Federal Government to pay pastor salaries

Somerville · Apr 9, 2020

I think this is a violation of the Constitution's separation of Church and State

Another Break From The Past: Government Will Help Churches Pay Pastor Salaries

In a development that could challenge the Constitution's prohibition of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," the federal government will soon provide money directly to U.S. churches to help them pay pastor salaries and utility bills.

A key part of the $2 trillion economic relief legislation enacted last month includes about $350 billion for the Small Business Administration to extend loans to small businesses facing financial difficulties as a result of the coronavirus shutdown orders. Churches and other faith-based organizations, classified as "businesses," qualify for aid under the program, even if they have an exclusively religious orientation.

"Faith-based organizations are eligible to receive SBA loans regardless of whether they provide secular social services," the SBA said in a statement. "No otherwise eligible organization will be disqualified from receiving a loan because of the religious nature, religious identity, or religious speech of the organization."

If a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization is now to be seen as a "small business", are they now expected to pay state and local plus federal taxes?

Of course, my question leads to another question: Are synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations included in this loan program? They were made eligible for federal help following natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes in 2018.

Under existing SBA regulations, among the for-profit businesses declared ineligible for loans are those "principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling or indoctrinating religion or religious beliefs, whether in a religious or secular setting."

Felis Leo · Apr 9, 2020

Somerville said:
I think this is a violation of the Constitution's separation of Church and State

No more of a violation than a state ordering churches be closed.

Somerville said:
If a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization is now to be seen as a "small business", are they now expected to pay state and local plus federal taxes?

Of course, my question leads to another question: Are synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations included in this loan program? They were made eligible for federal help following natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes in 2018.

I think it is a good idea. I think religious institutions have been a boon for our society, and will definitely need help as both the institutions and their respective congregations have suffered financially from the shut down orders from the Coronavirus outbreak.

ttwtt78640 · Apr 9, 2020

Somerville said:
I think this is a violation of the Constitution's separation of Church and State

If a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization is now to be seen as a "small business", are they now expected to pay state and local plus federal taxes?

Of course, my question leads to another question: Are synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations included in this loan program? They were made eligible for federal help following natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes in 2018.

Should that bolded above apply to all non-profit (thus tax exempt) organizations as well? If all religious organizations are treated the same then that does not establish any particular religion - it simply helps to allow the free exercise of religion.

BTW, "the separation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution. The 1A prohibits (federal) government establishment of (a state) religion or the free exercise of religion.

Somerville · Apr 9, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
Should that bolded above apply to all non-profit (thus tax exempt) organizations as well? If all religious organizations are treated the same then that does not establish any particular religion - it simply helps to allow the free exercise of religion.

The question then becomes: Will ALL religious organisations be treated the same?

Praxas · Apr 9, 2020

Somerville said:
The question then becomes: Will ALL religious organisations be treated the same?

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands equal treatment under the law. May the tentacles of knowledge be spread to all.

dcaraz · Apr 9, 2020

Somerville said:
I think this is a violation of the Constitution's separation of Church and State

If a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization is now to be seen as a "small business", are they now expected to pay state and local plus federal taxes?

Of course, my question leads to another question: Are synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations included in this loan program? They were made eligible for federal help following natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes in 2018.

This question will be one of many as we address numerous unforeseen requests for federal aid.
It was the intent of Congress to quickly funnel funds into the hands of businesses with the primary goal of saving jobs, and returning workers to gainful employment.
Because of the vast complexity, we can expect some odd, or questionable requests for federal funds.

One simple example:

Does a small business owner with 10 employees qualify for a federal loan that requires no payback IF:

1. The business lost no revenue during the pandemic period.
2. The business owner has a net worth of 5 million dollars.
3. The owner continues to pay her employees.
4. The owner plans to use the federal loan to improve and modernize the business facility.

pinqy · Apr 10, 2020

Somerville said:
I think this is a violation of the Constitution's separation of Church and State

If a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization is now to be seen as a "small business", are they now expected to pay state and local plus federal taxes?

Of course, my question leads to another question: Are synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations included in this loan program? They were made eligible for federal help following natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes in 2018.

Let's apply the Lemon Test:

Does the statute have a secular legislative purpose? Yes.
Is the primary purpose to advance of inhibit religion? No.
Does the statute result in excessive government entanglement with religion? No.

It passes the Lemon Test.

Or we can use the Endorsement Test: would a reasonable observer perceive the law to be endorsing religion? I would say no.

And keep in mind that the first case to incorporate the establishment clause via the 14th amendment was Everson v Board of Education 330 IS 1 (1947) where the Court ruled that it was not a violation of Church/State separation for the school district to reimburse all children, including those who attended religious schools, for use of public transportation.

Somerville · Apr 10, 2020

pinqy said:
Let's apply the Lemon Test:

Does the statute have a secular legislative purpose? Yes.

Is the primary purpose to advance of inhibit religion? No.

Does the statute result in excessive government entanglement with religion? No.

It passes the Lemon Test.

Or we can use the Endorsement Test: would a reasonable observer perceive the law to be endorsing religion? I would say no.

And keep in mind that the first case to incorporate the establishment clause via the 14th amendment was Everson v Board of Education 330 IS 1 (1947) where the Court ruled that it was not a violation of Church/State separation for the school district to reimburse all children, including those who attended religious schools, for use of public transportation.

I believe your No. 2 is wrong. What would a "reasonable observer" perceive if the federal funds only went to certain Christian churches? The administration's advocacy for certain evangelical groups would appear to indicate a bias toward said groups.

pinqy · Apr 10, 2020

Somerville said:
I believe your No. 2 is wrong. What would a "reasonable observer" perceive if the federal funds only went to certain Christian churches? The administration's advocacy for certain evangelical groups would appear to indicate a bias toward said groups.

If that were the case, then yes, it would be endorsement. Is there any evidence that some churches would receive funds and others not based solely on ideology and not neutral criteria? Or that the criteria were designed with the intent to favor certain churches over others? Without thoroughly going over the law, it does not appear that way to me.

Somerville · Apr 11, 2020

pinqy said:
If that were the case, then yes, it would be endorsement. Is there any evidence that some churches would receive funds and others not based solely on ideology and not neutral criteria? Or that the criteria were designed with the intent to favor certain churches over others? Without thoroughly going over the law, it does not appear that way to me.

It's not the law that must be examined but the ways in which the federal funds are disbursed - which we don't know because (1) it ain't happened yet AND (2) the administration is trying to shut out any Congressional oversight

Terryj · Apr 17, 2020

My simple rule would be this: If you don't pay Local, State or Federal taxes then your not entitled to any taxpayers money.

Captain America · Apr 17, 2020

Did the pastor's pay income tax on their salaries?

Then, giving them their hand-out should be no different than giving the same hand-out to any other tax paying citizen. What about the church janitor? The groundskeeper? Or any other employee of the church that pays income tax.

But I would stop short of giving the church a small business loan. But, then again, if the church pays income tax, like any other business would, I would have no objection. But I think churches are tax exempt, no? In that case, tough noogies. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Lisa · Apr 26, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
Should that bolded above apply to all non-profit (thus tax-exempt) organizations as well? If all religious organizations are treated the same then that does not establish any particular religion - it simply helps to allow the free exercise of religion.

BTW, "the separation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution. The 1A prohibits (federal) government establishment of (a state) religion or the free exercise of religion.

Jefferson coined the phrase separation of church and state to explain the Establishment Clause during his administration. Would you like to claim that Jefferson didn't understand what that phrase meant after he and James Madison demanded that it be part of the Bill of Rights?

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

This letter has been used by the SCOTUS to interpret the meaning of the Establishment clause for more than 100 years.

ttwtt78640 · Apr 26, 2020

Lisa said:
Jefferson coined the phrase separation of church and state to explain the Establishment Clause during his administration. Would you like to claim that Jefferson didn't understand what that phrase meant after he and James Madison demanded that it be part of the Bill of Rights?

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

This letter has been used by the SCOTUS to interpret the meaning of the Establishment clause for more than 100 years.

OK, how can you rationalize this (complete?) "separation of church and state" with federal taxation of a preacher's income? How about using public funds to place religious symbols on the grave markers of fallen soldiers? How about declaring Christmas (Christ's mass?) as a federal holiday (holy day?)?

Integrityrespec · Apr 26, 2020

Somerville said:
I think this is a violation of the Constitution's separation of Church and State

If a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization is now to be seen as a "small business", are they now expected to pay state and local plus federal taxes?

Of course, my question leads to another question: Are synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations included in this loan program? They were made eligible for federal help following natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes in 2018.

Then the government should not close the churches as that isn't separation of church and state.

Somerville · Apr 27, 2020

Integrityrespec said:
Then the government should not close the churches as that isn't separation of church and state.

You are right, we should just let the religious spread the virus infection thereby killing themselves, their friends and neighbours.

Churches Could be the Deadliest Places in the COVID-19 Pandemic

One of the cruelest characteristics of the coronavirus epidemic is that it strikes fear in the hearts and minds of many causing them to ask for comfort and protection from the God they believe in. And at the same time this virus has made a church service one of the most deadliest places to be in. The combination of singing in close quarters and decreased ventilation is nothing short of a petri dish (or cell plate) for viral growth.

Observed infection rates can be astronomical. In Washington State, a choir practice of 60 individuals who practiced social distancing resulted in 45 infections, 3 hospitalizations and 2 deaths.1

One may ask: Why am I calling out churches? The answer is asymptomatic spread and aerosolization of the virus from singing. It’s been determined that this virus is much more infectious than the flu. National leaders are now saying 3 times as infectious, giving the epidemic a R0 of approximately 4. This probably requires other methods of transmission than from sneezing and coughing. And if approximately 50% of individuals catch this virus from asymptomatic carriers,2one must ask, how are these carriers spreading the virus? They are not coughing and sneezing. The answer is probably aerosolization, were the virus can float in the air and be picked up later by an unsuspecting passerby. The virus has been observed to survive in an aerosol form for up to 3 hours.3Thus, singing and church choirs may be the worst practice one can participate in.

California megachurch linked to spread of more than 70 coronavirus cases - health officials link a third of cases to places of worship

Prayer meeting at evangelical church spawned biggest cluster of COVID-19 in France

Kentucky church responds to 'unjust criticism' about revival at center of COVID-19 outbreak

Pastor who decried Coronavirus 'hysteria' dies after attending Mardi Gras

Jason Warfield · Apr 28, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
OK, how can you rationalize this (complete?) "separation of church and state" with federal taxation of a preacher's income? How about using public funds to place religious symbols on the grave markers of fallen soldiers? How about declaring Christmas (Christ's mass?) as a federal holiday (holy day?)?

Taxation of a preacher, rabbi, etc. has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It does not impede worship nor does it favor one religion over another.

By placing the religious symbols of different religions on grave markers, the government is not impeding any rights to worship nor does it favor one religion over another.

This one is a bit tricky, but it has to do with the secularization of the holiday that allows it to be a federal holiday and not unconstitutional. Here's a pretty good link explaining it: Religious holidays and the U.S. Government

ttwtt78640 · Apr 28, 2020

Jason Warfield said:
Taxation of a preacher, rabbi, etc. has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It does not impede worship nor does it favor one religion over another.

By placing the religious symbols of different religions on grave markers, the government is not impeding any rights to worship nor does it favor one religion over another.

This one is a bit tricky, but it has to do with the secularization of the holiday that allows it to be a federal holiday and not unconstitutional. Here's a pretty good link explaining it: Religious holidays and the U.S. Government

Exactly, thus the (complete?) "separation of church and state" is not what the 1A demands - it simply prohibits the establishment of an "official" religion at the exclusion of others.

Somerville · Apr 28, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
Exactly, thus the (complete?) "separation of church and state" is not what the 1A demands - it simply prohibits the establishment of an "official" religion at the exclusion of others.

It also prohibits favouring one religion over all others. A matter that some Americans rather obviously can't accept.

it's just me · Apr 29, 2020

Captain America said:
Did the pastor's pay income tax on their salaries?

Then, giving them their hand-out should be no different than giving the same hand-out to any other tax paying citizen. What about the church janitor? The groundskeeper? Or any other employee of the church that pays income tax.

But I would stop short of giving the church a small business loan. But, then again, if the church pays income tax, like any other business would, I would have no objection. But I think churches are tax exempt, no? In that case, tough noogies. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

What makes you think pastors don't pay income tax? And in some churches the pastor is the groundskeeper and the janitor, Sexton, etc.

it's just me · Apr 29, 2020

Captain America said:
Did the pastor's pay income tax on their salaries?

Then, giving them their hand-out should be no different than giving the same hand-out to any other tax paying citizen. What about the church janitor? The groundskeeper? Or any other employee of the church that pays income tax.

But I would stop short of giving the church a small business loan. But, then again, if the church pays income tax, like any other business would, I would have no objection. But I think churches are tax exempt, no? In that case, tough noogies. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

If the church can't get a loan, no non profit organization should. Tough noogies, can't have your cake and eat it, too.

yankintx · Apr 29, 2020

Felis Leo said:
No more of a violation than a state ordering churches be closed.

I think it is a good idea. I think religious institutions have been a boon for our society, and will definitely need help as both the institutions and their respective congregations have suffered financially from the shut down orders from the Coronavirus outbreak.

They are tax exempt, therefore contribute zero to local coffers. In fact they sponge off enough with out sucking up more. No bail out from tax payers.

Felis Leo · Apr 29, 2020

yankintx said:
They are tax exempt, therefore contribute zero to local coffers. In fact they sponge off enough with out sucking up more. No bail out from tax payers.

Is that really the principle by which you believe money should be allocated? Are you telling me you are a far-right laissez-faire fiscal conservative, where you do not believe people and organizations who do not put in should not take out under any circumstances, even when the government orders them closed? Because a lot of individuals are tax exempt due to low income or lack of capacity and contribute zero to local coffers, or take far more than they put into the system. We still provide them funds to get by.

My thought is that if a state tells you to shut down your institution, the state must give you proper recompense for doing so.

Captain America · Apr 29, 2020

it's just me said:
What makes you think pastors don't pay income tax? And in some churches the pastor is the groundskeeper and the janitor, Sexton, etc.

What makes YOU think that I don't think pastor's pay income tax?

If I thought that, why would I have asked?

weaver2 · May 6, 2020

Somerville said:
I think this is a violation of the Constitution's separation of Church and State
If a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization is now to be seen as a "small business", are they now expected to pay state and local plus federal taxes?
Of course, my question leads to another question: Are synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations included in this loan program? They were made eligible for federal help following natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes in 2018.

This is insanity. Our whole political philosophy is based on Constitutional government not religious ideology. This is being driven by conservative Christian nationalism

Federal Government to pay pastor salaries

Somerville

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Somerville

Praxas

dcaraz

pinqy

Somerville

pinqy

Somerville

Terryj

Captain America

Jedi Master

Lisa

salem ac leporem,

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Integrityrespec

Somerville

Jason Warfield

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Somerville

it's just me

Non Bidenary

it's just me

Non Bidenary

yankintx

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed

Captain America

Jedi Master

weaver2