Why Should we Pay for your Religion? - The "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Board

Date: Thu Apr 22 9:16 PM, 2004

Why Should we Pay for your Religion?

Date: Fri Apr 23 8:13 AM, 2004

The answer is because, quite obviously, you are in need of a closer relationship with God. So you should have access to houses of worship, existing and soon to be existing.

Religion is really man's search for God. Here's hoping you get some more (religion that is).

(in the meantime please keep posting, you are the funniest one on here)

Date: Fri Apr 23 8:38 AM, 2004

As when the RT BOE announces the new school to be built at 140 GPR. I wonder if you and CC will still find things so funny. Please stick around this board after the school is built, we can then extend you the same courtesies of laughing at your situation (all the wasted money your leader threw away).

Date: Fri Apr 23 9:06 AM, 2004

Let me give everyone some insight on the Born Again Christian mentality. I have a few friends and family members who are very "spiritual" so this is a first hand observation. These are just my observations, not that I agree with them.

1. If you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior. You will not enjoy the kingdom of heaven. When you die, your soul dies with you.

2. Their mission in life is to save as many souls as they can. So they are coming to RT to save us.

3. All other Christian religions that are not "Born Again" do not count. Catholics, Methodists, Protestants; you are not saved, and will not go to heaven. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists…. you can guess where you stand on the food chain.

4. They are not as concerned with the world we live in, as they are the spiritual world. Mortal life is temporary. Hence they are not concerned with the impact CC will have on our town.

5. There is this phenomenon known as "speaking in tongues" I attended a service at my sisters church (in the south) where they were doing this. It really freaked me out. I later researched it, and found there is a scientific explanation, which I will not go into here. They feel that Speaking in tongues is a gift from god.

I do not condemn anyone for his or her religious beliefs. Hey maybe they are right, who knows what the truth really is. Ah sweet mystery of life.

Date: Fri Apr 23 9:20 AM, 2004

Holy mackerel, I've been blessed with that gift as well! But I don't understand why it keeps being translated into asterisks on this board...woe is me!

Date: Fri Apr 23 9:33 AM, 2004

All these things are fine, but nobody has addressed my basic question.

Again, it is why should religious institutions not pay taxes like the rest of us?

In a way, we have a system of state supported religion. Why? It is unfair to people who do not affiliate themselves with any religion.

Could someone please explain why this system is fair to all?

Date: Fri Apr 23 9:55 AM, 2004

Simple Answer Craig.

Religious Institutions are non profit organizations.

Date: Fri Apr 23 10:28 AM, 2004

That still does not answer my question. So what if they claim to be non-profit agencies. That does not take away the impact that they have on a community and so why should a non affiliated person have to pay to support these things? Seperation of Church and state issues are what I see here. It simply is unfair to the people who choose not to affiliate themselves with a HOW.

BTW - many countries around the world require churches to pay taxes. Makes sense to me.

Date: Fri Apr 23 10:31 AM, 2004

One more thing, but more specific. Does anyone here really believe that cc is non-profit in the literal sense of the terminology? It has a D&B rating! Come on folks. Lets not be so naive.

Date: Fri Apr 23 10:58 AM, 2004

Craig, why do you continue to post this d&b nonsense? As I have established over and over, that is not only irrelevant, but more importantly, is actually a plus. I would hope an organization that directs over $5M in charitable contributions would have a solid credit rating. The fact is (and I looked) there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of churches with d&b ratings - and of course other not-for-profits have them! Respectfully, you may need to learn a little more about the credit business.

We understand your stance, you are of the opinion that this widely respected church is a sham, but stop hanging your opinion on a meaningless point to try and confuse people.

Date: Fri Apr 23 11:04 AM, 2004

And what about Irelands feature article in "Church Business" magazine? The concept of "Church Business" implies to me that if they are run that way, they should pay property taxes (at a minimum) just like all other businesses.

What do I have wrong here? Why should I not convert a company called Diamond Cut Productions, Inc. which I am a major shareholder in into a Church? Makes a lot of sense to me to do so just like Howard Hughes did with his enterprises. We should all do that if Churches are businesses.

If churches are businesses, they why can businesses be churches? Hmmm.

Date: Fri Apr 23 11:08 AM, 2004

Craig - the United Way is not run like a business? Come on. "Like a business" just means intelligently, taking advantage of free market ideas to efficiently serve the organizations goals. For Diamond Cut that goal is profit, a goal which this nation has deemed taxable. For the United Way or CC, the goal is serving the community, a goal which this nation has deemed of such substantial benefit so as to bestow tax-free status.

Date: Fri Apr 23 11:23 AM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"Craig - the United Way is not run like a business? Come on. "Like a business" just means intelligently, taking advantage of free market ideas to efficiently serve the organizations goals. For Diamond Cut that goal is profit, a goal which this nation has deemed taxable. For the United Way or CC, the goal is serving the community, a goal which this nation has deemed of such substantial benefit so as to bestow tax-free status."

And you do not think that these non-profits reap huge salaries for the mucky mucks? Come on, I have a bridge to sell you if you think that there is not money in all these not-for-profit orgs...

Date: Fri Apr 23 11:30 AM, 2004

To: Craig

Date: Fri Apr 23 11:53 AM, 2004

RE: Why Should we Pay for your Religion?

Date: Fri Apr 23 12:06 PM, 2004

I agree with Marks analysis. Re-iterating, public schools are secular institutions and they are required by law. Churches, by definition, are not secular. Big difference in my book.

Date: Fri Apr 23 12:14 PM, 2004

This is quite the thought-provoking thread!

Date: Fri Apr 23 12:42 PM, 2004

To: Mark & Craig ...

Date: Fri Apr 23 12:50 PM, 2004

RE: Why Should we Pay for your Religion?

Date: Fri Apr 23 1:26 PM, 2004

Should a house of worship pay taxes?

A good topic to debate. I would lean towards no - a house of worship should not pay taxes. Unfortunately though, it's not that cut and dry? See my next question:

If a house of worship builds a gym - which allows local residents to use or purchase use, and therefore competes with other local gyms (who pay taxes), should the house of worship be tax free?

The question now gets much harder...Should we allow a local 'church' to compete with local businesses, but yet put the local business at a financial disadvantage?

How about if that 'house of worship' opens a tax-free McDonalds with a drive-through window. Should it remain tax free?

Currently, our laws say yes - because it's a McDonalds owned by a house of worship. Is this correct?

How about if the 'house of worship' owns profit-making subsidiary coporations. Corporations that do video production, editing, publishing, etc?

Again, under current law, these subsidiary corporations are tax-free because they 'use' their religious identity to avoid paying taxes? Is it fair? How about the companies that want to compete against them, but must pay taxes. Is it fair to them?

Of course, these are all just good discussion points. They have nothing to do with the fact that what Christ Church wants to build at 140 Green Pond Road is too big for the infrastructure of our area and has too great an environmental impact to be given the approvals they would need. On the other hand, it's nice to have these side topics to discuss once in a while, while we wait for the inevitable (CC is denied. CC and Becket Fund sue. RT hires Marci Hamilton. Decisions made in courts. Case is appealed and appealed again until it hits the Supreme Court docket in 3-5 years).

Date: Fri Apr 23 1:27 PM, 2004

Please note that in my opinion, these are benefits to the members of the community in which the establishment exists.

My main problem with Christ Church is that the sacrifices this community would be making, are not benefiting people from this community. They would be benefiting a group of people who come from somewhere else, benefit here, then go back to their own communities.

If 5,000 people in this local area decided to start a new church and found a piece of appropriate property, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it.

Tax and traffic issues would be far more tolerable to me, because the burdens would be shared by the people who are benefiting from the impact--people in my community who also pay additional taxes for this privelege.

I feel like this is a very opportunistic establishment and I resent the feeling I have that we're being used.

Date: Fri Apr 23 1:30 PM, 2004

crappy timing again...argh! this was about my post above regarding schools and churches.

p.s. LOVE Marci!

Date: Fri Apr 23 2:56 PM, 2004

Example:

The worlds largest commercial Public Address Power Amplifier company is called "Crown". It is located somewhere in the midwest. It was started about 35 years ago by a bunch of Roman Catholic Monks who had electrical engineering degrees. To this day, "Crown" absolutely dominates this field of endeavour throughout the world.

These products are built and designed on Church Property in which they do not have to pay any property taxes.

Now, how about this other company down the street (actually this one is located in NJ) called "Crest?" They also make public address Power Amplifiers, but at a substantial competitive disadvantage because of the tax thing. Their amps are just as good as Crowns, but the pricing is much more reasonable on the Crown equivelent.

Do you folks think that this very real situation is fair? I do not.

BTW - The first very popular model made by Crown was called the DC-300. Some of you may recognize the name and model especially if you were ever in a Rock 'n Roll band.

Date: Fri Apr 23 3:49 PM, 2004

So, repeating a basic question:

If a Church can be a Business, then why can't a Business be a Church?

Please advise.

Date: Fri Apr 23 3:50 PM, 2004

The essential difference remains the goals of the organizations. Crest exists to provide owner/shareholder profit. Crown exists to supplement funding for charitable work.

So, Crest revenues minus expenses minus taxes go to shareholder value while Crown revenues minus expenses go to support church programs.

I look at that and say that it is not only "fair" but "preferable."

Date: Fri Apr 23 3:54 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Craig Maier
"So, repeating a basic question: If a Church can be a Business, then why can't a Business be a Church? Please advise."

Craig, a church can't be a business, it can be run like one in terms of its efficiency (intelligent), and it can run a business (in compliance with 501(c)(3) rules).

Please note my responses assume you are not trying to run a tax scam - you are welcome to try that if you like - set up a business and call it a church. I think I have seen posts back and forth on that topic, I would prefer to stay out of that.

Date: Fri Apr 23 4:11 PM, 2004

You are the one that used the "scam" word not I. I am just considering doing the same thing as Crown. I may set up Diamond Cut Productions, Inc as a Church. All the operating profits will go to the works of the Church. Also, it will no loner have to pay property taxes for its physical facilities. Crown is still offered a considerable business advantage over Crest in my above example because of government support for one and none for the other.

So, what am I missing here?

Is it simply that whatever church I set up is by your definition a "scam" and any church that you set up is by definition "an upstanding respectable community spirited orgainization?"

You've got nerve.

Date: Fri Apr 23 4:28 PM, 2004

I should have been a bit more clear in my writing, as I meant "you" in the general "a person" sense, not "you" Craig. However, since you bring it up, I would not say that I don't think it applies. I think it a reasonable interpretaion of the posts I have read that your idea to pursue church status developed in order to avoid increased property taxes you believe would be caused by the approval of the CC application. Doesn't take much nerve to conclude that.

However, that is not my point at all. My point was that I am discussing the issues above working under the assumption that all is on the up and up. Tax scams are for the IRS to deal with, not me.

Date: Fri Apr 23 4:32 PM, 2004

Come on guys - it is not the religion or tax loss - it is the magnitude of this colosus that can not be permitted to ruin the North end of town. It is WAY TO ****** HUGE!

Date: Fri Apr 23 4:43 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: JAFO
"Come on guys - it is not the religion or tax loss - it is the magnitude of this colosus that can not be permitted to ruin the North end of town. It is WAY TO ****** HUGE!"

Are we not allowed to have a different conversation? The one you bring up is pretty tired - you think is, CC support thinks it isn't. A little boring. Click another link if you don't like this one.