New Mexico Daily Lobo
URL: http://www.dailylobo.com/index.php/article/2012/02/churches_should_be_taxed_stop_interfering
Current Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 11:50:38 -0600
Article Tools
Use the form below to share this article via email.
Possibly Related:
Churches should be taxed, stop interfering
Editor,
It fascinates me how many Christian religious leaders around the country will preach of the “last days,” which is referenced in the book of Revelations in the Bible.
In addition, references are made in said book about oppressive forces acting against Christianity. This concept fascinates me, considering we live in a society in which megachurch leaders make fortunes off of the faith and donations of their congregations, despite calamity and misbehavior by preachers such as Ted Haggard and Eddie Long.
On top of that, an all-male delegation of “top religious leaders” travelled to Washington to attempt to mandate the conditions for women’s access to birth control.
It frustrates me to see such people, who, by the way, are not taxed, find it in themselves not to include their churches in the tax system, or contribute to the overall economic situation in America, yet they want to set standards, rules and control over the mainstream population, whether it be birth control, abortion, gay-marriage rights, decriminalization of marijuana or other social issues.
Remember Rick Perry’s solution to America’s economic situation a few months ago — to hold a huge public prayer meeting — and guess what?
It didn’t work. Perhaps because their way hasn’t really worked for more than 200 years, the religious should respect secular tradition and start contributing to the economy in the way that many, many Americans have had to do for many years.
Maybe it’s time to start taxing churches, then?
James Graves
UNM student
- Jamal Howard on Parting wisdom from outgoing editor
Lobo will replace one communist with another. ... - Crystal on Parting wisdom from outgoing editor
I LOVE when you said, "You will always offend ... - UNM is messed up on English professor files for mistrial
The Lobo printed tons of articles regarding what ... - DAMIAN on An extra day off would fix many of life’s ills
Oh, so wait, the internet, as we see it today. ... - damian on An extra day off would fix many of life’s ills
Here you go little halfling, maybe this will ...
- test story 05/16/12 2:39pm
- Donors running out of time 05/07/12 2:33am
- Armageddon will be due to ignorance, not moths 05/07/12 2:31am
- Most skaters don’t deserve unfair scofflaw stereotype 05/07/12 2:30am
- Beer pong photos deprived better sports of limelight 05/07/12 2:29am
Upcoming Events
8:00 pm | Changeling the Lost
5:00 pm | Lobo Campus Civitan Club
No events for this date
7:00 pm | Werewolf The Forsaken
No events for this date
The Independent Voice of University of New Mexico since 1895
The Daily Lobo is published by the students of the University of New Mexico. Please visit our About Us page for contact information.
©2012 New Mexico Daily Lobo
23 comments
philliphowel
Flag this comment
James I agree with you about taxing churches, but only if you mean taxing everybody. Right to Life, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club- every organization should be taxed and no tax deduction for donations to any organization including UNM should be alllowed. Or we can simplify the entire 60k pages of the IRS confusion that pretends it is a tax code by replacing it with a national consumption tax while repealing the 16th amendment that does not allow any exception. Agree?
You were disingenuous with this statement: “an all-male delegation of “top religious leaders” travelled to Washington to attempt to mandate the conditions for women’s access to birth control.” The Obama mandate requires them to pay for abortion meds. Forcing religious organizations to violate their long held beliefs is wrong and is offensive to the Constitution.
Read more …
I do not know if prayer fixes what we want fixed. I just know the right of people to pray and believe is inviolate.
IcarusPhoenix
Flag this comment
Mr. Howel:
Calling Mr. Graves “disingenuous” in a paragraph in which you repeat an out-and-out lie is a truly interesting method of discourse. The insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act is originally a Republican idea, neither the mandate nor the bulk of the law in question were authored by President Khans (a title which you seem to lack the respect to use), and nowhere in this ciuntry is there any law requiring any organization to cover abortions… regardless of what the tin-foil hat brigade that has taken over the GOP has told you. Indeed, Congressman Issa’s all-male panel actually was called to specifically address birth control, not abortion, and was a ludicrous circus objecting to a rule that the President had removed over a week earlier.
Read more …
Next time you invoke the Constitution, you might want to choose something it actually says, rather than some bizarre reactionary puritanical Tory fantasy; the Constitution protects the right of the individual to worship how they see fit. It does not give a religious organization the right to trample the rights or endanger the well-being of the individual. Indeed, it rather specifically protects us from that particular bit of pre-Revolutionary tyranny.
IcarusPhoenix
Flag this comment
“President Obama”… “Khan” made for an interesting unintentional bit if commentary. It’s rather hard to type on this site using a tablet.
Ryan Wooley
Flag this comment
If you tax churches, wouldn’t that be taxing people twice?
Churches are consistent of people coming together with similar beliefs, whether extreme in those beliefs or not. All those people in the organization are already taxed…so why would you tax them again for getting together? Kinda a ridiculous idea.
Emily Larsen
Flag this comment
Another option would be to tax churches, but then allow them to apply to become non-profits, which would make them mostly tax exempt. This would then hopefully prevent church funds from being used in ridiculous ways, such as pastors taking home hundreds of thousands of dollars.
philliphowel
Flag this comment
I’ll not address your hyperbole just what I see are the facts. The Obama mandate requires religious organizations to pay for “abortion meds,” the morning after pills, in addition to contraception. My point was James not including the meds was disingenuous as he did not provide all of the facts and the most important one to many people of faith.
You attempted to change the focal point by saying Republican’s called for an insurance mandate. They did not call for employers or insurance companies to pay for the meds and services Obama has mandated. The history of legislation is hands off religious organizations.
Read more …
I agree with what you wrote RE; the Constitution’s First Amendment: “It does not give a religious organization the right to trample the rights or endanger the well-being of the individual.” Nor does it allow the government the right to trample on the rights of religious organizations. The history of Supreme Court findings is religious organizations cannot be interfered with in their relationship with their employees. Nothing in the objection of people to the Obama mandate “endanger[s] the well-being of the individual.” If I am wrong please show me.
IcarusPhoenix
Flag this comment
“…what I see are the facts”
And therein lies your problem, Mr. Howel; indeed, it always has been your problem. Rather than reality, you simply address what you think is real. It’s really quit sad. That you’re steadfastly defending people for objecting to a rule that ceased to exist before they launched last Thursday’s political anti-woman circus shows that your attention span is remarkably limited, and your remarkable ignorance of women’s health issues shows that you are more interested in pushing a particular archaic and reality-challenged view of the world than you are in participating in discussions where you actually know anything about the topic in question.
Damian
Flag this comment
I’d like to see Icarus Phoenix defend his position instead of resort to wimpy little smears. I also defend the right for women to abort and am a steadfast atheist.
But its too bad that he/she cannot summon the brainpower to debate, just resort to childishly saying “Phillip, youre dumb”.
Ed
Flag this comment
This graves kid is totally lost in angst over stuff she has no clue about. One wonders how she got the huevos up to actually put this crap down on paper and claim ownership. And then, of course, another whacked out tool, totally devoid of fact pipes up and echos the baloney. All too typical of the kind of nonsense found in the daily loser. Just another day in hell . . . ip, layoff the bud bubba, its fucked up what is left of your brain.
g
Flag this comment
Phillip is so close to being right, but he’s wrong. The Supreme Court has recently determined that religious institutions have greater leeway in curtailing employee rights, on the grounds that the religion has the right to determine who can be a minister. So it is within their rights to fire someone because they are disabled, because as Justice Roberts said “The church must be free to choose who will guide it on its way.”
Of course, that has no bearing on this issue, as religious institutions are still exempt. Quoting Scott Lemieux:
Read more …
“Under existing law, a constitutional challenge to the contraception provision wouldn’t even rise to the level of being frivolous. In the 1990 case Oregon v. Smith, in an opinion written by that infamous radical leftist Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws are constitutional even if they incidentally burden religious practice. Only if a law intentionally targets a religious practice does it run afoul of the Free Exercise clause. “We have never held,” wrote Scalia, “that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.” The requirement that insurance plans cover contraception is a valid secular objective that is not directed at any religious practice per se, and hence is plainly constitutional. If the mandate applied to religious institutions this might be a constitutional problem, but religious institutions themselves are excluded; only religiously-affiliated institutions that serve secular purposes and hire people of multiple faiths are affected.” (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/02/specious-free-exercise-arguments-cant-hide-the-war-on-contraception)
Icarus is also correct in her assertion of Phillip’s “remarkable ignorance of women’s health issues” as the lack of access to birth control most definitely can endanger the well-being of women. Just as an example see: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/news/20080124/contraceptive-pill-cancer-protection. It is definitive, as they say, and that is just one of many positive health benefits. What do we care though, right? Why shouldn’t we continue male domination over female reproductive health (notably on the grounds of preserving the freedom of male dominated religious institutions)?
Damian
Flag this comment
Very nice. But it looks like there needs to be some clarification of the Scalia statement as far as state rights vs the overreaching federal government.
g
Flag this comment
I can clarify, but it will not support your position. The earliest case that Scalia cited that addresses this issue dealt with polygamy back in the 1800s. To quote Reynolds vs. the United States (1878):
“So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html)
Read more …
Alternatively you could take another quote from Scalia:
“Our most recent decision involving a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual’s religion was United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 258-261. There, an Amish employer, on behalf of himself and his employees, sought exemption from collection and payment of Social Security taxes on the ground that the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs. We rejected the claim that an exemption was constitutionally required. There would be no way, we observed, to distinguish the Amish believer’s objection to Social Security taxes from the religious objections that others might have to the collection or use of other taxes.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html)
This regulation is clearly Constitutional, and the case law that Scalia cites recognizes no difference between a state law or a federal law because the issue is the Free Exercise Clause, and applies to both state and federal law because of the 14th Amendment.
Damian
Flag this comment
G (if you are indeed the same G from years past),
I can see that you have come a long way in your ability to make a sensiblle and challenging argument. You are indeed one of the best opponents to appear on these pages yet. Thanks for the clarification, but I did not necessarily hold an opinion, just asked for clarification because I did not research the quote.
That said, and I do not have much time, I am glad that you cited the 14th amendment. The idea that justice Scalia, Roberts or Kagan make a statement about their interpretation of the US constitution, and because they were in the majority opinion, does not make that opinion entirely correct. In any case we should examine the full scope of the argument, as well as the dissenting opinions.
Read more …
First, I reject your notion that social security is constitutional. There is much recognizable dissent and unfortunate circumstances of both a fundamental misunderstanding of the intentions of the US constituion. And it does not take a genius to figure it out.
Many cconservatives and liberals are both wrong about rights. Rights are not social gifts to us, they are objective facts. And to assert that there is no way to determine these facts is absurd. What ideas did the founding fathers have in their minds when writing? How did they get on the same page? Not explicitly stated, but can be easily and fundamentally understood, is the concept of individual rights. Its consistent throughout the entire document and scholars are working on describing exactly what they did mean. Thus, the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments forbid the government to deprive you of “life, liberty, or property” (except when you have violated someone else’s rights).
The Amish farmer did not violate anyone’s rights. And the Constitution was meant to protect him from this outrageous confiscation. He was simply living his own life, farming, essentially in isolation, not dealing with any other individual and not asking for any of the so-called “amenities” of a supreme-wise government providing social security. . Then comes the federal government, in jack-boots, and wielding the power of the state, confiscating private property (money) which is not only a direct violation of the 14th amendment that you cite but also a violation of ethics.
Judges, any one of them, should not take a knee to historical opinion. They should understand the full scope of the US constitution, what it means, as the founding fathers meant it to be read. Manipulation and illusions of shades of gray (i.e. lawyers) alike have polluted and destroyed the very concept that has brought millions to happiness and made the U.S. strong… this is the absolute morality of individual rights.
Therefore, your alluding to Scalia only in the case where it suits your premise is not good enough unless you are are going to unequivocally claim that Scalia was correct in ALL of his rulings. But we both know how judges can be wrong, and for good reason. And I dont think that you are willing to go there and claim that he is correct. Are you, g?
Damian
Flag this comment
When I referenced Scalia Kagan etc, I was drawing attention to the fact that judges, in any case, can always understand the full scope of the Constitution.
Melissa Roberge
Flag this comment
So I clicked on an interesting link and up pops a letter from James. I chuckled to my self because I know James and it is quite fitting that he wrote such a deftly worded letter. I couldn’t agree more with you James. I think it is time to start revoking some non-profit statuses of churches across America; especially the ones that illegally preach politics and candidates from the pulpit. Taxing churches isn’t a bad idea and many have crossed the legal line, but sadly no one seems to be watch dogging this. I mean who does one complain to for this grievance; cops, feds, attny. general? I honestly don’t know.
g
Flag this comment
Ok, so first off, I’m lowercase “g” and not uppercase “G”. I have stated this before, and I know G is still around.
It isn’t my notion, it is accepted that Social Security is constitutional, and there isn’t any meaningful dissent.
Read more …
We’ve discussed this before, so I’m not going to waste much time, but your conception of the Constitution is flawed. How did they get on the same page? I don’t think they did. Objective meaning, please tell me how Hamilton mind-melded with Madison and then got all voters to agree with them. The idea that they did is just flatly not true. They did not agree. That is why there were the Federalist and Anti-Federalist. What the majority of people agreed on in voting was to rid themselves of the Articles of Confederation, and I can’t help but think that was the form of government that you’d be more in favor of, because it was ineffectual.
My use of quotes from one opinion written by Scalia for the majority in no way means that I support all of Scalia’s ideas or any who joined with him in that opinion. That is simply an absurd standard of bringing an individuals idea to the level of infallible omnipresence. The discussion was about a specific legal issue, and I haven’t seen any argument against this regulation that would actually gain a majority in the Supreme Court. That is a real world fact.
Damian
Flag this comment
G, i concede.
I provided you with meaningful dissent. How is it justifiable to give individuals (religious or not) tax exemptions on some things, but not on others. Where is the connection? A “compelling argument for government intervention (essentially a tax)” is somehow justifiable for social security, but not for other purposes? They say it is becuase the government has a compelling case to charge for social security, even though the Amish wished to recieve no future benefits and Stevens admitted that the government may even be better off without having to pay out anyhow. You see, there is no real argument FOR it, its inconsistencies in the ruling show just how poor the decision was (and, remarkably, it was 9-0).
Read more …
Ask yourself. What is the purpose of protecting life, liberty and property? What does that really mean if one can force a tax in any case??
Its interesting that you deal with only what appears on the surface of this deep rooted philisophical understanding of the US constitution. When you only deal with what was said instead of what was meant (as most lawyers do) it opens everything up to any type of manipulation and ignorance of the constitution’s fundamental principles. Always laid out cleverly and (in many cases) unscrupulously, they undermine the meaning of the nobility of the protection of individuals absolute right to their own lives.
Indeed, justices of the supreme court bow to historical rulings and follow the same unmeaningful judicial review which compromises and contradicts the meaning of not just one statement by the authors of the Constitution, but by many. I have not attended law school and will not appeal to authority, yet I do question that many americans do not understand this meaning.
I sought to argue to the deeper meanings of this document. What has made it important to the lives of its citizens. Yet, you only want to deal with the lightweight surface of what occurred historically, and for that, I concede the argument.
My hope is that all Americans will continue to seek the truth (as we do see a rise in younger generations of Ron Paul admirers) and understand the pitfalls of poor regulations and requirements (i.e. Social Security). I hope that they continue to expose those individuals who refuse to push their minds further, and shed some light on the importance, consistency, and overall moral concept of individualism.
Thanks. It was enlightening.
g
Flag this comment
You and I are using the term “meaningful dissent” in totally different ways. I was using the term as being dissent that rises to the level that would then be recognized by the Supreme Court (the body under the Constitution that reviews constitutionality). Your using it to say that your dissent is meaningful. Two totally different things.
On that same line, the Amish case (United States v. Lee) wasn’t about the constitutionality of Social Security, it had to do with the Free Exercise Clause. There was no question about whether Social Security is valid, it was a question of whether an employer had to pay in, despite his religious prohibition. The majority opinion was 8-0, with Stevens writing a concurring opinion was because it was clear that the employer couldn’t be exempted under the Free Exercise Clause. That’s it. It had nothing to do with the constitutionality of Social Security as a whole, and there has been no meaningful legal question regarding its constitutionality since the 1930s.
Read more …
Again, we are looking at two different things, how our political system works, and how you think it should work.
Eugene
Flag this comment
Right you are Melissa. James has sent I’ve been wanting to write for some time now.
Or local Pat Robertson, “reverend” Whats-his-name at the Legacy MegaChurch should pay taxes if he wants to get involved in politics.
Read more …
Of course, he’s the new kid on the block; the so-called minister who runs Joy Junction, Jeremy Reynalds, should have his 501(3)c status yanked for his nasty right-wing rants – in a 2003 guest editorial in the ABQ Tribune he called antiwar protesters “gutless antiAmerican cowards.” What a Christian.
Mr. Howell, as usual your errors need correction: donations to the Sierra Club for lobbying and other political purposes are NOT tax-deductible, unless the group has set up a specific non-political foundation that receives donations separately.
Frodo
Flag this comment
That’s rich coming from you, damian, to slam Icarus for his harsh criticism of Mr. Howel. He was wrong, two sentences in – donations to political groups are NOT tax-deductible.
You routinely “smear” others in your posts. As soon as you start to lose the argument, you hurl such choice phrases as “get a brain,” etc. Heck, you used insults in your post criticizing Icarus for his [alledged] ad hominem.
Read more …
Well, I’ll jump into the debate when I have a chance but must run now (you must have more free-time in your private sector job than I do here at UNM, to post comments so regularly).
Toodles . . .
philliphowel
Flag this comment
Eugene, Frodo you are both right that organizations such as Sierra Club, NRA, Planned Parenthood, Right to Life have a lobbying arm that is a 501c4 which means the donations are not a tax deductible gift as are the donations to the 501c3 arm. Every dollar given to the c3 arm supports the basic foundation that allows the c4 arm to operate with less income. I know this from personal experience of being on numerous boards. My point is NO organization should be tax exempt nor should it be limited in it’s speech. What is happening is there is a wink-wink about how the c3 money is used.
Damian
Flag this comment
G,
Agreed. One correction: Not how I want it to be, but how it should be and how it was meant to be. Whether or not you want to be a part of what it was meant to be is your individual right. And that right ends when you forcefully infringe on mine.
Jeff
Flag this comment
The issue with taxing churches boils down to this — a church is tax exempt as a religious institution. When a non-profit tax exempt church uses the pulpit to espouse political views, opinions and endorsements, it’s gone beyond what’s allowed for the tax exempt status. When a church does that, it should lose it’s tax exemt status. It;s as simple as that.
Comments are closed for this item.