Tax Religion

[Technosoul]

I briefly looked at the Quaker post and came up with this new political topic and here is the scoop.

It seems clear to me that Jesus wanted people to give to the poor, and to lift up the fallen, and that people should care for one-another.

Politically speaking that is a kind of socialism, that those with extra money should use it to extend a helping hand to the poor and needy.

And yet, here in America we got a big welfare program, homeless people, and needy people everywhere not being helped. Why should the government be doing what was given to the church to do?

So I say if a church is just running a busness and doing nearly nothing to pass on the donations to the poor then tax them as you would any other busness. If the chruches were doing their duty according to their belief system then we would not have a single unhelped person in USA, that is to say, not a single person would need to use the governmental welfare offices.

Tax the capitalistic churches but do not tax the socialistic churches, then transfer the tax collected from the busness chruch to the real churches that in fact concentrate on helping others and have programs in place to do that. We can even donate them our Welfare office to use. (and by help I do not mean "praying for people" or preaching them salvation, I mean helping out by feeding them, clothing them, housing them, and seeing to their health needs).

No religion should be "tax free" if they are just giving some tiny percent to help poor people, they would need to use at least 60 percent of all donations collected to help the poor, otherwise we send in the IRS.

Whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[Compugasm]

There is no such thing as a capitalistic church. The IRS should be disbanded and not used as a tool to threaten religion, it's parishoners, and all citizens!

[Technosoul]

Do not change topic about if the IRS is right or wrong or if it should or should not be used to collect money. That was not the question, although I agree mostly with what you said about the IRS.

I think you might get some feedback about the other statement. No capitalistic churches eh? No chruches getting fat on the hopes of the hopeless eh? No super wealthy churches with skyscaper offices, eh? I have my doubts.

Anyway it is written "all must bow down to the Beast" and so the Book of Revelations cannot be fulfilled until religion pays taxes.

Technosoul.

[Compugasm]

I suppose your referring to the Mormon thing downtown that looks like Superman's Fortress of Solitude? *shrug* It's their money. What business is it of yours how they spend it? You're always on about redistributing stuff, and how much money other people have. I'm sure there is something in the bible about coveting, or minding your own business. They got a big shiny white church, so what? Start your own church then.

[tman_ndsu08]

The church is one thing that government won't touch. They're scared of them because so many people in the country belong to the church.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Compugasm, I suppose your referring to the Mormon thing downtown that looks like Superman's Fortress of Solitude? *shrug* It's their money. What business is it of yours how they spend it? You're always on about redistributing stuff, and how much money other people have. I'm sure there is something in the bible about coveting, or minding your own business. They got a big shiny white church, so what? Start your own church then.

I do have my own chruch, the "Technocrats for Truth" church, but we got no building because the Temple is the Mind. And we is just me.

I am not referring to the Mormon religion at all, in fact they do have a pretty active "helping others" program, but they do fall short of the mark compared to what they could be doing. And so I say unto them "sell your big church building, and give the money to the poor".

Money donated to a Christian Chruch (according to the teachings they claim to represent to be classified as a religion and gain tax free status) is given to do the "Lord's Work". Not as a scam to get rich. For Jesus said "if you help the needy it is the same as helping me". Did Jesus build a shinny church? Did he have a big bank account with miles and miles of tax free real estate? Turning donations into capitalistic profit is a busness, and bussnesses are presently taxable under law.

Tax the money changers in the church, I will provide the whip.

Technosoul.

[bishop]

the further that religion encroaches on politics, the more they become another special interest group which are generally subject to taxation. as an institution, not as an ideology, churches (particularly evangelical ones) have been doing this a lot in recent years. there's a fine line imo, when a church becomes a PAC, using its funds for political purposes. those that do ought to be subjected to the same rules as other PAC's imo.

[rcne]

I'd have to agree - especially with the arrival of 'Mega' churches. Those and the ever-present Catholic Church.

These are not your rural churches with small congregations. They have political agendas, and media influence leanings.

It could be tied back to the separation of church and state. Isn't the tax exempt status a form of state sponsorship?

[bishop]

if i'm not mistaken, the whole reason why religion isn't taxed is so that it can remain separate, and unaffected, from/by politics.

i might be off my rocker on this one, but you could link it to taxation with/without representation. since the church is an entity that is different than states (because its domain often spans several states), to tax it would mean that you'd have to give it some sort of representation.

of course, when they behave as PAC's, they circumvent that little nuance.

[Technosoul]

As you might recall Bush put forth a somewhat simular idea, only in his case he wanted to provide tax money (grants?) to religious organizations who had community programs designed to help the poor or to influence the morals of drug addicts or whatever (no great details about whom would qualify). He wanted to encourge chruches and private organizations to do the social work but could not offer tax breaks (cause they pay not taxes). In other words, shifting "conservative compassion in action" where it belongs instead of at the welfare office or some other such department.

I do not think taxpayers should pay them extra money to do what they should do with the donations they collect. And I might have been a bit radical in overstating my idea (you know me), but if Bush in into redistrubuting tax money into religious social programs, when why not tax those who have other agendas - clearly Pat Robinson is running a political newsletter, not operating a religion. I want to not name more examples because I don't want anyone to think I am attacking any special chruch group(s).

I am not in favor of grants but do agree with the Bush philosopy in a half-ass way on this issue. Religions are experts at drumming up money in donations to take care of needy people, we saw right after 9-11 how billions of people do want to "help" those in trouble. And that is better then Democrats suggesting a tax raise to support the welfare systems of government.

Now if I had a busseness publishing and selling Bibles and other religious books, is that a religion. Could I not have representation as a taxpayer without the government adopting the views expressed in those books?

If I had a bussness of buying real estate in the name of God could I not be taxed without the government agreeing with my God?

I think the bussness part of a church where they use the money for materialistic gain can be taxed same as any other bussness.

Avon products is tax and they can vote for representives, but that would not mean the government advocates their product or their philosophy, only that they have the right to write their congresswoman. So if a preacher is allowed to vote for a representive. Should we not allow those who belong to churches to vote? Okay, you Nuns cannot vote for a representive in government because you are kept by the church ... is that how it works? (not really sure?). I hear tell Pat Robinson voted for his self when he ran for President, is that legal? He was not taxed for such reperesentation.

Whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[bishop]

churches are some of the most important, and generous, charities that exist. they're always working really hard, particularly in inner cities. what is so wrong with giving them some federal funding for the good work that they do? they help people irrespective of their religious beliefs. that includes drug addicts, homeless people, orphans, etc..

they also provide the services much more efficiently than governnment. they should be encouraged and supported, not discriminated against.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by bishop, churches are some of the most important, and generous, charities that exist. they're always working really hard, particularly in inner cities. what is so wrong with giving them some federal funding for the good work that they do? they help people irrespective of their religious beliefs. that includes drug addicts, homeless people, orphans, etc.. they also provide the services much more efficiently than governnment. they should be encouraged and supported, not discriminated against.

I am somewhat not in favor of those grants but if some of the money earmarked for welfare is sent their way I would not find it ultra objectionable, even lager organizations like the Red Cross. I have a few doubts however that lurk in my mind, that some of the funding would be directed towards right wing fundamentalists groups who in turn produce newsletters in support of the Bush philosophy (as they could also open a food kitchen to get on the list for grants). And why tax grants if people can just donate directly? However, I get your point, some smaller groups might not have the donation backing they deserve, and it might encourage more up-start groups who want to help but are not experts at getting people to donate to such a cause. But if properly managed with an overview by non-Republican observers, it just might be one of Bush's best ideas.

I do not see how not giving them grants is discrimination, however. Nor do I think that taxing chruches set up as a busness is an attack on religion.

In both case we should not tax a religion because some people hate realigions, nor should we withhold the grants because some people hate religions, this is about actions taken to help a community, not about what they preach.

In fact Bush made it clear that any religion, Christian or not, as well as non-profit secular groups, are included in the plan. Where as in my tax concept the religions that did not have religious texts that proclaim such commandments could not be taxed because helping the poor is not a part of thier teachings in the first place.

No doubt the Bush plan would be easyer to pass Congress then a "tax on religion" bill, for apparent reasons. However both plans have the same goal and both plans involve tax money.

Technosoul.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Taxing religions is just another step towards destorying religion. Sorry cannot agree with any of the arguements presented here for taxing religion. All of this sounds like the tired old "hate religion" BS.

There is a reason religious institutions are tax exempt, to change that is to undermine another corner stone of the USA.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In other words, shifting "conservative compassion in action" where it belongs instead of at the welfare office or some other such department.[/b]

Ok, this sounds like less govt meddling? Why are you opposing this?

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>clearly Pat Robinson is running a political newsletter, not operating a religion.[/b]

What About Jesse Jackson, Fahrakhan, Al Sharpton all Reverends shakily operating under religion.

<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,@
I want to not name more examples because I don't want anyone to think I am attacking any special chruch group(s).[/quote]
But you attacked Pat Robertson. I just gave you three more to look into, have at it.

<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,
if Bush in into redistrubuting tax money into religious social programs, when why not tax those who have other agendas.[/quote]
This is frustrating, who is exempt? Prove it! I understand why you don't have sources for your statements, and it frustrating the rest of us. Honestly, I'm not sure who, what or why this whole system works. However, I'm not doing your research for you. Another thread you've started that I'm giving up on.

[tman_ndsu08]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Taxing religions is just another step towards destorying religion. Sorry cannot agree with any of the arguements presented here for taxing religion. All of this sounds like the tired old "hate religion" BS. There is a reason religious institutions are tax exempt, to change that is to undermine another corner stone of the USA.

Yes, without religion where would this country be?!

Oh yeah, better off.

The cornerstone of this country is and always will be the strong capitalist economy.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Compugasm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Compugasm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In other words, shifting "conservative compassion in action" where it belongs instead of at the welfare office or some other such department.[/b] Ok, this sounds like less govt meddling? Why are you opposing this? Originally posted by Technosoul, clearly Pat Robinson is running a political newsletter, not operating a religion. What About Jesse Jackson, Fahrakhan, Al Sharpton all Reverends shakily operating under religion. <!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,@ I want to not name more examples because I don't want anyone to think I am attacking any special chruch group(s).

But you attacked Pat Robertson. I just gave you three more to look into, have at it.

<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,
if Bush in into redistrubuting tax money into religious social programs, when why not tax those who have other agendas.[/quote]
This is frustrating, who is exempt? Prove it! I understand why you don't have sources for your statements, and it frustrating the rest of us. Honestly, I'm not sure who, what or why this whole system works. However, I'm not doing your research for you. Another thread you've started that I'm giving up on.[/b][/quote]


Now I cannot have a source if the ideas are totally mine.

Now about Bush's Grant for relgions, I was comparing his idea with mine which would simply tax those who he would otherwise be giving grants too, it is about the same "plan" in prinicple. Both plans would discriminate between those that are useful to the community and those that are just in it for the moeny or for non-community reasons. I would no dougt think that those politically active churches in the black community would be taxed the same as Pat Robinson. I used him as an example because Bush is normally trying to get votes from such religious groups, and his grant idea could be viewed as a way to buy votes from religious groups, or at least give them motivation to vote for him. Taxing a busness that operates like a religion would hardly be a good way to generate votes for anyone's "party".

Also, you cannot say my "tax on religion" idea is wrong or goofy without likewise finding the same faults with what Bush said concerning his "community compassion" grants for some churches.

His plan would enlarge the federal budget debt, due to his special interest spending, my plan would only add more money to the budget. It would still keep a seperation between state and church because it would tax only the busness that have religious titles, not real religions that are doing community services in conformity with their biblical viewpoints that socialism is needed.

And so Bush and I are basically in agreement the only difference between my new idea and his is how to go about reaching the intended goals.

However you make one good point. We are reaching a stage in the past few years where the line between state and chuch is being blurred, in my mind I am not sure where that imaginary line is being drown nowadays, so I could use an "expert" here to set the record stright concerning those "differences" and about why religions were excluded from taxation in the past.

Technosoul.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now I cannot have a source if the ideas are totally mine.[/b]

I agree, for opinions. But your entire post can't use the opinion scapegoat. Here are some quotes which need sources, and why.

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Tax the capitalistic churches but do not tax the socialistic churches... No religion should be "tax free" if they are just giving some tiny percent to help poor people, they would need to use at least 60 percent of all donations collected to help the poor, otherwise we send in the IRS.[/b]

How do you know that giving 40 percent (20% less than recommened) doesn't allow a church to actually make a larger overall contribution? You don't unless knew what your talking about.

My argument is, they may contribute less percentage, but that doesn't matter if more actually gets donated. Honestly, I don't know if what I've just said is how it really is. However, I can mathmatically prove that increasing church donation from 40% to 60% cuts the money generated in half. That means, 1 million becomes 500k. But, I'm not the one who started this thread, so I don't have the burden of proof.

Originally posted by Technosoul, Now about Bush's Grant for relgions...

Why tax a grant? It's not revenue!! Doesn't it make more sense to lower a tax, and then give LESS money to the organization? The net dollar amount is the same.

Originally posted by Technosoul, Taxing a busness that operates like a religion would hardly be a good way to generate votes for anyone's "party".

Bush is angering Christians or Muslims by taxing them? The secular should be happy with that.

Originally posted by Technosoul, Also, you cannot say my "tax on religion" idea is wrong or goofy without likewise finding the same faults with what Bush said concerning his "community compassion" grants for some churches.

I missed that link, did you post one? Nope. I have no idea what that is.

<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,@
His plan would enlarge the federal budget debt, due to his special interest spending, my plan would only add more money to the budget...[/quote]
Ok, must be your opinion because there are no sources, and only your crazy ideas to back it up. I'm sorry, but that's what it boils down to.

<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,
I think the bussness part of a church where they use the money for materialistic gain can be taxed same as any other bussness.[/quote]
I know you stated it as opinion. But this quote crystalizes your argument. We'd probably all agree with you if you had any idea what specifically is or is not taxed. Instead, you reference business models which do not apply to non-profit organizations. Therefore, your suggestions don't make sense because then they might as well just be "for profit" organizations and reap the benefits of a corporation. (this message brought to you by the church of microsoft™.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Compugasm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Compugasm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now I cannot have a source if the ideas are totally mine.[/b] I agree, for opinions. But your entire post can't use the opinion scapegoat. Here are some quotes which need sources, and why. Originally posted by Technosoul, Tax the capitalistic churches but do not tax the socialistic churches... No religion should be "tax free" if they are just giving some tiny percent to help poor people, they would need to use at least 60 percent of all donations collected to help the poor, otherwise we send in the IRS. How do you know that giving 40 percent (20% less than recommened) doesn't allow a church to actually make a larger overall contribution? You don't unless knew what your talking about. My argument is, they may contribute less percentage, but that doesn't matter if more actually gets donated. Honestly, I don't know if what I've just said is how it really is. However, I can mathmatically prove that increasing church donation from 40% to 60% cuts the money generated in half. That means, 1 million becomes 500k. But, I'm not the one who started this thread, so I don't have the burden of proof. Originally posted by Technosoul, Now about Bush's Grant for relgions... Why tax a grant? It's not revenue!! Doesn't it make more sense to lower a tax, and then give LESS money to the organization? The net dollar amount is the same. Originally posted by Technosoul, Taxing a busness that operates like a religion would hardly be a good way to generate votes for anyone's "party". Bush is angering Christians or Muslims by taxing them? The secular should be happy with that. Originally posted by Technosoul, Also, you cannot say my "tax on religion" idea is wrong or goofy without likewise finding the same faults with what Bush said concerning his "community compassion" grants for some churches. I missed that link, did you post one? Nope. I have no idea what that is. <!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,@ His plan would enlarge the federal budget debt, due to his special interest spending, my plan would only add more money to the budget...

Ok, must be your opinion because there are no sources, and only your crazy ideas to back it up. I'm sorry, but that's what it boils down to.

<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,
I think the bussness part of a church where they use the money for materialistic gain can be taxed same as any other bussness.[/quote]
I know you stated it as opinion. But this quote crystalizes your argument. We'd probably all agree with you if you had any idea what specifically is or is not taxed. Instead, you reference business models which do not apply to non-profit organizations. Therefore, your suggestions don't make sense because then they might as well just be "for profit" organizations and reap the benefits of a corporation. (this message brought to you by the church of microsoft™.[/b][/quote]


Here is one of a number of webpage links about the Bush policy that you requested to be informed about.

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/

I will give you time to review the link or to research other sources about the Bush idea before answering your other questions.

Be back later.

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Make sure you also review this secton of the report about Bush' ideas. http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/pub...ation.cfm?id=45

thanks for asking for the webpage link up.

Technosoul.