tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102991104925557412.post7560896744940308806..comments2009-01-30T08:30:50.450-08:00Timothy Wescohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03710982803295196024noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102991104925557412.post-30263699917336650642009-01-30T08:30:00.000-08:002009-01-30T08:30:00.000-08:00Actually, Bob, you just made the case for why taxation of churches is dangerous to religious liberty. Read your first paragraph minus the little talking point about it not hurting religious liberty and compare it to the substance of you your second paragraph. You are advocating in the second paragraph for policies that restrict a church's religious practices and saying that such restrictions must either be imposed or an exemption bought by participation in property tax levies.Brian Sikmahttp://www.reclaimourheritage.usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102991104925557412.post-68542646926286510192009-01-28T13:46:00.000-08:002009-01-28T13:46:00.000-08:00Actually, we SHOULD tax churches. Repealing churches' tax exemption threatens no one's freedom of religion. If a church sought to rent property from a private owner to conduct religious services but could not afford the rent that the owner was asking, would the church members' freedom to practice their religion have been destroyed? Obviously not: the freedom to practice religion that is guaranteed by the First Amendment does not mean that a religious group has an absolute right to take any property they want for their own use. Church taxation is the same. If a religious group could not afford to pay taxes on property that they owned, this does not mean that this group has been prevented from practicing its religion; it means that the group must seek out a new location to do so, one which they can afford. In the highly unlikely scenario that a church could not find any property whose taxes they could afford to pay, they would still be free to hold services on public property, such as a park, or in their individual members' residences. Even in such a case, no one's freedom of religion has been infringed in any way. The only "right" that is threatened by church taxation is the facetious and imaginary right of a religious group to do anything they want just because they are religious.<BR/><BR/>Repealing churches' tax exemption makes sense, given that they are unlike not-for-profit organizations. Churches are fundamentally unlike the other kinds of groups that usually declare not-for-profit status. Charities and educational institutions, for example, serve all people equally. However, churches do not. They are free to discriminate, and do discriminate, against people who do not share their beliefs (this is called the "ministerial exemption"). They can and do discriminate against people for being gay, for being women, for being unmarried, for their age, for having health problems, or for virtually any other reason. (A recent New York Times article, "Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights", gives more information on the liberties given to churches that would never be granted to any other employer.) At the very least, these groups should pay taxes if they intend to treat their employees in this way. Even better, this special treatment should end, and they should be held to the same anti-discrimination rules as any other business.Bobhttp://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/tax-the-churches.htmlnoreply@blogger.com