I have a question I would like to ask everyone here that stems from an argument I had in one of my college courses.
Should Churches in The United States Pay taxes? When our professor asked this question, hands shot up across the room with people waiting in unison to scream "No way Jose!" Out of 27 people, I was the only one who said yes. I was then asked to present my thesis as to why. (Keep in mind I attend a university in the deep south, where the majority of students are devout, southern Baptists.) With this type of audience, I knew I had my work cut out for me.
#1. I think that all religions have been getting over on the tax man since the beginning of time. Christianity, for example asks for a "tithe" or tenth of your income if possible. What happens to my 10% after I give it to the church? The uniform answer is that the money goes to do the work of God. If God is an all powerful deity, then why does he need money? He created everything in existence, but somehow he needs a little helping hand from the ATM? Nice try, but I don't agree.
#2 If Religious leaders of any faith can perform legal changes to a person's life (i.e. Marriage), then they are in my opinion performing a service to the state and should pay taxes based on their recognition as a ordained matrimony service that they provide to the general public. Basic economics. If you have a good or provide a service, then you pay taxes.
#3. This is my big one, Religious Legislative lobby groups. I have a big problem with groups that pool their tax free money together to influence law makers. Their are so many laws passed that are tainted with religious influence and undertone that it's amazing how we can have any audacity to call ourselves a truly "free" country. I don't have a problem with you when you worship your god, I have a problem with you when you and your god make the laws that tell me how I should live. At this point, I'm not a citizen of a free state, I'm now a hostage of a religious based puppet regime. So, In this instance, if religious groups want to lobby "our" Government, then pay your taxes first. I thought that the American government was liable to it's tax paying citizens. In fact I do recall us having a little issue with England about "taxation without representation", only to give churches representation without taxation? hmmm?
Those were my 3 biggest points or argument and I was suprised to find that I was'nt burned at the stake for my beliefs. So now I want to turn it over to you.What are your thoughts?
Ah, should they render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s?
In my opinion they should not. I buy the 1st Amendment argument that giving the state the power to levy taxes creates the potential for the government to influence the course of religion within the culture. Naturally the presence of a tax exemption that a religious group must qualify for has the same potential (a difficulty faced by the Branch Dravidians but not the Catholics). And that potential has led to clashes in the past.
For example, Native Americans who use peyote have been challenged by legal authorities. To date their rights have been upheld, but just as Holmes established a clear and present danger standard that affected free speech in Schenck v. US, so too would the right to tax religious organizations lead to unethical application of it by opponent groups. I get nervous anytime previously fundamental rights are chipped away at, be it for security or money.
#1 isn't topical. You may have a point in regard to the church's handling of finances (particularly the wealthier and less helpful to the masses churches - and I think we concur on the top one there), but the issue is more metaphysics than economics.
#2 paying taxes on business activity is becoming standard for every move. There's definitely the risk of differential taxation here and it feels a little like worshiping money to tax sacred ceremonies.
#3 mythos over logos. The notion that you will get any laws that aren't, as you say, tainted with religious influence is a stretch. The basic structure of the culture and its laws is strongly influenced by the founding belief system (mythos) which creates the logical order (laws) of the state. Even the basis of your question - Is this a right or wrong thing to do? - is deeply intertwined with the basic notion that there is such a thing as right and wrong - good and evil. That's distinctly tied in with the common belief that people should strive to achieve the good and shun the bad. Which goes back to morality. Where are its roots? The old mythos - in the US, mostly Judeo-Christian values.
As you wrote, "I have a problem with you when you and your god make the laws that tell me how I should live." Ah, then, what should be the basis of morality? If it isn't to be the inherited values for the Judeo-Christian background, what should guide our conduct?
No doubt the lobbyists are an issue, as are the rural Americans who buy in without thought to whatever crap they're served. But I think it would be even uglier if taxes were levied. Just as with so many other American entities, the bigger and richer ones use economic power to manipulate things to their advantage. The US has already bizarrely followed Israel's lead in starting an unwinnable Mideast War. Must we have battles between Catholics and Protestants at home too?
Nicely done here! You do present some very solid substance to the defense of non-taxation. I still hold my position on these ideas because I think they are plausible. I would ultimately love to see some sort of compromise to the issue. Awesome response! - 5 months ago
Answerer
Thank you. I would agree that your ideas are plausible and identify, at the very least, ills that result from the tax-exempt status. - 5 months ago
What Girls Said
N/A
(Age:Under 18)
When: 5 months ago
My answer is a question to the question asker. What is the point of asking this question while all you do is to argue with everyones answer?
It's not arguing. It's an exchange of ideas. There is no point in ever having an argument on a internet advice website. - 5 months ago
Answerer
Its totally an arguement and maybe even stupidity. You didn't exachange ideas you just having a debate. And debates should not happen when people tell you thier minds. - 5 months ago
Question Asker
I think maybe you want to argue, and if my questions and my guests are so stupid, why did you even bother leaving a response? - 5 months ago
I have to say that I don't completely agree with you.
I agree with your last point 100%, but your first point just isn't realistic. God created everything, so he doesn't need money? If that's the case, money shouldn't exist in the first place. (Although I think I question your point here simply because I question the existence of God)
And religious leaders don't actually perform legal changes. If you just have a church wedding without signing a marriage license, the government doesn't recognize your marriage. So they're really not providing a service to the state.
My main argument against taxing churches involved a lot less thought than yours did--many churches can't afford it. Churches rely upon collections during services, and I know my church (or my mom's church, really) only gets a couple thousand dollars a week. That money doesn't go very far as it is, and losing some of it to taxes would be devastating. Those "super churches" like the one Joel Osteen runs pull in millions, and they should definitely be taxed, but you can't tax the ones that can afford it and leave the others be.
Why shouldnt money exist? I think your missing the idea presented here that the work of a deity who was capable of total creation can be continued without any financial assistance. My point is explaining how man has used god to fleece others using a cocktail of fear, guilt, and sympathy. And yes, ordained ministers are the only one who can marry people outside of a courthouse. Have you ever tried to marry 2 people? we don't have a license the state requires. So they do provide a taxable service. - 5 months ago
Answerer
And you're missing my main point. It might not make a difference to you if churches close, but it matters to other people.
I'm not sure if you're saying that marriage licenses don't exist, but you would be wrong on that one. I don't have to try marrying two people to know that. - 5 months ago
I definitely think you're right lol. I don't think any organization that makes money should be exempted from taxes. They want to be here in this country, and paying taxes is what it takes to keep the country running. All the citizens have to do it, so it's only fair.
I like your thoughts, now try explaining your feelings on this to a church group and see how they react. it's amazing how such a self proclaimed loving group can be so hate filled. Irony, utter irony. - 5 months ago
I think I'm in love. Ha ha ha ha. I can see where the devoutly religious are going to especially find fault with your first reason. God doesn't need the money but something about how God has given you everything you have (job, family, money, blah blah blah) and it's therefore your duty to give a little back in appreciation so that His word can be spread to the infidels. Once His word has been spread to the evil Godless masses, those people will then in turn accept His love and God will bestow upon them all His gifts and they will then be self-sufficient enough to pay their tithes as well. Or something. Ha ha. (I think I've been around these people too much.)
But I love love love your reason #3. Even before I got that far in reading your question, I was thinking much of the same. I agree that I have no problem with what people want to believe but it really bothers me when religion either attempts or succeeds at affecting our laws. We're supposed to have freedom of religion and yet we allow that?!
I would love to hear the "reasoning" behind why NOT. You said you were burned at the stake (no surprise really as I am already anticipating the tidal wave of down arrows I am sure to receive for this!) but did anyone give even the semblence of a sound argument to support their position?
That said, as much as I HATE it, I don't think they should have to pay taxes for 2 very good reasons but I would prefer not to list them here because it will just give all the religious zealots fuel for free. Because I guarantee that most of them probably don't have a good reason for their position and I'm not going to help them in their quest to keep our country under the religious based puppet regime, lol. I'd be more than happy to message you privately with my reasons if you care to hear them, lol.
Most of the baptist hordes reasoning was that taxing the church was not ethical, and that if the government started taxing the church that it would possibly become subject to restrictions which would violate the freedom of religion rights. My argument was based on American catholicisms little boy touching problem. Maybe some restrictions are well needed and overdue. Chastising catholicism went well with the southern baptists for some reason? - 5 months ago
Answerer
Wow. I call that a really bad "reason". lol... but at least they had one. I don't see how they equate taxation with restriction though. Taxation has nothing to with other laws, lol. But I guess maybe they are claiming the "slippery slope" argument? That if we allow taxation that "where do we draw the line of government intervention"? I dunno. I like my reasons better, lol. And you know I had to really be honest & thoughtful here because I would LOVE a good reason to disagree!! - 5 months ago
not all churches get paid well, true religion doesn't cost anything to attend. my church makes nothing a year. its all based on ties and donations and what ever is left over goes right back to the kids of the families that attend church.
Poll added by question asker. Cast your vote to see the current results.
(Age:Under 18)
When: 5 months ago
