[jjtheblunt]

Simpler : if churches get tax-exempt status, then they are bound to the state in receiving that status, and violate separation of church and state?

I haven't been able to find where tax exempt status for churches is established, and I've looked, but not my area of expertise at all.

What if the goverment were to just stop giving churches tax exempt status?

(edit: clearer)

[crisdux]

The separation of church and state is not about preventing any kind of relationship between religious institutions and the government. Rather, it is about ensuring that the government does not establish an official state religion, and that it remains neutral towards different religious beliefs and practices.

[bobthepanda]

I mean, you could just set up equal taxation rather than no taxation at all.

[netcraft]

This - but one could argue that the state having to make determinations of what constitutes a religious belief and practice _could_ go against the separation of church and state.

[crisdux]

The state's role in determining whether a religious organization qualifies for tax-exempt status is not to evaluate the content or validity of the organization's religious beliefs or practices. The state's role is to ensure that the organization meets certain objective criteria for tax-exempt status, a necessary function.

[jjtheblunt]

yes

[jjtheblunt]

If you decree your belief system is "God is DNA", can you set up a corp with different tax status to further investigate, buy property, and so on? I

[crisdux]

You sure can if you follow the IRS's strict rules and requirements for granting tax-exempt status to religious organizations. I suspect you would have difficulty in demonstrating that the organization has a legitimate religious purpose and is organized and operated exclusively for that purpose. Creating a fake religion is likely to be viewed as fraud and could result in legal consequences.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

This seems to be a reasonable overview of the history, though I haven't done much vetting of it: https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/history-of-churches-and-...

[krapp]

Its basis is that taxation is a form of coercion, and government having the ability to coerce or even persecute religious organizations through taxation would violate the separation of church and state.

I personally think the incestuous menage-a-trois between corporate interests, the Republican party and Conservative Christianity is a bigger threat to liberty, but whatever.

[VLM]

Somehow I don't think abolishment of the Johnson Amendment would result in less religious involvement in politics.

It's a very large interconnected system.

The main effect of eliminating the tax free status for religious institutions would be a push toward charity involvement where instead of the charity work being part of the church, the church would be a part of the charity (think basement soup kitchens and the like). Instead of having "St Mary's church and Soup Kitchen" you'd have a big legal shuffle that accomplishes nothing resulting in org titles like "St Mary's Soup Kitchen and Related Worship Services"

Unless they're proposing complete elimination of all tax-exempt status for all orgs including charities and similar orgs. Which would be interesting to think about but probably impractical?

[jjtheblunt]

I hear you, and suspect generalizing to not only one party or religious faction still works.

[krapp]

It does, they both have to pander to the same interests and win the South, but between the two the Republicans more openly integrate religion into their core identity.

Which in a way makes them more sincere than the Democrats, whose embrace of secularism and leftism so often seems like half-measures compared to what the other party is willing to commit to.