First. And that is all that I am going to say for now!

I think we should impose taxation on all religions. The United States guarantees freedom of religion not free religion. The other benefit is that the churches and church leaders would come under a lot of government control. It looks like they need control as they exhibit no self control. In the South we have these full square block churches in nearly every town. They have life style centers where you can spend all of your time (and money). These places are no longer churches. We can debate what to call them, but not churches.

First to post as the incontinent and incontrovertably married to Matt Goober Shivers Lynch Family Cat

Eric, I disagree totally. The power to tax is the power to destroy and or regulate. Our country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion and it is codified in our constitution. The so called separation of church and state that the libs like to imagine is there really is a poke in the eye of the US Government because it says that Congress shall NOT make any law governing religion or the free exercise thereof. This means no regulation, no taxes.

Taxation would not be regulating the exercise of religion, just the flow of money.
If nothing else, impose property taxes on church-held lands and buildings.

Unfortunatley taxing church property would put a huge burdon on the poorest churches.

Also, churches were supposed to operate like charities (and some people do tithe and their money actually goes towards missions and other charitable causes).

So some will close. Whoopty-doo.

I tried to use a stun gun on Matt Goobere Shivers when he came after me and it had little effect. Sure, his hair stood on end and smoke came out of his ears, but his eyes were still clouded over by the look of lust (and the smell of burnttoast filled the room). Sure, he eventually won me over and we did have a 2 month long romance, but I had to break up with him when he asked me to use the stun gun in the bedroom. He is one wierd guy. So, Frenchman, LFC, Emmanuel Kant, you can have Mr Shivers. Just beware.

Anyone interested in learning more about me, click on my name for a fun game.

I think there is some merit in taxing religions, I'm especially talking about the abuse that the tax-free status has engendered. Leave the church itself and a reasonable amount of land around it tax-free, but tax all chuch owned business and other property not directly associated with church services. I'm thinking of the Baker crowd, the Cathloc wineries, etc. In many cases these are competing with private firms.

I think there is some merit in taxing religions, I'm especially talking about the abuse that the tax-free status has engendered. Leave the church itself and a reasonable amount of land around it tax-free, but tax all chuch owned business and other property not directly associated with church services. I'm thinking of the Baker crowd, the Cathloc wineries, etc. In many cases these are competing with private firms.

At my church on Sunday- the assistant Pastor said that the average American spends over $1,000 dollars gambling a year while the average American give only $75 to church. Sounds like there should be some regulation of 'bingo night'!!

About taxation....
Many churches account for every dollar spent- I would 'like' to see that for the federal government! If we cut out inefficiency and PORK- the deficit would be cut in half- yesterday!! If I don't make as much money this year compared to last year- I cut my spending!! It is simple math!!

H.o.D.

I already pay taxes to the government. I don't want a % of my charitable donations to my church going into the Washington troughs, too.

Should Roman Catholicism be called the "religion of priestly chastity"?

Woody Allan and Roman Polanski, both applied to replace the 'Hit-and-Run' Bishop, but were turned down.

An unnamed spokesperson for the Vatican stated, "They almost made it, because of their 'like' of underage girls, but neither had a preference for small boys, so they just wouldn't, 'fit in'! We are hoping to hear from Michael Jackson though!"

The guy who suggests taxing churches misses the whole point. He suggests this would enable the government to take control over religion which is just what the first amendment and the doctrine of Separation of Church and State are designed to prevent. If you read Thomas Jefferson's letter, from which this phrase originated, you will realize the current use of the term has nothing to do with its intended meaning. One would think it obvious that the first amendment is designed to protect our freedom of religion and limit the power of government. In fact, the entire Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) is designed primarily to limit the power of government.

qats kint use tasers cuz of thar paws