New Chalcedon wrote:Caninope wrote:At no point have the acknowledged that property taxes on churches are unconstitutional. I went so far as to state that in the first post you quoted, IIRC. However, I noted that they acknowledged some very good arguments against them.
Also, I wasn't referring to the Church and State as brothers, per se, I was trying to use an analogy that was good enough for you, me, and other laymen reading this thread.
1) Fair enough; I apologise for the misreading. However (and I apologise if you've done so earlier in this thread) could you please provide me with some links to cases in which they did so?
2) And I was trying to (indirectly) highlight the fatal flaw in your analogy: your 'brothers' analogy implied a degree of intrinsic connection between the two which is simply not permitted under a doctrine of separation of church and state.
1. The most notable case where the Supreme Court acknowledged reasons not to tax churches is, AFAIK, Walz v Tax Commission.
Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result -- the effect -- is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. 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.
Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an indirect economic benefit, and also gives rise to some, but yet a lesser, involvement than taxing [p675] them.
2. Religion and the State do have a connection, because both gain their influence from the people, many of whom vote consistently with their beliefs, and go to a church that seems consistent with their ideology. Regardless, the Supreme Court has allowed government and the state to interact.
