Quote:
Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan
In what way? I would be very interested in your "reading".
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court established a three-pronged test for laws dealing with the religious establishment. To be constitutional a statute must have “a secular legislative purpose,” it must have principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.
So, by making churches (and their employees) tax-free, the government is in fact making some churches possible that would not otherwise exist because they couldn't afford to "pay" the staff. And since the government makes the decision WHICH churches get that status they are establishing a government-sanctioned religion.
In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), O’Connor noted that the establishment clause prohibits the government from making adherence to a religion relevant to a person’s standing in the political community. Her fundamental concern was whether government action conveyed a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders. As an atheist, I can assure you that by giving tax support to any church I am made to feel that I am in fact an "outsider".
So, I could go on and on and on. But, I am interested in your take on it.
|
Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion...
And one could extrapolate your last point to say that ANY charity that I don't feel part of must cease to receive tax exempt status...