News-Record.com

One big problem I have with all these churches going up is that every "holy" land purchase takes tax money away from the city and county. You go for a drive around town and count the churches... imagine the cash flow that you and I are having to make up with our raised taxes.

Personally, I resent having to pay extra to cover the lack of tax revenue all those buildings represent. All churches should pay property tax. If they can't afford that, they ought to go out of buisiness.

Seems the separation of church and state is only an issue when the Church is alledged to have intruded too far into government; not when govenment intrudes into church affairs. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

I don't see how Nikos' statement relates to either my point or the subject of the thread.

Maybe so, Eric. The idea was that secularists want to virtually eliminate religious expression in the public square - no manger scenes, no pryers at football games or schools, etc. - but lust after church property taxes to support their failing, violence-ridden schools.

Whether you like it or not, churches are non-profits. If you taxed them you would have to tax all non-profit organizations. The idea, of course, is that non-profits are not out to accrue monies for the sole pleasure of the entrepreneurial party, whether corporation or private citizen. They also are seen as doing gratis public service: physical aid, social services or general support of families and community well being. This churches do, even if you don't like them or their beliefs. Not to say that there aren't abuses.

More and more, activist liberal humanists want to regulate or adjudicate what pastors can teach and preach; to the point of indicting them, for example, for preaching that homosexuality is sin (Canada and Sweden). I can see losing tax exempt status for becoming a political tool; but even that can be abused.

Some Christian leaders have themselves suggested that churches should give up their tax exempt status in order to not be beholden to the government. But I think it would be too great a loss; because the liberal KGB would find some compelling excuse to muzzle and limit biblical churches from transgressing their inviolable dogma; the liberal churches being just humanist lapdogs.

I know it's not a simple issue on the line-item level, but the constitution is being upheld when no official state church is established and the government keeps its mits off (free excersize) all church ministry and teaching. That the state should acknowledge God and seek to legislate according to biblical principles is the only option if our culture is to survive and prosper.
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord;"
otheriwse, they slide into the slough of corruption and chaos; which even now can be observed by watching the evening news and general entertainment fare.

"Whether you like it or not, churches are non-profits."

Nikos is being utterly hilarious. Look at the Catholic church and the obscene wealth it has amassed over a 2000-year history. I dont think Nikos can defend the idea that this is a "non-profit" enterprise.

Then look at this church in this story. It has the audiacity to ask people for $1000 donations in order to start its own "land bank." I think it's an insult to the intelligence of this blog's readers to say that this is a "non-profit" enterprise. That is fatuous nonsense.

And what about this rubbish about the evil "secularists"? The idea of taxing churches for the property they own, and the governmental services they command for free has been around for a long time. In fact, a particularly non-secular Ulysses S Grant said the following:

"In 1850, I believe, the church property in the United States, which paid no tax, amounted to $87 million. In 1900, without a check, it is safe to say, this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion. I would suggest the taxation of all property equally."

and

"I would like to call your attention to ... an evil that, if allowed to continue, will probably lead to great trouble.... It is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property."

Perhaps churches as a whole do provide some services that help the community, but I expect if it's studied, you would find that on the whole it is a poor return on the investment that giving them a completely free ride tax-wise represents. When I see pastors driving Beamers, Caddies and Hummers, that sort of "non-profit" blather just reeks IMO.

Mega-churches are a logical product of late capitalist America.
Will there be WalMart-sized bargains on various mystical services?

Seriously, I have to agree with Eric that, strictly speaking as economics, the tax-free status given religious institutions (and often abused by its leaders) does not justify the cost, on a bottom-line basis. But I also imagine most people would say the "general welfare" is enhanced by keeping religiously-inclined poulations involved in socially-helpful tasks, providing extra support for the needy, etc. Thus, it may be a price we, as a secular nation, is wisest to pay. Especially if the alternative would be insurrection and a further demand for theocratic rule.

Then again, whatever happened to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?

Actually, I agree with Eric, that there have been glaring abuses over a two thousand year period. The Church, as a mega-institution, rarely reflected on a large scale all of the spiritual values and standards of its founder and scripture-writing successors. Governments have certainly not been saintly examples either. The history of the church is a process of God’s working out the sinful tendencies that nominal or immature adherents often exhibit. Even as an individual Christian goes through a process of sanctification (spiritual growth), so the Church has, and is, undergoing that transformative process on a macrocosmic level.

The idea of church-state separation is differently interpreted by committed Christians and their secular counterparts. My comments were intended to address the principles involved in this debate, not as a claim to historical idealism. After all, no almost universal and enduring institution can go two thousand years without making mistakes, wrong turns and even grievous departures from principle. Certainly, as a Reformed Christian, I in no way defend the Romanist abuses of the Papal system.

It seems the lure of wealth, power and prestige is too much for some contemporary Christian leaders to resist; especially with the money funnel of TV access. I have often thought that God may, either drastically curtail, or even remove the Church’s tax exempt status to chastise and correct her.

In the OT there was a separation between the two divine institutions of Temple and Throne; yet they were also united under God’s person and law. This seems to have been the general idea in American government from its inception until fairly recently: no state church, but a recognition that stable and effective government can only be accomplished through acknowledgment of God and His Law/Word. Thus our laws were generally aligned with the Decalogue and even the case laws. (No stealing, killing, anti-sodomy laws, etc)

If the State is to be separated from the Church organizationally, then it must not tax the Church, because doing so ALWAYS leads to control. Its prophetic voice must not be hindered or stifled. The prophet Nathan had to have the full freedom to rebuke David for his moral breech; and so with the prophets generally. MLK’s prophetic voice may not have been heard had the government been able to legally shut him down.

But spiritual truth-principles are not only the stuff that makes the Church work, but also that which makes all of life work – including government. In fact, nothing whatsoever can stand for long without adhering to God’s inviolable and eternal principles of morality and justice.

The push for state intervention in the Church has come about because of the rejection of this truth, and an attempt to institutionalize unbiblical laws, such as gay marriage and abortion. Taxing and controlling the Church is a gross violation of the separation principle, which is now being interpreted as the isolation of the Church from all public participation and influence.

So, no matter what abuses may occur in the Church generally – and they do exist – the principle must be upheld so that the Constitution is not violated and eroded. But many Marxist, humanist and anarchic types have little regard for the Constitution anyway. But as long as we do, organizational separation in both directions must be preserved. But church officials are not above the law (Jim Bakker and Catholic priests), and the state may not tax or interfere with the full exercise of the Church’s preaching and teaching office in any way whatsoever.

Oh, I do also agree that churches should not be allowed to do business and own property beyond that which serves thier immediate ministry needs. This is a bit tricky, as you can imagine, but some regulatory limits seem reasonable. This was a mojor issue . of course in the Reformation. Henry VIII make short shrift of the monastic holdings, etc.