Religion is exempt from some laws and not others

[McCulloch]

Many countries share with the USA certain constitutional rights and freedoms. These usually include freedom of religion and freedom from various forms of unfair discrimination. What happens or what should happen when these freedoms come into conflict?

• Should a religion that would discriminate against a person of a certain racial group be protected in its discriminatory practices by constitutional law?
• Is a religion that does not allow women to hold certain positions simply because they are women in violation of any laws?
• Would the religious practice of polygamy or arson hold up against a court challenge?

What principles should one use to determine which laws can be broken in the name of religious freedom (discrimination against women for instance) and which ones cannot (polygamy for example)?

[McCulloch]

The problem is that non Christians have to pay more taxes because Christians pay less taxes.
Churches do not pay property taxes.
Christians deduct the support of their church on their income taxes.
Pastors, Priests, Ministers etc do not pay income taxes on their church income.
Churches do not pay sales tax for purchases made for the church.
I would be more tolerant if the Christians would take their hand out of my pocket

I really don't think that is a problem. Unless you don't donate anything to anybody. If you donate to your causes I should be able to donate to mine.
I think your missing whose levying the Taxes! The Church doesn't have it's hand in your pocket the government does! ...

What about property taxes? Property taxes usually pay for things like sewers, transit, water and policing. Is there a rational reason why Churches, which use these services, should be exempt from property taxes while other charities, which also use these services have to pay? As a taxpayer, I am unfairly subsidizing the churches, synagogs, mosques, temples and cathedrals.
The only remedy I can see, is that churches and other religious charities, should be treated under the law in the same way as non-religious charities. No, the churches do not have their hand in my pocket. The governments, who do, have made me into an involuntary contributor to the churches.

[Cathar1950]

I say we start a church and let some one else name us.
American entrepreneurial evangelisms is where it is at. Mega churchs means mega bucks. Preach "Truth", how can you go wrong?
Bound for glory.

[micatala]

What about property taxes? Property taxes usually pay for things like sewers, transit, water and policing. Is there a rational reason why Churches, which use these services, should be exempt from property taxes while other charities, which also use these services have to pay? As a taxpayer, I am unfairly subsidizing the churches, synagogs, mosques, temples and cathedrals.
The only remedy I can see, is that churches and other religious charities, should be treated under the law in the same way as non-religious charities. No, the churches do not have their hand in my pocket. The governments, who do, have made me into an involuntary contributor to the churches.

Interesting point. Are churches the only type of organization to get property tax exemptions?

Certainly many non-profit corporations get sales tax exemptions. If we wanted to be consistent, we could say all non-profits get the property tax exemption as well. For many non-profits, this would not be a problem as they might rent office space, but it would effect some. Do YWCA camps pay property taxes?

Looking back at my criteria, it does not seem a property tax exemption meets any of these.

1. The societal effect of making the exception. If granting the exception has minimal or no effect on the society at large, this would tend to favor making an exception.

This exemption is probably costing states many millions of dollars annually.

2. The history of the practice that would be covered in an exception. If the practice is a very long-standing one, that has been consistently followed by those in the particular religion in question, and especially if the practice pre-dates the existence of the law-making body, this would tend to favor an exception being made.

Not sure about this one, I would have to say. I guess we could say that churches not paying property taxes is an improvement over churches levying taxes on the populace to pay for buildings and support of the clergy.

3. If the practice is central or essential to the practice of the religion, this would tend to favor at least some accomodation.

No one could seriously say this, unless their religion included anarchy?

4 and 5. The religion in question has a large number of adherents.

Even a church of one would be exempt.

6. If the exception constitutes a violation of other basic rights, including the right of others to practice their religion, this tends to not favor the making of an exception.

One could argue that the property tax exemption should not be allowed on this grounds.


A radical response to this problem would be to eliminate all property taxes, and go to a system which included only sales, income, and other taxes. Personally, I would be for at least a great shift from property to income tax, but that is a matter for another thread.

[McCulloch]

What about property taxes? Property taxes usually pay for things like sewers, transit, water and policing. Is there a rational reason why Churches, which use these services, should be exempt from property taxes while other charities, which also use these services have to pay? As a taxpayer, I am unfairly subsidizing the churches, synagogs, mosques, temples and cathedrals.
The only remedy I can see, is that churches and other religious charities, should be treated under the law in the same way as non-religious charities. No, the churches do not have their hand in my pocket. The governments, who do, have made me into an involuntary contributor to the churches.

Interesting point. Are churches the only type of organization to get property tax exemptions?

I think that it depends on the jurisdiction. I think that some military bases are also exempt, but I could be wrong.

I guess we could say that churches not paying property taxes is an improvement over churches levying taxes on the populace to pay for buildings and support of the clergy.

But how about the the buildings and the clergy of religious groups being supported only by adherents to the specific religions? Why is it that I am required through my taxes to support all religions?

6. If the exception constitutes a violation of other basic rights, including the right of others to practice their religion, this tends to not favor the making of an exception.

One could argue that the property tax exemption should not be allowed on this grounds.

But I don't think that the argument would have merit.

A radical response to this problem would be to eliminate all property taxes, and go to a system which included only sales, income, and other taxes. Personally, I would be for at least a great shift from property to income tax, but that is a matter for another thread.

I have to agree with you. Of all of the various ways the government finances its operations, income tax is one of the lease regressive. But that is a topic for another thread. Meanwhile, I don't think that we should be advocating a fundamental shift in the nations' tax structure in order to address this one rights issue. Easier to simply treat all religious organizations under the law in the same manor as other non-profits and charities are treated. That is in keeping with the principal of non-establishment of religion and fundamental rights and freedoms.

[1John2_26]

micatala wrote:
I guess we could say that churches not paying property taxes is an improvement over churches levying taxes on the populace to pay for buildings and support of the clergy.

Where is this happening?

I would oppose this like any other bad religious idea.

[micatala]

Quote:
micatala wrote:
I guess we could say that churches not paying property taxes is an improvement over churches levying taxes on the populace to pay for buildings and support of the clergy.

Where is this happening?

I was referring to examples like the temple tax that was levied on Jews of Jesus time, and the practice of the Catholic Church to levy taxes to support the Vatican, etc. I was not implying that this is happening now, only that it has happened in the past.

[MagusYanam]

I guess we could say that churches not paying property taxes is an improvement over churches levying taxes on the populace to pay for buildings and support of the clergy.

I suppose we could, though to be sure in the Middle Ages (though the Church was indeed rampantly corrupt and tended to abuse its power) the individual churches served as centres of the community - they did a lot of work to relieve the impoverished and care for the sick, and also to educate children in Latin. Today, these responsibilities along with the reins of government have been passed along to secular institutions.

I'm not saying here that we should go back to an era where doctrinal conformity was brutally imposed on an ignorant populace, but it is true that churches should be active in the community, and not just for evangelising purposes. If no property taxes are going to be imposed on churches, that should imply for them some level of responsibility. It should be akin to the public telling them, 'Okay, we trust you enough with the funds you collect to use them generously, but if you don't there are going to be consequences'. The same standards should apply to churches as apply to the members of the community within them: if you support the community, you are helping the society (which would show up as a tax break). Many liberal churches have this sense of responsibility down pat: they do a lot of service where they are, ameliorating the conditions of the impoverished, caring for the sick, protecting the environment, and on the national and international scales through organisations like the Interfaith Hospitality Network, the Heifer Project and the Mennonite Central Committee.

It would be a great thing if we could see some of the same responsibilities from the same churches that are demanding exemption from the property tax.

[1John2_26]

Religion is exempt from the federal government to do or say anything about it. So as we have seen, the new tact is to criminalize "words." Of course denying free speech "freedoms" but what the hey.

Odd though that the people inventing new techniques for classifying new words and new meanings of terms as crimes and to outlaw Christian Churches, are OK with pornography being exempt from any laws curtailing the business of sexual promiscuity, perversion, deviance and excess.

Probably because there is so much money and a counter balance of evil by the goodness in Christianity, we see the invlovement of people that would seem quite nice, going after Christianity specifically.

But we still are left with the Constitution:

http://www.declaration.net/news/10-14-03.asp

The word "respecting" in the Establishment Clause

By and large, the ACLU and all the people on the Left and all these folks on the federal bench, they act as if that word "respecting" isn't there [in the First Amendment]. They read those first words as if they say, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion," and you see, that's not what the First Amendment says. But, under the rubric of reading it as if that's what's there, they have acted as if what that says is that Congress can't establish by law any religion, impose by law any religion. But that's not exactly what it says. Read it:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

What does "respecting" mean? Well, you go to the dictionary, you look it up, and respecting means concerning, regarding, having to do with, dealing with. Hmm. That's very interesting. . . .

And you know what's interesting? Those words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law" concerning, dealing with, having to do with, in regard to "an establishment of religion," they have the same significance. Those words tell the Congress of the United States that this is a subject they are not to touch, they're not to get involved with it, they're not by law to put their hands on it.

[Now] if Congress can't make a law on this subject in any way--see, they can't make a law establishing a religion, but by the same token, if they can't touch it at all, if there happens to be an established religion somewhere in America (as there were in almost all of the original states of the United States, just, by the by, at the time that the amendment was passed)--this also means Congress can't touch them, Congress can't change them, Congress can't make decisions with "respect" to those things.

[Wyvern]

Quote:
micatala wrote:
I guess we could say that churches not paying property taxes is an improvement over churches levying taxes on the populace to pay for buildings and support of the clergy.

Where is this happening?

I was referring to examples like the temple tax that was levied on Jews of Jesus time, and the practice of the Catholic Church to levy taxes to support the Vatican, etc. I was not implying that this is happening now, only that it has happened in the past.

This doesn't happen in america that I know but I do know that in Germany at least if you are a registered member of a church the government automatically imposes a tithing tax. One of the reasons why congregations in europe are dwindling(not the only one though)

[snappyanswer]

Germany
Germany levies a church tax, on all persons declaring themselves to be Christians, of roughly 8-9% of the income tax, which is effectively (very much depending on the social and financial situation) typically between 0.2% and 1.5% of the total income. The proceeds are shared amongst Catholic, Lutheran, and other Protestant Churches. The church tax (Kirchensteuer) traces its history to concordat signed between the Holy See and the German Reich in July 1933.

Thank God for seperation of church and state? Would a protestant want their tithe going to a catholic? Or their money going to fund abortions?