IRS Threatens Episcopal Church for Antiwar Sermon:

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Zealot Your church teaches that you know.

Hatred of liberal Christians and the use of government forces against them? I don't think so, bubba.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: brien Maybe it is time for all churches to "lose" their tax exempt status. But surely not for exercising their 1st Amendment Rights. Just maybe, because the time has come?

Except that taxing churches would be a violation of the first amendment. Whatever anyone wants to say, the first amendment is there to protect churches too. Of course, my reading is that the government should not make and law respecting (or pertaining to) a religious establishment. But actually reading the darned thing doesn't seem in vogue right now.

[SteveA]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Except that taxing churches would be a violation of the first amendment. Whatever anyone wants to say, the first amendment is there to protect churches too. Of course, my reading is that the government should not make and law respecting (or pertaining to) a religious establishment. But actually reading the darned thing doesn't seem in vogue right now.

They don't tax "non-profit" organizations, which includes most churches but it's not discriminatory on religion so doesn't violate the 1st Amendment in that respect.

The problem, I believe, stems from allowing taxation of any organization simply because of a speech issue. That's the violation, IMO.

Either tax every organization (not something I recommend) or remove the speech restriction.

Basically the effect is to handicap people by taxing political speech. That seems likely the #1 most important free speech issue, especially as it was specifically included as the very first part of the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights. This is definitely something that people should protest about.

Actually, when you think about it. If anything they should be doing the opposite and assuring institutions that are based primarily on religious or speech issues aren't taxed for this.

[northtexan]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Why do we have to let it stop there? Fight the double standard: don't lie. Tell people with whom you have some influence not to lie. How did we get to the point where everyone accepts falsehood, hypocrisy, double standards? "It is discouraging to think how many are shocked by honesty, and how few by deceit." Noel Coward We shouldn't be like this. Remove tax exempt status from all churches. Why should they be exempt, anyway? In a time when the church was a rallying point for community, when all of a community could be served by one (or even by many) churches, this would make sense. Is there a reason for it now, when so many people gain nothing from a church?

What is the best way to separate church from state? The tax exemption is supposed to keep the state from directly or indirectly censoring churches by exacting high taxes. In turn, churches are supposed to not be involved in partisan politics. But by having an exemption, government must make a judgment that an organization claiming to be a religion is a religion. That issue came to a head last year when a county clerk at first refused to give tax exempt status to a UU fellowship near where I live -- although the county ultimately did grant the status. No, there is no perfect approach. So, which way least entangles government and religion?

[northtexan]

Quote by: Isherwood This is the first time I've heard someone refer to the Episcopal church as a liberal denomination. I always thought that as one of the major mainstream denominations, they were pretty staid. I've known a few liberal Episcopalian priests, but they weren't considered common. No matter; I agree with taxing them. All philosophical groups, be they religious or UFO-oriented, should be treated equally.

I take it that the specific pastor and congregation are liberal.

In fact, all philosophical groups can incorporate as 501-C-3s, just as religious organizations do, and so have tax-exempt status, so long as they do not engage in partisan politics.

[DavidShankle]

So is lack of partisanship is the basis for making churches tax-exempt? Get real guys... The government is not allowed to fund churches, why should churches be allowed to fund the government?

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry You atheist wankers can kiss my Christian ass! We have tax exempt status because property tax is the State fucking with religion. ...

PH: Could it not be the opposite? By NOT taxing ALL churches that the government is giving a free pass to the establishment of Religion in American society?

I think the 1st Amendment is in need of examination here. If by taxing churches, it means that "Congress is making a law respecting an establishment of religion," I am not sure about that one. One take on that is Jefferson meant that the "Congress would make no law with respect to establishment of religion." as no endorsement of religion in both government and society. Jefferson, according to his biographers, believed that "the state should neither support or oppose any religion." So, if by taxing all religions, that is the support of the religion by the state, you would be correct. But there is more as you will see.

That said, Jefferson was exteremly wary of getting the government entangled with the Church. I think he was afraid that if the government allowed the church to have a voice in government, we could return to the tyranny of the old world. Jefferson was undoubtedly paranoid of the judges and the Anglican Church's alliances in England. He regarded the clergy of the established Church of England as part of the problems of British Empire For example, he wrote in the Lunan Case in 1774: "In truth, the alliance between church and state in England has ever made their judges bolder than they are." This probably led to an essay he penned in 1774 titled, "Whether Christianity is a Part of the Common Law"

So once again, we see Jefferson wanting nothing to do with the Church meddling in the affairs of the state. Not the opposite. So the question once again becomes, does taxing churches give the any church the right to a voice in government. Hmmmmmm If so, then Jefferson is adamantly set against it.

But he was in the minority of his fellow Legislators with regard to this question as most of his colleagues were very religious men,( not that he wasn't religious), and weren't so paranoid of religion having some role in government. Afterall, the government previous to the Articles of Confederation, had appointed clergy established in America and these Clergy were part of the voice of the King's government. Colonists were very used to having the clergy as an integral voice in government and many even trusted the clergy and looked to them for advice in government.

There are some very interesting takes upon Jefferson's views about taxing the Church but they are very complex and too intricate to debate in this one post. So I am leaving this behind for now. If anything, what I have written, in some respects, supports your view, I think.

However, I am by no means an atheist, but I am a taxpayer. Why should I pay taxes and not some storefront Bible thumper who claims to be a Church?

Why should The Reverand Jesse Jackson and The Reverand Al Sharpton, who are clearly political, who have no regular church that I have ever seen them preach at, not pay taxes?

Maybe those of us who wish to avoid paying taxes, should all go out, get a Certificate of Clergy, emboss our name on it, rent a old Grange Hall, and show up on Sunday mornings to have a one hour discourse on God and then claim tax exempt status.

So, there are two sides to this complex issue and it is by no means cut and dried.

Now before you go off the wall asking me to kiss you ever lovin Christain Ass, please remember, I am only asking questions and looking for intelligent answers.

Perhaps more on Jefferson's view tommorrw. :)

[grandpa]

Quote by: DavidShankle So is lack of partisanship is the basis for making churches tax-exempt? Get real guys... The government is not allowed to fund churches, why should churches be allowed to fund the government?

They were just pointing out the law, I think. I agree that maybe churches should not be taxed as it does involve linking church and state.

Grandpa h.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: brien if the government allowed the church to have a voice in government, we could return to the tyranny of the old world

If there is taxation, then those taxed have to be represented in government. "No Taxation Without Representation!"

Quote by: brien does taxing churches give the any church the right to a voice in government.

Taxing anyone should give them a right to have their vioce heard by the politicians.

Quote by: brien Why should The Reverand Jesse Jackson and The Reverand Al Sharpton, who are clearly political, who have no regular church that I have ever seen them preach at, not pay taxes?

I don't favor allowing "clergymen" to be exempt from the taxes applied to any other American. My beef is with property taxes on churches.

Quote by: brien Now before you go off the wall asking me to kiss you ever lovin Christain Ass, please remember, I am only asking questions and looking for intelligent answers.

Heh, sorry for the heated rhetoric, brien. Sometimes I get too excited and mouth-off.

I hate taxes generally, believing them to be an ever increasing burden on legitimate activity. The power to tax is the power to destroy, however, and one thing I don't want destroyed is my church.
My local church is a wonderful resource for this community. We have a Food Bank that operates two mornings a week to help needy and hungry families in this town. This church also extends benevolence in the form of cash at times when people can't make their rent or their utility bills. There are many other activites that benefit my town and center on my church. I won't go into all of it, 'cause it sounds like bragging, but let me say this: Churches help people with real down to earth needs, as well as moral teaching that undergirds the civil society. Do away with churches and this nation will go in the toilet.

I can't defend every church or every church goer. Fred Phelps church and the Scientologists come to mind... but by and large, churches benefit society. The government could use repressive taxation against them if it chooses to. I wouldn't put it past the Feds.

[Zeebadee]

Similar to what I posted on another thread, I don't see how you can expect Islamic religious leaders to speak out against terrorist acts if you coerce American churches to remain silent about some of the policies the U.S. military uses that causes civilian deaths. It may be coming to a time when the U.S. churches have to either practice what they preach, speak out and give up the tax exempt status, or admit that they care more about the monetary savings and keep silent.

[Zealot]

Quote by: Zeebadee Similar to what I posted on another thread, I don't see how you can expect Islamic religious leaders to speak out against terrorist acts if you coerce American churches to remain silent about some of the policies the U.S. military uses that causes civilian deaths. It may be coming to a time when the U.S. churches have to either practice what they preach, speak out and give up the tax exempt status, or admit that they care more about the monetary savings and keep silent.

AGREED ZEE.....It is time for the churches fo get in the fray and quit accepting anything from the Gov. and be part of the people, for the people, and by the people. The Catholic chruch with its indecent wealth would be the worst to suffer.

Zeealot

[Livemike]

Quote by: ericsp23 If the church was making a political statement (ie, in support of a particular candidate or proposition) then I have no problem with them losing their tax exempt status, as long as the standard is being equally applied to all of the evangelical churches that get involved in politics. If the sermon was a non-political look at the ethics of war, then it is wrong for them to lose their tax exempt status.

How can a look at the ethics of war be "non-political" ever, let alone in a country at
war? The whole thing shows how rediculous it is to distinguish between "political"
and "non-political" speech.

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry If there is taxation, then those taxed have to be represented in government. "No Taxation Without Representation!" Taxing anyone should give them a right to have their vioce heard by the politicians. I don't favor allowing "clergymen" to be exempt from the taxes applied to any other American. My beef is with property taxes on churches. Heh, sorry for the heated rhetoric, brien. Sometimes I get too excited and mouth-off. I hate taxes generally, believing them to be an ever increasing burden on legitimate activity. The power to tax is the power to destroy, however, and one thing I don't want destroyed is my church. My local church is a wonderful resource for this community. We have a Food Bank that operates two mornings a week to help needy and hungry families in this town. This church also extends benevolence in the form of cash at times when people can't make their rent or their utility bills. There are many other activites that benefit my town and center on my church. I won't go into all of it, 'cause it sounds like bragging, but let me say this: Churches help people with real down to earth needs, as well as moral teaching that undergirds the civil society. Do away with churches and this nation will go in the toilet. I can't defend every church or every church goer. Fred Phelps church and the Scientologists come to mind... but by and large, churches benefit society. The government could use repressive taxation against them if it chooses to. I wouldn't put it past the Feds.

PH: I appreciate your passion. It is a good thing. And I thought your comment about "wankers" was rather funny.

I have anticipated this and given some thought to the taxation without representation issue. My thoughts here are that the Church is sufficeintly represented through groups like the " Christain Conservative Right Wing Coalition, amoung others. They seem to exert a certain amount of political pressure upon the current Administration and within the halls of Congress. It seems to me that there already exits a "quasai lobby" already affecting the outcome of legislation and judicial appointments. Ya think? So perhaps we should legitimize it?

That said, I understand the need for local faith based charity at the community level. What is to say the government can't allow them to write their charitable local expenditures off just like I do when I contribute to my charities every year? Now of course , we are speaking strictly about income taxation.

Perhaps, property taxation is a local issue and best left to local decisions. Or at least it is indeed a separate issue from income tax.

It seems to me, not to pick upon the Catholic Church, but it is rather a big business, is it not? It probably generates millions in income every year. Yes, I did write "business" because that is exactly what some religions have become in contemporary America.

I certainly do not advocate "doing away with churches." Please remember I am a Jeffersonian, if you all haven't figured that out yet. I have spent years studying his philosophy and hold a degree in relation to it, and I am still mystified by the man and his ideas. Permit me a little complaint here. I do find it disappointing that some do not wish to consider his philosophy. He, almost single handedly, along with Madison and Adams, the Federalist that he was, framed our government. But pehaps they can't understand Jefferson because they don't have the knowledge of his philosophy at hand. "Google" is no good here. It is a shame, and I become somewhat saddened by the fact the government schools do not teach his philosophy and ideas anymore. He has become a footnote to our teaching a brief overview of the Constitution.

Perhaps, this is because one can't "google" Jefferson and absorb his idea, ideals, and philosophy in 1/2 hour. But that is another matter. So, back to the question at hand.

Are we talking the 1st Amendment here? If so, we have to look closely at what Jefferson's intentions were when he framed the amendment. The question that is so important here is: did he want the government to stay out of the business of the church, or did he want the churches to stay out othe business of the government?

Once we explore on which side of the question he was on, then we can examine, through his writing, what he perhaps meant in the First Amendment. So what did Jefferson mean when he wrote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...." Does this apply to taxation of the Church and if it does, where is the evidence in his writing? Furthermore, we must keep in mind there was NO income tax in 1776. So there is very little to rely upon when examining this question with regard the Jefferson's philosophy. Perhaps, we have to look in other parts of the Constitution?

[brien]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Except that taxing churches would be a violation of the first amendment. Whatever anyone wants to say, the first amendment is there to protect churches too. Of course, my reading is that the government should not make and law respecting (or pertaining to) a religious establishment. But actually reading the darned thing doesn't seem in vogue right now.

Phoenix: I am not so sure that this is such a simple issue. Please see my post to Patrick Henry above where I examine a few questions regarding the first amendment and the ideas, ideals, and philosophy of Jefferson who is largely responsible for this Amendment.

[brien]

Quote by: SteveA They don't tax "non-profit" organizations, which includes most churches but it's not discriminatory on religion so doesn't violate the 1st Amendment in that respect. The problem, I believe, stems from allowing taxation of any organization simply because of a speech issue. That's the violation, IMO. Either tax every organization (not something I recommend) or remove the speech restriction. Basically the effect is to handicap people by taxing political speech. That seems likely the #1 most important free speech issue, especially as it was specifically included as the very first part of the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights. This is definitely something that people should protest about. Actually, when you think about it. If anything they should be doing the opposite and assuring institutions that are based primarily on religious or speech issues aren't taxed for this.

Steve: I am not sure I understand your free speech link here. Can you clarify?

Perhaps the way to solve this "problem" is eliminate the income tax completely and replace it with a consumption tax and frame instances for charitable exemptions.

Wouldn't it be nice? So simple, but DC never does anything simple. Maybe simple minded, but never simple.

[brien]

Quote by: SteveA Thanks for posting this, Zealot. I saw this article earlier also and was going to copy it here, but you did it for me. :) I agree with you Brien. Government is going to take what it wants anyway, so it's not like there's really a way to opt out of taxes - what you don't pay at church, they'll take from you personally. I'd prefer to see churches (and most other organizations) not worry about the 501(c)3 status. People shouldn't sell their right to free speech for a few tax writeoffs. I figure if people get hit for taxes at church as well, they'll likely be even more resistant to seeing them increased. It's also interesting that this happened over a sermon against the war, as opposed to something in support of it.

Well, as I wrote in the post above, I think the easy answer is to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. This would place the individual on a more even playing field with large and powerful churches with respect to taxation. And it avoids a messy phiolosophical fight over the 1st Amendment.

It would be rather simple to exempt everyone from charitble purchases and let the local community deal with the issue of the property taxation.

But alas, too simple for the simpletons in DC.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien Well, as I wrote in the post above, I think the easy answer is to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. But alas, too simple for the simpletons in DC.

Yeah, what do they know? I don't think you've really considered all the problems with transitioning to a national consumption or sales tax.

"Well, if you just say scrap the income tax and replace it with a sales tax or a value added tax, then it would be a huge tax increase on old people, old people who are paying tax on their income as they're earning it, thinking that when they got to retirement they could spend money and they'd be paying a dollar for everything they bought.

If you replace, Bill actually did some estimates that if you replaced all of our taxes with the sales tax, the sales tax rate would be something like 60 percent, so you could just imagine getting into retirement and finding out the price of all the goods you're buying is now 60 percent higher than it was the day before. That would be like a 60 percent tax on all of the money that you had saved up over the course of your life."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/econo...ption_3-3.html

[brien]

Quote by: Zeebadee Yeah, what do they know? I don't think you've really considered all the problems with transitioning to a national consumption or sales tax. "Well, if you just say scrap the income tax and replace it with a sales tax or a value added tax, then it would be a huge tax increase on old people, old people who are paying tax on their income as they're earning it, thinking that when they got to retirement they could spend money and they'd be paying a dollar for everything they bought. If you replace, Bill actually did some estimates that if you replaced all of our taxes with the sales tax, the sales tax rate would be something like 60 percent, so you could just imagine getting into retirement and finding out the price of all the goods you're buying is now 60 percent higher than it was the day before. That would be like a 60 percent tax on all of the money that you had saved up over the course of your life." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/econo...ption_3-3.html

I think your 60% figure comes from ALL taxes paid in America today. Income tax is much less than that total. The total taxes include income, sales, property, capital gains taxes, etc are all lumped into together. Consumption tax proposals estimate only 24%. to do the job. I said nothing of a VAT tax. Therefore your 60% figure is skewed if you are writing that is ONLY the consumption tax. Also there are several states that do not have a state sales tax. New Hampshire, ALaska, and Nevada to name three. Other states should follow their example. Furthermore, state and federal gasoline taxes could be eliminated while the politicians are carping about the high cost of gasoline. They should lead by example before calling upon the oil companies to "give back" their profits. "Do as I say, not as I do", comes to mind here.

So, in summary, I admire you concern for the elderly, of which I am almost one, but your sense of fairness in taxation is perhaps somewhat misguided considering the tax codes in the American economy today.

Furthermore, a 60% tax rate on ALL taxes paid to the government is OUTRAGEOUS. When citizens work their fingers to the bone everyday just to have the government CONFISGATE 60 cents of every dollar is a national crime and a national shame. It is living proof that we, in America require true tax reform, NOW. Robin Hood where are you now when we need you the most?

[shield772]

Churches are tax exempt not as religious organizations but as non-profit organizations, and how many non-profit organizations make political statements? If the Government can't have religion in it why does the Government get to interfere with religion?

[grandpa]

Quote by: shield772 Churches are tax exempt not as religious organizations but as non-profit organizations, and how many non-profit organizations make political statements? If the Government can't have religion in it why does the Government get to interfere with religion?

Actually, the government doesn't often interfere with religion. It's usually the opposite.
I agree that maybe taxing religion would violate the theoretical wall between church and state.
As for secularism in general, it makes a lot of sense.
Our government has no right to tell me there is or is not a God.
And I don't want to see, for example, religion-based attack ads during campaign season.
I think that would ruin the process, which is already badly damaged.

Grandpa h.