# Church renouncing its tax-exempt status **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2000, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801 "2000-08-02T04:55:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2000, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/1 "2000-08-02T04:55:45Z")
Recently, one church in Alabama voted to voluntarily relinquish its tax-exempt status, for some purpose having to do with “helping out” local public schools. It sounds awfully fishy that a church would have to give up being tax-exempt just to assist public schools. Aren’t there plenty of tax-exempt organizations devoted to education that help out public schools? What is this church trying to do to “help” the schools, promote specific candidates for the school board or something? ---
**Author:** ![Ted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/db5fbb/32.png) [@Ted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ted)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2000, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/2 "2000-08-02T05:28:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*Recently, one church in Alabama voted to voluntarily relinquish its tax-exempt status, for some purpose having to do with “helping out” local public schools. > > It sounds awfully fishy that a church would have to give up being tax-exempt just to assist public schools. Aren’t there plenty of tax-exempt organizations devoted to education that help out public schools? What is this church trying to do to “help” the schools, promote specific candidates for the school board or something? \*\* Can you provide a link so we might better know what you’re talking about? The way it reads right now is that you are upset because an organization decided to pay taxes when they did not have to. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2000, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/3 "2000-08-02T06:51:57Z")
I wish I _could_ post a link. I heard this story in a news blurb on the radio this morning, and I couldn’t find any online news sources that mention it. The news blurb also mentioned the word “Baptist” some place, so maybe the church in question was a Baptist church, but then again maybe it wasn’t. The church in question was also challenging other Alabama churches to follow its lead, and had not elected tax-exempt status without quite a bit of internal controversy. I swear that’s all I know about this story. My first thought was, “Maybe the public schools can’t accept their help as long as they’re tax-exempt, because that would violate the separation of church and state,” but I immediately realized that this idea was ridiculous. A church would be no less of a religious organization without tax-exemption than it would be _with_ tax-exemption. The only other possibility that occurred to me was that the church might have been getting into the kinds of things which got the 700 Club in trouble – the 700 Club promoted some candidates for public office, so the Federal courts ruled that they were a political organization and so did not qualify for income tax exemption. If the Alabama church was “helping” the local public schools by promoting certain candidates for election to the Alabama school board, that would make _it_ a political organization, too. ---
**Author:** ![Ted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/db5fbb/32.png) [@Ted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ted)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2000, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/4 "2000-08-02T07:31:18Z")
Actually the Church can promote, and still not be held as a political organization. It’s just that they can’t promote in such a… politically orientated… fashion. See Branch Ministries v. Rossotti for an example. > [@](#): > > In late October 1992, the Branch Ministries church placed full-page ads in USA TODAY and The Washington Times, which bore the headline “Christians Beware.” The ads claimed that then-Gov. Clinton took positions on abortion, civil rights for gays, and the distribution of condoms to teen-agers in public schools that violated the church’s belief in biblical precepts. The ads were noticed by a New York Times’ columnist and the IRS, which following an investigation and meetings with the church’s leaders, revoked the church’s tax status in early 1995. (source [http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/05/2000-05-15-03.asp](http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/05/2000-05-15-03.asp)) I doubt it is something similar. Perhaps I’m wrong, but until I can find more info on it I’ll withhold any judgment. The first thing that came to my mind is that the Church wanted to make an example… by giving up their tax relief so that the school might receive better funding, or some such. _shrug_ It’s always hard to tell, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2000, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/5 "2000-08-02T14:35:48Z")
The Huntsville Times reports that churches are voluntarily giving up their property tax exemption [which would be shared by other nonprofit organizations] by sending what would be their property taxes directly to local schools. The instigation for this decision was the churches’ opposition to a lottery meant to support education. [http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/Jul2000/31-e20983.html](http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/Jul2000/31-e20983.html) Interesting to see these freakish, rude, and oh yeah, emotional churches helping out their fellow man like this. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2000, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/6 "2000-08-02T16:58:35Z")
Thanks, jahn. That’s the kind of article I was looking for. The news blurb on the radio did not say what **kind** of taxes the Alabama church was giving up its exemption for. When I heard the words “tax-exempt,” I immediately assumed it means “ **income** tax exempt.” Giving up their **property** tax exemption, which that article says these Alabama churches are thinking about, sounds like a much more reasonable way to help local public schools. (A huge chunk of property taxes go to schools, but hardly any income taxes – particularly Federal income taxes – go to schools.) But even then, **some** property tax money goes to finance things other than public schools. Wouldn’t the Alabama churches help the schools more by **donating** the money they would otherwise have to pay in property taxes **directly** to the schools? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2000, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/7 "2000-08-02T17:07:44Z")
I just wrote: > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t the Alabama churches help the schools more by donating the money they would otherwise have to pay in property taxes directly to the schools? Duuuuuh, maybe I should actually read the whole article that **jahn** posted a link to. Right there about a third of the way down the page is this paragraph: > [@](#): > > Flynt’s own church, Auburn First Baptist, is leading the way. The church’s members have voted to give Auburn schools money equal to the church’s property tax assessment. And farther down: > [@](#): > > “Every tax assessor assesses religious property,” Flynt said. “They just don’t send the church a bill. You call your county tax assessor to find out the amount your church would pay to schools instead of taxes.” > > In Auburn’s case, the total came to $4,662. > > Flynt said getting the resolution passed in his church “took all the arguing and debating you find in most Baptist churches,” but in its final form the resolution passed, giving money to Auburn schools with “no strings attached.” ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2000, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/8 "2000-08-03T14:37:24Z")
Sorry to sidetrack the issue, but something about this issue has always bothered me, to wit: **Why do churches have tax-exempt status?** My thinking is this: An organization wishing to be tax-exempt registers with the gov’t. The gov’t then decides whether the organization in question is worthy of tax-exempt status. Doesn’t this constitute the gov’t making a law with respect to religion? In a sense, they have established guidelines denoting ‘accetable’ religions, haven’t they? Always wondered about this one… ---
**Author:** ![Jello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@Jello](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jello)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2000, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/9 "2000-08-03T15:14:57Z")
Religion is tax-exempt. This isn’t good in some cases, like in that of Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition, because they get to fund their candidates for public office tax-free. Technically, that’s illegal. Taxing religion would do a lot for the national debt but it would be just _terrible_ to tax religion, wouldn’t it? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2000, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/10 "2000-08-03T15:32:56Z")
The reason religious organizations are tax-exempt is that taxation is, fundamentally, a means of coercion (not a value judgment there). Since government cannot do anything to abridge the free exercise of religion, it cannot allow itself to be put in a position that it may foreclose on, and shut down, a church for failure to pay taxes. The flip side of this is that, because government cannot to anything to promote a particular religion, arguments can and have been made that government should not provide to churches services paid for by taxes, such as fire trucks, etc. The way this problem is gotten around is through “greater good” arguments (you should put out the burning church so that the fire doesn’t spread to non-religious buildings, etc.) BTW, as I read the posts, these churches aren’t “giving up” their tax-exempt status – they are simply donating what there taxes would be to public schools. I applaud this. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2000, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/11 "2000-08-03T15:54:33Z")
Jello > [@](#): > > Religion is tax-exempt. I know that. I was asking **“why is it tax exempt?”**. SuaSponte: > [@](#): > > Since government cannot do anything to abridge the free exercise of religion, it cannot allow itself to be put in a position that it may foreclose on, and shut down, a church for failure to pay taxes. Ahhh, but how does that prevent the free exercise of religion? Is the building the church? It (the gov’t) can condemn a church building, can’t it? It can (in a case that’s been in our local news a lot lately) prevent a church from being built in a neighborhood (zoning issue), can’t it? It can ensure that building codes are being followed, can’t it? I guess I should clarify that I’m speaking specifically of property taxes. Taxes on income are a _slightly_ different matter. Although I’ll be glad to talk about those as well. ---
**Author:** ![Ted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/db5fbb/32.png) [@Ted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ted)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2000, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/12 "2000-08-03T20:50:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jello \* > \*\*Religion is tax-exempt. > > This isn’t good in some cases, like in that of Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition, because they get to fund their candidates for public office tax-free. Technically, that’s illegal. > > Taxing religion would do a lot for the national debt but it would be just _terrible_ to tax religion, wouldn’t it? :rolleyes: > \*\* Check again, the CC is not a tax exempt organization. They are considered a political organization for the very reason you described above. And, yes, it would be terrible to tax religion. Just as it would be terrible to tax any non-profit organization. ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2000, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/13 "2000-08-03T21:14:58Z")
Slight tangent here… The next time someone argues that there is no SOCAS (as Christians are sokmetimes wont to do), mention to them that the only reason their churches are not taxed - including property taxes - is because of SOCAS. As it was told to me in an e-mail from a lawyer at a VERY pro-Fundamentalist site (How Fundy? Glad you asked… They advocated NOT filling out the proper non-profit paperwork with the IRS and gave advice on doing this and not paying taxes because because "answering to the IRS was like serving another master… Now THAT’S seriously Fundy!) that originally churches were tax-exempt like any non-profit organizations, but that they continue to have the benefits of not paying any taxes EVEN IF THEY DO MAKE A PROFIT or on holdings that usually would be taxed (and they can get around filling out the paperwork as I mentioned above) because of SOCAS. After all, how can a government proclaim to be separate from religion if it was gaining income directly from it? Sure opens up a can of worms too if you think about it… * * * Yer pal, Satan [sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Three months, three weeks, four days, 19 hours, 14 minutes and 21 seconds. 4672 cigarettes not smoked, saving $584.01. Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 20 minutes.[/sub] **_"Satan is not an unattractive person."_-Drain Bead** [sub]Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!\*[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2000, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/14 "2000-08-03T21:42:28Z")
Actually, no. To clear up more misinformation: Churches are not exempt because of SOCAS (although there would be a good argument, IMO, for that). Churches are not exempt because of any favoritism for religion. Churches are exempt from taxes under Section 501 of Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, because they are a nonprofit organization. Also exempt is the ACLU and the American Atheists, as well as animal shelters, universities, unions, and many many more. Local and state governments generally define non-taxable organization by reference to the IRC. Yours, jahn ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/15 "2000-08-04T06:00:43Z")
Back when I was on the LBMB, I was researching a similar question. I came across [Lawgiver.Org](http://lawgiver.org/), which is a self-proclaimed _Christian Law Institute_. On this site, I found the following diatribe, which I actually referred to in my post which came under scrutiny, entitled [IRS Church Tax-Exempt Status](http://www.numismaticrareuscoin.com/nbn/nbn22.html), which got me thinking. It makes a great case that the government is treating churches and other religious organizations differently than the usual IRS 501©(3) non-profit tax exempt corporations. It made me wonder, so I e-mailed the site and actually got the author of this, Anthony Wayne, to reply. I asked a simple question: Does the IRS treat churches differently than other non profit organizations because of the Separation of Church & State provisions? I probably worded it in that exact manner. Mr. Wayne replied back to me that while churches might have originally been tax-exempt simply by being a non profit, it is SOCAS that has kept them tax-free and that I was essentially correct. Now, I posted all of this at LBMB with much satisfaction. Not just because I was right, but because the cite I used was (as I said in my post) extraordinarily Fundy-biased (the reason they don’t want churches to file forms is because it means they are serving two masters), and thus it came from one of them, one who happened to be a lawyer, and one who e-mailed me personally with this clarification!! Needless to say I quoted directly from that e-mail in my LBMB post and the e-mail itself is long deleted. And needless to say, the LBMB deleted that thread many moons ago. So I only have my own integrity to appeal to you. (Of course, maybe a Doper who was also over there then who remembers this post might come to my rescue, but that is unlikely). Now, I would appreciate it if you found someone with similar qualifications who could call my cite bunk and refute his assertions. That is, please find someone who will sppecifically say that SOCAS has NOTHING to do with why churches are tax exempt since I found someone who sppecifically said it DOES. If you cannot do this, I would appreciate it if you retracted calling my post to be “misinformation.” My cite might be wrong and I’ll admit it if that looks possible. (Lord knows, a lot of thiings on that site are loopy.) But don’t accuse me of spreading misinformation, please. I find that to be quite rude, especially since I do not make a habit of posting things of this nature without some backup. * * * Yer pal, Satan [sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: Three months, three weeks, five days, 3 hours, 56 minutes and 52 seconds. 4686 cigarettes not smoked, saving $585.82. Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 6 hours, 30 minutes.[/sub] **_"Satan is not an unattractive person."_-Drain Bead** [sub]Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!\*[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/16 "2000-08-04T06:30:25Z")
Here’s the complete text 26 USC 501©(3), alias IRC 501©(3). With few exceptions (given later on in IRC sections 502 and 503), every kind of organization listed in the text below is exempt from Federal income tax: “Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” Note that there are other kinds of organizations that are exempt from Federal income tax under sections 501©(1) through 501©(25), and sections 501(d), 501(e), and 501(f). In fact, here are all the tax-exempt organizations under section 501(d): “Religious or apostolic associations or corporations, if such associations or corporations have a common treasury or community treasury, even if such associations or corporations engage in business for the common benefit of the members, but only if the members thereof include (at the time of filing their returns) in their gross income their entire pro rata shares, whether distributed or not, of the taxable income of the association or corporation for such year. Any amount so included in the gross income of a member shall be treated as a dividend received.” Those organizations that fall specifically under section 501©(3), however, have the **additional** advantage that donations made to them are deductable from the donor’s income taxes. ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/17 "2000-08-04T16:34:40Z")
First, I apologize for any insinuation you may have felt by my statement that your explanation was “misinformation” ( **other** than the insinuation that the statement was and is false). None was meant. The line was “…the only reason their churches are not taxed - including property taxes - is because of SOCAS” There are two ways to disprove your claim. The first is easy, the second requires a little explanation. (a) You initially said SOCAS was **“the only reason”**. I don’t think I have to point out to you that the simple reason that Congress considered religious organizations as a “nonprofit” organization certainly is **a** reason for the tax exemption, therefore SOCAS could not be the ONLY reason. (Although in your next post you asked me to “please find someone who will sppecifically say that SOCAS has NOTHING to do with why churches are tax exempt since I found someone who sppecifically said it DOES.” I don’t think it’s exactly fair to initially say that SOCAS is the **only** reason, and then to ask me to prove that SOCAS has **nothing to do** with it. Logically, this doesn’t make sense. I think the appropriate fallacy here is Affirming the Consequent. Someone more studied in logic would know better, though.) (b) Now the more difficult, but equally accurate explanation: The claim that SOCAS requires exemption from taxation is not only not true, but SOCAS actually _prevents_ exemptions for religion organizations (without equivalent exemptions for similar nonprofit, but non-religious organizations). **Important: Before you form a judgment about what I am about to say, realize that there is an important caveat at the end!** I realize that this may seem counter-intuitive, so I’ll have to back up the claim. This is done by analysis of two Supreme Court opinions. In _Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock_ [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=1](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=1) , the Supreme Court held that exemptions for religious groups from taxation (in that case, sales tax on religious books) actually _violated_ the Establishment Clause. I’ll let the Court speak for itself: > [@](#): > > If the State chose to subsidize, by means of a tax exemption, all groups that contributed to the community’s cultural, intellectual, and moral betterment, then the exemption for religious publications could be retained, provided that the exemption swept as widely as the property tax exemption we upheld in Walz. By contrast, if Texas sought to promote reflection and discussion about questions of ultimate value and the contours of a good or meaningful life, then a tax exemption would have to be available to an extended range of associations whose publications were substantially devoted to such matters; the exemption could not be reserved for publications dealing solely with religious issues, let alone restricted to publications advocating rather than criticizing religious belief or activity, without signaling an endorsement of religion that is offensive to the principles informing the Establishment Clause. What this basically says is that if there is an exemption, it has to apply to all similar organizations, not just churches. Otherwise it violates SOCAS. Now in counterpoint to that case is _Walz v. Tax Commission_, [http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl%3Fcourt=US%26vol=397%26invol=664](http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi%2Dbin/getcase.pl%3Fcourt=US%26vol=397%26invol=664) , an earlier case which upheld a tax exemption (property tax) for religious organizations. It did so because the exemption was given to many different types of organizations, not just religious ones: > [@](#): > > New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its ‘moral or mental improvement,’ should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. _It has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such_; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. The State has an affirmative policy that considers these groups as beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life and finds this classification useful, desirable, and in the public interest. Italics mine. So as you see, it is clear that SOCAS not only is _not_ the reason for exemptions for churches, it actually would _prevent_ exemptions for only religious organizations. Churches are exempted _only_ as being part of a class of nonprofit/beneficial/public interest-type organizations. \*(_Now there is one difference between churches and other nonprofits in that the **filing requirements** for churches are different than those for other nonprofits, and the reason for that stems from a sort of non-entanglement principle by the executive department (not a constitutional holding by the courts). However the issue was not why churches’ filing requirements are different, but rather why churches are tax-exempt in the first place.)_ **CAVEAT:** Now that I’ve shown that this is the state of the law today, let me say that it is complete bullshit. I completely agree with the general argument of yours and the the author of the diatribe (seems like a correct characterization of that article). As I said before: “there would be a good argument, IMO, for that.” I agree that the _Texas Monthly_ decision is wrongly decided, and that SOCAS (both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause) should prohibit the government from taxing churches. However, the fact remains that the state of the law is the opposite. Other points: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Satan \* > **Needless to say I quoted directly from that e-mail in my LBMB post and the e-mail itself is long deleted. And needless to say, the LBMB deleted that thread many moons ago. So I only have my own integrity to appeal to you.** Certainly, if you would do me the same honor and accept my integrity in occasionally quoting material not available on-line? > [@](#): > > **Now, I would appreciate it if you found someone with similar qualifications who could call my cite bunk and refute his assertions.** I assume the Supreme Court is sufficient authority enough. > [@](#): > > **If you cannot do this, I would appreciate it if you retracted calling my post to be “misinformation.” My cite might be wrong and I’ll admit it if that looks possible. (Lord knows, a lot of thiings on that site are loopy.)** As I said, I think that the discussion has generally the right moral idea–although a little (lot?) loopy–however it _is_ not a reponse to the question “Why do churches have tax exemptions.” To the extent that it conflicts with the authorities I quoted above, it is wrong. (Why is it on a coin-dealer’s site?) > [@](#): > > **But don’t accuse me of spreading misinformation, please. I find that to be quite rude, especially since I do not make a habit of posting things of this nature without some backup.** I retract my statement that it was misinformation since that term may have had the connotation of implying that you intended to purposefully mislead others from the truth. I do not think that you purposefully intended to do so. Please accept my apology. However, the statement “…the only reason their churches are not taxed - including property taxes - is because of SOCAS” remains _wrong_, for the reasons above. Yours, jahn ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/18 "2000-08-04T16:36:12Z")
Damned italics ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/19 "2000-08-04T20:00:54Z")
Does anywhere in those Supreme Court rulings does it say that “SOCAS has nothing to do with why churches are tax-exmpt?” This is what I asked for. After all, if you are going to be so nit-picky that the original Constitution and Bill of Rights does not use the exact phrase “separation of church and state” in it as your argumnent as to original intent, how can you expect to cite a few court cases which do NOT comment on what I said (and on a direct quote that I got) with a straight face? * * * Yer pal, Satan [sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Three months, three weeks, five days, 18 hours, 0 minutes and 21 seconds. 4710 cigarettes not smoked, saving $588.75. Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes.[/sub] **_"Satan is not an unattractive person."_-Drain Bead** [sub]Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!\*[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![jahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jahn)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2000, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801/20 "2000-08-04T20:28:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Satan \* > \*\*Does anywhere in those Supreme Court rulings does it say that “SOCAS has nothing to do with why churches are tax-exmpt?” > > This is what I asked for.\*\* No, you threw a fit because I said that the statement “the only reason their churches are not taxed - including property taxes - is because of SOCAS” is misinformation. And it still remains false, as I have shown. The article you cite is about filing requirements–a completely different issue (and one which I don’t disagree with anybody). Do you realize the difference between “being tax exempt” (what you first said that prompted my response) and “being exempt from filing requirements”? Yours, jahn [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/church-renouncing-its-tax-exempt-status/27801.md?page=2)