Alaskan Town Considers Becoming First Town In America To Tax Its Churches

Nome, Alaska, is known – when it’s known at all – for being the finish line for the famous Iditarod dogsled race, but apparently there isn’t a lot of money in that. Like many cities across the country, Nome finds itself hard-pressed to make ends meet. After struggling yet again to come up with the money to pay for the town’s humble services, Finance Director Julie Liew proposed an idea that has so far seemed almost impossible in the United States: Why not tax the churches?

Surprisingly, the city’s officials couldn’t come up with a good objection and the proposal moved forward.

According to KNOM:

“You get rid of the sales tax exemption, most of the time these other exemptions aren’t given—we’re a very nice city [to do] it,” Council member Matt Culley said. “When we sit down at budget time, [with] the numbers to look at, if we want to donate that [money back to nonprofits], the money can go all back in … but we have control over it now, as opposed to it going whatever direction that we have it going now.” 

The “direction” they have it going now is that roughly $300,000 is left in the hands of churches and non-profits. It’s a lot of money being left behind for a city that is facing annual deficits and deep cuts to town services. The city is quick to point out that this new plan doesn’t mean that the money would be gone forever, if there is a surplus the money can go back to the organizations. Instead, it would be treated much like how the government treats income tax – collected up front and given back based on need and availability.

Should the ordinance pass, it would represent the first tax on churches of its kind in the United States. Traditionally, religious groups have gotten far-ranging leeway in regards to tax exemptions. So much in fact that a Washington Post investigation in 2013 found that taxpayers spend about $82.5 billion each year to make up for the free rides churches enjoy.

Presbyterian church recognizes gay marriages

In what is being called a huge development, the Presbyterian church has voted overwhelmingly to permit local pastors to conduct gay weddings where they are legal.

Religion News Service reports that the General Assembly of the church, which totals 1.8 million members, voted 76% to 24% for the change.

RNS adds that the decision won’t go into effect until a second vote, but that with the lopsided result of the first, victory is all but expected.

Of course, the haters had to have their say, now threatening to financially ruin the church if they don’t embrace bigotry.

The Presbyterian Lay Committee, a group opposed to marriage equality, issued a statement saying they “mourn” the vote, that “God will not be mocked,” and that Presbyterians should stop giving money to the church.

RNN says that the Presbyterians will join the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutherans, and the United Church of Christ, all of which recognize the marriages of gay couples.

It really is the death knell for the haters when large Christian faiths decide to abandon the hate. It’s bad enough that the Republican party is clearly trending our way, but now Jesus is too.

Federal District Court Declares A Religious Income Tax Exemption Unconstitutional

A federal district court judge has declared “unconstitutional” a portion of U.S. law that allows “a minister of the gospel” to not pay income tax on a specific portion of their compensation.

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that the so-called “parish exemption,” which allows religious ministers to avoid paying taxes on the value of their housing granted to them by their religious employers, “violates the establishment clause” of the U.S. Constitution and must be discontinued.

The law, 26 U.S. C. § 107(2), has been on the books since 1954.

The tax exemption was estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers $2.3 billion from 2002-2007 alone, likely more in the years since.

Heralding it as a “major federal court victory,” the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which brought the lawsuit along with their co-presidents, Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, offered an explanation of yesterday’s ruling.

Ministers may, for instance, use the untaxed income to purchase a home, and, in a practice known as “double dipping,” may then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes.
“The Court’s decision does not evince hostility to religion — nor should it even seem controversial,” commented Richard L. Bolton, FFRF’s attorney in the case. “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.”
Crabb wrote: “Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility. It is important to remember that the establishment clause protects the religious and nonreligious alike.”
The 1954 bill’s sponsor, Rep. Peter Mack, argued ministers should be rewarded for “carrying on such a courageous fight against this [godless and anti-religious world movement].”
“I agree with plaintiffs that §107(2) does not have a secular purpose or effect,” wrote Crabb, adding that a reasonable observer would view it “as an endorsement of religion.”
Crabb wrote that “the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.”
All taxpayers are burdened by taxes, Crabb noted. “Defendants do not identify any reason why a requirement on ministers to pay taxes on a housing allowance is more burdensome for them than for the many millions of others who must pay taxes on income used for housing expenses.”

One study has estimated that in total, combined religious tax exemptions cost American taxpayers $71 billion each year.

The Foundation sued Jacob Lew, Secretary of the Treasury Department, and Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Daniel Werfel.

The ruling, which you can read in full, below, notes:

It is DECLARED that 26 U.S.C. § 107(2) violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Defendants [the government] are ENJOINED from enforcing § 107(2). The injunction shall take effect at the conclusion of any appeals filed by defendants or the expiration of defendants’ deadline for filing an appeal, whichever is later.

In other words, the ruling right now is on hold until the appeals process is complete.

It is not known if the government will appeal, but expect a full-throated attack from the religious right demanding the law be re-written to comply with the Constitution.

Rick Perry Signs ‘Merry Christmas’ Bill, Says ‘Religious Freedom Does Not Mean Freedom From Religion’

Texas Governor Rick Perry has just signed the “Merry Christmas” bill, which protects schools from being sued for educating “students about the history of traditional winter celebrations,” and allows “students and district staff to offer traditional greetings regarding the celebrations, including ‘Merry Christmas’; ‘Happy Hanukkah’; and ‘happy holidays.’”

“Surrounded by sleigh bell-ringing Santa Claus impersonators, Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday signed a law protecting Christmas and other holiday celebrations in Texas public schools from legal challenges — but also stressed that freedom of religion is not the same thing as freedom from religion,” the StarTribune reports:

It was a serious tone for an otherwise fun bill-signing and should bolster the governor’s Christian conservative credentials before he travels to Washington for the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s “Road to Majority” conference with the likes of tea party darlings and U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Kentucky’s Rand Paul and fellow Texan Ted Cruz.
Dubbed the “Merry Christmas” bill, the bipartisan measure sailed through the state House and Senate to reach Perry’s desk.
It removes legal risks of saying “Merry Christmas” in schools while also protecting traditional holiday symbols, such as a menorah or nativity scene, as long as more than one religion and a secular symbol are also reflected.
“I realize it’s only June. But it’s a good June and the holidays are coming early this year,” Perry said. “It’s a shame that a bill like this one I’m signing today is even required, but I’m glad that we’re standing up for religious freedom in this state. Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.”

But in fact, religious freedom does also mean freedom from religion.

Church and State: We Need to Separate

Glee’s Jane Lynch and comedian Jordan Peele sing about church & state. From Americans United, and organization devoted to preserving the separation between church & state:

Where did that come from?

The teabaggers only like the second amendment everything else is expendable!