My Priest made the national news

[Flasch186]

Well I dont however we disagree, I think, in that youre ok with Religious groups becoming involved in Politics and keep their tax exemption while I am not.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My company's money goes toward rent, salaries, and other expenses. We have a general fund too that we hope to use to expand our business. The difference is that your Church doesn't pay taxes on that money, mine does.

Seems you feel that Christian businesses should be tax free while everyone else has to pay. Who is the one that is discriminating here?

I'm not going to give up you yet.

What if a group of people organize in their shared belief that the Iraq War was unjust and that George W. Bush should be held accountable. At their meeting, they all pitch in for pizza at the next meeting, and to rent out a local hotel's ballroom.

We should tax them too? They've all paid taxes already on their income, etc - they should pay more here to politically assemble?

The business example just doesn't mesh. You sell a product or service to an outside, unrelated third party and take the cash. You're seeing the cash for the first time. You should be taxed on it.

[Flasch186]

that sounds like a club TBH

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well I dont however we disagree, I think, in that youre ok with Religious groups becoming involved in Politics and keep their tax exemption while I am not.

I don't think a priest using a "trigger word" like "Obama" should trigger taxation. I don't even think a priest using a "trigger action" like referencing Obama in a church policy should do so.

I really don't care what they do in politics. Churches should be entitled to opinions just like anyone else. A much bigger issue (to me) would be if they became too heavily involved in business (i.e. Scientology).

This is only an issue here because this particular church expresses an anti-Obama viewpoint. If it were anti-Bush you wouldn't give a shit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

that sounds like a club TBH

Oh sorry, they believe in god too.

[Flasch186]

you know the difference(s) but this debate is silly and unproductive.

[larrymcg421]

Well, I guess I could just start the Church of Larry, which focuses on a more modern interpretation of the Bible, but is really just a front for progressive political action. Now I shouldn't have to pay taxes according to molson.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

What if a group of people organize in their shared belief that the Iraq War was unjust and that George W. Bush should be held accountable. At their meeting, they all pitch in for pizza at the next meeting, and to rent out a local hotel's ballroom.

We should tax them too? They've all paid taxes already on their income, etc - they should pay more here to politically assemble?

That is not happening though. You all aren't grabbing the electric bill and tossing in a couple bucks to pay it. You all aren't in on this decision and have the power over where the money goes. You are paying in money to a central fund that is then used by the Church at their discretion. That is called a business in our country.

Originally Posted by molson

The business example just doesn't mesh. You sell a product or service to an outside, unrelated third party and take the cash. You're seeing the cash for the first time. You should be taxed on it.

Your Church isn't providing a service? So sitting for 2 hours on Sunday and listening to a Preacher is not a service, but sitting for 2 hours on a Sunday and listening to a Comedian is?

Seems to me that you just want to discriminate against businesses who don't have the same beliefs as your Church.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

you know the difference(s) but this debate is silly and unproductive.

Well you're saying religion should be tax-exempt unless they get involved in politics, which I agree with (though we probably disagree on the degree of necessary "involvement"). My last few posts were directed at rainmaker, who thinks all religions should be taxed regardless of politics.

[Flasch186]

im not saying religion by itself should be taxed but i think that that may have been a convenient slip of the finger.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Well you're saying religion should be tax-exempt unless they get involved in politics, which I agree with (though we probably disagree on the degree of necessary "involvement"). My last few posts were directed at rainmaker, who thinks all religions should be taxed regardless of politics.

I think all businesses should be taxed equally. Whether that's 0% or 30%, it should be equal across the board. It is nothing against anyone. Whether you sell salvation, laughs, or sports entertainment, you should be treated equally.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think all businesses should be taxed equally. Whether that's 0% or 30%, it should be equal across the board.

What if a church doesn't make a profit? They come up short and rely on volunteer employees to make up the difference (like most churches). They still offer a "service". Is your issue when churches try to expand, or put money away for a rainy day?

I'm not trying to cross-examine you, I'm just curious about your views.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

What if a church doesn't make a profit? They come up short and rely on volunteer employees to make up the difference (like most churches). They still offer a "service". Is your issue when churches try to expand, or put money away for a rainy day?

I'm not trying to cross-examine you, I'm just curious about your views.

Well you can only be taxed on profits. So if they aren't making money, they don't have to worry about taxes.

My issue is with those who abuse the system. Guys like Creflo Dollar who has his tax exempt church buy him a Rolls Royce. Or Pat Robertson who owns a mansion with a private air strip that he can land his private jet on. Tax exempt status was supposed to be a way to help charitible entities financially. Instead it has been used by some in Churches to hoards millions and millions of tax free dollars for personal gain.

[Radii]

I really don't see anything unusual or wrong with anything that molson is arguing. As long as no one is questioning my right to call this priest a douchebag, I don't see a problem with anything.

[Flasch186]

except that we have to make up for that portion of the budget deficit for those that 'should' lost their exemption. (again Im not talking about those who shouldnt)

[QuikSand]

Bona fide religious organizations enjoy a much wider exemption from tax and land use laws than do ordinnary not-for-profit organizations. It's not just the exemption from paying taxes on "business activities" that's at stake, it's a pretty complete free pass on taxes of all kinds -- no obligation to collect sales tax when selling stuff, no obligation to pay property tax on land and buildings, broad exceptions from many land use restrictions, and so forth. By and large, you simply are not entitled to that sort of treatment simply by being a nonprofit, or even a charity. It's being a religion that entitles you to the "hands off" treatment afforded under the first amendment (with the interpreted principle that the power to tax is the power to destroy).

If a religious organization, bound to stay within that limitation in order to receive this sort of wide special treatment by all governments, decides to step outside that role and begin telling its members how to vote on candidates or issues, then it has betrayed its mission as a religious organization and has instead become a political action organization, which merits different treatment under tax and other laws. Obviously it's fairly tough to determine exactly where the line is between saying that it's a religious tenet that a practice like abortion is wrong, and directing members to act in a certain way, but that's essentially what we are in for once we determine that the government has no business interfering with the free practice of religion.

[JPhillips]

Wasn't there a big challenge to the ban on political advocacy a few weeks ago?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

Why are you so threatened about what a church (that you don't have to be a member of) does if it doesn't impact you in ANY way?

And what do you mean, that they should "respect" government? They should alter their fundamental beliefs based on who the current president is? What does having in-house church rules have to do with properly "respecting" government? Why does a religion need to respect government at all (as long as it's staying legal).

Like most of the rest of your posts in this thread, you jumped on this way too hard. I don't feel threatened that a church called everyone who voted for Obama a sinner. That you got that at all from my posts shows that you aren't reading. What I said is that churches should stay out of politics if they don't want the government being in their business. If the Government is taking a hands-off stance with the church, why shouldn't the church do the same thing? If the church wants to start endorsing candidates and try to affect the political process, they shouldn't be surprised if religious freedoms are impacted.

Religion heavily intertwined with Government lead to all kinds of problems in Europe many years ago. That is why keeping them separate was so important to our founding fathers.

From a religious standpoint, I am offended that any priest would call someone a sinner for a vote. I voted for McCain, so this isn't a personal attack on me. Calling my opponents sinner for their vote is offensive. It is cheap manipulation which would only be worse if this got big play before the election such that it could influence the election.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Bona fide religious organizations enjoy a much wider exemption from tax and land use laws than do ordinnary not-for-profit organizations. It's not just the exemption from paying taxes on "business activities" that's at stake, it's a pretty complete free pass on taxes of all kinds -- no obligation to collect sales tax when selling stuff, no obligation to pay property tax on land and buildings, broad exceptions from many land use restrictions, and so forth. By and large, you simply are not entitled to that sort of treatment simply by being a nonprofit, or even a charity.

Yep, exactly. Molson, I wonder if you are fine with the anti-GW Bush group getting a pass on property taxes if they buy some place they can all meet or don't have to collect sales taxes well selling shirts.

[Easy Mac]

The idea behind the tax exempt status of churches is so that the government does not tax some religions out of existence purely on the basis of not liking them.

And seriously, since I physically have the bulletin, he also says we should support and pray for Obama and his presidency. I think everyone knows I'm a crazy liberal, but your hatred of organized religion borders on lunacy.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I miss the good old days when priests only made the news for impersonating Michael Jackson.