Look! It's the Intersection of Church and State: Somebody call the ACLU Last week I wrote about churches and synagogues being turned into homes. This week, homes are being turned into churches.

A man in Lake Bluff, IL recently converted a portion of his house into a church, and then claimed an $80,000 break on his property taxes because of a little known church-and-state loophole called parsonage. George Michael (no, not that George Michael) has a $3 million home in Lake Bluff, complete with an electric lift for his wheelchair-bound wife. But Michael and his family still found it difficult to attend church services (specifically Armenian church services) that were handicap accessible. So Michael took an online course and became an official member of the clergy thanks to the Church of Spiritual Humanism. He then went about constructing a church in his home.

Once the “church” was completed, Michael was able to ask for a huge discount on his property taxes. This discount is called parsonage.

Parsonage is the tax rule that allows clergy to exempt from their federal income taxes a portion of salary that's earmarked for housing costs. Nearly 100 years old, parsonage originated when many congregations provided housing to attract clergy to their communities. This exemption has broadened over the years to where today, clergy can exempt the annual rental value of their home from their taxable income, even if they own the home themselves.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court debated the constitutionality of parsonage. Because of that case, Congress passed the Clergy Housing Allowance Clarification Act of 2002, which President Bush signed into law. The act clarified the constitutionality of parsonage and also made clear that a parsonage allowance is now limited to the fair rental value of the home. (Previously, the parsonage value was determined using any one of three tests.)

Though Michael was initially challenged by the Lake County Board of Review, the Illinois Department of Revenue eventually found that Michael’s church is a real church (he provided photos of a church altar, the church's affidavit of organization from January 2007, church bylaws and copies of weekly church bulletins dating to December) and that he is eligible for a tax exemption.

Who says religion doesn’t pay?

Tajikistan’s last synagogue was razed to the ground recently, to make way for the new presidential palace, despite outcry from the community. Reading this got me thinking about sacred spaces that have been converted into not-so-sacred spaces. In some cases, like Tajikistan, is seems horrible and insensitive. But in other places, it’s not quite so bad.

New York Magazine recently covered an old synagogue converted into an artist’s loft. Something about it seems reasonably respectful. And then there’s a design firm in Utrecht, Zecc, that transformed an old chapel into a spacious and fairly trendy home.

I know people who have lived in synagogue apartments, or houses owned by their churches, and that doesn’t seem particularly strange to me, but living a regular life in a space that was previously used for worship? Can you imagine having sex two feet from where a bima used to be? Or taking a bath on what used to be an altar?

Crumbling history: Is it worth rebuilding?All over New York City, churches that were once synagogues still have hints of their Jewish pasts, from stained glass windows depicting scenes from the Torah, to Stars of David carved into wooden pews.  But while these churches once gave new life to historically Jewish buildings, the Times reports that many churches are meeting the same unfortunate fate as their predecessors. The recent re-opening of the Eldridge Street Synagogue is a positive sign, but there are countless smaller churches and synagogues in New York that are currently falling into disrepair, and it’s hard not to wonder what’s ahead for these struggling institutions. Does the Jewish community have a stake in preserving these landmarks, even if they’re not for our own use? Is saving the buildings really the best use of time and funds, or should efforts go towards emerging community centers? Or, as Stacey Kalish asks in her recent review of the new Deity bar in Brookly (formerly a yeshiva), should religious buildings be revamped for decidedly secular purposes? With structures deteriorating and congregation membership waning, these questions will undoubtedly continue to arise.