Should churches be taxed?

[Monksailor]

I think ALL that IRS taxes has probably been taxed at least once so that point is moot here, but a great point, generally speaking.

 

[Monksailor]

Your comment upsurged my feelings for my state charging "Luxury" vehicle lic plate fees EVERY year for the life of the car!!! I will never be able to afford a luxury car new but after they are 10-15 yrs old, when NO PERSON would think of it as a luxury car (in my state the salt cancer-rust-starts devouring the after 10 yrs or so) I can afford them BUT I can barely afford the blasted annual lic plate fee. They ALSO charge sales tax on the vehicle, RV, trailer EVERY TIME it sells.

 

[FenderTL5]

For ex., there is NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, "Separation of Church and State" phrase in our Constitution but ever since some two-bit ACLU attorney created it in the 40's (1940's)...

It is true that it is not in the Constitution.
However, The "wall of separation" language is considerably older than the 1940s.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
- Thomas Jefferson January 1, 1802 -

 

[Hank77]

I think ALL that IRS taxes has probably been taxed at least once so that point is moot here, but a great point, generally speaking.

Federal taxes are taxed on earned profit. Donations are not profit.
Should St. Jude's Hospital be taxed on donations given to them?
Should donation to political campaigns be taxed?

 

[Monksailor]

Federal taxes are paid on a lot more than that. Even capital used to start a business came from some taxed source. Even if it is from an inheritance or Loto win or lottery win. The source providing the inheritance or winnings paid taxes on it or the people it "solicited" it from paid taxes on it, even if a profit for the business providing the money/asset is not technically realized.

No, I believe not, St. Judes meets the qualifications which I have suggested. Political campaign donations; YES. Politics today is doing favors for favors. A political campaign contribution is a favor looking for a favor in return and usually receiving a favor. It is REALLY not a donation, IMO.

A donation is supposed to be a good will contribution expecting nothing in return except that the donation is used to help another as expected. An investment or contribution is looking toward an expected return which will benefit the giver.

 

[Hank77]

Federal taxes are paid on a lot more than that.

I aware of that. I was an accounting major in college and took tax and advanced tax courses.
Why do you judge churches to be different from other charities?

 

[Monksailor]

It is true that it is not in the Constitution.
However, The "wall of separation" language is considerably older than the 1940s.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
- Thomas Jefferson January 1, 1802 -

And even in one's "social duties" according to what he had previously said, "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,..." as one's faith cannot be separated from them. It is intrinsic to the individual's being, 24/7.

I might add this quote at this time: "the First Amendment concerning the establishment of religion meant, very simply, that the government would not establish a Church of the United States and support it by taxes. This interpretation has been confirmed throughout our history. "A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States," a book written in 1840 by Joseph Story, includes the statement: "The first amendment is, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, etc." It goes on to say, "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution) but to a dread by the people of the influence of ecclesiastical power in matters of government, a dread which their ancestors brought with them from the parent country."

The First Amendment does not mention "church," "state" or "separation." The prohibition in the First Amendment is addressed exclusively to Congress. The second part to the religion clause of the First Amendment states that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof. Christians should be able to pray when they so desire. Susan Elkins' Buddhist friend is also free to pray when she wants to.

ALAN L. RHODES of Roanoke is a retired engineer (who is now deceased)"

Back to me, Monksailor. I only used the "separation of church and state" as a side comment in a previous post. I did not intend to derail this thread. At least I was able to bring federal taxes relative to churches back into the conversation.

 

[FenderTL5]

I only used the "separation of church and state" as a side comment in a previous post. I did not intend to derail this thread. At least I was able to bring federal taxes relative to churches back into the conversation.

I don't know that it's off-topic.
I've heard the separation argument used on both sides of the disagreement over whether churches should be taxed. One would say, "separation of church and state requires that churches be totally independent of taxation.." Meanwhile the other would say, "by not taxing the government is giving deference, which is a form of establishment.."
I think that some churches are involved in operations that could and likely should be taxed. On the other hand I would not lobby for it. If the day comes, I expect we go fishing for coins.

 

[Monksailor]

I don't know that it's off-topic.
I've heard the separation argument used on both sides of the disagreement over whether churches should be taxed. One would say, "separation of church and state requires that churches be totally independent of taxation.." Meanwhile the other would say, "by not taxing the government is giving deference, which is a form of establishment.."
I think that some churches are involved in operations that could and likely should be taxed. On the other hand I would not lobby for it. If the day comes, I expect we go fishing for coins.

And another would say, "If the church is serving citizens in a way which replicates or diminishes governmental services/spending then it has earned and SHOULD receive a deference."

 

[FenderTL5]

And another would say, "If the church is serving citizens in a way which replicates or diminishes governmental services/spending then it has earned and SHOULD receive a deference."

True, but when the churches are not necessarily replicating services, then the waters can get murky.
For example; retail book stores, luxury estates, etc.

 

[Hank77]

And another would say, "If the church is serving citizens in a way which replicates or diminishes governmental services/spending then it has earned and SHOULD receive a deference."

(These articles point to studies by Ram Cnaan, a University of Pennsylvania researcher, who describes himself as "nonreligious." One study notes the average urban church in Philadelphia provides over $476,663 worth of services annually. And an illustration of Cnann's work in Christianity Today shows that one particular Philadelphia congregation's annual give-back is valued at over $6 million.)
Why Are Churches and Religious Organizations Tax-Exempt?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Would that go against separation of church and state? It would tax not only properties but school buildings and places that feed the poor.

Religious groups in America generally cannot be taxed. It isn't possible.

So the real or perceived threat of taxing American Christian groups is absolutely hollow.

 

[zephcom]

Religious groups in America generally cannot be taxed. It isn't possible.

So the real or perceived threat of taxing American Christian groups is absolutely hollow.

Actually, all we need to do is change the laws and churches can be taxed. We change laws all the time so it wouldn't be difficult.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Actually, all we need to do is change the laws and churches can be taxed. We change laws all the time so it wouldn't be difficult.

This is simply not true. There's a lot more to it than simply "chang[ing] the laws". Any attempt to do would likely get struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[zephcom]

This is simply not true. There's a lot more to it than simply "chang[ing] the laws". Any attempt to do would likely get struck down as unconstitutional.

Actually it all depends on whether all religions are treated equally. In other words, it would be unconstitutional to tax synagogues and not Christian churches. But if the government chose to remove the tax exemption from all religions, it would likely be ruled Constitutional.

Can the government ever interfere with someone’s religious practices? | Freedom Forum Institute

 

[thecolorsblend]

Actually it all depends on whether all religions are treated equally. In other words, it would be unconstitutional to tax synagogues and not Christian churches. But if the government chose to remove the tax exemption from all religions, it would likely be ruled Constitutional.

Can the government ever interfere with someone’s religious practices? | Freedom Forum Institute

Restricting movement or access or the like is one thing. That could actually pass legal muster. But taxation is whole other issue.

I am not sure you are grasping this so I will repeat: any law which attempts to tax "the churches" (as a blanket reference to all recognized religions in the US) would likely get struck down as unconstitutional. Thus, the threat or the fear some Christians have of losing tax exemption is probably hollow.

 

[zephcom]

Restricting movement or access or the like is one thing. That could actually pass legal muster. But taxation is whole other issue.

I am not sure you are grasping this so I will repeat: any law which attempts to tax "the churches" (as a blanket reference to all recognized religions in the US) would likely get struck down as unconstitutional. Thus, the threat or the fear some Christians have of losing tax exemption is probably hollow.

<shrug> Good luck with that. The real tricky part with all Constitutional issues is who is on the Supreme Court and how they view the Constitution. So far it appears that laws can be enacted that impact religion as long as they are written in a manner which does not favor one religion over another.

Tax laws are no different than any other law. Would the government actually do that??? That is a different issue entirely. But the government is under no Constitutional obligation to not tax religion.

 

[thecolorsblend]

<shrug> Good luck with that. The real tricky part with all Constitutional issues is who is on the Supreme Court and how they view the Constitution. So far it appears that laws can be enacted that impact religion as long as they are written in a manner which does not favor one religion over another.

Tax laws are no different than any other law. Would the government actually do that??? That is a different issue entirely. But the government is under no Constitutional obligation to not tax religion.

Okay, apparently we have to go there.

In part, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

In those words lay tax exemption for religious groups. Because it's paradoxical for the government to claim that Congress can't create law prohibiting the free exercise of religion while subjecting religious groups to the burden of taxation. If one is being taxed for exercising of religion, the exercising of religion cannot logically be called a free exercise. Because such wouldn't be free.

 

[zephcom]

Okay, apparently we have to go there.

In part, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

In those words lay tax exemption for religious groups. Because it's paradoxical for the government to claim that Congress can't create law prohibiting the free exercise of religion while subjecting religious groups to the burden of taxation. If one is being taxed for exercising of religion, the exercising of religion cannot logically be called a free exercise. Because such wouldn't be free.

It means that government can't keep believers from attending...free does not always refer to money.

 

[RDKirk]

It is true that it is not in the Constitution.
However, The "wall of separation" language is considerably older than the 1940s.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
- Thomas Jefferson January 1, 1802 -

The "wall" language goes back to Roger Williams in 1644. Williams was the man who founded the colony of Rhode Island to be a place of absolute religious freedom. Williams even explicitly wrote that there would be freedom for "the atheist and the Musselman (Muslim)."

Importantly, Williams was a radical Puritan pastor who founded the first Baptist congregation in America (the real "First Baptist Church"). Most Americans seem unaware that the Puritans were called "Separatists" in England because they were the original "separation of Church and State" people.

Williams believed that by making Christianity mandatory, that ensured most people in the pews would not be Christians, for "the way is narrow and few find it." Thus the Church was adulterated and weakened when the social order forced people into the pews who wouldn't otherwise be there.

Additionally, at the time Williams was writing, Europe was just coming out of the religious Thirty Years War and England was just going into its religious Civil War (specifically over the separation of Church and state. It would be a bloody war in which a king would be assassinated). Williams was keenly aware that when the Church wielded the sword of the King, it was mostly Christian blood that was shed.

In his treatise, "The Bloudy Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience," Williams included this phrase: "...hedge of separation between the Garden of the Church and the wilderness of the World."

Williams' state of Rhode Island single-handedly blocked ratification of the Constitution until the day after the First Amendment was written and ratified to guarantee freedom of (and from) religion as they had in Rhode Island.

Later, the members of Danbury Baptist Church (Williams' denominational descendants) would write to the new President Thomas Jefferson worrying that there was no federal law that would prevent Pennsylvania from taking away their freedom to be Baptists. That was when Jefferson cribbed the words of their own denominational founder to allay their fears.