Pay off the debt - start taxing churches?

If I was a Yank, I would call for the taxation of churchs that spend heavily for social change as it shows they are very very very very wealthy.

I don't see what's wrong with this plan. Is worshiping a divine entity alone a good reason to exempt an organization from taxation? Of course not. With so many religions existing, there is no other way but to look at similar issues through a strictly objective, secularist lens.

Does anyone honestly think taxing churches would make even the tinest chunk in the debt?

The only way to deal with it is spending controls. Even if you did figure out how to raise that as revenue, do you think the politicians would actually spend it on debt?

I have known secularists in the UK to argue for churches and other religious organisations to lose their charitable, tax-exempt status, although it tends to be overshadowed by the debate about whether there should be a state church (which the Church of England and Church of Scotland both are).

The argument for exemption is that organised religion, like other charitable activity, is of public benefit, whether or not you accept the spiritual claims. It gets people together, encourages community spirit, encourages people to behave morally, encourages them to carry out other kinds of charitable activity and so on. The issue would certainly be less controversial in America if so many Christians there didn't feel obliged to back a particular kind of conservative agenda, but just because you may not agree with this, you don't have to say that their churches aren't of public benefit.

As far as my own denomination is concerned, almost a quarter of the diosceses are altogether bankrupt due to the sex abuse scandal, and attempting to tax them may just get them to move any assets they still have through the Vatican somehow — which has its own issues what with constant pressure from the mafia.

IIRC several of the Penetecostal megachurches went bankrupt too (surprise surprise), and that'd be my next idea of who why they'd want to tax churches in the first place.

Well, it would be untrue to say they don't get involved in politics - every so often a C of E bishop will criticise some government policy or other and, of course, the senior ones all have seats in the House of Lords so they do get to actually vote on legislation. But there isn't a huge, highly politicised religious vote in quite the same way there is in the US. Not enough people go to church to make it worth anyone's while.

Historically, it was different - the Nonconformist churches were known for associations with radicals and liberals, whilst the C of E was once famously called "The Tory Party at prayer."

Does the Church of Scientology have tax exempt status? 'Cause I know they charge people for hearing their religious teachings, so they probably wouldn't count as non-profit.

Disgustingly yes they do.

This is one of those highly challenged things. It is one of the goals of Project Chanology to get that particular status rescinded.

Here Wiki page with more details and other governments Opinions on the matter. Their tax exempt status in the U.S. is under question.

edited 7th Aug '11 6:31:11 PM by TuefelHundenIV

My vote is to tax them, especially when you see some of these megachurches and how much cash they seem to bring in.

That and it makes them have a choice, tax exemption with no campaign contributions, or taxation with campaign contributions.

The amount they bring in is irrelevant if they qualify for tax exemption.

The only real benefit I see is forcing them to play by the same rules as other none profits.

I'd say the reason that churches deserve tax-exemption is the fact that they give so much to people and expect little to nothing in return. If churches got taxed, they might have to start charging people...

Keep in mind that most people are religious, and a huge number of them go to church. Taking away their right to pray and whatnot freely is an awful crime.

edited 8th Aug '11 2:01:45 AM by Heartbreaker

Well, just avoid politics and they won't have to. It's very simple really.

edited 8th Aug '11 2:03:46 AM by Jauce

But that's the church's choice. I'm talking about the rights of the people who go to church.

If a church is going to insist on meddling in politics and start charging people, perhaps the people should consider going to another church?

So if the church starts trying to support the beliefs of the people who attend said church, and getting them integrated into the law in order to create what is essentially their vision of a Utopia, they should find another church? Forgive me if I disagree.

If the members of a particular church really feel that strongly about influencing politics, they will contribute to the causes they want to support anyway. Why mix religion and politics?

A) People shouldn't have to pay to have their beliefs upheld. They have the right to it.

B) Religion and politics should be mixed because a very large part of politics is law, and religion is very much based on rules and ethics.

People have the right to hold and practice their beliefs however they like, so long as they do so legally. If their church makes the decision to be for-profit, they're free to find another church, start their own, pray from their home, or what have you.

[In The US] Religion has no place in law. While [most?] religions exist to provide a moral code, those should only be applied to the individuals who follow that religion, and only on an at-will basis. If you codify religious rules into laws, you're essentially declaring that the government say "this is the one true religion, and all others are badwrong."

What if my beliefs don't include a divine figure? Just because I don't have a religion doesn't mean I don't have a vision of how to improve the world.

Hearbreaker; Separation of church and state. Religion is not to be part of law or the government. It is quite honestly intended in the U.S. for our government to be secular no matter how badly some religious elements want otherwise.

Exactly, and non-religious beliefs about morality are supported by the government. Why should religion be disregarded?

I know about the separation, I simply disagree with it.

edited 8th Aug '11 3:28:27 AM by Heartbreaker

While in principle I don't beleive in giving exceptional status to religion, its worth remembering that the majority of funds raised by churches (as in, small community based congregations) will likely either go back into the community or some other charitable cause and it's hard to justify taxing that to people.

If you ask me, Churches (either as individual congregations or collective groups represting a particular denomonation) should have to register as charities to get charitable exemptions and just stick with that. Groups and individuals that are out for profit won't get that status and will have to pay income taxes (or whatever variations on that there are in your part of the world). That's a fair balance if you ask me and it might put a damper on the more... unethical religious leaders out there.

@Blue Ninja 0

Eh... it can happen, but not in the way it does in America. Leading members of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords and the Archbishop of Canterbury has been known to be outspoken (he's not a Cameron fan). Here in Scotland it's a little different: the Church of Scotland (the Kirk) is the National Church but unlike the Co E in England isn't the State Church (we don't have one) and has no role in Parliament. As groups, both represent a wide enough cross-section that they aren't involved politically at all.

A church has just as much right to free speech as you or I. Take away theirs and you in essence take away ours since we would have just proven there is no such thing as the inalienable right of freedom of speech or religion.

Remember, neither Congress nor the States (14th Amendment) can discriminate against churches. It's either tax them all regardless if they are political or not, or leave them tax exempt. It's more politically expedient to leave them tax exempt cuz even if you manage to survive the constitutional challenge you are unlikely to survive the political backlash at the polls.

edited 8th Aug '11 4:51:40 AM by MajorTom