San Francisco Wrong to Tax Roman Catholic Church

In San Francisco, Tax Assessor Phil Ting has decided that the Roman Catholic Church owes over 15 Million dollars in taxes because the Archdiocese was restructured and consolidated a number of properties seven months ago. Each of the properties was technically incorporated seperately, as would be expected when a Church operates schools, family centers, day cares, hospitals, monestaries, church buildings, etc. Since, claims Ting, this consolidation involved the transfer of "separate legal entities," a real estate transfer tax applies.
Nonsense.

There are those, of course, who are cheering: anyone who has an axe to grind with the Roman Catholic Church is applauding the fact that San Francisco is going to 'take the churches money:' many gay activists mad at the Church's support of Proposition 8, those who have left the RC Church because the Church did not bend their theology to their own ideas, those who dislike "organized" religion, those with an imaginary view of history and RC atrocities somewhere in the past, those burned by the clergy sex abuse scandals. But disliking an institution is not an appopriate basis for deciding to use the coercive force of government to confiscate its assets via taxation.

Ironically, this flies in the face of a recent court decison in the same state.

On January 5, the California Supreme Court ruled that breakaway Episcopal parishes do not have the right to keep church property if they secede from the national denomination; they held, quite strongly, that all the various properties of the Episcopal Church belong to the national Episcopal Church, not the local congregation.

This was an appropriate ruling, as the Episcopal Church - like the Methodist, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Churches - is, in fact, "Episcopal" in government, meaning that the local congregation is really an administrative unit of the National Church. If a local congregation secedes, they can not take the church building or property with them. (This is the opposite of "baptist" and "Bible" Churches, which hold that the ultimate authority resides in local congregations.)

So here is the incredible - and disingenuous - contradiction:

On the one hand, the California Court has stated that all Church Property belongs to the Larger Church when that Church has an episcopal governing structure.

On the other hand, the City of San Francisco (or at least Assessor Ting) has stated that all of the units under the administration of an episcopal-governed Church are independent, so any 'consolidation' is a transfer of real estate from one entity to another, and, therefore, taxable.

These positions are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other, and the California Supreme Court has spoken.

As usual, Liberals are being inconsistent: they are cheering the decision in the Episcopal Church case, because it helps liberals within the Episcopal Church structure. But they are also cheering the San Francisco action, because it gets the 'big bad ctaholic church' (Isn't that the church that operates more hospitals, orphanages, and aid services than any other in the world? Oh, yeah...)

In other words, the sides being chosen in the battles are based on who people want to win, rather than what is good law.

The Episcopal Church case is correct, and good solid law with much precedent behind it. The San Francisco action is a raw abuse of government power.

Perhaps thats why non-profit organizations - such as churches - are not normally taxed in the first place: the power to tax is the power to destroy, and once government has 'authority,' it uses it UNEQUALLY to punish those it dislikes and favor those who are its friends.

There are those who support taxing the Roman Catholic Church because of its supposed 'political involvement' in conservative ballot issues. I wonder if these same persons would support revoking non-profit tax status for all of the churches that ran the civil rights marches in the 1960s....or revoking the tax status of HIV Service agencies who reguarly lobby for an increase in federal funding?

Best to keep the arms of government taxation far away, and not let them near non-profits of *any* kind.

Emotion and Bad Law: The Snyder v. Westboro (Phelps) verdict

So, the US District Court (Baltimore) has awarded Albert Snyder $10.9 million dollars. The verdict came against the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas, a fundamentalist cult operated by the Fred Phelps family. Phelps is well-known for his anti-homosexual rantings, which he takes to an extreme: in the current case, he and his church members protested outside the funeral of Lance Cpl. Mathhew Snyder, a young soldier who died in Iraq in March 2006. Phelps and his minions regularly protest around the country carrying signs that proclaim, "God Hates Fags" and "God Hates America." They believe that the carnage in Iraq is God's condemnation on the United States for this country's toleration of homosexuality. The dead soldiers father (Albert) sued for emotional distress, and won.

Emotional issue. Terrible Verdict.

I agree, Phelps is a madman. A raving lunatic. An obsessed crusader. His antics are disgusting. His mere appearance at these funerals is disgusting, despicable, heartless, and mean-spirited. His theology is off the wall.

It is also protected by the US Constitution.

That speech which is most abhorrent is precisely that speech that must be protected.

If we begin to punish speech which is heartless and meanspirited, we have started down a slippery slope. Does that mean that members of the US Nazi party should *not* have the right to parade, if it upsets Jewish residents or holocaust survivors? Does it mean that racists should no longer have the right to give political speeches if it upsets a black citizen who remembers the days of southern lynchings?

Lets take it further: Does it mean that cities should be able to ban Gay Pride parades and festivals because it deeply offends its religious citizens? Think about this, folks.....do we really want to punish and ban and fine speech that is found to be 'offensive?'

Once we say that offensive speech is not protected speech, we have destroyed the very concept of Freedom of Speech. What Phelps does is repugnant, and he is properly vilified in the media for his nonsense. Frankly, I wouldnt even mind if someone decked him. I might even be tempted to deliver the blow myself....

But the government must not punish offensive speech - or we *all*in trouble - especially those of us who find ourselves in minority communities.

The verdict does not mean that the Snyders will receive compensation. the Church and the Phelps' will assuredly hide most of their assets, if they have any. But it does cast one more dangerous precedent that will come back to hurt us all. 9/11 became an excuse for chipping away at civil liberties.. We now readily engage in the very activities we used to chide the Soviet Union for (warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, torture, passports requirements, Real ID). The banning of 'offensive' speech is simply one more step down the road towards a totalitarian society.