A working man has free speech in politics he pays taxes for that right , are Churches [prepared to do the same?
eace
First, he most certainly
DOES NOT pay taxes for that right. Are you saying that a person who is unemployed, and thus paying zero federal income, Medicaid, or social security taxes, does not have the right to vote? Are you suggesting you are in favor of denying the right to vote to anyone who does not pay a net positive in Federal taxes?
Second, so long as the religious institution functions as a legitimate non-profit, why should they be beholden to rules that other non-profits should not. You seem to think that voting should be tied to paying taxes. Should a woman's shelter who's primary organizer speaks to the women in it about abortion policy have to pay taxes? Should all NON-PROFIT entities, which
do not pay taxes, be unable to speak in any fashion about a political issue within their walls?
Thirdly, you're own suggestions are potentially running afoul of
actual constitutional amendments (not fictional ones that threads are initially based off of). To be able to tax a churches income, the government would need to be able to actually audit said organization, define what is or isn't legitimate business, and then act to ensure compliance. This creates a SERIOUS constitutional issue since
explicitly as part of the first amendment, Congress is restricted from making laws that "prohibit the free exercise" of religion...and regulations, by their very nature, are prohibitions on what/how an entity may act. Note, this is something that is actually
clearly stated within the constitution, while the notion of "separation of church and state", let alone the extremely broad way you're interpreting such a statement, is not. So not only are you seeking to "abridge the freedom of speech" of priests/imams/etc, but you also are seemingly in favor of Congress making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. You are sitting here going on about constitutional matters, while making frequent arguments that are questionable in relation to the actual 1st amendment.
Indeed, it was a 1970's SCOTUS case that summed it up best, when Chief Justice Burger stated "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches." The separation between church and state becomes far smaller when you give the government full regulatory authority and power, which comes with the power of taxation, over churches then it does by making them exempt from taxation. The reality is that the idea of a "Separation between Church and State" (Which was
NEVER singularly about keeping the church out of government, but also about keeping the government out of the church) is impossible to fully adhere to as it relates to taxation. Whether you tax them, or you don't tax them, the church and the state in some degree are being intermingled. By choosing to NOT tax them, that intermingling is done in the least amount of ways possible. By extending that privilege to all churches, the adherence to the 1st's amendment requirement of no law respecting the establishment of religion is done, as no individual religion is being established).
