3 ms·

Super unpopular opinion: Most churches (with the obvious exception of megachurches amongst others) do more good than harm. I feel like they are good for local

Super unpopular opinion: Most churches (with the obvious exception of megachurches amongst others) do more good than harm. I feel like they are good for local communities because its one of the few places that people interact face to face, and the downsides of religion "brainwashing" probably happens more on the internet than irl. Im ok with letting churches be.

tacitusarc 3y ago
I think it has become evident in the past decade that this is the case, especially in large urban environments.
Ankaios 3y ago
A lot of bookstores and restaurants do more good than harm, and we tax them.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Bookstores and restaurants are profit-seeking entities. If they were nonprofits then we wouldn't tax them.
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    pity there's no tax exemption for nonprophets
  - ProllyInfamous 3y ago
    >profit-seeking entities As a child, this was how I always felt when the Catholic Collection Plate would circulate among the congregation. >[doing good for community] I also think that all hospitals should pay taxes — until there is some sort of single-payer universal healthcare institution.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > As a child, this was how I always felt when the Catholic Collection Plate would circulate among the congregation. Profit in this context means filthy lucre that the business owners have every right to spend on strippers and cigarettes and private islands. Churches are more restricted in what they can do with it and moreover tend to lose their patronage if that's what they're spending the money on, as opposed to private businesses whose patrons give money in exchange for books or food and don't really care if the owners are using the profits to play blackjack in Vegas. > I also think that all hospitals should pay taxes — until there is some sort of single-payer universal healthcare institution. What does that have to do with anything? Business operating expenses are generally deductible and their "income taxes" are effectively taxes on profit. A non-profit doesn't have any owners to receive profits, so they either operate with with a neutral budget or put any net income into an endowment that allows them to survive if future years are leaner or provide more services or charge lower prices. Taxing them would only cause them to have lower quality or higher prices or go bankrupt more often.
Dalewyn 3y ago
Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, freedom of religion is a Constitutionally guaranteed human right. That is to say, the government shall not make special accomodations or exceptions for any religion. That means churches getting to avoid taxes, unlike other not-non-profit organizations, has always been one of those things that should be resolved but hasn't because the people like breaking that law. It's the same reasoning why "under God" should be removed from the national oath and Ilhan Omar should not be allowed to wear a hijab in Congress: Special accomodations and exceptions for religion are plainly unconstitutional. Obligatory IANAL.
- skylurk 3y ago
  I was with you until the hijab bit. Why do you think that wearing a hijab is a special religious accommodation? And why would it not be protected as a freedom of expression regardless?
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Because nobody is allowed to wear hats and other head coverings in Congress. They made a special exception specifically for her on religious grounds, which is a violation of the government's Constitutional requirement to treat all religions equally as a part of guaranteeing freedom of religion. If Congress had instead changed the rules so everyone can wear hats and head coverings that would have been fine, but that's not what they did.
    - elashri 3y ago
      You seem confused. The exception was not for her. It was generic exception for wearing it for religious reasons, this includes Islamic hijab as well as the Jewish kippah and Sikh dastar (potential others) [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_ban_on_head_covering https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Repre...
- LeafItAlone 3y ago
  > Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, freedom of religion is a Constitutionally guaranteed human right. That is to say, the government shall not make special accomodations or exceptions for any religion. > That means churches getting to avoid taxes, unlike other not-non-profit organizations, has always been one of those things that should be resolved but hasn't because the people like breaking that law. No, that’s not what it means.
LocalH 3y ago
Have you ever seen religion in the deep Southern US, in the most religious areas? It's practically brainwashing even irl.
- ActorNightly 3y ago
  Its not brainwashing. Preachers or leaders dont hold authority there. The stuff that gets said is simply local views that just get perpetuated in communities that have already been brainwashed by the internet.
- ProllyInfamous 3y ago
  I personally live in the mid-sized Southern city with the distinction of "highest churches per capita >100k population" — state law only requires three founding church members, and all church property is tax-free. To speculate that "it should all be tax free" is absolute insanity, particularly property taxes.
bhpm 3y ago
There’s a pretty easy way to verify that churches are doing more good than harm: let them declare their good deeds on a tax form. Then all the landholding mega churches can put their money where their mouth is

tacitusarc 3y ago

I think it has become evident in the past decade that this is the case, especially in large urban environments.

Ankaios 3y ago

A lot of bookstores and restaurants do more good than harm, and we tax them.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Bookstores and restaurants are profit-seeking entities. If they were nonprofits then we wouldn't tax them.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  pity there's no tax exemption for nonprophets
- ProllyInfamous 3y ago
  >profit-seeking entities As a child, this was how I always felt when the Catholic Collection Plate would circulate among the congregation. >[doing good for community] I also think that all hospitals should pay taxes — until there is some sort of single-payer universal healthcare institution.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > As a child, this was how I always felt when the Catholic Collection Plate would circulate among the congregation. Profit in this context means filthy lucre that the business owners have every right to spend on strippers and cigarettes and private islands. Churches are more restricted in what they can do with it and moreover tend to lose their patronage if that's what they're spending the money on, as opposed to private businesses whose patrons give money in exchange for books or food and don't really care if the owners are using the profits to play blackjack in Vegas. > I also think that all hospitals should pay taxes — until there is some sort of single-payer universal healthcare institution. What does that have to do with anything? Business operating expenses are generally deductible and their "income taxes" are effectively taxes on profit. A non-profit doesn't have any owners to receive profits, so they either operate with with a neutral budget or put any net income into an endowment that allows them to survive if future years are leaner or provide more services or charge lower prices. Taxing them would only cause them to have lower quality or higher prices or go bankrupt more often.

Dalewyn 3y ago

Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, freedom of religion is a Constitutionally guaranteed human right. That is to say, the government shall not make special accomodations or exceptions for any religion. That means churches getting to avoid taxes, unlike other not-non-profit organizations, has always been one of those things that should be resolved but hasn't because the people like breaking that law. It's the same reasoning why "under God" should be removed from the national oath and Ilhan Omar should not be allowed to wear a hijab in Congress: Special accomodations and exceptions for religion are plainly unconstitutional. Obligatory IANAL.

skylurk 3y ago
I was with you until the hijab bit. Why do you think that wearing a hijab is a special religious accommodation? And why would it not be protected as a freedom of expression regardless?
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Because nobody is allowed to wear hats and other head coverings in Congress. They made a special exception specifically for her on religious grounds, which is a violation of the government's Constitutional requirement to treat all religions equally as a part of guaranteeing freedom of religion. If Congress had instead changed the rules so everyone can wear hats and head coverings that would have been fine, but that's not what they did.
  - elashri 3y ago
    You seem confused. The exception was not for her. It was generic exception for wearing it for religious reasons, this includes Islamic hijab as well as the Jewish kippah and Sikh dastar (potential others) [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_ban_on_head_covering https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Repre...
LeafItAlone 3y ago
> Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, freedom of religion is a Constitutionally guaranteed human right. That is to say, the government shall not make special accomodations or exceptions for any religion. > That means churches getting to avoid taxes, unlike other not-non-profit organizations, has always been one of those things that should be resolved but hasn't because the people like breaking that law. No, that’s not what it means.

LocalH 3y ago

Have you ever seen religion in the deep Southern US, in the most religious areas? It's practically brainwashing even irl.

ActorNightly 3y ago
Its not brainwashing. Preachers or leaders dont hold authority there. The stuff that gets said is simply local views that just get perpetuated in communities that have already been brainwashed by the internet.
ProllyInfamous 3y ago
I personally live in the mid-sized Southern city with the distinction of "highest churches per capita >100k population" — state law only requires three founding church members, and all church property is tax-free. To speculate that "it should all be tax free" is absolute insanity, particularly property taxes.

bhpm 3y ago

There’s a pretty easy way to verify that churches are doing more good than harm: let them declare their good deeds on a tax form. Then all the landholding mega churches can put their money where their mouth is