we need to re-think the Inviolability of religious and philosophical institutions

[blackascoal]

Another argument against removing tax exempt status from churches relates to the structure and reason for the 501 tax exempt system. Many non-profit organizations operate under 501 class exemptions, meaning they do not pay taxes under most circumstances.

The reason for allowing 501 classifications is in recognizing that certain types of organizations provide a benefit to the public, and in doing so, it is more beneficial to society to allow them maximum operating budget than would be derived from taxing their income and properties.

Whether one agrees in the validity of religion or not, churches are public benefit organizations. As such, it is more beneficial to society as a whole to allow churches maximum operating budget by giving them tax exempt status.


And another argument:
The membership and supporters of a church are aware of what their donations are used for. They obviously approve of where their money is going, or they would not be donating it.

It is arrogance in the extreme to then tell the churches, and the people who donate to them, that what the money is used for is not acceptable to you, and therefore is if the church does not do what YOU believe should be done with the donations they receive, then you think you should have the power to take the money away from them and do what you want with it anyway.

It's a load of crap, really.

BULLSHIT.

All 501's are required to demonstrate that the money collected is actuallu used for the purpose intended which validates their tax-exempt status.

Accoirding to your logic, why not make pimps tax-exempt given that hookers know the money will be used to buy him cars and clothes?

If any church wants tax-exempt status, they should prove their benefit to the public.

 

[uscitizen]

You know I am suprised that the right wing religious types have not called for a reduction in the 10% heaven tax.

And I never was really sure if that was 10% of gross or net ?

 

[Good Luck]

BULLSHIT.

All 501's are required to demonstrate that the money collected is actuallu used for the purpose intended which validates their tax-exempt status.

Accoirding to your logic, why not make pimps tax-exempt given that hookers know the money will be used to buy him cars and clothes?

If any church wants tax-exempt status, they should prove their benefit to the public.

You are the one who is gross error.

To qualify for 501c status, which religious organizations fall under, an organization must be able to demonstrate their organization provides some type of public benefit. 501(c)3 is specifically aimed at charitable organizations.

If it were simply a matter of being able to show the money is being spent for the purpose intended, I am certain pimps would have filed for 501 status by now, as would others (including myself).

I suggest you learn a bit about the internal revenue code before you try making any more claims what is involved. You can read about it here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=501

 

[Good Luck]

You know I am suprised that the right wing religious types have not called for a reduction in the 10% heaven tax.

And I never was really sure if that was 10% of gross or net ?

The 10% you refer to is called a tithe, is based on net, and is totally voluntary. Some religions put a little more push on the idea than others, but it remains fully voluntary and with the possible exception of a few leaders who cross the line in their rhetoric, no-one makes any kind of claim that a tithe is connected to one's ability to be saved.

The idea that it in any way alters one's chances for heaven is a bunch of ignorant crap spouted by anti-religion twits.

 

[uscitizen]

so tithe is based on Net ? Is that before insurance and 401K deductions ?

I have heard gross from some.

And then there are the seed money shysters. Give me seed money and god will repay you tenfold.

I did not know God had a bank account.

 

[Good Luck]

so tithe is based on Net ? Is that before insurance and 401K deductions ?

I have heard gross from some.

And then there are the seed money shysters. Give me seed money and god will repay you tenfold.

I did not know God had a bank account.

Tithing is based on net, as in 10% of the check one takes home. When one starts receiving money back from a 401K after retirement, that it would be subject to tithing at that time. Of course tithe could be defined differently in different churches. In the Catholic church, it is defined as net pay. But even though the Church has a definition for tithe, they rarely even so much as mention the idea; not even during funding drives.

I do not pay a tithe myself. I contribute to my church on a regular basis and also support several individual programs as they come up. (annual Search for the teens, monthly contribution to Interfaith and Christian Childrens' Fund, etc.) But it isn't 10%.

Yes, there are people who use religion for their own nefarious purposes. That does not make religion bad, it makes those who misuse it bad. It's the same for anything. There are those who are willing to harm others for their own benefit in all walks of life. And like all other walks of life, those who do so are a small minority of the whole, and judging the whole by the (dis)merits of the few is unjust.

God does not have a bank account. Paying tithing does not alter one's ability to be saved. Paying tithing, or any type of contribution to one's church is a way of supporting the good work they do. And most do good. The shysters are a very, very small minority out of the whole.

 

[blackascoal]

You are the one who is gross error.

To qualify for 501c status, which religious organizations fall under, an organization must be able to demonstrate their organization provides some type of public benefit. 501(c)3 is specifically aimed at charitable organizations.

If it were simply a matter of being able to show the money is being spent for the purpose intended, I am certain pimps would have filed for 501 status by now, as would others (including myself).

I suggest you learn a bit about the internal revenue code before you try making any more claims what is involved. You can read about it here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=501

Your religious arrogance is showing and it prevents you from even reading what you challenge.

I said .. All 501's are required to demonstrate that the money collected is actually used for the purpose intended which validates their tax-exempt status.

Then you come back and say the same thing then tell me to study the tax code. I know the tax code very well and I've operated a 501(c)3 entity.

My comment about pimps was intended toi challenge your assertion that since the flock knew what the church was doing with the money, why should it be challenged.

The point is and germaine to this topic is that you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe, but that doesn't mean it makes any damn sense at all to others.

This is a secular nation, not a christian nation.

 

[Good Luck]

Your religious arrogance is showing and it prevents you from even reading what you challenge.

I said .. All 501's are required to demonstrate that the money collected is actually used for the purpose intended which validates their tax-exempt status.

Then you come back and say the same thing then tell me to study the tax code. I know the tax code very well and I've operated a 501(c)3 entity.

My comment about pimps was intended toi challenge your assertion that since the flock knew what the church was doing with the money, why should it be challenged.

The point is and germaine to this topic is that you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe, but that doesn't mean it makes any damn sense at all to others.

This is a secular nation, not a christian nation.

If you have run a 501(c)3, then you know perfectly well that it does not matter a hill of beans if the contributors approve of the manner their donations are being spent if the organization cannot also show the purpose of the entity is for public benefit. The public benefit definition is what qualifies for 501 status, NOT the approval of the donor. As such, your pimp example was a load of shit without any meaning what so ever. (Unless you want to argue that prostitution is a public benefit practice.)

As for beliefs, I don't expect everyone to believe. Christ's parable of seed cast on rocky ground was perfectly clear on that subject. But not sharing the belief of others is in no way license to force them to spend their money in a way approved by those who do not share the faith. Churches do qualify for 501(c)3 status as public benefit organizations, and would do so even if they did not run any charitable programs.

But the fact is churches DO run a great number of charitable programs in addition to operating as centers for religious celebration. And they do so with far greater efficiency than the government operates their programs. But when matching a 200 some billion dollar budget between federal and state government programs to the 6-7 billion churches have to run their programs, and it's easy to see which will dominate. But that does not mean government is better - just a whole lot bigger.

 

[blackascoal]

But the fact is churches DO run a great number of charitable programs in addition to operating as centers for religious celebration. And they do so with far greater efficiency than the government operates their programs. But when matching a 200 some billion dollar budget between federal and state government programs to the 6-7 billion churches have to run their programs, and it's easy to see which will dominate. But that does not mean government is better - just a whole lot bigger.

What you're offering is feelings, not facts. I can appreciate your love of religion, but again, you have yet to quantify what you believe, and you have yet to address the abuses which amount to far more than a few, nor the victims whom are more than just a few.

The church should be no different than anyother charitable institution and should be monitored and scrutinized just as anyother institution, organization, or corporation. There should be no top-toeing around religious cover. Where is the religion in caring more about the institution of the church than the victims?

You have no idea how much money American churches are taking in, so how do you quantify "they are more efficient?" Churches offer ONLY stop-gap and occasional assistance to poor families and many will then direct them to some government program to get real assistance.

The false mantra that all government is bad and all religion is good is nonsense. I repeat, many of the programs that churches offer are paid for by the government. The advantage churches have is that they are closer to the problem.

More specific to this topic, If we are going to seriously deal with the issue of poverty in America we will have to stop standing behind the false notion that churches are adeqautely addressing the needs of the poor. They are not.

 

[Good Luck]

More specific to this topic, If we are going to seriously deal with the issue of poverty in America we will have to stop standing behind the false notion that churches are adeqautely addressing the needs of the poor. They are not.

You are forgetting, or ignoring, the base fact that charity is not the primary function of a church. Religion is its function, and religion has been properly recognized by our society as a public benefit. The churches do a good job as far as what they do in charitable work. Their program are more efficient per dollar spent; a fact easily researched but which you refuse to acknowledge.

But charity is something that churches do as a by product of their primary mission. Charity, alone, is not why churches exist, and charity work is not why churches and religious contributions have been granted tax exemption.

 

[uscitizen]

But the govt is not supposed to recognize the establishment of any religion.

 

[Good Luck]

You have no idea how much money American churches are taking in, so how do you quantify "they are more efficient?" Churches offer ONLY stop-gap and occasional assistance to poor families and many will then direct them to some government program to get real assistance.

The false mantra that all government is bad and all religion is good is nonsense. I repeat, many of the programs that churches offer are paid for by the government. The advantage churches have is that they are closer to the problem.

There are, in fact, figures available about what churches take in and what they spend on charitable work. Try some research.

As for program paid by government but run by churches, there are, indeed, a few. The reason for the move is that, as I explained before, the charitable infrastructure of churches is already paid for, so any money given into the program by government reaches recipients at close to 100%.

As to the methods used, assistance SHOULD BE stop gap. The tired old socialist method of using wealth redistribution to constantly sustain people in a socio-economic trap is not working. The government programs have been doing it that way for close on 50 years and several trillion dollars, and made no appreciable dent in poverty. And you answer is to want to pump even more into that same failed system?

Use your dollars, bub. Even use my share from my income taxes. But leave my church contributions the hell alone.

 

[uscitizen]

and made no appreciable dent in poverty
//

au contrare. the policies put into place by the SSI and the programs in the 60's drooped the poverty rate of the elderly dramatically.

 

[blackascoal]

There are, in fact, figures available about what churches take in and what they spend on charitable work. Try some research.

As for program paid by government but run by churches, there are, indeed, a few. The reason for the move is that, as I explained before, the charitable infrastructure of churches is already paid for, so any money given into the program by government reaches recipients at close to 100%.

As to the methods used, assistance SHOULD BE stop gap. The tired old socialist method of using wealth redistribution to constantly sustain people in a socio-economic trap is not working. The government programs have been doing it that way for close on 50 years and several trillion dollars, and made no appreciable dent in poverty. And you answer is to want to pump even more into that same failed system?

Use your dollars, bub. Even use my share from my income taxes. But leave my church contributions the hell alone.

As intelligent as you are I'm real sure that you know how debate works.

YOU made the assertion that churches are spending what they take in. Shouldn't YOU be providing your research?

I couldn't care less about your church donations .. I don't need them, but I do care about the issue of poverty in America and I don't want any tax dollars funneled into the pockets of religion pimps.

By the way, you are still yet to address the victims of evil desiguised as religion.

There is a serious disconnect between your religion-love and what religion is supposed to be about.

But that's normal.

 

[Good Luck]

As intelligent as you are I'm real sure that you know how debate works.

YOU made the assertion that churches are spending what they take in. Shouldn't YOU be providing your research?

I couldn't care less about your church donations .. I don't need them, but I do care about the issue of poverty in America and I don't want any tax dollars funneled into the pockets of religion pimps.

By the way, you are still yet to address the victims of evil desiguised as religion.

There is a serious disconnect between your religion-love and what religion is supposed to be about.

But that's normal.

I gave figures for what churches take in, what they spend on the normal operation of the churches (ie: religious operations, missionaries, foreign programs, etc.) and what that leaves left for charitable work.

You choose to ignore it, then tell me I am not bringing facts.

The rest is utter nonsense. Any taxes that are given to faith based initiatives are carefully monitored to make sure they are going to the charitable works run by the church and not going to any religious purpose. So you can relax about that. Your taxes are going to assist the poor.

As for victims of those who abuse their position in religion, I did not suggest a specific solution. (Did you?) But I say quite plainly that the relationship between religious organizations and secular law enforcement does need to be defined so criminal activity can be addressed, while still protecting religion from the possibility of persecution.

You responded with a bunch of ignorant tripe about religion not being persecuted.

The disconnect that I see is you have some kind of anger or dislike for religion. So you focus on the few who do harm and absolutely refuse to give the remotest nod of acknowledgment of the vast majority that do good.

There is a word used for those who look at the bad done by a few belonging to a social group, and lump all the rest of that group according to the few. Know what that word is?

 

[Good Luck]

and made no appreciable dent in poverty
//

au contrare. the policies put into place by the SSI and the programs in the 60's drooped the poverty rate of the elderly dramatically.

Really? Then why is it today's elderly who are dependent on SS payments still living in poverty?

 

[uscitizen]

Really? Then why is it today's elderly who are dependent on SS payments still living in poverty?

Some are but SSI and medicare greatly reduced that number.

We will always have some poor with us. Doesn't the bible say that? But Jesus also said to help the poor seemed like to me.

 

[Damocles]

Some are but SSI and medicare greatly reduced that number.

We will always have some poor with us. Doesn't the bible say that? But Jesus also said to help the poor seemed like to me.

"Jesus said"...

Jesus spoke to you personally, not to the faceless government. It is not the government's job to take care of the poor, it is your job. Using religion that you do not believe in reeks of the temptation of Christ.

 

[uscitizen]

"Jesus said"...

Jesus spoke to you personally, not to the faceless government. It is not the government's job to take care of the poor, it is your job. Using religion that you do not believe in reeks of the temptation of Christ.

But the person I was replying to does apparently claim to believe in the teachings of Jesus. ?

to me good true christians are fine folk, but hypoctritical ones are not.

You talk the talk you walk the walk.

 

[Don Quixote]

But the govt is not supposed to recognize the establishment of any religion.

usc

an often misunderstood amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

imo: religions should have no more rights than any citizen nor any less

corporations in general should not exist as they are not subject to the same processes as citizens

if a group of people wish to form an association to accomplish something, then let them and let those people bear the benefits AND responsibilities of said association

please note the increase of limited liability partnerships and corporations (LLPs and LLCs)

the purpose of corporations is for the people that run them to avoid liabilities created by the corporation