While Joel Osteen and his ilk are certainly bad, your proposed solution wouldn't stop them. Joel Osteen can afford to pay taxes and hire tax lawyers, smaller churches can't (I'm reminded of @S'task commenting that large corporations support additional regulation and wealth taxes because they can afford them but thier smaller competitors can't).
...I hate the fact that you are right, not because you or anything like that, but because those guys would be able to operate exactly as you say.
Point conceded.
I don't believe that actually happens. Certainly many megachurches devote less resources to thier local community than they do more selfish causes, but they all give something (if only for purely cynical reasons like shutting down this exact argument).
But do they donate to the point where they would have been taxed anyway?
Plenty of small churches would meet that standard if they had the means to prove it. (Which you just pointed out they can't.)
Both those statements have issues.
1. While it's not always good for optics, a number of those TV pastors have organizations big enough that they might have a legitimate need for one (I work for a relatively small company and we have a jet, and we probably fly executives out or customers in less often than Osteen does).
I hate to point it out, but there is a TV pastor who bragged about buying two jets, and it wasn't for the church, but for himself. In his name and not the churches.
Rather different.
(I am at work, otherwise I would post the youtube video.)
2. We already allow tax exempt organizations to butt into politics, we in fact have a category of tax exemptions specifically for organizations that do nothing but politics. Why should churches be viewed differently?
Because unlike the others, they have an amendment specifically saying separation of church and state. If taxing them violates this, so should their participation in government. They shouldn't get a say outside of their members own vote as a citizen of the nation.
That seems like more a matter of your perception than of fact.
I am willing to admit that is true.
Its because you aren't looking, or taking the bad and applying it to all. But the religious give more than twice as much to charity as the nonreligious.
*looks it over*
Fair point.
Now maybe you say that's offset by income, maybe atheists and agnostics make less on average. Well...
(Snip)
Atheists and agnostics are among the top income earners in the nation, and they give less money as a household. So in terms of people willing to put their money where their mouth is and voluntarily hand over their own money to help others, the religious are generally better at doing so.
No, I wouldn't say that, but that is interesting, thank you.
Why can't churches be involved in politics? Separation of church and state doesn't mean a church leader can't comment on anything politically contentious.
True. But they should not be able to talk directly with political leaders to force matters.
Can you prove that in the slightest?
Just personal experiences to be honest. Had two pastors two separate times and places reference the wrong book where Christ is baptized.
Looking back, I hope that's just a bad outlier.
www.pewresearch.org
