Should churches be taxed?

[Lovelife090994]

Should churches be taxed?
At first I would have said no they should not, but I notice more and more churches are getting money hungry and political. Already many churches are on TV which isn't cheap and they ask for money each service and tithes (10% of attendees incone) every month. I think they can afford taxes. Especially now that some act as private businesses denying homosexuals and others funerals because it infringes on the church's beliefs and right to refuse service. Businesses do this. Churches could help the economy. All the Christians in America and churches, just a small tax of 2% could land billions each Sunday.

As long as Televangelists exist and as long as Churches want a say on rights and minorities, tax them. Tax them all. We tax everything else.

[Sugaree]

No, they shouldn't be taxed. Churches are run as a public service by volunteers and rely on donations to keep themselves running. The same goes for Jewish temples, Muslim mosques, and every other place of worship. Unless the church is owned by a private company, and not by a local diocese, then it shouldn't be taxed.

When you bring up the example of televangelists, you should tax them as individuals. Most of them run private companies, and those are already taxed. So you can leave them out of the question.

But for a small town church that is run by volunteer work and survives on donations taken from the pews every Sunday? Don't touch them.

[Abyssal Echo]

No, they shouldn't be taxed

[phuckphace]

Televangelism Inc. needs to be busted but that's a seperate issue I think. some churches are indeed run as for-profit businesses, but they need to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis.

"real" churches shouldn't be taxed.

[Lovelife090994]

Televangelism Inc. needs to be busted but that's a seperate issue I think. some churches are indeed run as for-profit businesses, but they need to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis.

"real" churches shouldn't be taxed.

Define a real church?

No, they shouldn't be taxed

Ok, why not?

No, they shouldn't be taxed. Churches are run as a public service by volunteers and rely on donations to keep themselves running. The same goes for Jewish temples, Muslim mosques, and every other place of worship. Unless the church is owned by a private company, and not by a local diocese, then it shouldn't be taxed.

When you bring up the example of televangelists, you should tax them as individuals. Most of them run private companies, and those are already taxed. So you can leave them out of the question.

But for a small town church that is run by volunteer work and survives on donations taken from the pews every Sunday? Don't touch them.

Again, why not? Religious institutions instill many dangerous ideas and get political... we tax everything else. Plus religious buildings are already taking money from the attendees, so why not tax the church?

[Sugaree]

Again, why not? Religious institutions instill many dangerous ideas and get political... we tax everything else. Plus religious buildings are already taking money from the attendees, so why not tax the church?

And what institutions are you talking about? There's plenty of religious institutions that do good for the public at large. Whatever you're referring to is such a small percentage of a much larger whole.

I'd like to point out that your suggestion, as I read it, is this: We should tax religious institutions because they install "dangerous" ideas and get political.

So, under your rule, religious institutions would be taxed based on what they say, correct? Isn't that...I don't know...against the first amendment to the United States Consitution? On top of that, unjust taxation without representation is an entirely different can of worms. If anything, these religious institutions are only brought up during Presidential election years and no one cares about them any other year.

There's a good amount of churches out there that receive donations from their congregations to keep things running. They use that money to pay loans, keep the electric and heat, and fund their own events. They aren't telling their congregations to empty their wallets into the donation basket, because it's an optional thing. What you're insinuating is that we should have a public record, or at least a government protected record, of what these churches are using donated funds for. Why is it the business of the government to know whether or not these donations are being used as the church says they are being used? What about all the millions PETA get every year under the premise that animals are being saved and fed with the money, even though the majority of their money goes toward funding their euthanizing program? Where's the outrage there?

On the subject of religious institutions becoming political, I can agree with that. Personally, I don't think any religious institution should be political. Their purpose shouldn't be to endorse citizens running for public office, but for the spiritual growth of the followers of said religion. If you're talking about pastors going to the pulpit the Sunday before election day and persuading their congregation to vote the "right" way, again, you're talking about unjust taxation and a violation of the first amendment.

I think you're confused on some key terms. "Taking money" and receiving a donation are two different things. Again, these parishes are not holding their congregations at gunpoint so they can max out your AmEx card. Do they try to persuade you to donate? Of course, but that's as far as they can go.

You also seem confused on the difference between televangelists, whose only existence is to be nothing more than blood sucking parasites for their own personal gain, and honestly good people who want to give a public service for the faithful in the community. These priests are not paid that much. In some areas, they aren't even paid at all. Yet they still make sure that the churches they are in charge of are kept running with very limited funds. These priests do this all, basically, for free.

Unless the church is registered as private property, owned privately by either an individual or group, and participates in standard business practices (whatever can be seen as selling a specific service), then why tax them? They are all open to the public, much like government buildings, national parks, and even state run locations.

Your arguments are very lacking. This is seeming to go down the path of "Tax people who I don't agree with," rather than a genuine issue of whether churches should be taxed.

[Lovelife090994]

And what institutions are you talking about? There's plenty of religious institutions that do good for the public at large. Whatever you're referring to is such a small percentage of a much larger whole.

I'd like to point out that your suggestion, as I read it, is this: We should tax religious institutions because they install "dangerous" ideas and get political.

So, under your rule, religious institutions would be taxed based on what they say, correct? Isn't that...I don't know...against the first amendment to the United States Consitution? On top of that, unjust taxation without representation is an entirely different can of worms. If anything, these religious institutions are only brought up during Presidential election years and no one cares about them any other year.

There's a good amount of churches out there that receive donations from their congregations to keep things running. They use that money to pay loans, keep the electric and heat, and fund their own events. They aren't telling their congregations to empty their wallets into the donation basket, because it's an optional thing. What you're insinuating is that we should have a public record, or at least a government protected record, of what these churches are using donated funds for. Why is it the business of the government to know whether or not these donations are being used as the church says they are being used? What about all the millions PETA get every year under the premise that animals are being saved and fed with the money, even though the majority of their money goes toward funding their euthanizing program? Where's the outrage there?

On the subject of religious institutions becoming political, I can agree with that. Personally, I don't think any religious institution should be political. Their purpose shouldn't be to endorse citizens running for public office, but for the spiritual growth of the followers of said religion. If you're talking about pastors going to the pulpit the Sunday before election day and persuading their congregation to vote the "right" way, again, you're talking about unjust taxation and a violation of the first amendment.

I think you're confused on some key terms. "Taking money" and receiving a donation are two different things. Again, these parishes are not holding their congregations at gunpoint so they can max out your AmEx card. Do they try to persuade you to donate? Of course, but that's as far as they can go.

You also seem confused on the difference between televangelists, whose only existence is to be nothing more than blood sucking parasites for their own personal gain, and honestly good people who want to give a public service for the faithful in the community. These priests are not paid that much. In some areas, they aren't even paid at all. Yet they still make sure that the churches they are in charge of are kept running with very limited funds. These priests do this all, basically, for free.

Unless the church is registered as private property, owned privately by either an individual or group, and participates in standard business practices (whatever can be seen as selling a specific service), then why tax them? They are all open to the public, much like government buildings, national parks, and even state run locations.

Your arguments are very lacking. This is seeming to go down the path of "Tax people who I don't agree with," rather than a genuine issue of whether churches should be taxed.

Churches should be taxed as long as they overstep their boundaries. Churches being good or not isn't the issue, it's the beliefs as a whole. Churches supporting conversion therapy and teaching against certain groups should be monitored. Churches acting as political rallies should be taxed. It is common in America that Christians have free reign even in public... their places of worship pay no taxes. Other religions are scrutinized by the general public and by the beliefs of the churches be they Catholic or Protestant. Even then a Black Mass Church or Pagan Temple should be taxed at least for property. A religious institution should be taxed if they want representation in government. I don't want churches to get political, but if they must then they should pay a tax.

[Sugaree]

Churches should be taxed as long as they overstep their boundaries. Churches being good or not isn't the issue, it's the beliefs as a whole. Churches supporting conversion therapy and teaching against certain groups should be monitored. Churches acting as political rallies should be taxed. It is common in America that Christians have free reign even in public... their places of worship pay no taxes. Other religions are scrutinized by the general public and by the beliefs of the churches be they Catholic or Protestant. Even then a Black Mass Church or Pagan Temple should be taxed at least for property. A religious institution should be taxed if they want representation in government. I don't want churches to get political, but if they must then they should pay a tax.

Again, you're talking about such a small percentage of a much larger whole. Yes, they are a problem. However, not every church funds conversion therapy or holds political rallies. Churches that do that shouldn't be considered churches, but rather political groups that should be considered separate.

What you're proposing as a property tax, in theory, is pretty simple. That's good, because I actually do agree that, in certain cases, that the dioceses' of the country should be given bills for property they own in their districts. However, the thinking behind why you want to tax them is flawed. You don't want to tax them because these diocese have property they own and they need to follow the law. You want to tax them because you don't agree with what they tell their congregations every Sunday. Once you start that, you're stifling free speech and freedom of religious practice.

[Stronk Serb]

They should be taxed but if they use the tithes for charities, they should be exempt. Churches here are like a business with a cross attached. They sell stuff for personal profit, the clergy have a state pension fund and the church is subsidized by the state.

[amgb]

I don't think churches need to be taxed because they use the money they receive for charity. But I do think that runners of church groups need to be audited. Donators have a right to know if their money is being used in the wrong way.

...a business with a cross attached.

I agree churches are like that

[Body odah Man]

I honestly don't know enough about this topic to give an opinion. Hence neutral.

[phuckphace]

Define a real church?

it's kind of a no-brainer. you've got most churches that respect the law, follow the tax code carefully and help serve their communities with charities and missions, and then you've got the stadium-sized megachurches that brazenly fleece their members, like this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn)

I think you're just mad that some churches preach mean things about homosexuals. they do, but that doesn't mean that it qualifies as "political" and thus taxable. churches condemn homosexuality because that's what their scriptures tell them, and they donate to gay conversion organizations because they view it as a charitable mission that helps people in need. participation is voluntary and free. you're all but insinuating that they ship gays off to a death camp somewhere to be shot and cremated :lol3:

What about all the millions PETA get every year under the premise that animals are being saved and fed with the money, even though the majority of their money goes toward funding their euthanizing program? Where's the outrage there?

at the risk of going off-topic, I just wanted to say that euthanization is nothing to get outraged about, imo. a painless death and a fast track to animal Heaven seems like a better solution than just letting millions more animals starve or die of disease. obviously PETA can't save every puppy it comes across since they're just one organization with finite resources and there are millions of pets out there.

[Lovelife090994]

Again, you're talking about such a small percentage of a much larger whole. Yes, they are a problem. However, not every church funds conversion therapy or holds political rallies. Churches that do that shouldn't be considered churches, but rather political groups that should be considered separate.

What you're proposing as a property tax, in theory, is pretty simple. That's good, because I actually do agree that, in certain cases, that the dioceses' of the country should be given bills for property they own in their districts. However, the thinking behind why you want to tax them is flawed. You don't want to tax them because these diocese have property they own and they need to follow the law. You want to tax them because you don't agree with what they tell their congregations every Sunday. Once you start that, you're stifling free speech and freedom of religious practice.

it's kind of a no-brainer. you've got most churches that respect the law, follow the tax code carefully and help serve their communities with charities and missions, and then you've got the stadium-sized megachurches that brazenly fleece their members, like this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn)

I think you're just mad that some churches preach mean things about homosexuals. they do, but that doesn't mean that it qualifies as "political" and thus taxable. churches condemn homosexuality because that's what their scriptures tell them, and they donate to gay conversion organizations because they view it as a charitable mission that helps people in need. participation is voluntary and free. you're all but insinuating that they ship gays off to a death camp somewhere to be shot and cremated :lol3:



at the risk of going off-topic, I just wanted to say that euthanization is nothing to get outraged about, imo. a painless death and a fast track to animal Heaven seems like a better solution than just letting millions more animals starve or die of disease. obviously PETA can't save every puppy it comes across since they're just one organization with finite resources and there are millions of pets out there.

Personally, I don't like people or religiosity, or how Christians want to refuse rights to others period. I say tax the churches because they are not always charities and are properties of worship. Churches often have people in them against their wishes and instill ideas to promote self-hatred. With church laws being expressed I say tax them. We tax all but charities and a church isn't a charity .

[Gumleaf]

This is an interesting topic and as a Christian who happily attends my church and supports my church financially, I take an interest. I'm not sure what the laws are involving tax in the US or anywhere else in the world, but I do know that churches themselves in Australia are not taxed and that Pastors, Priests or whatever the case may be, aren't taxed at all or if they are it's a small percentage as the rest of the community.

I have a couple of thoughts here. We have a church brand in Australia called Hillsong, and they do great things in evangelism, and in their worship music ministry. I have no doubt their pastors are millionaires. They also though donate huge amounts of money to overseas missions and charities etc. So should this church and their pastors be subject to tax? I honestly believe they should. But you can't have a blanket taxing arrangement like that for all churches. For example, not all church staff are pastors. My mum works as an office admin at her church and is taxed like any normal person, and so is my dad in his part time role in the church because he isn't a pastor. If all churches were taxed a blanket amount or percentage, small churches would die.

I think the balance should be that there should be a tax free threshold for churches and individual pastors. So if a Pastor earned under $x then they would be tax free. Then the tax percentage would increase like anyone else would. But as for a church on the whole, I think they should be given some concession, but should be taxed on profits greater than a nominated amount.

The reality is there are super churches out there, but the majority are smaller churches with small congregations that struggle to support themselves. So should super churches pay tax, yes. But the vast majority, no.

[Lovelife090994]

This is an interesting topic and as a Christian who happily attends my church and supports my church financially, I take an interest. I'm not sure what the laws are involving tax in the US or anywhere else in the world, but I do know that churches themselves in Australia are not taxed and that Pastors, Priests or whatever the case may be, aren't taxed at all or if they are it's a small percentage as the rest of the community.

I have a couple of thoughts here. We have a church brand in Australia called Hillsong, and they do great things in evangelism, and in their worship music ministry. I have no doubt their pastors are millionaires. They also though donate huge amounts of money to overseas missions and charities etc. So should this church and their pastors be subject to tax? I honestly believe they should. But you can't have a blanket taxing arrangement like that for all churches. For example, not all church staff are pastors. My mum works as an office admin at her church and is taxed like any normal person, and so is my dad in his part time role in the church because he isn't a pastor. If all churches were taxed a blanket amount or percentage, small churches would die.

I think the balance should be that there should be a tax free threshold for churches and individual pastors. So if a Pastor earned under $x then they would be tax free. Then the tax percentage would increase like anyone else would. But as for a church on the whole, I think they should be given some concession, but should be taxed on profits greater than a nominated amount.

The reality is there are super churches out there, but the majority are smaller churches with small congregations that struggle to support themselves. So should super churches pay tax, yes. But the vast majority, no.

Mega-churches should be taxed. But freedom of speech of not, no one should preach hate.

[Gumleaf]

Mega-churches should be taxed. But freedom of speech of not, no one should preach hate.

I've read over the responses in this thread since my last post. From what I've read of your posts, your argument seems to be soley based on some agenda you have against the church as a whole. Now, you are entitled to your opinion, and that goes without saying, but your argument makes no sense. Based on your theory, I should demand that Muslims, Buddhists and other faiths should pay tax because I don't like their teaching. I've been going to church for close to 21 years now and I haven't heard hate preaching yet. I'm guessing your views are based from what you hear in the media from extreme groups such as Westboro 'baptist' church who don't reflect the greater Christian community?

My views from my previous post, I stand by completely. I have and will continue to financially support the church I go to and do so willingly and cheerfully and not because the church pastor is apparently demanding us to give 10% of our income. I've never been demanded to give money yet. I really believe that some people pick up bits and pieces of what happens in churches and create some sort of agenda based from that. Anyways, i'll jump off my soap box now.

[Lovelife090994]

I've read over the responses in this thread since my last post. From what I've read of your posts, your argument seems to be soley based on some agenda you have against the church as a whole. Now, you are entitled to your opinion, and that goes without saying, but your argument makes no sense. Based on your theory, I should demand that Muslims, Buddhists and other faiths should pay tax because I don't like their teaching. I've been going to church for close to 21 years now and I haven't heard hate preaching yet. I'm guessing your views are based from what you hear in the media from extreme groups such as Westboro 'baptist' church who don't reflect the greater Christian community?

My views from my previous post, I stand by completely. I have and will continue to financially support the church I go to and do so willingly and cheerfully and not because the church pastor is apparently demanding us to give 10% of our income. I've never been demanded to give money yet. I really believe that some people pick up bits and pieces of what happens in churches and create some sort of agenda based from that. Anyways, i'll jump off my soap box now.

Do religious groups hold property? If so, tax it. Everyone else pays taxes.

[ImCoolBeans]

Do religious groups hold property? If so, tax it. Everyone else pays taxes.

Nonprofit groups are exempt from paying property tax. Not just religious groups. Religious groups are not these sole people reaping the benefits of being tax exempt. Many crooked political groups outside of the church abuse this, and honestly I am much more concerned about them than I am about the church, since they're running the country.

Also, these excerpts are from the 2014 IRS Social Security and Other Information for Members of the Clergy and Religious Workers (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p517.pdf)
If you are a minister of a church, your earnings for the services you perform in your capacity as a minister are subject to SE tax, even if you perform these services as an employee of that church.
Employment status for other tax purposes.
Even though all of your income from performing ministerial services is subject to selfemployment tax for social security tax purposes, you may be an employee for income tax or retire- ment plan purposes in performing those same services. For income tax or retirement plan pur- poses, your income earned as an employee will be considered wages.

That's straight from the IRS, saying that the earnings of clergy, ministers, and church employees are subject to income tax, social security tax, and medicare tax.

[Gumleaf]

Do religious groups hold property? If so, tax it. Everyone else pays taxes.

I'm not familiar with US laws, so let me tell you something about the laws where i'm from. Land tax is only paid here if you own large chuncks of land such as farms etc, own multiple residential properties and some businesses too. But I'm assuming you mean council rates and it is true, churches are exempted from this. But clearly you haven't done your research too well. Schools, hospitals and most non profit or public service organisations are also exempt.

So my opinion of all this is that you just have an issue with the church, and you're completely within your right to have your opinion. But since you haven't argued any point from my last post, i'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you haven't actually gone to a church before, or you have but didn't go by choice (a parent or someone similar made you go), meaning you had a negative perception straight away. Most things you have said such as churches preach hate etc would be opinions formed from reading other peoples opinions from the media and not actually going to one. You know, tomorrow a friend of mine is going to Uganda for 2 weeks, paid for herself to help others build water tanks for disadvantaged people. On top of that she has 2 weeks off her job so loses more money there. Is that preaching hate? If it is it's a strange definition of it.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm not familiar with US laws, so let me tell you something about the laws where i'm from. Land tax is only paid here if you own large chuncks of land such as farms etc, own multiple residential properties and some businesses too. But I'm assuming you mean council rates and it is true, churches are exempted from this. But clearly you haven't done your research too well. Schools, hospitals and most non profit or public service organisations are also exempt.

So my opinion of all this is that you just have an issue with the church, and you're completely within your right to have your opinion. But since you haven't argued any point from my last post, i'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you haven't actually gone to a church before, or you have but didn't go by choice (a parent or someone similar made you go), meaning you had a negative perception straight away. Most things you have said such as churches preach hate etc would be opinions formed from reading other peoples opinions from the media and not actually going to one. You know, tomorrow a friend of mine is going to Uganda for 2 weeks, paid for herself to help others build water tanks for disadvantaged people. On top of that she has 2 weeks off her job so loses more money there. Is that preaching hate? If it is it's a strange definition of it.

I was forced to go to church all of my life and hate it. The Christian community has been nothing but detrimental to me.

[Gumleaf]

I was forced to go to church all of my life and hate it. The Christian community has been nothing but detrimental to me.

I'm sorry it's been like that for you. In what way detrimental, if you don't mind me asking? I only ask because the vast majority of my time in church it has been positive and been a time of growth with God. However I did have a bad experience in one church, and it wasn't really anyone's fault, I just didn't feel like I fitted in there. But after moving to the one I go to now, i'm really happy.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm sorry it's been like that for you. In what way detrimental, if you don't mind me asking? I only ask because the vast majority of my time in church it has been positive and been a time of growth with God. However I did have a bad experience in one church, and it wasn't really anyone's fault, I just didn't feel like I fitted in there. But after moving to the one I go to now, i'm really happy.

My mom is super religious and I'm pagan behind closed doors. Churches make me uncomfortable and she goes to loud Black churches. I hate going. Plus I'm gay and depressed and need help but she thinks church us the only way. She thinks all who don't go to church go to Hell and that Christianity is right.

[Bull]

Churches receive government services and they should pay for those services with an in-lew of tax payment to local property tax authority. Some churches cross the line when they get involved in government affairs. It is one thing for the church to admonish its membership, however, when the church begins to lobby any government agency, In my opinion they have crossed the line of separation. What individual members do is fine, but when the corporate entity gets involved the tax exemption should be reevaluated.

[Sugaree]

Personally, I don't like people or religiosity, or how Christians want to refuse rights to others period. I say tax the churches because they are not always charities and are properties of worship. Churches often have people in them against their wishes and instill ideas to promote self-hatred. With church laws being expressed I say tax them. We tax all but charities and a church isn't a charity .

Point of argument: I don't like them, so they should pay taxes that they don't have to pay because the law exempts them.

Does this not register with you? I bet if someone proposed a tax on gay people for being gay you would be up in arms over freedom of expression and complaining about being oppressed. What you're suggesting is no different than telling people they aren't allowed to voice their opinion if it doesn't agree with your world view. On top of that, you want them to basically be punished by law to give their money to the government. That's what you're suggesting.

I was forced to go to church all of my life and hate it. The Christian community has been nothing but detrimental to me.

I'm assuming you're a legal adult by now, so I'll lay this out to you in simple terms:

If you don't like them, ignore them. Live and let live.

Punishing people you don't agree with doesn't help anyone. It certainly doesn't help you because you'll make more enemies than friends. So what's the point of it? Because you feel some sort of primal urge to "get back" at all the mean, nasty Christians? Just be honest and say you're a bigot, because that's exactly the language I would use to describe your opinions. Anyone who wants to stifle freedom of expression, religion, or speech through rule of law and taxation deserves to be called nothing more and nothing less.

I understand how you feel about religion. That's totally fine, because I was there too. But I came to the realization that they aren't harming me just by existing and holding their opinions. All I can do is live and let live. If they believe every word in the Bible, Koran, Torah, or whatever other holy book they have, then that's none of my business. Even if they hate every fiber in my body, I have no reason to hate them. If everyone came to that realization, things might be better, but alas, no such awakening has happened.

[Lovelife090994]

Point of argument: I don't like them, so they should pay taxes that they don't have to pay because the law exempts them.

Does this not register with you? I bet if someone proposed a tax on gay people for being gay you would be up in arms over freedom of expression and complaining about being oppressed. What you're suggesting is no different than telling people they aren't allowed to voice their opinion if it doesn't agree with your world view. On top of that, you want them to basically be punished by law to give their money to the government. That's what you're suggesting.



I'm assuming you're a legal adult by now, so I'll lay this out to you in simple terms:

If you don't like them, ignore them. Live and let live.

Punishing people you don't agree with doesn't help anyone. It certainly doesn't help you because you'll make more enemies than friends. So what's the point of it? Because you feel some sort of primal urge to "get back" at all the mean, nasty Christians? Just be honest and say you're a bigot, because that's exactly the language I would use to describe your opinions. Anyone who wants to stifle freedom of expression, religion, or speech through rule of law and taxation deserves to be called nothing more and nothing less.

I understand how you feel about religion. That's totally fine, because I was there too. But I came to the realization that they aren't harming me just by existing and holding their opinions. All I can do is live and let live. If they believe every word in the Bible, Koran, Torah, or whatever other holy book they have, then that's none of my business. Even if they hate every fiber in my body, I have no reason to hate them. If everyone came to that realization, things might be better, but alas, no such awakening has happened.

One,"being gay" is not a faith. Homosexuality is how you are. Christianity is a religion. The church is the location and property. Christians affect a lot of our laws and as such their churches should be taxed for representation and meddling. I am not in the best situation where leaving will help. If the church I was forced to go to knew I was gay they'd try to change me. If a religious person hates every fiber of my being then I have every right to hate them back. Christians like you are the bigots thinking you're so pious and proud. Religion has no place in government.
And as long as religious terrorists exist with a book to back them up, yes religion is very dangerous.

[Horatio Nelson]

Please keep this thread on topic. This isn't the place to bash religion. This thread will be locked if you cannot be civil.

[Gumleaf]

My mom is super religious and I'm pagan behind closed doors. Churches make me uncomfortable and she goes to loud Black churches. I hate going. Plus I'm gay and depressed and need help but she thinks church us the only way. She thinks all who don't go to church go to Hell and that Christianity is right.

One,"being gay" is not a faith. Homosexuality is how you are. Christianity is a religion. The church is the location and property. Christians affect a lot of our laws and as such their churches should be taxed for representation and meddling. I am not in the best situation where leaving will help. If the church I was forced to go to knew I was gay they'd try to change me. If a religious person hates every fiber of my being then I have every right to hate them back. Christians like you are the bigots thinking you're so pious and proud. Religion has no place in government.
And as long as religious terrorists exist with a book to back them up, yes religion is very dangerous.

I can see how you are frustrated by your mother's approach. I agree it is narrow minded when you need other help such as counselling perhaps? (I mean regular counsellors, not some 'conversion counselling' you have made reference to before). But the thing is, when you have a faith in something, you believe it with all your heart to be true like your mother seems to. Just remember that once you're an adult you can do what you want, believe what you want to believe and do what you want to do. Parents make us do lots of things we don't want to do, but they do it because they think it's what's best for us.

I have to say i'm offended by what you have said, and you do seem a little misinformed. For a start, a church is a community of people, not a building or property. A building is a meeting place, but that meeting place could be a public park, a beach or whatever. Christianity is having faith in God and trying to live life as Jesus did and loving those around us whoever they are. If anyone is preaching hate, they aren't representing God and if you hate people for preaching hate on you, then you're just being as bad as them, right? I don't see myself as religious. I see myself as a follower of Jesus trying to live life on the principals he did by loving and caring for those in need. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it, and i'll just have to live with being offended by that.

[phuckphace]

I don't think the OP wants a serious discussion. he's just got a chip on his shoulder about his mom's religion and is only here for us to agree with his arbitrary and vindictive tax proposal.

read. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3017640&postcount=4) that's your homework for the week, worth 100% of your grade.

Does this not register with you? I bet if someone proposed a tax on gay people for being gay you would be up in arms over freedom of expression and complaining about being oppressed.

hey that's actually not a bad idea *three-fourths of VT left with empty wallets*

[Lovelife090994]

I can see how you are frustrated by your mother's approach. I agree it is narrow minded when you need other help such as counselling perhaps? (I mean regular counsellors, not some 'conversion counselling' you have made reference to before). But the thing is, when you have a faith in something, you believe it with all your heart to be true like your mother seems to. Just remember that once you're an adult you can do what you want, believe what you want to believe and do what you want to do. Parents make us do lots of things we don't want to do, but they do it because they think it's what's best for us.

I have to say i'm offended by what you have said, and you do seem a little misinformed. For a start, a church is a community of people, not a building or property. A building is a meeting place, but that meeting place could be a public park, a beach or whatever. Christianity is having faith in God and trying to live life as Jesus did and loving those around us whoever they are. If anyone is preaching hate, they aren't representing God and if you hate people for preaching hate on you, then you're just being as bad as them, right? I don't see myself as religious. I see myself as a follower of Jesus trying to live life on the principals he did by loving and caring for those in need. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it, and i'll just have to live with being offended by that.

Well, that's funny, when I was in the same place as you were on this site a year or two ago no one rushed to my aid. Clearly you and others have an agenda to pull. It won't work with me. You're not converting me. Churches like all institutions of money-making should be taxed.

[Gumleaf]

I don't think the OP wants a serious discussion. he's just got a chip on his shoulder about his mom's religion and is only here for us to agree with his arbitrary and vindictive tax proposal.

read. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3017640&postcount=4) that's your homework for the week, worth 100% of your grade.



hey that's actually not a bad idea *three-fourths of VT left with empty wallets*

That's a good mature post that I really appreciated reading. The same sort of thing goes with me with my parents in term of my virginity. They don't know my ex gf and I did it often and there is no point telling them about it to ruin their imagine of me and cause pain. Thanks for sharing. :)


Well, that's funny, when I was in the same place as you were on this site a year or two ago no one rushed to my aid. Clearly you and others have an agenda to pull. It won't work with me. You're not converting me. Churches like all institutions of money-making should be taxed.

Well I wasn't active on here 2 years ago, so I can't speak for then but I do notice the vast majority of help posts get replies in this forum. I'm sorry you didn't get the help you were looking for. But as for me having some sort of agenda, could you enlighten me what that agenda is? I mean, twice in this thread I've reached out with empathy about how you're feeling about your mother and her church and you've bitten back at me like a shark both times including in what I've quoted here. I standby everything I have said and still encourage you by the fact that when you become an adult you can get up and leave, follow whatever beliefs you choose to believe if any and do what you want to do. This situation won't last forever and there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Could you please explain how I was apparently 'converting' you? I can't stand bible bashing and if someone wants to know about my experiences with Jesus, i'll tell them if they ask me. All I simply pointed out was 2 points being churches are the community and not the meeting place and secondly anyone preaching hate in the name of Christianity is preaching lies and not the word of God. I'm not sure what part of that is me trying to convert anyone?

And finally on your tax idea. I standby my first post in this thread yesterday where I believe that churches (mosly mega churches) that make more money than the usual tax free threshold should pay tax. But the reality is the vast majority of churches struggle to pay the bills let alone make money and it wouldn't apply to many churches.

[Adventure boy]

No churches should not be taxed

[ImCoolBeans]

This thread is going off topic, and if it is not reigned in it will be locked. I've deleted a post or two, if you continue to get personal and try to attack peoples' characters, further action will be taken than just locking this thread. Keep it civil, and on topic.

[Babiole]

Here in France, most churches are taxed. Same with most mosques and synagogues. You have to pay the government quite a bit to be exempt from taxes. I'm guessing only about one percent of our religious buildings aren't taxed.

Personally, I'm against taxing religious buildings since they are public places of worship.

[fairmaiden]

I think that certain churches are greedy. The ones that are greedy should definitely be taxed. I hear stories from other people about how they're forced into giving 10 percent of their earnings to the church, and I don't like it.

However, there are many good churches out there who actually provide a good service and don't ask for money in such a nasty way. When these good churches ask for money, it appears that the cash actually goes towards a good project. These churches shouldn't be taxed. They should be allowed to get on with things.