> That sounds like an argument against tax exemption

I am not arguing against tax exemption. I'm saying the SCS statement says nothing about tax exemptions. Therefore, "What about the separation of Church and State requires the Church to gain all the benefits of the State without paying their share of it?" This means that something OTHER than SCS is talking about tax-exemption for churches.

My only goal for religious organizations and tax exemptions isn't to remove the tax exemption but to remove religious tax exemptions and fold them all in under regular tax exemptions for all non-profits. This would increase the threshold for applying to be a tax exempt institution and it would increase reporting requirements for transparency reasons. But that's not my argument at all.

> You are right that the SCS doesn't require churches to be tax exempt.

Excellent, we agree and we're done now :]

> I didn't click on it because we're not arguing tax exemption on churches. We're arguing whether SCS requires churches to be tax exempt and I'm arguing that it does not because it doesn't say anything about it.

This seems to be an odd statement. You led off your first post with "What about the separation of Church and State requires the Church to gain all the benefits of the State without paying their share of it?" and "the separation isn't that religious entities pay not (sic) taxes as if they live on some religious reservations that are not really part of the US." That sounds like an argument against tax exemption, and why I continued to discuss that angle.

You are right that the SCS doesn't require churches to be tax exempt. As you said, it says nothing about it. I was not arguing that it does, but only that there are many ways that churches being exempt make sense in a SCS environment.

> It was only to show that the intent of SCS had everything to do with non-interference of the gov't in church life.

This is mostly correct. I'd be nitpicky to point out that it goes both ways: interference between church and state. It's not a one-way street where government doesn't interfere in church life while church life can interfere with government. It's not a one-way wall.

> In England, churches were state-sponsored, run, and legislated.

Were they taxed? No? Then my point is correct.

> Our FF wanted specifically to remove any gov't entanglement with religious practice.

I agree.

> my point is that the FF saw fit, as an extension of their understanding of the relationship of Church and State, to give churches tax exemption

That's not the key point of this discussion. FF didn't give churches tax exemption, they continued the already existing tax exemptions and they expanded it to all religions as opposed to having a state religion like England.

> You're right that the SCS says nothing about taxation.

This is our only argument. Looks like we agree, /thread :]

> I found that article from the Yale Law Journal interesting. I'm curious if you skimmed it, especially from p. 1304 for a few pages

I didn't click on it because we're not arguing tax exemption on churches. We're arguing whether SCS requires churches to be tax exempt and I'm arguing that it does not because it doesn't say anything about it.

> The first half of your reply has no relevance on any tax issues.

Correct. Not specifically. It was only to show that the intent of SCS had everything to do with non-interference of the gov't in church life.

> Tax exemption of religious entities goes back to England. It's not like England taxed its churches in the colonial period and once the US became independent, we removed those taxes.

In England, churches were state-sponsored, run, and legislated. Our FF wanted specifically to remove any gov't entanglement with religious practice.

> My points with you is that tax-exemption isn't part of SCS.

Not specifically, but my point is that the FF saw fit, as an extension of their understanding of the relationship of Church and State, to give churches tax exemption.

You're right that the SCS says nothing about taxation. Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 1 of the Constitution gives the Federal Gov't the right to levy taxes on whom and how they wish. As far as I know, every court challenge to the notion of the tax-exemption of churches has failed, being deemed unconstitutional not in words but in principle. If you know any different, I'll be glad to look it over.

And I found that article from the Yale Law Journal interesting. I'm curious if you skimmed it, especially from p. 1304 for a few pages.

The first half of your reply has no relevance on any tax issues.

Tax exemption of religious entities goes back to England. It's not like England taxed its churches in the colonial period and once the US became independent, we removed those taxes.

My points with you is that tax-exemption isn't part of SCS.

> It just means that the government doesn't squash religious organizations as far as representation.

I'm going to assume you know that SCS is neither in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but was a phrase Jefferson used in a letter. What the BOR talks about is forbidding the establishment of religion, and allowing the freedom of religious practice. If we go back to the Bill of Rights itself, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It concerns making laws to establish religion, which is different from religious expression and has nothing to do with representation. Second, they are not to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The intent of the establishment clause was to remove the subject of religion and religious expression from the jurisdiction of the federal gov't, leaving it in the hands of the states and the people. Joseph Story, one appointed by Pres. James Madison, in his Commentaries on the Constitution (copyright 1833, book 3, chapter 44, section 1873), remarked, “the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Armenian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.” The Founders explained what they meant by the religion clauses of the First Amendment:

- Article VI, Section 5 of the Constitution: "No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
- George Mason, "Father of the Bill of Rights": "no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."
- James Madison: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established."
- Thomas Jefferson: "I consider the [federal] government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercise. This results not only from [the First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States [the 10th Amendment]. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] government. It must then rest with the states."

Taxation of religious entities has never been part of the picture in the U.S. From the Founding Fathers and through all of U.S. history, tax exemption was always perceived as a way to protect religious freedom and to keep the gov't from meddling, rewarding, or punishing various sects, practices, or even congregations. We can see in recent negations with Amazon regarding HQ2 how NY was ready to lure Amazon with all sorts of tax breaks and incentives. We can just imagine how this might play itself out with regard to religion in the US.

In 1969, Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York challenged the legitimacy of tax exemption for churches. The New York Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, pointing out that "courts throughout the country have long and consistently held that the exemption of such real property from taxation does not violate the Constitution of the United States." ([url]https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3419&context=fss_papers[/url])

This particular article from the Yale Law Journal examines the question of whether churches should pay their fair share of gov't expenses since they are benefitting from them (pp. 1304ff.), a point you also made. The author wrestles with what defines a "fair share" and points out a number of defects in the anti-exemption argument.

> There's a difference between a non-profit and a religious non-profit as far as initial filing and yearly filing. If you want to start a non-profit, you need to file with the government and ask permission to be non-profit. If you claim you're a church, government automatically grants you permission. This is because there's no real test for what the government considers a church which is why atheist organizations are also considered churches.

This is, of course, true. It's also why the "Church" of Scientology fought for so long for exempt status.

> Here's the full famous quote from Jefferson talking about SCS

Yes, the quote is from the Danbury letter, expressing Jefferson's thoughts. As you know, it's not in any legal law or right.

> Yeah there's nothing above from the man who literally wrote "SCS" that talked about taxes. Why? Because the scope of SCS is NOT about paying taxes, it's about the actual SCS.

This is correct. But the Founding Fathers also saw fit, as an extension of their understanding of the relationship of Church and State, to give churches tax exemption.

Separation of Church and State (SCS going forward) doesn't mean the government ignores that churches exist. It just means that the government doesn't squash religious organizations as far as representation.

There's a difference between a non-profit and a religious non-profit as far as initial filing and yearly filing. If you want to start a non-profit, you need to file with the government and ask permission to be non-profit. If you claim you're a church, government automatically grants you permission. This is because there's no real test for what the government considers a church which is why atheist organizations are also considered churches.

SCS included tax benefits because it carried over from British law but that's NOT SCS. SCS doesn't mean "oh and you're tax free". SCS means government isn't going to favor one religion over another. Here's the full famous quote from Jefferson talking about SCS:

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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Yeah there's nothing above from the man who literally wrote "SCS" that talked about taxes. Why? Because the scope of SCS is NOT about paying taxes, it's about the actual SCS.

> Protestant churches get non-profit status but Catholic or Muslim institutions don't.
> As far as I know, this observation is incorrect. Catholic Churches and Muslim institutions do not pay taxes. Perhaps you should check your sources for this claim.

I said that this example WOULD be a SCS issue if that happened.

> Why? What about the separation of Church and State requires the Church to gain all the benefits of the State without paying their share of it?

The courts, for the past number of decades (at least) have been interpreting the separation of Church and State as any religious expression in the public square—a definition and interpretation far removed from the Founders' intent (which was establishment). My point is if that is how separation is being interpreted, then there must be consistency. If any interaction of Church and State is deemed unconstitutional, then paying taxes falls under that interaction. Churches benefit from the State only in general and indirect means (military protection, infrastructure, etc.), but not in any direct way in terms of funds received, direct services rendered, or any financial benefit, as comes too many other entities. So if Church is truly interpreted as separated from State by all direct interactions, and if churches cannot receive any direct benefit from the State, then they should be truly separate entities and not have a tax burden. I think it's an issue of consistency. You can't say all religious domain is separate, except we (gov't) get your money. In addition, churches are legal non-profit corporations, and as such fall under those IRS categories and rules.

According to data collected by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), there are over 1.5 million registered nonprofit organizations (with combined total assets of nearly $5.7 trillion as of August 2012) in the United States today—many of which are nonreligious institutions and organizations that, like churches, seek to influence public policy despite being tax-exempt. (Source: Catholic World Report)

> My point is that the tax argument isn't a separation of church and state.

It has always been interpreted as such since the founding of the country. It has never been the case that the law has been change or that churches were grandfathered into this status. It has always been the case that "separation" involved tax relief.

> Protestant churches get non-profit status but Catholic or Muslim institutions don't.

As far as I know, this observation is incorrect. Catholic Churches and Muslim institutions do not pay taxes. Perhaps you should check your sources for this claim.

> I think if we truly believe in the separation of Church and State, churches should never have to pay taxes

Why? What about the separation of Church and State requires the Church to gain all the benefits of the State without paying their share of it?

My point is that the tax argument isn't a separation of church and state. That argument is applied when Protestant churches get non-profit status but Catholic or Muslim institutions don't. That's when the wall is broken because the government prefers one religion/denomination over others.

However, the separation isn't that religious entities pay not taxes as if they live on some religious reservations that are not really part of the US.

> Which many of the largest ministries don't, or just barely do.

This is almost impossible to generalize, and probably unfair to do so. If you haven't seen the budgets of mega-churches, or have detailed knowledge of their inner workings, this may be quite an unfair and inaccurate stereotyping and caricature.

> And pointing out that some businesses are harmful isn't really relevant, I don't think you fully understand my direction. Several churches are harmful, like the ones that preach snake bite immunity, or the westboro baptist church, which are tax exempt.

All I was meaning is that businesses aren't necessarily and automatically the paragons of virtue. And, of course, the two examples of "churches" you pick are most radical and extreme examples, Westboro and snake-handlers. Geez. It's not fair to use them as examples of churches. Those congregations are WAY out there and not at all representative of the class. It's like saying, you know what politicians are like, such as HITLER. It's just not fair, and you know it.

> we try to separate business and government too, so should we stop taxing businesses?

Again, this is NOT the same. There is no constitutional bill of rights separating Business and State. Man, you have to use reasonable examples if you're trying to press a reasonable case.

> The way I see it, giving churches a free ride is a prime example of preferential treatment,

Well, it's evidence there are different ways of looking at it. Is it preferential treatment, or is it beneficial separation? The constitution says separation.

> It's hypocrisy to tax churches while pushing them out of civic life? You mean things like making laws?

No, I don't mean things like making laws. Churches very much believe in the rule of law. I mean what the FFRF is doing. The Bill of Rights specifies the forbiddance of establishment and the freedom of religious practice. The FFRF is suing entity after entity on the basis of religious expression that has nothing to do with establishment. It's bald-faced misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights, but they press for elimination of religious expression from the public sector, which is not what the BOR was about. But again, if there's going to be separation, we have to be consistent. We can't justifiably say, "You have no involvement, but we'll take your money."

> We tax businesses, but do we allow businesses to dictate what we teach our children?

In many cases, yeah, they do, just as much as churches. Businesses have been changing the culture's values, regulating what goes out on media, making demands on education, and doing everything to influence culture to enhance their bottom line. For sure.

> Do we have companies like Coca Cola and Google write our laws?

Yeah. They're called lobbyists, and they can be quite influential.

> Do government officials take product deals?

They do take bribes to steer public policy in favor of certain business interests, yes.

> Have you seen Obama in a Pepsi commercial?

Have you seen a pastor in one?

> and if that's pushing them out of civic life, then taxing every business is also hypocrisy.

Businesses are for-profit entities. Having been on the inside track of both businesses and churches for budget meetings, I notice quite a difference.