For those still reading this posting, read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/us/26tax.html

This secular government operates under a constitution that makes it unconstitutional to […] favor religion […]

That is not the way the Establishment Clause has been interpreted. It’s a political position that some on the left hold, and probably others too, but it’s not a legal reading.

Small businesses sink or swim based upon their ability to raise income.

So do churches, whether they get tax exemption or not.

Our ongoing existence should not depend on the largesse of the taxpayers unless, as I said, we can demonstrate that we provide a clear public benefit.

The public benefit is making it possible for religious minorities to create religious institutions without undue financial stress.

I happen to belong to a small congregation. If we can’t afford to keep it going in the same manner that a small business does, then we need to consider alternatives, i.e., amalgamation or dissolution. Small businesses sink or swim based upon their ability to raise income.

Our ongoing existence should not depend on the largesse of the taxpayers unless, as I said, we can demonstrate that we provide a clear public benefit. Just existing doesn’t make it.

[…A] small congregation with dwindling participation and a piece of property wouldn’t and most likely shouldn’t qualify for tax benefits that result in other agencies’ tax bills being made proportionately higher.

Jimmy,

This would obliterate thousands of churches of all theological stripes across the US. The logic behind church tax exemptions, as I understand it, is that religion is so important that it should not have to compete with economy-based enterprises.

The US is a secular state governing a multifaceted religious society — not quite the same as a secular society.

In England the government has allowed that tax exemption for charitable activities (including religious organizations) is based on the public benefit they provide. This has resulted in excluding many organizations which, in the US, would be eligible for tax exemption, i.e., cloistered orders of nuns, etc. The legal reasoning was that they did not do any “external work” or interact with society or help people in a material way.

The argument has been made that the “advancement of religion” should be high on a list of charitable purposes.
In a secular society such as the US, I find that argument insupportable in and of itself. If the organization can show that it performs a public service then it should be able to qualify for a tax exemption on its property and for the donations thereto. However, a small congregation with dwindling participation and a piece of property wouldn’t and most likely shouldn’t qualify for tax benefits that result in other agencies’ tax bills being made proportionately higher.

I can agree that, unless there is a public benefit to the work of any given charitable organization, be it secular or religious, there should be no state-granted tax exemption.

However, the “objective” press (yes Chris) will “balance” every traditionalist leader with a liberal one — even though the ballot box fight will mainly be between the most active churchgoers and the casual/non-churchgoers or secular humanists. So the inactive believer — one who doesn’t set foot in a church and thus doesn’t know what’s being said — will be led to believe that the church is divided when the majority will be supporting the initiative.

This is exactly right, and it’s what I call the “National Public Radio” treatment.

The “balance” is there, but conservatives act as a foil to the REAL warriors, the liberals, who are always portrayed as fighting the good fight, and almost always get the opening and closing statement. (“But Jones vows to continue fighting conservative attempts to…”)

The technique is rampant in these stories, where conservatives and Traditionalists of all kinds are demonized and portrayed as standing in the school room door.

The ‘crusading reporter’ mentality is nauseating.

But will the civil authority allow people to have a religious marriage and skip the civil ceremony with its civil consequences.

Where I live, they already do that — you can have a marriage in the church, but if you don’t file the license at city hall, you aren’t ‘legally’ married. That, by the way, is also the technique that the polygamists use. They have one ‘legal’ marriage, the rest are ‘spiritual’ marriages.

But will the civil authority allow people to have a religious marriage and skip the civil ceremony with its civil consequences? I’m thinking of all the senior citizens who are now living in sin to avoid the loss of Social Security widow’s benefits. Will they now be able to have a church wedding and keep the benefits? I’m for that.

Nonsense. There is actually no discrimination involved.

I won’t engage you in a rational debate, as you seem unable to respect differing opinions — however, for your edification:

Discrimination is the failure to treat people in the same way because of a bias toward some of them because of some characteristic—such as race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, disability

You misuse the Declaration of Independence - how come they didn’t have homosexual “marriage” for over two centuries.

For the same reason they had slavery for 90+ years after the Declaration was written. They didn’t fully understand the power of their own words.

This is the case of a religious organization providing a CIVIL service. The care of abandoned / abused / neglected children is one of the responsibilities of the state.

If that were so, the state would have to move all abandoned children into state homes. Since it doesn’t do that it should not attack those that actually care for these children and only mean to act in the children’s best interest (even if you disagree with these intentions).

It’s called discrimination, something that the United States specifically disclaims ‘… That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’

Nonsense. There is actually no discrimination involved. You misuse the Declaration of Independence - how come they didn’t have homosexual “marriage” for over two centuries.

Discrimination means that men (persons) are not treated equally. But there was perfect equality before this decision: every man and every woman were allowed to marry. Marriage being the union between two persons of the opposite sex. Homosexuals were never barred from doing that if they wanted to.

If this constituted discrimination, no one can be denied to marry - not by age, not by blood ties, not by anything, as long as the other person agrees.

The same benefits or a little less?

Which the Supreme Court has said is not constitutional (‘separate, but equal’ was outlawed)

Nonsense again. I was not talking separate but equal but separate but not equal for two different institutions. The state has no real interest in homosexual unions. The body of the state to decide that is the lawmakers, not judges being inventive.

What the two individuals entering into a lifetime commitment decide it is.

And why should that be so. You cannot invent your world. Your definition turns marriage into something meaningless.

So if this really leads to actions against churches, what we will have is violations of freedom of religion, an actual fundamental and human right, in the name of an invention.

John, do you really want to end tax exemptions for religious institutions?

No. I did not say anything of the kind. What I am saying is that churches that accept state funding for activities at the periphery of their mission should recognize that those services are subject to “Caeser’s” laws. Catholic Charities losing their adoption agency license is the unfortunate victim of, in my opinion, misguided dogma.

As far as funding for social services? I believe that discussion is outside the scope of this article.