Let the Churches Choose!

Protect Religion from Politics and Politics from Religion

Even though I adamantly oppose the role of churches in imposing ideology on public policy by attempting to buy elections as the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches recently did in California's Prop 8 campaign. I actually disagree with the point that their spiritual functions should be taxed. Preaching, proselytizing, teaching are legitimate functions of religion and, as such, are properly exempt from governmental intrusion. Even though I think they preach nonsense, it is not my place to judge their nonsense or theirs to judge mine. There is a subtle distinction that can be made in law between the legitimate functions of religion in a pluralistic and open society and the illegitimate function of using tax -free dollars to unfairly influence elections.

I have directed a non profit service organization for 20 years. If I used grant funding or donated money to lobby congress or to advertise for a political candidate, I would loose my non-profit status. That is not a restriction on my free speech . I am free to speak, what I am not free to do is to divert untaxed funds from the legitimate purpose of my service in order to impose my ideology upon other citizens. I can do that to my hearts content, if I choose to, but not with tax-free funds. I say: PRAY POLITICS - PAY TAXES. I think we can legislate that distinction without interfering with the religious function of religions, which rightly deserve to be protected from the judgment of governments.

While we protect religion from politics , we must preserve the rights of citizens by protecting our civil society from the coercion of religions.

I would rather the federal government put more resources into inspecting food factories than into determining whether a church provides a "benefit to society ." Those who contribute their time, talents and money to churches are direct consumers of whatever the church provides. They can choose a church that provides the level of transparency that they are comfortable with. They can "grow their own" religion . They can quite easily become providers of religion to other members of their community. This is as it should be.

Sir,

With all due respect to your well-formed opinion, I disagree with your assertion. Today, other corporations, in fact ALL corporations face the test of which you speak. Do they conform to tax exempt qualifications? Most do not and pay taxes, but if you look at the Red Cross, The United Way, etc, they must all do what is suggested. The government does not prefer the Red Cross over Microsoft, it just taxes differently based on what the companies do.

The same would go for the churches. No preference, simply different tax codes based on behavior, not belief. Indeed, by assuming churches are inherently beneficial, the government is employing a prejudice against secular charities who must prove themselves

While you do put forward some very good points, points that, were it not for the Constitutional issue, would have swayed me, and made me a supporter of taxing churches, you do leave out the aforementioned Constitutionality. While many atheists and others who oppose "organized religion," which all too often means Christianity, (notice he says churches, not religious organizations) are quick to raise the cry of "separation of church and state," which doesn't actually appear in the Constitution, they are often quick to forget what the Constitution actually says on the issue if it gives them a chance to hurt the churches. Taxing some churches and not others would effectively be endorsing some churches and not others based on how pleasing their actions were to the government. This is in violation of the Constitution, and certainly flies against the principle of "separation of church and state." Note that, while separation of church and state doesn't actually appear in the Constitution, it is one of the ancillary principles put forward by Thomas Jefferson (among others). Basically, it's not a binding law, but it is a principle that should be observed. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the power to destroy is the power to control. Separation is a two way street.