It's amazing the amount of overreaction going on in this thread. I will continue to have communion with a clear conscience and I voted for Obama, but not for his stance on abortion. I will oppose his efforts to make abortions more available or if he selects a Supreme Court person solely based on abortion. However, there are larger social justice issues, human rights, etc. that I (and the Catholic Church, btw) agree with Obama. This priest could have easily said the same thing about McCain supporters with regards to death penalty, war, etc. I wonder if that would have drawn such vehement opposition from some people... Finally, for those saying the Church should be stripped of tax-exempt status...a single priest (not even a bishop) does NOT speak for the whole Church. What the priest did was wrong, but he's a fallible man...and even the Church knows that priests are fallible (let's not get into the pope right now, I have my own grievances with that one).
This might sound extreme but I actually would allow a church to discriminate for all of those things. Personally if a bunch of Neo-Nazis wanted to start a church that only allowed blond haired blue eyed able bodied straight people I would allow it. I think both the seperation of church and state and the right to assembly should protect them from the civil rights and the ADA. Mind you I would condemn such a church for being the racists bags of sh^t that they are but IMO as long as they remain peaceful in what they do I would allow them to exist.
Again though I think this goes to a difference in how much sacredness you read in the act. I get the feeling from your description that you see it almost as right to take communion and a duty on part of the priest to give it since this is a very important part of Catholic Christian practice and is the example set by Jesus. I'm not going to quibble about how important this is but I see the church as having the right to decide who gets communion and who doesn't. To me that goes to seperation of church and state and whether the church is perverting Christianity by not following Jesus' example I don't see that as a matter of the state to decide that and using the cudgel of tax exempt status. I think you generally agree with that point but are more upset by as you see failing to live up to Jesus' example. That may be so but I'm looking at it narrowly and anyway as a non-Christian I'm in no position to decide how Christians are or are not living up to Jesus' example.
hmmm...well, if you're talking about what they pay staff...that gets hit with income taxes. it's not as if they can claim some sort of non-profit status, individually. i can tell you from experience, the IRS can be a bear about non-profit status. i know people who have written books with ALL proceeds directed towards Living Water International, and have had a helluva time with the skepticism from the IRS going in. Which is probably a good thing, and i'm ok with that. It's Caesar's anyway. but thinking about my church...we have no staff...our pastor does not take a salary...we have two separate non-profit entities we carry out ministry operations through...we pay to lease space for a worship service on sunday evenings. what would you want to tax from that?
What a load of crap, churches are a business, they collect money, they pay employees..they are sellling something..... They should be taxed just like any other business. The seperation of Church and state revolves around government.....not whether a churuch is a business...... It is not to keep government out of the church, but to keep church out of the government.... You have no clue if you don't get this simple fact. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- And churches DO make a profit, they just put the money back into building larger structures.....etc.....any money that is above what they need to operate should be taxed like any other business. I mean look at Joel's place, do you think that is not a business? Come on !!! DD
DaDa - businesses retain profits. they don't pay employees and give the rest away or apportion only for operations. not all churches build buildings. some build buildings solely for public use, and then lease out space so they can have a worship service there on sundays. the separation of church and state goes both ways...it always has.
Almost all non-profits collect money and pay employees. Do you think Goodwill and the Red Cross are all run by volunteers? What exactly is a church selling? How much do you have to pay to go listen to a sermon? Do other non-profits not build buildings and expand?
I think that most churches are not for profit and do the right thing. I also think that there are quite a few that use the church as a tax shelter. It is very difficult for me to believe that churches like Lakewood can buy the Summit and have a multi millionaire preacher and there not be something hinky going on. I don't know what they (the "church") pay the Osteens and I'm sure most of his money comes from profits on his books but you can't deny that the church is nothing but a great big marketing ploy for that dude and his family to make tons of money.
Tax them. Are the churches even audited? Does the IRS even look at their books? They should be treated as any other business, if they want to apply for non-profit status, they should have to prove they are non-profit, just like the rest of the corporations Major mentioned. Open up the books, let's see where the money goes....and if it is into the pockets of the leaders, then it should be taxed. All non-profits should have to prove they are net zero on their books. DD
Aren't Churches already treated just like any other non-profit organization? They are all 501c3 organizations. They get audited, have to file with the IRS, etc.
I honestly don't know......but I doubt most non-profits, especially churches get looked into with any sort of regularity. It would be interesting to see how the audit process works and what it takes to be a non-profit organization. For instance, if you took in an extra 100k in tithes for the year, does that go into the Ministers pocket, or does it go directly out to the community. Because one to me is a profit the other is what non-profits would do. DD
DaDa, I think you are being too critical of all churches. There are plenty that are good even if you or I do not agree with their message. Lots of churches do good things and serve a good purpose.
wait...they are non-profits...their books are wide open. at least every church (institutional or otherwise) i've been involved with is. if it goes into the pockets of their leaders it's income. churches send w2's to employees, i believe. obviously if they're cheating the law and retaining profits i'm right there with you and probably more so than you are....but i think you're reacting to your assumptions by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Wait - this doesn't make any sense. If I have a business, and I make $100,000 in profits, and I pay that all to myself, my business has no profits and wouldn't be taxed. The $100,000 in wages would be an expense for the business. (I would be taxed on it personally though) How is this different for a non-profit? Even if it were taxed like a business, it wouldn't owe any more in taxes because it's net profit wouldn't have changed.
