PROS and CONS of Churches and Taxes
PRO Tax Exemption for Churches
One of the biggest freedoms established in the very beginning of the United States was free choice to choose any religion or the right to not participate in religion at all. Benevolent neutrality to churches and religions is deeply embedded in the fabric of our nation’s life. The government by no means can make any type of law that forbids or decrees that one religion is the official religion. Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion because it would force the closure of many small churches and devout (Churches, 2013).
Religious beliefs cannot be taught within public schools and children will not be influenced according to the religious beliefs of the teachers and administrators. Teachers cannot stand up for one right religion or even make their religious preferences known in the public school setting. Inasmuch as the United States of America has a myriad of religious sectors, parents are assured that their children, if enrolled in the public school system will not be unduly influenced to a religious belief conflicting with the one at home (Churches, 2013).
Churches earn their tax credit by contributing to the public’s well being. Lastly, the assumption that the First Amendment protects the separation of church and states is not the argument that supports the real intent of the US Constitution. For the most part churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and church tax exemptions have been in place for over 200 years without turning America into a government run by one denomination or a theocracy. A tax-exempt status for the church is not a subsidy to religion, and i...
... middle of paper ...
...s after its exempt status was revoked (Churches, 2013).
"Dan Barker, former evangelical minister and Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), stated in his May 9, 2012 New York Times opinion article titled "Government Is Endorsing Religion" (Churches, 2013). "Tax advantages to churches and religious organizations should be curtailed and brought in line with those granted to secular charitable groups" (Churches, 2013).
"This lack of governmental oversight and accountability opens the door to scams, crime, con artists and abuse by people working under 'church status ' that is much too common..." (Churches, 2013). "The horrible massacre at Jonestown, Guyana, for example, could not have occurred had the Rev. Jim Jones been held accountable to the government while amassing his armory, drugs, wealth and control over minors..." (Churches, 2013).
In each of these instances those supporting government involvement in, and endorsement of religion have justified their assumptions by referencing the words and beliefs of the founding fathers, most notably Thomas Jefferson. They point out that he, like most of the other founders, was a religious man, and that his writings exposed a conviction America was essentially a Christian nation. After all, wasn’t it Jefferson who spoke of inalienable rights bestowed upon man by God in the Declaration of Independence? A more detailed examination of his beliefs, though, reveals exactly the opposite was the case, as Jefferson was actually a champion of s...
The Protestants who emigrated to America knew from experience of the negative effect the government had on religion when the two were operating together. With the mindset of creating a new perfect holy land, they decided to make sure both church and state worked separately. While Puritans still did everything they could to enforce their beliefs in New England, including exiling those who did not attend church regularly, the core idea of separation of church and state was in the minds of the people. In order to have a country that values the freedom of religion, the church has to be out of any government policy. Any laws that are created around a single church’s faith, even if the majority of the population believes in them, threaten the freedoms of all other denominations. Ame...
In the 2011 article ‘The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State’ by Bill Flax, “Faith is no civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned by politics.” These are the exact intentions of the US Constitution and the federal government. The goal is to allow citizens religious freedom that is uninhibited by federal regulation. This essay describes the fundamental reasons why faith groups and institutions should not be allowed to form political parties. This will be done by defining what religion is and how it applies to moral living. Second, this essay will cover the US Constitution and why it also defines moral living. Finally it will define why religion and government in the United States do not belong together. This essay is designed to only examine the US government.
Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere found in the Constitution or any other founding legislation. Our forefathers would never countenance the restrictions on religion exacted today." -- Bill Flax, Forbes, 2011. Church and State seem to be two words that are entirely inseparable from each other.
Proponents of a highly limited separation of church and state often argue that America’s founding fathers would be appalled at the extent to which the Judeo...
The church because of its governmental power was able to do many more things in the Middle Ages than are currently possible, today the churches in the United States are not able to control any part of our government as stated by the constitution as a separation of church and state. The Catholic C...
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Speaking personally, this excerpt has truly started to make me think more deeply on how the church relates to government and the systems that have been in use before the political activism seen among professing Christians today. Whereas before, I would say that there should be some amount of Christian morality put forth from within government. I now see that it does not have the power to change a nation and its people. Stead points out that the framers of the Constitution had a unique perspective on church and state because they had come out of a society where the church was run by the state. The King was the chief priest as well as the chief political ruler—something prohibited by God (2 Chron. 26). Therefore, the framers were those who supported a separation of duties: to paraphrase, they said “The government is there to protect the nation. The Church can do whatever it wants, as long as it is inside the bounds of the constitutional conditions.” (49)
Until the early 1960s, religion was accepted in most public school systems across our nation. One of the main purposes for school in early America was for religious purposes (Prothero). Benjamin Franklin stated, "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson stated, "The question isn't what religion is true. The question is what religious traditions do we need to know something about in order to be an effective citizen." Something that can be beneficial to our nation should not be taken away. Even though religion offends some people, it should be allowed in public schools because of its influence on America and western civilizations, and its ability to help form closer relationships.
The men who founded the legislature of our country had seen first hand the difficulties that church and state partnerships could create in Europe. The consequences of this partnership are the main reason a secular government was created in the United States. During the colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores. Many colonies, for example, had laws limiting public office positions to Trinitarian Protestants. While some colonies had officially established churches and taxed all citizens to support them. Dissenters faced many obstacles of persecution.
Today, if our government needs proof that the separation of Church and State works to secure the freedom of religion, they only need to look at the overabundance of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the Untied States. Only a non-religious government, separated from religion could possibly allow such dissimilarity.
December 15, 1791 the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding (University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2011). Prefacing the institution of the Establishment Clause, society was becoming increasingly concerned that the government was dictating to the people which type of religion they should favor. The tables turned back in forth either favoring Catholicism or Protestantism. Tax dollars were being used to support whatever was being called the state church. During the time that Pierce v. Society of Sisters was being heard, people were becoming increasingly tired of the punishment, imprisonment and increased taxation that was occurring for not conforming to the prevailing religion.
This plainly states that public school teachers, principals, and boards are required to be religiously neutral. They may not promote a particular religion as being superior to any other, and may not promote religion in general as superior to a secular approach to life. They also may not promote secularism in general as superior to a religious approach to life, be antagonistic to religion in general or a particular religious belief, be antagonistic to secularism, and they must neither advance nor inhibit religion (Religion in Public).
In the aid to church-based schools, one of the first interpretations of the Establishment Clause began in 1947 in Everson v Board of Education. With voting 5 to 4 “the Court upheld a state law to reimburs...
University of Michigan. “Religion in Schools: A look at how religious practices influence education.” .