"Members of a religious community under public law may formally declare their wish to leave the community to state (not religious) authorities. With such a declaration, the obligation to pay church taxes ends. Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave it." Wow, that is harsh.
There used to be a Church Tax in America too. Benjamin Franklin went to jail because he refused to pay it. Apparently he studied the bible every night at home because he disagreed with all the churches in the area. At the time, you had to pick a local church for your church taxes to be sent too - and he refused to pick a church & pay the taxes.
How do you define a business? They are not a business in any sense. Taxing a church would be a violation of church and state. Also since churches serve many of the function of the local gov't (providing help to the poor, marriage counseling, etc) they really do enough for the community to get that status. When a church behaves like a business, they already get taxed.
Que? Telling a church that they can't teach against certain social issues is a violation of church and state.
why are they distinct, dada? honestly, unless you just have it in for churches...a bias...there is no distinction. they're non-profits. if you're only reason for taxing one and not taking the other is religion, then you're going to have a First Amendment problem.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U2wobZvLpUw?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U2wobZvLpUw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Because they are not the same. Sure churches share similarities, but they are in the business of growth and spreading their particular viewpoint on religion. Hospitals and most non profits are in the business of helping people or charity. If all a church did was charity, then I would agree they are equal, but charity is just some of what a church does, a byproduct etc...not the main business. DD
On what track? You've been asked several times by multiple posters to explain what you think is different about Churches vs other non-profits. If you can't do that, then we have to assume you either want policy to be made because you dislike religion, or that you want this tax policy to apply to all non-profits.
You don't think the Red Cross is interested in growing? You don't think the local homeless shelter isn't trying to find funds to expand, provide more food, add another location? You don't think Planned Parenthood doesn't push its own viewpoints? You may not agree with it, but the underlying concept of a Church is about helping people through faith (live a better life, get saved, find happiness, whatever).
There are all types of charities and non profits, not all of them are about preaching an agenda. The underlying concept of church is to spread it's faith. That is not charity, that is spreading a dogma, it is in the business of dogma. This was funny....when I had just answered in the post above yours...we were typing at the same time...lol. DD
let me suggest again that you read up more on the hoops non-profits have to jump through to get that status. let me know when you can answer the question of who the "owners" of a church are. charity is a "byproduct." awesome.
Maybe if some of those churches took the money they collected and used it to feed the homeless instead of building that gym, I might be more inclined to agree. I am sure Jesus envisioned a large gymnasium and temple complex when he was giving his sermon on the mount. DD
how many churches in this country do you think have a gym? the average size of a church in America is about 100. About 90% of the churches in America have a congregation of 110 or less. in the overwhelming majority of churches, the pastor is the ONLY person who draws a salary. these churches rely entirely on donations. you say they're selling dogma...cute. show up to a service and see if you have to buy anything, da da. you can take and take and take all the dogma and whatever else you claim they're "selling" and no one will ever expect you to pay a dime for it. hell, at most churches i know they'll tell visitors they're not expected to give when they pass around the plate for donations. some churches just put a paypal link up on their website and avoid passing plates, entirely. if your view of the Church is Lakewood, you have a skewed view.
Do other non-profits build structures that will help improve their effectiveness? Again, based on your sarcastic use of the Sermon on the Mount, referring to the business of the church being to spread dogma with charity as a byproduct, etc. I believe this is just more about your crusade against religion than anything else.
I almost feel responsible for the DaDakotafication of this topic as I often will post "Tax the churches" in similar threads. Sorry. Usually, posted satirically, because all of the arguments presented by MadMax and others are correct. It is the outliers that cause the debate. My primary desire is that laws for punishment when a tax exempt status church/religion/individual abuses their status should be beefed up and enforced. If you abrogate the tax exempt status (not in DaDakota's twisted logic way) these entities should lose their tax exempt status. To my understanding, this mechanism already exists. I say strengthen it. I would much prefer we capture the lost $60 billion a year in coroporate taxes that get laundered outside the country.
