Apparently, the Supreme Pontiff believes, to paraphrase another Catholic, that "all morality is local". Thus it was worth it to free Poland, but not Iraq.



Can someone please explain to me how it is that religious institutions in the U.S. qualify for tax-exempt status when they allow their representatives to opine on political matters in this egregious fashion?

What connection is there between the two? Obviously churches can't be taxed or they'd be effectively under the control of government. But why shouldn't they speak on politics?

Churches should not enjoy the benefits of tax-exempt status at the same time that they engage in political activities. Otherwise, they offer potentially the biggest campaign contribution "dodge" of all.



To put it another way, separation of church and state should go in both directions...if the state cannot control the churches, then the churches should not attempt to control the state.

Nonetheless, the Church and the Pope, along with other religious figures, have served a distinct purpose, stimulating (one hopes) peole to think about the question, "At what point does the purported pursuit of (and agonizing over) morality become an immoral act?".

Harry - If opining on politics is a "campaign contribution," then we will soon have no free speech at all.



Barry - Yes. But an equally good purpose would have been to get the do-nothings to think about when inaction
becomes immoral. That, they haven't even attempted.

Harry:



Nor is separation of church and state aught but an anti-democratic gloss on a constitution that demands it not at all.

PJ: I was not saying that opining on politics is a campaign contribution. I was saying that, if a Church becomes too involved in politics, it's tax-exempt status would make it the perfect "bag man" for political contributions. No limits on charitable giving, and tax-deductible to boot!



OJ: admittedly, the point about religion is not in the Constitution itself, but in the Bill of Rights. But it's right up there at the top. I have always felt, by the way, that the author would have written "no law respecting the establishment of a
religion" if they really meant no state-sponsored church; that in fact the way this phrase is turned ("respecting an establishment of religion") in fact was meant to say no special laws regarding religion(s) at all (e.g. no tax-exempt status).



In any case, I don't have a problem with churches having political opinions, OR with their being tax-exempt. Just not both at the same time.

Harry - The reason that 1st Amendment is phrased "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is that it was intended to prevent Congress from both establishing a federal religion or
interfering with any of the existing state establishments. There were many establishments of religion at the time of the Bill of Rights, and the Amendment assured that Congress could not make a law regarding any of them.

I should read this comments before I post them. Should have been "either-or" or "both-and".

PJ: your interpretation of the language as written actually agrees with mine, I think. My point is that a law granting tax-exempt status to churches is a "law respecting establishment of religion", and thus violates the meaning of the First Amendment. Perverse of me, yes?

Harry - I don't think tax-exempt status constitutes an "establishment of religion." If it did, then I would agree with you that it was unconstitutional at the federal level, though not at the state level.

Ah, but it depends on how one construes the word "establishment". If it is taken to mean "the founding of", then perhaps yes. But if its meaning is found to be synonymous with the word "organization" (both usages are common in today's English) then, bingo! I suppose a specialist in 18th century linguistics would have to tell us how it was used at the time.

The religious tax exemption is firmly established as constitutional by long-standing precedent and practice. Certainly advocacy of general positions for or against such things as war, abortion or slavery would not be thought to endanger it. Contrast and compare this gereral advocacy of moral positions with the frank partisan activity of Negro churches, which commonly act as an auxilliary of the Democrat party, holding political rallies during services and the like. Better to counter antiwar bad speech with more speech. Personally, I am disgusted and ashamed of the foregoing antiwar activity, which costs lives by extending false hope to the enemy. "War never settled anything," my Archbishop recently preached. It settled the Milvian bridge and it settled Lepanto, and where would you be if it had not?

We atheists like to see the pope talk this

way, as it devalues his moral authority

with every syllable. Not that it deserves

any, but some people are still under the

impression that the Roman Catholic

Church is concerned with morality and is

something other than a continuing criminal

enterprise.



Even if we didn't have a First Amendment,

it would seem the province of churches

to offer moral counsel -- no matter how

bad -- and the duty of citizens to judge it

for what it is worth.



Virginia taxes church property except that

actually used for worship, which I think

perhaps Harry T. might go for.



It is true, as Paul says, that states were

allowed to mulct citizens to support churches,

and Connecticut supported the Congregational

Church out of public funds until 1804.



This outraged Americans' sense of fairness

and eventually even the Land of Steady

Habits had to enter the 19th century,

kicking and screaming and enacting Blue

Laws.



However, Orrin, as usual, refuses to confront

Article VI, which is where the constitutionally

required separation of church and state

comes from. As the Founders understood

very clearly.

Harry - If all you mean by separation of church and state is that there be no religious test to qualify for public office, then even I am in favor of separation of church and state.



Alas, it is true that Catholic bishops have not recently shined in their moral pronouncements.

At the time of the Founding the established churches in soime states were even funded by tax dollars.

I just said that, didn't I?



I believe Orrin is dissatisfied with the extensions

given to the commerce clause, although he's

in a pretty small minority there. If the logical

extension of the commerce clause gives us

what it gave us, then an even less extensive

interpretation of Article VI gets us a wall of

separation of church and state.



The sequence is easy. No religious test means

no religious preference. No preference means

no subsidy.



The tax exemption, which amounts to subsidy,

is part of the practical slippage that makes our

organic law work. If you want an organic law

with no slippage, then, lo, I give you Canada's

human rights clause.