Religious Exemption

[JoeyKnothead]

It's time once again for the annual free admission day at The Holy Land Experience.
...

The attraction is required to offer free admission one day each year to qualify under state law for a property-tax exemption as a religious entity.

For debate:

Is this an example of favoritism (akin to if not government sponsorship) towards religious belief / entities?

[WinePusher]

The 'government definition' you keep referring to is actually the legal definition of religion. For purposes of law, the government defines religion in a certain way because our court system in America is apart of the government. In order for a society to have laws you have to have uniform and agreeable definitions.

If the government cannot pass laws about religion, then there does not have to be a legal definition of religion, except only for the courts to decide whether any specific law violates the separation.

Because in reality there are many laws about religion, and as such there needs to be proper legal definitions. If the government were to subject religions to corporate taxation, or if they were to develop an entirely new tax just for religions, then there'd need to be an entirely new set of laws. I take it that since you don't think there shouldn't be a legal definition of religion, there also shouldn't be any taxation of religion as well.

In America we already have a thorough understanding of what the separation of church and state entails. It is spelled out in our constitution.

It may be stated in the constitution, but the details are spelled out in an accumulation of court decisions.

And which supreme court case supports your contention that churches should be taxed? Which court case states that the government ought to be 'blind towards religion?' I'm not so sure that the government 'being blind' towards religion is an ideal we should all be striving for in the first place. The separation of church and state in America explicitly states that the two entities are to be separate from one another. There is to be a wall between the two and one cannot pass over the wall into the other's territory. This is the ideal we should be trying to implement, not yours. Under your ideal, even if the government was blind towards religion and showed no impartiality it could still interfere and meddle in the affairs of religious organizations, which is clearly a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

The government cannot establish any religion and it cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, that is the entire scope of the separation of church and state in the United States. There is nothing about being 'blind to religion' in the American constitution.

My argument is that the best way for a government to have an effective separation of church and state is for the government to be blind to religion.

There is no need for the government to be blind to religion if the two cannot interfere with each other in the first place. Religions forcing government schools to sponsor prayer is an example of religious interference in government, government taxation of religious organizations is an example of government interference in religion. Both violate the principle of separation of church and state.

Once again, for purposes of the law the government has set forth a legal definition of religion. Lawsuits and court proceedings would be impossible if people could just make up some arbitrary definition of religion.

If the law did not regulate religion, then lawsuits and court proceedings could proceed quite well without a legal definition of religion. The only exception would be constitutional law testing the separation itself.

Which law are you talking about?

Because one of the purposes of taxes is to discourage usage or behavior (the primary purpose being to generate revenue for the government). This obviously violates the free exercise clause and is a violation of the separation of church and state. If you just read the actual wording you'd see how untenable your position is. Separation of church and state, meaning that under this statute the church and the state must remain separate from one another. If the government taxes churches then clearly both entities are not separated from one another. I'm eager to see what your response will be.

But governments do tax and regulate churches. Personal income for church staff is subject to income tax.

Of course it is, everybody in society is forced to pay income taxes regardless of what their profession is. Churches themselves, their earnings and revenues are not and should not be subject to taxation in the same way other non profit organizations are not subject to corporate taxes.

If a church group wishes to use a government owned facility, a park, a ferry, a toll road, a museum that normally requires a fee, it is not exempt.

These aren't examples of religions interfering in government. These are just example of individuals, who may or may not belong to a church group, utilizing services that are government owned. If the government prohibited them from utilizing government services like a ferry or a road just because of their religious affiliation then that would clearly be discrimination based on religion, something that is not and should not be permitted.

What there should be, in my opinion, is that in dealing with organizations, whether for tax purposes or regulatory purposes, the governments should treat religious organizations no differently from non religious ones. For if they did it that way, then they would be guaranteed to fulfil the requirement to neither promote nor prohibit religion. By giving religions preferential treatment, they violate that principle.

So there shouldn't be a hands off approach in your opinion. The government should be able to tax churches and, in turn, schools should sponsor prayer and there should be national days of prayer and monuments of Jesus and Moses in every capital. Or, did you just mean to say that the government can interfere with religious organizations as much as they desire but religious organizations will perpetually be prohibited from interfering with the government. I'm pretty sure your 'government being blind to religion' ideal is synonymous with the last description.

[McCulloch]

I take it that since you don't think there shouldn't be a legal definition of religion, there also shouldn't be any taxation of religion as well.

Of course not. Religion should not be taxed. Property ownership, retail transactions, investment and employment income, these are the things we tax. Without any regard to whether the organizations or individuals involved are religious or not.

And which supreme court case supports your contention that churches should be taxed?

Is there any Supreme Court cases that support the common practice of excluding religions from taxation?

Which court case states that the government ought to be 'blind towards religion?'

None whatsoever as far as I know. I am expressing my personal opinion that becoming blind to religion would be the surest way for any government to fulfill the requirement of not promoting nor prohibiting religion. Do you disagree?

I'm not so sure that the government 'being blind' towards religion is an ideal we should all be striving for in the first place.

Question answered. You are not sure.

The separation of church and state in America explicitly states that the two entities are to be separate from one another. There is to be a wall between the two and one cannot pass over the wall into the other's territory. This is the ideal we should be trying to implement, not yours. Under your ideal, even if the government was blind towards religion and showed no impartiality it could still interfere and meddle in the affairs of religious organizations, which is clearly a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

How could a government which is blind to religion interfere and meddle in the affairs of religious organizations? Governments now regulate the activities of religious organizations. Churches must be built according to government legislated construction codes. We don't have special rules for churches' construction. The Sunday School bus must operate under the same rules of the road. The bread and the wine fall under whatever food and drink regulations that are appropriate. When the church buys refreshments for the congregational get together, if you are in a jurisdiction with sales tax, the sales tax is payed. So why is it that church-goers get all up in arms when it is suggested that churches pay their fair share the cost of municipal costs?

[…] government taxation of religious organizations is an example of government interference in religion. Both violate the principle of separation of church and state.

Taxation of religion as such would be a violation of separation. Taxation of property ownership is not. Although, on my opinion, granting an exemption from sales tax, property tax or income tax on the basis of religion would be a violation. To my knowledge, my opinion on this matter has not yet been tested in the courts.

Of course it is, everybody in society is forced to pay income taxes regardless of what their profession is. Churches themselves, their earnings and revenues are not and should not be subject to taxation in the same way other non profit organizations are not subject to corporate taxes.

Exactly what I am advocating. Revenues for all non-profit organizations should be treated identically, regardless of whether the organization is religious. Now, I know that there are some hot head uninformed atheists who see great potential tax revenues by taxing what they mistakenly call the churches' income. The Baptist Church nor the Kiwanis Club, the Lutheran Church nor the Boy Scouts, the Roman Catholic Church nor the Red Cross none of these should pay income tax. For exactly the same reason. They are all non-profit organizations.

If the government prohibited them from utilizing government services like a ferry or a road just because of their religious affiliation then that would clearly be discrimination based on religion, something that is not and should not be permitted.

We agree.

So there shouldn't be a hands off approach in your opinion. The government should be able to tax churches and, in turn, schools should sponsor prayer and there should be national days of prayer and monuments of Jesus and Moses in every capital. Or, did you just mean to say that the government can interfere with religious organizations as much as they desire but religious organizations will perpetually be prohibited from interfering with the government. I'm pretty sure your 'government being blind to religion' ideal is synonymous with the last description.

My view is that governments should tax churches, not because they are churches, but because they own property or they make purchases and everyone else who owns property or makes purchases pays taxes. That is not interfering with religious organizations. That is treating them fairly and impartially. What they should not do is to assess a specific tax on religious organizations or to assess a tax on citizens on behalf of churches (i.e. Kirchensteuer).

[WinePusher]

Is there any Supreme Court cases that support the common practice of excluding religions from taxation?

Yes, Waltz v. Tax Commission in which the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of 'excluding religions from taxation.' The case should've been dismissed prima facie.

I am expressing my personal opinion that becoming blind to religion would be the surest way for any government to fulfill the requirement of not promoting nor prohibiting religion. Do you disagree?

Yes, I've already stated why.

The separation of church and state in America explicitly states that the two entities are to be separate from one another. There is to be a wall between the two and one cannot pass over the wall into the other's territory. This is the ideal we should be trying to implement, not yours. Under your ideal, even if the government was blind towards religion and showed no impartiality it could still interfere and meddle in the affairs of religious organizations, which is clearly a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

How could a government which is blind to religion interfere and meddle in the affairs of religious organizations?

By taxing them? Seriously, you don't think that government taxation of religious organizations is an interference in their affairs?

Governments now regulate the activities of religious organizations. Churches must be built according to government legislated construction codes. We don't have special rules for churches' construction. The Sunday School bus must operate under the same rules of the road. The bread and the wine fall under whatever food and drink regulations that are appropriate. When the church buys refreshments for the congregational get together, if you are in a jurisdiction with sales tax, the sales tax is payed. So why is it that church-goers get all up in arms when it is suggested that churches pay their fair share the cost of municipal costs?

McCulloch, I have already addressed this and explained why every single one of your examples is trivial and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Taxation of religion as such would be a violation of separation. Taxation of property ownership is not. Although, on my opinion, granting an exemption from sales tax, property tax or income tax on the basis of religion would be a violation. To my knowledge, my opinion on this matter has not yet been tested in the courts.

I would be more inclined to support you on this if we delineated between mega rich mega churches and normal, average sized churches in terms of who pays property taxes and who doesn't. In principle, I would only be opposed to taxing the property of mega churches because it does violate the principle of separation although I do sympathize with your argument since these mega churches make enormous amounts of money.

So there shouldn't be a hands off approach in your opinion. The government should be able to tax churches and, in turn, schools should sponsor prayer and there should be national days of prayer and monuments of Jesus and Moses in every capital. Or, did you just mean to say that the government can interfere with religious organizations as much as they desire but religious organizations will perpetually be prohibited from interfering with the government. I'm pretty sure your 'government being blind to religion' ideal is synonymous with the last description.

My view is that governments should tax churches, not because they are churches, but because they own property or they make purchases and everyone else who owns property or makes purchases pays taxes.

The inconsistency in your position that you fail to recognize is that the same principle would also apply to religious organizations. If the government were blind to religion and taxed them to the fullest extent and treated them as they did everything else then the same would have to be true for religion. Meaning, school sponsored prayer wouldn't be a problem and neither would religious monuments on public spaces. Why should it? Why should government owned enterprises be off grounds to religion under your ideal?