Should Churches pay Taxes?
Strangest Tribe
Posts: 2,502
I think it's about time they did.
the Minions
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
If the place catches fire, who pays the fire department? If it is robbed, who do they call?
I'm all for freedom of religion, but given the fact that church and state are to be completely independent...it only stands to reason that they (if they want those perks) would have to pay taxes.
Also, given how much influence they have in politics, government, society, etc. I think they should have to pay their part. A church can give money to a political party, influence voters...
I see no reason why they get a free pass.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
-Bill Hicks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Brethren
Political interference
The Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren made media headlines in 2005-6 with their political activities in both Australia and New Zealand, despite the fact that members are barred from voting in elections, even in countries which have compulsory voting. But lately Brethren members have been encouraged to work with elected officials "to express a moral viewpoint of legislation in relation to the rights of God".[4] In recent times this has included political campaigning as detailed below.
In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, Daniel Hales, brother of Bruce Hales (the current worldwide Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren leader), explained how they could support political parties and not vote: "I see it as a sin and you don't. So I'm very happy for you to vote because to you it's your obligation to the community. But to me, it's my conscience that doesn't allow me to vote."[19][20]
[edit] Australia
In the 2004 Australian federal election the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren were linked to political advertisements campaigning for the re-election of the Australian Prime Minister John Howard.[19][21] The advertisements were funded by Willmac Enterprises Pty Ltd, a company wholly owned by Mark William Mackenzie who is a member of the Brethren.[22] Willmac's contribution to John Howard's election campaign, of $370,000, was later investigated by the Australian Electoral Commission and is currently the source of an ongoing criminal investigation by the Australian Federal Police.[23][24]
In March 2006, members of the Brethren placed press advertisements and distributed leaflets[25] attacking the Australian Tasmanian Greens in the Tasmanian state election.[26] In September 2006, Prime Minister John Howard confirmed that he met with the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren, stating he has no problem with the group and that they are "entitled to put their views to the Government".[27] In December 2006, The Age reported that Brethren representatives met with the Australian Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock lobbying for family law changes to "ensure that a child is not subject to a radical lifestyle change without compelling reason".[28]
Prime Minster John Howard met with Brethren representatives in his parliamentary office on short notice early August 2007.[29] The Brethren also approached Federal Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd who refused to meet with them saying that he believes they are "an extremist cult and sect" that "breaks up families".[24][30][31]
[edit] Canada
In 2005 the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren attempted to influence a gay-marriage parliamentary vote by waging an aggressive but anonymous campaign (identifying themselves only as CCP or Concerned Canadian Parents) using direct-mail and advertising with a full page ad in the Hill Times newspaper, a Parliament Hill weekly directed at Senators studying Bill C-38.[32]
[edit] New Zealand
In 2000, as a result of their avowed lack of interest and lack of involvement in the political process, Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren-owned businesses were granted an exemption from legal requirements under the Employment Relations Act 2000 to allow union representatives onto the premises to talk with employees. As a result of the lobbying and other campaigning, there are now calls to change the relationship between Brethren-owned businesses and labour unions.[33]
In the 18 months leading up to the 2005 New Zealand General Election, a group of Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren met with and lobbied many members of Parliament, particularly MPs of the centre-right National Party but also including the parliamentary leaders of the centre-right New Zealand First and United Future parties and the neo-liberal ACT party with no success.[34] Late in the election campaign they spent approximately NZ$1.2 million[35] producing and distributing to letter boxes at least eight pamphlets attacking the policies of both the socially liberal and centre-left Labour party and the Green party. Though not mentioning the National Party, the wording and colour of the pamphlets hinted at support for National. The leaflets appealed for the election of a "government that would prosper the country economically and govern in a morally upright way". The pamphlets caused some controversy and seven Brethren held a press conference in front of television cameras to explain themselves.[36]
Deputy Leader of the Opposition Gerry Brownlee and Economic Development spokeswoman Katherine Rich expressed concerns about the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren's lack of political sophistication and loss of female voters for the New Zealand National Party at the 2005 general election.[37] Some National MPs have declared that they won't accept help from the Brethren in the future.[38]
In September 2006, Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party and Prime Minister, Helen Clark alleged that the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren had been involved in spreading "baseless rumour, slander and lies" after accusations that her husband, Peter Davis, might be homosexual appeared in the Sunday Star Times newspaper.[39] She also alleged that the Brethren had hired a private investigator to follow Peter Davis to dig up dirt. It was later confirmed that private investigators had been hired by members of the group to investigate Labour MPs.[40]
In October 2006, Prime Minister Clark mentioned the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren in "mirth" during her opening speech at the Labour Party's annual conference. She also said that it was time to move on. Deputy Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen further attacked the group in his closing comments to the conference.
In November 2006 Nicky Hager published a book (The Hollow Men) alleging, amongst other issues, the involvement of the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren with the National Party. This was seen as one of the reasons for the resignation of party leader Don Brash, though that was denied strongly by Brash.
In April 2007 senior members of the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren considered setting up a group that would be politically active.[41]
[edit] Sweden
The Swedish tabloid newspaper Aftonbladet alleged that the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren funded an advertising campaign supporting the centre-right Alliance for Sweden in the Swedish 2006 elections. The advertisements and fliers were distributed by 'Nordas Sverige', an agency set up by Swedish business-owners who, whilst members of the Brethren, acted on their own initiative. Aftonbladet traced it to a company named 'Nordas Ltd' operating from Liverpool, UK, run by business-owners, also members of the Brethren.[42]
[edit] United States
In 2004 the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren held prayer meetings and took out newspaper ads supporting the re-election of George W. Bush as President of the United States. In this they aligned themselves with the "religious right" of that country. A committee, called the Thanksgiving 2004 Committee, formed by Brethren in Florida raised $530,000 for the ads supporting the re-election of Bush and of United States Senator Mel Martinez of Florida. $377,262 of this amount came from a single donor, Bruce K Hazell of London, England.[43] The committee raised none of the money in Florida, according to a report filed with the Federal Elections Commission. A White House spokesman later described the group as "shadowy".[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsong_Church
Political influence
Hillsong Church has attracted support from high profile politicians, especially from the conservative Liberal Party of Australia. The Prime Minister, John Howard, opened its Baulkham Hills campus and the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, spoke at its annual conferences in July 2004 and 2005. Mark Latham, the former Leader of the Opposition, declined Hillsong's invitation to the 2004 conference,[4] although Bob Carr, the then Premier of New South Wales, (from the Australian Labor Party), did attend the 2005 conference.
The former New South Wales Liberal Party state director, Scott Morrison (to November 2004), is a prominent member of Hillsong Church.
The church also attracts a large number of aspirational voters from seats in the west of Sydney such as Mitchell (where the church is located), Lindsay, Macquarie and Greenway. Louise Markus who ran the Hillsong Emerge Ltd, the church's drug and alcohol outreach service in Blacktown, was preselected as the Liberal Party candidate for Greenway in the 2004 federal election and was elected to the House of Representatives. Labor had held the seat since it was proclaimed in 1984 until she beat the ALP candidate Ed Husic, as well as twelve other candidates, with a two party preferred swing of 3.7%.
Since the election, accusations have been made in the NSW State Parliament that Mrs Markus's campaign had exploited the Muslim background of her chief opponent,[5][6] Liberal MP for Mitchell, Alan Cadman, and two Family First Party Senate candidates, Joan Woods and Ivan Herald, who failed to win Senate seats, were featured in a Hillsong circular during the election, with members being asked to pray for them.[citation needed] Publicly, however, the church has distanced itself from advocating certain political groups and parties, including the fledgling Family First party:
One thing we are not is a political movement ... The Assemblies of God in Australia does not have a political vision and we don't have a political agenda. I think people need to understand the difference between the church being very involved in politics and individual Christians being involved in politics. There is a big difference. (Brian Houston) [7]
Controversies
Some journalists and religious leaders have expressed concerns about the church's political stance and use of donated funds for its ministries.[9] The church's prosperity teachings have also been criticised by prominent Baptist minister Tim Costello[10] and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell[11].
It was revealed in 2000 that Pastor Brian Houston's father, Frank Houston, had engaged in homosexual and paedophilic acts as a minister in New Zealand. Brian Houston expelled his father from the church, despite Frank's early help in setting it up.[12]
Hillsong has also come under some fire from Evangelical leaders, most notably from the conservative Anglican Diocese of Sydney, regarding its prosperity teachings[13] as well as other aspects of Pentecostal theology such as faith healing and baptism in the Holy Spirit. A critical article about Hillsong was published in the January 2007 issue of The Briefing (published by Matthias Media, an Evangelical Anglican publication) which criticised Hillsong on several fronts, claiming that "core aspects of evangelical theology" such as "the cross, the blood, the judgment of God ... the systematic exposition of the Scriptures" were "virtually absent" from Hillsong's teaching.[14] The Briefing went so far as to suggest that conservative evangelicals should consider placing "a blanket ban on Hillsong music in [their] churches" so as not to endorse or financially support Hillsong.[15]
Hillsong has also been at the centre of a controversy over a Federal Government grant given to the church to assist indigenous communities, but used instead as funds for the church. The Federal Government subsequently ordered Hillsong to return the money.[16]
In 2006 Hillsong's plans to build a 3000 seat auditorium and a 900 space car park ran into community opposition with more than 300 signatures collected in a few days. The site was a former Roads and Traffic Authority depot and had been rezoned to allow 66 townhouses, but Hillsong Church bought it for $28 million and propose to build a new auditorium in Rosebery to replace their Waterloo site.[17]
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 4 August 2007, describes how Tanya Levin, two years into writing People in Glass Houses, was walked off the church property by a security guard under the direction of Hillsong management. According to Levin, "There is no debate within Hillsong. That's fundamentalism. It's not open to free thought and question, not at all."[18]
Catholic
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36483
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Who would the Red Cross call if their building catches fire?
Not all states have property taxes. Church property in some states is also exempt from property taxation. I think churches are exempt from sales tax as well.
Churches would lose their tax-exempt status for their political contributions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a391d19af0f3b.htm
At least in Washington State, churches are considered to be non-profit and therefore exempt from property taxes. They can lose their exemption by conducting commercial activities on the property, or by no longer using the property for exempt activity, but in general, churches are exempt from paying property taxes in this state.
Isn't this a federal law?
I believe Federal law exempts them from paying income tax. I don't know how the law reads, or on what grounds they lose their exemption.
of course
Pastors get a 100% exemption on money they spend on their housing.
Ministers of every faith are also exempt from income tax withholding and can opt out of Social Security.
Every state but one exempts religious employers from paying state unemployment taxes — reducing the employers’ payroll expenses but also leaving their workers without unemployment benefits if they are laid off.
In many places, their businesses are not subject to the same inspections as their non-religious competitors, they don't have to file the same financial statements, and they're exempt from many civil rights laws.
I could go on and on, but this is long enough. To answer the OP's question, yes, I think they should pay taxes!
as far as i see it; it's as simple as many Churches can and do discriminate on which people they will or will not allow to come into their church. and many Churches do bring in a profit.
most other non-profits are open to anyone that needs their services in their community and have policies against discrimination and turning people away.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Thanks for that. I honestly didn't know how far-reaching it was.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
no thanks...I have no interest in joining one of God's exclusive country clubs
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Or better yet, why do you want churches to pay taxes. Just for spite?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I think to some, it is seen that those churches that rake in the millions from the unsuspecting from those evangelical televangelicals... are basically a bunch of dirty crooks getting a free ride.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I've got nothing to do with it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.