Megachurches make millions

That sounds fair to me. Churches ought to repay their tax exemption by being required to provide full, open, public disclosure of all of their finances.

Q F T

At least one of those being asked for financial records is a faith healer, why should he be tax exempt? Doctors aren't? Could it be because he can't actually ask for pay for doing something he can't?

Don't even get me started on TE churches... What a friggin' boondoggle.

while it's easy to see that the high-flying itinerant evangelists are a pack of scammers fleecing the gullible and the ignorant, EVERY church in the US is equally guilty of defrauding their communities. For example, churches take advantage of municipal street sweeping and garbage removal, but they pay no taxes for these services. Churches often are lent the use of police officers to direct the flow of traffic into their parking lots, but again churches pay nothing for that service.

When did number of bathrooms become the gauge for measuring mansion size? Also, TE for religious institutions annoys me, too.

Why is it that churches are tax-free, again??

You can just as easily interpret churches' tax-free status as going against the establishment clause as with it. Isn't exempting religion from taxation helping establish religion through special treatment?

It does say something about our national priorities that we've got mega churches while schools have to hold bake sales for money.

Hmmmm. I wonder if a First Church of Atheism, led by Pastor J-Dog would be tax exempt? If only I were a lying scum-bag like a Mega-Church Pastor...cuz I think I would like some time in sunny Hawaii.

Elmer Gantry was a piker.

Churches ought to repay their tax exemption by being required to provide full, open, public disclosure of all of their finances.

You know, PZ, you're really much too soft on religion. Churches shouldn't have tax exemptions.

By that I mean, churches as such. If a church runs a school or hospital or soup kitchen or what have you, that enterprise should be eligible for tax-free status on the same basis as any other not-for-profit. Assuming the state wishes to encourage charity by exempting charitable organisations from income tax, then any such organisation fulfilling the relevant requirements ought to enjoy the tax benefit, even if it is run by people who believe things other people think wrong.

But as for churches as specifically religious bodies, a properly-run state would neither persecute nor promote them. Allowing these bodies to avoid tax legally is promotion, however indirect.

An added benefit is that there would be less religion if the income of religious bodies were taxed. It wouldn't disappear altogether, of course: lots of religious leaders aren't in it primarily for the money (though just because a motivation is non-mercenary does not mean it is benign). But does anybody really think that the Right Reverend Bishop Long would be in this game if it weren't for the money? Does anybody think there would be Scientology if religion were not lucrative?

I agree it's unlikely that taxing church income would be a saleable idea in America. But requiring full and transparent public financial disclosure might be achievable with a less dramatic change in public attitudes. Grassley's investigations could help lay some of the groundwork.

That sounds fair to me. Churches ought to repay their tax exemption by being required to provide full, open, public disclosure of all of their finances.

Now that I find truly shocking. I have no problem with religious groups operating as non-profits, but then, they need to operate as non-profits do.

If anything, I would expect that the standards should be higher, since people are investing so much more of their trust in them.

I was just thinking this morning about a slightly related issue:

That if churches pay no taxes, but receive all the municipal (or county, or state) services of individuals and organizations that do, doesn't that mean they are, in some part, tax-supported entities?

If an organization of similar size pays $50,000 in property taxes a year, but a church pays zero, doesn't it seem the church is essentially getting a $50,000 tax benefit from the government that nobody else gets? (I know if I found out my neighbor with an equal salary paid no taxes, while I paid $15K, I'd feel he was clearly getting a $15K gift from the government.)

Police and fire protection are givens in society, but everybody else actually pays for them in some tangible way. Any organization that didn't pay for them, you'd have to see it as something of an active gift by government, a gift that no other tax-paying entity enjoyed.

And if they arguably are tax-supported, doesn't that mean they should be required to practice non-discrimination in hiring and such? That, for instance, the Southern Baptist Church shouldn't be able to turn away an otherwise-qualified Wiccan who applied to be church secretary?

If they're public or quasi-public meeting halls, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to refuse a request by any publicly recognized organization to hold a meeting there? So maybe reproductive choice organizations, or even atheists, should be allowed to hold meetings in tax-supported churches?

I'm massively foggy on the details of the issue, but it seems to me that if they're permitted to be exclusive sectarian clubs, they should be required to stop accepting both kinds of tax advantages.

I know "Congress shall make no law ..." but I'm unclear on why existing laws, the ones everybody else has to obey, shouldn't be uniformly applied to religious organizations, maybe by future court decisions.

Something similar: It seems that health codes regarding the sale of food - at church fund-raisers, for instance - are ignored, whereas other organizations are required to toe the line. It just seems odd.

Ahem. Maybe I should have read the entire post before commenting.

Morning. Coffee just beginning to take effect.

Hum. Yep. And that's what they call charity.

Help! Sorry to post off-topic, but I recently read a post somewhere on ScienceBlogs and I need to cite it. It discussed polls about evolution, and it showed that support for evolution jumps about 10% when human evolution is not mentioned.

Can anyone point it out to me? I can't find it by searching. :-(

I just got a legislative survey from my state (IN) senator stating she wants to have a constitutional amendment to make church's tax exemption status permanent because of the threat against it.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: churches should not be tax-exempt, but rather should be required to file, providing complete disclosure and in the process attempt to meet specific deductions based upon charitable work done in the community. It's often said that the power to tax is the power to destroy, but we tax all manner of things now. At one time there was no income tax. The exemption is a holdover from a time in which taxes were virtually non-existent. Why should churches be exempt? Churches that actually do work in the community, in which the leadership and staff receive appropriate compensation, have nothing to fear. In fact, many churches today voluntarily file as a way of demonstrating their transparency on financial matters to any who care to look.

J-Dog (#7),

In Texas at least, you can start your own church and get tax exempt status, even if you're an atheist. You have to provide evidence that your church is actually churchy enough, with regular activities and so on, but you don't have to believe in god or an afterlife.

The North Texas Church of Free Thought is a tax-exempt atheist/freethinker church in the Dallas - Fort Worth area.

In the past, Texas Comptrollers have tried to strip nontheistic organizations of tax exemptions, including Buddhist temples and Unitarian Churches. The courts have ruled that they can't do that.

It's all very stupid, of course. An atheist group shouldn't have to call itself a church to get equal treatment, and none of these groups should be tax exempt. On the other hand, if christians get break for getting together and talking about it, we should get one too, for getting together and doing what we do.

Most atheist organizations settle for the usual kind of tax-exempt nonprofit status (501 C(3)) and wouldn't want to call themselves "churches" to get the extra advantages. (Like exemption from financial disclosure rules.)

just an FYI for all hoosiers but speaking of legislative surveys here is one you may want to check out.

11. The concept of intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have developed by chance, and a purposeful being or force is guiding the development of life. Would you support new standards for public school science classes that would teach both evolution and intelligent design?
Yes
No
I have no opinion

http://www.in.gov/surveytool/public/survey.php?name=hr58_L08_Burton

How does one become more active in assuring this crap does not get passed? If I had not googled indiana legislative survey, I would have never seen this.

When did number of bathrooms become the gauge for measuring mansion size?

idunno, but it does make a certain sense. after all, the plumbing issues make bathrooms harder to build than bedrooms, which is why the bedroom:bathroom ratio tends to exceed 1; we can assume that the preacher's mansion likely has more than 10 bedrooms, and possibly closer to 20.

and i strongly second the motion that all tax exempt organization ought to be required to put all their financial books in the public record, as a check and balance on their taxational (is that a word?) advantages. churches first, they've had tax exemption the longest.

Dammit... The GCoA (Gnostic Church of Atheism) is falling on hard times. We need your money NOW! Please support your local chapter today.

The tax exemption for churches derives from the anti-establishment clause in the Constitution, and is based on Enlightenment principles. It ensures that the state has no vested interest in promoting one church (say, a revenue-generating church) over another. Can you imagine the government-sponsored PSAs encouraging us to tithe if churches were taxed? Would there be a surtax on people who don't go to church, to make up the lost revenue? Let's keep churches tax-exempt.

However, the other necessary part of the equation is ensuring that churches are not tax-supported, either, which is why the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives is unconstitutional and must be abolished.

That said, I think there's a sound basis ("promote the general welfare") for requiring churches to file complete financial disclosure statements and have regular independent audits. "Religious profiteering" should be a crime. And there should be prison terms for frauds and hucksters.

@ #4: Street sweeping is indeed one of the many freebies that churches enjoy as part of their tax-exempt status. The net effect of this is that all taxpayers subsidize core municipal services which churches don't pay for since they are exempt from property tax.

Garbage collection not so much; in my city it's billed as part of a combined city utilities (gas, water, sewer, trash and recycling) -- churches pay for this. In rural areas trash collection is often not a government service and churches must contract for this with private services, just like everyone else. However, the garbage companies could comp trash-removal services to churches then deduct that from their income taxe, which deprives the government of tax revenue.

It would be a really big deal to change the status quo, and ultimately it would require a US Supreme Court with a vastly different outlook than the current SCOTUS. The presumed two SCOTUS appointments which the next president will make are probably not enough to tip that balance.

#14 & #17: These surveys put out by legislators are generally just a PR ploy to give the constituents the impression that their legislator is doing something about the issues. This is known as grandstanding.

Legislators often take this a step further and sponsor pandering, feel-good legislation which often fails to make it out of committee, rarely passes, and when it does pass if often struck down by the courts. But the legislator gets to claim that he tried to do something, but was thwarted.

I have a dim recollection that there's something in an obscure holy book about camels and monocular needles. I can't quite remember where I read it, or why it might be relevant in this thread.

Grrr.

Bob

J-Dog (#7)

Hmmmm. I wonder if a First Church of Atheism, led by Pastor J-Dog would be tax exempt?

You probably could, but then you have to find the gullible masses to hand you over the money. Now if you called it something like, "Church of the Latter-Day Southern-Fried Chicken Christ", and the chicken was tax-exempt, then you'd be on to something :)

If only I were a lying scum-bag like a Mega-Church Pastor...cuz I think I would like some time in sunny Hawaii.

Or, of course, there's always just the lying scum-bag approach; probably easier in the long run!

J-Dog (#7) You probably could

I can't quite remember where I read it, or why it might be relevant in this thread.

That's alright; the preachers probably couldn't remember where it was either...

(dagnamit! Where'd that duplicate half-sentence in my previous comment come from. I never make mistakes like

Bob @23: (from memory) "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." This is from somewhere in the Bible. I seem to recall that they've discovered that the ancient walled city of Jerusalem had a city gate called "the eye of the needle" due to its size.

The Constitution only prevents the Federal IRS from collecting taxes on churches, FYI.

Most states and local municipalities also follow suit, but there are quite a few individual counties and cities around the US who tax church property just fine to make them pay for the services like sanitation, police, etc. They aren't common, but they are out there.

I think all non-profits should be held to the same standard at every level, but the fed gov doesn't even require churches to follow its own standards for the faith based initiatives. They just give the churches a bunch of money and turn a blind eye, with a nod and a wink, to all of the unconstitutional proselityzing that goes on with government money.

You've got to put me on a different scale than the little black preacher sitting over there that's supposed to be just getting by because the people are suffering.

So, if you're a demented fuckwit and a bigot, you get tax-exempt status.

Really nice.

Now I know we've been over this before.

Churchs are already considered under IRS regulations as covered under the 501(c)(3) tax requirements.

See: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Churchs are not automatically tax-exempt, and parts of their income are also not tax-exempt. Further, the salaries paid to their employees are not tax-exempt. They can also lose their tax-exempt status by not abiding by the requirements of a 501(c)(3) status.

Why are churches often so guilty of tax fraud? I can't answer that question, but I can provide some possibile answers.

1. There are so many churches that the IRS cannot audit them all. Or even a significant fraction of them.

2. Because of the number of churches, the IRS has reduced the application requirements to a statement that the church meets the requirements of the IRC 501(c)(3). That is, a church doesn't need to apply for IRC 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, it is assumed.

3. If an individual church has a parent organization which is tax-exempt under the IRC 501(c)(3) requirements, then the individual church is automatically covered.

4. Leaders of churches, both religious and secular, are not necessarily familiar with the requirements to retain tax-exempt status. Which includes the requirement that the church should not attempt to influence legislation or intervene in political campaigns.

What is needed at this point is enforcement, not additional laws. I'd start with the parent organizations. Let them know that the IRS will revoke tax-exempt status from every church in the parent organization if a single church is found to be grossly violating their tax-exempt requirements.

Re: #17

Thanks, Kevin; I wouldn't have known of the poll if you hadn't mentioned it here. I went right over and took it.

In the comment box, I added:

"Re: #11. "Intelligent design" is not a science and should not be allowed in science classes. Evolution should be mandatory, but is probably avoided in most schools because of outside pressure. This handicaps all biology majors once they reach college."

I'll check back on Burton's site to see what develops.

-- CV

Let's face it, if Jesus was in the 21st century he would make a megachurch (presumably in the bible belt) and make millions.

These guys are spreading the word (and picking a little under the table).

I think it was Hitchens who put it this way: churches speak of riches in the next life while hoarding them in this one. Heh.

No. There was no such gate as the "eye of the needle", in Jerusalem or anywhere else. That appears to be an attempt by certain people to make Jesus seem less strict on rich people. What he meant to say is what he said. Basically, that rich people ain't going to get in. Which matches rather well with his other orders to "Give all you have to the poor".

I figure it's time we tax entities on how they collect and spend money, not the metaphysical status they ask for themselves.

Flex @ 29 wrote: Why are churches often so guilty of tax fraud?

This may shock the readers of Pharyngula (not), but some people declare themselves to be ministers for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.

MikeM @28,

if you're a demented fuckwit and a bigot, you get tax-exempt status

Bishop Long might well be a demented fuckwit, but it doesn't appear one can fairly label him a bigot (at least, not an anti-black racial bigot; he does seem to be a terrible homophobe).

The web page is worth a visit if only for the constantly-changing photos of the Bishop in his various costumes, including one that he obviously stole from Dr Evil.

B.M. @26,

they've discovered that the ancient walled city of Jerusalem had a city gate called "the eye of the needle"

This seems to be an urban legend believed by many American evangelicals. From what I have read, there never was such a gate (and Israeli tour guides are often amused by the many Americans tourist asking where it is). The "eye-of-a-needle-as-city-gate" story is pretty clearly a fiction inventeed by preachers appealing to rich Christians who found Jesus's advice to the rich man in the story inconvenient.

As it happens, there's a discussion of this very topic in a Sadly, No! comments thread today, which also includes a link to an earlier Slacktivist post on the topic (which in turn links to some websites discussing more plausible theories about what the saying is supposed to have meant).

"I pastor a multimillion dollar congregation. You've got to put me on a different scale than the little black preacher sitting over there that's supposed to be just getting by because the people are suffering."

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall be patronised.

What a cock.

#26, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic about not being able to remember the source of that quote...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the 501(c)(3) barred the organization from endorsing political candidates? I'd love to hit 'em where it hurts and force some of these rich hypocritical shits to choose between the money or their political pandering.

Mechalith @38,

I'd love to hit 'em where it hurts and force some of these rich hypocritical shits to choose between the money or their political pandering.

Investigate, and strip tax exemptions from, preachers who shill for the hard right? Under a Republican administration, literally unthinkable. Even the Democrats are unlikely to pick that fight.

Mrs Tilton @ 36.

Seriously, I take the phrase "little black preacher" to be extremely racist. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but it's an expression I certainly would not use.

I don't know if that is of any interest to anyone but in my country (Greece) the church is not separated by the state. The Church can own property and land (it owns a big % of the national bank stocks and a big % of all the land that can be cultivated as well as thousands of houses and offices all around the country). It is a "company" that produces huge profit and of course it is tax-exempt. The worse part is, the "salaries" of the priests are paid by the tax-payers money because they are still considered "civil servants".

So they make millions, don't pay taxes and we get to pay their salaries too.

Bureaucratus Minimis wrote, "... some people declare themselves to be ministers for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes."

Well, yes. I think that goes without saying. And there are examples of other, non-religious, organizations declaring IRC 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in order to avoid paying taxes.

By creating a tax-exempt status in our tax code, we create a loop-hole for people to avoid taxes. I'm not against having a tax-exempt status for charitable organizations in our tax code. Most tax-exempt organizations are probably aware of the requirements and comply with them.

Yet, by granting churches a special ability to declare tax-exempt status, simply because of the sheer number of them, we provide a easy route for allowing an unscrupulous individual to defraud the system. Which is probably one reason why churches seem to have a greater problem with tax fraud.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the 501(c)(3) barred the organization from endorsing political candidates? I'd love to hit 'em where it hurts and force some of these rich hypocritical shits to choose between the money or their political pandering.

Unfortunately, meekly asking that churches comply with such petty things as laws is about as big a political non-starter as one can find. You know, aside from devouring infants and kicking puppies. Or being an atheist.

MikeM @40,

I take the phrase "little black preacher" to be extremely racist

I agree the phrase is highly offensive. I'm just not certain it's racist in this case.

From a non-black person, it would be undeniably racist. Long, however, is himself a black preacher (though judging by his photos, too well-fed to be called "little"). Coming from him, "little black preacher" might be a less extreme version of black people using the "N-word". That is: whites shouldn't dream of doing it; there's a good case to be made that black people shouldn't either (and I know a lot of black people who do make that case); but if a black person does use those terms, whilst it is certainly in bad taste, I'm not sure it's necessarily racist.

#17, and other Hoosiers: each of your elected representatives has a survey. Not all of them mention Intelligent Design, but all of them seem to have a freeform area for additional comments. Take *your own* legislators' surveys. To find them, go here. Once you've located your representative or senator, click their name to go to their page. They should have a link there to their own survey.

In the additional comments, I made sure to let mine know how I feel about tax exemptions for churches, "teaching the controversy," and those stupid license plates. I also made sure to let him know that I vote and I will vote against him if he votes in favor of religion in any form.

BTW,

If you are interested in what the IRS is doing to investigate political activities by 501(c)(3) organizations, you may be interested in the following seven page report: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/2006paci_report_5-30-07.pdf

Yes, it's six months old, but after the 2004 election cycle, the IRS had so many complaints about inappropriate political activity by tax-exempt organizations that they started an inititative to educate tax-exempt groups about the requirements to remain tax-exempt.

What strikes me as important about the above report is that while the IRS identified 166 potential cases in the 2004 election cycle, there were 237 potential cases in the 2006 election cycle. But the number examined went from 110 to 100.

It is likely that there were a lot more cases which could have been identifed, and more of the cases could have been examined.

Not that this has much to do with the original topic of this thread.

Consider Bishop Eddie Long, who pastors a megachurch in Lithonia, Ga. With a salary approaching $1 million a year and a nine-bathroom mansion situated on 20 acres

Just how full of shit do you have to be to need 9 bathrooms?

what was it again that jesus said about rich men and heaven?

However, the other necessary part of the equation is ensuring that churches are not tax-supported, either, which is why the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives is unconstitutional and must be abolished.

If you want to make your head explode with rage, follow the links from www.whitehouse.gov to the faith-based initiatives site, then dig around until you find the big PDF in which the describe where the $4 billion went. How about $150 million to religious organizations so they could teach abstinence as a viable response to the AIDS epidemic? Or the $300,000 for a new roof for a church in texas? Or hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations that teach submission to "a higher power" as a necessary step for dealing with substance addiction?

Does this equate to vote-buying? Do you think that maybe, just maybe the republicrats realized that by tossing money to the religious organizations that those religious organizations would "get the vote out"?? And do you think the demicans will be able to resist the temptation to play the same game, harder, because it works?

Whenever you hear stories of billions of dollars of taxpayer's money being parachuted to contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan - with no accountability - just remember that the same thing is going on right here at home. Except it's going to all those nice churches. At least we know the churches are honest, right?

I have to go puke, now.

An argument that I have heard, but am not seeing here in favor of ecclesiastical tax exemptions is the principle of "No taxation without representation". Effective what is being said is that if the church is a taxed entity, then it should be allowed a seat at the political table, just like any other taxed entity.

If I understand correctly a corporation can make contributions to a political campaign, can encourage its stakeholders to do the same, or even use its resources directly to support a campaign or issue. A church cannot legally do these things. (Yes, they do them anyway.)

The thinking is if they are paying taxes they should be allowed to do these things.

Perhaps instead churches should be charged user fees for those services that they are using. Playing a percentage of road maintenance for their frontage, fees for use of police and fire protection proportionate to their requirements. Perhaps even an offset for the amount of property taxes that the municipality has to forgo because of the land taken up by the church.

"what was it again that jesus said about rich men and heaven?"

That it's easier for a camel to pass through that big wide-open city gate over there, wink wink.

The really sad thing is that for any nonreligious charity of any size in the US, you can look up their form 990, and see how they're spending money. The ability to do so makes me trust the secular charities a lot more than the religious ones.

"I pastor a multimillion dollar congregation. You've got to put me on a different scale than the little black preacher sitting over there that's supposed to be just getting by because the people are suffering."

Wait.

What?

I'm trying to follow the logic here. It seems to me that he's saying, "I pastor a rich congregation that makes a lot of money -- and that entitles me to live a lifestyle that Caligula would be envious of."

In other words, the fact that his church is rich has become, in itself, the justification for why it's okay for him to rake it in and live like Donald Trump. "My church is rich, therefore I have to live in a mansion. It's expected."

And the existence of preachers who actually try to live the principles of poverty as clearly stated in the Gospels, in one of the few Gospel teachings that isn't a mass of vagueness and self-contradiction? That's not a role model to be admired and emulated. That's a pathetic loser to be sneered at and dismissed. He's not on the same scale as me. He doesn't even drive a Bentley!

The self-fulfilling circle of rationalization is astonishing. Truly a miracle to behold.

This is not a megachurch phenomenon in the slightest. The church I grew up in was pretty damn coddling of its pastors and the bishop. They didn't roll anything close to what this singular pastor has, but it was a heck of a lot more than anyone I knew had. The church was the seat of the diocese, and even being so, it was not a terribly large congregation...maybe a couple thousand people across many services, if even that. The church itself could only seat maybe 250 people, maybe up to 500 in the adjoining building.

The bishop got to live in a well appointed building housing the office of the diocese, and as altar boys my friends and I got to go see his pad. He'd order us pizza and stuff during the big holidays, and we'd get to skip out on school (though not our assignments) because we had to go practice for the big services. (Look, I know some people may be thinking some dastardly sexual antics ensued, but I am very happy to say no pastor I ever knew was a molesting criminal, nor made any such advances to me or anyone I knew). The bishop rolled a Cadillac if I recall correctly, and the pastors had new/relatively new cars that were given to them as gifts. They lived fairly easy lives financially because most things were given to them. I don't recall overt flaunting of money and "bling", but they lived well enough. This was all back in the 80s and very early 90s.

This millionaire preacher with a 7-figure salary and tons of toys is, as usual, not living his creed. If he were in busines, I wouldn't have an issue with it. As a supposed spiritual leader, he's all do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. But he's one example of the problem with organized religion: it starts out with good intentions and just becomes a mirror image of society. They'll deny it all day long, but they're kidding themselves. If they gave all that extra money to solving the problems they say government can't solve, they'd actually prove their stupid political points. They keep quoting the Bible story about the poor woman who gave her last two coins to the poor even when she was destitute; it's not surprising I never see them do the same.

They (unsurprisingly) don't seem interested in that however...

BlueIndependent wrote

This millionaire preacher with a 7-figure salary and tons of toys is, as usual, not living his creed.

On the contrary, he is living his creed. See Prosperity Gospel for more info on the particular theological movement Bishop Eddie Long and other pastors of megachurches (e.g., Rod Parsley in Ohio) base their lavish lifestyle on.

"You probably could, but then you have to find the gullible masses to hand you over the money."

That's why L. Ron Hubbard was smart to go after college students and movie stars.

Myself, I'm partial to the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent. "God's so great and you're so small, he doesn't care about you at all."

If churches were to be truly placed on an equal footing with other entities, then they would have to submit their therapeutic products (faith healing and prayer for relief from disease) to FDA monitored three phase testing to prove efficacy, and to determine side effects and proper doses, and these protocols would only be administered after FDA approval. In addition, they would have to prove to the FTC, that they really do deliver on their main and highly advertised products, salvation and everlasting life. Church leaders who really do have faith in their teachings should have no argument with these requirements.

@ 56:

Well, it's not the creed of people who claim to be "Christians", and I notice who their selection conveniently is not New Testament, but Old, which speaks to the kind of groups that have adopted it. It's not how I was taught in the church either. I notice this has come about in the age of televangelists as well, during the time in our history where we are most fat and lazy, where money flows to the top and ill-placed respect for people with wealth is rampant.

It's also simply another example of the incongruent nature of the Bible, the inability of its followers to outline a consistent line of thinking throughout the thing, and the vacillating nature of their beliefs as society and economic times change.

Greed is god.

AnInGe - I like your thinking... but until this happens, please send me money for my First Church of Christ Bashers.

Thank you in advance for your donation.

A lot of large non-profits make payments to their local government in lieu of taxes - colleges, for example. Large prosperous churches should be required to do the same, or lose their tax-exempt status since they are obviously functioning at a profit.

The "little black preacher" in the storefront church is managing on a shoestring budget, and probably doing more direct good in his/her community.

I say this as an areligious person who, however, has read a lot of the gospel. Jesus made it quite clear that his followers should not amass riches. Anyone who does is no different from any other snake oil salesman.

Ron Parker wrote: "In the additional comments, I made sure to let mine know how I feel about tax exemptions for churches, "teaching the controversy," and those stupid license plates. I also made sure to let him know that I vote and I will vote against him if he votes in favor of religion in any form."

Fortunately, none of my local reps made too many waves about religious issues, particularly ID. The senator wants to know about the tax exemption for churches, but did not leave a spot for general comments.

Nice one, AnInGe. I like the cut of your jib.

I've thought something similar about homeopaths and other snake oil peddlers. If they're so sure that their products work, they should be subject to malpractice suits if they have a bad outcome, just like so-called "western" practitioners.

Pablo,

My senator doesn't have the ID questions either. But on the mailer she sent out that I received she gave her full support for the church/property tax amendment and listed it as the fourth most important thing for the legislature to consider. No bills are being offered to take away a church's tax exemption. I intend on going to my teacher union's legislative kickoff, meet your reps. event next week and let her have it for pushing this grandstanding, fake issue while homeowner property taxes are soaring and school's are being underfunded. I guess they need something to rile up the religionists after the gay marriage amendment has gone the way of the dodo.

I have been to a mega-church in Cleveland, OH from time to time called "The Word". This place is the biggest load of BS I have ever seen. When you pull up in the parking lot all you see is Mercedes and cars loaded with Bling. I mean a pastor should pull up in a 1990's Ford. Now that would be appropriate.

They just paid for a three new hardwood basketball courts, which had to cost millions. These courts could put some of NBA practice facilities to shame. Not to mention there over ten brand new pool tables. On top of that they have two indoor soccer courts and a full service cafe inside. Its all for Jesus though so it is OK. These people are equal to hardened criminals in my eyes.

So wait a minute. I start a "company", use the noun "Church" in the name and I can make money AND not pay taxes! What a surprise you end up with this effect and spin-offs like Scien-tology.

In the future we will see the McDonalds Church, the Coke Church, the IBM Church, the Google Church as both the result of BRAND faith and good old business accumen.

After that, personal branding like "Tiger Church", "Paris Chruch" and even "Britney Church" once the agents figure this out.

Tax exemption is a very awe-inspiring motivation towards faith.

I believe that the congregations of these megachurches really like the lavish lifestyles of their pastors. It's some sort of badge for them - like being a fan of a successful sports franchise. Or even better - like the alumni of a Big-10 college who want to pay top dollar for a name coach.

I hope that I don't take pride in anything so stupid.

"Religious profiteering" should be a crime. And there should be prison terms for frauds and hucksters.
Isn't he running for president though?

An easy way to fix this is to provide a barrier in the tax code. If a tax-exempt status church organization has donation revenue over X amount of dollars, then the tax -exempt status is eliminated and subject to tax. The tax-exempt status was meant to help lower income churches & other tax exempt organization reduce their operating costs. However, some organzations are exploting the tax loophole.

Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz;
My friends all got porsches, I must make amends...

Well, given the topic, it seems appropriate. And to think the gyrations that Dawkins had to go through to get the RD Foundation recognized as tax-exempt in the U.S.

Grassley generally annoys me and maybe I need to give the guy a break - he is being impartial...as in maybe he really cares. Cool.

Word Of Faith Preachers. Are They Men Of God Or False Teachers? What Do You Think? Have Your Say

I think it is High Time that men of God STAND UP and speak the truth in love in response to what the Bible says about proper Christian conduct and how a Man of God should be an example to the Church and the unbeliever.First of all I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,That Jesus was born of a Virgin,That Jesus died on the cross of Calvary to provide redemption from sin,and that Jesus rose on the 3rd. day.And I also believe that Jesus Christ is THE ONLY WAY in which a man can find Salvation and eternal life and apart from faith in Jesus Christ men will be judged by God who is Holy to an eternity in Hell for their wickedness and sin.I also believe what the Lord said in
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Only those who are Born Again will be saved form God's wrath and eternal torment in hell.
Secondly the Bible clearly states that we are to consider all things by the Word of God so that we know how the Man of God should conduct himself.And the word of God says in 2 Timothy 2:15:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

And the word of truth is what we are to use to conduct our lifes.And if one studies God word they will find In 2nd Timothy 3:16-17: it states
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Gods word is profitable for many wonderful things and here in particular 4 Things.
1-For doctrine 2-For reproof 3-For correction
4-For instruction in righteousness

And these 4 Things are provided by God to us for a reason because without sound doctrine,without reproof,without correction and without instruction in rightousness
Then v:17 would not be correct which says:
17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So when some suggest that someone is judging by agreeing with what Senator Grassley is bringing out in the open about these Pastors lifestyles.
It has been reported in the US press that some of these 6 ministries Pastors under public scrunity who are Benny Hinn,Keneth Copeland,Crefflo Dollar Joyce Myers and others, that they fly in Cessana Jets,drive Rolls Royces and Bentley Convertables,live in Mansions worth from 2 Million Dollars up to 10 Million Dollars,stay in Presidentalial Suites for a sum of one Thousand Dollars up to Ten Thousand Dollars a night and have a Salary of $500,000 up to 1 Million, or 2 Million US Dollars .One of these 6 Pastors when asked on CNN IF THEY BELIEVED JESUS WOULD AGREE TO THEM HAVING A ROLLS ROYCE? HE SAID "YES Jesus would agree"

So when we look at what is taking place with Senator Grassley,s requested inquiry on ministries such as the above and in light of the scandal at Oral Roberts University where as even the President Richard Roberts resigned a little while back after his accountant informed the world that he was instructed to "cook the books" by Richard Roberts himself and the accountant was Fired.

And when you take into account that these 6 ministries teach false teachings that I Quote..
"We are all little gods" and that we have the power to create through our words,and the Properity Gospel.
Now if anyone agrees with what these above Word of Faith preachers teach,then let me ask you 3 questions.
#-1- Are you a little god?
#-2-Do you have the power to create by the words you speak?
#-3- Are you the Creator?
If you honestly answer no to any of these questions then I sincerely suggest that you check out the teachings of the above Word of Faith teachers because that is exactly what they teach.Check it out for yourself because that is not what the bible teaches at all.
Now perhaps one is being judgemental if you think that Doctrine Reproof,Correction and Instruction in Rightousness is not an appropiate measure to be guided by not only in these 6 Pastors ministries but in any Christian ministries.
And let me ask have you really dug into what The Word of Faith Movement teaches?I suggest that any one reading this finds out and become aware of what these ministries teach.The choice is yours.

It's about time that MEN OF GOD STAND UP and speak the word of truth in love and through Gods Word find Doctrine and Reproof false teachers and bring Correction so that people are not mislead and bring Instruction in righteousness so that people wiil be aware of what is happening.

I am an ordained Pentecostal minister in Regent Park -St. Jamestown Toronto.And I have a duty as a watchman of the church God has called me to lead.Here are some scriptures to that warn us of the very things we are talking about.

2nd.Peter 2:1-3 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2: And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3: And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

1 Timothy 4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1rst Timothy 6:3-11 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4: He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5: Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6: But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7: For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
8: And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9: But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10: For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
11: But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

1rst Peter 5:2: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3: Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

If anyone would like to discuss what My views are on any of the above statements or on the bible in general,please feel free to respond to this email... Pastor Mike Grady info@mgrady.net

Hey, Pastor Mike...

Instead of drive-by nonsense, how about you look at the website you're spamming and determine whether you want to engage. Maybe if you do you'll actually stick around instead of your hit-and-run silliness.

wow. that's a lot of nonsense. he must bore the hell out of his "flock".

what flock?

I'd bet this guy's "flock" consists of himself and his keyboard.

Pastor Mike Grady is a spammer who has posted the same diatribe verbatim in various forums.

He does seem to do the drive-by thing, posting his spiel and then not staying around to reply to people's responses.

I suggest he be disemvowelled or just deleted.

He drives a $350,000 Bentley

He must be channeling the divine! When I read that, I said out loud, "Jesus H. Christ"

Totally agreed with your conclusion, but even more important, if churches would just judge all of their potential elders by scriptural standards (1 Timothy 3 is a good one, it lists out specific criteria for pastors) then we wouldn't have scamsters like these low-lifes as pastors, mucking up the world and making Christ look bad.

I mean, that passage above even HAS THE REQUIREMENT that an elder should not be greedy for money. Duh.

Hey John,

Maybe you should just jettison the Bible and belief in supernatural fairies.

Hey Pastor at 71. Isn't that an oftly long way to say:
"People who try to gain money through Christian faith are not true Christians (references available upon request)"?

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

"Tax the FUCK out of the churches!"

"Get smart and I'll fuck you over -- sayeth The Lord."

"Children are naïve -- they trust everyone. School is bad enough, but, if you put a child anywhere in the vicinity of a church, you're asking for trouble."

-- Frank Zappa

P.S. This is for the Gore lovers.

"May your shit come to life and kiss you on the face."
-- Frank Zappa, to Mrs. Gore about parental advisory labels on album covers

I am not surprised by this revelation, after all the chritian religon depends heavily, for its existence, upon those who need it most, including even the scam artist/deceiver. Indeed, among the very large population of good, faithful sheep that crowd the churches and congregations, there unfortunately lurks an equally impressive number of wolves. Interestingly enough this is not by accident. Are these not the very sort of people that chritianity most desires to save? Well yes, of course they are, it is their stated mission to convert those most unworthy and immoral. This is not to say that every chritian is immoral however, far from it. The vast majority of them want to simply live a good life, yet for others this is not enough. What better place for a wolf to be therefore, cloaked in the mantle of unquestioned piousness, among a throng of deliciously trusting believers and adherents. Again, I am not surprised.

There has only been one real chhristian, the rest are merely believers.

Hey Jay,

I think you meant the Bush and Hucksterbee lovers.

If any of you consider The Word Of God Spam then maybe you are the one doing the drive by thing as you put it and one day when you arrive at your final destination, I hope you are prepared to meet God. I wrote about Senator Grassley and his investagation on Benny Hinn,Creflo Dollar Kenneth Copeland,Richard Roberts etc...I spoke the truth of Gods Word so that we are encouraged and informed about false teachers .But I'm sorry if the word of God offends some of you then that is the convicting power of the Holy Spirit going forth, and maybe you should take those issues up with God.Have you talked to Him lately?
God loves you and He will make a way for you no matter what you are facing in your life. Jesus cares for you.....

Pastor Mike, the 'word of god' doesn't offend us as such, well no more than any other BS trying to masquerade as truth does. But you are preaching to the wrong crowd, after all, it isn't us atheists conning people from behind religion's privileged tax exemption status, but your fellow believers in nonsense. I.e. your post would have more resonance with us if you went to their sites and 'gave' them the message instead of spamming us heathens. Ironically, you would probably get a much cooler welcome there than you got here. By the way, how can I take anything up with your non existent invention by bronze aged humans (i.e. your so called god). Perhaps now you can see the problem us atheist have when believers spout their drivel. Though I happily agree with your point that the leaders of the mega churches don't even live up to the standards set by the one they laud as the founder of their nonsense belief system.

I just think that financial records should be public and that the money should be allocated properly.

Pastor Mike Grady, grow the fuck up.