I chose you because rumours have it you receive a handsome pocket money allowance :D

If you tax all churches equally, it's not an infringement. If you tax the Catholics at 1%, and the Baptists at 10%, and the Muslims at 50%, and the Wiccans at 90%, then you're crossing a line.

I have no problem taxing churches, however I don't expect that to happen any time soon. I do think that any church that wishes to maintain a tax-free status should be required to allow the public to examine their books.

And freedom from religion. That's what the religious crowd comfortably forgets to mention time and again. It also is about the obligation of the state to stay out of the business of propagating interests of religious groups and content of religious dogma.

Tax privileges for religious groups, parallel justice systems that replace the law code of the country, and state-collected religion taxes (as in Germany in case of Protestant and Catholic church), also have to go. Everywhere. Members and priests of religions are responsible before the law in the same way anyone else is. Religious groups have to pay the same taxes like anybody else, by the same rules. No public funding for religious institutions, may it be temples, may it be attached social services. Groups and churches have to finance themselves by donations of its members or what the members agree to pay in mandatory membership fees.

No tax evasion for the rich. No special status for the religious. Both are as equal before the law as any ordinary citizen not being rich and not having a club card. No public funding.

And in case I have not said it before: no public funding. :D Neither directly nor indirectly.

^^^^^^^

No, it's Freedom of Religion, which means that the Government will not excessively involve itself in Religion. Removing the tax-exempt status could be seen as a breach of that.

Also, the 14th Amendment ensures that people will not be prosecuted for their Religion (or lack of). Removing the tax exempt status could be seen by some as a break of that.

Don't worry, the parallel justice system disappeared ages ago! What sort of country would have a government stupid enough to let that sort of thong happen, yet smart enough to convince everyone to vote for them?

By granting churches a tax expenditure (which what an exemption is), would that not be a case of the government getting involved in religion?

No one is saying that the government should have oversight over what churches do. That would be a violation of the first amendment.

But making the tax expenditures the same as for other non-religious entities (corporations for example), would be more in line with first amendment position that the government should stay out of religious issues.

I don't see how making things the same (people being treated equally) could be considered infringement. :nope:

A most interesting issue. :yep:

I don't see anything in there about guaranteeing a church tax free status. :nope:

Your understanding of the US Constitution is remarkably shallow.

That's all it says, Skybird. Free exercise of religion, no state church. Period. Every other argument made about the interpretation is subjective.

Which necessarily includes the right to stay free from any religion, not just some, but all. You cannot have a freedom of religious practice without the freedom to no need to care for religion, no matter which one, at all. That's why the state shall not support any bills and law-making on behalf of interest-lobbying for any religions there are.

No, it is not that the state should not engage in exessive involvement of religion, but should not engage in any engagement on behalf of religion at all.

It seems to me you have not thought your line of thought to the logical end, or do not want to do so. What you imply, in the end leads to nothing else but discrimination and two-class-system founded on a dominant religions' claims.

I refuse to accept such special status being given to religions, no matter their name. Your freedom ends where you start to limit mine and claim your freedom justifies that. But it does not justify it.

Keep thy relgion to thyself. Don'T bother others with it. Do not expect others paying special attention to it or willing it to be given special rights, priviliges, and special freedoms.

Regarding parallel justice systems, you obviously do not know about the Catholic church is running a parallel justice system of church law that in parts overrules the law of the country, that Islam practices - also in Western countries - a system of parallel justice that boycotts the legal system of the state and establishes one based on Shariah, and that Jews also know the idea of such a parallel justice systems. You also ignore that on certain issues like circumcision these religions demand immunity from certain laws that would punish everybody doing the same acts, but not claiming protection of religious special status for it.

Nice double standards.

No special rights, no priviliges, no special status for religions. Religions behave the worse the more these things are given to it. According chapters of history since millenia time and again turn out to be extremely brutal, barbaric, brain-killing and intolerant. Religions are to be tolerated only in situations of tight control and superivision, being practiced only in small doses, so that they cannot brake out and turn the world into a hellhouse once again.

Some might. Others might ask what special priviledges such as tax-exempt status have to do with freedom of anything.

Actually some religious types not only don't forget that, they mention it loudly, insisting that it does not guarantee freedom from religion.

On the other hand, they don't mean the same thing by that phrase that you do. You mean freedom from being bombarded by religious proseletizing, whereas they mean freedom from the existence of religion.

Or maybe you mean that too?

Now you're bordering on the ridiculous. Some people might try to claim that, but they would be wrong. Tax-exempt status is a special allotment, not an equal right, or a freedom. Removing it does not involve persecution or prosecution.

I tend to agree about tax-exemptions for belief, but here you are insisting on limiting freedom of speech. You can turn anyone away from your own door, and you can tell anyone who approaches you in public to leave you alone. You cannot make a law preventing them from trying to talk to you.

Yeah, you're right.