05-11-2011, 10:02 PM
Spock wrote:
[quote=kj]
I'll just give you the abridged version of my argument (that's expanded ad nauseam elsewhere) that the separation of church and state goes both ways, and that there's the very real threat that the gov't could use taxation as a tool of oppression against religions. kj.
What makes church's so special? I don't see any constitutional support for your two way argument.
The government already use taxation as a tool of oppression against citizens.
The reason that churches aren't taxed is based on the constitutionally protected freedom of religion. The founders believed that churches could not survive if they were taxed, and the gov't intentionally causing them not to survive would in effect be depriving citizens of their freedom to practice religion.
I will state for a fact that my little church would not survive if we had to pay property taxes, which on our property would be around $25K a year. Our entire operating budget is only $80K/year. We are open to anyone and do a lot of good in our community. I think we deserve not to be taxed. Even if you think a particular church is not doing good, if they are practicing a constitutionally protected religion, they should be allowed to do so.
Pastors and other church staffers do pay tax on their incomes.
Churches are prohibited from using the church to do politics, and that's where some have run afoul of the IRS. (Interesting free speech argument you could have there, but there's a natural conflict between taxation of political activities and churches doing politics. Big, complicated subject. I could argue both sides.) Individuals who amass personal wealth from church donations should also be scrutinized very closely because they are clearly abusing the law.