How atheists (and everyone else) subsidize religion in the United States

[Theofrak]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-veRKtvnXXuE/T_roHQAZG7I/AAAAAAAAAiY/GK5y2utclxU/s1600/cragun-mansion.jpg

Imagine owning this $1.75 million mansion and not having to pay any property taxes. Reverend Randy White does, and you are subsidizing his lifestyle. Under the“parsonage exemption,” Ministers are allowed to deduct the cost of their living arrangements from their taxable income (e.g., mortgage or rent, utilities, furnishings, upkeep, etc.). The total number of ministers in this country is about 600,000. If you take an average salary for those individuals of $85,037 and assume an average parsonage exemption of $8,000, you arrive at a subsidy of about $1.2 billion for the living arrangements of ministers in America every year.

The parsonage exemption is only one form of subsidy that religion enjoys in the United States. Other government subsides include: tax deductions on donations, no income tax (federal, state, and local), no property tax, no investment tax, no sales tax, direct subsidies (Faith-Base Initiatives (http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm)), related business income tax subsidy, volunteer labor subsidy, and the SECA (self-employment) tax exemption. According to a report (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=cragun_32_4) by the Council for Secular Humanism, Americans subsidize religions to the tune of $71 billion every year.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1lJ-BkafwO0/T_rsfn3x56I/AAAAAAAAAis/rEyEVTFWpFM/s400/cragun-figure-1.png

Religions get tax breaks because people mistakenly believe that they are largely charitable institutions engaged in beneficial services for the community. This is not the case. As the report explains:

Religions are quick to trumpet when they do charitable work—ironically for Christians, since the Bible explicitly says not to (Mathew 6:2). But they don’t do as much charitable work as a lot of people think, and they spend a relatively small percentage of their overall revenue on such work. For instance, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormon Church), which regularly trumpets its charitable donations, gave about $1 billion to charitable causes between 1985 and 2008. That may seem like a lot until you divide it by the twenty-three-year time span and realize this church is donating only about 0.7 percent of its annual income. ... One calculation of the resources expended by 271 U.S. congregations found that, on average, “operating expenses” totaled 71 percent of all the expenditures of religions, much of that going to pay ministers’ salaries.


The report breaks down the subsidies in the table provided below. Note that $71 billion is a conservative estimate because it only takes into account six of the fourteen major government subsidies to religion.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lWmM3OOxWL0/T_rxXwgmqmI/AAAAAAAAAjE/Hx3kSE56xQQ/s400/cragun-table-1.png

Are religions more like charities or entertainment services? One only needs to watch Joel Osteen in action to realize that entertainment is a huge component of religion.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aoVRRklQ2rk/T_rvLVPtWcI/AAAAAAAAAi8/S10Pia7hdqI/s1600/preacher21.jpg


People pay to be energized, inspired, coached, and entertained, but religion does not receive the tax treatment of other forms of entertainment.

Imagine the benefit to this country if religions paid their fair share. At the local level, police and firefighters, who provide services to churches, might not need to make budget cuts year after year. Likewise, states could fund education and prevent the decline of our schools.

The sad reality is that people would rather give money to their church than the government, and the government gives them a tax break (up to 50% of their income) to incentivize this behavior. As a result, we see religions like the Mormon church amass the wealth of a small country, while governments at the local, state, and national level are struggling to perform their vital functions.

http://www.theofrak.com/2012/07/how-atheists-and-everyone-else.html

[AvalonXQ]

I have no issue with having churches and ministers pay the same taxes as everyone else.

However, I also think taxes are generally much too high, and I'm quite happy with many more church members being encouraged to vote for lower taxes.

So, if you don't mind the consequences of some of the most powerful influences on voters having a strong incentive to be against local and state taxes, go for it.

[Resume]

I have no issue with having churches and ministers pay the same taxes as everyone else.

However, I also think taxes are generally much too high, and I'm quite happy with many more church members being encouraged to vote for lower taxes.

So, if you don't mind the consequences of some of the most powerful influences on voters having a strong incentive to be against local and state taxes, go for it.

I for one would accept such a trade-off.

[MG1962]

I have no issue with having churches and ministers pay the same taxes as everyone else.

However, I also think taxes are generally much too high, and I'm quite happy with many more church members being encouraged to vote for lower taxes.

So, if you don't mind the consequences of some of the most powerful influences on voters having a strong incentive to be against local and state taxes, go for it.

It would be interesting to see how much these churches spend on charity and outreach work. Which if I understand correctly could be written off against business expenses.

[AvalonXQ]

It would be interesting to see how much these churches spend on charity and outreach work. Which if I understand correctly could be written off against business expenses.

Every church I've attended has spent a lot on this. In fact, without exception, the four biggest expenses have been, in no particular order: the building, the personnel, foreign missionary work, and local benevolence. For most congregations I do think ministers' salaries has been #1.

When my home church paid off the mortgage on the building, it was a big deal because we were able to greatly increase our support for certain foreign missionaries.

[MG1962]

Every church I've attended has spent a lot on this. In fact, without exception, the four biggest expenses have been, in no particular order: the building, the personnel, foreign missionary work, and local benevolence. For most congregations I do think ministers' salaries has been #1.

When my home church paid off the mortgage on the building, it was a big deal because we were able to greatly increase our support for certain foreign missionaries.

And I suspect there would be a fair amount of accountability. Uncle Sam does generally like to get whats owed to him, and I am sure the IRS is aware of the sorts of scams that can be run.

Obviously there are examples of people not doing the right thing, but they seem to get whats due to them in the end. The IRS can be be tenacious when the mood strikes.

[Beelzebuddy]

I for one would accept such a trade-off.
It would also sap some of the sermonizing currently used to hate on the gays, women, atheists, etc. Win-win, in my book.

Unfortunately I'd expect the Render Unto Caesar Act to meet stiff enough resistance from established religions that it'd never get passed in the first place.

[geni]

Imagine the benefit to this country if religions paid their fair share. At the local level, police and firefighters, who provide services to churches, might not need to make budget cuts year after year. Likewise, states could fund education and prevent the decline of our schools.

Well probably not. In most cases it would simply result in the bankruptcy of the local church resulting a a derelict building and a lowering of local property prices.


As a result, we see religions like the Mormon church amass the wealth of a small country, while governments at the local, state, and national level are struggling to perform their vital functions.

You've used the Mormons as an example twice now. While not look at a more general spread of religions? Oh I see vast numbers of breaking even or loss making churches don't help your case.

[Careyp74]

Well probably not. In most cases it would simply result in the bankruptcy of the local church resulting a a derelict building and a lowering of local property prices.

I wouldn't mind moving into one of those. It wouldn't take long until they are on the market. Perhaps if there were taxes involved, they would afford it if they cut corners and went with the fake gold, and got the smaller organ.

I am curious, why is Reverend Randy White's mansion tax exempt, if it is not a church?

Geni's argument is a fairly good one for the local church, but the big guys, with the on air sermons, raking in the millions, they are different.

[Resume]

Well probably not. In most cases it would simply result in the bankruptcy of the local church resulting a a derelict building and a lowering of local property prices.


Sometimes you have to break a few eggs.

[geni]

I wouldn't mind moving into one of those. It wouldn't take long until they are on the market. Perhaps if there were taxes involved, they would afford it if they cut corners and went with the fake gold, and got the smaller organ.

Err there is already far more brass than gold plate (solid gold? There are a few bits in the british museum I guess). Silver is more common since it is so much cheaper.

The only actual pipe organs I've seen are generally Victorian leftovers and don't work unless there is a local enthusiast.


I am curious, why is Reverend Randy White's mansion tax exempt, if it is not a church?

Presbyteries/Rectories as a church owned hose where the priest lived are fairly traditional. Back when say the CofE had serious money through tithes and land ownership they could be quite serious buildings and bishops got palaces. These days they tend to be otherwise unexceptional houses although in the UK since they tend to have been purchased some decades ago they are larger than you might expect if they were purchased today.


Geni's argument is a fairly good one for the local church, but the big guys, with the on air sermons, raking in the millions, they are different.

They are also pretty uncommon so there is no point in basing a policy around them. You need a policy that covers the CofE mob hanging out in neogothic a victorian rebuild, the "glue some decoration onto a box" 60s catholics, the methodist tin tabernacle and the weird american import who hang out in some rooms above the local shops.

[steve s]

Imagine owning this $1.75 million mansion and not having to pay any property taxes. Reverend Randy White does,

That's pretty modest.

Mr. and Mrs. Crouch have his-and-her mansions one street apart in a gated community here [Newport Beach, California], provided by the network using viewer donations and tax-free earnings. But Mrs. Crouch, 74, rarely sleeps in the $5.6 million house with tennis court and pool. She mostly lives in a large company house near Orlando, Fla., where she runs a side business, the Holy Land Experience theme park. Mr. Crouch, 78, has an adjacent home there too, but rarely visits. Its occupant is often a security guard who doubles as Mrs. Crouch’s chauffeur.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/us/tbn-fight-offers-glimpse-inside-lavish-tv-ministry.html?pagewanted=all

So the two Crouches live on opposite coasts? Looks like a sham marriage.


Steve S

[geni]

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs.

Rather a lot. UK's got rather a lot of abandoned or de-facto abandoned churches. The ones in city centers tend to survive one way or another either converted into other things or preseved by some charity or other (the near 1000 year old St Olave's in chichester for example is now a christian book shop) but beyond that it can get rather messy.

[Beerina]

Churches, etc. are not technically exempted. Congress was never given the power, by The People, to tax religion, lest one religion (including atheism) seek to harm others by leading people on anger cruscades.

Congress, and government, like to pretend they're just being nice, but the few cases that get anywhere near it have the Supreme Court concerned about the entangling aspect --yes, legislative wording granting "exemptions" is entangling, but taxing is even moreso. Imagine a church seized because of failure to pay property taxes -- now government has interfered with the free exercise of religion. And that will certainly get the law thrown out as a violation of the First Amendment. Note I did not say, "almost certainly."

So government continues in the fiction that it's being nice at the behest of The People, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Supreme Court has issued clear warnings on this, so the fiction continues.

[Resume]

Rather a lot. UK's got rather a lot of abandoned or de-facto abandoned churches. The ones in city centers tend to survive one way or another either converted into other things or preseved by some charity or other (the near 1000 year old St Olave's in chichester for example is now a christian book shop) but beyond that it can get rather messy.

Check out Detroit for abandoned, decrepit buildings.

Lots of businesses go bust; why should churches be different? If paying your share of taxes blows your business model, your business model sucks.

Not that I'm advocating paying more than your share mind you.

[tsig]

Churches, etc. are not technically exempted. Congress was never given the power, by The People, to tax religion, lest one religion (including atheism) seek to harm others by leading people on anger cruscades.

Congress, and government, like to pretend they're just being nice, but the few cases that get anywhere near it have the Supreme Court concerned about the entangling aspect --yes, legislative wording granting "exemptions" is entangling, but taxing is even moreso. Imagine a church seized because of failure to pay property taxes -- now government has interfered with the free exercise of religion. And that will certainly get the law thrown out as a violation of the First Amendment. Note I did not say, "almost certainly."

So government continues in the fiction that it's being nice at the behest of The People, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Supreme Court has issued clear warnings on this, so the fiction continues.

They'd still be free to exercise their religion they'd just have to pay their own way like every other organization.

[AvalonXQ]

Congress, and government, like to pretend they're just being nice, but the few cases that get anywhere near it have the Supreme Court concerned about the entangling aspect --yes, legislative wording granting "exemptions" is entangling, but taxing is even moreso. Imagine a church seized because of failure to pay property taxes -- now government has interfered with the free exercise of religion. And that will certainly get the law thrown out as a violation of the First Amendment. Note I did not say, "almost certainly."

My intuition is the opposite -- that treating churches like any other businesses wouldn't have any serious First Amendment challenge.

Could you please provide "the few cases that get anywhere near it" that form the basis for your opinion?

[Polaris]

I wouldn't mind moving into one of those. It wouldn't take long until they are on the market. Perhaps if there were taxes involved, they would afford it if they cut corners and went with the fake gold, and got the smaller organ.

Ditto on that, even though the idea of a church going out of business in Texas is about as likely as having a hand grenade going off in one's lap and surviving. Still, those high ceilings would be a blessing in the summer.

They can always be turned into a restaurant too.

I'd be willing to see the separating line blurred a little bit if I knew the results would be similar to what happened in the UK.

[AvalonXQ]

I have multiple friends that live or have lived in what used to be church buildings. The auditorium makes an excellent great room; the main problem is that the high ceilings make the heating costs astronomical (less of an issue for three services a week than for daily occupation).

[Aepervius]

I have multiple friends that live or have lived in what used to be church buildings. The auditorium makes an excellent great room; the main problem is that the high ceilings make the heating costs astronomical (less of an issue for three services a week than for daily occupation).

I lived in an small chapel for a small time near a cemetery (don't ask long story - god damn cheap rent tough). The problem is not the volume per see, it only means you have initially to heat longer. The main problem is the ground/wall/roof heat isolation (mostly crappy) and the cheer surface from which heat can escape. If you have a small chapel and goodly isolated, it is as bearable as a under-roof flat.

Just make sure you have a lot of carpet.

[Resume]

They can always be turned into a restaurant too.


Yeshua's Gyros.

[geni]

Check out Detroit for abandoned, decrepit buildings.

Lots of businesses go bust; why should churches be different? If paying your share of taxes blows your business model, your business model sucks.


Its generaly accepted that there is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of business model.

After all the fact is you are proposing a tax that favors cyber pagans (who don't generaly consider meatspace property a requirment for worship) over say muslims who do.

So once we've eastablished we can set up taxation systems that favour one religion over another its pretty easy to set up an established church via the backdoor (arrange a tax that hits every religious position except the one you support).

[Resume]

Its generaly accepted that there is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of business model.

After all the fact is you are proposing a tax that favors cyber pagans (who don't generaly consider meatspace property a requirment for worship) over say muslims who do.

So once we've eastablished we can set up taxation systems that favour one religion over another its pretty easy to set up an established church via the backdoor (arrange a tax that hits every religious position except the one you support).

I'm not just advocating property taxes, though I would include them.

[Careyp74]

After all the fact is you are proposing a tax that favors cyber pagans (who don't generaly consider meatspace property a requirment for worship) over say muslims who do.

The tax would favor cyber pagans, only if they don't own property. If they own property, the tax would be on them also. The situation as it is favors churches, because they don't pay taxes.


So once we've eastablished we can set up taxation systems that favour one religion over another its pretty easy to set up an established church via the backdoor (arrange a tax that hits every religious position except the one you support).

Evening out the tax system to include churches is not the same as changing everything around to favor one church over another. I think you will have to explain how this would work, to avoid creating a slippery slope.

[LarianLeQuella]

As someone else stated in another thread, churches should open their books and apply for tax free status as a charity. This way there would at least be some transparency to the giant money wheel they seem to run.

[Careyp74]

As someone else stated in another thread, churches should open their books and apply for tax free status as a charity. This way there would at least be some transparency to the giant money wheel they seem to run.

Yes, thank you for bringing that other thread up, I forgot about that one. I think there is a merge in order.

[Beelzebuddy]

After all the fact is you are proposing a tax that favors cyber pagans (who don't generaly consider meatspace property a requirment for worship) over say muslims who do.

Are you implying that websites should have property taxes imposed on them?

[MG1962]

As someone else stated in another thread, churches should open their books and apply for tax free status as a charity. This way there would at least be some transparency to the giant money wheel they seem to run.

They already do

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96109,00.html

I don't think anyone expects Uncle Sam to take their word for it. And yes as I said in another post, some Churches, do try to game the system, many of which get caught out and treated as they should for their dishonesty.

[LarianLeQuella]

They already do

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96109,00.html

I don't think anyone expects Uncle Sam to take their word for it. And yes as I said in another post, some Churches, do try to game the system, many of which get caught out and treated as they should for their dishonesty.

They show their (cooked) books, but the next step would be to qualify as a tax exempt charity. :cool:

As to them getting caught and getting just deserts, I take exception to. People still seem all too willing to let them continue to take in oodles of cash with no long term consequences.

[Careyp74]

They already do

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96109,00.html



I don't understand what your reply is saying. The link doesn't show where churches are supposed to release information. In fact, there is a paragraph there saying that they aren't required to.

"Except for churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and public charities whose annual gross receipts are normally less than $5,000, organizations will not be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) unless they notify the IRS by applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status."

From the pub on that site:

"Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section
501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and
are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of
tax-exempt status from the IRS"

[MG1962]

They show their (cooked) books, but the next step would be to qualify as a tax exempt charity. :cool:

As to them getting caught and getting just deserts, I take exception to. People still seem all too willing to let them continue to take in oodles of cash with no long term consequences.

A Google search "Church tax evasion'" reveals enough hits on the first page to suggest otherwise. I don't think IRS audit agents came down in the last shower.

But what would be interesting is to see as a percentage how many religious organisations suffer conviction as compared to personal or corporate cases. That would be a key indicator if authorities are 'soft' on Churches and their activity.

[MG1962]

I don't understand what your reply is saying. The link doesn't show where churches are supposed to release information. In fact, there is a paragraph there saying that they aren't required to.

"Except for churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and public charities whose annual gross receipts are normally less than $5,000, organizations will not be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) unless they notify the IRS by applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status."

From the pub on that site:

"Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section
501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and
are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of
tax-exempt status from the IRS"

Sure and I am no expert, but my understanding by following the links on that page you have to fill out a 1023 form, and in the introduction to that form it says

1. If in existence less than 5 years, complete the
statement for each year in existence and provide
projections of your likely revenues and expenses based on a
reasonable and good faith estimate of your future finances
for a total of:
The instructions at the top of Part IX on page 9 of Form
1023 are now as follows. For purposes of this schedule,
years in existence refer to completed tax years.
a. Three years of financial information if you have not
completed one tax year, or
b. Four years of financial information if you have
completed one tax year.

Now if I am reading that correctly you do have to supply some pretty extensive financial information

[Mister Agenda]

We have a deal with churches: stay out of politics and we won't tax you. If a church is holding up their end of that deal, the government should hold up its end. Churches should have no advantage over private charities in qualifiying for government grants.

[stokes234]

Imagine a church seized because of failure to pay property taxes -- now government has interfered with the free exercise of religion.

I suppose on equal grounds you could say the press should be exempt from tax, because seizing a newspaper or it's property on tax grounds would be violation of freedom of the press. Both claims seem like a bit of a stretch to me.

[Tatyana]

It would be interesting to see how much these churches spend on charity and outreach work. Which if I understand correctly could be written off against business expenses.

The same research paper that looked at the tax subsidies also looked at how much money the churches were using on charity as this is one of the main arguments for tax free status.

The LDS church had something like 1% of its total income going to charity.

This wasn't an uncommon scenario either.

In contrast, the Red Cross openly demonstrates that something like 90-95% of its donations go to its main purpose, which is aid and disaster relief.

If you want to give to a charity that helps feed and shelter homeless people, it is far better to give to a charity that actually uses the majority of its donations for this work.

The 'charity' excuse is bollux.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Are religions more like charities or entertainment services? One only needs to watch Joel Osteen in action to realize that entertainment is a huge component of religion. ...The Evangelical business model uses entertainment as its key marketing tool.

[Careyp74]

Sure and I am no expert, but my understanding by following the links on that page you have to fill out a 1023 form....

That 1023 form you mention, Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code

Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section
501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and
are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of
tax-exempt status from the IRS

[Hoppy]

The biggest, longest lasting, most profitable Ponzi scheme in history.
You have to give the devil his due.

[RhodyDave]

Every church I've attended has spent a lot on this. In fact, without exception, the four biggest expenses have been, in no particular order: the building, the personnel, foreign missionary work, and local benevolence. For most congregations I do think ministers' salaries has been #1.

When my home church paid off the mortgage on the building, it was a big deal because we were able to greatly increase our support for certain foreign missionaries.

Great - more money going to converting 'heathens' in foreign countries who have no need to be converted from whatever beliefs they've lived with. Why do you missionaries feel that your 'way' is the right way, and have to go around trying to convert people? The money spent on that could be used for real needs, like food, clothing, housing, and medical care for the poor.

[AvalonXQ]

Great - more money going to converting 'heathens' in foreign countries who have no need to be converted from whatever beliefs they've lived with. Why do you missionaries feel that your 'way' is the right way, and have to go around trying to convert people? The money spent on that could be used for real needs, like food, clothing, housing, and medical care for the poor.

Quite a bit of the mission money is spent on that, actually. We take food and medicine down there and also try to educate people in more hygenic living where necessary.

But you act like the two are somehow orthogonal. The truth is, one of the best ways to get communities to administer to their own underprivileged has been establishing a church. Privileged Americans showing up with stuff every once in a while is all well and good, but giving the locals control of their own church and the resources to do their own benevolence has worked better in many cases. One home-grown Christian is worth ten from across the world.

Of course, it helps that my religion believes in church autonomy. So when a church starts in another country, it's run by the people there, using their own songs and decisions and practices. There's no liturgy to inherit, no hierarchy to answer to.

[RhodyDave]

Quite a bit of the mission money is spent on that, actually. We take food and medicine down there and also try to educate people in more hygenic living where necessary.

But you act like the two are somehow orthogonal. The truth is, one of the best ways to get communities to administer to their own underprivileged has been establishing a church. Privileged Americans showing up with stuff every once in a while is all well and good, but giving the locals control of their own church and the resources to do their own benevolence has worked better in many cases. One home-grown Christian is worth ten from across the world.

Of course, it helps that my religion believes in church autonomy. So when a church starts in another country, it's run by the people there, using their own songs and decisions and practices. There's no liturgy to inherit, no hierarchy to answer to.

But why tie the charitable act (which is a wonderful thing) with the mission of converting? Essentially, it's a bribe - we'll give you food, clothing, etc., IF you accept our ways, and support our church. Without that implicit bargain, there would not be a reason to provide the charity. This is what I object to - it's not truly altruistic. The church is doing something only because in the long run in benefits the church.

[AvalonXQ]

But why tie the charitable act (which is a wonderful thing) with the mission of converting? Essentially, it's a bribe - we'll give you food, clothing, etc., IF you accept our ways, and support our church. Without that implicit bargain, there would not be a reason to provide the charity.
I don't know how you get the information about how our food and medicine is administered, but I assure you it's inaccurate
There is no explicit or implicit requirement in its distribution. We set up a clinic and treat all who come. We also provide native-language preachers and pamphlets available at the clinic exit, but it's always presented as "if you're interested, here's who we are and what we believe". Most see the doctor (also dentist and optometrist if possible), get their medicine, and leave. We wish them well.


This is what I object to - it's not truly altruistic. The church is doing something only because in the long run in benefits the church.
How exactly do you think these converts benefit the church, as opposed to gaining spiritual benefits themselves?

You do realize that we have no overarching organization that collects money? That more often than not we will continue to send them money to pay for church facilities and to help their own charity efforts? That under no circumstances does a single non-local individual ever see a dime?
I understand that you don't agree with our religion, but can you at least acknowledge that even the spiritual outreach is certainly altruistic, at least in terms of the attitudes that motivate it?

[RhodyDave]

I don't know how you get the information about how our food and medicine is administered, but I assure you it's inaccurate
There is no explicit or implicit requirement in its distribution. We set up a clinic and treat all who come. We also provide native-language preachers and pamphlets available at the clinic exit, but it's always presented as "if you're interested, here's who we are and what we believe". Most see the doctor (also dentist and optometrist if possible), get their medicine, and leave. We wish them well.



How exactly do you think these converts benefit the church, as opposed to gaining spiritual benefits themselves?

You do realize that we have no overarching organization that collects money? That more often than not we will continue to send them money to pay for church facilities and to help their own charity efforts? That under no circumstances does a single non-local individual ever see a dime?
I understand that you don't agree with our religion, but can you at least acknowledge that even the spiritual outreach is certainly altruistic, at least in terms of the attitudes that motivate it?

So your church gets no tax write-offs for expenditures on these capital expenses in other nations? Maybe tithing doesn't apply to your church, but it is my understanding that church members are expected (if not actually demanded) to tithe a percentage of their income. If this isn't the case in your church, I concede that on the surface it would seem to be altruistic. Beyond the surface though, I still have cynicism in general about the concept of missionary work. If charity is the only motive, why establish missions based on religion? Charity can be given outside of any religious structure.

[AvalonXQ]

So your church gets no tax write-offs for expenditures on these capital expenses in other nations?
Two things:
1) Under current law no, because the church's expenses are already tax exempt. But even if there were...
2) It's a long way from "you happen to get a minor tertiary benefit for your altruistic behavior" to "clearly your motivation is this minor tax write-off that is substantially less than the amount of money you're spending to get it." Please explain how you get from point A to point Z in this case; there are a lot of steps missing.


Maybe tithing doesn't apply to your church, but it is my understanding that church members are expected (if not actually demanded) to tithe a percentage of their income. If this isn't the case in your church, I concede that on the surface it would seem to be altruistic.
There's an expectation that members will contribute, yes (although there's no established amount or percentage; 10% is a rule of thumb a lot of people use). But the offerings given by the local church members usually don't even cover their own church's operating expenses -- and even if they did, the money would all stay there.

This is not a money-making game. There is no "racket" here. Our ministers live modestly, our church leaders are paid nothing, and the church is constantly digging deep to find ways to support people in need -- buying groceries for families out of luck, turning church buildings over for use by homeless organizations and abuse shelters at night.

Beyond the surface though, I still have cynicism in general about the concept of missionary work. If charity is the only motive, why establish missions based on religion? Charity can be given outside of any religious structure.

Because spiritual outreach is important too. It would be terribly heartless of us to act like we care about people, giving them basic material aid, while doing absolutely nothing about the fact that they're spiritually dying of sin.
Again, it's not a racket. There's no one scamming anyone here. It's a genuine belief in what we preach, and in helping others in any way we can.
Your cynicism is your business, but in this case it's misguided.

My Dad had heart surgery less than a month ago, and then a week later got on a plane to Central America along with a spiritual outreach team sent to help address some of the spiritual issues one of the churches down there has been having. Considering the amount of his own time, money, and physical health he's sacrificed to support these people, I'm sure he'd be quite heartened to know he has some ulterior motive he doesn't know about. Go ahead and explain to me what it is; I'll pass it along to him.

[Resume]

Because spiritual outreach is important too. It would be terribly heartless of us to act like we care about people, giving them basic material aid, while doing absolutely nothing about the fact that they're spiritually dying of sin.

No such thing as sin. Lot's of aboriginal people would have been a whole bunch better off had missionary types been heartless, given them the aid, and spared the sanctimony.

[mikeyx]

quit whining, you're impeding separation of church and state.

[Polaris]

Because spiritual outreach is important too. It would be terribly heartless of us to act like we care about people, giving them basic material aid, while doing absolutely nothing about the fact that they're spiritually dying of sin.Again, it's not a racket. There's no one scamming anyone here. It's a genuine belief in what we preach, and in helping others in any way we can.
Your cynicism is your business, but in this case it's misguided.


No it isn't. It's a useless waste of precious time and manpower that would be infinitely better spent providing actual, real, physical, material aid to people.

If it wasn't for the religious aspect of the mission, IMO churches wouldn't provide such aid at all.

[MG1962]

No it isn't. It's a useless waste of precious time and manpower that would be infinitely better spent providing actual, real, physical, material aid to people.

If it wasn't for the religious aspect of the mission, IMO churches wouldn't provide such aid at all.

And I fear that opinion would be wrong. While it is clear it is a major motivation, not all missionary work involves religious aspects

[Careyp74]

quit whining, you're impeding separation of church and state.

That phrase does not appear in the constitution. What does, is the First Ammendment, stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

How does taxing revenue, or property, or anything else that pays for services given to the church (police, fire, or military protection when discussing federal taxes) prohibit the free exercise of religion, besides the weak argument that it makes it more expensive for them to exist?

[AvalonXQ]

If it wasn't for the religious aspect of the mission, IMO churches wouldn't provide such aid at all.

I disagree - if for no other reason than I know that we provide both local aid and distaster relief aid with no religious component at all.

[AvalonXQ]

How does taxing revenue, or property, or anything else that pays for services given to the church (police, fire, or military protection when discussing federal taxes) prohibit the free exercise of religion, besides the weak argument that it makes it more expensive for them to exist?

That's my feeling as well.

As someone mentioned upthread, it seems silly to think that tax free churches are required by the first amendment even though we don't have tax free newspapers.

[Careyp74]

As someone mentioned upthread, it seems silly to think that tax free churches are required by the first amendment even though we don't have tax free newspapers.

I thought that was a very good argument. The reverse being, if it was so easy to create these situations where taxes eliminate undesired first amendment users, why wasn't it done yet? Newspapers slander Obama left and right, just as they did with Bush. One of them should have created some sort of tax to favor the papers that were for them, thus eliminating the 'bad press' ha, no pun intended.

[RhodyDave]

Because spiritual outreach is important too. It would be terribly heartless of us to act like we care about people, giving them basic material aid, while doing absolutely nothing about the fact that they're spiritually dying of sin.

My Dad had heart surgery less than a month ago, and then a week later got on a plane to Central America along with a spiritual outreach team sent to help address some of the spiritual issues one of the churches down there has been having. Considering the amount of his own time, money, and physical health he's sacrificed to support these people, I'm sure he'd be quite heartened to know he has some ulterior motive he doesn't know about. Go ahead and explain to me what it is; I'll pass it along to him.

I have no intent to offend or insult the work done by your church and by your father - it's helping people and there's nothing bad about that. What I question, and it would be borne out by your statement I highlighted above, is that claim of caring about people. What I think is that it applies only to people that accept your religious beliefs. Would this caring apply to Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc.? I suspect not, but am keeping an open mind.

[AvalonXQ]

What I think is that it applies only to people that accept your religious beliefs. Would this caring apply to Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc.? I suspect not, but am keeping an open mind.

Perhaps you didn't read my description of our missionary work above. Take a minute to re-read it.

Our benevolence work has no attached religious requirement. We care about everyone. Why would we not? God does.

[Careyp74]

Perhaps you didn't read my description of our missionary work above. Take a minute to re-read it.

Our benevolence work has no attached religious requirement. We care about everyone. Why would we not? God does.

When I was in Connecticut there was a church near the development where a friend of mine lived. She often received food items and clothing for her kids. There was no forced religion upon anyone, and my friend was not a part of the church.

[RhodyDave]

Perhaps you didn't read my description of our missionary work above. Take a minute to re-read it.

Our benevolence work has no attached religious requirement. We care about everyone. Why would we not? God does.

That's very admirable.

[AvalonXQ]

That's very admirable.

Thank you for saying so.

I will note, it's not too surprising that a lot of people don't recognize many churches are doing this sort of stuff every day. Churches generally don't advertise it, or make a big deal out of it. In fact, about the only time it comes up is if the food pantry gets low or there is a particular need that the church is having trouble filling -- in which case there's an announcement at church, we fill the need, and that's the end of the discussion. The people getting aid get it discretely.

I wonder how all that would be affected if the government got involved; what sort of reporting requirements might there be?