Because then they would want equal representation in the government.

Separation o church and state.
No taxation without representation
etc

donations

>>495189
This, ideally they cannot interfere in government business and if we taxed them it would be without representation.

It doesn't actually work this way of course and churches try to lodge themselves into government affairs anyway.

Apart from the obvious, taxation without representation thing, there's the problem of nonprofit organizations. You see, they don't operate so much in the same way a business does, as they do in the way that a charity does. They perform some philanthropical deeds with their donations, and they support their building and staff. In the eyes of the law, it's similar to an orphanage not paying taxes on donations if they want to rebuild their housing and shelter their staff.

It's a tricky one.

>>495183

Are you saying that most governments aren't tailored towards their religious majorities?

>>495256
stop.

>>495256
Most countries wit separation of church and state are, because it's likely the majority overall, but they can't be blatant about it.

Take America, as an example. The government can't say that it supports the Christian church more than any other, but the Christians are like 70% of the country, so they do have a lot of influence.

the founding fathers never anticipated people starting up false religions to profit them, and they didn't want the religious bullshit wars between catholics and protestants like they had seen in europe so it's like "FUCK ALL YA'LL GET OFF MY LAWN".

What is this "taxation without representation" bullshit, they aren't an independent state. If anything the allowing of them to conduct business without being taxed goes against the whole idea of being a secular state, you're giving them an exception. Tax churches like you do everything else.

>>495275
Good thing you can read the minds of long-dead men. Also, why should we dogmatically adhere to an old document; are we just as bad as they are?

>>495275
Because taxing them has anything to do with what you just said

>No taxation without representation

i dont understand. other profit-making corporations have representation in government right? in what forms?
why cant churches have something similar? stop viewing them as a "church", and just as another private business.

>>495276
You don't tax donations, which is what a church receives. Just like with a private donation to a university; it's untaxed. Even if the university is Jesus Wants You To Stab Obama, School of Pedophilia, the same laws apply.

Churches are no different than the mega-corporations that currently own our government. Please tax the hell out of them.

>>495283
/Sep. of Church, State

>>495295
I think you just gave some teabaggers an idea

>>495306
...has nothing to do with what he said

and if you're going to take it that far, fucking take God out of the pledge and off of our money already

Find me "Separation of Church and State" written anywhere in our Founding Documents please.

PROTIP: it doesn't exist

Taxation without representation is a moot point. The individuals running the church live in a congressional district and are represented.

>>495318
Oh hi. You must be new to this whole law thing and don't understand the concept of judicial review.

>>495315
Oh, I must have forgotten that the government didn't pander to the majority view--no matter how shitty and childish it is. Why don't we just send a letter to our congressman and everything will be taken care of.

What about all that tax-free land?

Exemptions from property taxes represent a large benefit to churches. There's as much as $100 billion in untaxed church property in the US. This creates a problem because the tax exemption amounts to a gift of money to the churches at the expense of tax payers.

For every dollar which the government cannot collect on church property, it must make up for by collecting it from citizens.

>>495318
According to Tommy Jefferson, it's implied in the Constitution. But that's bullshit; we don't need allusion. So let's look at a series of court cases from 1878 through 1947.

tl;dr: you're wrong; leave.

>>495319
But the organization cannot lobby, unlike a corporation.

>>495343
Precedent is not supposed to impose on progress. There is no more reason for churches to be exempt from paying their taxes.

>>495347
WTF? Religious groups lobby all the time, they spend almost as much as the corporations do. You fail, GTFO.

>>495306

So then change the definition of "church" to what it is in reality - a private profit making business.

There are plenty of Christfag lobbies.

Faithbased initiatives, prayer in schools, etc. They should be taxed, period.

No Taxation without Representation isn't even valid. Businesses don't get congressmen (officially) but they get them in their pocket, as do religions now. All the members of the congressions and sects get representation. Hell, these scumbags have a whole party representing their views. Pic related.

There is absolutely no reason not to tax these corrupt corporations.

>>495378
Exactly. A church is in the business of selling hokum and flimflam to people. If psychics and homeopathic clinics pay taxes so should churches. The point of separation of church and state isn't they don't have to pay taxes, it's that the government doesn't mess with their internal affairs (unless they're doing something illegal) and they don't mess with the government's, which they often do. I have never been to a church that wasn't a Republican Party booster club.

>>495357
I agree completely. I was just saying that there was a precedent, because some idiot thought there wasn't, just because it wasn't explicitly stated in the Declaration.

Corporations get taxed, and they don't have a vote.

They do however get to buy congressmen.

The plain fact is this: there is no precedent for taxing private donations, so unless you're ready to start that up, then there's nothing to be done. You have to get a church to charge admission or something.

>>495361
The point

-----------------

Your head

we should. we should also tax municipal bonds. lending money to the government should not be encouraged.

if anything, lending money to private businesses should be tax free

If a church is selling DVD's and T-shirts, is that taxed?

It should be, if it isn't already, and if the proceeds aren't going to straight to charity.

>>495452
They just make sure you feel very unwelcome if you don't pay them.

>>495467
>tax municipal bonds

"Here's $100 dollars to the government"
"Alright, let's see here, you're in the 25% tax bracket soooo, you're giving us $75, which we'll pay interest on and--maybe--pay back, and we'll take $25. Have a nice day, sir"

>>495467
Why? Why? And, why?

You know why churches aren't taxed?

It's a carry over from England. The churches aren't taxed in England because there the church was an extension of the state, remember King Henry VIII founded and made a state sponsored church. The government does not tax itself. America carried over the not taxing churches as tradition.

Technically before America all churches were just as organ of the government. America wanted to get away from that, even though many churches want to back into bed with the government like they are in Europe.

Why people can't seem to get away from this cycle. The Liberals want America to be like the socialists in Europe, and the Conservatives want us to go back and be like Europe before people started leaving there.

>>495178
Hey little kiddies, this issue was settled long ago.

One churches do not run or operate like a business most of you would not know this since you dont go to church. How the money is used and spent in christian churches is done by committee and votes. Most churches operate in the red as well. Do not confuse the Vatican with the all of Christianity.

If you tax them, they you legitimize them in a way that they MUST have a say in how the government runs now that they are being taxed. They now have a legitimate reason to force their values on the rest of the country.

So you little simpletons that are just church haters, please stop trying to shoot the rest of us in the foot.

>>495501
In the UK, your taxes go TOWARD the Church of England. It's even worse.

And, the US didn't have actually Separation of Church and State until the late 19th century, so it's not really a carryover, especially because it was a supreme court decision.