So Sup Forums, tax exemption for religions yay or nay ?

So Sup Forums, tax exemption for religions yay or nay ?

separation of church and state

so nope. if they're making money then they should pay taxes on it

They should look into were the money goes and have yearly audits. If the church leader(s) are taking a lot of cash for themselves, then they should not be considered a real church. They should require that the vast majority of the money they get go into ministry programs or to help the church grow (within reason).

Though I believe that churches should be mainly responsible for taking care poor and suffering, not the government. The problem is the government and media is pushing for getting rid of religion, so there is not enough donations/offerings.

If no, then religious groups would have the right to say and do anything in the political realm, including openly funding candidates.

Also, enjoy having your taxes raised when religious people can no longer afford to offer free services to the poor.

Separation of Church and State means they should be tax exempted. Government should not take anything from the church due to this separation and the church, as an organization, shall not meddle on politics on the state

Fuck off with your logic asshole

No. It means that churches shouldn't get any special treatment and be treated like every other business.

...

only Christians

If you tax the church, they should have the say over where should it spent thus violating the contract

They aren't a business. If churches pay taxes then the government has a stake in that religons success. More religon= more gubment money.

For religions, plural? No.

For the state church? Yes.

>separation of church and state
Fuck that noise. Realistically, the state is incapable of being even-handed in the matter of religion: it must either choose one religion to favor, or by refusing to choose, implicitly reject all religions as false.

And if all religions are false, then they ought to be equally suppressed, not equally tolerated. Equal toleration is sentimental hogwash, which has no place in rational government.

Taxing them would be like taxing a pog club. The idea is ridiculous.

The only thing that could be questioned is whether donating to them should give you a write-off as if donating to charity (which donating to a pog club would not), but I never see secularists raise a peep about this.

>Taxing them would be like taxing a pog club.
Obviously I mean a club that relies solely on donations and uses them for upkeep rather than distributing to owners or shareholders.

Since governments have classically took care of the goods of man in body, mind, and soul, it usually gives tax exemptions to organizations that do these things already.

>care of the body
Tax-exempt orphanages, charities etc.

>care of the mind
Tax-exempt libraries, museums, etc.

>care of the soul
Tax-exempt churches, etc.

Since taxes are used by the state for the total care of man, it recognizes that entities that already do this should be supported.

tax exemptions are good for churches because you will know, if you happen to go to church, that money does indeed go to the poor.
Churches are fucking big to hold a shit ton of people in, so you pay workers that go in and keep it looking good. priests take vows of poverty, chastity, and obediance, so you won't see priests taking in the money, except money they need for groceries and cheap shit to keep them living.

So businesses shouldn't be taxed either.

>whether donating to them should give you a write-off as if donating to charity
An interesting question, given that the historical origin of the exemption for charitable donations lies in the typically religious character of charities in the past (secular charities being a modern phenomenon). "Charity" itself is arguably a distinctly religious concept.

What will happen if churches lose tax exemption ? (Pic related)

You can't tax someone without representation.

If you don't want churches meddling in politics you can't tax them.

Also, big old organizations like the RCC needs money to maintain World Heritage Sites, schools and orphanages in Africa and museums. Remember, the RCC cant own businesses since this is written in the canon law (iirc) that no member of the clergy should own any land

The questions are simple.

1. Do you want to incentivize or deincentivize religion's involvement in religion?

2. If you remove tax exemptions for non-profit exercises of free speech, you must do so for all forms of free speech. This would mean that private art guides, painting galleries, writing organizations, and other forms of non-profit organization must be taxed equally also. The government cannot preference one form of non-profit speech over another, because it would have what the courts call a "chilling effect." So it is all or nothing.

Are you prepared for that?

>the " has to favor one meme"

I'm assuming you want us to favor god's chosen people then? I mean this is the whole fucking basis of the Lemon test. You have a freedom to any religion and a freedom FROM any religion.

The moment you tax a religious institution you give them a greater say in the government than they already have. Fuck the lobbies they will have religious senators after such a stupid move.

Keep church and state seperate

>priests take vows of poverty, chastity, and obediance
Most don't, though.

Your typical parish priest takes a vow of celibacy, but not poverty or obedience (not obedience in the sense of priest, monk, friar, nun, or sister in orders, anyway).

They still aren't paid very well, though.

Where can I get the same deal? I won't be involved in politics, won't vote-- and in exchange they get none of my money.

Fucking metal!

Comes from "caritas", which is in fact much broader than alms-giving (and "charity" in the King James Bible consequently has a much broader application)

They're non-profit, apolitical organizations.
You start taxing them, not only are you required to give them a say in state affairs, but you run into problems with the status of other tax exempt organizations.

That said, any church starts advocating clearly political messages? Starts making obscene profits? Tax the hell out of it.

Seriously, fuck whatever sodomite thought of the megachurch.

>implying you pay taxes.

Sorry, but individuals can't get classified as a religious institution.

Not necessarily.

From a merely natural perspective, the question is only of having a single state religion for the sake of national unity. Something like Shinto in Imperial Japan would fit the bill.

Aside from paganism, very few religions are cosmopolitan in character enough to merit consideration as national religions for many countries. Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam (and Islam-derivatives like Baha'i) are about it. Judaism, for instance, is entirely unsuitable for anyone but the Jews.

Of course, the orthodox Christian position is that all nations have a duty to worship the one true God of Christianity.

Yes, the whole concept of Christian "brotherly love" is found under this heading, and it has metaphysical connotations, not merely moral ones.

That kind of thinking is far beyond practicality for the US.

Yes, a successful state very much needs a centered, cohesive religion to function well ( e.g. Meiji and war Japan ), but the US isn't in as much of a religious identity crisis as say Europe. In Europe, it would be extremely beneficial to favor Christianity so as to help jump-start the move away from secularism to combat the growing foreign majority.

But in the US, Christianity is still king ( mostly thanks to the migrant population that was selected ). Keeping church and state separated created a free market effect which allows one religion to stay dominant while others exist alongside.

tax exemption for everyone


your daily reminder


taxing is theft


you are only sponsoring corrupt officials and mobsters

Tax exemption is based on whether you make profit or not.

Or else you're taxing revenue and not income.

Taxes should not exist at all.

Absent that, taxes should not exist for the greatest contributors to society (job creators and moral pillars).

This includes churches.

Completely free markets only produce mediocrity. And one could argue that America's lack of religious cohesion is a key component in her ongoing deterioration (and approaching disintegration).

It's also important to note that in the early days of the U.S., most states actually did have a state church. The First Amendment prohibition was viewed as applying only to the federal government. SCOTUS eventually held that it now applies to the states, but only because of the poorly-written language of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Furthermore, the current Near-East-origin migrant population is actually being selected for Islam. The Christians are actively being weeded out, even as the administration publicly proclaims that religious discrimination in immigration is not only unconstitutional (which it's not, since non-citizens have no constitutional rights) but unconscionable.

most states had their own separation clauses

the founding fathers didnty give give a rats ass about a "christian nation"

go read the treaty of tripoli

religious revival happened after the civil war generated a bunch of militant cults.

there aint no war on chrisitans, churches are entitled parasites.

>Dumbasses dont understand "no taxation without representation"

So you want religious institutions to have a say in government?
Corporations have lobbyist groups representing them
Do you think taxing religious institutions would be somehow different?

Your post contradicts itself
If you actually believe in the separation of Church and State the State shouldn't be able to tax the Church, especially when they don't get a say in government which was the whole reason our nation was created.

churches are nonprofit

>most states had their own separation clauses
Not at the time of the Revolution, they didn't. Pennsylvania was literally the only one with full freedom of religion, originally (some of the others had freedom of religion for Trinitarian Christians only). The rest gradually adopted this position over the next half century or so.

>the founding fathers didnty give give a rats ass about a "christian nation"
This is correct, but most of the states had inherited an established church from the colonial period.

>religious revival happened after the civil war generated a bunch of militant cults
Correct, but the mainline denominations had still been thriving up to about the 1830s.

>there aint no war on chrisitans
Not a war on Christians, per se, perhaps, but there has been a general war on Christian orthodoxy ever since the so-called Enlightenment.

They aren't getting any special treatment. Religions are charitable organisations. Charitable organisations get a tax exemption for providing a public service. They are being treated like every other business.