• aeternum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    1 year ago

    Churches should be tax liable anyway, regardless of whether they tell you how to vote. Why are they exempt, but other businesses aren’t? Or rather, why are other business tax liable when churches aren’t?

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, and they are held to certain standards and have reporting requirements. Churches do not have to do anything except declare they are a church. No standards, no reporting. They can just count their profits.

        • TALL421
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would argue the absolute majority of them aren’t, yeah

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is anecdotal but I sat on a small church board as I was heading out of religion and from what I saw the majority of them couldn’t keep the lights on. We had to partner with one of those interfaith groups just to do collective bargaining on stuff like insurance. So many of the religious temples/churches in the area were just like a dozen elderly people.

            I point out to some people just because a church is small and poor doesn’t mean it does good work it just means it is small and poor.

            If only we could come up with some sorta department of parks and recreations that could provide activities to seniors. Nah too crazy.

            • TALL421
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m personally very jaded of all religion, but especially southern Bible belt style. Thanks for sharing your experience on the matter!

            • havokdj@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Technically you’re right, but that example (moses and the others in the wild) is from the old testament which doesn’t even apply to Christians. Christians are only to follow the new testament.

              • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Technically you’re right, but that example (moses and the others in the wild) is from the old testament which doesn’t even apply to Christians. Christians are only to follow the new testament.

                Didn’t jesus say that he did not come abolish the law of the prophets (aka the old testament)?

                • havokdj@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  See that’s kind of the thing right? The bible does a lot of back and forth on this shit where the old testament matters one second and then it doesn’t the next, but that’s aside the point.

                  Jesus himself did say this, but god rid many of the rules before that as well, so technically that would mean they would be the law of the prophets as well.

                  One big change for instance is the requirement of a sacrifice to worship god, yet this was changed in the new testament with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Yes, some laws before apply such as the ten commandments, but those are also a part of the new testament, they can have overlap.

          • over_clox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m confused now. So if the money goes to God, and God has to eat flesh, then…

            So many questions…

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right? Talk about privilege and special rights! I don’t get why these megachurches have these millionaire pastors flying around in private jets and nobody bats an eye. Right, Joel Olsteens?

      • Wrench Wizard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ngl I’m not against churches in general because I’ve found a lot of peace there when life was rough, so even if I was an atheist I would still support non-hateful churches.

        But megachurches with rich pastors that constantly brag about how God wants them to be wealthy? No. No. No. “It is an abomination” - Butt-Head voice.

        • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if they give people comfort they should be taxed. Same as prostitutes. I guess they don’t usually pay tax either 🤷‍♀️

    • FrostKing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      *this is not an opinion just an objective explanation based on the information I have

      The reason that churches aren’t taxed, legally, is because the US constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” There are disagreements about whether taxing everyone including churches counts as a “law respecting an establishment of religion” but that is the current state of affairs.

      *this is an opinion, though more of a speculative one

      The reason, I believe, that the law mentioned in this post isn’t enforced, is because if the did the supreme Court would likely through the case and the law out as a result, for being unconstitutional, as it is unarguably a “law respecting an establishment of religion.”