Taxes, Churches and "Is this a Problem?"

[Ooberman]

Research Report: How Secular Humanists (and Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the United States
Ryan T. Cragun, Stephanie Yeager, and Desmond Vega




The home in the photo (above) is the $1.75 million mansion of the Reverend Randy White, the former head pastor of Without Walls International Church in Tampa, Florida. While some people may be bothered by the fact that there are pastors who live in multimillion dollar homes, this is old news to most. But here is what should bother you about these expensive homes: You are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion—to the tune of about $71 billion every year.

We mention Rev. White because he was the impetus for this article. White and his mansion came up in a class taught by lead author Ryan T. Cragun. In that discussion, the other authors asked how much Pastor White pays in taxes on his income. The answer wasn’t readily available. Only a handful of publications in the sociology of religion have examined the finances of religions, and they are largely aimed at telling religions how to increase donations.1 Nowhere did we find prior research summarizing and detailing religious finances and tax policy, so we decided to investigate it ourselves. This article is the result. It took some digging, but we think we now have a moderately clear understanding of the tax laws regarding religions in the United States. What we found suggests that religious institutions, if they were required to pay taxes the same as for-profit corporations do, would not have nearly as much money or influence as they enjoy in America today. In this article we estimate how much local, state, and federal governments subsidize religions.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... ragun_32_4



My apostasy occurred when I opened a Madelaine O'Hare book and saw how Churches are subsidized by the government.

It seems that if churches do any good, they should receive aid. However, if they can't take credit for the Good they do, then their status is in question.

For example, it's not as if they are responsible for prayers being answered. That would be something worth paying for!

[dianaiad]

If that Bishop is claiming parsonage on the upkeep of his mansions so that he can keep his income tax very low, then that is wrong. Then it becomes the business of other tax payers.

It's fine if the church and it's congregation are happy to put money in the collection plate while it's Bishop has multiple mansions and you're right, that is of no one's concern except the Bishop and his congregation. If that Bishop is claiming parsonage against his income tax so that he pays very little to no tax, then it is the business of every tax payer.

Mitt Romney isn't in the habit of claiming 'parsonage' against income tax. In fact, he deliberately paid more taxes than he had to....and the Democrats STILL demonized him.

[Alchemy]

If that Bishop is claiming parsonage on the upkeep of his mansions so that he can keep his income tax very low, then that is wrong. Then it becomes the business of other tax payers.

It's fine if the church and it's congregation are happy to put money in the collection plate while it's Bishop has multiple mansions and you're right, that is of no one's concern except the Bishop and his congregation. If that Bishop is claiming parsonage against his income tax so that he pays very little to no tax, then it is the business of every tax payer.

Mitt Romney isn't in the habit of claiming 'parsonage' against income tax. In fact, he deliberately paid more taxes than he had to....and the Democrats STILL demonized him.

If that is true, then I would have no problem with him have as many mansions as he likes.

[dianaiad]

If that Bishop is claiming parsonage on the upkeep of his mansions so that he can keep his income tax very low, then that is wrong. Then it becomes the business of other tax payers.

It's fine if the church and it's congregation are happy to put money in the collection plate while it's Bishop has multiple mansions and you're right, that is of no one's concern except the Bishop and his congregation. If that Bishop is claiming parsonage against his income tax so that he pays very little to no tax, then it is the business of every tax payer.

Mitt Romney isn't in the habit of claiming 'parsonage' against income tax. In fact, he deliberately paid more taxes than he had to....and the Democrats STILL demonized him.

If that is true, then I would have no problem with him have as many mansions as he likes.

That is true, but you are missing the point.

It's not your call.

[Alchemy]

If that Bishop is claiming parsonage on the upkeep of his mansions so that he can keep his income tax very low, then that is wrong. Then it becomes the business of other tax payers.

It's fine if the church and it's congregation are happy to put money in the collection plate while it's Bishop has multiple mansions and you're right, that is of no one's concern except the Bishop and his congregation. If that Bishop is claiming parsonage against his income tax so that he pays very little to no tax, then it is the business of every tax payer.

Mitt Romney isn't in the habit of claiming 'parsonage' against income tax. In fact, he deliberately paid more taxes than he had to....and the Democrats STILL demonized him.

If that is true, then I would have no problem with him have as many mansions as he likes.

That is true, but you are missing the point.

It's not your call.

I don't understand what is not my call. Could you explain?

[dianaiad]

If that Bishop is claiming parsonage on the upkeep of his mansions so that he can keep his income tax very low, then that is wrong. Then it becomes the business of other tax payers.

It's fine if the church and it's congregation are happy to put money in the collection plate while it's Bishop has multiple mansions and you're right, that is of no one's concern except the Bishop and his congregation. If that Bishop is claiming parsonage against his income tax so that he pays very little to no tax, then it is the business of every tax payer.

Mitt Romney isn't in the habit of claiming 'parsonage' against income tax. In fact, he deliberately paid more taxes than he had to....and the Democrats STILL demonized him.

If that is true, then I would have no problem with him have as many mansions as he likes.

That is true, but you are missing the point.

It's not your call.

I don't understand what is not my call. Could you explain?

It means that your religious preferences (including the idea that religion is a bad idea and that you...or the government...have the right to punish someone with whom you disagree because of their beliefs and practices) cannot be taken into account when deciding what someone ELSE'S freedom of religion is.

[JohnPaul]

dianaiad wrote:

t means that your religious preferences (including the idea that religion is a bad idea and that you...or the government...have the right to punish someone with whom you disagree because of their beliefs and practices) cannot be taken into account when deciding what someone ELSE'S freedom of religion is.

Unfortunately, the voters can do exactly that. I voted for Romney, but, much as I liked both of them, I knew when Romney chose Ryan as his running mate that the War Against Women was lost.

[Alchemy]

If that Bishop is claiming parsonage on the upkeep of his mansions so that he can keep his income tax very low, then that is wrong. Then it becomes the business of other tax payers.

It's fine if the church and it's congregation are happy to put money in the collection plate while it's Bishop has multiple mansions and you're right, that is of no one's concern except the Bishop and his congregation. If that Bishop is claiming parsonage against his income tax so that he pays very little to no tax, then it is the business of every tax payer.

Mitt Romney isn't in the habit of claiming 'parsonage' against income tax. In fact, he deliberately paid more taxes than he had to....and the Democrats STILL demonized him.

If that is true, then I would have no problem with him have as many mansions as he likes.

That is true, but you are missing the point.

It's not your call.

I don't understand what is not my call. Could you explain?

It means that your religious preferences (including the idea that religion is a bad idea and that you...or the government...have the right to punish someone with whom you disagree because of their beliefs and practices) cannot be taken into account when deciding what someone ELSE'S freedom of religion is.

I certainly do not hold the view that someone should be punished because of a disagreement over religious beliefs and I certainly do believe in freedom of religion. Where I, (and most nations of the world) draw the line is where freedom of religion conflicts with the laws of the state. If laws of the state are secondary to religious laws and freedoms, then you are living in a Theocracy or failing the rise of one powerful religion, a Theocratic Anarchy where anything goes as long as you can quote a scriptural verse to back up your actions.

One extreme example would be sacrificing virgins. I challenge anyone to assert that this should be allowed because it is part of someone’s religion. Therefore we have absolutely, without doubt, shown that laws of the state should come before freedom of religion. (I’m assuming you would not support someone’s religious freedom to sacrifice a virgin to appease the Volcano God).

Since we have established that religious freedom is not absolute and secondary to laws of the state, there only remains the method for how we decide which religious freedoms or practices we allow and which we do not. For example, the democratic process that has given rise to anti discrimination laws which protect the weak and the vulnerable in most western countries. As democratic countries, the majority of people have decided that businesses are not allowed to refuse service to anyone based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. People who violate these laws are punished not because of their views on religion or race or gender but because plain and simple, they have violated the law. The reason they chose to violate the law may well have been because of their views on religion, race of gender but they are punished because of their actions, not because of their views.