Taxes on Churches?

[Occupied Deutschland]

To be fair, "founded on the Christian Religion" and "founded on Christian values" is not the same thing.

Tell me, what is the difference between "Christian religion" and "Christian values"?

Christian Religion: Faith in...
Christian Values: Belief that...
I realize it's crude and short but that's essentially what I got. You don't necessarily have to be of a certain religion to have the values that religion promotes/advocates/etcetera.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Yup. I could see a tax that was so high as to put religious organizations out of business would be found unconstitutional, but asking them to pay what every other property owner pays seems fair.

Because, as I've said, the government is meant not to interfere with church.

Er, no. The gov't is not to favor any religion. Nowhere is it prohibited from "interfering" with religion. Clergy pay income taxes, for instance (tho there is a subsidy).

The people who wrote the damn thing didn't tax churches, now did they?

They didn't do a lot of things; but that's the point of the elastic clause.

[Kruplyan]

I don't see a problem with them paying taxes like the rest of the citizens. But they should be taxed like a non-profit organization (My church only makes like 300 bucks a Sunday from collections).

[Sonnveld]

In this case — yes, I definitely agree with you. It's un-Constitutional.

However…
There's a disturbing trend of religious bodies getting increasingly involved in politics on a local and nationwide scale. The Dominiionist movement comes to mind and is particularly threatening with their pugilistic posturing. I support taxing churches that get involved with politics, from the legislative to outright influencing politicians and official candidates to straight-up terrorism (abortion clinic bombing).

[Minotzia]

To be fair, "founded on the Christian Religion" and "founded on Christian values" is not the same thing.

Tell me, what is the difference between "Christian religion" and "Christian values"?

Pretty simple.

Christianity; noun; the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

Value; noun; broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of action or outcomes.

A Christian value is a value that is espoused by the Christian religion. They are not, however, the same thing.

[Genivar]

According to the Treaty of Tripoli:

" Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (1796)

So, apparently the Founding Fathers disagree with you.

To be fair, "founded on the Christian Religion" and "founded on Christian values" is not the same thing.

Is this whats called, *splitting hair*?

[Republicke]

Tell me, what is the difference between "Christian religion" and "Christian values"?

Pretty simple.

Christianity; noun; the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

Value; noun; broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of action or outcomes.

A Christian value is a value that is espoused by the Christian religion. They are not, however, the same thing.

Surely an important difference is that being founded on Christianity means that Christianity is still relevant to the process, whereas if it was founded on Christian values, or on ones similar to them, then it doesn't automatically qualify modern Christianity as being relevant.

ie: even if founded on Christian values, in one sense it wouldn't matter, because the Constitution henceforth would have "Constitutional values" which may or may not coincide with the ethical system of this or that faith at different times.

So "Christian values" isn't really an argument beyond "at one time Christianity's values were X, and they influenced the creation of Y." Well, now we can say, "What does Y say?" And we don't even (strictly speaking) need to concern ourselves with X.

Obviously this isn't entirely true, but I think it is somewhat so.

[Minotzia]

Because, as I've said, the government is meant not to interfere with church.

Er, no. The gov't is not to favor any religion. Nowhere is it prohibited from "interfering" with religion. Clergy pay income taxes, for instance (tho there is a subsidy).

The people who wrote the damn thing didn't tax churches, now did they?

They didn't do a lot of things; but that's the point of the elastic clause.

Uh no. The elastic clause is meant to allow the government to carry out the explicit duties it has, but not at the expense of the Bill of Rights. Nothing supersedes the eternal and unshakable freedoms that were guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights except a direct repeal, which will never happen. The government has no authority to tax religious organizations.

[Occupied Deutschland]

To be fair, "founded on the Christian Religion" and "founded on Christian values" is not the same thing.

Is this whats called, *splitting hair*?

I wouldn't think so. I mean, the Absolute Monarchy in France was founded on Christian (more specifically: the Catholic) religion, but that doesn't neccassarily mean it upheld the values of Christianity.
In the same way Christian values and the Christian Religion are not the same. (Plus, when a country is founded ON a religion as opposed to the values of said religion, the country tends to be...well, you know)

[Genivar]

Is this whats called, *splitting hair*?

I wouldn't think so. I mean, the Absolute Monarchy in France was founded on Christian (more specifically: the Catholic) religion, but that doesn't neccassarily mean it upheld the values of Christianity.
In the same way Christian values and the Christian Religion are not the same. (Plus, when a country is founded ON a religion as opposed to the values of said religion, the country tends to be...well, you know)

Authoritarian?

[Minotzia]

Surely an important difference is that being founded on Christianity means that Christianity is still relevant to the process, whereas if it was founded on Christian values, or on ones similar to them, then it doesn't automatically qualify modern Christianity as being relevant.

ie: even if founded on Christian values, in one sense it wouldn't matter, because the Constitution henceforth would have "Constitutional values" which may or may not coincide with the ethical system of this or that faith at different times.

So "Christian values" isn't really an argument beyond "at one time Christianity's values were X, and they influenced the creation of Y." Well, now we can say, "What does Y say?" And we don't even (strictly speaking) need to concern ourselves with X.

Obviously this isn't entirely true, but I think it is somewhat so.

I was just clarifying terms, I had no intent of defending the assertion that our nation was founded on Christian values. That said, they are a very strong cultural and political force here. Unfortunately they are of the Protestant sort, which leads to needless anti-Catholic discrimination.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I wouldn't think so. I mean, the Absolute Monarchy in France was founded on Christian (more specifically: the Catholic) religion, but that doesn't neccassarily mean it upheld the values of Christianity.
In the same way Christian values and the Christian Religion are not the same. (Plus, when a country is founded ON a religion as opposed to the values of said religion, the country tends to be...well, you know)

Authoritarian?

Authoritarian, Fundamentalist, etcetera.
So yes.

[Republicke]

Surely an important difference is that being founded on Christianity means that Christianity is still relevant to the process, whereas if it was founded on Christian values, or on ones similar to them, then it doesn't automatically qualify modern Christianity as being relevant.

ie: even if founded on Christian values, in one sense it wouldn't matter, because the Constitution henceforth would have "Constitutional values" which may or may not coincide with the ethical system of this or that faith at different times.

So "Christian values" isn't really an argument beyond "at one time Christianity's values were X, and they influenced the creation of Y." Well, now we can say, "What does Y say?" And we don't even (strictly speaking) need to concern ourselves with X.

Obviously this isn't entirely true, but I think it is somewhat so.

I was just clarifying terms, I had no intent of defending the assertion that our nation was founded on Christian values. That said, they are a very strong cultural and political force here. Unfortunately they are of the Protestant sort, which leads to needless anti-Catholic discrimination.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was disagreeing with you, you just provided a great springboard. Actually, your erudite and concise summation helped with the formation of my own thoughts, so it's appreciated.

[Blahem]

I wouldn't think so. I mean, the Absolute Monarchy in France was founded on Christian (more specifically: the Catholic) religion, but that doesn't neccassarily mean it upheld the values of Christianity.
In the same way Christian values and the Christian Religion are not the same. (Plus, when a country is founded ON a religion as opposed to the values of said religion, the country tends to be...well, you know)

Don't Christian values arise from the Christian religion, though? Otherwise, they'd be just "values", you wouldn't need to add Christian. They're one in the same.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I wouldn't think so. I mean, the Absolute Monarchy in France was founded on Christian (more specifically: the Catholic) religion, but that doesn't neccassarily mean it upheld the values of Christianity.
In the same way Christian values and the Christian Religion are not the same. (Plus, when a country is founded ON a religion as opposed to the values of said religion, the country tends to be...well, you know)

Don't Christian values arise from the Christian religion, though? Otherwise, they'd be just "values", you wouldn't need to add Christian. They're one in the same.

I wouldn't think so, I mean if a law was influenced heavily by the Hindu value of cows that doesn't mean it was created on the religion does it?
Also, and this is semantics, saying you don't need the "Christian" before values seems very Euro-centric. There can be different values in different religions, it is easy to acknowledge these differences in values by stating "Christian" values instead of just "values". Anyhow...

[Genivar]

Don't Christian values arise from the Christian religion, though? Otherwise, they'd be just "values", you wouldn't need to add Christian. They're one in the same.

I wouldn't think so, I mean if a law was influenced heavily by the Hindu value of cows that doesn't mean it was created on the religion does it?

Yes it does.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Er, no. The gov't is not to favor any religion. Nowhere is it prohibited from "interfering" with religion. Clergy pay income taxes, for instance (tho there is a subsidy).


They didn't do a lot of things; but that's the point of the elastic clause.

Uh no. The elastic clause is meant to allow the government to carry out the explicit duties it has, but not at the expense of the Bill of Rights. Nothing supersedes the eternal and unshakable freedoms that were guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights except a direct repeal, which will never happen. The government has no authority to tax religious organizations.

There's a gap in your logic between those last two statements. We are guaranteed a free press, yet we pay sales taxes on books and newspapers (in some states, at least).

More importantly, the only thing the Supreme Court has explictly allowed is tax exemptions on buildings used for worship, see Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. They didn't however say that such exemptions are required. Further, in Gibbons v. District of Columbia, they did allow taxes on commercial activities churches carry out (ditto Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church). So, there is no absolute restriction on taxing religious organizations. Sorry.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I wouldn't think so, I mean if a law was influenced heavily by the Hindu value of cows that doesn't mean it was created on the religion does it?

Yes it does.

Alright, poor example.
What I was trying to say is you can have something inspired by religion but not necessarily a requirement. (Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happyness aren't in the bible. But the phrases inspiration was Christian values)
I don't know to be honest. Maybe religion and values are the same, but that seems much too...narrow.

[Greed and Death]

It is not unconstitutional, the government is free to tax or exempt churches as they see fit.

[Genivar]

Yes it does.

Alright, poor example.
What I was trying to say is you can have something inspired by religion but not necessarily a requirement. (Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happyness aren't in the bible. But the phrases inspiration was Christian values)
I don't know to be honest. Maybe religion and values are the same, but that seems much too...narrow.

1.If their not in the bible then how can someone claim that they are christian values.
2.Religion and *religious* values are the same, there is such thing as secular values.

[Los Cabreddes]

I'm not sure about it being unconstitutional (remember, this is a law applied GENERALLY not just against churches) but it certainly is unrighteous. Giving nonprofits like Churches and Charities a way out from normal commerce helps them to keep their integrity. When you start taxing, they start having to consider their decisions from an economic standpoint, and nonprofits are meant specifically to be a oasis of hope, truth, and humanity in a desert of commercial despair and human exploitation. They're meant to be an escape, the place where money doesn't matter. I don't believe its currently unconstitutional, but maybe we should go ahead and make it unconstitutional!

[Minotzia]

Uh no. The elastic clause is meant to allow the government to carry out the explicit duties it has, but not at the expense of the Bill of Rights. Nothing supersedes the eternal and unshakable freedoms that were guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights except a direct repeal, which will never happen. The government has no authority to tax religious organizations.

There's a gap in your logic between those last two statements. We are guaranteed a free press, yet we pay sales taxes on books and newspapers (in some states, at least).

More importantly, the only thing the Supreme Court has explictly allowed is tax exemptions on buildings used for worship, see Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. They didn't however say that such exemptions are required. Further, in Gibbons v. District of Columbia, they did allow taxes on commercial activities churches carry out (ditto Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church). So, there is no absolute restriction on taxing religious organizations. Sorry.

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) wrote:The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

It is quite clear that Churches are intended by the Federal government to be tax exempt. The 1st Amendment obviously prohibits favoritism of churches; it's ridiculous to think that taxes on the organization are permitted.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Alright, poor example.
What I was trying to say is you can have something inspired by religion but not necessarily a requirement. (Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happyness aren't in the bible. But the phrases inspiration was Christian values)
I don't know to be honest. Maybe religion and values are the same, but that seems much too...narrow.

1.If their not in the bible then how can someone claim that they are christian values.
2.Religion and *religious* values are the same, there is such thing as secular values.

1) Religion (and the bible/holy book/what-have you) can be interpreted by people differently. Hence why you had people upholding absolute monarchy because it was God's will and you had people advocating Democracy and Republicanism because God gave people "natural rights" and such. (on that topic, I'd jump and say "natural rights" are a pretty religious idea, and those were the main justifications Locke had for the system of government he advocated)
2) Again, interpretation comes in. The Dervishes of the Muslim faith have a much different interpretation of their religion than do Shi'ites. They interpret the values espoused differently and act differently accordingly. Plus, didn't Kant basically establish secular values? I could be wrong there but it seems to sound right...

[Los Cabreddes]

I don't know to be honest. Maybe religion and values are the same, but that seems much too...narrow.

The difference bettween religion and values is that religion is organized. People have a right to powerful organizations free from government interference, and because religion was a major part of our countries founding, and have traditionally held a reasonably trustworthy and stable role in society, they got special attention.

[The unholyempire]

"if u a scard mother got to church"