Nebraska’s Atheist State Senator Introduces Bill That Would Force Churches to Pay Property Taxes

Here's my very simplistic (an probably naive) take on the matter. If you are a church, stay a church; the second you step foot into politics you pay taxes. if you are a charity stay a charity, again step into the political arena, kiss your 501c3 status bye-bye. As one comment stated, "Churches are not charitable organizations. They often have charitable subsidiaries. The first should be taxed without exception, the subsidiaries should have to respect the laws on charitable organizations. If they evangelize in these charitable subsidiaries, they are the church and they should denied charity status."

Ernie Chambers is arguably the highest-ranking openly-atheist politician in the country right now. The African-American Nebraska State Senator served for 38 years (beginning in 1970), making him the longest-serving senator in the state’s history, until he was term-limited out in 2008. When he was eligible to run again in 2012, he did so and won easily.

And now he has introduced a bill, LB675, that would eliminate a state property-tax exemption for religious organizations — essentially taxing churches.

[,,,]
The purpose of LB 675 is to help the State gain more revenue, rather than less, by taking away churches’ property tax exemptions.

The Governor and candidates for governor have said that “everything should be on the table.” If taxes were paid on the many churches and cathedrals and temples in every city in this State, perhaps the State’s assistance to local governments and schools would be diminished considerably — leaving more in State coffers for other purposes.

Nebraska’s Atheist State Senator Introduces Bill That Would Force Churches to Pay Property Taxes

Council for Secular Humanism

The home in the photo (above) is the $1.75 million mansion of the Reverend Randy White, the former head pastor of Without Walls International Church in Tampa, Florida. While some people may be bothered by the fact that there are pastors who live in multimillion dollar homes, this is old news to most. But here is what should bother you about these expensive homes: You are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion—to the tune of about $71 billion every year.

We mention Rev. White because he was the impetus for this article. White and his mansion came up in a class taught by lead author Ryan T. Cragun. In that discussion, the other authors asked how much Pastor White pays in taxes on his income. The answer wasn’t readily available. Only a handful of publications in the sociology of religion have examined the finances of religions, and they are largely aimed at telling religions how to increase donations.1 Nowhere did we find prior research summarizing and detailing religious finances and tax policy, so we decided to investigate it ourselves. This article is the result. It took some digging, but we think we now have a moderately clear understanding of the tax laws regarding religions in the United States. What we found suggests that religious institutions, if they were required to pay taxes the same as for-profit corporations do, would not have nearly as much money or influence as they enjoy in America today. In this article we estimate how much local, state, and federal governments subsidize religions.

However, before we get into our calculations, we think it best to address a criticism that is likely to be raised about this article. By suggesting that these groups should pay taxes, we are likely to be criticized by those who think that religions are largely charitable institutions engaged in beneficial service or charitable work and should therefore be exempt from taxes. This criticism requires responses at two levels, because there are two ways to think about religious “charity.” The first type of charity is the type that most people think of when they hear the phrase “serving people’s physical needs” (feeding and clothing the poor, building schools, and the like). The second type is different and involves addressing people’s “spiritual concerns.” Council for Secular Humanism