Exactly. The church as an entity makes no profit. It takes in money and either spends it, pays employees or it sits in an account. The money can't be passed to anyone outside of legal limitations. If one is operating differently it is violating the law and should be reported. I don't know what Second and Lakewood do with their money specifically, but I know that they have no shareholders and no ownership. I think the bigger issue is that people who don't believe in God and/or don't go to church don't want people who do to get to tax deduct their giving as a charitable contribution because they have a problem with what that entity teaches.
Actually, the big issue is that churches are afforded a status/privlige that other non-profits are not given. They are not subject to IRS audit or public disclosure. And then there's that whole government subsidizing religion thing, which is wholly unconstitutional.
Yawn. I really doubt that the people who want churches to lose their tax exempt status feel that way because they don't like that churches don't have to publicly disclose their finances. So are you arguing that the government should audit churches and require them to disclose...well, disclose what exactly?
Yawn all you want. I know I'd feel a hell of a lot better if I knew what my tax dollars were subsidizing. Not a perfect scenario (as I pointed out, it's unconstitutional regardless), but at least in this scenario they're not giving out special favors over other non-profits. Uhh...their finances?
Subsidizing is an odd word. Do churches get money from the government? (legit question) Or by subsidizing are you simply referring to them not paying taxes on the money they take in? If it's the latter, then subsidizing isn't really the right word. Perhaps you mean you'd feel better if you knew where money that could be potentially helping to subsidize the rest of America was going instead? Duh. What is it you think you are going to find? That's my question. What is this great evil that you think churches are doing with their money that you are so concerned about?
Well, I would be one of those who would give you one of those dirty, disgusted looks, so I guess not. Civic education does need to be sincerely reformed, but that has to be done through the classroom, not attacking the family. I view historical objectivity as a chimera which can never be achieved. Consequently, history at the lower levels should of course show truth, but it must teach lessons beyond the historical trends which higher education observes. American education, for example, should teach its citizens that they are part of a glorious state. Ideally, I support centralizing education, removing the control which local councils have on the educations have, which really is where you see crap like evolution being destroyed - difficult in a country of over 300 million, yes, but I think it needs to be done. But destroying the education that is taught within the family itself? That's different. Families are individual models as well, with their own history. Kids may sometimes accept wrong things that their families may tell them, but that's what schools are for. Heck, I've openly stated on this board that my mother is pretty much a complete racist towards the Chinese and thinks that what Japan did 70 years ago was completely justified. But while I know it's wrong and can be incredibly offensive towards others, I am not willing to state that her saying that should be punished.
Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to. Rampant abuse/fraud. Which is well-known to be caused by the massive loophole and lack of transparency that exists because of this law. It's about fairness. Plain and simple. Edit: A side benefit would be that dudes like MadMax could look at a Church's expense report and then make an educated decision about where he wanted to worship at and donate his time/money. I'd say we all win.
we both agree about the rest of what you said about having the child get as much information as they can especially both sides of the argument on any particular subject. This is the best way to make sure that the child does not get indoctrinated with only one point of view. The only thing i want to comment on is the "anti-religion" bit you mentioned. Not sure why things need to be characterized as such. Based on your responses, I would presume that just like me, you don't believe that Zeus, Rah, Poseidon, Thor, etc., is a god. Does that make you and I anti-religious? We just don't happen to believe they are.
I'm willing to bet that if Max asks at his church he can get a copy of the expenses. Let's remember that most churches in this country are not the big mega churches. I know at my church anyone can see the finances anytime they want by simply asking.
Same with every Catholic Church I have ever been associated with. Any parishioner can get a copy of the finances any time they ask and the churches make a copy available every year through a mailing or to be picked up at the church.
My church gives a copy at the end of the fiscal year as well to every member that wants to attend the business meeting. They will also provide a report to any member that asks, anytime they ask and will give details about anything that has question marks. The only thing my church won't disclose is giving records. (Will show how much total but not from individual people)
That's great, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be mandatory. Irrelevant. Anybody can commit fraud. The other consideration here is that since these financial reports are not audited independently, you have no way to know if they are legitimate or not.
I don't see a problem with independent audits of churches, as with any other non-profits. The purpose is to simply ensure that the organization is indeed a non-profit and not engaging in for-profit activity. Non-profits should all be treated basically the same, and I'm a bit surprised that wasn't already happening. That said, I don't think it makes any sense to tax them - as others have said, they have no profits to tax and no owners to give profit to.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Affording churches a special privlige (i.e. tax exemption) falls under the purview of this rule.
No it doesn't. They aren't given tax exemption status because they are religious in nature, they are given tax exemption status because they are non-profits. A preacher pays taxes on his income. But my all means, feel free to tax the profits that churches distribute to their shareholders or that the owner of the church takes out of the bank account.
This is not really the same thing though because there's no choosing of any religions. It's not like Christians are exempt but Muslims or Wiccans aren't. It doesn't establish a religion, nor does it prohibit one. It's not a tax-exemption though. We tax profits - if you don't have profits, there is nothing to tax.
A church as an entity doesn't pay taxes on the money it takes in from givers and the money that is given can be deducted from an individual's tax return. That is what he is complaining about. If a church sells cookies they don't pay taxes on it, regardless of where the money goes. He's wrong that it's unconstitutional though.
This gives way to the can of worms that is religious legitimacy. Not all churches are tax-exempt. Why? Because the government has to deem it as such. I don't want the government in the business of subjectively telling us which churches should qualify and which shouldn't. This also speaks directly to your point, Major, that this kind of law isn't "a la carte" or discriminatory. It very much is. Bottom line; if they are given tax exemption because they are non-profit, then they should be forced to prove it, like all secular non-profits are forced to do.
Ah, but it's here that we get into the nitty-gritty. Obviously, not everybody is part of a megachurch, but again, things like this do happen--- http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...tions-pastor-sick-wife-ferried-182015520.html Also, to the extent that churches are becoming political vehicles as well--- (go Citizens United!) Guess what's happening? http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/movies/18eight.html?_r=0
