Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Look, in Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.”
The Reasoning was that the exemptions for religious organizations created only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less of an involvement than would be created by taxation of churches, and the effect of the exemptions was thus not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The grant of a tax exemption was not sponsorship of the organizations because the government did not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstained from demanding that the churches support the state. The exemption created a more minimal and remote involvement between church and state than did taxation because it restricted the fiscal relationship between church and state and reinforced the desired separation insulating one from the other.
Obviously there's going to be some interaction between church and state. Just like there are some restrictions on the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
edited 27th Jan '13 11:46:54 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016First off, no there not.
But considering some of your comments on religious institutions, I'm not at all surprised that you'd want to tax them.
Rick Perry: Texas to restrict abortion as much as possible
Poor Rick, his heart is in the right place.
But his head is up his ass, and his foot in his mouth.
edited 27th Jan '13 12:08:29 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Churches are absolutely businesses. They're not-for-profit ones (theoretically — I might take issue with that re: some megachurches), but they're businesses just the same. They have income and expenses and services they provide just like every other business out there.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Churches aren't businesses. You're confusing accounting with purpose. If anything, they're a social organisation. Where people pay voluntary subscriptions to keep it going.
But taxation does infringe on separation of church and state (at least, court decisions have agreed it does). It infringes because it gives the state a lever by which it can control the behaviour of a church.
Play nice, and your taxes go down. Play nasty, and there'll be a clause in the next bill through congress, just for you.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.Making tax policy contingent on holding certain beliefs or supporting certain practices would violate separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and equal protection. But just taxing them the same way you'd tax a corporation wouldn't do any of those things. And churches don't just survive on donations. They can also own and rent out property, some own shops, or they receive inheritances, or royalties from published works, and own stock or other financial instruments to produce income. The fact that some of their income comes from voluntary donations doesn't change the fact that they are a business. In fact, I know of some churches that require their members to turn over their tax returns and requires them to tithe.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott may challenge Rick Perry in the 2014 Gubernatorial election.
You may remember Abbot as the man who threatened to arrest UN-affiliated poll watchers in the 2012 Presidential election.
Senate To Vote On Sandy Aid Bill Monday
How the hell does that violate the freedom of expression?
edited 27th Jan '13 1:09:27 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
I believe he was blowing smoke out of his ass. Although he did send a letter to Hillary Clinton asking the White House to back him up.
He is also the guy who said "Texas is better than New York, and New York just gave us another excuse to say that" in response to Governor Cuomo's gun control legislation.
edited 27th Jan '13 1:18:48 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
I'm in the same boat. If an organization is allowed to give donations to political parties or do campaigning for political candidates, they ought to be taxed. Allowing religious organizations to influence politics without paying taxes is violating the Establishment Clause.
It would impose a financial sanction for holding or expressing certain beliefs. No different than fining somebody for expressing the "wrong" idea, or requiring that Christians pay less taxes than non-Christians.
![]()
Tax-exempt organizations aren't supposed to openly support candidates for office. The IRS hasn't exactly been zealous in investigating the political activities of religious organizations for the past several years, though.
edited 27th Jan '13 1:26:49 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Okay, be honest, Greenmantle. Be absolutely honest.
If a Vicar stood up in the pulpit, and said "if you believe in Christianity, you should not vote for the British National Party" - would you want to ban that?
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.Any nonprofit organization can become a tax-exempt 501(c)(3); it just needs to file certain documents with the IRS, disclose a lot of information to the government, and follow certain rules. They don't need to be religious. Charitable and educational organizations can and do also qualify.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.* Sigh *
All right then, no. Churches can have views on issues, of course. But no giving donations to Parties or Candidates, no obvious lobbying...but in end, who's going to listen? A Church or a Religion shout not force a person to vote for a party or hold a point of view, it should only persuade.
Keep Rolling On

Would they be exempt if they make too little money for it to be worth taxing? If they only have a net profit of a couple hundred I don't really think they should have that taken from them.