Topic: Should churches pay taxes?
Assertion to be confirmed: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This statement within the First Amendment creates a clear separation between church and state. Excusing religious organizations from partaking in the payment of taxes is an evident demonstrations of the government’s, violation of the First amendment, due to their respect and lenience towards an established religion. This action in itself goes against what the framers intended America to be based upon. It is clear that this exception goes against the constitution and is an issue that needs to be addressed. Churches should pay taxes., like the many individuals and organizations do within American society,.
Encomium: If churches were to pay property taxes, there would be an equality among Americans. The establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution will be respected. The government will not suffer a loss of billions of dollars in revenue and a sense of stability will be implemented into the minds of America's citizens.
Exposition of the Situation:
1) Exempting churches from taxation makes the government indirectly a supporter of religion. This violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.
2) The United States churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. “New York's nonpartisan independent budget office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue.”
Certainty: Making it mandatory instead of excluding churches from property tax will help America out immensely in her economic distress.
Credibility: Jeff Schweitzer, scientist and former white house senior policy analyst states, “Undeniably, r...
... middle of paper ...
...ef.” As stated in the court case, America has lasted two centuries without conflict between church and stated. Taxing a church may create issues where none should arise and none have risen.
Impropriety: Churches should not be taxed because of the many issues that arise because of it. If churches were to be taxed, people may be exposed to double taxation, the separation of church and stated will be violated, the government will hold a position of power over the church, and many individuals that are less fortunate may suffer in the crossfire.
Inconvenience: Taxing churches will 200 years of peace and separation between church and state. Taxing churches may call for the taxation of about 960,000 non-profit organizations and charities, to keep the process constitutional and equal among everyone. This may then cause a spirally effect and hurt more individuals than help.
A popular notion among many religious conservatives is the rejection of what is commonly referred to as the separation between church and state. They maintain the United States was founded by leaders who endorsed Christian principles as the cornerstone of American democracy, and that the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment was not intended to remove religion from public life. As a result, a number of disputes have made their way through to the courts, pitting those ready to defend the wall of separation, against those who would tear it down. Two recent cases have brought this battle to the forefront of political debate. The first involves an Alabama Supreme Court justice, who, in defiance of a Federal judge, fought the removal of a granite display of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse. Also, a California man has challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in an upcoming Supreme Court case involving student recitation of the pledge of allegiance.
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...
The Supreme Court has adopted a standard of neutrality to satisfy the Establishment Clause stating: neither federal or state government can enact laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another, and neither can force nor influence a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947). The means that the Martin County Board cannot actively endorse any one particular religion over another and also cannot restrict any one particular religion. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 794, 795 (1983). It must remain religiously neutral. Id. at 795. The Martin County Board’s meeting practice of offering a prayer before its board meetings violates the Establishment Clause because they provided strong sectarian references in their invocations, endorsed Christianity, and coerced those in attendance to participate in the prayers.
In summary, I have stated the Constitutional basis with respect to the history of church-state relation in America. I have stated clearly the two doctrines of separation of church and state versus using religion to bolster morality and virtue of the republic. And I have argued that the two doctrines have a common ground in conscience and morality.
Since 39 percent of students are enrolled in parochial schools, I think that having public funds to support activities like transportation, books, standardized testing and scoring, diagnostic services and therapeutic and remedial services is fine since with these the government is not actually advocating for the religion (262-263). Seen the cases that are related to public funds provided for private education in the U.S. Supreme court, I do see that repeatedly there has been an attempt to having “excessive entanglement”. When the government starts to get involve in trying to provide funds for schools like we can observe in the Lemon v. Kurtzman is when a conflict occurs (263). It is hard to tell when the establishment clause tolerates since there are not many specifics and falls under the judgment of people, but when the government starts to get to involve in creating a school district for a particular religion (e.g. Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet) it clearly conflict with the clause.
Religion should not be taken out of public schools that are funded by the government, because our government was based on religious principles from the very beginning. Our government was founded o...
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)
In conclusion, the incorporation of the 14th Amendment in regards to the development of understanding and the provision for protection of civil liberties like freedom of religion has changed throughout the history of the United States. The role government has played continues to grow, for better or worse, and may actually require the Courts to revise its interpretation from which laws are developed. Indeed, the separation of church and state has had its highs and lows. From the case involving the busing of children to parochial schools to another addressing the use of prayer in public schools and all the way to the President of the United States forming faith-based organizations to benefit citizens in need of aid, the government, and more importantly its citizens, will continue to closely monitor the progress and protection of their freedom of religion.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment clearly reflects the Founding Father’s attempt to avoid the British practice of an intertwined state and church. It is evident that this clause was put into place to avoid government entanglement with religious affiliations. Having spent the majority of my life reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school, I never realized the government’s failure to comply with the Establishment Clause and ultimately defy the constitution. Having read both sides of the argument, I found Laycock’s assertions to be particularly convincing while Sekulow’s claims were less compelling.
Congress decided in Employment Division v. Smith. "the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion and the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). In other words, the government did not have to have a reason to impose laws against religious acts. Thus the purpose of this act was “to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened. ”(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA)
Although this amendment does not specifically state that the government can have no religious influence, it does state that no citizen’s religious practices should be regulated by the government. ...
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.
Taxation has always been a major controversy. Just like any major corporation, the government is constantly looking to raise revenue. The easiest and fairest way to do this is by taxing the people. However, how the people will be taxed is always an issue.
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...