News

Church ready to pay taxes

Weekly offering off the table, says church head
BY PAUL HENRY Crime/Court Coordinator henryp@jamaicaobserver.com
Monday, February 18, 2013

12 Comments

WHITE... we should pay our fair share like everybody else

THE Jamaican church said yesterday it would have no problem paying

property taxes, if the Government asked it to pay up, as part of measures
preparatory to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) pact.

"Whatever tax the Government feels that is reasonable for us to pay, we'll
pay it," said Rev Rennard White, chairman of the powerful Jamaica Umbrella
Groups of Churches (JUGC), which represents the large majority of Jamaican
Christians.

In an interview with the Jamaica Observer, White said: "We should pay our
fair share like everybody else, and if the Government decides to ask us to pay
taxes on property that church buildings are on then so be it."

Currently, respective churches pay tax on all other properties. Yesterday,

White was unable to give specific figures, but said that the church's real
estate holding is "substantial" especially those of the Catholic, Anglican,
Methodist, and Seventh-day Adventist denominations.

The JUGC members are the Church of God in Jamaica, Jamaica Association of
Full Gospel Churches (JAFGC), Jamaica Council of Churches (JCC), Jamaica
Pentecostal Union (Apostolic) JPU(A), Jamaica Association of Evangelicals
(JAE), and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

White said he was "strongly inclined to believe" that member-churches are up

to date with their property taxes.

White's comments followed a press release in which the JUGC called on the
Portia Simpson Miller-led Administration to implement other cost-saving
measures such as reducing the size of the Cabinet, slashing salaries of MPs,
as well as reducing the number of advisors to the Government.

"The JUGC therefore appeals to our Government, as it prepares for the next
national budget, to have such actions implemented," said the release.

The JUGC's release comes on the heels of a $16.4-billion tax package

announced in Parliament by Finance Minister Dr Peter Phillips last Tuesday.

The package, which drew the ire of the Opposition and has been met with
general shock and outcry by the public, includes increases in property and
education taxes, some Customs duties, as well as on taxes levied against
lottery winnings, and telephone calls. It also includes the lifting of $45 billion
from the National Housing Trust over a four-year period.

The measure is geared at increasing public revenues to secure an Extended

Fund Facility with the IMF, a centrepiece of which is paying down Jamaica's
ballooning debt.

Yesterday, while White expressed a willingness on the part of member

churches to start paying tax on properties on which their sanctuaries are
located, the issue of taxing weekly offerings remained a no-no.

White argued during the interview with the Observer that taxing offerings
would amount to double taxation as the givers' incomes would have already
been taxed at source.

White was keen to add that the church deduct, and pay over to the State, the

required taxes from persons employed by the church.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Church-ready-to-pay-taxes_13665273
OOOOOOOOO

Church, prostitutes and more - the next tax frontier

Published:Monday | April 28, 2014 | 12:00 AM
Dr Michael Abrahams - File

By Michael Abrahams, Online Columnist

There goes Peter Phillips again, shafting us with his big package. Tax
package, that is.

The recently announced withdrawal tax has got to be one of the most
unpopular and reviled economic measures ever proposed in the history of
Jamaica. Many of us, including the prime minister, appear to be dazed and
confused by it. It has been roundly rejected by the citizenry, including
business leaders and civil-society groups. According to the leader of the
Opposition, Andrew Holness, the tax would "disincentivise businesses" and
open the door to other "brazen and thoughtless tax impositions under the
guise of passing some IMF test".

It is easy to criticise and reject the withdrawal tax, but what are the
alternatives? As a concerned citizen, I would like to offer my two cents' worth
(which will probably be taxed) regarding measures to ease the country's
almost $2-trillion debt. In this regard, I have four suggestions for serious
consideration.

REINTRODUCE USER FEES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH CARE

We are an impoverished nation and need to awaken from our delusions of

grandeur and accept the fact that we cannot afford to maintain free health
care in the long term.
A Caribbean Policy Research Institute review of our public health system,
undertaken in 2013, found the quality of service to be worse since the feeless policy had been instituted in April 2008. The system was found to be
ineffective, inefficient and exceedingly slow.

Yes, there are many destitute persons who present themselves for health
care, but paying a minimal fee is not unreasonable to request and would ease
the burden on the Government to pay health professionals and to pay for
utilities, drugs, medical supplies and investigations.

LEGALISE, REGULATE AND TAX MARIJUANA

The legalisation of marijuana has the potential to generate significant

revenue for Jamaica. Consider these statistics from the United States:
Following legalisation in Colorado, US$6.17 million was collected in tax
revenue in just the first two months of 2014, with US$98 million projected in
the upcoming fiscal year, of which US$40 million is to be used for publicschool construction, while in California, medical marijuana dispensaries
generate US$105 million in sales tax annually. On the other hand, marijuana
prohibition costs state and federal governments US$17.4 billion every year.

LEGALISE, REGULATE AND TAX PROSTITUTION

The world's oldest profession isn't going away anytime soon. Prostitution is
legal in the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany, among other countries. In
the abovementioned, sex workers are regularly tested for sexually
transmitted infections and the system is regulated. The legal prostitution
industry in Netherlands generates US$800 million (625 million euros) a year,
the tax rate for sex workers being 33 per cent. In Switzerland, prostitutes pay

VAT (value added tax) on their services and some accept credit cards. (I
wonder how they swipe them.)

TAX CHURCHES

Jamaica has the most churches per square mile (make that per square inch!)
in the world, with even more churches being built as you read this article.
One argument that is used to defend their tax-exempt status is that they are
charitable organisations, but they do not all possess that mindset.
I know a devout member of a particular church who has been paying tithes
and offerings for many years. She 'buys and sells' for a living, and when her
car trunk was broken into and her goods stolen and she went to her church
for financial assistance, she got none. Another acquaintance of mine lost her
job, and when she informed her church of this, explaining that it would
negatively impact on her ability to contribute to the institution, she was
asked if there wasn't anything in her house that she could sell in order to
keep the contributions coming.

Now, is there any good reason why these organisations should not be paying
tax? Not even a 'toops'?
Suggesting that churches pay tax while simultaneously suggesting legalising
marijuana and prostitution will not go down well with my Christian friends,
many of whom are already convinced that when I die I will be going in the
'down' elevator to the basement to hang out with Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and,
of course, good old Satan. But in times like these, we must think outside the
box, examine our options dispassionately, and engage in objective debate if
we are to claw our way out of our fiscal abyss.
Michael Abrahams is a gynaecologist and obstetrician, comedian, and poet.
Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and
michabe_1999@hotmail.com.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140428/cleisure/cleisure2.html

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Business
Government planning to tax churches, charities?

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

4 Comments

Print this page Email A Friend!

ELIMINATING discretionary waivers altogether could return $4 billion in

revenue to the Government.

But the tax breaks, which are approved after applications are considered by
the finance ministry, mostly go to charitable organisations, while public
sector bodies and government contracts take up a significant portion of the
rest.

What's more, with a targeted primary surplus of 7.5 per cent of GDP, or
approximately $100 billion next fiscal year, the possible savings hardly dent a
$20 billion to $40 billion shortfall.

Even then, Finance Minister Phillips said that "concrete steps" towards getting
rid of the tax benefit will have to be taken before it can go to the International
Monetary Fund's (IMF) board for an agreement.

Sponsored Links
Is it the beginning of the end for Apple's strong rInvestment Week
That's How You Find Super Cheap Flights!Save70

"We have to intensify our tax reform efforts and, in particular, virtually
eliminate discretionary waivers whilst strengthening the tax administration

department," he said in a pre-recorded speech, which was broadcasted

Monday night.

It is not clear how beneficiaries, such as churches, may be affected by the

elimination of waivers, but Phillips said that a new Charities Act will be passed
to bolster reform measures.

Of the $3.6 billion in approved discretionary waivers during the seven months
to October 2012, 47 per cent went to charitable organisations, 37 per cent to
government institutions and another six per cent went to contracts.

Similarly, for the 2011/2012 fiscal year, which ended March 31, 2012, 58 per
cent of the $4.1 billion in waivers went to charities, and another 15 per cent
went to government-related services.

A large part of the waivers related to government services had to do with the
importation of vehicles by agencies such as the Jamaica Urban Transit
Company (JUTC).

While the charities, such as Food for the Poor, would get the pass on taxes
related to importation of essential items, such as food, pharmaceuticals,
medical supplies, school supplies, books, and furniture.

"Among the structural reforms being undertaken, public sector transformation

is an urgent priority in order to ensure greater efficiency and costeffectiveness in the public sector," he said.

The Government also plans to implement another debt exchange, pass public
debt management legislation, enact a new Omnibus Incentives Act, as well as
an amended Revenue Administration Act, and secure a public sector wage
contract before going to the IMF's board.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/business/Government-planning-to-taxchurches--charities-_13628842

0000000000
RO (yes)

CON (no)

Erik Stanley, JD, Senior Legal Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom,
stated in his Mar. 7, 2012 post titled "Should Churches Be Tax Exempt?" on
Alliance Defending Freedom's "Speak Up" blog:

"There are very sound and valid reasons for church tax exemption... The
social benefit theory justifies tax exemption for churches as a kind of bargain
churches provide needed services, so they are entitled to tax exemption.

One corollary of the 'social benefit' theory that is often overlooked is what I
have termed the 'intangible benefit' theory of tax exemption. This highlights
the intangible and often unseen benefits provided by churches to the
community. Things like reduced crime rates resulting from transformed lives,
suicides prevented when people surrender to Christ, and people with
destructive behavioral patterns that harm the community changing into hardworking and virtuous citizens who contribute to the well-being of the
community. It is difficult to put a price tag on these types of intangible
benefits provided by churches, but there is no question that they exist..."

Mar. 7, 2012 - Erik Stanley, JD

Winnie Varghese, MDiv, Priest in Charge at St. Mark's Church-in-the-Bowery,

New York City, wrote in her May 10, 2012 NYTimes.com article titled
"Sustaining Progressive Faith":

"...I am religious -- a progressive Christian -- and I will argue for the taxexempt status of religious organizations for only one reason. Moderate and
progressive religion is overwhelmingly formed in the U.S., and it is an
essential voice in national and international discourse. We are an important
moral and ethical voice for society as a whole, a voice that has to be religious
to respond to other kinds of religious movements.

The bottom line is that if historic churches like the one I serve had to pay
property taxes, many of us would close. The liberal, diverse, urban churches
in historic buildings would be priced out, and the newer, suburban minimall
churches would be the church of the future. They are not always, but tend to
be, overwhelmingly conservative. In the political arena, the right defends its
agenda by that same conservative Christian language. The Christian center
and left are a minority whose faith demands they work toward a more just or
compassionate society, and many of us are also the stewards of prime real
estate.

Our tax-exempt status gives minority views a space to seed and grow,
often ahead of the political culture."

May 10, 2012 - Winnie Varghese, MDiv

Mark L. Rienzi, JD, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty,
stated in his May 10, 2012 NYTimes.com article titled "Good for Religion,
Good for America":

"Religious exemptions are an essential part of our democracy. They provide

breathing space for religious individuals and institutions to exist. They benefit
all Americans, regardless of religion or lack thereof...

[Exemptions] protect religious liberty by providing room for religious

institutions to thrive with minimal government encroachment and burden.
That is why federal, state and local governments have virtually always
exempted churches from taxation...

Simply put, religious exemptions preserve religious freedom, which

benefits us all."

May 10, 2012 - Mark L. Rienzi, JD

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the US Supreme Court case
whose 7-1 majority opinion dated May 4, 1970 was written by Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger, stated:

"...[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment,
the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity...

The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government

does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from
demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested
that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into
arms of the state or put employees 'on the public payroll.' There is no
genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion...

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between

church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal
relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and
reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other...

Nothing in this national attitude toward religious tolerance and two

centuries of uninterrupted freedom from taxation has given the remotest sign
of leading to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, it has
operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of
religious belief. Thus, it is hardly useful to suggest that tax exemption is but
the 'foot in the door' or the 'nose of the camel in the tent' leading to an
established church."

May 4, 1970 - Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (283KB)

Dean M. Kelley, ThM, former Counselor on Religious Liberty to the National

Council of Churches, wrote in his 1977 book Why Churches Should Not Pay
Taxes:

"...[T]ax exemption is not something churches (or any nonprofit voluntary

organizations, for that matter) win by 'good' behavior or lose by 'bad'
behavior, as 'good' or 'bad' may be defined at will by incumbant officials from
day to day. Churches have their essential function to perform, which they do
and have done for decades and centuriesas best they can, and which
outsiders, particularly government officials, cannot judge, andeven if they
coulddo not have the wisdom, means or right to try to improve the
churches' performance. Loss of tax exemption will not make poorly
functioning churches function better, and the threat of it will only have a
'chilling effect' on those that are not doing too well as it is, so that they will
tend to falter and 'lose their nerve' and do even less well.

Tax exemption is not something to be turned on and off like a spigot, but
an optimum, constant condition for allowing the religious function to be
performed in a 'free market' situation, where would-be practitioners are
allowed to 'sink or swim' on the basis of how well they meet the religious
needs of adherentswithout governmental interference, either to hinder or to
'help' (which is still to hinder). One does not have to be a partisan of one
religion or of any to appreciate and wish to maintain this commendable
'hands off' neutrality of government toward religion, which the First
Amendment commands, and which tax exemption so excellently epitomizes."

1977 - Dean M. Kelley, ThM

Scott Tibbs, evangelical conservative blogger, stated in his June 24, 2009
ConservaTibbs.com blog post titled "Should Churches Pay Taxes?":

"I would argue that subjecting churches to property taxes is a bad idea.
The excesses of some Christian merchants aside, Churches are not profitmaking entities. Many smaller churches struggle to make monthly expenses
like salary and mortgage. Subjecting churches to property taxes would be a
major burden on many smaller churches already struggling to get by and
would therefore be a restriction on religious freedom...

Some have complained that it is 'unconstitutional' to exempt churches (or

mosques, synagogues, temples, and so forth) from taxation. It isn't. So long
as government does not show favoritism by picking and choosing which

religions (or denominations) to exempt and which to tax, there is no

'respecting an establishment of religion' and therefore no Constitutional
problem...

Finally, despite the claims of some, exempting churches from taxation is

not the same as a subsidy. If I do not take $10 from your wallet, I am not
'giving' you $10 - I am letting you keep what is yours. (Or in the case of
churches, what was donated.) If I hand you a $10 bill and you place it in your
wallet, that is a subsidy. Church members are already taxes [sic], both on
income and property so there is no need to tax the money twice."

June 24, 2009 - Scott Tibbs

Don Boys, PhD, evangelist and former USA Today columnist, stated in his
1997 article "Should Churches Pay Taxes?," posted on the Cornerstone
Communications USA (Common Sense for Today) website:

"When there was discussion about bringing churches under the new Social
Security system in the days of President Franklin Roosevelt, he quickly
replied, 'But that would be taxing God!' And so it would...

...Churches should not pay taxes because the government does not have
the authority to demand it!

Does not the Constitution clearly prohibit the government from making any
law restricting religion? Does not the ability to tax actually mean the ability to
control or destroy? I thought most of us believed in the separation of church
and state (but not separation of God and state), but if so, how can any
government entity presume to tax the church? After all, a 'higher' always
taxes a 'lower,' and will any Bible believer maintain that government is over
the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all."

1997 - Don Boys, PhD

John M. Farley, former Archbishop of New York, wrote in his 1894 article "Why
Church Property Should Not Be Taxed," reproduced at Archive.org:

"The people see that church property is really, in the point of use, their
property, and that it would be as sensible to tax the New York City Hall and
Central Park as to tax the churches... The churches are as free to the public
as the city buldings; they have been built for the use of the people, with the
people's money; and they are still supported by voluntary offerings. They are
kept open to suit the necessity and convenience of the public, and all their
services are for the multitude. It may be said in fact that the churches are
more truly the property of the people in point of use than even the city
offices, for in the churches they are always welcome, and it is not for the
comfort and happiness of the clergy that these buildings are erected, but
solely for the people, after the first intention of honoring God... To tax
property so truly the property of the people is simply an absurdity of the
same nature as taxing the public schools because they enjoy the protection
of the Federal government...

...Such a taxation is utterly opposed to American principles, contrary to the

custom of nations, very distasteful to people that believe in God and in
Christ."

1894 - John M. Farley

Dan Barker, former evangelical minister and Co-President of the Freedom

From Religion Foundation (FFRF), stated in his May 9, 2012 New York Times
opinion article titled "Government Is Endorsing Religion":

"Tax advantages to churches and religious organizations should be

curtailed and brought in line with those granted to secular charitable groups.
Whatever public good might stem from some religious activity, it is no
greater than that accomplished by secular groups. They should be treated
equally.

A tax benefit should be justified by public accountability. Churches should

be required to notify the I.R.S. of their intent to claim church status, to pay
the same filing fees and submit the onerous annual 990 form, and reporting
income and expenses, like all other 501(c)(3) groups. The current law gives
unfair advantages to churches, which, unlike other nonprofits, do not have to
disclose their financial activities. This lack of governmental oversight and
accountability opens the door to scams, crime, con artists and abuse by
people working under 'church status' that is much too common... The horrible
massacre at Jonestown, Guyana, for example, could not have occurred had
the Rev. Jim Jones been held accountable to the government while amassing
his armory, drugs, wealth and control over minors..."

May 9, 2012 - Dan Barker

Jeremy Fejfar, PharmD, Comminity Columnist for the La Crosse Tribune and
member of the La Crosse (WI) Area Freethought Society, stated in his Apr. 15,
2012 op-ed titled "Why Are Churches Tax-exempt?" and posted on
LaCrosseTribune.com:

"The problem with granting tax-exempt status to religions and churches as

a rule, is that now we have put the government in the role of determining
what is a religion and what is not. Whos to say that a gathering in someones
living room every Sunday to discuss God is not a religious service?

Should this home be exempt from property taxes, as are thousands of

churches, temples and mosques across this country? How many members
does a group have to have to be considered a tax-exempt religion? More to
the point, are these questions that we want our government asking?...

For every house of worship that is exempt from property taxes, taxpayers
have to pay more than they would have if a residence or business were on
that same piece of land. Do churches not benefit from the same taxpayerfunded benefits that the rest of us enjoy protection by the police and fire
departments, maintenance of roads to and from their places of worship, etc?
Why then should they be exempt from these taxes?"

Apr. 15, 2012 - Jeremy Fejfar, PharmD

Ryan T. Cragun, PhD, Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of

Tampa, and former University of Tampa students Stephanie Yeager and
Desmond Vega, stated in their report titled "How Secular Humanists (and
Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the United States," published in the JuneJuly 2012 issue of Free Inquiry magazine:

"While some people may be bothered by the fact that there are pastors
who live in multimillion dollar homes, this is old news to most. But here is
what should bother you about these expensive homes: You are helping to pay
for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal
governments in the United States subsidize religionto the tune of about $71
billion every year...

Hypothetically, the leader of a drug cartel could have one of his lieutenants
start a church and file for tax-exempt status. Once granted, money from the
sale of drugs could then be donated to the religion, which could use the funds
to build extravagant buildings (including a 'parsonage'), host extravagant
'services' (a.k.a. parties) for members of the religion, and pay extravagant
salaries to its ministers (including the leader of the cartel). Drug money could
be laundered through the churchs bank accounts with little risk of being
caught by authorities. If drug cartels and the Mafia arent already doing this,
wed be surprised...

...[A]s the perceived 'benefit' to society of religions becomes increasingly

irrelevant as more and more Americans cease to utilize their 'services' by
disaffiliating, it will also be increasingly unfair for a large percentage of
nonreligious Americans (almost 40 percent in some states) to subsidize the
recreational activities of others. These subsidies should be phased out."

June-July 2012 - Stephanie Yeager

Desmond Vega
Ryan T. Cragun, PhD

William O. Douglas, LLB, former US Supreme Court Associate Justice, wrote in

his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York,
decided May 4, 1970:

"If history be our guide, then tax exemption of church property in this
country is indeed highly suspect, as it arose in the early days when the
church was an agency of the state...

Churches, like newspapers also enjoying First Amendment rights, have no

constitutional immunity from all taxes...

If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A

believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently
because of the articles of their faith. Believers are doubtless comforted that
the cause of religion is being fostered by this legislation. Yet one of the
mandates of the First Amendment is to promote a viable, pluralistic society
and to keep government neutral, not only between sects, but also between
believers and nonbelievers. The present involvement of government in
religion may seem de minimis [insignificant]. But it is, I fear, a long step down
the Establishment path...

I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional."

May 4, 1970 - William O. Douglas, LLB

Ulysses S. Grant, 18th President of the United States, stated during his
Seventh Annual Message to Congress on Dec. 7, 1875, reproduced in A
Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Volume VII:
Ulysses S. Grant, edited by James D. Richardson:

"I would also call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil
that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land
before the close of the nineteenth century. It is the accumulation of vast
amounts of untaxed church property.

In 1850, I believe, the church property of the United States which paid no
tax, municipal or State, amounted to about $83,000,000. In 1860 the amount
had doubled; in 1875 it is about $1,000,000,000. By 1900, without check, it is
safe to say this property will reach a sum exceeding $3,000,000,000. So vast
a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of Government without
bearing its proportion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be
looked upon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes. In a growing
country, where real estate enhances so rapidly with time, as in the United
States, there is scarcely a limit to the wealth that may be acquired by
corporations, religious or otherwise, if allowed to retain real estate without
taxation. The contemplation of so vast a property as here alluded to, without
taxation, may lead to sequestration without constitutional authority and
through blood.

I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or

corporation, exempting only the last resting place of the dead and possibly,
with proper restrictions, church edifices."

Dec. 7, 1875 - Ulysses S. Grant

James A. Garfield, 20th President of the United States, was quoted in the US
Congressional Record of 1874, available on the US Department of State's
InfoUSA website, as stating:

"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to

be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the
nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property
of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole
community."

1874 - James A. Garfield

Joseph McCabe, atheist writer and former Franciscan monk, wrote in his 1930
essay "Why I Believe in Fair Taxation of Church Property," published in 1930 in

Little Blue Book No. 1502, edited by E. Haldeman-Julius, available at the

Secular Web (Infidels.org):

"The exemption of churches from taxation is one of the worst

anachronisms. It meant originally that the church was a state within the
state, having its own law and deciding itself when and in what measure it
might, in times of pressure; contribute to the public treasury. When this
arrogant claim was disallowed, church property still evaded taxation on the
ground that it served a high public purpose, like, charitable or educational
institutions, which were then entirely voluntary, and it ought therefore, to
have at least this subsidy of an exemption from taxation. There was no need
in those days to inquire very closely into the soundness of the public service.
Practically the whole community used the churches and, if a tax were
imposed on them, the community would have to pay it. The church was
exempt on pretty much the same grounds as the civic hall. It was like
transferring your money from one pocket to another. Now considerably less
than half the adults of any Community use the churches, and the last
argument for exempting them from taxation is quite discredited...

Church property in the United States is said to be worth about four billion
dollars, and it is increasing rapidly in value... The anachronism is that city
property of immense value is used by only about a tenth of the taxpayers of
this city, yet the nine-tenths lazily subsidize it by remitting taxation..."

1930 - Joseph McCabe

Lawrence Sager, LLB, the Alice Jane Drysdale Sheffield Regents Chair at the
University of Texas School of Law, and Christopher L. Eisgruber, JD, Provost of
Princeton University, wrote in their May 9, 2012 NYTimes.com article titled
"Dont Play Favorites":

"[I]f we selectively confer benefits on religion... we are doing as much harm

to equality as if we disfavor some or all religions. If churches receive
exemptions from taxes or zoning laws along with other socially desirable
enterprises say schools and community centers thats fine. But it is unjust
to make churches the sole beneficiaries of such exemptions."

May 9, 2012 - Lawrence Sager, LLB

Christopher L. Eisgruber, JD

Richard Dawkins, DPhil, DSc, former Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public
Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford and author of The God
Delusion, stated in his July 6, 2012 Washington Post op-ed titled "Dont Need
God to Be Good or Generous":

"[C]hurches [being] automatically classified as charities for taxation

purposes is a disgrace. Nobody denies that some churches do charitable
work. But that doesnt mean that any organization should automatically
qualify for tax-free status simply by calling itself a church. Each church
organization separately should make the case that it does charitable work,
just as anybody else has to when seeking tax exemption."

July 6, 2012 - Richard Dawkins, DPhil, DSc