Taxing churches, etc. and getting rid of nonprofits

[LennStar]

Can someone please explain this sentence to me:

In June, the church raised the monthly charge paid by most families to cover the cost of their children serving as missionaries from $400 to $500 per month.

Do I understand it right, that a member of a Mormon family goes out as a missionary and the family has to pay money for it? (Instead of getting paid by the church)

Yes, that’s right.

Wow. And people are still insisting that religion does not make you stupid and churches do not brainwash! (Little atheistic rant for the lulz of it.)

My comment was directed toward the OP who acted like churches everywhere are "blatantly supporting specific political candidates."

There certainly are some priests who do it.
Anyway, the main point in my eyes would be: If the church urges for ANY legislation (and that often means a certain candidate btw) isn't that political interference?
Take abortion. The church clearly violates individual's rights to health and family planning with their actions. It has also been shown more than often that the church's hush-up of sex (directly and indirectly by going agaisnt sex ed in schools) creates tons of suffering (and btw. more abortions).

Should that political interference be financed (through tax breaks) by those who do not want to have to do anything with that church and are suffering under those actions??

[Proud Foot]

I didn't read all the responses so this may have previously been mentioned. Churches are exempt from filing a 990. Other non-profits still file this and it helps provide transparency into the finances of the organization and I believe that churches should not be exempt from this. I don't necessarily agree with taxing churches* and getting rid of non-profits would be beneficial. With the changes as a result of the TCJA I would guess that the number of people who benefit from the charitable deduction is small. I think further reducing or eliminating the deduction would be more effective in increasing the tax revenues. I do think there should be admin/program thresholds for annual spending which must be met to maintain the non-profit status.

*Don't tax income but the property tax exemption needs to go away or be adjusted..... See Oklahoma

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

My comment was directed toward the OP who acted like churches everywhere are "blatantly supporting specific political candidates."

There certainly are some priests who do it.
Anyway, the main point in my eyes would be: If the church urges for ANY legislation (and that often means a certain candidate btw) isn't that political interference?
Take abortion. The church clearly violates individual's rights to health and family planning with their actions. It has also been shown more than often that the church's hush-up of sex (directly and indirectly by going agaisnt sex ed in schools) creates tons of suffering (and btw. more abortions).

Should that political interference be financed (through tax breaks) by those who do not want to have to do anything with that church and are suffering under those actions??

There may be priests who do endorse a specific candidate from the pulpit, but again, if they do, enforce the existing laws. I'll speculate that it might be more of them endorsing them on their own time and then people saying, look, the church is endorsing a candidate. I know of one pastor, personally, who was very detailed on FB that with Harris exiting the race, he now threw his support fully behind Warren. Was that his church supporting a candidate? That would be quite a stretch to say that. So if that's what you're meaning by knowing priests that do it, my thoughts are, meh. If they're preaching on Sunday morning saying, I support Trump and you should too, then yes, I'd agree with you.

Now on to your main point. If the church urges for any legislation, is that political interference? Well, you'd have to go into what you mean by interference as it's simply a vague but negative sounding word that you didn't define. Again, the general standard for non-profits is that they can support specific issues. If you want to demand that non-profits as a whole get out of lobbying, by all means push for that. It would affect Planned Parenthood as quickly as some churches. Pretty much everybody lobbies currently, and even if you said they shouldn't directly lobby for a government issue (i.e. vote yay or nay on a specific proposition) there's still a lot of gray area, because you could say almost any non profit that pushes any perspective from the standpoint of increasing awareness could be considered a political issue. Pursue it if you want, and I'll give you a pass :-) as long as you apply it to all non-profits.

As for your statement: "Take abortion. The church clearly violates individual's rights to health and family planning with their actions." I'm always taken aback at things the left call clear violations of individual rights on issues that matter to them. All I can say is, you have a very lenient standard for what a clear violation of individual rights is....

[GuitarStv]

63 BCE was about 70 years before this tax took place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius).  That's a really long time.  Even longer when the average life expectancy was about 35.  That's about two generations!  To give you context, 70 years ago in the US the government was still enforcing anti-miscegenation laws.  70 years ago the country of Israel hadn't invaded and annexed Palestine yet.

This time frame is comparable to at least some estimates of how long Britain ruled India. Think India wouldn't call them a foreign power?

I will start by saying, that yes, it's probably not a bad thing to take out of it that Jesus was more concerned with other things than taxes. That does not at all prove what you're saying, though. Less importance does not equal promoting the issue itself.

The bigger issues are going back to, again, context. You are so stretching things beyond their original intent, lol. First, assuming your interpretation is right, which is an assumption, Jesus would be talking about what an individual Christian does.

Well, if we're going to split hairs - Jesus didn't give a fuck about 'Christians'.  He was a Jew, and he cared about his people . . . who were Jews.  I'm not entirely sure that he'd even recognize the interpretation most modern Christians have of his teachings.

Throwing out f@# for shocking emphasis doesn't make what you're saying true. It's fairly obvious that what I'm meaning by Christians is people who follow Jesus's teachings, but in case it's not - that's what I mean. Just to keep it straight for you, I'll try to not use Christian and say people who would follow Jesus. So you're wrong because of course Jesus would be concerned with how the people who were going to follow what he was going to say were going to act on what he said. What else would someone who was teaching be concerned with...?

This is not saying what the government should or should not do. We're talking in this conversation about governmental policy and what makes sense. If the government changed the policy, you might have some applicability in saying Christians should pay the tax based off of what Jesus said.

I agree.  Jesus isn't saying what the government should do.  He's saying what his people should do . . . which is pay their taxes and stop stressing earthly wealth.

Again, there's many interpretations that don't agree that this is fully and literally about paying taxes. The reason I keep stressing what government should do is that's what we are talking about for Pete's sake. What should the government do in regards to taxes, not how should people who follow Jesus's handle the day to day of paying taxes in the government they're under.

Again, that's not even for sure given your interpretation may be wrong but more importantly because the whole context is with zealots who are about to take up armed conflict. The choice was presented of fight or don't fight. So yea, when I start advocating for armed revolt against the government if they tax churches, you might have some rationality in referencing this. For talking about a governmental policy decision, it's a huge stretch to assume that it would remotely apply to say this declares churches should pay taxes.

Agreed.  But again, Jesus's words are not for the government - only those who follow his message.  Not the government.  It's pretty unambiguous.  Whose picture is printed on the money of the US right now?  Give the money to that person.  God doesn't care about it.

Again, these are two separate issues - what people who follow Jesus do in regards to taxes where they're living and how the government should handle business. You're the one trying to stretch Jesus's words that could convey the meaning about taxes you are claiming into an overreaching argument about whether the government should or should not tax churches. That's why it's out of context, because you're increasing the context beyond what the text actually says.

Finally, taking it even a step further (but going back to it being about what an individual Christian does), there's plenty of stuff that Jesus said you should do as a Christian that in no way excuses what prompts you to do it. Just because Jesus said turn the other cheek if someone slaps you doesn't mean that it's all fine and good for people to slap you.

Agreed.  I'd argue that the poll tax on the Jews was unjustified . . . it was not all well and good for the government to implement it.  It was fundamentally unfair - which didn't matter to Jesus, because love of money isn't what his followers are supposed to be concerned with.  In exactly the same way it's not all well and good for the government to give churches special treatment different than other charities so they can stockpile lucre to hide away from the rest of society.  That's not really a message that Jesus ever advocated from what I can recall.

If you don't believe in the words of Jesus of course, none of this applies to you . . . and you should be fighting for the right of your private club to keep as much money as possible.

Respecting the words of someone includes strongly looking at what they actually said and not what we want them to say. You clearly want Jesus's words to not only very specifically mean that people should pay their taxes but also to be presented as if he had said it in the Sermon on the Mount as a general teaching instead of in a direct response to a question where to say anything different would have likely meant to many that he supported armed revolution. I can't definitively say that Jesus would or wouldn't want churches taxed judging from his overall ministry much less by this 10-20 or so word (depending on your translation) statement. The difference is I'm not claiming to broad reaching explanations from it. You are, and I'll reiterate it again, you're doing it without context. I've personally experienced many, many times people taking one sentence here or there out of the Bible and saying out of context and saying, this is what this means. So now, I dig into the context when it comes up, and the context just isn't there to support what you're saying. I tend to get a little prickly when someone else tries to bring something out as a proof that's just not there. In this case your stretching might not be as big of a deal, but stretching Biblical texts in general has a really bad and dangerous track record.

I don't really agree with your argument/interpretation but appreciate you taking the time to spell it out.

Also, since you brought it up, bringing this back around to point a little, you comment "it's not all well and good for the government to give churches special treatment different than other charities so they can stockpile lucre to hide away from the rest of society." I don't know if you read my response to Davnasty, but two things - is making churches the same as other charities all you're wanting? If so, what do you actually hope of gaining (as mentioned above in that article, you will be gaining almost no actual taxes from it by trying to tax churches in any standard way of taxing we have now)?

Fairness, and more openness in reporting of financial details related to religious institutions.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I don't really agree with your argument/interpretation but appreciate you taking the time to spell it out.

Indeed, good discussion, thanks.

Also, since you brought it up, bringing this back around to point a little, you comment "it's not all well and good for the government to give churches special treatment different than other charities so they can stockpile lucre to hide away from the rest of society." I don't know if you read my response to Davnasty, but two things - is making churches the same as other charities all you're wanting? If so, what do you actually hope of gaining (as mentioned above in that article, you will be gaining almost no actual taxes from it by trying to tax churches in any standard way of taxing we have now)?

Fairness, and more openness in reporting of financial details related to religious institutions.

Openness of financial details/auditing I don't have any issues with as long as they're not implemented in a punitive fashion to try to bury them under mounds of paperwork.

Could you expound on fairness?

[GuitarStv]

I don't really agree with your argument/interpretation but appreciate you taking the time to spell it out.

Indeed, good discussion, thanks.

Also, since you brought it up, bringing this back around to point a little, you comment "it's not all well and good for the government to give churches special treatment different than other charities so they can stockpile lucre to hide away from the rest of society." I don't know if you read my response to Davnasty, but two things - is making churches the same as other charities all you're wanting? If so, what do you actually hope of gaining (as mentioned above in that article, you will be gaining almost no actual taxes from it by trying to tax churches in any standard way of taxing we have now)?

Fairness, and more openness in reporting of financial details related to religious institutions.

Openness of financial details/auditing I don't have any issues with as long as they're not implemented in a punitive fashion to try to bury them under mounds of paperwork.

Could you expound on fairness?

I'd like churches to follow the same (non-punitive) rules as non-religious charities.

[Psychstache]

In the sermon in my church when we were discussing the 'render unto Caesar' quote, the pastor brought up a joke:

A rabbi, a priest, and a minister found 10,000$ while on their daily constitutional.  Then they debated how best to split the proceeds between the church and the needy.  The priest suggested drawing a large circle on the ground, throwing the bills up in the air and anything that lands in the circle should go to God and church - the rest to charity.  The minister suggested throwing the bills up in the air and anything that lands outside the circle should go to God and the church - the rest to charity.  The rabbi suggested throwing the money up in the air . . . and letting God keep what He needs.

A joke so powerful it helps prove sentience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7wj3bB6OU4

[GuitarStv]

In the sermon in my church when we were discussing the 'render unto Caesar' quote, the pastor brought up a joke:

A rabbi, a priest, and a minister found 10,000$ while on their daily constitutional.  Then they debated how best to split the proceeds between the church and the needy.  The priest suggested drawing a large circle on the ground, throwing the bills up in the air and anything that lands in the circle should go to God and church - the rest to charity.  The minister suggested throwing the bills up in the air and anything that lands outside the circle should go to God and the church - the rest to charity.  The rabbi suggested throwing the money up in the air . . . and letting God keep what He needs.

A joke so powerful it helps prove sentience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7wj3bB6OU4

Johnny 5  . . . .  is alive!  What a great movie.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I don't really agree with your argument/interpretation but appreciate you taking the time to spell it out.

Indeed, good discussion, thanks.

Also, since you brought it up, bringing this back around to point a little, you comment "it's not all well and good for the government to give churches special treatment different than other charities so they can stockpile lucre to hide away from the rest of society." I don't know if you read my response to Davnasty, but two things - is making churches the same as other charities all you're wanting? If so, what do you actually hope of gaining (as mentioned above in that article, you will be gaining almost no actual taxes from it by trying to tax churches in any standard way of taxing we have now)?

Fairness, and more openness in reporting of financial details related to religious institutions.

Openness of financial details/auditing I don't have any issues with as long as they're not implemented in a punitive fashion to try to bury them under mounds of paperwork.

Could you expound on fairness?

I'd like churches to follow the same (non-punitive) rules as non-religious charities.

OK, so same requiremetns as other non-profits. It seems like others feel differently given the title of the thread (and honestly I felt from some of your other comments that you wanted more). If that's all everyone's for, it's not too controversial, I would say.

[GuitarStv]

You wouldn't think it's particularly controversial . . . that's why it seemed odd to be called a godless commie for supporting it.  I guess some people have a vested interest in maintaining existing structures that enable corruption.

[LennStar]

As for your statement: "Take abortion. The church clearly violates individual's rights to health and family planning with their actions." I'm always taken aback at things the left call clear violations of individual rights on issues that matter to them. All I can say is, you have a very lenient standard for what a clear violation of individual rights is....

???
Telling others to suffer is a clear violation of those other's rights. Not to mention the cases where pregnant women died because they could not get an abortion or were pressured to not have it.
If you think not liking pressing someone into suicide is lenient standard...

[robartsd]

I think it would be reasonable to require churches to report as other nonprofits do. I would want there to be a safe harbor for churches that are financially small (in terms of total assets held and annual contributions received).

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

As for your statement: "Take abortion. The church clearly violates individual's rights to health and family planning with their actions." I'm always taken aback at things the left call clear violations of individual rights on issues that matter to them. All I can say is, you have a very lenient standard for what a clear violation of individual rights is....

???
Telling others to suffer is a clear violation of those other's rights. Not to mention the cases where pregnant women died because they could not get an abortion or were pressured to not have it.
If you think not liking pressing someone into suicide is lenient standard...

Wow, take leaps of logic much....

You could argue a law banning abortion is a clear violation of other's rights, although people on the other side of the issue would argue against that, of course. However, what you were talking about is one group, a church, lobbying another group, a school, who still can make a decision on their own - it's just lobbying. Then that other group's decision per what you said in your original comment would be essentially abstinence only education. You could argue, of course, that that's not as effective as a discussion of contraceptives, and that would be fine. That's a far cry from even saying the school is clearly violating student's rights much less the outside group that's asking the school to teach it but still not making the final decision.

So in summary, you have lobbying that can be refused of how something is taught in one particular part of a child's life (at school vs. at home or other places - they're not kidnapped and forced to listen only to those lessons) and try to equate the teaching of that perspective in that one avenue of their lives with a clear violation of their rights, and when you're questioned about it you find the absolute most extreme circumstances of a woman who wanted an abortion and tried to commit suicide as your means to justify such a strange logical pathway.... I'm impressed.

[DadJokes]

On one side, people think life starts on conception, which therefore think abortion is murder. On the other side, people think life begins at a later point, and therefore having an abortion is not murder, and outlawing abortion is a violation of the mother's rights. These two sides are never going see things from the other side's perspective and are therefore never going to reach a consensus. No further debate is necessary.

Can we get back to the topic?

[GuitarStv]

On one side, people think life starts on conception, which therefore think abortion is murder. On the other side, people think life begins at a later point, and therefore having an abortion is not murder, and outlawing abortion is a violation of the mother's rights. These two sides are never going see things from the other side's perspective and are therefore never going to reach a consensus. No further debate is necessary.

Can we get back to the topic?

You're forgetting a third group.  Many people believe that life begins at conception, but have no problem with abortion.


If your neighbor has a fatal blood disease, will die without a transfusion and is a match for your blood type . . . you're not under any legal obligation to help him by donating your blood.  Even though he'll die by not getting your blood it's not murder.

By the same token, if a mother doesn't want to host a child in her body, go through the physically damaging and risky process of childbirth, and accept legal responsibility for that child for at least 18 years . . . she shouldn't be under legal obligation to keep that child alive in her womb.  Even though the fetus will die by not getting a womb to live in it's not murder.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

On one side, people think life starts on conception, which therefore think abortion is murder. On the other side, people think life begins at a later point, and therefore having an abortion is not murder, and outlawing abortion is a violation of the mother's rights. These two sides are never going see things from the other side's perspective and are therefore never going to reach a consensus. No further debate is necessary.

Can we get back to the topic?

Oh I agree, and I do not want a debate on abortion at all as I have mentioned strongly on this forum before. I was just commenting on how it felt like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Like how far away from the actual issue do we have to be before people are not clearly violating people's rights? Bringing it back to topic, it's a good example, in my eyes, of how people seem to want to assign the worst possible things to churches before they talk about taxing them :-).

[calimom]

Apparently Kanye West's has been granted non profit status for his religion:

https://theavocadola.com/kanye-west-granted-tax-exempt-status-as-a-religious-entity/

Apparently Kanye West is now God. Move over, old God, or multiple Gods or no God.

[shuffler]

Apparently Kanye West's has been granted non profit status for his religion

It's satire.  "Kanye West told IRS officials Monday in a petition we made up".

[calimom]

Apparently Kanye West's has been granted non profit status for his religion

It's satire.  "Kanye West told IRS officials Monday in a petition we made up".

Well sure, NOW.

[GuitarStv]

To be fair, Kanye has acted like he thinks he's God for long enough that the announcement didn't even get an eyebrow raise from me.  :P

[ChpBstrd]

Careful what you wrote on the internet about our future emperor. Remember the prophecy of idiocracy.

[GuitarStv]

This is a sensible progression.  After all . . . Brawndo has the electrolytes plants craaaaaavvvveeee.