What you think they will all just up and resign instead of collecting taxes from churches?
Thats not what you said though, you said “property taxes specifically remove any ability to NOT use land commercially.” This, as evidenced by homes, is simply not true.
No, the taxes for the homes are for the government services associated with that home. Taxes for the church are for the government services associated with the church. There is no double taxation there.
How does the government charging for the services it supplies impede someone from going to church?
Thats simply not true. Secular authority is clearly above religious authority in terms of the law in America.
I know you think I am deficient but in my opinion we are a ways away from a theocracy.
The idea of a church being a business makes me nauseous. Yes, some of them are like that, but forcing forcing the rest to be… [insert barf smiley]
I don’t entirely disagree with wanting to remove their tax-exempt status, but the establishment clause doesn’t mean that the government acts like religion doesn’t exist. Treating a church like a fun house? That can’t be serious.
And to those that say that churches shouldn’t get tax breaks on any charity that mentions God: Are you really so cynical as to believe that the motivations behind ALL such activities are nothing more than advertising? Absolutely no missionaries do any good at all?
If you wanted to ignore any element of religion in the way you treat churches, then wouldn’t it be more consistant to ignore any proselytizing that went with charity and give it the same benefits as charity sans proselytizing? Putting a bible into a food basket suddenly transforms it into non-charity?
As a Christian, I don’t expect churches to get special considerations, but as an American I kind of do. I’m sorry to be wrapping myself up in the flag, but I think religion should be respected in America because it’s important to a lot of the people.
And I’m with bricker about that sermon being overly political. I don’t really have a problem with it as long as they keep a similarly strict standard for conservative churches. Churches should be grateful that they get a tax-exempt status to begin with, and if they want to say whatever they want then they should be prepared to rend unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
No, but I am not naive enough to believe that it is all out of generosity. I have no problem with charity being tax-exempt but it needs to be 100% charity.
It makes it both charity and advertising. For the record, I would apply the same standard to secular organizations and religious organizations.
For me, I am happy to consider religious charities as charities when they’re engaging in charitable work. PetSmart Charities (for example) is, to the best of my knowledge, nonprofit, and that’s how it should be: even though they’re advertising for PetSmart, they’re also doing charitable work, and it makes sense for them to be nonprofit.
However, preachin isn’t charitable. I don’t think that preachin deserves nonprofitosity.
What I’d like to know is why, as an atheist, my tax dollars are subsidizing your house of worship. Aside from the obvious fact that there are more of you, and you can do whatever the hell you damn well want to the minority in this country, of course.
Yeah, but the list is pretty obviously in ascending importance: country before god, god before the marine corp, the marine corp before your unit. Anyway, even if you reversed it, it would still be putting the marine corp before God, and the corp is a secular, government institution.
Thats not fair to say, he clearly refers to Bush’s and Kerry’s war. He didn’t say Bush’s war that Kerry decided to go along with, he said both of theirs war.
I think anytime that a priest or minister mentions a candidate by name in the context of a political discussion, he is crossing the line. Mentioning both candidates in the same sermon doesn’t make things any better.
Well whats the pastors basic message? The war is bad, abortion is acceptable and neither canidate does enough for the poor. Clearly Kerry is the best canidate for those values but is that enough to revoke the tax exempt status? If so then aren’t you effectively muzzling pastors preaching about politics? Mind you I think that is a good thing in the end but its not right for the government to limit free speach, especially in the religious arena.
I think it does make things better. From where I stand, the primary problem with churches talking about politicians is when they become essentially a tax-free extension of one candidate’s campaign. When a church is offering harsh criticism of both candidates, it’s difficult to see that church as an extension of either candidate’s campaign.
But in this case, it’s **clearly **harsher criticism of Bush. Even if you ignore the part about the war, he criticized Bush’s tax cuts **and **his position on abortion. Were there **any **Kerry-specific policies that he criticized?