"Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishment Of Religion"

[Xicano]

My apologies to the religious folks because I'm inclined to think a lot of people don't understand these words. My point is this: To have a tax exempt status requires laws granting you special privileges others do not enjoy. Now how is creating a law granting religions tax exemption status not an example of government respecting an establishment of religion?

[BlooInBloo]

1. Because tax-exempt is open to all religions. Durr.

Tax-exempt status is stupid, but not for that reason.

[Xicano]

9. But the word "religion" is open to all religions

and the Constitution is clear and unambiguous on this point. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

You don't think the Constitution is "stupid" do you?

:P

[BlooInBloo]

12. No, I just don't think you know very much about it.

Some basic background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walz_v._Tax_Commission_of_the_City_of_New_York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Monthly,_Inc._v._Bullock


And a well-stated argument in favor of tax-exempt churches (but which I could rationally refute):

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/churches-are-tax-exempt-as-a-matter-of-constitutional-right

[Deep13]

15. Familiar with the case law. Two points.

One, SCOTUS is the last word on this subject, not the only word. Not knowing SCOTUS is not the same as not knowing the Constitution. As the "least dangerous branch" they are careful not to do anything so unpopular that it would get them all lynched.

Second, the Constitution says "Congress shall make NO LAW." No law means no law. Now that this applies to the states, I have to think a special tax status for churches is a limited establishment of religion. If the state can't do something a lot, it can't do it a little either.

[BlooInBloo]

26. Since the Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it says.....

last word = only word (separation of powers, Marbury v Madison, etc.). But I suspect we're only differing semantically on that.

I'm not sure what you're saying with your second. If whatever you're saying doesn't disagree with the existence of Walz v. Tax Commission, then ok. :)

[Deep13]

45. So corporations are people, money is speech and segregation is legal...

...or at least it was until the 1950s when the Constitution suddenly changed. States are not required to give tax exempt status to churches. That's why it is the final word, not the only word.

[jberryhill]

41. There is no "special tax exempt status for churches"

That is where you are going awry here.

Many non-profits are tax exempt.

Are you saying that religious non-profits should have a special "taxed" status?

THAT would be discriminating against religion, as opposed to any other tax exempt non-profit organization.

[Deep13]

46. Those non-profits are charities. nt

[jberryhill]

47. National Organization for Women is a charity?

The Philadelphia Museum of Art is a charity?

What is your definition of a "charity"?

[Deep13]

48. No, N.O.W. is political.

They may have a seperate educational division that does qualify as a charity.

We are talking about tax exempt nonprofits, NOT not-for-profit noncharities. A church may very well be a not-for-profit business, but it certainly is not a nonprofit charity.

If that museum is open to the public for a nominal or no admission fee, then it provides a valuable service to the public. Churches provide what is arguably a service to members of that parish or religion. That's not charity. It's not even a public service.

[Statistical]

51. "A church may very well be a not-for-profit business, but it certainly is not a nonprofit charity"

:rofl:

Did you even read what you wrote.
Non-profit businesses are exempt from paying taxes too.

There is nothing "special" about churches or charities. ANY organization that complies with 501c is exempt from paying taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29

So far the IRS has defined 26 types of organizations which qualify under 501c. This list is not intended to be exaustive. It is routinely updated as IRS determines new entity structures comply with 501c.

* 501(c)(1) — Corporations Organized Under Act of Congress (including Federal Credit Unions)
* 501(c)(2) — Title Holding Corporation for Exempt Organization
* 501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations
* 501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees
* 501(c)(5) — Labor, Agricultural, and Horticultural Organizations
* 501(c)(6) — Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, etc.
* 501(c)(7) — Social and Recreational Clubs
* 501(c)(8) — Fraternal Beneficiary Societies and Associations
* 501(c)(9) — Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Associations
* 501(c)(10) — Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations
* 501(c)(11) — Teachers' Retirement Fund Associations
* 501(c)(12) — Benevolent Life Insurance Associations, Mutual Ditch or Irrigation Companies, Mutual or Cooperative Telephone Companies, etc.
* 501(c)(13) — Cemetery Companies
* 501(c)(14) — State-Chartered Credit Unions, Mutual Reserve Funds
* 501(c)(15) — Mutual Insurance Companies or Associations
* 501(c)(16) — Cooperative Organizations to Finance Crop Operations
* 501(c)(17) — Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Trusts
* 501(c)(18) — Employee Funded Pension Trust (created before June 25, 1959)
* 501(c)(19) — Post or Organization of Past or Present Members of the Armed Forces
* 501(c)(21) — Black lung Benefit Trusts
* 501(c)(22) — Withdrawal Liability Payment Fund
* 501(c)(23) — Veterans Organization (created before 1880)
* 501(c)(25) — Title Holding Corporations or Trusts with Multiple Parents
* 501(c)(26) — State-Sponsored Organization Providing Health Coverage for High-Risk Individuals
* 501(c)(27) — State-Sponsored Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Organization
* 501(c)(28) — National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust

[jberryhill]

52. N.O.W. IS tax exempt

What sort of distinction are you trying to make?

http://www.now.org/nnt/01-97/plangive.html

Need an Antidote for Tax Time? Think of NOW!

[Xicano]

16. Thank you for posting links.

But sorry I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but, I know how to read. And reading it from the horses mouth (the Constitution) its clear and unambiguous. There shall be NO laws respecting the establishment of religion. NOT, there shall be no laws respecting the establishment of religion except in cases of taxation status.

Again, sorry if I come across as disrespectful. I assure you no disrespect is intended.

[Deep13]

13. Exactly, it promotes religion. Duh. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

33. It doesn't say "a particular religion", it says "religion"

People have deliberately obfuscated this to sucker people into thinking that the founders didn't want us to prefer one belief over another; the point was that we were to have no say in it period.

Sneering at other people's intelligence is a pathetic hobby, even when correct.

[MineralMan]

2. Why, you're nothing but a disestablishmentarianist.

Shame on you!

[annabanana]

5. Why you antidisestablishmentarian, you..

(ah..takes me back)

[MineralMan]

10. So's your old man! So there.

[Xicano]

20. I know I know. :)

You know its funny what you say because, and no bullshit, I am so anti-establishment that since most guys wear short hair, I have my hair long (like all the way down to the small of my back). Most people have white colored undershirts, ALL my undershirts are black. LOL there are several other examples.

:P

[BunkerHill24]

3. You have have a legitimate point.....religion is a scam, imo.

maybe we can all open a room filled with idols and claim the same tax except these fraud bastards enjoy. I have a basement am willing to preach from....microphone, and internet, all amenities, all equipped.

[MiniMe]

4. They are governed by the same rules as other tax exempt organizations

The problem is that those rules are not being enforced.

[Deep13]

17. Why are they a tax exempt organization?

Most such companies are actual charities that essentially exist to collect resources and give them away again. Most of the money raised by churches is for their maintanence and to spread their religion. That's not charity. To the extent they do actual charity, then that should not be taxed. AFAIK, most charities are not on tax exempt real estate. Political contributions of course are not tax exempt.

[MiniMe]

28. Most tax exempt organizations can't afford to buy, they rent

It all goes to the tax codes. Non-profits are 501(c) organizations, the number after the c determines the code that governs it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29
http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation/documents/exempt_orgs.html

[Synicus Maximus]

6. At the time of the establishment of the Constitution a number of states

had state religions. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Meaning that there could be no establishment of a national religion. Tax exemption is not an establishment of religion as long as any and all religions
get the same tax exempt status.

[Xicano]

14. "Tax exemption is not an establishment of religion as long as any and all religions."

I have to say that I completely disagree. Here's why: The Constitution doesn't specify which religion, it specifies the word religion in the context which encompasses any and all religions. Therefore the way I read it, any and all religions are not to have laws respecting their establishment, and, writing laws exempting taxes is an example of government respecting their establishment.

[Statistical]

21. Important part of understanding the Constitution is reading it in context.

The post you responded to explains the context.
The context provides clues on the INTENT of the statement.

The States were very concerned about federal govt imposing a national religion and there being issues like Protestants vs. Catholics in England (where most of colonist came from).

No one religion is given preference over others.
Furthermore non-religious organizations are given same tax exempt status so religious organizations in general aren't given preference over secular ones.

[Deep13]

18. The 14th Amendment restricts state power in this matter.

You suggest that nothing short of an English-style established church complete with ecclesiastical arm of government is a violation. Frankly, if the state cannot violate this provision in grand ways, it cannot do it piecemeal either. A tax exemption is a limited establishment of religion over nonreligion and of organized religion over informal ones.

[Statistical]

22. "A tax exemption is a limited establishment of religion over nonreligion"

Hardly given same tax-exempt status is given to secular entities.

[KonaKane]

7. Getting involved in politics and influencing elections

is a dealbreaker when it comes to churches and tax exemptions. Unfortunately, that is not being enforced. Two cases in point, the Mormon and Catholic church - both of which should have had their tax exempt status yanked long ago.

[RandomThoughts]

8. Spirituality is about faith, a choice of belief.

Government enforces measures by coercion.

You can speak about your beliefs, and people can choose to believe or not I don't think it should be coercive, just friendly.

In a government their are rules and they have coercive punishments like jail and fines.

I think as systems the two are separate, but government people can be people of faith, and people of faith can appreciate systems of order and justice.

[tammywammy]

11. Walz v. Tax Commission

http://law.jrank.org/pages/22967/Walz-v-Tax-Commission-Significance.html

The Court emphasized several points in rendering its decision. First, it determined whether either the purpose of the exemption or its end result amounted to a state establishment of religion. In both cases, it found no violation of the Establishment Clause. It found instead that New York's tax exemption neither promoted nor inhibited religion; rather, it retained a healthy level of neutrality. In so ruling, the majority opinion insisted that a difference existed between a tax exemption--which gave indirect economic benefits to a religious organization--and the more direct support of a governmental subsidy.

[Statistical]

19. Two points.

One the provision doesn't state there can't be religion in the country it simply states that Congress can do nothing to provide preferential treatment of one religion (state religion) over others.

Second the tax exempt status is not limited only to religious organizations.

[Xicano]

24. Allow me to retort.

One, the provision (again) is clear and un-ambiguous. There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion. The word religion here is used in the context of encompassing any and all religions, and that there shall be no laws respecting the establishment of any or all of them. Writing a law exempting any one or all of them violates the provision of not respecting their establishment. If you write a law granting them a privilege, you just respected their establishment. The way I see it there's no way around this point.

Second the tax exempt status of other organizations has nothing to do with the provision of the constitution concerning respecting the establishment of religions. I don't see how other (non religion) organizations are germane to the subject.

[Statistical]

27. There is no special status for churches. Where do you get this idea?

ALL non-profits and charities are tax-free and that happens to include churches.

What you are suggesting is the tax code should be changed to make churches "special" and not have same tax-exempt status of every other non-profit.
The Constitution doesn't require Churches be held to a HIGHER standard than every other non-profit just the same standard.

[PurityOfEssence]

37. It doesn't say that at all

This is successful flak thrown up by religionists. It's talking about religion in a broad sense, not any particular sect. There's nothing AT ALL in there about making sure there's a level playing field, yet agreeing that religion is either good or bad or whether we agree that it should be accepted as a common assumption or truth or anything of the sort.

It's VERY SIMPLE: the government is to stay out of the conversation. The REAL reason for this is that religion creates aristocracies: those of the endorsed belief win. Religion doesn't need to justify its actions or even explain them. It is, quite plainly, anti-democratic and poisonous to any pluralist community, and that's why our founders wanted to keep the government on a logical, secular, and CAUSAL footing.

We've deeply sinned against this premise with crap like "In God We Trust" on money, and those who would dismiss this as "ceremonial deism" are either naive or playing dirty pool; such encroachments are used to further undermine the egalitarian heart of the enterprise.

The concept that this was merely a calming voice to keep any particular group from having undo advantage simply underlines the obvious: that religion itself is an undo advantage, and THAT'S the problem. There was no wink-wink nudge-nudge agreement that OF COURSE there's a god and we all agree that there is or else one isn't REALLY an American, which is the current implication with the irritating motto.

This is pernicious encroachment of the close-minded pall of supernatural certainty, and most of these belief systems have at least an element of xenophobic elitism.

[hansberrym]

43. Have you actually read any history?

Since rhe facts contradict your theory, you might want to modify your theory to fit the facts.




http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power...









http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html


James Madison

Memorial and Remonstrance -1785


To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,


1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.....

[hansberrym]

23. You ought to apologize to your grade school English teacher.

What on earth do you imagine the word "respecting" to mean in the quoted text?

[rucky]

25. or because they're supposed to be non-profit?

:shrug:

[Old Troop]

29. I believe

that the basic theory was that certain religions would be targeted and others would be exempt.

[Canuckistanian]

30. I was surprised to learn that the tax-free status only started under Johnson

I thought it was ALWAYS that way.

Tax the churches. Again.

It's time - the churches have utterly destroyed their end of the bargain.

[Xithras]

32. That's not exactly correct. Formal churches have always been tax free

Churches have never paid income taxes. Prior to 1913 the point was moot simply because NOBODY paid income taxes. Between 1913 and 1954 churches simply ignored the tax laws, because they were considered to be exempt under the terms of the First Amendment. The problem that eventually arose was simple...some people simply claimed to be exempt from taxation because they declared themselves to be one man "churches", or tried justifying all sorts of things as religion (i.e., "The Bible tells me to work the land, so doing so is part of my religious practice and is tax exempt.")

501c3 registration was implemented as a way to stop that from happening. The premise was simple...if you meet the qualifications of a 501c3, you're tax exempt. If you want to claim a religious exemption and don't want it challenged, you should register with the IRS as a tax exempt organization. If the IRS notices that you're not paying taxes, and sees that you have a valid 501c3, they'll leave you alone.

Now, here's the rub. The text of the IRS codes implementing the 501c3 regulations flat out states that formal churches aren't actually required to register. A church, with a building, AND a congregation, does NOT need to register with the IRS in order to exempt itself from taxation. It may be asked to prove, every year, that it's REALLY a church and that it REALLY cannot be taxed, but the immunity will still exist. Why? Because IRS codes don't trump the Constitution, and the Sixteenth Amendment didn't address the regulatory immunity granted to churches by the First.

Most churches register anyway because it's less hassle, but there's no actual requirement anywhere that they do so. There is also NO legal precedent or case law permitting the federal government to tax them if they don't. Under current law, the IRS could sue a church in court every single year for owed taxes, and the court would simply ask the church to do one thing: "Prove you're a real religion". If they can do that, they are exempt from federal law.

This is where the 501c3 regulations fall flat on their face. The IRS DOES have the power to revoke the tax-exempt status of registered organizations, but it CANNOT actually levy taxes on that church after the revocation. All they can do, at that point, is force the church to annually prove its qualification as a religion or religious organization (which can be both expensive and time consuming for the church). If a church declines to get a 501c3, but can clearly demonstrate that it is a purely religious organization and that all of its funds were collected and spent for religious purposes, those funds are still immune from taxation.

[Canuckistanian]

39. Thanks for the explanation

But what did Johnson do?

[Xithras]

53. He offered churches a choice.

In a nutshell, he offered churches a choice:

1. Register as a 501c3, and abide by the rules of that designation, and the IRS will not audit, challenge, or sue you to determine whether you are really a church protected under the First Amendment. In a way, a 501c3 can be viewed simply as an "I'm really a church" certification.
   


2. Don't register as a 501c3. If you fail to do so, the IRS is free to annually question your status as a genuine religious organization, and may sue you in court to force you to prove your qualification for coverage under the First Amendment. They could, if they were feeling spiteful, do this to you EVERY YEAR. You will need to prove that you are a religious organization, that your funds were spent for religious purposes, and that you have enough members to legitimately qualify yourself as a religion. "The church of Bob the stoner", where Bob is the sole member, isn't going to cut it. "The Church of Nature", where Bob the stoner is the head of a 50 person congregation praying to Gaia for a good pot harvest, actually might. A judge would have to decide.

A large religious organization like the Catholic or Mormon churches could actually skip on the 501c3 designation entirely if they wanted, and they have the money to fight the government every year. They don't do so because it's considered to be a waste of time and generally looks bad, but they COULD.

[Xithras]

31. I do not think that word means what you think it means

In 21st century common English, that sentence would simply mean "Will not write laws regulating religion".

"respecting" is 18th century parlance for "in regard to" or "about".

In other words, religion is an entity completely exempt from federal law. It cannot be promoted, limited, or taxed. The seperation of church and state, Jeffersons "wall of separation", goes both ways.

Government cannot tax religion because religion is exempt from federal regulation...including federal tax regulations. The most important two words in the First Amendment are actually the words "no law", because those effectively override just about any other laws Congress can pass.

[elleng]

34. 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

is the second phrase of the sentence.

There's been a good amount of jurisprudence trying to construe the 2 phrases simultaneously.

[anigbrowl]

35. OP, I hate to be the one to tell you this...

...but you need to work on your English comprehension a bit. Your English ability is just not good enough for legal analysis...indeed your first post contains such a glaring error that it makes a mockery of everything else you say.

No offense meant. Your ideas are good. But you really need to work on your comprehension.

[elleng]

36. I hope you're not a teacher.

'No offense met' is bologna!

[anigbrowl]

38. Er, what?

I thought I had made a silly typo after I read your message, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm from Europe - could it be that I am just not understanding something that would be funny and obvious to an American?

[hansberrym]

44. What you don't get is that in America it is becoming increasingly acceptable

to make arguments that are devoid of reason. The OP's word play ("respecting") is not simply foolishness, nor was anigbrowl's reply to your post, sophistry is in fashion these days.

[jberryhill]

40. Because Tax Exempt Status As A Non-Profit Has Squat To Do With It

Non-religious non-profit charities are tax exempt too.

It is a common mistaken belief that the tax exempt status has something to do with the first amendment. Any qualifying non-profit is tax exempt, whether it is religious or not religious. The ACLU is a tax exempt non-profit. It is not a religion.

[PVnRT]

42. As long as they stay out of politics, I'm actually OK with tax-exempt status

Provided that they are doing legitimate charity work, they're no different from any other tax-exempt charity organization. When churches start dabbling in politics, however, they should have that status yanked.

[Nye Bevan]

49. Wasn't this clause intended to prevent an "official" church in the United States

like the Church of England is the "official" (established) church in that country? So obviously the Constitution bans a "Church of America" being set up (with Obama as its spiritual leader, like the Queen is the head of the Church of England). But I don't see an obstacle to granting *all* religions tax privileges (provided that one religion is not favored over another).

[harun]

50. Fail. No income tax existed when that was written.