Taking Liberties: Taxing Church Attendance?

[Havensdad]

Which ruling decided that - do you have a link?

I don't have a link, but you can look it up yourself. Just look up "Walz v Tax Commission." The Supreme Court ruled that taxation of churches was too great an involvement between Church and State, violating the establishment cause. They said the "power to tax involves the power to destroy," and thus violated the "free expression of religion" statue...

 

[Jerome]

From that case:

[New York's statute] is simply sparing the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.

Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion. Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years- religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax.

Congress, from its earliest days, has viewed the Religion Clauses of the Constitution as authorizing statutory real estate tax exemption to religious bodies.

an unbroken practice of according the exemption to churches, openly and by affirmative state action, not covertly or by state inaction, is not something to be lightly cast aside.

Justice Brennan concurrence:

The existence from the beginning of the Nation's life of a practice, such as tax exemptions for religious organizations, is not conclusive of its constitutionality. But such practice is a fact of considerable import in the interpretation of abstract constitutional language. . . .This Court's interpretation of the clause, accordingly, is appropriately influenced by the reading it has received in the practices of the Nation. . . .The more longstanding and widely accepted a practice, the greater its impact upon constitutional interpretation. History is particularly compelling in the present case because of the undeviating acceptance given religious tax exemptions from our earliest days as a Nation. Rarely if ever has this Court considered the constitutionality of a practice for which the historical support is so overwhelming.

 

[rbell]

Why should churches get special deals? Are other non-profits exempted from this law?

Yes they are

And...on that note...billwald disappears.

I'm sure we'll see him again, though.

 

[HankD]

>No, "we the people" and the consent thereof has become "we the elitists" and "you the people" must do as we say.

How can you say that! We just had an election according to the rules and intent of the US Constitution. You are unhappy because your side lost. If the Republicans had gained control of both houses you would be happy as a clam.

Well, that is partially true. The most current midterm election showed that many are unhappy with the present administration (both sides of the aisle).

Technically I am not a Republican but a true independent.

I was a JFK Democrat until Roe vs. Wade.

I am adamant pro-life but would be considered a liberal in many areas especially concerning entitlements and care of the disenfranchised through no fault of their own and the rescue/rehibilatation of those who have fallen into a hole they have dug themselves.

However even my liberalism is in keeping with "the consent of the governed".

HankD

 

[Arbo]

Two questions for those who think it would be a good idea to tax churches: If they are tax-exempt now why would you want to change their status? What would be gained?

 

[Salty]

Two questions for those who think it would be a good idea to tax churches: If they are tax-exempt now why would you want to change their status? What would be gained?

More money for the govt to spend - but they would not realize that churches would have less to help those in need!!!