Sales Tax

[Lotan]

Here's a recent story from the Christian media...

"(AgapePress) - Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based organization that defends the constitutional rights of Christians, has filed a brief with the State Supreme Court defending a law that provides a sales tax exemption for Bibles and other religious publications.

Recently, the Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida sued the State Department of Revenue claiming Florida law that grants sales tax exemption for Bibles and other religious publications violates the constitution's Establishment clause. Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver says the Wiccans paid sales tax on a Satanic "Bible" and, instead of asking for a refund, sued the state."

Is there any good reason that some books should be tax exempt and not others? Who decides what qualifies as a 'religious' publication and what criteria do they use?
If I were to claim, as some Christian polemicists assert, that 'evolution' is my 'religion' could I then demand tax-exempt status for "Origin of Species"? Exemption for one book and not for another amounts to a tangible state endorsement of religious ideas at the expense of other points of view. This gives superstition an unfair advantage.
The only fair solution would be equal tax status for ALL books, regardless of their content. Not only that but this principle should be extended to churches and other 'religious' organizations and media.

[jcrawford]

Why blame or punish the wife for committing adultery while male adulters and abortionists go scot free and are not held financially liable for the destruction and damage inflicted upon a Christian marriage? That's neither scottish, kosher nor Christian to me.

I'm not blaming the wife. Nor am I assuming that all unwanted pregnancies are the result of adultery. But I do assert her human rights.

So do I. Abortionists can't claim human rights exclusively for themselves though, if they deny human fetal rights for Christian Fathers.

O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion

What Power might Burns be referencing here?

[jcrawford]

How many kids you got anyway?

Two. Judas & Jezebel.

Twins? How nice.

[McCulloch]

Abortionists can't claim human rights exclusively for themselves though, if they deny human fetal rights for Christian Fathers.

If there can be established that there are or there should be fetal rights, then those rights belong to the fetus. If you violate the rights of a child, you violate the rights of that child, not the rights of its parents. Parents have a responsibility to act as guardians of their childrens' rights but their religion does not change those rights. If abortion is murder, as many Christians claim, then it is equally murder regardless of the religion of the parents. If it is morally wrong for a woman to seek an abortion, then the sin or crime, belongs to her and to all who knowingly assist in the act regardless of religion.

What Power might Burns be referencing here?

Burns' biographers make it quite plain that he was a theist. He did not have much use for organized religion, but he evidenced a belief in God. I don't think that that detracts from his perceptiveness, other than the fact that he implores a supernatural deity to grant something which could be gained by attentiveness, insight and imagination.

[jcrawford]

Abortionists can't claim human rights exclusively for themselves though, if they deny human fetal rights for Christian Fathers.

If there can be established that there are or there should be fetal rights, then those rights belong to the fetus.

Since when do fetal reproductive rights belong to the fetus? You sure know how to discombobulate human rights up there in Canada. I can establish fetal reproductive rights for men with reference to the American Declaration of Independence, (from Canada, btw) within which, they have already been established and declared, for all the world to read.

[Wyvern]

Wow talk about hijacking a thread, good job.

But back to the topic at hand as far as religious books being tax exempt in the U.S. at least it has to be an all or nothing affair. Countries that have a state religion have a legal basis for discriminating, but since the U.S. does not a distinction can not be legally made.

[McCulloch]

Wow talk about hijacking a thread, good job.

You are right, we did get off-topic. I should have known better.

But back to the topic at hand as far as religious books being tax exempt in the U.S. at least it has to be an all or nothing affair. Countries that have a state religion have a legal basis for discriminating, but since the U.S. does not a distinction can not be legally made.

On-topic, the First Amendment has been raised with regard to this issue.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If the First Amendment means that religious books should not be taxed, then it also means that speech, the press and peaceable assemblies cannot be taxed either. This seems to me to be a rather unlikely interpretation of the Amendment, so I would challenge anyone who would advocate such an interpretation to cite judicial rulings or constitutional experts who uphold such an interpretation.
But, it is clear from the First Amendment and judicial precedents arising from that amendment, that governments in the US are not allowed to favour one religious denomination, sect or belief over another. Hence, it would be expected that if one group of religions' holy books are exempt from sales tax, then all regligions' holy books must be exempt. Leaving the question unanswered, who determines which books are holy? The legistlature (Congress), the executive (Presidency) or the judiciary (the courts). The Cult of Steve's Garage believes that the Beatles White Album contains a message from God, therefore no retailer should charge sales tax on it.
No, I think that sectarian governments should not be in the business of determining what is or is not legitimate religion. Period.

[Lotan]

The Cult of Steve's Garage believes that the Beatles White Album contains a message from God, therefore no retailer should charge sales tax on it.

I think Little Steven would have a better case than most.

[jcrawford]

If the First Amendment means that religious books should not be taxed, then it also means that speech, the press and peaceable assemblies cannot be taxed either. This seems to me to be a rather unlikely interpretation of the Amendment, so I would challenge anyone who would advocate such an interpretation to cite judicial rulings or constitutional experts who uphold such an interpretation.

I hold to that "unlikely," but reasonable interpertation whether anyone else does or not. Who's Bill of Rights is it anyway? The SCOTUS? That's a joke. The BofR belongs to the states and the people. Read Amendments 9 and 10. What's wrong with having no tax on published or educational material? Why should educational institutions be taxed when religious ones aren't? You don't want the Internet taxed, do you?

Leaving the question unanswered, who determines which books are holy?

The people who register as religious corporations for tax exempt status, as now. Don't you know how American government works?

[juliod]

What's wrong with having no tax on published or educational material? Why should educational institutions be taxed when religious ones aren't? You don't want the Internet taxed, do you?

Those questions are irrelevant to the point. You claimed that the Constitution prohibits tax on religion. It doesn't.

The people who register as religious corporations for tax exempt status, as now. Don't you know how American government works?

Yes we do. We know that when an exemption is given the government needs a small army of administrators to police it. At any given time there are a number of fake religions that exist only for tax purposes. Why do we want the government to be adjudicating on what is a real religion and what is a scam. And since all "real" religions are scams too, it is a both hopeless and thankless task.

If Jesus existed, what would he think about taxes? Indeed, what is Jesus supposed to have said about taxes? It was, and I quote: "Pay your taxes and shut up about it". But churches can't. They are too busy "storing up treasure on earth" to think about any actual doctrine.

So, in sum, the effects of the religious exemption from tax are:

1) Corruption of the churches.
2) Bloating of the federal payroll.
3) Complexification of the tax code.
4) Creation of opprotunities for fraud.

Yup!

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

I have to agree with the person that said no taxes on reading materials or food. The religious should be giving their stuff away with all the money they don't get taxed for and collected from poor church goers and the home bound poor watching tv evangelist.
Boy do I feel bitchy.