Should Churches Give up Tax Exempt Status?

[Fitswimmer]

I did a search on this topic and while I found a lot of mentions of it in other threads-I didn’t find one devoted to it.

If the Church no longer received the benefit of being exempt from taxes, it would be free of all governmental restrictions, right?

Would this be worth it to guarantee that the Church would not be bound to tolerate society’s morals?

 

[aggiecatholic05]

i dont see a need for it. The Church doesnt have to tolerate anything it doesn’t want to. The Church can and does say abortion and oher political issues are wrong, and if Holy Mother Church decided to tell us specifically who we could and couldnt vote for morally the goverment and anyone offended couldnt do anything about it. personally id like the Church to say every election every position who to vote for.

as to the taxes what makes uncle sam thinks he deserves a cut from God’s take?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I did a search on this topic and while I found a lot of mentions of it in other threads-I didn’t find one devoted to it.

If the Church no longer received the benefit of being exempt from taxes, it would be free of all governmental restrictions, right?

Would this be worth it to guarantee that the Church would not be bound to tolerate society’s morals?

Politics and religion go in cycles. I am not going to link to it (CAF Political Party Rules), but there is a new study from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press out today (Google it to find more). The results said that those identified as “conservatives”, 30% said Churches should stay out of politics four years ago (2004), today (2008) it is up to 50%. The new number for “conservatives” line up with those who identify as “moderates” and “liberals”.

Given the current mindset, it would probably only alienate more Catholics, as most are caught in the middle like the rest of society and stay out of the ends of the Church. I see it as a returning towards unity based on common spirituality. Most people do not look for each other’s differences in day to day life, we look for our similarities.

There are “religious” governments out there in the world and there have been “Catholic” governments in the past in other countries. Having the Church deeply intertwined with governments has not shown to bring about a type of utopia that is often reffered to when discussions about Church, morals, and the government come up.

In the end, I say keep the divide, the Church is about spirituality and its relation to humanity. While a form of politics will always be there, it should be managed, but not embraced. In the end, keep the present Tax Exempt Status.

 

[rwoehmke]

i dont see a need for it. The Church doesnt have to tolerate anything it doesn’t want to. The Church can and does say abortion and oher political issues are wrong, and if Holy Mother Church decided to tell us specifically who we could and couldnt vote for morally the goverment and anyone offended couldnt do anything about it. personally id like the Church to say every election every position who to vote for.

Tax exempt organizations are allowed to discuss isues, but not candidates, although even the issue freedom is coming under attack, especially in Canada. Just giving up a tax exemption is not going to give institutional freedom to speak. The commissions or what ever they are called in Canada are “dragging” clergy persons in front of what amounts to kangaroo courts and doing their best to shut them up. So far we in the States are much better off, but be vigilant.

Now the matter of the Churches having to pay taxes. Would you think that there would be anything left in the coffers for running the parish? What about the parish school? Most parishes are already working on the edges of bankruptcy with little left over in any given year. When only a third to a half of people on the parish rolls donate anything in a given year, where’s the tax money to come from? Catholics in some ways are pikers when compared to our non-Catholic brethren in supporting our Church.

What right do they have to tax “God’s Money”? If it wasn’t already possible under the law, why would the Church even need the exemption. I suppose we could go back to “home” churches and self ordained clergy.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It’s not just about elections. I’ve read a lot of concerns about discrimination issues and I would think removing the government benefit would mean that couldn’t happen

 

[Sam_Maloney]

There’s an old saying:
“The power to tax is the power to destroy”
I wouldn’t be in a hurry to give that power to anyone.

 

[Newbie2]

I did a search on this topic and while I found a lot of mentions of it in other threads-I didn’t find one devoted to it.

If the Church no longer received the benefit of being exempt from taxes, it would be free of all governmental restrictions, right?

Would this be worth it to guarantee that the Church would not be bound to tolerate society’s morals?

No, not all.

I don’t see any advantage.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

It’s not just about elections. I’ve read a lot of concerns about discrimination issues and I would think removing the government benefit would mean that couldn’t happen

Would you say more more about this? What concerns about what discrimination issues? And how would removing tax-exempt status change things?

 

[demol]

Now the matter of the Churches having to pay taxes. Would you think that there would be anything left in the coffers for running the parish? What about the parish school? Most parishes are already working on the edges of bankruptcy with little left over in any given year. When only a third to a half of people on the parish rolls donate anything in a given year, where’s the tax money to come from? Catholics in some ways are pikers when compared to our non-Catholic brethren in supporting our Church.

This is what I would worry about. How much more time and energy would my parish need to devote to fundraising just to stay afloat financially?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Well I for one feel that tax exemption has allowed the “state” to dictate what is “allowed” to be said and done within the religious community. But, if I am honest I will say that no individual or entity should be “tax exempt” no matter if they are religious or not. This IMHO would be the beginning of honesty is speech and deeds that follow the moral teachings of the organization and moral beliefs of the individual.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Well I for one feel that tax exemption has allowed the “state” to dictate what is “allowed” to be said and done within the religious community. But, if I am honest I will say that no individual or entity should be “tax exempt” no matter if they are religious or not. This IMHO would be the beginning of honesty is speech and deeds that follow the moral teachings of the organization and moral beliefs of the individual.

All I can see is that churches would start paying property and income taxes, and in return could say “we support candidate A” or “we support candidate B.” What else – besides endorsing specific candidates – are churches prevented from doing now that they would gain? And what would they cut in order to come up with the money to pay taxes? And why is it better for the government to have that money rather than the churches?

 

[KathleenElsie]

All I can see is that churches would start paying property and income taxes, and in return could say “we support candidate A” or “we support candidate B.” What else – besides endorsing specific candidates – are churches prevented from doing now that they would gain? And what would they cut in order to come up with the money to pay taxes? And why is it better for the government to have that money rather than the churches?

The partial list of government interference with-in the Church:

1. Homosexual acceptance and hate speech state defined
2. Hiring practices in the schools (diversity rulings)
3. Catholic Charities forced hirings (diversity rulings)
4. Catholic Hospitals and forced services (abortion etc)
5. Requirements to provide adoption services to “all” persons
6. Regulation of freedom of religious practices in public.

No it is not better for the government to have the money. But it is better to get government regulations out of our religious practices and charities. One follows the other when governments don’t tax the religious they consider themselves as funding that religion and start regulating what we can and can not teach. This will only get worse IMHO.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Or, of course, we could get rid of state and federal income tax, property tax, etc.

Some states already have no state income tax (New Hampshire, Texas, Delaware I believe are some of those states).

I’m all for helping the poor, and for supporting children and the elderly, but I also have to say that a tremendous amount of state and federal spending for these issues is wasted.

And as for government, those of us who remember the infamous Pentagon spending a couple of decades back with the $700 hammer and $2000 toilet seat purchases, among others, would say that there was at least some of our money not being spent wisely, no?

If there must be taxes (and I don’t really think there must be) there is certainly a better way of assessing, determining, and spending those taxes than we’ve been seeing the majority of the time in the last few decades.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The partial list of government interference with-in the Church:

1. Homosexual acceptance and hate speech state defined
2. Hiring practices in the schools (diversity rulings)
3. Catholic Charities forced hirings (diversity rulings)
4. Catholic Hospitals and forced services (abortion etc)
5. Requirements to provide adoption services to “all” persons
6. Regulation of freedom of religious practices in public.

Can you give examples of these things happening in the US?

I’m not aware of any clergy being prosecuted for speaking out against homosexuality, but perhaps you’ve heard of cases. I heard of a vaguely related case in Canada but their laws are different and they don’t have our Constitution.

I’m not aware of any organization being forced to hire anyone. Groups – especially those who accept tax dollars – may not be allowed to discriminate against protected classes, but that’s quite different from being forced to hire anyone. Churches are actually allowed to “discriminate” in ways that businesses wouldn’t be by using religion as a condition for hiring.

If hospitals are required to provide services it’s because they accept government funding. I haven’t heard of forced abortions though I have heard of having to provide the morning after pill for rape survivors. In Connecticut, at least, the bishops danced around it to say that it fit in with Catholic moral teachings. In any case, if hospitals didn’t accept government funding they wouldn’t have to live with government mandates. That would also mean they’d have to close since not accepting Medicare patients would put them out of business. But this is a case exactly the opposite of not paying taxes.

Adoption services, see hospitals. As long as they accept government money they have to abide by government rules.

For #6, you’d have to provide an example for me. First of all, how are our public religious practices currently being curtailed? And second, how would a church paying income or property taxes remedy that?

I’m not trying to be difficult, but the only limitation I can see from being tax exempt is not endorsing candidates. That’s the same reason we don’t have long threads of the candidates here on CAF and the same reason the professional organization I belong to can’t have similar discussions on our e-mail lists.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Can you give examples of these things happening in the US? Goggle them there are toooo many to post.

I’m not aware of any clergy being prosecuted for speaking out against homosexuality, but perhaps you’ve heard of cases. I heard of a vaguely related case in Canada but their laws are different and they don’t have our Constitution.

I’m not aware of any organization being forced to hire anyone. Groups – especially those who accept tax dollars – may not be allowed to discriminate against protected classes, but that’s quite different from being forced to hire anyone. Churches are actually allowed to “discriminate” in ways that businesses wouldn’t be by using religion as a condition for hiring. Catholic schools are now unable to hire only Catholics without fear of lawsuits. Again goggle and find them.

If hospitals are required to provide services it’s because they accept government funding. Even those hospitals that do not receive direct funding from the government are required to provide these services. Goggle the various states. I haven’t heard of forced abortions though I have heard of having to provide the morning after pill for rape survivors or anyone that claims to have been raped. In Connecticut, at least, the bishops danced around it to say that it fit in with Catholic moral teachings wrong check the Vatican site. In any case, if hospitals didn’t accept government funding they wouldn’t have to live with government mandates. The ruling has gone that even remote acceptance of government money makes them subject to the regs. That would also mean they’d have to close since not accepting Medicare patients would put them out of business. But this is a case exactly the opposite of not paying taxes.

Adoption services, see hospitals. As long as they accept government money they have to abide by government rules. Tax exemptions are used as tools that say they receive public money.

For #6, you’d have to provide an example for me. First of all, how are our public religious practices currently being curtailed? Not only the Catholic church but others have been arrested due to their exercising free speech in public places. Goggle Philadelphia and other states. And second, how would a church paying income or property taxes remedy that? It would take the fear of loss of these privileges out of the mis.

I’m not trying to be difficult, but the only limitation I can see from being tax exempt is not endorsing candidates. There will still be laws that limit your free speech in the political arena. See issues spoken about during specific time frames prior to elections.That’s the same reason we don’t have long threads of the candidates here on CAF and the same reason the professional organization I belong to can’t have similar discussions on our e-mail lists. Again if there were no tax exemption then important issues would not have to be danced around and religious people could speak freely when needed./quote]

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Can you give examples of these things happening in the US? Goggle them there are toooo many to post.

OK…so you can’t provide even one example of these various claims. I guess there’s nothing to discuss.

 

[juliasmith]

OK…so you can’t provide even one example of these various claims. I guess there’s nothing to discuss.

Actually, we had an issue in our local catholic hospital sometime following the Roe vs Wade decision. The hospital closed its labor and delivery/ mother baby unit rather than have to give medically needed abortions. The Sisters of Charity would not compromise.

The good that came out of it was a rival public hospital opened up a NICU that to this day is one of the best in the southeastern region.

there’s one example for you of hospitals run by religous organizations being to forced to perform procedures they might not agree with. I always admired the sisters after that. Helped cement my desire to become catholic as an adult.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Actually, we had an issue in our local catholic hospital sometime following the Roe vs Wade decision. The hospital closed its labor and delivery/ mother baby unit rather than have to give medically needed abortions. The Sisters of Charity would not compromise.

And is this because the hospital is tax exempt? I think it’s more likely that the government can make demands because the hospital is receiving government funding through Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs.

Note the question in the title of this thread is “should churches give up tax exempt status?” I’m still waiting to see where being tax exempt is causing problems other than not being able to endorse candidates.