I think,maybe, that church tax exemption is kinda ...wrong?

[Fight_n_back]

because by its very nature the federal government has to codify what is a valid religion and what isn't. So Scientology is not a valid religion, or wicca, but other equally ludicrous belief systems are.

By "equally ludicrous" I mean that you can look at any of the stories as absurd if you don't go into it believing it. But as "South Park" taught me in their great "Mormon" episode, it isn't the myth that matters but what the culture of the religion is.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/11095402.htm

But the point is... some religions are deemed appropriate by the IRS and others aren't. This has obviously gone through the courts at least a few times and it certainly isn't something that I would lead a parade over but it doesn't quite seem wholly constitutional to allow some religions exemption and deny it to others.

Feel free to convince me otherwise.

[ck4829]

1. "Some religions are deemed appropriate"

Which ones are appropriate?

AND

Why isn't Fundamentalist Fristianity inappropriate?

(It should be inappropriate BTW)

[Fight_n_back]

2. Actually, nevermind

I did some research in the IRS website and it is rather well explained.

Go back to watching the jury deliberate...nothing to see here.

[ken-in-seattle]

3. tax exempt is fundamental to separation of church and state.

Scientology made their own bed re taxation. They put pricetags on their version of "salvation". The war is not over yet and if you think they are not tax exempt in most areas then think again.
They are also more vindictive than the Bush administration:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/nytimes.html

Barratry is a church sacrement:

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway ... will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decrease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
--L. Ron Hubbard


The Bushies are still pushing to remove the tax exempt status of several unitarian churches in Texas and some AME churches in GA since they refuse to fall in line with the theofascists.
http://www.thymewise.net/blog/allislost/001241.html

[damntexdem]

5. I know people in the Dennison, TX UU church.

And they did get their tax-exempt status.

By the way, not only were John and John Quincy Adams Unitarians, they and their spouses are all entombed in the basement of the First Church of Quincy, MA. Interestingly, the church gets federal money because it is part of a national park.

[damntexdem]

4. The question is what policy least entangles church and state.

If churches are taxed, it would be possible to tax some out of existence -- the big mega churches would still thrive, but poor, marginal congregations might fail.

On the other hand, the deal is that in return for the tax exemption, the churches are supposed to stay out of partisan politics. If that worked, it would be a bulwark further separating church and state. The problem is that rightwing churches ignore the law, and do so without fear of prosecution. It has become so unbalanced, that we might all be better off if all churches could engage in partisan politics -- rather than mostly rightwing churches (and, yes, a few African-American churches that support Dems).

The problem need not be defining what is a church: the government should need to accept any church that so proclaims. The problem is that rightwing churches won't obey the law.

In the end, it may be necessary to tax churches.

[Dr.Phool]

7. I feel they should at least pay property taxes.

My property taxes are going through the roof, and all over America, some of the best, prime real estate is untaxed, because it belongs to a church.

My taxes are subsidizing them.

[wuushew]

6. Beyond political interference churches consume public resources

in the form of police and fire protection. While we also provide these services to the impoverished in society most church's potential wealth is the sum of its parishioner's holdings.