Church fight: Court eyes worship houses' use of public funds

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Alanna Durkin Richer, Associated Press
Updated 1:18 pm, Thursday, September 7, 2017

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts' highest court wrestled Thursday over whether allowing houses of worship to receive public funds for restoration inappropriately blurs the line between church and state.

An attorney for the group of residents who brought the case told the Supreme Judicial Court that the writers of a Massachusetts constitutional amendment clearly meant for active churches to be prohibited from receiving taxpayer dollars in an effort to keep government out of the business of religion.
 
"If these words mean anything, they mean the government cannot write a check to help an active house of worship," attorney Douglas Mishkin said.

The group of taxpayers is challenging more than $100,000 in community preservation grants that Acton Congregational Church intends to use to restore stained-glass windows that include religious imagery and identify other restoration needs.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Case-targets-use-of-public-funds-to-repair-houses-12178908.php

[msongs]

1. churches are ultimate welfare. pay no taxes yet they get full services for

police, fire, court system, etc

[LanternWaste]

2. Imagine the power the churches would wield, above and beyond the current

Imagine the power the churches would wield, above and beyond the current, if they did indeed, pay taxes.

[OldHippieChick]

3. I do not believe that a church should

drink from the public trough. That said, most churches do pay taxes. They just don't pay taxes on their income. However, they pay property taxes, unemployment tax, and FICA.

Still I do not believe that community preservation grants should be awarded to a religious organization.

[Jim Lane]

4. Churches generally don't pay property taxes.

Here's a summary of the law from the Justia website:

Tax Exemptions of Religious Property.—Every State and the District of Columbia provide for tax exemptions for religious institutions, and the history of such exemptions goes back to the time of our establishment as a polity. The only expression by a Supreme Court Justice prior to 1970 was by Justice Brennan, who deemed tax exemptions constitutional because the benefit conferred was incidental to the religious character of the institutions concerned.178 Then, in 1970, a nearly unanimous Court sustained a state exemption from real or personal property taxation of “property used exclusively for religious, educational or charitable purposes” owned by a corporation or association which was conducted exclusively for one or more of these purposes and did not operate for profit.179 The first prong of a two-prong argument saw the Court adopting Justice Brennan’s rationale. Using the secular purpose and effect test, Chief Justice Burger noted that the purpose of the exemption was not to single out churches for special favor; instead, the exemption applied to a broad category of associations having many common features and all dedicated to social betterment. Thus, churches as well as museums, hospitals, libraries, charitable organizations, professional associations, and the like, all non-profit, and all having a beneficial and stabilizing influence in community life, were to be encouraged by being treated specially in the tax laws. The primary effect of the exemptions was not to aid religion; the primary effect was secular and any assistance to religion was merely incidental.180

For the second prong, the Court created a new test, the entanglement test,181 by which to judge the program. There was some entanglement whether there were exemptions or not, Chief Justice Burger continued, but with exemptions there was minimal involvement. But termination of exemptions would deeply involve government in the internal affairs of religious bodies, because evaluation of religious properties for tax purposes would be required and there would be tax liens and foreclosures and litigation concerning such matters.182 {underlining added}

The numbers are footnotes with citations.

As for taxes on income, the income from sources like donations is not taxed. For federal tax purposes, at least, churches and other nonprofits are taxed on their unrelated business income.

[rockfordfile]

5. That would be stealing. No public funds for churches.

[Initech]

6. Another step for the rule by clergy that the GOP really wants.

They want churches to have it all - tax free income, public funds, the ability to be judge, jury, and executioner, and to be able to endorse any lunatic fringe candidates they please. This is where we're headed, folks.