Illegal Property Tax on Churches

a reply to: Tangerine

And why should taxpayers have to pay for a government that feels the need to regulate people's religions, decide which religions are promoted and which are the enemy? Why should religious people have to fund non-religious activities/organizations?

Goes both ways. As a Christian I don't think I should be funding things that are against my religion but I still do. Now imagine if Christians made a stink like the non-religious do when it comes to funding things that are against the faith? Instant mouth froth.

Spare me your anger and intolerance, anti-religious arguments are the latest internet equivalent of compensating with an expensive car. You're human and as confused as everyone else, as herded and as used and oppressed as the rest.

So I ask you again, why do religious people have to pay for non-religious organizations?

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Tangerine

And why should taxpayers have to pay for a government that feels the need to regulate people's religions, decide which religions are promoted and which are the enemy? Why should religious people have to fund non-religious activities/organizations?

Goes both ways. As a Christian I don't think I should be funding things that are against my religion but I still do. Now imagine if Christians made a stink like the non-religious do when it comes to funding things that are against the faith? Instant mouth froth.

Spare me your anger and intolerance, anti-religious arguments are the latest internet equivalent of compensating with an expensive car. You're human and as confused as everyone else, as herded and as used and oppressed as the rest.

So I ask you again, why do religious people have to pay for non-religious organizations?

We have this thing called separation of church and state (Supreme Court decisions have been based on it). We do not have separation of non-religious organizations (whatever that means) and state.

The government is not supposed to be promoting any religions. Period. My anger and intolerance? You seem to be in a froth about this.

a reply to: Tangerine

the thing is and will remain that seperation of church and state can be viewed from different angles. Your version or mine is not the same as everyone else. That does not mean that no single person can not be completly convinced either way to the point of fighting to the death for what they believe.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Tangerine

the thing is and will remain that seperation of church and state can be viewed from different angles. Your version or mine is not the same as everyone else. That does not mean that no single person can not be completly convinced either way to the point of fighting to the death for what they believe.

What does that have to do with the OP? The Supreme Court affirmed separation of church and state. The S.C. is the ultimate decision maker when it comes to constitutional law.

a reply to: Tangerine

I've noticed a common theme. A religious person talks about their beliefs and they're accused of being angry. Lol, it's a common theme, and an old one. So eventually if a religious person types more than one paragraph people will go "angry!" everytime. Or focusing on one topic while ignoring questions in the hopes of....riling up the person. Yeah, it doesn't do anything but show an uncompromising prejudice towards religions.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Tangerine

I've noticed a common theme. A religious person talks about their beliefs and they're accused of being angry. Lol, it's a common theme, and an old one. So eventually if a religious person types more than one paragraph people will go "angry!" everytime. Or focusing on one topic while ignoring questions in the hopes of....riling up the person. Yeah, it doesn't do anything but show an uncompromising prejudice towards religions.

Perhaps you didn't read that person's post to me. Do so, then get back to me. Unless you're thinking I'm the religious person! I'm not sure how to take your post.

a reply to: Tangerine

My post was a reply to your reply about separation of church (you replied with that instead of answering my question).

My question was why should the religious taxpayers have to pay for non-religious activities?

You stated on the previous page that non-religious people shouldn't have to pay for churches since it wasn't their church but the churchgoers.

My entire point is, if you feel those who don't believe in faith or particular faiths shouldn't have to pay for religious buildings and the like, then why should the religious pay for non-religious institutions?

(And before anyone brings it up, the In God We Trust is not the "Christian" god. They have their gods, the public has theirs.)

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Tangerine



the thing is and will remain that seperation of church and state can be viewed from different angles. Your version or mine is not the same as everyone else. That does not mean that no single person can not be completly convinced either way to the point of fighting to the death for what they believe.

What does that have to do with the OP? The Supreme Court affirmed separation of church and state. The S.C. is the ultimate decision maker when it comes to constitutional law.

The op has never really been addressed. It is now a free for thread about taxes and church.

The intent of the op was what actions should be taken if a local county decides to tax a local church.

The poster that brought up the 501c3 and how churches give up their pulpit rights of speech when they sign it answered the op because when they sign that they turn over their spiritual power from GOD in many ways.

To get that back it will take doing away with alleged tax breaks and simply not file because there is no federal law that forces anyone to file a tax return.

Putting the faith back in GOD to protect the church will work.

As far as the local churches being taxed they can if the church files a tax return and it is up to counties to interput the property tax codes here in texas. it is that way in many states

That is where i referenced the hot potatoe because just as this is happening there is a head of county retiring and a new one steping in. It creates a blame game and if the new one is able to collect and the people do not fight it then they have a new revenue stream.

It creates a new avenue for anyone that hides under a 501c3 including various charitible orginizations. Many parks homeless shelters... There will be no end but like i stated the answer is to tear up the tax papers if you are a church and put your faith in GOD.

The seperation of church and state is simply a matter of interputation and while i always look to the scotus for final say in this matter they are trumped and there spirit knows it.

My extreme view is that if churches turn to employing lawyers to protect them they will perish. It is a spiritual battle and the more ties you can cut to the government the more GOD can intervene.

a reply to: deadeyedick

The op has never really been addressed. It is now a free for thread about taxes and church.

no, the op has been more than answered. you just dont like the answers you are getting.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: deadeyedick

The op has never really been addressed. It is now a free for thread about taxes and church.

no, the op has been more than answered. you just dont like the answers you are getting.

Well everything you posted from the start was off topic and steered the op off track from the start and now i guess you want to argue about something petty

The fact is is that it is illegal to collect taxes from churches and the op was put in the religious section to ask about the spirituality of fighting a battle. It had nothing to do with opinions about if anyone thinks churches should be taxed.

Did you even read the op before posting?
Did you notice the questions i raised in the op?
Did you notice it was in the religion and spirituality section?
So in your infinite wisdom you get from a crystal ball do explain what answered the op and tell me what it is about the nonexistant answers i did not like. I have already pointed out the answer on topic and thanked the member for answering me.

a reply to: deadeyedick

You're asking too much from the internet honestly. We all know by now if it has to do with religion the hateful people come out of the woodwork to try to hijack the thread. Don't worry, they'll deny it, come back with essays trying to rile us up and hope we look irrational and angry.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

You are correct but at the same time we should not underestimate the spiritual influence that is going on unseen in this certain portion of the net. It is the type of place that no one wants to admit they are a part of especially the higher up the spiritual chain you get.

These that come here to disagree with everything have a mission like everyone else. Inside they are good people but are forced to do dirt for the man and in return they can work off their debt.

If left unchecked they will win a battle that deep inside they are hoping to lose.

It is a HELL of a system the world we live in.

a reply to: deadeyedick

The fact is is that it is illegal to collect taxes from churches and the op was put in the religious section to ask about the spirituality of fighting a battle. It had nothing to do with opinions about if anyone thinks churches should be taxed.

"Should legal service be on a volontary basis instead of paying one?"

i dont see anything spiritual about this question.

what i do see is that apparently some people believe that churches avoiding paying lawyers to help them cheat on taxes is perfectly respectable.

lawyers have to eat too, you know.

a reply to: TzarChasm

So says ceasers hitman

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: TzarChasm

So says ceasers hitman

so says everyone it looks like. not just me.

go ahead, cry because stuff isnt free no matter whose ass you kiss.

a reply to: TzarChasm

now you twist.
It is free from gov. tax to have a building of worship.

the ones crying here are all the post about we should make church not free any longer

Do you support the illegal taxing of churches by way of interputation of the constitution?

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Tangerine

My post was a reply to your reply about separation of church (you replied with that instead of answering my question).

My question was why should the religious taxpayers have to pay for non-religious activities?

You stated on the previous page that non-religious people shouldn't have to pay for churches since it wasn't their church but the churchgoers.

My entire point is, if you feel those who don't believe in faith or particular faiths shouldn't have to pay for religious buildings and the like, then why should the religious pay for non-religious institutions?

(And before anyone brings it up, the In God We Trust is not the "Christian" god. They have their gods, the public has theirs.)

I did answer you. Religious people have to pay taxes on non-religious things because the law says they have to and the Constitution says taxes can be established. No one who is not a member of a particular church should have to pay taxes for that church because we have separation of church and state in this country as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

A church is supposidly a gathering of people (ie. a congregation) worshipping their respective deity/deities. No taxes need to be paid by anyone for that. However, when these congregations decide to buy property and build a building or buy an existing building, that property should absolutely be taxed just as other property is taxed. The taxpayers who do not belong to that church and do not own it should not be burdened with paying for the congregation's property. After all, the taxpayers can't vote to sell it or tear it down and build a golf course there because it's not their property. It's as simple as that.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme

a reply to: Tangerine



My post was a reply to your reply about separation of church (you replied with that instead of answering my question).



My question was why should the religious taxpayers have to pay for non-religious activities?



You stated on the previous page that non-religious people shouldn't have to pay for churches since it wasn't their church but the churchgoers.



My entire point is, if you feel those who don't believe in faith or particular faiths shouldn't have to pay for religious buildings and the like, then why should the religious pay for non-religious institutions?



(And before anyone brings it up, the In God We Trust is not the "Christian" god. They have their gods, the public has theirs.)

No one who is not a member of a particular church should have to pay taxes for that church because we have separation of church and state in this country as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Looks like the thread just came to an end because your wording indicates that you believe churches should not be taxed and no one should have to pay for taxes on churches.

It is also affirmed by the scotus that churches do not have to be taxed and they do not have to file any tax returns

If the parties involved in this thread were to seek common ground then perhaps it could be that actual church buildings parking lots for the building and cemetaries are never to be taxed.

Now with that if you take a look at the figure that the us ignores around 85 billion in taxes from churches you will find that what i just mentioned is just a small portion of that figure.

I could see where new laws that clairify that and removes the need for the lumping of the rest of the things that are in the 85 billion like saleries deeded properties trips world wide and so on.

By doing that it would eliminate the need for censor ship in the pulpit also and allow the gov. to regulate those churches that still choose to seek tax shelters while acting under same tax acts as politicians.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I'm not sure if you really don't understand posts or simply pretend that you don't. Gathering together and worshipping need not involve ownership of property, hence property taxes are not necessary. Gathering together and worshipping need not involve business, hence business taxes are not necessary. However, when a congregation buys property, it should be taxed on that property and when it functions as a business it should be taxed as a business. I hope this makes my position perfectly clear to everyone else reading this. I hold out no such hope for you.