Amendment for houses of worship

December 13, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
State Sen. Pat Miller says sheâ??s looking to the future by proposing a constitutional amendment that would protect churches and other houses of worship from someday being taxed.

Itâ??s not a â??crisis today,â?? but could become a problem in the future given the concern over rising property taxes, the Indianapolis Republican says.

Supporters of tax exemptions for houses of worship, or any not-for-profit for that matter, say the good the organizations do for society more than compensates for the loss of tax revenue. The more not-for-profits can be encouraged, the better, they say.

Others say the groups should pay their fair share regardless of what they accomplish. Not-for-profits require the same streets and fire protection as everyone else, so why shouldnâ??t they contribute? goes the argument.

Whatâ??s your take? Should not-for-profits be taxed?

Read the story.
  • Pat Miller. Worry about today's crisis. There's no danger of anyone passing a law that requires churches to pay property taxes in Indiana. This sort of reverse strategy, politically induced, pray upon the ignorant, simple minded, politician's days are numbered. This stuff got attention and votes a few years ago but not anymore. I hope it back-fires on her.
  • Considering the efforts of the religious sect in this country to infiltrate government, i feel churches should be taxed. I am all for churches remaining tax-exempt should the churches decide to once again recognize the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By the way, don't churches receive tax-payer dollars via the Bush administration's faith-based initiative?

    On a final note - In my opinion, the movement to mix religion and politics has done nothing but cheapen and commercialize religion
  • Bush's deal was just trying to secure Republican votes from religion. Their whole deal was trying to make it appear as if Democrats were anti-religion. When, in fact, the Bush guys are the least compasionate and most hypocritical. Here is Pat Miller's thinking...hmmm, if I can introduce legislation that would require a up or down vote on protection of Churches...and, the Democrats vote against it (obviously they would because there are already laws protecting Churches on the books and anyone with common sense would want to spend time on meaningful legislation instead of legislation that would simply be totally ineffective), then I would appear to be pro-church and get all the church vote. Ahhaa. I'm brilliant.
  • All property except government property should be taxed or no property should be taxed.

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

  2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

  3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

  4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

  5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....