[muichimotsu]

There's also still a major issue with the IRS not really enforcing the Johnson Amendment or related legislation that says if they are going to get political, they should pay taxes, because non profits don't work in that political sense, particularly for partisan notions.

That's something I've found to be an issue, though when I did a semi weekly blog on current events, it was usually just me finding an article and talking about it, not sure church/state separation was always the focus.

I'd rather not post the link here, you can PM me for it if you're curious, there were probably 100~ articles I did, iirc (might be exaggerating the number a bit, but it was for 3~ years or so)