Support Obama? No communion for you.

[Good Luck]

Why do you keep returning to the so-called lack of showing community benefit? That is where your argument falls apart. Community benefit does not need to fit your secular definitions. While government cannot support religion, neither can they suppress religion by placing secular definitions on what a church must to to be considered of "benefit to the community", thereby "qualifying" for their tax exempt status.

And churches DO run massive charitable assistance programs. I'd bet if you did some honest, non-biased research you'd find churches willingly give more to the community in charitable contributions than the community would get from taxing them. If most non-government programs are run by secular agencies in your area, then you live in a truly rare area. But I believe you are probably unaware of the degree to which churches are involved - even if the front is a secular agency. Churches don't have to be in charge to be involved. Unlike government, churches believe in using what is there rather than reinventing (or duplicating) the wheel. For instance, a large number of churches nation wide are heavily involved with Habitat for Humanity. Church groups funnel millions of dollars annually into that program. I'll bet you have a HFH chapter somewhere close to your area. Mucho church dollars go there, and not from special fund drives - it is a line item budget commitment of many, many churches nation wide.

But that is neither here nor there. Community assistance is not the purpose of a church. Religion is. You want to deny the community benefit of religion, feel free to peddle your belief. But, as I said before, do not think because a church does not meet YOUR secular definition of community benefit, that YOUR definition should be put into law. Government cannot support religion, and I simply do not accept your assertion that not paying taxes is the equivalent of support. Yes it is beneficial. But deriving benefit from a situation is a far cry from being supported by it. The governments at all levels could cut my taxes to zero, and they would not be "supporting" me by doing so. Conversely, government cannot DENY religion by making the legal statement that religion is not a benefit to the community. Removing tax exempt status from churches because they do not meet a secular definition of benefit would be the legal equivalent of government denying religion. I doubt anyone in government official - elected or appointed - is so stupid as to even whisper in a sound proof closet about grabbing that tiger by the tail.

 

[Damocles]

Why do you keep returning to the so-called lack of showing community benefit? That is where your argument falls apart. Community benefit does not need to fit your secular definitions. While government cannot support religion, neither can they suppress religion by placing secular definitions on what a church must to to be considered of "benefit to the community", thereby "qualifying" for their tax exempt status.

Yet it is the crux of the argument and where its strength lies, the reality is you refuse to see from any perspective than your own. And again, government does support religion by giving it the benefit that it does not afford to individuals, freedom from taxation.

And churches DO run massive charitable assistance programs. I'd bet if you did some honest, non-biased research you'd find churches willingly give more to the community in charitable contributions than the community would get from taxing them. If most non-government programs are run by secular agencies in your area, then you live in a truly rare area. But I believe you are probably unaware of the degree to which churches are involved - even if the front is a secular agency. Churches don't have to be in charge to be involved. Unlike government, churches believe in using what is there rather than reinventing (or duplicating) the wheel. For instance, a large number of churches nation wide are heavily involved with Habitat for Humanity. Church groups funnel millions of dollars annually into that program. I'll bet you have a HFH chapter somewhere close to your area. Mucho church dollars go there, and not from special fund drives - it is a line item budget commitment of many, many churches nation wide.

And again, I said that many did. You just read what you want. And with an honest view of many of the churches around here, I am also not unaware of the secular groups here, the hoa is pretty much the largest contributor, churches run second.

But that is neither here nor there. Community assistance is not the purpose of a church.

But it is the supposed reason behind the tax exemption, rather than outright admit they are giving benefit to specific religions while defining others out of that same benefit they say that the community assistance is the reason for the exemption. However, as an officer of a non-religious non-profit I know that we have to prove our value each time we file taxes or lose our status. Churches do not.

Religion is. You want to deny the community benefit of religion, feel free to peddle your belief. But, as I said before, do not think because a church does not meet YOUR secular definition of community benefit, that YOUR definition should be put into law. Government cannot support religion, and I simply do not accept your assertion that not paying taxes is the equivalent of support. Conversely, government cannot DENY religion by making the legal statement that religion is not a benefit to the community. Removing tax exempt status from churches because they do not meet a secular definition of benefit would be the legal equivalent of government denying religion. I doubt anyone in government official - elected or appointed - is so stupid as to even whisper in a sound proof closet about grabbing that tiger by the tail.

Nobody would deny the community of the benefit of religion because they pay whatever the property tax and sales tax of the area are. That is an emotive reactionary response. It would not destroy religion, it would simply put all religions at the same level, none would be given benefit over the other as it is today.

 

[Good Luck]

BTW: I still say property taxes are punitive, no matter who they are levied against. They punish us for owning property. (trying to make up for the years property owners were given additional political authority, I guess.)

 

[Damocles]

BTW: I still say property taxes are punitive, no matter who they are levied against. They punish us for owning property. (trying to make up for the years property owners were given additional political authority, I guess.)

Personally I think it is a sign that it is impossible, unless you are part of a favored religion, to actually own property. You simply rent from the government, and if you don't pay you get kicked off.

 

[Good Luck]

But that is neither here nor there. Community assistance is not the purpose of a church.

But it is the supposed reason behind the tax exemption, rather than outright admit they are giving benefit to specific religions while defining others out of that same benefit they say that the community assistance is the reason for the exemption. However, as an officer of a non-religious non-profit I know that we have to prove our value each time we file taxes or lose our status. Churches do not.

Sorry, but you are wrong there. Community ASSISTANCE is NOT the basis of tax exemption. Community BENEFIT is the basis. There are many tax-exempt non profits that do no community assistance what so ever. But they still legitimately qualify under community benefit. Heard of Green Peace? They are a tax exempt, non-profit organization. They do not provide community assistance in any form. But they do qualify under community benefit. National Wildlife Refuge - another tax exempt non-profit organizations whose charter does not include community assistance programs. Bet you can think of more of them.

Since community assistance is not the determining factor for tax exempt status, but rather community benefit, to remove the tax exempt status of churches, whose charter is religion, you would have to legally deny the community benefit of religion.

 

[Good Luck]

Personally I think it is a sign that it is impossible, unless you are part of a favored religion, to actually own property. You simply rent from the government, and if you don't pay you get kicked off.

You got that one right. Property tax essentially makes government the defacto owner of all property. Unless you agree with government owning everything, you should be cheering the fact that churches get around it.

 

[Canceled2]

One more time for the deliberately obtuse.

I'll try to type slowly.

We have to pay extra taxes in order to pay what is lost if a different business took over that plot of ground. This makes it so people who do not believe, do not support, do not wish to support must pay for the existence of the church in their community.

We pay more in sales tax, because sales tax is as high as it needs to be in order to pay for the general services that are given by the locality, including police and firefighters (both used by the churches). We either pay more, or we do with less.

Crap, the church I grew up in, most of the members were from outside the community, over 20,000 members by the time I left. While portions of the money may have gone to the community, the vast majority of it went to purchasing things like buses we used to go skiing in. Seriously, I never saw them used for other than transportation to activities like skiing, the amusement park. Or things like plane tickets so people could go to places like Hawaii (not kidding) and preach.

What makes those buses and those plane tickets so special that sales tax wasn't paid? Because the people riding in them all believed in Jesus? Please.

No one is being deliberately obtuse and saying you'll type slowly is not the problem, unless of course it's preventing you from gathering your wits?

Churches have been proven to bring security to neighborhoods. Often the outreach and charity they provide communities give much bigger dividends than numerous other businesses ever could. The initial buying or building of the structure is likewise beneficial fiscally to a community. As to your own personal experience; well, that's yours, but it is not the norm nor is it a reason to lump them all into the same lot. This said, I have no problem with an audit of any organization abusing its tax privileges. The NEA and numerous other unions would be a great place to start.

 

[Damocles]

Sorry, but you are wrong there. Community ASSISTANCE is NOT the basis of tax exemption. Community BENEFIT is the basis. There are many tax-exempt non profits that do no community assistance what so ever. But they still legitimately qualify under community benefit. Heard of Green Peace? They are a tax exempt, non-profit organization. They do not provide community assistance in any form. But they do qualify under community benefit. National Wildlife Refuge - another tax exempt non-profit organizations whose charter does not include community assistance programs. Bet you can think of more of them.

Since community assistance is not the determining factor for tax exempt status, but rather community benefit, to remove the tax exempt status of churches, whose charter is religion, you would have to legally deny the community benefit of religion.

Duh. The assistance is what they do to provide the benefit. You are trying to pick nits rather than argue logically. Again, Green Peace actively has to point out what they do that provides this exemption, Churches do not and often do not provide benefit in proportion to their contribution.

The reality is, this puts government in the position of judging religions on merits, "This one is good, that one is a 'cult'." We wind up with Scientology, one of the richest 'churches' out there making a mint and providing almost no positive contribution to society just because they are big enough to sue. Even silly John Travolta movies don't make up for it.

The government should never be in the position to pick one religion over the other in this fashion. The best and easiest solution is to simply treat religions like any other business.

One thing that will "amaze" you is that if Green Peace owns a property, they pay taxes on it.

 

[Damocles]

No one is being deliberately obtuse and saying you'll type slowly is not the problem, unless of course it's preventing you from gathering your wits?

Churches have been proven to bring security to neighborhoods. Often the outreach and charity they provide communities give much bigger dividends than numerous other businesses ever could. The initial buying or building of the structure is likewise beneficial fiscally to a community. As to your own personal experience; well, that's yours, but it is not the norm nor is it a reason to lump them all into the same lot. This said, I have no problem with an audit of any organization abusing its tax privileges. The NEA and numerous other unions would be a great place to start.

And this simply ignored the point made and tried to make a new "point" that was long brought up and disputed already on this thread. You asked how we paid more because churches were in the area. I provided. You make up some "proven" statement and expect us to swallow without evidence. Churches do not bring security, and often in bad places are the victims of crimes and use resources for protection.

Produce your documentation that they "bring security" to communities. It's rubbish. In almost every neighborhood in inner cities you will find at least a small church, yet gang violence is prevalent. As for the benefit to society, it does not merit total exemption from taxation for only religions favored by the government.

Again, I understand that it would be political suicide for any party to suggest a change, but the reality is this is a benefit to churches not given to others.

 

[Socrtease]

I LOVE it! Damo is arguing that CHURCHES should not get breaks and in GL's mind that automatically makes him an athiest. Great deductive skills.

 

[Good Luck]

Duh. The assistance is what they do to provide the benefit. You are trying to pick nits rather than argue logically. Again, Green Peace actively has to point out what they do that provides this exemption, Churches do not and often do not provide benefit in proportion to their contribution.

The reality is, this puts government in the position of judging religions on merits, "This one is good, that one is a 'cult'." We wind up with Scientology, one of the richest 'churches' out there making a mint and providing almost no positive contribution to society just because they are big enough to sue. Even silly John Travolta movies don't make up for it.

The government should never be in the position to pick one religion over the other in this fashion. The best and easiest solution is to simply treat religions like any other business.

One thing that will "amaze" you is that if Green Peace owns a property, they pay taxes on it.

Who is picking nits? The legal requirement is community benefit. But its the same old tired argument. You cannot measure the benefit of religion with the ruler of your design, therefore it does not exist. But that's okay because the benefits as measured by those who practice religion do not count, right? Only YOUR definition of benefit counts?

And let's not even mention the "a few screw with the rules, so lets hit them all" approach to what you view as a problem. For every problem church out there, there are probably 100 that use their tax exempt status very reasonably. For every church out there that sends youth groups to Hawaii for a retreat, there are dozens that use any excess they receive in offertories to run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and the like. But fuck that. YOU have a bad experience, so all churches need to be taxed, because YOU have decided there is no community benefit to religion.

 

[Good Luck]

I LOVE it! Damo is arguing that CHURCHES should not get breaks and in GL's mind that automatically makes him an athiest. Great deductive skills.

I said he was using an atheistic argument. If that is calling him an atheist, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

However, the argument that society derives no benefit from religion, thereby disqualifying religious institutions from the community benefit tax exemption laws IS atheistic.

 

[ib1yysguy]

I agree with D., though the one argument I'd make is that religions should be exempt from taxes to protect them against punitive taxation from government should government ever become hostile or a particular sect.

That seems as unlikely to happen as people actually using their guns to protect themselves from governmental tyranny.

 

[Damocles]

Who is picking nits? The legal requirement is community benefit. But its the same old tired argument. You cannot measure the benefit of religion with the ruler of your design, therefore it does not exist. But that's okay because the benefits as measured by those who practice religion do not count, right? Only YOUR definition of benefit counts?

And let's not even mention the "a few screw with the rules, so lets hit them all" approach to what you view as a problem. For every problem church out there, there are probably 100 that use their tax exempt status very reasonably. For every church out there that sends youth groups to Hawaii for a retreat, there are dozens that use any excess they receive in offertories to run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and the like. But fuck that. YOU have a bad experience, so all churches need to be taxed, because YOU have decided there is no community benefit to religion.

There is no requirement for churches, other than to be one of the chosen religions. That is the point. Churches do not have to prove this, they just have to be a church of one of the chosen groups to receive this benefit.

 

[uscitizen]

Not only are Churches tax free but donations to them are as well.

 

[Damocles]

I agree with D., though the one argument I'd make is that religions should be exempt from taxes to protect them against punitive taxation from government should government ever become hostile or a particular sect.

That seems as unlikely to happen as people actually using their guns to protect themselves from governmental tyranny.

Then even the little "cults" should have the protection, everybody would be declaring themselves a new "cult".

 

[Damocles]

I said he was using an atheistic argument. If that is calling him an atheist, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

However, the argument that society derives no benefit from religion, thereby disqualifying religious institutions from the community benefit tax exemption laws IS atheistic.

I haven't argued that they derive no benefit at all from the institutions. I have argued that it is applied unequally and that the benefit does not validate such a boon. What benefit has society derived from me? I do much that the churches do without them, should I get this tax exemption? Where do you draw the line? Should Heinlien received an exemption for the benefit he brought to society? Orwell?

 

[Good Luck]

I haven't argued that they derive no benefit at all from the institutions. I have argued that it is applied unequally and that the benefit does not validate such a boon. What benefit has society derived from me? I do much that the churches do without them, should I get this tax exemption? Where do you draw the line? Should Heinlien received an exemption for the benefit he brought to society? Orwell?

Heinlein and Orwell and you are individuals. The discussion is about organizations.

But the bolded part is the crux of your argument, and exactly where your argument fails. Who are you, or government, to say that the benefits derived from religion are invalid? Are only benefits measurable by your yardstick valid? Must community benefits be secular in nature to be valid? If so, by what authority do you make that determination?

Seems to me you are pissed that some churches get rich off their status. And some do. I have a strong belief in what Christ will say to them when the time comes. But you do not punish all for the actions of the few. What of the poorer churches (like mine) who have to hold 4-5 services on the weekend (with only ONE pastor to lead them all) and even then force some to seat in the basement and view the services via a video transmission? You think we could afford to pay your property taxes, remove the exemption from offertory income, and still afford to rebuild our church to accommodate the congregation? We have been working three years on the capital campaign, and are an estimated two more years (minimum) away from being able to start construction. And what of even poorer churches (and I know they exist) that can barely afford their bills each month. But they own buildings, therefore put that dreaded unsupportable STRAIN on community resources, so of course they can just go bankrupt and sell the buildings to some business so they can generate sales tax revenues.

I have one response to that.

The fact is that churches do a massive amount of community work. The fact is that even though church do a lot of charitable works, that is not their primary function. Since their primary function lies elsewhere, they have no need to prove to you or the government what kinds of charitable works they do. Churches are a RELIGIOUS community benefit organization. Religion cannot be proven, so placing a burden of proof on that benefit is asking for the impossible. But lack of proof does not prove lack of existence. Even Buddah would agree with that.

 

[Damocles]

Heinlein and Orwell and you are individuals. The discussion is about organizations.

But the bolded part is the crux of your argument, and exactly where your argument fails. Who are you, or government, to say that the benefits derived from religion are invalid? Are only benefits measurable by your yardstick valid? Must community benefits be secular in nature to be valid? If so, by what authority do you make that determination?

Seems to me you are pissed that some churches get rich off their status. And some do. I have a strong belief in what Christ will say to them when the time comes. But you do not punish all for the actions of the few. What of the poorer churches (like mine) who have to hold 4-5 services on the weekend (with only ONE pastor to lead them all) and even then force some to seat in the basement and view the services via a video transmission? You think we could afford to pay your property taxes, remove the exemption from offertory income, and still afford to rebuild our church to accommodate the congregation? We have been working three years on the capital campaign, and are an estimated two more years (minimum) away from being able to start construction. And what of even poorer churches (and I know they exist) that can barely afford their bills each month. But they own buildings, therefore put that dreaded unsupportable STRAIN on community resources, so of course they can just go bankrupt and sell the buildings to some business so they can generate sales tax revenues.

I have one response to that.

The fact is that churches do a massive amount of community work. The fact is that even though church do a lot of charitable works, that is not their primary function. Since their primary function lies elsewhere, they have no need to prove to you or the government what kinds of charitable works they do. Churches are a RELIGIOUS community benefit organization. Religion cannot be proven, so placing a burden of proof on that benefit is asking for the impossible. But lack of proof does not prove lack of existence. Even Buddah would agree with that.

It has nothing to do with mad, and everything to do with reality.

Reality tells me that a smaller "cult" that doesn't get this benefit is noticing the difference between government established belief in only specific deities, and what not getting the government to help you establish your belief feels like.

I keep attempting to get you to realize that an unfair field creates laws that are without a doubt "respecting the establishment" of religion. That they establish more than one does not change that some have the endorsement of the government while others do not.

Sometimes being a "strict constitutionalist" can get in the way of your own power in society, but it is the right thing to do. The government shouldn't help one over the other, and if it simply accepted any organization that stated that they were a "religion" then every family and individual household would be a "cult".

The crux of my argument is that government should not be in the business of endorsing or helping, even by exclusion of competitors in the same benefits they enjoy, any religion at all.

When the government creates a lopsided playing field in favor of the religions they endorse in such a manner, they are playing loose with Amendment 1.

 

[Canceled2]

And this simply ignored the point made and tried to make a new "point" that was long brought up and disputed already on this thread. You asked how we paid more because churches were in the area. I provided. You make up some "proven" statement and expect us to swallow without evidence. Churches do not bring security, and often in bad places are the victims of crimes and use resources for protection.

Produce your documentation that they "bring security" to communities. It's rubbish. In almost every neighborhood in inner cities you will find at least a small church, yet gang violence is prevalent. As for the benefit to society, it does not merit total exemption from taxation for only religions favored by the government.

Again, I understand that it would be political suicide for any party to suggest a change, but the reality is this is a benefit to churches not given to others.

Oh, I see, I need to produce documentation about "security" but you on the other hand say they are "often a drain on resources" without documentation. Having been a real estate agent for a brief period of time I happen to KNOW that having a church in a neighborhood was seen as an asset, at least from a buyers perspective, urban areas may be different, but then in urban areas churches are often used during the week as soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless. You wish to bang a drum based on your own experience of ski trips and bus purchases to prove how corrupt churches are? They receive tax exempt status as a non profit organization because the majority of their resources are used to help others. Again, I have no problem with any organization that is breaking rules to be audited. What you seem to be saying is that they should not have any because they are a cost to society. You have not proven any cost that cannot be outweighed by a benefit they also provide. The problem seems to be that the benefit is just not one you personally find worthy.