Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/462

 Ought Church Property to Be Taxed? by the various church organizations of the country. If their means are diverted into other channels, and certainly an increased tax caused by exemption of church ^property, is such a diversion, then the voluntary act of this class of persons is made impossible, either in whole or in part,—to the extent of payments extorted by the strong arm of the law for taxes. A cogent reason for the taxation of church property is offered by the Church itself. It is the great and cardinal tenet of the Churrh that it shall look for its material aid and sup port from the voluntary offerings and con tributions of its members and friends. It has already appeared in this discussion that a public tax is an involuntary contribution of persons and property for the support of gov ernment. A considerable number of these involuntary contributions are made by per sons and property who would never, volun tarily, contribute anything to the support of the work of the various religious denomina tions of this country. It has also appeared in this discussion that the Church is not such an organization as will justify the govern ment in recognizing it as entitled to any pub lic consideration, for it performs no public office under the constitution and the laws. How, then, 'it is asked, can the churches jus tify their consent to immunity from a govern mental tax, unless they are willing to justify a hypocritical and wholly defenceless posi tion? It is not denied that a Church tax, or offering, in theory, is a purely voluntary mat ter. How, then, can the idea of free-will offerings be reconciled with the idea of en forced contributions from taxpayers of all classes? How, for instance, can the church conscience rest content and accept the dol lars of those who pay them under protest? How can the men of God believe they are doing God's holy service when they take from their less fortunate neighbors the sub stance which is given unwillingly, and is given, solely, to avoid greater financial loss.

417

if the payment is refused? Where is the righteousness of such action? Is no! such an attitude one of rank hypocrisy? It has been urged that the taxation of church property involves the practical an nihilation of many worthy church organiza tions. This may be so. It is beyond the province of this paper to consider that. If, however, the taxation of church property should prove the weapon of its destruction, the day of its death can hardly come too soon, and furnishes another potent argument in favor of the contention of this paper. That church property ought to be taxed, can be briefly summarized: First: Because the Church performs no public office nor function known to the laws of the land which entitles it to immunity therefrom. Second: Because the policy of exemption from taxation of church property involves a union of Church and State at variance with the fundamental principles of our govern ment and wholly un-American. Third: Because such exemptions are in equitable, in that they favor a portion of the Community, statistics showing that about one-third of the population being church members or communicants, only, at the ex pense of others not interested. Fourth: Because the policy of exemption of church property from taxation involves a liability to the accumulation of great wealth, to be held in mortmain by never-dying cor porations, independent of the State, and which may be used against the best interests of the public. Fifth: Because the exemption of church property from taxation is wholly inconsistent with, and totally opposed to, the cardinal idea of Church, vis., that all means contributed for its support, as well as all efforts in its be half, shall be given freely and voluntarily, a tax imposed by government never being given, voluntarily, in the sense in which church offerings are contributed.