Question of the Week #10 - Should Churches Be Required to Pay Taxes?

[La Femme Fatale]

Sorry for skipping a few weeks, guys! Totally forgot about this.

Anyway, in many countries, properties owned by religious institutions such as churches, mosques, synagogues as well as charities are tax exempt. Do you think this is fair? Thoughts!

Edit as per Cheez's suggestion.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

It's not. At least not in the current state of things. Many churches were built on vast chunks of land long ago when real estate wasn't what it is now. The government is missing out on oodles of property tax they could be putting to use but can't touch.

If it were up to me, the government should be able to buy back chunks of unused property (all those giant lawns...) to be repurposed for other things. Churches and other abrahamic religion-based institutions shouldn't mind too much. Their religions do preach modesty after all. And if that property tax money is going back into the community, who can complain really?

If we're talking about out in the country where land is a-plenty, then who cares. Those communities don't require as much maintenence or public services anyway.

Of course, this means reasonable taxation. A lot of churches barely make enough off collection to get by, and taxation should by no means tighten a financial noose around their necks. There should be SOME standard for it though. Exemption is a bit much. There are other churches out there that can afford backlit rooms, comfy movie theater seating, and brand new mega TVs in their mass halls. Those guys don't need exemption to survive.

The Church of Scientology should just straight up pay all the taxes on everything they do. Same for "Churches of Christian Science." If they're going to claim they are first and foremost "scientific" they are forfeiting the title of religious in favor of something else entirely, no matter how faith-based it may be. It's no longer a religion when they take that step, I think.

PS Maybe change your wording, since this subject would also include mosques, synagogues, and any other property owned by a religious institution.

 

[Springhosen]

Everyone else pays taxes; I don't see why they should be any different. Uncle Sam gets to everyone eventually, though so I'm sure it won't be this way for long.

 

[Venomous Oddball]

Like Maggie said, if everyone else pays taxes, why shouldn't they? Because they're "faithful leaders of the Lord"? Haha no, if I have to pay taxes they have to pay taxes.

 

[Romero]

Churches are non-profit organizations and they should not have to pay taxes. I think we are lucky that don't have to pay taxes to the churches. But wait! We do pay taxes to the churches, though indirectly through the Inland Revenue. For ages the church and the state (of Norway) were one and the same, but in recent years the church and the state have drifted apart. Now the church is not directly controlled by the government.

This is in Norway, I don't know how it works in other countries.


EDIT

The Church of Scientology should just straight up pay all the taxes on everything they do. Same for "Churches of Christian Science." If they're going to claim they are first and foremost "scientific" they are forfeiting the title of religious in favor of something else entirely, no matter how faith-based it may be. It's no longer a religion when they take that step, I think.

It's crazy that the Church of Scientology is recognized as a religion, it is actually just a cult. I have watched a documentary about them and how they hired people to harass the American Inland Revenue until they caved in and recognized them as a church.
The Church of Scientology is not a church, it is an asylum.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

http://usuncut.com/world/pope-franc...-status-of-churches-that-dont-help-the-needy/

EDIT: This just in: the pope thinks churches that don't help the needy should not be tax exempt.

Churches are non-profit organizations and they should not have to pay taxes. I think we are lucky that don't have to pay taxes to the churches. But wait! We do pay taxes to the churches, though indirectly through the Inland Revenue. For ages the church and the state (of Norway) were one and the same, but in recent years the church and the state have drifted apart. Now the church is not directly controlled by the government.

This is in Norway, I don't know how it works in other countries.

Yeah, I think this may just be a difference of opinion based on the histories of our respective countries. If the minimal amount of research I've done can be trusted, this is a relatively recent change for Norway. I won't pretend I have any idea how church involvement with government affected your country or what the public sentiment on the topic is.

I know over there, a lot of countries have a history of church involvement in politics. Over here (can't speak for Canada, not nearly educated enough on the subject), the country's "founders" were for the most part non-religious. Keeping religion out of politics is almost as old as our constitution. A lot of the public sentiment here is split between the nonreligious, who fear what religious involvement can do to a political system, and the highly religious, who see no problem with it because they sense no bad intentions from themselves or their peers. There is naturally a lot of gray area here, but the extreme sides of each debate from the right do usually come from people with a strong religious affiliation. Over here, we have plenty of candidates who wave a religious flag not because they believe one thing or another but because it gives them appeal to target demographics. And it really does. Through that influence, we've had religious institutions deeply affecting political debate and opinion because if a church preaches against something, they can in effect give rise to an army of people who will oppose it. They will have research and they will have solid arguments for their cause, but all of those arguments were created after the fact. People will actually decide they are against or for something before even coming up with reasons why. That's how powerful religion can be even without any direct involvement in government.

From my own learning, sometimes the ways it can be necessary to crack down on organized religion can seem harsh but in my own thinking its necessary. I, too, am glad we don't have to pay taxes to the churches. I've come to believe that it isn't strictly speaking the religious faith that corrupts politics: it's people's willingness to support a politician based on what they have in common instead of taking a hard look at them as a candidate. It's a powerful distraction that dis-inhibits critical thinking.

This has come to be my world view. Maybe I'm crazy but that amount of influence is pretty intense for something that's supposed to exist as your private faith. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking they don't need any help, especially in the form of tax exemption. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking of religion as an engine of influence on public opinion.
I'm usually the first person to caution an extreme stance and I do question myself in taking one. If anyone here sees a flaw, please speak up.

It's crazy that the Church of Scientology is recognized as a religion, it is actually just a cult. I have watched a documentary about them and how they hired people to harass the American Inland Revenue until they caved in and recognized them as a church.

The Church of Scientology is not a church, it is an asylum.

Oh, yeah. They did do that. They've done far far worse. It's really hard to dig up the stuff I've read in the past, because the church has so many of their own websites search-engine optimized to bury anything. I'd say they'd have more child abuse scandals than the catholic church if everything was brought to light. This NYTimes article covers some of what I'm talking about. There's a lot of civil rights violations that are swept under the rug, and its even worse abroad. I read about some of their schools in another country (Australia, I think?) and the facilities were horrible. The person who tried to fix it from within was excommunicated from the church and got nowhere in her attempt to make the school a better place for the children. Even failed to save them from being abused.

Someone on DMC.org had a very unique personal insight into scientology about 4 years ago.

 

[Romero]

cheez you speak well and have sound arguments.

In Norway, it's a very very long time since the Church of Norway had political power. Since modern times, it's the state that controlled the church, the church have not had any political influence. Until 2012 it was the King-in-Council that appointed bishops, now the church does that themselves. Until 2012 the Church of Norway was formally under the Ministry of Church and Culture. But the state did not interfere with the day-to-day business of the church.

Religion plays a very little role in our society, especially compared to the US. Most Norwegians who are member of a religious community are passive members, they don't practice their religion (except muslim immigrants). A large part of the population (perhaps the majority) are atheist or in doubt if there are anyone "up there".

In the USA you have kept religion out of politics, but it doesn't prevent religion from having more political power over US politics than the Church of Norway ever had here.

How are American, British and Canadian churches funded? Ours are tax funded, they receive funds based on the membership numbers and I think it's a good system.
I'm undecided if the 2012 separation from the state was good or not. The bad side is that now, the state of Norway does not have an official religion. I like traditions, especially really really old traditions.