7 ms·

But church and state are separate. So even if they usurp their rights it’ll get squashed by courts

newuserbcdang 5y ago
By adding a tax, you are narrowing that separation. The original bargain was the state wouldn't recognize an official religion and religions would be tax exempt - a good enough attempt at keeping the institutions separate.
- ChefboyOG 5y ago
  That is not the original bargain. The decision to not recognize a state religion was a part of US political policy from very early times. In 1797, the treaty of Tripoli stated "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The decision to grant churches tax exemption comes much later and involves quite a bit of back and forth at the federal and state level. Though, to be fair, there has always been quite a bit of not-officially-ratified tax leniency on churches, even before federal laws were passed.
  - newuserbcdang 5y ago
    Sorry, yes this is correct in the sense that at the founding this wasn't the bargain per se but a result from the separation. It should be noted that what taxes the government could levy were also not determined entirely at the founding. As you have mentioned, the exemptions to religious institutions go back to colonial times, pre-constitution.
  - 0xcde4c3db 5y ago
    Besides that, I was under the impression that even today churches of any significant size tend to be registered as non-profit or charitable entities and qualify for tax exemptions on that basis, not merely because they're religious institutions.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Since taxes are not just for raising funds, but also for coercing/ encouraging certain behaviors, or even as penalties for not participating in certain behavior, then any tax on religious organizations is arguably the state imposing it's say on how the organization should/must operate. This is problematic on its own, but becomes worse if the tax laws don't result in equal treatment. For instance, a rule that exempted collections on Sunday from taxes, but not any other day results in favoring some religions, even if the rule is applied equally to all. And the extreme case is that the government could just tax all religious orgs out of business, leaving us with religious freedom, but not any churches to join.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The original bargain was the state wouldn't recognize an official religion and religions would be tax exempt No, it wasn't. Tax exemption of churches isn’t the result of a “bargain” between exempt churches and the state, and isn’t a premise for state neutrality toward religion (either in the US or, as is actually relevant to the article but surprisingly not what most comments focus on, Canada.)
cratermoon 5y ago
Unlikely. Remember that "taxation without representation is tyranny" was a catchphrase from the Revolutionary War. As soon as they are taxed, they will have a right to representation.
- gizmo385 5y ago
  Do their US congregants not have the same level of representation that all citizens living in a state have?
  - frumper 5y ago
    U.S. Churches tax exempt status is typically as a 501c3 non-profit and that strictly forbids direct political activity. Removing the 501c3 designation would mean that they no longer have a reason to refrain from direct political activity. A Church does not specifically need to be a 501c3 organization to be tax exempt, but it makes things quite a bit easier for several reasons so most choose to go this route.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > U.S. Churches tax exempt status is typically as a 501c3 non-profit and that strictly forbids direct political activity. No, it doesn't. It prohibits direct or indirect campaign activity (a prohibition which, in the case of Churches, is widely flouted and for which enforcement is near no existent), but allows a variety of notionally non-campaign political activity (which, also, is a fictitious distinction, and essentially all activity undertaken of this type is direct activity targeted at advancing particular candidates or parties electoral prospects, and tends to be particularly focussed around particular elections.) > Removing the 501c3 designation would mean that they no longer have a reason to refrain from direct political activity. Removing the 501(c)3 designation would mean that not only was the church so affected no longer tax exempt but donations to it would no longer be tax deductible, so it would need substantially more donated dollars, each of which would cost donors more (because of the lack of deductibility), just to be where it was status quo ante. So they'd have less money to spend on the political activity they already freely engage in. > A Church does not specifically need to be a 501c3 organization to be tax exempt It does for donations to be tax deductible; also, “churches” are an enumerated subtype of 501(c)3, but not of other tax exempt categories, so while being a church ipso facto qualified you for 501(c)3 status (and for exceptions to some rules applicable to other 501(c)3 orgs) if you are willing to abide by the subset of rules actually enforced on churches in that classification, it doesn't automatically qualify you for any other tax exempt status. Of course, all this is irrelevant to the article which is about Canada, which has not yet become a region of the United States subject to the US tax code.
retrac 5y ago
The point is that religious institutions like the Catholic Church, in exchange for their charity status are, at least in principle, supposed to be apolitical and not get involved in electoral politics. The Pope did not endorse Biden, for example. Remove tax-free status and that's no longer required. You could have priests giving their parishioners strong 'advice' on how to vote for every name on the ballot. (Not that that doesn't happen to some degree already in practice...)
- cratermoon 5y ago
  > You could have priests giving their parishioners strong 'advice' on how to vote for every name on the ballot. (Not that that doesn't happen to some degree already in practice...) Tax them and the priests won't work around the margins any more, they'll straight up hand out partisan voter guides and send their parishioners to work on political campaigns in the church bus, using church funds. With Citizens United in play, the Catholic Church could funnel huge sums to candidates and issues of their choice, openly. Politicians friendly to church issues will stand in the pulpits and give stump speeches.
- beerandt 5y ago
  This is a good example of the line being skirted, with the Church (not sure if it came straight from the pope) saying not to vote on a single issue, but consider all issues. Which in this case meant: it's ok with us if you don't vote pro-life. Wink wink.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > You could have priests giving their parishioners strong 'advice' on how to vote for every name on the ballot. None of the Holy See, State of Vatican City, or Diocese of Rome are US 501(c)3 orgs, so I’m not sure why you think that the tax exemption rules applicable to US charities have any bearing on that decision. The Pope had plenty of reasons not to endorse a particular candidate (the ones that are diplomatic and based in Catholic theological distinction between moral and prudential decisions and the role of the Church heirarchy in each being applicable across nations and particular elections.)

By adding a tax, you are narrowing that separation. The original bargain was the state wouldn't recognize an official religion and religions would be tax exempt - a good enough attempt at keeping the institutions separate.

ChefboyOG 5y ago
That is not the original bargain. The decision to not recognize a state religion was a part of US political policy from very early times. In 1797, the treaty of Tripoli stated "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The decision to grant churches tax exemption comes much later and involves quite a bit of back and forth at the federal and state level. Though, to be fair, there has always been quite a bit of not-officially-ratified tax leniency on churches, even before federal laws were passed.
- newuserbcdang 5y ago
  Sorry, yes this is correct in the sense that at the founding this wasn't the bargain per se but a result from the separation. It should be noted that what taxes the government could levy were also not determined entirely at the founding. As you have mentioned, the exemptions to religious institutions go back to colonial times, pre-constitution.
- 0xcde4c3db 5y ago
  Besides that, I was under the impression that even today churches of any significant size tend to be registered as non-profit or charitable entities and qualify for tax exemptions on that basis, not merely because they're religious institutions.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Since taxes are not just for raising funds, but also for coercing/ encouraging certain behaviors, or even as penalties for not participating in certain behavior, then any tax on religious organizations is arguably the state imposing it's say on how the organization should/must operate. This is problematic on its own, but becomes worse if the tax laws don't result in equal treatment. For instance, a rule that exempted collections on Sunday from taxes, but not any other day results in favoring some religions, even if the rule is applied equally to all. And the extreme case is that the government could just tax all religious orgs out of business, leaving us with religious freedom, but not any churches to join.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The original bargain was the state wouldn't recognize an official religion and religions would be tax exempt No, it wasn't. Tax exemption of churches isn’t the result of a “bargain” between exempt churches and the state, and isn’t a premise for state neutrality toward religion (either in the US or, as is actually relevant to the article but surprisingly not what most comments focus on, Canada.)

cratermoon 5y ago

Unlikely. Remember that "taxation without representation is tyranny" was a catchphrase from the Revolutionary War. As soon as they are taxed, they will have a right to representation.

gizmo385 5y ago
Do their US congregants not have the same level of representation that all citizens living in a state have?
- frumper 5y ago
  U.S. Churches tax exempt status is typically as a 501c3 non-profit and that strictly forbids direct political activity. Removing the 501c3 designation would mean that they no longer have a reason to refrain from direct political activity. A Church does not specifically need to be a 501c3 organization to be tax exempt, but it makes things quite a bit easier for several reasons so most choose to go this route.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > U.S. Churches tax exempt status is typically as a 501c3 non-profit and that strictly forbids direct political activity. No, it doesn't. It prohibits direct or indirect campaign activity (a prohibition which, in the case of Churches, is widely flouted and for which enforcement is near no existent), but allows a variety of notionally non-campaign political activity (which, also, is a fictitious distinction, and essentially all activity undertaken of this type is direct activity targeted at advancing particular candidates or parties electoral prospects, and tends to be particularly focussed around particular elections.) > Removing the 501c3 designation would mean that they no longer have a reason to refrain from direct political activity. Removing the 501(c)3 designation would mean that not only was the church so affected no longer tax exempt but donations to it would no longer be tax deductible, so it would need substantially more donated dollars, each of which would cost donors more (because of the lack of deductibility), just to be where it was status quo ante. So they'd have less money to spend on the political activity they already freely engage in. > A Church does not specifically need to be a 501c3 organization to be tax exempt It does for donations to be tax deductible; also, “churches” are an enumerated subtype of 501(c)3, but not of other tax exempt categories, so while being a church ipso facto qualified you for 501(c)3 status (and for exceptions to some rules applicable to other 501(c)3 orgs) if you are willing to abide by the subset of rules actually enforced on churches in that classification, it doesn't automatically qualify you for any other tax exempt status. Of course, all this is irrelevant to the article which is about Canada, which has not yet become a region of the United States subject to the US tax code.

retrac 5y ago

The point is that religious institutions like the Catholic Church, in exchange for their charity status are, at least in principle, supposed to be apolitical and not get involved in electoral politics. The Pope did not endorse Biden, for example. Remove tax-free status and that's no longer required. You could have priests giving their parishioners strong 'advice' on how to vote for every name on the ballot. (Not that that doesn't happen to some degree already in practice...)

cratermoon 5y ago
> You could have priests giving their parishioners strong 'advice' on how to vote for every name on the ballot. (Not that that doesn't happen to some degree already in practice...) Tax them and the priests won't work around the margins any more, they'll straight up hand out partisan voter guides and send their parishioners to work on political campaigns in the church bus, using church funds. With Citizens United in play, the Catholic Church could funnel huge sums to candidates and issues of their choice, openly. Politicians friendly to church issues will stand in the pulpits and give stump speeches.
beerandt 5y ago
This is a good example of the line being skirted, with the Church (not sure if it came straight from the pope) saying not to vote on a single issue, but consider all issues. Which in this case meant: it's ok with us if you don't vote pro-life. Wink wink.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> You could have priests giving their parishioners strong 'advice' on how to vote for every name on the ballot. None of the Holy See, State of Vatican City, or Diocese of Rome are US 501(c)3 orgs, so I’m not sure why you think that the tax exemption rules applicable to US charities have any bearing on that decision. The Pope had plenty of reasons not to endorse a particular candidate (the ones that are diplomatic and based in Catholic theological distinction between moral and prudential decisions and the role of the Church heirarchy in each being applicable across nations and particular elections.)