Well I certainly would like the Establishment clause to be interpreted that way......then we would be free of the "ban God" people who want no religious sybolism in government. But let's assume that the government taxed churches. And then let's say that a certain party that starts with a D and likes to raise taxes increases the tax rate on churches......and another party that likes to lower taxes that starts with an R lowers them when they are in office. Then both parties try to curry favor by turning the tax rate on churches into a political football.Ddrak wrote:Wait... what? The only thing the establishment clause says is that they can't give any religion preferential treatment. The interpretation of that statement has been that a religion is an apolitical organization, which is a pretty difficult definition as churches will necessarily favor one party over the other due to the alignment or non-alignment of party principles with the church's.The State does not tax them due to the seperation (Establishment) clause.
In short, it's been an uneasy truce. The church stays out of government while the government doesn't tax the church. If the church starts sailing too close to being a PAC then they get taxed because they fall outside the establishment clause by getting involved in politics.
There would be no violation of the establishment clause if all religions were taxed, which I think is a perfectly acceptable solution.
Dd
Thanks but no thanks. I prefer that the government just not involve themselves in religious matters.....and the church not involve themselves in political matters.
