Churches sell redemption, forgiveness of sins, the path to Heaven. They should be taxed.

I would have more compassion for churches were it not for how those who attend weekly service, but don't "donate" are treated.

If churches were taxed this would be the natural outcome?

I can't see it either Ibram. Except for homeless shelters and Salvation Armys here I see no community benefit. I figure 30% of my income to the government is enough of a give that even before I left the church I stopped tithing my babys milk money away.

You are so full of shit, Spexx. First off, the Catholic church used to sell indulgences. They do not anymore, and the Protestant church never did. So your assertion that churches "sell" redemption is a stupid metaphor at best. Secondly, no church I have ever been in treated those who did not tithe any differently than those who did. The whole thing is very anonymous in fact--and even moreso nowadays, when any church of moderate size allows giving to be done online if the churchgoer prefers.

Rkz, I'd like to know if you see any differences between a non-profit community theatre troupe and a non-profit church. Should the non-profit theatre troupe be taxed as well?

I believe there are several churches whose expenditures may be questionable - most of those are larger churches, as in 500 & up in congregation. However, smaller churches, most of the pastors have a secular job to help support their families, because "the giving" pays just the basic bills. As stated earlier, you can't possibly group "all" churches or even other non-profit organizations into one lump sum - they are not all the same and as such are not "run" the same.

I can't speak to how non-tithers are treated, but online donations are much less anonymous than collection boxes, or even baskets.If a church would qualify as non-profit under the same rules as a theatre troupe, then there's no need for the religious component for non-profit status.

hmm. Perhaps a more rounded education might help? Churches are active in youth organizations, disaster relief, immigration assistance, senior care, education, victim assistance, family counseling . .. the list goes on.

I'm not saying there aren't abuses of the system by churches. I'm troubled by the attitude that seems to be prevalent here that "religion is bad; churches should be abolished." I don't like organized religion myself, but that's because my spirituality is private--between the gods and myself. But I mean, come on-- to say they serve no purpose or provide the community no benefit is inaccurate.

If it turns out they are making a profit, FUCK YES!. As an actor I have seen this happen and people getting rich off of actors who do not get paid... it is disgusting.

I have said before, I am not hosile toward religion as long as it does not break the three: Do not break the threshold of church and state IN ANY WAY (that includes lobbying your mythology to any laws)
Do not abuse children with ideas about eternal torture, child abuse of any kind should be prosecuted by law at all times.
Do not go door-to-door or phone unsolicited, this should be illegal for anyone, not just religion.

The tax thing, honestly I poorly worded the title of this thread now that I see that churches are only about half of those that need their tax exempt status removed.

Being "active in" and qualifying as an Actual Charity are two things that do not meet anywhere in the middle.
I have been active in charity my whole life.
I have also BEEN a charity, for three months out of the year for three years in a row... trust me... they are NOT the same thing, not by a LONG SHOT.
And their taxes would reflect that.

Why the attack?

Then what does a church do? On Sunday morning, you goes in, you pays your money, you're forgiven and on track to heaven. I wasn't talking about indulgences, I was talking about fee for service. You pay your donation, and in return, you get......what?

Our church gave us a statement of our donations at the end of every year, so it was by no means anonymous, and they printed the previous week's total take in the current week's program.

I don't understand your first statement about a rounded education.

You should be aware though that the Salvation Armys and homeless shelters are Christain organizations. I've done plenty of missions in my youth where we helped out in shelters.

Exactly, even though the Salvation army and some of the foreign aid organizations have had their problems, most of them, now, have very good books and would have any issue with this.

I agree, and I'm honestly not sure how the rules are different. I'm merely pointing out a logical conclusion of rkzenrage's assertions that all non-profits should give a provable base percentage to charity. There are valuable social services that many non-profits can provide without being direct charities.

Unless as a nation you are prepared to do what it takes to resolve problems like homelessness, drug-abuse, poverty and assorted other ills, I suggest you allow some of those churches to continue their outreach work. They take up a lot of the slack in the system. There are no doubt many are deserving of greater scrutiny, but just as the Church has historically been a force for obedience and acceptance, it's also often been the one organisation that has sought to ameliorate some of the worst conditions for poor communities.

Just look at Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker.

What if they use the extra money to grow--to buy better costumes, rent a bigger theatre space, put out more advertisements to get more audience members?

Because your comment seemed flippant and directly intended to offend. I didn't realize you honestly had experienced such things in a church.

No offense, but your church sucked. Printing the total amount given is very different than a list of who gave it. In most churches, less than 50% of the regular attendees give any money at all. But those who do give want to know their money is being used accountably, which is one reason yearly budgets and giving amounts are published--not necessarily to guilt people into giving more, but to show where the money's actually going.

The "fee for service" is actually a valid idea--you are paying for the weekly comfort, the marriage ceremonies, the funerals, the marital counseling, the childcare while you participate... you are also contributing to some amount of direct charity work, though how much varies widely with each church, as rkz has been pointing out. But forgiveness is absolutely not a function of church attendance or monetary donation, in the Protestant faith at any rate.

Was there something about "showing that they are using the funds to provide the service intended" that confused you?