I hate it when it turns out I'm not a paraoid nutjob...

**Lemur** · 06-19-2008, 15:01

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

[...] tax-exempt status, a recognition by the government that they hold no levee power over you, is rephrased as a subsidy to a group by the government. So, by receiving tax exempt status on the beach pavilion, according to this theory, the State of New Jersey is actually 'giving' the tax payment they should receive to the church.

And what you are failing to mention is that the holding company has a huge number of tax-exempt properties, including a church, a meeting house, a boardwalk, a pavilion, a road, and 1,000 feet of fishing rights on the coast. And the holding company has sought not just tax breaks but direct subsidies -- and they've gotten them.

Are you really suggesting that any property owned by a church's holding company ought to be tax-exempt? If that's the case, I see a future in which every company with an office park declares itself to be a religion ...

Also, again, please note that the holding company declared the boardwalk and pavilion to be open to the public without reservation when they were looking for tax breaks and grants. [edit -- note also that they got a substantial grant for the boardwalk and pavilion to repair storm damage.] They only decided the pavilion was not open to the public when the Jewish lesbians asked to get married there.

Has their church been taken from them? No. Has the tax-exempt status of their church been questioned? No. Has the tax-exempt status of their meeting hall been questioned? No. Have their grants and subsidies been called on the carpet? No. Is the state of New Jersey asking them to change their religious beliefs? No.

I really don't understand what you're holding onto with this case, but please, explicate and help me understand.

**Don Corleone** · 06-19-2008, 15:11

Originally Posted by Lemur

And what you are failing to mention is that the holding company has a huge number of tax-exempt properties, including a church, a meeting house, a boardwalk, a pavilion, a road, and 1,000 feet of fishing rights on the coast. And the holding company has sought not just tax breaks but direct subsidies -- and they've gotten them.

Now that is a horse of another color. I failed to mention it because I failed to recognize it. If what you say is true, that the organization isn't just receiving tax-breaks (the subsidies I thought you meant), but they're actually taking grants from the state (not payments for services rendered), then you are 110% correct, and the Church organization doesn't have a leg to stand on. They would in fact place themselves under the jurisdiction and regulation of the government and all of its mandates by receiving grants.

Are you really suggesting that any property owned by a church's holding company ought to be tax-exempt? If that's the case, I see a future in which every company with an office park declares itself to be a religion ...

Don't you think people have been trying that for hundreds of years? There's a LOT of case work on this sort of thing and exactly what constitutes tax-exempt status requirements to be met by a seeker. It's not easy, but for starters, it's not enough to be not-for-profit, you can't show a profit, period.

Also, again, please note that the holding company declared the boardwalk and pavilion to be open to the public without reservation when they were looking for tax breaks and grants. [edit -- note also that they got a substantial grant for the boardwalk and pavilion to repair storm damage.] They only decided the pavilion was not open to the public when the Jewish lesbians asked to get married there.

If they publicly declared the pavilion to be open to the general public, without any qualifying statements, then again, you have the advantage, sir.

I really don't understand what you're holding onto with this case, but please, explicate and help me understand.

It's a foot in the door. It's the intrusion of the state into the religious practices of recognized religions, in an attempt to enforce their view. And I didn't come up with this crackpot theory, NPR did. I just happen to agree with them, the writing is on the wall. If as you say, the local Methodist church was too clever by half, and tried to claim themselves to be a public good open to all in an effort to get subsidies, then turned around and claimed special exemption, this may not be the most stellar example. But you and I both know that when you read all 8 of those cases in a row, you see a pattern evolving.

I mean, Adrian's point about the Catholic adoption group is ridiculous. They're not allowed to run an adoption group WITHOUT state recognition and licensing. Is it your point that the orphans of Massachusetts are better off not being placed at all then being placed into exclusively heterosexual homes? Because that was the point the State of Massachusetts made.

**Tribesman** · 06-19-2008, 15:13

The U.S. doesn't pay money to build Mosques or Churches like our French and Canadian allies.

Yes it does

**ICantSpellDawg** · 06-19-2008, 15:18

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes it does

Where?

I agree with Don. I'm not defending the Methodists in question. They were skirting the line and attempting to write their own govt policy. Government spending through grants should be kept tightly under control. They have every right to say "which is it?"

The fact is that they did because the reality was their status was questionable. Where do you see subsidy of religion that isn't being reviewed and ended? The things you might mention are services rendered and tax breaks which are not subsidies.

The statement is kind of like saying the government subsidizes "murder" when a teacher is discovered to be a murderer. The murder wasn't the intent of the salary and the situation will be sorted out legally. Maybe a bad analogy, but I just came up with it.

**Tribesman** · 06-19-2008, 15:38

Where?

All over the States churches are eligible for exactly the same building grants as are available in other countries . Though you do have certain church and non-church groups uniting in protest against those grants which they see as a violation of the constitution.
Would you like some links or are you able to do a simple search on building grants for churches in the US

**ICantSpellDawg** · 06-19-2008, 15:57

Originally Posted by Tribesman

All over the States churches are eligible for exactly the same building grants as are available in other countries . Though you do have certain church and non-church groups uniting in protest against those grants which they see as a violation of the constitution.
Would you like some links or are you able to do a simple search on building grants for churches in the US

You are right!

This link describes some reasons for and against such practices.
http://www.nacba.net/Article/federalgrant.htm

I'm not sure how I feel about that. The Hebrew day school example was pretty good, but obviously the acceptance of government money puts a church into a bizzarre limbo which it shouldn't be in for its own sake. This is a subsidy outright, though most churches don't take the government up on the offer. I don't support the government giving building grants in general.

**Don Corleone** · 06-19-2008, 16:02

I'm 100% against it. The day you take money from the government, you are a slave to the government.

**Adrian II** · 06-20-2008, 02:32

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm 100% against it. The day you take money from the government, you are a slave to the government.

Like I said earlier, all American churches do.

The Supreme Court in Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington (1983) ruled that tax exemption and deduction are 'form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system'.

Exemption is even better than subsidy, because recipients of the first are not accountable to the government for they way they spend the money, whereas recipients of the second are.