Time to rescind tax free status from religious institutions

[StassneyHorn 6624]

4 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Easier that way for me. I don't have time to read.

You typed this out on a message board at noon on a workday 

[956 Worldwide 34742]

 

6 minutes ago, Brew said:

Maybe or maybe they use their support differently or raise additional funds. I do work for a nonprofit that has 20 or so employees. They have had offers in excess of $40M to buy their current headquarters. What helps them meet the purpose of their charter more, that tied up in one piece of real estate or that available to be spent on their work?

I don’t know what their charter is. Are they a soup kitchen downtown? Are they a parish school that serves the inner city or an “up and coming neighborhood (these exist all over the country)? I guess I’m not seeing how we’re going to see this great new world once we make it so that nonprofits can’t afford to exist. I also think there’s a real blind spot here about exactly how much money churches have and what they spend it on outside of Osteen world. 

[4th&Five 41572]

1 minute ago, StassneyHorn said:

You typed this out on a message board at noon on a workday 

Might be why he has to beg for money from strangers.

[Brew 3049]

7 minutes ago, Keef said:

There is also a distinction between non-profits and tax-exempt entities.  Not all non-profits are tax-exempt (like the NFL a few years back) - to qualify for tax-exempt status, there are all sorts of additional hoops you have to jump through to demonstrate to the IRS that you should be tax-exempt.

Tax exempt status takes a few hours to fill out the paperwork and gather the requisite documents, but I’ve never seen the IRS question a filing outside of if you are missing something.

[Brew 3049]

5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

I don’t know what their charter is. Are they a soup kitchen downtown? Are they a parish school that serves the inner city or an “up and coming neighborhood (these exist all over the country)? I guess I’m not seeing how we’re going to see this great new world once we make it so that nonprofits can’t afford to exist. I also think there’s a real blind spot here about exactly how much money churches have and what they spend it on outside of Osteen world. 

Neither, I will say their headquarters is just where the employees sit and there is some meeting space. It just happens to sit right where an entity with a ton of money (another nonprofit entity actually) needs to have the location for further expansion. Paying property taxes for the vast majority would not impact their ability to exist, it may make some of them think about their location/mission/etc. a little more. Most nonprofits exist outside of high cost areas and even those could only really be assessed at their “ground” value. I’m not saying they should pay at the same percentage of value as commercial/residential, but they should pay something in my view on the property tax side. 

[Chewbacca 7780]

8 minutes ago, Brew said:

Tax exempt status takes a few hours to fill out the paperwork and gather the requisite documents, but I’ve never seen the IRS question a filing outside of if you are missing something.

Yep.  Very easy.

[deadshank 24653]

Fun fact:  The properties owned by the Catholic Church in a particular diocese are deeded to the name of the archdiocese's current cardinal and not "The Catholic Church."

Houston-Galveston Archdiocese properties deeded to Daniel Cardinal DiNardo.

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

2 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Houston-Galveston Archdiocese properties deeded to Daniel Cardinal DiNardo.

Any relation to former Vanderbilt, LSU, and IU coach Gerry DiNardo?

[Brisketexan 105190]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Exemptions from taxation was commonplace for certain religious groups by the Brits. This notion of exemption didn’t start here. I highly doubt the founders were worried that Zoorasters and Buddhists would be treated unfairly but they wisely made blanket proclamations because we were a land that owed its foundations as a sanctuary for asshole pilgrims who lost favor for being assholes in England.

A very important historical fact.  For better or for worse, it's a true fact.

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Not taxing them is the endorsement. It is not staying out of religion it is favoring it.

Absolutely.  Religious practice and belief have been granted a special level of protection since our founding.  They have a level of protection that, say, being a fan of a sports team, does not have.  There's definitely a difference.  It is a policy theme and choice we made at the very beginning, and haven't altered course, which would be hard to do anyway based on our founding document.

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

But let’s not pretend government isn’t interfering when it regulates women’s bodily functions, man’s need to drink, etc, or how one religion is favored on holiday over all others in forms of recognition.

No argument from me.  If anything, it only further emphasizes the peril of gov't/religion entanglements.  They should be avoided as completely as possible, otherwise you end up with the kind of dickbaggery you describe.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Brisketexan

[formermav43 4606]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

I highly doubt the founders were worried that Zoorasters and Buddhists would be treated unfairly but they wisely made blanket proclamations because we were a land that owed its foundations as a sanctuary for asshole pilgrims who lost favor for being assholes in England.
 

You'd be surprised. This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say in his autobiography regarding the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (which was a precursor to the First Amendment):

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

Religion poisons everything. 

[956 Worldwide 34742]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

A very important historical fact.  For better or for worse, it's a true fact.

Absolutely.  Religious practice and belief have been granted a special level of protection since our founding.  They have a level of protection that, say, being a fan of a sports team, does not have.  There's definitely a difference.  It is a policy theme and choice we made at the very beginning, and haven't altered course, which would be hard to do anyway based on our founding document.

No argument from me.  If anything, it only further emphasizes the peril of gov't/religion entanglements.  They should be avoided as completely as possible, otherwise you end up with the kind of dickbaggery you describe.

To this day, across the Continent, various approved churches are given direct payments from taxpayer dollars. In countries we think of as overwhelmingly secular. We won’t even get into non-Christian nations. 

The U.S. practice of simple non taxation is Liberal with a capital L and is quite well thought out. We took the Anglo ideal of civil society and ran with it. And the problem with civil society is you have to extend its umbrella to people you disagree with, and churches/nonprofits/social clubs/etc are all civil society. 

There are many things wrong with the country; I assure you from long experience in lots of places— the idea that the U.S treasury is somehow being cheated out of sweet, sweet moolah because the Lutherans are keeping the lights on at the old building downtown, or that nonprofits are hogging tax dollars…is just really absurd. 
 

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

A very important historical fact.  For better or for worse, it's a true fact.

Absolutely.  Religious practice and belief have been granted a special level of protection since our founding.  They have a level of protection that, say, being a fan of a sports team, does not have.  There's definitely a difference.  It is a policy theme and choice we made at the very beginning, and haven't altered course, which would be hard to do anyway based on our founding document.

No argument from me.  If anything, it only further emphasizes the peril of gov't/religion entanglements.  They should be avoided as completely as possible, otherwise you end up with the kind of dickbaggery you describe.

I think Penelope's argument, and I concur, is that there needs to be a change to the foundation. I agree with you it would be impossible to do, but it doesn't mean I don't support it. Every group that benefits from society should pay their fair share into society. Just because one group meets to talk about end of life theories, doesn't mean they should get treated any differently than a group that meets to do gymnastics. 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

1 hour ago, Keef said:

I'm not totally clear on the status of the Johnson Amendment (I think it is still technically on the books?), but I once went to a church service while visiting my grandmother in small town west Texas where the pastor compared the "persecution" of Trump to Jesus.  It's basically impossible to enforce/police, but if you're getting a tax break from the government, you should not be a political vehicle.  I'm sure the IRS ignores 99% of cases because it would immediately be put on blast on Fox News ("IRS stormtroopers audit freedom loving small town church over its Christian beliefs and free speech").

There have been quite a few investigations of 501 compliance by the gubmint (including Copeland and HInn by Chuck Grassley's committee of all things https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/01/06/investigation-of-two-north-texas-ministries-released.  Regardless of the political climate, the target always screams persecution and religious discrimination.  Not many politicians of any stripe have the horses or the balls to deal with that.

[deadshank 24653]

19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Religion poisons everything. 

People poison everything.   

[Neonmoon 38130]

3 minutes ago, deadshank said:

People poison everything.   

That's fair. 

[956 Worldwide 34742]

I think what Brisket is trying to get at is that our much vaunted separation of church and state is actually a delicately crafted, diplomatic truce that successfully ended about 1,500 years of struggle in the West over the proper place and roles of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities. And it absolutely collapses once you start taxing churches. No taxation is, in fact, true separation. The state has no claim to spiritual authority or influence over spiritual matters and in exchange, the church does not try to exercise secular authority. And of course there are attempts at cheating on both sides and pushing the boundaries, but it’s held remarkably well for over two centuries. The moment the state taxes the church, is the moment the state breaks the truce and tells the church, effectively— “you exist and operate at our leave and pleasure, and you will pay tribute accordingly.”  Which totally upsets the apple cart. 
 

Those of you actually advocating for this should really think out beyond the benefits to the treasury. Because another fundamental principle of democracy is that taxation gets you representation. A model like this will lead to the actual small, non intrusive, potluck and soup kitchen outfits going under and a consolidation into most effective money raisers and corporate modeled entities. They will survive, and all of a sudden…just like Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Microsoft, they get to lobby and politic just like every other taxpaying entity. No more need for cut throughs and wink-wink sermons. You think the defense industry has pull? Well, just wait till the Vatican and SBC start retaining K Street firms directly. On a local level, imagine what Lakeway can do to say, school board elections once you start tapping them for cash. 

[Blotto 23560]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

I’m with Brisket for the most part. There is good and bad in the world on nonprofits and churches, but the good far and away outweighs the bad and I don’t think you go after all of them for the sins of a few. There should be a system the challenges their status periodically to make sure they are  following their formation documents though.

Also, churches should have to file 990’s rather than it be optional. That makes no sense and that way comp, lawsuits, and other spending is disclosed. I also think they should have to pay property tax. 

You say this as fact. It’s not clear to me that this is the case, especially as it relates to organized religion in this country. I had a much longer comment typed out that in retrospect seemed like a religion thread jack, so I opted to delete it.

But let me just say that I differentiate between a person's personal relationship with whichever god they choose to believe in, and their relationship with whichever church/religion they attend. The latter has a disproportionate amount of influence in this country (money is tied to influence) and its not clear to me that on aggregate, organized religion is a net positive for the country today.  In fact, I would go so far as to consider it a net negative. So that argument has questionable merit in the defense of tax free status.

Dictating how people think, act, and vote  because its “god’s word” has far reaching consequences in this country. I doubt God changed his opinion in the last 100 years about matters of race, gender, and sexuality, yet somehow most mainstream religions in the US have changed their stance. A lot of people suffered greatly over those 100 years waiting for God’s word to be updated.

[Neonmoon 38130]

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think what Brisket is trying to get at is that our much vaunted separation of church and state is actually a delicately crafted, diplomatic truce that successfully ended about 1,500 years of struggle in the West over the proper place and roles of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities. And it absolutely collapses once you start taxing churches. No taxation is, in fact, true separation. The state has no claim to spiritual authority or influence over spiritual matters and in exchange, the church does not try to exercise secular authority. And of course there are attempts at cheating on both sides and pushing the boundaries, but it’s held remarkably well for over two centuries. The moment the state taxes the church, is the moment the state breaks the truce and tells the church, effectively— “you exist and operate at our leave and pleasure, and you will pay tribute accordingly.”  Which totally upsets the apple cart. 
 

Those of you actually advocating for this should really think out beyond the benefits to the treasury. Because another fundamental principle of democracy is that taxation gets you representation. A model like this will lead to the actual small, non intrusive, potluck and soup kitchen outfits going under and a consolidation into most effective money raisers and corporate modeled entities. They will survive, and all of a sudden…just like Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Microsoft, they get to lobby and politic just like every other taxpaying entity. No more need for cut throughs and wink-wink sermons. You think the defense industry has pull? Well, just wait till the Vatican and SBC start retaining K Street firms directly. On a local level, imagine what Lakeway can do to say, school board elections once you start tapping them for cash. 

This actually makes a lot of sense. I may be switching sides on this issue. The opposite is way more scary. 

 

[Brisketexan 105190]

29 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I think Penelope's argument, and I concur, is that there needs to be a change to the foundation. I agree with you it would be impossible to do, but it doesn't mean I don't support it. Every group that benefits from society should pay their fair share into society. Just because one group meets to talk about end of life theories, doesn't mean they should get treated any differently than a group that meets to do gymnastics. 

I happily entertain this conversation - it's one worth having.  Note that -- for as MANY problems as I have with religion (particularly American organized religion, PARTICULARLY the dominant strain of political "christianity").....I still think that as close to an absolute separation of church and state as we can muster is the right approach.  

And a big part of my reasoning is not because I place matters of religious conscience on a particularly higher plane.  Rather, it is that I KNOW what happens when you break down that boundary: certain sects will find official governmental favor, others will not. And we will have what amounts to a State Religion, and it will follow that we will have religions that are not just less-favored, but are disfavored.  If you want to accelerate the intertwining of fundamentalist christianity with government power, breaking down those barriers, even if just as to taxation, is a big step in doing so.

956 is correct -- our approach is the most complete at trying to avoid ANY entanglement or favoritism of any particular faith.  It's not perfect.  But it beats the hell out of the alternative.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19210]

I never realized paying taxes meant your organization would need to dissolve immediately. Take away the exemption status and they will find a way to survive. 

[workswithseed 2109]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

You typed this out on a message board at noon on a workday 

Good job knowing that breaks exist.

[Brisketexan 105190]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I never realized paying taxes meant your organization would need to dissolve immediately. Take away the exemption status and they will find a way to survive. 

This is our concern, dude.  One of the ways they will "find to survive" is to curry favor and influence with the political class, embedding themselves and their beliefs not just in the government, but in the actual laws and regulations promulgated by same.

Think the Jesus freaks are powerful now?  Wait till you give them unrestrained access to the process, just like everyone else.  When that collection plate is passed around to gather money to support Our Sacred President, Donald J. Trump, you'll see reciprocal power and influence.  Again, if you want us to become a theocracy, breaking down the barrier between church and state, particularly with respect to something as powerful as tax policy, is a good way to do that.

Law of unintended consequences here.

[Fudge Nuggets 19210]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When that collection plate is passed around to gather money to support Our Sacred President, Donald J. Trump, you'll see reciprocal power and influence. 

That shit already happens. Anything that results in fewer churches is good. 

[Brew 3049]

23 minutes ago, Blotto said:

You say this as fact. It’s not clear to me that this is the case, especially as it relates to organized religion in this country. I had a much longer comment typed out that in retrospect seemed like a religion thread jack, so I opted to delete it.

But let me just say that I differentiate between a person's personal relationship with whichever god they choose to believe in, and their relationship with whichever church/religion they attend. The latter has a disproportionate amount of influence in this country (money is tied to influence) and its not clear to me that on aggregate, organized religion is a net positive for the country today.  In fact, I would go so far as to consider it a net negative. So that argument has questionable merit in the defense of tax free status.

Dictating how people think, act, and vote  because its “god’s word” has far reaching consequences in this country. I doubt God changed his opinion in the last 100 years about matters of race, gender, and sexuality, yet somehow most mainstream religions in the US have changed their stance. A lot of people suffered greatly over those 100 years waiting for God’s word to be updated.

Churches are outnumbered by other nonprofits by a factor of 4 or 5 to 1 I believe. Now some factor of the other nonprofits is made up of religious based organizations, so I don’t know how much that gap closes. I’m definitely not going down the road of a religious debate although I guess that ultimately is probably the dividing line in this debate for both sides. 

[956 Worldwide 34742]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is our concern, dude.  One of the ways they will "find to survive" is to curry favor and influence with the political class, embedding themselves and their beliefs not just in the government, but in the actual laws and regulations promulgated by same.

Think the Jesus freaks are powerful now?  Wait till you give them unrestrained access to the process, just like everyone else.  When that collection plate is passed around to gather money to support Our Sacred President, Donald J. Trump, you'll see reciprocal power and influence.  Again, if you want us to become a theocracy, breaking down the barrier between church and state, particularly with respect to something as powerful as tax policy, is a good way to do that.

Law of unintended consequences here.

The idea is also borne from a healthy respect for the organizing power of religion. It’s one of the few motivators that can prompt people to challenge the state monopoly on violence in a systemic way. 
 

Our founding fathers were not perfect but they WERE well read. Pick up any decent Western Civ survey book and a good 1/3 of it will be about the the king trying to tax the monasteries or the emperor grabbing a dissenting church building or some shit. Then thirty years later the war ends, several countries have collapsed, and the peasants have fled the countryside. You may think religious people have all gotten soft and neutered and there’s no way that can happen again but you’re wrong. And again…we aren’t even dipping our toe into say, the Muslim world. 
 

[Brisketexan 105190]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

That shit already happens. Anything that results in fewer churches is good. 

You think that shit already happens?  Just wait until you dissolve any semblance of a barrier between them.  It gets a lot worse.   It's not like we don't have stacks of history books full of examples.

And anything that results in fewer churches is good?  Groovy, you do you.  And you're even partially right.  There will be "fewer churches."  Just like, through the process of manipulation and regulatory capture, there are "fewer cable TV providers" etc.  How's that working out for us?  You will end up with "fewer churches"....and a handful of VERY large and powerful churches, who I am confident you will HATE.  I bet I would.

[956 Worldwide 34742]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

That shit already happens. Anything that results in fewer churches is good. 

You mean like when there was say, one church? I feel like I watched that movie as well as the hit 1517 summer blockbuster sequel, “two churches.” It really turns out that having 500 churches in one country makes life a lot more chill for everyone. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19139]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

You typed this out on a message board at noon on a workday 

And asked for people to help fund something.  And then posted it on said message board.

Edited June 17, 2021 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Brisketexan 105190]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You mean like when there was say, one church? I feel like I watched that movie as well as the hit 1517 summer blockbuster sequel, “two churches.”

Gold.

Seriously, understand that some of us arguing for keeping the separation (including not touching them with taxes) in place are not doing so because we LOVE churches, but because we are wary as shit of them and want to keep them as separate from the government and anything that smacks of state endorsement or entanglement as possible.  

All of this calls to mind the old saw about "the mixing of church and state doesn't end well for either entity."  Each ends up serving the other as a master, perverting both of them.  The church becomes a creature of the state, serving secular ends, and the state becomes a creature or servant of the church, becoming theocratic.  Hell, they aren't separate enough NOW.  We need to do all we can to preserve the separation we have, not remove parts of it.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Brisketexan

[bolverk 29705]

Since the decision that precipitated the topic is the thread was to allow a Church to deny adoption rights from gay couples, can we also discuss why the fuck we allow a religious organization to determine to whom they can sell/give a human baby? Why grant them that power of effectively owning and then bestowing a child in the first place?

Having been adopted myself through a religious adoption agency, I know that my parents essentially had to purchase me from them for something like $10,000. As a kid I never really thought much about that. But I remember telling with my host mother, when living in France as an exchange student, about the process and she was horrified by the notion itself.

In a weird way, you could say it is bit human trafficky.

[Brisketexan 105190]

Just now, bolverk said:

Since the decision that precipitated the topic is the thread was to allow a Church to deny adoption rights from gay couples, can we also discuss why the fuck we allow a religious organization to determine to whom they can sell/give a human baby? Why grant them that power of effectively owning and then bestowing a child in the first place?

Having been adopted myself through a religious adoption agency, I know that my parents essentially had to purchase me from them for something like $10,000. As a kid I never really thought much about that. But I remember telling with my host mother, when living in France as an exchange student, about the process and she was horrified by the notion itself.

In a weird way, you could say it is bit human trafficky.

What I got out of this is that your parents probably overpaid by about $9,900.  And I might be rounding down.

[Nivek 16951]

I think what Brisket is trying to get at is that our much vaunted separation of church and state is actually a delicately crafted, diplomatic truce that successfully ended about 1,500 years of struggle in the West over the proper place and roles of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities. And it absolutely collapses once you start taxing churches. No taxation is, in fact, true separation. The state has no claim to spiritual authority or influence over spiritual matters and in exchange, the church does not try to exercise secular authority. And of course there are attempts at cheating on both sides and pushing the boundaries, but it’s held remarkably well for over two centuries. The moment the state taxes the church, is the moment the state breaks the truce and tells the church, effectively— “you exist and operate at our leave and pleasure, and you will pay tribute accordingly.”  Which totally upsets the apple cart. 
 
Those of you actually advocating for this should really think out beyond the benefits to the treasury. Because another fundamental principle of democracy is that taxation gets you representation. A model like this will lead to the actual small, non intrusive, potluck and soup kitchen outfits going under and a consolidation into most effective money raisers and corporate modeled entities. They will survive, and all of a sudden…just like Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Microsoft, they get to lobby and politic just like every other taxpaying entity. No more need for cut throughs and wink-wink sermons. You think the defense industry has pull? Well, just wait till the Vatican and SBC start retaining K Street firms directly. On a local level, imagine what Lakeway can do to say, school board elections once you start tapping them for cash. 

This type of mental gymnastics is not really impressive. It is just self serving gobblygook mixed with a threat.

Taxation gets representation. Are you under some idea that the Christians of this country are underrepresented or not allowed to vote? Or are you suggesting that religious institutions do not get involved in politics or try to sway voters cause we know that isn’t true. Now you are suggesting that a foreign nation should try to influence our elections is OK if they pay taxes? The Vatican is a foreign nation.

[956 Worldwide 34742]

12 minutes ago, Nivek said:

 

This type of mental gymnastics is not really impressive. It is just self serving gobblygook mixed with a threat.

Taxation gets representation. Are you under some idea that the Christians of this country are underrepresented or not allowed to vote? Or are you suggesting that religious institutions do not get involved in politics or try to sway voters cause we know that isn’t true. Now you are suggesting that a foreign nation should try to influence our elections is OK if they pay taxes? The Vatican is a foreign nation.

 

Did that chimpanzee get to your head? I’m suggesting that if you start taxing churches just like corporations, then all of a sudden they get to behave just like corporations. You seem to be arguing that since sometimes, some churches already color outside the lines, we should just give up and let them:

-Contribute to PACs just like XOM 

- Conduct regulatory advocacy just like Dow

- Conduct budget advocacy just like Raytheon 

- Conduct regular direct legislative advocacy behind the “insubstantial” rule they have to follow now 

- Endorse a presidential candidate in the church bulletin like The New York Times or a school board candidate just like the Bugtussle Monitor 

All that, and more, is exactly what organizations that are taxed are allowed to do with their money and influence. It’s not a “threat” so much as the natural consequence of what you’re advocating for. 

I think what you really want is for churches to go away, and that’s cool. Believe it or not, disinterested neglect from the state authorities helps that process move a lot faster than any sort of direct campaign against them. Churches are actually really good at coping with persecution, which is why they are always trying to conjure some up. Not so great with being ignored. 
 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19210]

56 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You mean like when there was say, one church? I feel like I watched that movie as well as the hit 1517 summer blockbuster sequel, “two churches.” It really turns out that having 500 churches in one country makes life a lot more chill for everyone. 

No, I mean like zero churches.

[956 Worldwide 34742]

11 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

No, I mean like zero churches.

If there’s one thing history teaches us, it’s that looking to secular authorities to turn the screws on religion never blows up in anyone’s face. 

[Willfully Horn 8042]

This thread is but a tide in the Wakonda Auga River, eating away at our homestead: the rule of Law.

Like a Stamper:

 

 

 

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There are a shit-ton of secular nonprofits that enjoy tax free status, sit on prime real estate, advance causes that are noxious, and/or defraud the system and exist primarily as money making ventures for those that run and establish them. In fact, I’d wager that the percentage of secular non-profits that exist solely as tax shelters and don’t really engage in their core mission far outweighs the number of “fake” churches. 

Unless you’re going to blow up tax-free status for them, too, I don’t see how this isn’t simply an attempt to use the state to smother a belief(s) you don’t like, and raises serious first amendment questions. 
 

Go after entities that break laws and violate the no political speech restrictions, don’t blow up the whole system. 

Yep.  You cannot target a nonprofit with taxes because it is religious and then treat secular nonprofits differently.  That won't pass constitutional muster.

And nonprofits do not have profits to tax.  They aren't distributing profits.  They either use or invest revenue.  The main tax break is property tax exemptions,.

You want to start taxing secular nonprofits for property taxes, stuff like the Met is going to have one hell of a fucking annual tax bill.  Would kill pretty much any nonprofit that exists.  Musuems, hospitals, animal shelters, battered women shelters, planned parenthood.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You think that shit already happens?  Just wait until you dissolve any semblance of a barrier between them.  It gets a lot worse.   It's not like we don't have stacks of history books full of examples.

And anything that results in fewer churches is good?  Groovy, you do you.  And you're even partially right.  There will be "fewer churches."  Just like, through the process of manipulation and regulatory capture, there are "fewer cable TV providers" etc.  How's that working out for us?  You will end up with "fewer churches"....and a handful of VERY large and powerful churches, who I am confident you will HATE.  I bet I would.

Yep, it'll kill off all the decent Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians and all you'll have left is WORD OF GOD PATRIOT FREEDUMB CHURCH AND SUPERPAC.

Edited June 17, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 hours ago, Keef said:

I'm not totally clear on the status of the Johnson Amendment (I think it is still technically on the books?), but I once went to a church service while visiting my grandmother in small town west Texas where the pastor compared the "persecution" of Trump to Jesus.  It's basically impossible to enforce/police, but if you're getting a tax break from the government, you should not be a political vehicle.  I'm sure the IRS ignores 99% of cases because it would immediately be put on blast on Fox News ("IRS stormtroopers audit freedom loving small town church over its Christian beliefs and free speech").

You think it is just the right?  Black churches are basically a wing of, and the get out the vote mechanism for, the Democratic party.  And since blacks are a whole hell of a lot more monolithic with their votes the preacher can preach politics all day long without anyone complaining.  That would not fly at my church whether the preacher was stumping for Trump or Biden.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, deadshank said:

Fun fact:  The properties owned by the Catholic Church in a particular diocese are deeded to the name of the archdiocese's current cardinal and not "The Catholic Church."

Houston-Galveston Archdiocese properties deeded to Daniel Cardinal DiNardo.

I can just about guarantee that he only holds legal title and equitable title is owned by the church.  SMU's legal title is held by its board of trustees from 1916.  They don't own anything.  They and their successors hold it in trust for the school.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Most nonprofit museums, hospitals, private schools, private universities, parks, healthcare providers, etc. would close their doors if you removed the property tax exemption.

Again, what would the tax bill be for something like the Met?

 

[deadshank 24653]

13 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I can just about guarantee that he only holds legal title and equitable title is owned by the church.  SMU's legal title is held by its board of trustees from 1916.  They don't own anything.  They and their successors hold it in trust for the school.

Possible.  I have a friend that works for the Catholic Church and in the “real estate department.”  (He’s Baptist;  go figure.)

I’ve never seen a Catholic Church owned title.  He’s just told me that the area archdiocese’s cardinal has his personal name put on the titles.  He told me this when I jokingly asked if the Pope or another high church official at the Vatican has to sign off on real estate contracts all the way over here.  

[StassneyHorn 6624]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Good job knowing that breaks exist.

Oh fuck I’m stupid

[Nivek 16951]

Did that chimpanzee get to your head? I’m suggesting that if you start taxing churches just like corporations, then all of a sudden they get to behave just like corporations. You seem to be arguing that since sometimes, some churches already color outside the lines, we should just give up and let them:
-Contribute to PACs just like XOM 
- Conduct regulatory advocacy just like Dow
- Conduct budget advocacy just like Raytheon 
- Conduct regular direct legislative advocacy behind the “insubstantial” rule they have to follow now 
- Endorse a presidential candidate in the church bulletin like The New York Times or a school board candidate just like the Bugtussle Monitor 
All that, and more, is exactly what organizations that are taxed are allowed to do with their money and influence. It’s not a “threat” so much as the natural consequence of what you’re advocating for. 
I think what you really want is for churches to go away, and that’s cool. Believe it or not, disinterested neglect from the state authorities helps that process move a lot faster than any sort of direct campaign against them. Churches are actually really good at coping with persecution, which is why they are always trying to conjure some up. Not so great with being ignored. 
 
 

So we should just appease them so they don’t fuck the country?

They need to be taxed like other entities. I don’t want them to go away, so your projections are irrelevant, I want them to pay. I think this has been very clearly stated. So stop with the bullshit. It doesn’t work on me.

Religious persecution, yeah right. Snowflake. Paying taxes is persecution. I swear Jesus would fucking HATE Christians in their modern iterations, but that is another discussion.

Religious don’t act like corporations because they don’t have to. Your big XOM might employ 75k employees. Joel Osteen fucking laughs at those numbers with 10 million weekly watching his bullshit. They already have the fucking votes.

Outside of Trump how many atheist/agnostic Presidents have we had? Why are we so underrepresented? 23% of the gen pop and one congressperson according to pewresearch (dad joke in there somewhere). But again this is yet another topic.

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Daniel Webster, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

 

you (or Mr. Webster) have convinced me. Tax 'em all, let God sort 'em out.

 

[StassneyHorn 6624]

10 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Oh fuck I’m stupid

Per usual, You can’t pick up when people are making fun of you

[workswithseed 2109]

3 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Per usual, You can’t pick up when people are making fun of you

Why are you quoting yourself saying this? You okay?

[South Austin 52529]

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Religion poisons everything. 

[deadshank 24653]

9 minutes ago, Nivek said:

So we should just appease them so they don’t fuck the country?

They need to be taxed like other entities. I don’t want them to go away, so your projections are irrelevant, I want them to pay. I think this has been very clearly stated. So stop with the bullshit. It doesn’t work on me.

Religious persecution, yeah right. Snowflake. Paying taxes is persecution. I swear Jesus would fucking HATE Christians in their modern iterations, but that is another discussion.

Religious don’t act like corporations because they don’t have to. Your big XOM might employ 75k employees. Joel Osteen fucking laughs at those numbers with 10 million weekly watching his bullshit. They already have the fucking votes.

Outside of Trump how many atheist/agnostic Presidents have we had? Why are we so underrepresented? 23% of the gen pop and one congressperson according to pewresearch (dad joke in there somewhere). But again this is yet another topic.

Irate atheists are always the best atheists.