Should religious institutions be taxed?

[spinner981]

Religion say that non belivers go to hell = bigotry.
Dawkins and Hitchens say, without scientific proof, that religion is a kind of pathology, mind parasity, and go on... = heroes of reason and free thinking.

Don't confuse a statement of believed truth with a statement of hopeful punishment for non-believers. You also don't seem to understand what the word bigot means. Can't blame you of course, the entire idea of religion, hell, beliefs against homosexuality, etc. is distorted to mean all sorts of things that it doesn't in the society to make church people into 'bigots' and 'haters'. Probably difficult to not fall for such a trick alongside a good portion of atheists being bigoted (utterly intolerant of) towards the religious.

[khadaryan]

Don't confuse a statement of believed truth with a statement of hopeful punishment for non-believers. You also don't seem to understand what the word bigot means. Can't blame you of course, the entire idea of religion, hell, beliefs against homosexuality, etc. is distorted to mean all sorts of things that it doesn't in the society to make church people into 'bigots' and 'haters'. Probably difficult to not fall for such a trick alongside a good portion of atheists being bigoted (utterly intolerant of) towards the religious.

Im not confused. Two irrational, biased, statements. If you say religion is a sickness cause you dont like...do you really think that isnt bigotry?

"big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

"Religion is child abuse and a pathology. Trust me, im a scientist''.
Sounds fun, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rG9tUodfKU

Well, i know a lot of social scientists. Even the atheists dont say this kind of bigot bs.


And the entire ideia of religion isnt about punishing people and sending them to hell. Its about ''conect'' with the divine.
Im pretty sure you can google and find why some religions have some ''sins''. But yes, nowadays its a carnival of distortions.

[lawow74]

Should be like any other business, IMO.

[grimsanta]

They have income. That income can be taxed.

Their property, as well; property tax is a big factor.

They aren't "non-profits by nature". They're claiming to be non-profits due to their religious nature, but we're disputing that this is relevant.

Particularly as non-profits actually have to spend the money coming in on their work; the minister can take a salary, but in any other non-profit he couldn't dip into the tithes/donations to buy himself a new million-dollar house. Which they can, in churches.

You're confusing income with revenue. Revenue is never taxed. Income, as seen by the law in regards to businesses, is profit. They are directly non-profits. And no, using church funds for personal purposes would be considered by the law part of compensation, which is then part of personal income which is taxed.

Now, technically they could buy the million-dollar house and say it's the property of the church but the minister gets to live there. The problem with that is the IRS would audit that and if it's seen as predominiately for personal use, it's going to be seen as compensation.

[spinner981]

Im not confused. Two irrational, biased, statements. If you say religion is a sickness cause you dont like...do you really think that isnt bigotry?

"big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

"Religion is child abuse and a pathology. Trust me, im a scientist''.
Sounds fun, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rG9tUodfKU

Well, i know a lot of social scientists. Even the atheists dont say this kind of bigot bs.


And the entire ideia of religion isnt about punishing people and sending them to hell. Its about ''conect'' with the divine.
Im pretty sure you can google and find why some religions have some ''sins''. But yes, nowadays its a carnival of distortions.

Ah you were being ironic! I guess I am a bit slow today. Sorry about that.

[khadaryan]

Ah you were being ironic! I guess I am a bit slow today. Sorry about that.

Hahaha, yes. Happens all the time in the world of internet.

[Zoldor]

Donations, property, investments, charitable endeavors, events, holidays, government funding in some cases and tax exemption.

Churches nowadays are often vastly profitable endeavors, and the catholic one specifically is known for extreme wealth for the higher priests and the comfort of which they reside in.

Merchandise, fund raisers, summer camps etc. In the US I think they should be taxed, I don't think enough of what they do is considered charitable work to truly be a charitable organization. I'd say less than 50% of the funds a church takes in goes to any sort of charitable efforts. I think the church should set up a charitable organization that takes donations and is tax free, but everything else, the day to day running, paying its employees etc should all be taxed equally like any other business.

[spinner981]

About taxing the church. Actual profits should be taxed if there are any, but I seriously don't trust the government enough to fairly tax churches of particular religions and beliefs, especially ones that aren't PC.

[Faloestin]

You're confusing income with revenue. Revenue is never taxed. Income, as seen by the law in regards to businesses, is profit. They are directly non-profits. And no, using church funds for personal purposes would be considered by the law part of compensation, which is then part of personal income which is taxed.

Now, technically they could buy the million-dollar house and say it's the property of the church but the minister gets to live there. The problem with that is the IRS would audit that and if it's seen as predominiately for personal use, it's going to be seen as compensation.

The IRS might audit the purchase, but they probably won't, statistically. You don't have to look much beyond the extensive holdings the Catholic Church has been forced to give up over the past few years to realize that under a nonprofit shield, churches are quite capable of extensive wealth accumulation.

[grimsanta]

The IRS might audit the purchase, but they probably won't, statistically. You don't have to look much beyond the extensive holdings the Catholic Church has been forced to give up over the past few years to realize that under a nonprofit shield, churches are quite capable of extensive wealth accumulation.

Yes, but at that point, you're no longer talking about should the law change, but whether or not enforcement should change, and I assume we're all in agreement on the enforcement point.

[hulkgor]

Yes, just like any other business.

[s_bushido]

It certainly shouldn't always get a pass, but Dawkin's extraordinarily condescending and demeaning attitudes towards religion aren't exactly secret. How someone can claim to be an advocate of critical thinking while acting out in ways that do nothing but turn people off to you and your ideologies is beyond me.

Don't get me wrong, love the guy, but he is an ass.

Critical thinking has nothing to do with your attitude. He's not a politician or a counselor; it's not his job to coddle beliefs he finds ridiculous.

[spinner981]

Critical thinking has nothing to do with your attitude. He's not a politician or a counselor; it's not his job to coddle beliefs he finds ridiculous.

His critical thinking involves unintelligent assumptions about religion and the religious. His thinking is illogical towards religion and he encourages illogical action be taken against it. If a theologian did the same thing in regards to evolution and what not, they would be labeled an idiot not even capable of regular thinking.

[Elegiac]

They should absolutely be taxed, both for property and income.

[Sky High]

But they do - why does being "taxed" entail they'll be "contributing" to "society" in a "meaningful" way, as if the govt is going to do that with these funds? Perhaps it is so heavily reliant on printing and borrowing money nowadays, taxes are just for frittering away anyway.

lay off the quotations, you know where I'm going with this. well, that depends on how you like tax money being spent. and that is complete here-say on your part. printing exponential amounts of money is more damaging to whatever you're alluding to then borrowing money.

[Gothicshark]

Originally churches were tax free, as they provided the necessary social umbrella for a free society. However about 100 years ago, Churches became political and and stopped doing many parts of the social contract that allowed them to be tax free.

Churches use to run the hospitals for free.
Churches use to provide social welfare for the poor and homeless.

Today Churches seldom do these things. So my opinion on this subject is simple, if the Church contributes to society ie free clinics, and welfare. they should be tax free, if they are a money making business that is focused on politics, then they should be taxed in the same way any political organization is. (usually most political organizations are 'Not-for-profit' and count as tax free, however the government can look at books, and can revoke the tax free status if it is shown the organization is for profit.

[Tomservo]

Want to have a say in which laws should be passed? Pay your taxes or keep out of it.

[Deleted]

All institutions should be taxed.

[Revolutions]

So money given to the church is already taxed, why would they pay tax on taxed money?

[Symphonic]

So money given to the church is already taxed, why would they pay tax on taxed money?

My opinion is that donations to the church are not taxed (Since it is already taxed money that is being given). BUT, If that church has clergy that get paid by the church, then the money he receives should be taxed. Simple as that.