Maybe the wealthy churches can donate to the poor churches, or maybe the poor churches can meet in the local gym/school/large gathering area. Either way, I fail to see why the government should be concerned about who can go to church or who can’t.
Point taken but my argument is still valid. There are plenty of places besides a church where communities can gather. Plus I think you vastly underestimate the material wealth and income of churches. I seriously doubt there would be mass closure of poor churches if their tax exempt status is revoked.
I fail to see why the people should care about the government’s notion of property taxes.
What about a religion like Pentecostals where it is a religion of the poor. There are churches in my neighborhood whose land value would probably be pretty high, based upon the rising property values in New York City. Should I go take a photo of one of these churches and ask you if you think that these churches in the ghetto can afford $ 190,000 per year in property taxes? I think you vastly overestimate the income of poor churches. Many can barely afford the upkeep of their church.
I’m having trouble figuring out if treis means that he doesn’t believe me when I say those items were in the sermon as well, or whether he feels that bringing up those points is somehow not valid in the context of debate. I hope he’ll clarify.
Well I don’t know how to explain to you why people that are being taxed care how they are being taxed.
Jeez almost 200Gs for property taxes? That means the property is worth what, at least a million? Easy solution then, sell the church, invest the money and lease out the local schools gym for sundays. If you don’t want to sell the church then might I suggest you start a fundraiser.
Bricker- Either you have a lot more information about the sermon than the rest of us or you are being facetious and ignoring the meat of the argument. I suspect its the latter and I consider that in light of your previous posts in this thread to be a contiuation of the shitting.
That’s not what I asked. What I am asking is why should us religious people AKA the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY care about the taxes levied by the secular institution?
So you’re saying commodifying the religion is the appropriate answer? Sell the church so that you are no longer in the community you once belonged in, and get the heck out of dodge? As for leasing the school’s gym, what if I wanted to do something at 1PM on a Tuesday? And yes the example I gave was where the property is worth $ 1million.
Erek
Becuase the secular institution has big guns and will sieze assets if the taxes aren’t paid? Seriously, I don’t get what you are asking here.
Commodifying? Is religion commodified by having to pay the power bill or the heating bill? Why are taxes any different?
Or start a fundraiser to make up for the subsidy you would no longer be getting from the government.
What you think there is a God given right to meet in a fancy church whenever the heck you want?
That doesn’t sound like endorsing either canidate rather him expressing his views on current social issues. However, perhaps instead of writing snarky and sarcastic replies you could put together a post explaining why you think it does.
Are you referring to the M-16s in the hands of the good christian boys?
Yes actually it is commodified by that, but property taxes specifically remove any ability to NOT use land commercially.
You are GIVEN a subsidy. Not paying taxes is not being given anything, it’s not having something taken from you.
We aren’t talking about the fancy ones, the fancy ones would probably be able to afford the exhorbitant taxes. But is there a God given right to meet in a church whenever the heck you want? Yes.
While I agree that no one religion should be respected over another, I believe that religious authority trumps the state. (Though of course I think that you are merely advocating that Mammonism trump other religious institutions.)
I am referring to the pistols, shotguns and M-16s in the hands of the secular police.
Thats not true at all. People don’t use their homes commercially and yet are still taxed.
So the roads leading to the church, the fire department protecting the church, the police, the street sweepers etc. etc. are all magically provided to the church? Of course not, they are paid by property taxes and the church is getting that for free.
Really? And its the governments duty to provide this?
Well its good that this is not true becuase if it were true we might as well not have a secular government.
In New York the secular police are largely Italian and Irish, meaning largely Catholic. I don’t know how it is where you live, but I’d imagine they are largely churchgoing folk.
They are forced to go to work in order to afford that home. Therefore they are forced to live a commercial lifestyle.
So you are saying the individuals in the church should be taxed twice? Once for their homes once for their church? I wonder how many bake sales it would take to come up with $ 190,000.
No it is the government’s duty not to impede it.
It is true, the first amendment is about not respecting one religion over another. It’s a Republic, in which the vast majority are religious. As it is a government by the people and for the people, and most religious people I know believe that God is greater than government, therefore the will of the populace is that religion trumps government.
I know there is an atheist fantasy about this country, but the reality is that we do live in a theocracy, it’s just not one that is not about respecting one religion over another. If you doubt me just take a look at the back of the one dollar bill, right in between the pyramid with the All-Seeing eye and the Roman Eagle, you’ll find the words “In God We Trust”.
Bricker, with that additional information (i.e., that the pastor preached against BOTH Bush and Kerry), I withdraw my previous objection to the church.
Preaching against a single candidate’s multiple views on the eve of an election appears, everything else being equal, that you’re campaigning on behalf of the opponent–which is a no-no. Preaching against both candidates’ multiple views on the eve of an election appears like you’re taking a preachable moment, which is kosher.
As Republicans delight in pointing out, Kerry supported the war in Iraq. The minister took them both to task for that war. Was Bush’s involvement greater? Well, yeah. He was the president. Kerry was a Senator.
Point taken but my argument is still valid. There are plenty of places besides a church where communities can gather. Plus I think you vastly underestimate the material wealth and income of churches. I seriously doubt there would be mass closure of poor churches if their tax exempt status is revoked.