Churches tax free?

Not stirring the pot , I was asking a question , just like I did with Larry and Jim , neither had an issue with that .

I also can't follow how when responding to Sasq's reference to Bill Gates' charity work you say this :

" Glad you found a great atheist who did some good in the world beyond living a self serving life. "

And when I included him in my list of non-religious groups doing charity work it was now this :

" That is not the same thing as an atheist, an atheist knows there is no God of any kind. Bill Gates is agnostic as far as anyone knows. "

Or did I somehow take that out of context too ?

 

while one doesn't need to be a Christian to be a consevatve...
most are.

then there is the defination of conservate...
is it how you vote? or how you live?

I know Jewish folks who live a consevative lifestyle, but will never vote for a conservative canadate.

I know Hispanic folks who live a secular lifestyle but vote Republican always.

And I know people of many races/backgrounds who are conservative regular church attendees, believe the Nicene Creed...accept Jesus Christ as their redeemer, but vote for the liberal democratic canandes.

my point:
things are not as simplistic as some would make them.
Politicians (along wth their media water carriers) try to make things black & white (no pun inteded), as to carve the voters into groups that they can pandor to for votes. divide & conquer.

 

FACT: Giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right.

If the "parsonage exemption" on religious ministers' housing costs were revoked, American clergy members would cumulatively lose an estimated $2.3 billion over five years.

In spring 2010, the state of Oklahoma awarded tax-exempt status to a Satanist group called The Church of the IV Majesties Got god now hu?

According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York City alone loses $627 million in annual property tax revenue due to 9,500 churches being tax-exempt, according to a July 2011 analysis by New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office.

 

clearly, you don't know what "holier than thou" means, you should look it up.

non-belief and hate are not the same thing.

 

Rad , I quite honestly can't even follow the points you are trying to make in your posts to me .

 

would you rather those churches pay tax on the property to the government so the goverment can dole it out...picking winners & losers and pandering for votes?

or would you rather those churches use the resourses to help those in need in their direct community?

once the money goes to DC or the State House...it loses its merit on a local level.

I'd much rather help a family localy through the churches than have the politicians and breaucrats decide where the resourses go. And get on their soap box each evening news and tell us about it.

How has that "war on poverty" gone over the past 40 years? and Trillions of dollars? Oh...that's right,, the poverty level has gone UP!

 

property tax is paid to the city, is it not?

 

I want everyone who owns property to pay property taxes. Pretty simple is it not? It is NOT fair for people who "believe" to not pay taxes. Separation from church and state is key to our government.

Helping community members is no reason to not pay taxes. I help the community so can I have the 28k in taxes I paid last year back?
So if the poverty level has gone up I guess it's time to start taxing churches because their system isn't working.

It's insane that someone who 'thinks' differently then you gets a tax break regardless of what they do for the community.

 

property tax is paid to the county in which the property lies in. some cities within certain counties also levy a property tax.

 

people who believe do pay propery taxes.
it's church that is exempt from property tax
the taxing issue has nothing to do with our founding fathers and their desire of seperation of church & state.

you are twisting it and not absorbing the facts I posted.
you want charity doled out by politicians in DC, or by local charity administrators within the community.

one has a direct and emotional line to the need. the other wants your vote.

you paid 28K in property tax last year?

has nothing to do with churches or other private charities...has everything to do with the fed govt creating a community of dependancy...entitlements.

more twisted spin
educate yourself on the history of property taxation in the US...and the many exemptions.

by your reasoning...should the city-state-federal government pay property taxes on the properties they hold? property tax on state parks? federal lands? Mount Rushmore? The Capital Building? Lincoln Memorial? The Whitehouse?

How about the DOT? Taxes on roads & bridges? Tunnels?

Maybe we should tax the Moon...NASA left a bunch of their stuff up there.

 

Yes tax the moon as well.

 

You've got the concept of "separation of church and state" entirely backwards. It's intended to protect religion from the state, not the state (nor you) from religion. It's based on the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."), which places restrictions on the Congress, not on the church.

So, you're free to want whatever you want, but you have no such law behind your desires. Our forefathers, knowing persecution of religion (as in Europe at the time) would likely continue here, were wise enough to protect churches from those like you. Taking money donated to the church, either by direct taxes or property taxes, clearly violates the "free exercise" clause.

Moreover, America's tax laws are designed to favor non-profit or charitable institutions benefiting others. The buildings of private schools and universities, for example, are exempt from property taxes. Donations to charities, like homeless shelters or the Red Cross, are tax deductible. Organizations engaging in medical or scientific research enjoy favorable tax laws. Environmental groups can raise tax-free funds by selling books. All that extends to churches as well. One would have to be truly hateful to undermine a system well designed to benefit others.

Regardless, with the first two paragraphs in mind, this whole discussion about taxing churches is moot. The First Amendment still stands firmly in the way of any such desire.

 

paying property tax does not prohibit the church from doing anything.
separation of church and state also renders opposing anything for religious reasons irrelevant, as far as law is concerned (abortion, gay marriage, etc).

 

If you open a church to taxes, it can quite easily be taxed out of existence - which is exactly what many opposed would like.

And, again, the "separation of church and state" concept, based on the First Amendment, places restrictions on the state, not the church. It also does not place restrictions on the members of that church. Just like other citizens of this country, they can favor or oppose anything they so desire.

 

I agree, you can oppose whatever you want for whatever reason you want.
however, religious views are not a valid reason to pass or prevent a law from being passed.

 

Clearly I do understand it...

"ho·li·er-than-thou (h l-r-n-ou) adj. Exhibiting an attitude of superior virtue; self-righteously pious"

I can simply just say the same thing to you, but I chose to back up my opinions with facts. Can't help it if you're not good at debate.

I've answered all your questions and directly responded to your comments.

Okay. Sorry you are unable to figure out but my original statements stand.

Exactly.

 

^^^^

 

Man, where did you get that idea from? There are no rules, mandates, or whatever saying what those in this country can or cannot base their political views on. We don't have "thought police" or newspeak "thinkpol" yet. Citizens support or oppose laws based on their own beliefs or opinions, whatever those might be.

 

Seriously OZ, I already said that was a response to more comments, you need to go back and follow along more closely, or just not ask questions out of context (either one).

When I said he 'found one' it was sarcasm based on a poor attempt at backing up his broad sweeping opinion. Much like I feel your list that you googled and copied and pasted from a Yahoo post is weak at best and STILL doesn't answer the question I originally asked.

Unfortunately, I don't think this conversation is for you. You seem to have started spinning your wheels very early on and haven't stopped.

If you have something to actually add, like YOUR real opinions and feelings (maybe your scared, I dunno?), go for it, otherwise it's like beating a dead horse conversing with you on this particular thread as I haven't seen you contribute anything of interest to it at all (zero).

Yes, and it's awesome that we do have freedom of religion here as this freedom applies to the atheistic point of view too (although it appears that this is unknown to them lol).

 

Lol

OK , whatever

I already stated my real thoughts a couple times

Sasq was right , " holier than thou " fits you perfectly , I prefer Larry and Jim