With last week’s decision imposing gay marriage on the entirety of the country despite lacking any legitimate Constitutional authority to do so, the Supreme Court has put the radical left within striking distance of one of its most ambitious objectives; the taxation (and regulation) of religious institutions and houses of worship.
Drew M. at AoSHQ doesn’t think it’s a bad idea.
US bishops have spent decades advocating liberal big government programs (ObamaCare, as long as they are exempted and amnesty spring to mind) all while enjoying an exemption from its effects or sharing in the burden of the costs via their tax exemption.
Well they are going to get a taste of what they’ve been building and they aren’t going to like it one bit.
While I will lament to loss of an important American value, it won’t be the first progressives have killed. But I will laugh as they and others like them are shocked that the government they are so happy to sic on others turns on them.
Added: In the interest of interfaith comity I should note I’m looking forward to synagogues and mosques being taxed as well.
90-95% of your congregants vote for Democrats? Well, then I’m sure you’ll be happy to be subject to even more of what they impose on the rest of us.
V the K:
Much of the gay marriage decision talked about the dignity of gay people. The main reason to have SSM would be due to the 14th amendment as well as Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states that contracts in one state are ensured in other states. Was SSM a good decision? maybe, maybe not.
I hate… H-A-T-E the exempt status since I found out the origins of it. [LBJ] During the founding of our country there were many — virulent — sermons preached. In fact, these are compiled and FREE to read (http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1878).
Can you even in your wildest dreams think some of those sermons could be preached today?
A really good site with some info on this and how churches should “LLC”, is a great site called “Hush Money” ~ http://hushmoney.org/
The Church sold itself to Obama for thirty pieces of silver. Hope it was worth it.
Many religious leaders in America today have basically tied their own hands by taking the government’s money. Losing tax exempt status would damage many denominations to some degree, but I think it could have a couple positive benefits: Priests/ministers/etc. would be free to speak their mind, since they couldn’t be threatened by loss of tax-exempt status. It would necessarily force congregations to pitch in more, and it would probably force some pro-government parishioners to realign themselves with their faith or leave- or compel resentful/loyal parishioners to drive out their traitorous compatriots.
“Much of the gay marriage decision talked about the dignity of gay people.”
davinci, do you agree with the premise that the government can bestow (and by extension) deny dignity?
It’s ironic Christians, who used to JAIL gays, are worried about their former victims now returning the favor. Which, of course, can never happen
While the claim is made that once a church becomes taxed it can speak its mind is not really true. Remember how many times an opponent of the current administration, or any administration for that matter, has decided that a certain person or group was due for an audit? They could even decide to create new categories for certain churches, and change their tax rate to higher and higher levels simply by moving them to a new classification.
It occurs to me that if you want to tax churches, just institute the Fair Tax. Churches have to buy sh-t too.
Craig Smith’s comment ignores the fact there is NO proof Obama influenced the IRS at all.
@VtK Now, there’s an idea…
But that goes against one of the planks of socialism.
I think a lot of the fuss (and fear) is there are many churches whose finances do not bear close scrutiny. Or any scrutiny, for that matter.
Livewire:
Kennedy’s talk of dignity is not part of the Constitution. If he wants SSM, use the 14th Amendment and Full Faith and Credit, but don’t get into emotions in your decision.
I think this is what SC Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said about [keeping churches tax free], in the 2015 Same Sex Marriage decision:
“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”
P.S. To go along with this idea, to be fair- maybe the Fed. govt. should make agnostic, and atheistic, houses of worship-like places/houses that teach their agn. + ath. beliefs, tax free as well.
I mean it. Maybe laws should be made to give US buildings that teach [an agnostic group’s, or an atheist group’s,] morals and/or beliefs, tax free status, so that the US Govt. gives these groups a fare chance at a tax-free status, as well. Hmm.
davinci,
“They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
I repeat the question.
As far back as 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, held
Progressives act all perplexed to the charge that there is a war on religion. But being able to tax religion is their ultimate wet dream.
Can you imagine the Lois Lerner of church audits?
But, as PapaGiorgio correctly points out @ #2 above, the IRS has already got its tentacles around the testicles of church operation by threatening their tax-free status unless they obey the IRS speech codes, property use and employment regulations. So, tax exempt or not, a malevolent IRS has mafia level control.
However, once a church loses the sham status of being out from under political control, the Sandra Fluke Society will have free reign to vandalize church doctrine with all manner of social justice and “dignity” under the eyes of the law clap-trap. littlelettermike can go after St. Andrew’s Cross flags that bear a resemblance to the “evil” Confederate battle flag.
Marshall’s quote said “involves” which is an action. The tacit understanding is that governors of good will must be alert to efforts to use taxation to crush and destroy.
The separation of church and state concept has clouded the issue of whether the church can participate in political speech. Of course it can. But under the tax code, it can not.
Hillary and all the Demonizingrats of the past 50 years have flocked to black churches to speak to the congregations in their bid for votes. They don’t show up in any other churches. But if Mitt Romney got the Mormons behind him, that was Constitutionally corrupt, disgusting and banned by the separation of church and a form of state treason.
The fault, dear faithless, lies not in the Constitution, but within out own bigoted selves.
Our tax code permits a parishioner to deduct his contribution to the church from his gross income. It permits the collected contributions from being taxed as “business income” for the church. It is an open invitation for sham churches to scam the loophole, hence the “steadying” hand of the IRS. Except in the case of Al Sharpton and Juicy Jackson.
Exemptions from the uniform application of federal laws and regulations give rise to suspicion. If the church is equally taxed with the porn shop down the street everybody can choose which one they want to patronize. If the church renders unto Caesar, then Big State gets its vigorish.
Why have tax deductions for charities and donations to charity when we have a full service nanny state to house, feed, pay, medicate, educate and transport our “poor?” What is the compelling state interest in granting tax exemptions to anyone? Why should the state have any interest in anything other than what directly benefits the state? If the state can realize more property tax by buying idle property and selling to a business which will yield greater taxes, why not do it?
You see, We the People have decided that everything is of the state, by the state and for the state. Ours is not to reason why; ours is to pay our taxes and take our entitlements until the state decides it is time to die.
Where, pray tell, does the church fit into all of this? It is, after all, a funky anachronism of the unenlightened, primitive past. Robots don’t have souls and there is no physical evidence that we have souls either.
So, let’s all man-up and act soullessly. And let the government power freaks be the first ones to come out and proclaim that the state has no compelling interest in anything other than the state’s social engineering agenda which yields more state power over its taxed and regulated.
Livewire:
I don’t comprehend why you are asking me the question again. I have stated clearly that the Constitution is about laws and not emotions.
davinci
Because Kennedy is saying that SSM is under the 14th because the constitution grants a right to dignity. That is part of his (incorrect) justification.
The only # I’ll support:
#NoneOfThisShitMatters
#LeastOfAllYourWhineyAss
The problem for the State (writ large) is that the vast majority of churches, synagogues, and temples (I think mosques as well) follow the Commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Since the State acts as if it is the source of everything that a person could need, that is severe heresy to the State.
Churches will be hobbled by either threats of losing tax exempt status (while politicians abuse the political status with selective visits/campaigning) or, if there is no longer a tax exempt status, killer audits.
Hate to say it, but Lefties never think Leftism applies to them.
Until it does, and, boy, do they scream.
Scientology beware!!
TR, it might be a good idea for you to check the tax status of The Freedom From Religion Foundation before making such statements.
While I’d love to see crooks like Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, and Creflo Dollar get huge tax bills and face a fuckton of audits, such a policy would also affect the poor country pastor, who likely depends on his congregants to feed his family.
@ Craig Smith.
I’m not quite sure about what that means.
Do you mean: The Freedom From Religion Foundation would get upset by what I said? If that’s what you mean, for what reason would it upset them? I seriously would like to know.
Being a religious person but not a church goer, I have no problem with doing away with religious organizations losing their tax exempt status but if that is done than why not revoke the status from all organizations that claim to be charitable. There are so many scams out there that claim to be charitable but really provide high paying jobs to their employees (Clinton foundation for example) but actually only use a small portion of charitable giving to those in need. I have been in the Emergency Preparedness business for many years and after seeing how the Red Cross operates, I wouldn’t gave them anything as just one example.
On second thought:
I cannot support the taxing of churches, or religious groups, or single religious persons. I think that if churches start being taxed, then the Federal govt., or any USA govt., could then make it illegal for anyone to have religious meetings, + ban any 1, 2 or more people from talking about their religions [without permission from the government].
One way that this outlawing of speaking of religions, even if you don’t believe in gods or goddesses, can go like this:
1] the govt. says that it will tax all religious churches and all locations where people gather + talk about religion,
2] if your group or church does not pay its tax, the govt then closes you church,
3] without paying your tax, the govt. + police can then say that you don’t have [the right] to talk about religion, and you don’t have the right to talk about your religion. I believe that this would destroy parts of the first Amendment, and everyone’s freedom of speech.
There may be some exceptions to my rule, such as- if your church or group starts to advocate doing violence or other crimes/human rights crimes against people, but, other than those exceptions, I will try my best to defend everyone’s right in The United States to- talk about religion, or their religion, no matter if you are: agnostic, religious, atheist, or some other sort or persons.