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