Posted at 12.18.2018
The U. S. Supreme Judge stated in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 that non-taxation of churches is undergirded by "more than 200 years of virtually universal practice imbedded inside our colonial experience and continuing in to the present. " Here is why: There is a variation between constitutionally individual "sovereigns. " For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient compared to that authority. That is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the taxes and in the practical effect of promoting the sovereign get together. So, inside our constitutional structure, areas may not tax each other, and so they may not taxes property of the federal government. The Region of Columbia will not tax the property owned by international governments, and New York does not tax the property managed by the United Nations.
While the chapel is not subservient to the government, neither is the federal government subservient to the chapel. Although government can aid or support almost all types of interpersonal or educational institutions that have a public purpose by using tax money, the Supreme Courtroom mentioned in 1948 that "no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to aid any religious activities or organizations. " Thomas Jefferson coined the highly referenced "wall of parting" between cathedral and condition (however, not in the Constitution, as many folks expect). The parting he referred to must be bilateral and reciprocal. Whatever the amount of separation required by the Constitution, it is surely this: the federal government may well not make the church subservient by taxing its living.
In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Judge known that the church's "uninterrupted freedom from taxation" has "operated affirmatively to help assure the free exercise of most forms of spiritual notion. " The much misunderstood "separation between chapel and point out" is in reality designed to restrict the sovereignty of every above the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a posture for every single that is neither grasp nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for esteem of the chapel as another sovereign entity. Otherwise the government provides the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid completely. Indeed, as the high judge noted a long time ago, "the energy to tax involves the power to kill. "
The proven fact that the Constitution mandates a duty exemption for churches is among the finest reasons why churches aren't taxed.
Historically, Taxes Exempt Churches Have Benefited American Society
Even before the IRS (Internal Earnings System) ever been around, churches were taxes exempt. In fact, as the U. S. Supreme Court docket acknowledged in 1970 in the Walz v. Duty Commission circumstance, exempting churches from taxation is an "unbroken" background that "ranges our entire nationwide existence and even predates it. " Because of this unbroken record, churches have been included and named tax exempt in every income tax code passed by Congress because the very first attempt to pass an income duty code in 1894. In fact, the federal tax code identifies this special exemption for churches because churches are the only organization not required to seek progress approval of taxes exemption. They are believed automatically taxes exempt simply because of their status as a church. This "unbroken history" of duty exemption for churches that predates our nationwide existence is not something that is softly cast aside. And, as record demonstrates, churches have thrived and have benefitted society in many ways consequently of the liberty that moves from taxes exemption. It really is a mythical caricature that a lot of churches desire to be taxes exempt simply so they can unfairly hold on to more money than anyone else. This is a falsehood marketed by those who simply don't realize the facts.
Churches have been at the forefront of many of the beneficial interpersonal motions throughout American background. Historians concur that America owes its freedom, in great degree, to churches and pastors who spoke easily and passionately using their company pulpits and only independence. Pastors through the revolutionary time frame became known as the "Dark colored Regiment" because of their dark clerical robes and the fervor with which they supported freedom.
Churches also led the combat to get rid of child labor, promote women's suffrage, and were instrumental in ending slavery. Let's not forget pastors like Henry Ward Beecher who spoke with great effect against slavery from his pulpit at Plymouth Church in Brooklyn. And, of course, it was a pastor, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. , with the support of churches, who helped to get rid of segregation. A concurring thoughts and opinions passed down by the U. S. Judge of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as lately as Feb 25, 2009, cites such examples and concluded:
"An unregulated, unregistered press is important to our democracy. So can be unregulated, unregistered churches. Churches have played an important-no, an essential-part in the democratic life of america. . . . Is it necessary to evoke these ancient struggles and the great constitutional benefits received for the united states by its churches to be able to choose this circumstance of petty bureaucratic harassment? It's important. The memory of the memorable fights grows cold. The liberals who applaud their results and stay in their light your investment motivation that drove the champions of freedom. They approve religious treatment in the political process selectively: it's great when it's on their side. In a secular age, Independence of Talk is more talismanic than Freedom of Religion. However the second option is the first independence in our Charge of Protection under the law" (Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Cathedral of East Helena v. Unsworth).
Since our country was founded, churches not only led great interpersonal actions, but also freely preached on political applicants' skills for office. That was no problem when the Constitution was agreed upon, or when the first commissioner of interior income was appointed in 1862, or when the federal government income tax was approved by the 16th Amendment in 1913. Nor were churches transformed into politics machines. Churches simply spoke when their moral speech would have to be heard-even during election season-and chosen for themselves that they required their pastors to preach.
Tax exemption empowered churches to exist without pointless encumbrance by the federal government and also to be the moral make in these great public motions in American record. This historical record of tax exemption can be an important reason churches should continue to be tax exempt.
Tax Exemption Shields the Free Exercise of Religion
Churches are tax-exempt under the basic principle that there surely is no surer way to damage the free exercise of religious beliefs than to tax it. If the government is permitted to taxes churches (or even to condition a duty exemption on a chapel refraining from the free exercise of religion), the door is open up for the government to censor and control churches and the free exercise of religion. But that's not merely an opinion. It is the understanding of the U. S. Supreme Court docket.
In Walz v. Duty Commission payment, the high judge stated that a taxes exemption for churches "creates only a minor and remote engagement between chapel and talk about and much less than taxation of churches. restricts the fiscal marriage between chapel and talk about, and will complement and strengthen the desired parting insulating each from the other. " The Supreme Judge also said that "the energy to tax consists of the energy to damage. " Taxing churches reduces the healthy separation of chapel and express and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religious beliefs. As the Massachusetts Talk about Tax Commission put it in 1897, "The overall exemption of homes of worship is a fit popularity by the Talk about of the sanctity of faith. "
For those concerned about an appropriate separation between chapel and express, no better way prevails to ensure it than to keep churches taxes exempt. If the government were to start to taxes churches, it always asserts sovereignty, electricity, and control over churches.
An exemplory case of how the authorities can abuse its electricity against churches in this area is in the passing of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches and other non-profits from straight or indirectly assisting or opposing political prospects for office. A church's tax exemption has been conditioned on obedience to this mandate since 1954 when Lyndon Johnson was instrumental in adding this prohibition to the tax code. Scholars concur that the Johnson Amendment was a revenge piece of legislation fond of two non-profit foundations opposing Johnson for Senate. Johnson did not concentrate on churches, yet for 55 years, churches have been prohibited from preaching about prospects for office. The Johnson Amendment perpetuates something requiring government brokers to monitor and parse what of a pastor's sermon to find out whether that sermon violates regulations and consequence should be meted out. That system is an increased and unreasonable federal entanglement with religion.
In 1943, the Supreme Court stated, "When there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is the fact no standard, high or petty, can suggest what will be orthodox inreligion, or other concerns of judgment. " The court docket didn't add ". . . except when pastors solve the main topic of electoral candidates. " Since 1954, the IRS and its own petty representatives have had the opportunity to suggest for churches what is orthodox in concerns of religion. This isn't religious freedom in virtually any sense of this phrase. Alternatively, this is spiritual orthodoxy mandated by the federal government, and it falls heaviest on those churches who believe their beliefs compels those to do what churches did for years and years: talk about the moral fitness of electoral applicants from the pulpit.
The Johnson Amendment offers a stark exemplory case of the power of the government to ruin the free exercise of faith. The surest way to protect the free exercise of religion is to keep the healthy separation between chapel and state fostered by taxes exemptions for churches.
Taxing Churches Involves the federal government as Church Conversation Police
Since 1954, the federal government has prohibited churches from talking about a certain section of life in order to maintain their taxes exemption. Pastors are allowed to speak about anything they would like to from the pulpit of their cathedral except how Scripture applies to our electoral politics. Called the Johnson Amendment, due to its sponsor Lyndon Johnson, this prohibition has enabled IRS realtors to screen and censor sermons preached from the pulpit for nearly 55 years. Allowing the government to condition taxes exemption on the church refraining from preaching over a certain concern allows the IRS to act as speech authorities and monitor churches for conformity.
The Johnson Amendment allows authorities to determine when a pastor's speech becomes too "political. " That is an absurdly absurd standard. A pastor's talk from the pulpit that addresses prospects in light of Scripture is spiritual speech. That conversation doesn't become politics any more when compared to a pastor's speech becomes commercial when he addresses from Scripture the existing financial debacle on Wall Street. Allowing federal providers to make that dedication is as absurd as requesting a first-grader to design and build NASA's next space shuttle.
The Johnson Amendment also allows the federal government to parse the content of any pastor's sermon to ascertain whether it violates the law. That is called a content-based limitation on speech, which the Free Speech Clause prohibits unless the federal government has a powerful reason to censor speech based on its content. And you would have to disregard reality to agree that any powerful reason been around for Johnson's amendment.
Allowing the government to police speech is a bad idea that has dangerous repercussions for liberty-a theory our nation's founders known most clearly. The ultimate way to protect liberty, and specifically religious liberty, is to get the federal government speech police out of the business of researching a pastor's sermon. That is room for the government in a free society. Taxes exemption for churches protects freedom of speech and gets the government from the role of policing a church's speech.
Taxing Churches Makes No Functional Sense
Under simple reasoning, churches and other nonprofit organizations are exempted from income taxes. Though it's very true that such organizations are beneficial to the general public in lots of ways, that's not what truly justifies their exemption, as is often argued; it is their living as non-profit entities that will. Taxation naturally applies to profit-makers, the generators of income upon which federal depends. As Professor Dean Kelley pointed out in his book, Why Churches SHOULDN'T BE Taxed, "Other entities would be pointless, since they are not in virtually any meaningful sense producers of prosperity. " It's the very nature of an nonprofit organization that makes it tax exempt for the reason that it generally does not produce riches like businesses or other taxed entities. So, it creates no practical sense to tax these organizations.
In simple fact, taxing such nonprofits discourages their lifestyle and sums to dual taxation. First, all residents, if involved in a church or other nonprofit, are taxed on the individual earnings. As professor Kelley again pointed out, "To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be 'dual taxation' indeed, and would effectively provide to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which donate to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy. " The thing a duty exemption for a non-profit business like a chapel does is to ensure that the money an individual puts into a non-profit goes to the purposes he intends without having to be diverted by the government, which the specific already supports in his individual capacity.
Charles Eliot, ex - Leader of Harvard, said it best in testimony before the Committee on Taxation in 1906 when he stated, "Things that make it beneficial to liveanywhere in the civilized world, are exactly the things which are not taxed. " Churches are one of the items that have made it worthwhile to stay in the civilized world. Churches, throughout history, have advanced American society and have acted as real estate agents of positive societal change, in addition with their reason for providing meaning for people's lives and ministering to the neighborhood community. Even many federal government court opinions, right up to the present day, have acknowledged this. To taxes churches is to discourage the key work they certainly in society and also to double-tax the those who support the cathedral. This makes no sensible sense.
Read more: Should Churches be Duty Exempt? | Answerbag Debates http://www. answerbag. com/debates/churches-tax-exempt_1855555#ixzz0vHJh7kVV
Church Exemptions Imply Churches Profit Society Merely by Existing
Many churches - too many - are taking good thing about the system, using taxes exemptions for selfish or even antisocial goals (e. g. , Branch Davidians, the "Holy Land" terrorist leading, Scientology, and multi-millionaire televangelists).
The fact is that a church is just another kind of club, but it gets special treatment because the membership preaches in regards to a mythology or religion (ditto). In order for any other membership to gain tax-exempt status, they need to adhere to regulations, declare their income, and prove their worthwhile to society as a whole. Religious clubs get treated in another way ONLY because they discuss religion, instead of stamp collecting or today's best-selling catalogs. This is obviously illegal, and it's clearly incorrect.
It's illegal because it offers advantages to religious institutions but not with their secular counterparts; it's wrong because it assumes that each religious institution benefits population by just existing. Churches do not need to perform any service whatsoever in order to get these considerable exemptions; they merely need to declare themselves spiritual to be tax-free.
Let the Churches Choose!
By removing the automatic tax exemption for religious establishments from the IRS nonprofit code, one of the following two changes will take place at every religious institution:
1) They'll pay their rightful taxes. This, subsequently, will gain everyone in the community by cutting down the taxes burden, producing more home income which taxpayers can then change and contribute to the church with their choice. As an away, this will also allow spiritual organizations expressing political views, as many so desire.
2) They'll EARN their nonprofit position by carrying out real charity help the community at large (be aware: "outreach" is not charity, but merely another term for "marketing"). Many churches already are accomplishing this, and as long as they can show their charitable activity very much the same as other nonprofits, this might continue. However, the probability of losing duty exemption will be a strong stimulus for churches that are not earning their position to step up their charity work, again assisting the community most importantly.
Churches have been and will continue to be useful to society on the whole, and such earnest organizations should keep their rightful place beside other tax-exempt organizations that serve community and country. By eliminating the spiritual exemption we'd implement a good and equitable tax provision that benefits everyone except those who abuse the system or leech from it.
Read more: Should Churches be Duty Exempt? | Answerbag Debates http://www. answerbag. com/debates/churches-tax-exempt_1855555#ixzz0vHJxiEuR
Anton Tanquintic: uh
Anton Tanquintic: explain the goal of a tax and declare that nothing is above the law
Anton Tanquintic: then defend
Anton Tanquintic: that's one argument
Should churches obtain tax exemptions on the property? Should spiritual organizations be tax exempt in their businesses - even those which compete with for-profit companies? Should individuals get duty deductions for bills at private spiritual schools? It's important to understand what types of exemptions exist, why they exist, and the way the various court circumstances have proceeded. A lot more you know, the better enlightened your wisdom will be.
Tax laws are more difficult than the average indivdual can immediately understand; tossing into the mixture various things tax-exempt organizations might or might not be allowed to do threatens to make the activity of understanding superhuman in mother nature. The truth is, however, the problem isn't all that complicated and the restrictions on what churches and spiritual organizations can do aren't hard to stick to.
To what amount, and even if, duty exemptions should get to religious organizations and churches is determined by why taxes exemptions exist at all. If you believe tax exemptions exist because charities provide open public benefits, you may be suspicious of providing exemptions to churches. If you think tax exemptions can be found because charitable organizations have no net gain, then churches will should qualify.
Tax exemptions might not be the most typical concern facing courts in arguments over the separation of cathedral and status, it is one of the very most fundamental. Initially it looks a kind of authorities support for religions and religious activities; on the other side, the power to duty is the power to restrict or damage, so is exempting religions from taxation a way of guaranteeing their self-reliance?
Based upon judge rulings about how duty exemptions for charitable teams work, we can not be conclude that churches and religious organizations automatically should have exemptions. Although one is convinced that their religious beliefs and their church give a necessary consumer service, it does not follow that all religions and churches always provide a general public service which merits support through tax exemptions.
One of the key arguments proposed by those who oppose taxes exemptions for churches and spiritual organizations is that duty exemptions constitute a kind of subsidy for these communities. Subsidies for spiritual organizations are unconstitutional, however, because they symbolize a means where churches have the ability to obtain community, taxpayer support for their religious goals.
By not taxing churches, the federal government is averted from directly interfering with how churches operate. By the same token, those churches are also avoided from straight interfering with the way the government operates for the reason that they cannot endorse any political candidates, they cannot campaign on behalf of any candidates, plus they cannot harm any political prospect.
Not all churches and religious organizations have been content to live within the rules. Quite a few have attemptedto evade the guidelines, either secretly or very openly, to be able to permit churches and spiritual groups to take part actively in political campaigns even while keeping their charitable tax-exempt status.
Most people know that a chapel or religious corporation can lose their duty exempt position for engaging in partisan politics activity, like endorsing a politics applicant. What many aren't alert to, though, is that the same can occur for promoting or engaging in things contrary to government policy. Duty exemption is a privilege, not really a right.
It is an undeniable fact of legislations that charitable organizations, including churches, which have tax-exempt status aren't allowed to take part in political campaigns with respect to political candidates. A target of current initiatives is to produce a direct change in how the laws read in order to ensure that churches can become fully lively in political campaigns.
America's tax laws and regulations are made to prefer non-profit and charitable companies which presumably profit the community. Churches advantage the most from duty exemptions because they qualify for most of them automatically, whereas non-religious categories have to undergo a far more complicated application and authorization process. Why?
Tax exemptions on cathedral property used for specific worship purposes or religious work may be most easily defended due to charitable and community work performed. Serious problems enter into play, however, when church property is employed for commercial purposes. To what extent should the business activities of any religious group be duty
At a time when typical people are being informed to tighten up their belts and expect large reductions in public spending to be able to repay the huge federal debt incurred as the result of the financial meltdown, there are two groupings of people who continue steadily to live it up:
1 - The greedy and incompetent investment bankers who caused the financial meltdown in the first place and who, nevertheless, continue steadily to use the government authorities' recapitalisation handouts to pay themselves obscene bonus deals.
2 - Religious organisations.
While the United States and the European Union are giving an answer to the bankers' abject failure to show self-restraint by imposing restrictions on their bonus payments, they did little or nothing to redress the fact that religious organisations are ripping the rest of us off by not paying any taxes. 
So while reasonable, hard-working families struggle to make ends meet, televangelists such as Creflo Dollars continue to swan about in their completely new Rolls-Royces  and Catholic priests carry on living the life span of Reilly in their tax-free, all-expenses-paid parochial houses. [The YouTube videos are funny, of course, but there exists many a genuine word said in jest. ]
And how many hard-working, God-fearing family men can afford to employ young sex-workers to come with them on luxury, ten-day tours of Europe? Not many, but Baptist Minister George Alan Rekers can.  That's partially because he doesn't pay any duty. (Inside the hobbies of full disclosure here, by the way, I should explain that Rekers rejected realizing that his companion was a male prostitute, even though he chosen him from rentboy. com).
To put this matter into perspective, The Church of England (CofE) rakes in Ј1 billion ($1. 52 billion) annually tax-free and yet its website says that even though "over Ј200 million is given tax-efficiently each year through Gift Aid" and "a further Ј60 million is retrieved from the Inland Income in tax. " 
In other words, the CofE not only avoids adding to the public tote, it is actually jewing Ј60 million pounds yearly out of it!
And things are a whole lot worse in Germany where individuals are at the mercy of the 'Kirchensteuer' (Church Taxes) which nets protestant priests over EUR8 billion (Ј7 billion / $10 billion) every year.  An identical situation is out there in Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and Iceland where residents are also required by law to offer a percentage with their income to the church.
It appears to me that, with spiritual observance on the decline to a spot where, based on the CofE's own figures only 1 million people - just 1. 6% of the English population - go to church on Sundays , the chapel is becoming progressively irrelevant in the current more enlightened contemporary society. Yet the churches are still growing excessive fat at the trouble of regular, hard-working citizens who've to make up the shortfall in taxes receipts.
This is a scandalous and obsolete situation and I really believe it is high time that churches paid their way and, therefore, I duly affirm that spiritual organisations should no more enjoy their tax-exempt status.
 http://www. irs. gov. . .
 http://www. cbsnews. com. . .
 http://www. independent. co. uk. . .
 http://www. cofe. anglican. org. . .
 http://www. kirchensteuer. de. . . (in German)
 http://www. cofe. anglican. org. . .
Report this Argument
Religious organizations, for me, should not pay taxes from church series and other donations. Money got through collections and donations was already taxed (it comes from a group of folks who have already have been taxed). Additionally, a lot of the money gained through collections and donations is employed in the goal of supporting others (for example Haiti, earthquakes, money used to organize soup kitchens, and so on). On top of that, you will note that in certain countries, such as Ireland, 85% of the population attends church. That could mean the Church in Ireland has significant impact on the populace.
Religious individuals, on the other hand, should be taxed. I don't think that it is reasonable reverends who earn proceeds through televised programs ought to be permitted to keep any of it, or if they would be allowed, then that income ought to be taxed. Any real business (such as mass advertising, investments, etc, also ought to be taxed as it is a method of getting). Series and donations shouldn't be taxed because they are gifts.
I apologize beforehand for any spelling and/or grammar mistakes and for unclear phrases.
Additionally, I apologize for having such a short counter-argument, however, I am short on time. I beg your understanding.
http://www. nationmaster. com. . .
Report this Argument
I would like to thank Bernardio for his considered comments to that i make the next responses:
Ideally, there would be no fees, but a country must raise money somehow.
In days gone by, if a king needed money he'd put together a fleet of frigates and galleons that might be bristling with guns and canons. He would load these ships with cargos of military and send them over the Atlantic to the New World to rape and pillage newfound civilisations, and plunder their yellow metal and have it repatriated back again to Europe.
Unfortunately though, nowadays the US have a dim view of such activities which is, therefore, necessary for the federal government to collect money from the general populace instead.
This inevitably causes the double-taxation my opposition referred to. You pay taxes on the amount of money you earn so when you buy something with the money left the recipient compensates tax on the benefit from the sales.
But my opponent shows that churches shouldn't pay taxes because they "help others" in places like Haiti.
I investigated this and uncovered that a Baptist group from Idaho performed indeed travel to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake to "help others" - they were caught and accused of attempting to traffic 33 children from the country. 
Presumably their goal was to sell the youngsters to paedophiles rings in the us and if indeed they was not caught they would have been successful in their mission - their mission being to "help others" sexually molest susceptible children.
Meanwhile the Jewish Orthodox Union uses their tax-free donations to fund the Institute for Community Affairs  which can be an American lobby group that opposes humanitarian help being sent to victims of armed service hostility in Palestine, rejects the US and international legislations and supports the ethnic cleaning of Jerusalem and the illegitimate Jewish land grabs in the West Bank.
At once, there are widespread concerns that tax-free donations designed to mosques may be channelled in to the hands of Islamic terrorist groups. 
With respect to countries such as Ireland where chapel attendances are higher, the income from tax paid by the churches would be very useful in reducing their budget deficits and allow them to spend more money on academic institutions and hospitals.
In conclusion, the actions of religious organisations may appear worthy and noble by some: Christian paedophiles; racist Jews; Islamic terrorists as well as others; however, not everybody welcomes spending more tax to make up for the shortfall in receipts from tax-exempt churches, temples, mosques and synagogues.
http://www. debate. org/debates/Religious-organisations-should-no-longer-enjoy-their-tax-exempt-status/1/
 http://www. telegraph. co. uk. . .
 http://www. ou. org. . .
 http://www. foxnews. com. . .
Report this Argument
Agreed, a country must increase taxes to run a authorities though I question my competitors comment on the actual fact that pillaging is now illegal is a bad thing. I, individually, enjoy the simple fact that people can't run around using and stealing.
I also concede that there is a, focus on a, single group of Baptists who were seeking to use the problem in Haiti to there advantage. However, the info that did not reach the multimedia were the rest of the parishes that collected and directed money for real aid to refugees.
As far as the Jewish Orthodox Union using money for unlawful activities is something that should be fixed, but you will note that the Catholic Chapel will not use their tax free status for illegal activities. If you suggest that one of these of someone(s) doing something bad must influence laws for everyone, then we must all be in single skin cells. there are people who use the ability walk outside in order that they might take from others which is certainly illegal. Your reasoning dictates that people shouldn't be allowed outside.
Islam is a faith of peace. Therefore, when a mosque is actually Islamic, donations will not be used aid terrorists. If it's a mosque of radical Islam, then the UN should be acting in order to shut down a terrorist cell. On top of that, I'd like to point out that single illustrations should not effect all other illustrations. Furthermore, laws for taxation differ from country to country. I would like to point out that we now have countries in which a Church Tax is enforced. So in certain countries, such as Denmark, you would first be speaking out lowering authorities support to the church.
Also, I'd like to point out that corporations such as Wal-mart con the government out of millions. Isn't a somewhat bigger problem ( Wal-mart is also guilty of sexual discrimination, job of illegals, and a great many other offences. I am a lot more fine with the chapel getting free money then with Wal-mart getting free money. )
In finish, there a wide range of counter-examples to those people discussing the use that my challenger has provided as to the activities of religious organizations, I have provided types of other organizations that grab more income from the federal government than the chapel does and carry out other illegal activities, and I've remarked that many governments offer financial support from the treasury to churches.
Again, I apologize for any flaws, and many thanks.
http://en. wikipedia. org. . .
http://www. reclaimdemocracy. org. . .
http://www. reuters. com. . .
http://www. foxnews. com. . .
http://www. oppo singviews. com/qu estions/should- churches- be- tax- exemp