Since churches are

[shraby]

making political statements, maybe it's time they are classified as political organizations and as such lose their tax-free status and file some of the interminable forms a political organization has to.

[Dookus]

1. I agree entirely....

you can't have it both ways. Either you're a church concerned with spiritual things, or you're a political action group, concerned with public policy issues as they relate to electoral politics.

Wanna speak on an issue? OK. Wanna come out for or against a candidate? Pay your taxes.

[HFishbine]

10. What about where politics and morality overlap?

Was it wrong for some churches to have become so invovled in the fight for civil rights?

[ezee]

2. I am with you..Theyshould keep there mouths shut or pay up!

[leftofthedial]

3. religion IS politics

churches should pay taxes

churches should pay higher taxes than individuals.

[Djinn]

4. often this becomes an issue here in Oz

although down here it's usually when churches criticise the appalling treatment of poor people, refugees, aboriginals, the elderly etc.

people often respond with "priests/brothers/nuns/monks" (whatever) should stay out of politics and comment on things that affect them.

The only problem with that is that we leave so much of the work that I beleive should be being done by the government to the churches and church affiliated groups - that why shouldn't they have say -to use an Australian expression "it's THEIR money Ralph"

I suppose I'd feel differently if the churches here were less vocal on poverty and injustice than they were on homosexuality and sex before marriage types issues - but they seem pretty broad minded here, atleast in comparison with US churches anyway - not to say we don't have our fair share of nutjobs convinced Jesus (or Mohammed or Buddha or whoever) was more interested in who you slept with than whether you let people starve or bomb them, but most of them are OK.

[checks-n-balances]

5. I would agree, but remember that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was

an ordained minister, and without his voice of nonviolent resistance and without the churches who did lots of the work he advocated, we'd be a different country today...

Maybe some of the mainline and more progressive churches will stop being choked of $ and will be able to speak out louder against the abuses and horrors that the rethugs are doing in this world... They've barely got enought $ to survive..

Believe me, the RW churches are the ones with the $ and the scream the loudest, but there are many others who do follow words & teachings of Jesus and who are trying to make a difference, collectively. Let's don't cut them off at the knees - the RW churches are doing a great job of that already!

Anyone here agree?

[truthspeaker]

6. tax 'em all regardless

They use roads, sidewalks, sewer systems, and firefighters but don't pay taxes for them. Why should they get those services for free, and why should I pay more to subsidize them?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Schools and other non-profit institutions aren't taxed either

unless they make individual agreements with their communities to make periodic payments in lieu of taxes.

It's not just churches.

Oh, and if you heard that clergy don't pay taxes--it's a myth. My father was a Lutheran pastor, and I remember him doing his income taxes every year.

I agree that the churches that violate the IRS laws about advocating for specific political parties or candidates should lose their tax-exempt status. When fundie churches hand out voters' guides that tell their people to vote straight Republican because that's supposedly the only "Christian" thing to do, the IRS should be on their asses immediately.

(Note that DU foregoes tax-exempt status so that it can openly advocate for the Democrats.)

It even makes me uneasy to see Dem candidates speaking in black churches during the service. It would be different if the candidates rented the church social hall for a rally, but Bill Clinton or any other Dem candidate preaching the sermon at a black church is really pushing the legal limits.

However, most churches do not do this, and most are not rich. (I know--I was on the vestry--governing board--of a small Episcopal church in Portland.)

If they had to pay taxes, they would have to cut out stuff like providing free meals to the poor (which my former parish, with only 60 active members, did twice a week--lunch on Tuesday and breakfast on Saturday) or providing free meeting space to Narcotics Anonymous or to a social club for mentally ill people living in the community.

The theory has been that churches and schools and other non-profit institutions provide services to the community that would otherwise have to be paid by tax dollars. Whoever set up this tradition could not have foreseen the total information environment of the suburban fundamentalist churches, which do very little for the community and a lot for keeping their members marching in lockstep.

[LeahMira]

9. Churches aren't supposed to be wealthy.

The theory has been that churches and schools and other non-profit institutions provide services to the community that would otherwise have to be paid by tax dollars. Whoever set up this tradition could not have foreseen the total information environment of the suburban fundamentalist churches, which do very little for the community and a lot for keeping their members marching in lockstep.


That theory is good, but in fact I don't see the churches providing many services that otherwise would be paid for with tax dollars. In fact, they seem to be setting up their services in such a way that they are able to receive tax dollars to support them, as with the Catholic hospitals and social services. There are sometimes church "committees" consisting of volunteers who donate clothes or household goods... things like that... but these kinds of things are pretty much small time operations. Any time I've ever attended a Christian service, the sermons I hear are teaching about the spiritual "mysteries of faith" or talking about the plans for the new building fund. It used to be that the parochial schools were run with the money from the Sunday collection plate, but any more, even that has changed. You have to pay tuition nowadays, in addition to whatever comes from parish funds.

Still, I think there's plenty of money out there in the congregations. As you note, the fundamentalist churches seem to be able to pull in the large donations. Problem is that they appeal to greed a lot of time. They tell people that whatever they give will be returned to them tenfold, so people give $100. in hopes of getting $1,000. and hope seems to keep them going through quite a few generous donations. So where is the fundamentalist church when that generous congregant is homeless? Nowhere to be found, it seems.

Of course churches need to pay their electric bill, but that bill isn't supposed to be large because of the holiday light display the church puts on. If it's large, maybe it ought to be large because the church is sheltering the homeless in the building when there aren't services going on, eh?

[noonwitch]

7. Churches should get the exemption, unless they cross some clear-cut lines.

I go to a liberal church, was raised attending a UCC church. At both, I hear many politically oriented sermons. My mom's church (the UCC one) takes turns with all the other churches in providing temporary shelter to the homeless. They just added a new wing to the church building that has showers and other essentials that a homeless shelter requires.

My church provides free meeting space for AA, NA, GA, and numerous other self help groups. We also have an AIDS ministry, we support a local soup kitchen and donate food and clothing to inner-city ministries.

Because our pastors give frankly liberal political messages in their sermons, should we give up our exemption? Should a fundie church give up theirs for expressing the opposite political opinions? Most fundie churches provide similar services to the poor as I've described.