Atheist politician from Nebraska to churches: PAY YOUR TAXES

[Ryantology]

Nebraska’s Atheist State Senator Introduces Bill That Would Force Churches to Pay Property Taxes

The Governor and candidates for governor have said that “everything should be on the table.” If taxes were paid on the many churches and cathedrals and temples in every city in this State, perhaps the State’s assistance to local governments and schools would be diminished considerably — leaving more in State coffers for other purposes.
Religious people say they want to carry out the directives of Jesus who said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” when he was asked whether taxes should be paid to Caesar.
In short: “PAY YOUR TAXES.”

It's not going to pass, but opening the debate in an official capacity is the first step to righting a historical wrong and putting some of that money to actual good use, and it will help people in more enlightened parts of America breach the subject where it has a better chance of passing.

[Chad32]

Not making churches pay taxes is part of what the separation of church and state is about. Of course keeping religion out of schools is also what it's supposed to be about, and we know how well that went.

[Minimalist]

Not making churches pay taxes is part of what the separation of church and state is about.

Where is that written?


Madison discusses legislation to prevent the use of taxes to support churches. U. S. Grant called for churches to pay their fair share of taxes.

One of Grant's few good ideas.

[Chad32]

Well why else would they not pay taxes? I figured it was under the separation law.

[Jackalope]

Not making churches pay taxes is part of what the separation of church and state is about. Of course keeping religion out of schools is also what it's supposed to be about, and we know how well that went.

No. By not paying taxes, we are effectively subsidizing them.

[Jackalope]

Well why else would they not pay taxes? I figured it was under the separation law.

For the same reason that anyone else gets a tax break: to subsidize activities that the government wants to encourage.

[Minimalist]

It was not a federal issue in 1789.

[FlyingNarwhal]

I don't have high hopes for this at all. Atheist or not, he's still a politician. And you can always count on a politician to bend when their reelection is threatened. Buckle down fellow atheists, this'll be a tough one. Christians still get mad about taking Christmas out of schools, can you imagine how mad they're gonna get when we start trying to make their churches pay taxes?

[Ryantology]

Not making churches pay taxes is part of what the separation of church and state is about. Of course keeping religion out of schools is also what it's supposed to be about, and we know how well that went.

I disagree. The separation idea is designed to keep one entity from influencing the direction or outright attempting to usurp the other. Making churches pay taxes to pay for the public services of which they all take advantage doesn't violate this. It's much less a violation of the idea than is the practice of churches directing people to vote a certain way.

Churches that do interfere with the political process deserve none of the benefits of that separation.

---

I don't have high hopes for this at all. Atheist or not, he's still a politician. And you can always count on a politician to bend when their reelection is threatened.

Well, it's certainly symbolic. There's no way in hell Nebraska's going to go for this.

Buckle down fellow atheists, this'll be a tough one. Christians still get mad about taking Christmas out of schools, can you imagine how mad they're gonna get when we start trying to make their churches pay taxes?

I can. The thing is, I just don't give a shit.

[Minimalist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walz_v._Tax_Commission

To summarize the case, Mr. Walz sued the City of New York for granting tax exemptions to religious institutions arguing that by so doing they were forcing him - and other property owners - to subsidize religion.

This is exactly what Madison spoke of:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
-- James Madison

in 1785 but he was opposing it from the other end. The proposal then was to fund churches by creating a tax for that purpose. In the Walz case, the churches were funded by granting them an exemption from taxes. The court should have paid more attention to Madison and taxed those holy fuckers out of existence!