4 ms·

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

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.)

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.)