Would you support the taxation of Church property?

Question

Our current tax laws provide tax exempt status for religion-owned buildings. Mosques, churches and temples go unburdened in our society and yet, as the cornerstones of their respective religious organizations they are the chief places of business and the primary money-makers for their organizations. Just as for Wal-Mart's and it's stores, a religion without it's chief commercial building would probably fail no differently than Wal-Mart would without it's super-centers. Has freedom of religion been interpreted incorrectly with regards to our real estate tax laws? Is it time to re-think this matter of public law? Please explain the rationale supporting your position on this issue.

Answer 1

I think that any Church property that is not actually a church, temple, mosque etc. should be taxed (offices, church halls, parsonages and the like).

I think that Churches should also pay taxes on any money recieved from sources other than tithing.

The Bible was speaking specifically of taxation when it said "render unto Caesar that which is Caeser". Jesus made it clear that EVERYONE should pay the taxes required of them--nowhere did he say that the Church should be exempt.

Answer 2

No way. I do not want the Church to have so much power.

Here's the problem. If you tax church property, the church is then giving the government a substantial amount of Tax revenue that it will become dependant on. So let me give you a scenario: A state is thinking about passing a gay marriage law. One of the majority whips gets a call from Cardinal Pio, "Hey, this is the Cardianl. The CHurch is thinking about buying some property, and constructing a massive Cathedral with a lot of area and highly taxable somewhere. We really were thinking about Pennsylvania, but we're uncomfortable with the marriage law. So uncomfortable we're thinking about closing many churches, letting them brownfield, moving to home worship for 50% of the parishes, and building the cathedral in Ohio."

See the point. The tax exemption protects the people (religous people are people to) from the government manipulating taxes to affect religion. An example would be taxing buildings by modified window area, so Cathoic churches pay a lot, moques a little; and it protects the people from the Church being able to play games to manipulate government.

Answer 3

I don't support taxing religious buildings or faith communities, but I also don't support religion as a corporation. In my mind, if the income of the church exceeds + + , it should be treated as a corporation. (Brief note added because of the poster who mentioned outgoing charity: That would count against the income, of course. Forgot to tack it on.)

Megachurches are IMO the biggest threat to genuine Christianity, and are more profit-oriented than prophet-oriented, if you will.

Business donations to churches or religious organizations should be disallowed, except for purposes of historical upkeep of buildings or in cases of emergency ie the building burns down or a congregation needs to be re-established in the event of a calamity. Businesses should be entirely secular. Mixing them with religious communities will help neither side of the equation.

In my opinion, it's all a matter of balance. Once a given religious organization starts to lose its spiritual purpose and seek only secular gain, it should not reap the rewards of tax-exempt status or any other social advantage that a non-profit-oriented house of worship would enjoy.

To sum up: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, true - as long as it's religion. Congress and states are theoretically free to tax businesses however they like, and churches primarily motivated by finances should be taxable.

Answer 4

Depends. Tax the money thats going to new stained glass and gold chalices. Don't tax the money thats going to the poor. Maybe the church will stop being so money central, then, and actually start giving more of it away to people who need it.


EDIT
May I point something out? I recently read an article in Time that stated that 11% of parishes have had at least 10,000$ stolen by clergy, (thats in one year, in addition to whatever salary was paid) and a much higher percentage then that have had less stolen. It isn't nice, it isn't pretty, but guess what? Some churches ARE about money.

Answer 5

actually indiefor, taxing the church will be what to do to seperate church and state. To treat it like any other buisness in the country. Churches that are money making (profit organizations) should be taxed. Now if they can prove that they are non-profit then they should be exempted

Answer 6

I will make one thing clear here.

If religion continues its attempts to meddle with politics then yes they should be taxed. Period.

There is a reason they aren't taxed now, and that is because of the church / state seperation. The founding fathers knew what would happen if this country were to become a theocracy.

Answer 7

I think church should pay the taxes and be able to teach what the truth is at all cost. The government through this tax exempt program dictates what the church talks about. including politics.

Answer 8

Only if they donate to or participate in any political activities. Mega churches making hundreds of thousands a week pushing their moral agenda on the rest of us should definitely pay taxes. Churches paying for lobbyists in DC should pay taxes.

Answer 9

No,churches are not money-making institutions.Why the abounding ignorance of where the money in the plate actually goes?

One hint:
It does not all go to the minster.
It goes to support the work that the pastor does-for example,he visits the sick,performs weddings and funerals.
It goes to support charities,as well as other humanitarian work.

Religous buildings should stay tax exempt.

Answer 10

Why tax churches? Do you really think our founding fathers would have supported that at all? The Constitution CLEARLY separates church and state. The state involving itself in the affairs of the church are GROSSLY unconstitutional and immoral.