Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1874-04-30

the principle involved.
We understand 1t to he a cardinal
principle among Baptists that the
church should ask nothing from the
State bu. protection in the enjoyment
of her rights and the exercise Of he'
legitimate functions. This the indi.
vidual citizen demands nj the hands
OF the State, and the State requires
as compensation for such protection
that the citizen pay tax sufficient to
provide revenue for the support
and maintenance OF the government.
And III such tax may be levied ON
the property Of the private citizen
we can see no reason why a like tax
should not be levied on the property
of corporation, whether ecclesias-
tical or secular. But there is another
phase OF this question which de-
mands attention. Those who have
taken time to look up the facts tell
rs that if all the church property In
Iowa were taxed equally with that
of the individual citizen, the reve-
nue. thus derived would amount To
about s3D0, 900 annually. But under
the existing law exempting church
property from taxation, this amount
must he made up by an increased tax
on Individual property; and thus the
State taxes the citizen for the sup
port OF religion. This, we insist, tffe
State has TO right to do.
But, again, in the large cities there
are churches owning valuable prop
erty, which h not used for religions
purposes, hut rented for secular pur'
poses, and thus made source Of rev.
enue to the church. Now the law
which exempts this property from
taxation equally with that Of poor,
feeble and struggling churches,
scarcely able tn provide such proper.
~ as they need for strictly religious
purposes, IL an unjust discrimination
in favor OF wealthy churches, and
against those that are poor. TO illus
trate: take two churches, the one
owning property worth $1,000, the
other having property worth $4,000.
Now, for every dollar which the
State gives, by way OF exemption, to
the poor church. needing help, she
gives twenty-five dollars to the
wealthy church that don't need any
OF 1t.
We conclude this article with the
following sensible remarks, copied
from the Springfield Mass Repub-
iicdn:
ave admit all that can Ne said in
favor of the churches. We admit
that public peace, society and civiIiz-
alton depend on their maintenance.
But we have discovered in America
that the vitality Of Christianity Is
best fostered by making its burdens
purely voluntary, and we have
adopted the fundamental principle
OF relieving the state entirely. from
the care and cost Of religious affairs,
We do not doubt that the churches
are annually worth to the state, In a
purely economical sense, vastly more
than the taxes amount to, from
which they are exempted. But IL Il
nevertheless true that the burden OF
supporting them does not fall where
it ought to, In the republican theory
OF government, and does not har-
monize with our other practices.
Every argument which can lie
brought 10 the support OF the ex-
emption of churches from taxation
equally jnstifies the erection and
maintenance of all the meting-houses
mt the public expense, and the com.
plete union Of church and state.
OF course, so far M the money goes
the loss of the annual subsidy to q
special interest In the common.
wealth will not be entirely made up
to that special interest when the
same subsidy IL divided among the
whole population. II Il were other
wise, there would he no Injustice t.
rectify. We do not disguise the fact
that pew-tenants will have to pay
more In the church-tax than they
will get back In the remission of tax
alton on their own property. And
the more costly and splendid tn
church, the greater will be the dis
proportion. The repeal, therefore
favors the people mt large as against
the churches, and the poorer churches
az against the richer. But the mp.
peal to strict Justice should make M
Christian man doubtful AS To hi,
duty to surrender the tax upon hii
pew and take his place with his fel
low men In hearing the Just burden,
of the commemorative
80 r,rs~ <,&s nm csus-