Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-11-02
yarxe ngvs INDEPENDENT PoLIT.
ICaL CLUB.
..rarIes es cHrxcH rxerEErr.


.xsrros oF CHURCH PR0PEKTT
The Young Mems Independent Po
a,;. i Clus, has been criticised In Ger
80 auarters for its declaration II
80, q the taxation Of church property
The srisEce, however, have nst thus fa
t.ooeht forward any good reasons 70
~ exemption of church property from
- burdens Of taxation.
The separation Of Church and Stat.
/. ana Of ths cardinal principles oI
1merisan poIity. Prom time to tams
;ussdioos attempts have been made Il
rraermine this principle, but without
.rrcess. All that churches have any
,;sbt 10 demand of the State Is the same
..sssure Of protection that Is extended
!. ,.aIar urivate institutions. Any more
;st;mats union than this involves. b.
.,ssen ti,s Chur,h aud the State, would
s. detrimental 70 both.
the State has no right or power to
sannort bs taxation any particular re-
ssg;au or all relieions. Very few will
= foand bold enough toargue that II h
the drty Of the State to levy taxes for
tbe support of the Church. This, II IL
iyur. Il done in England, where the
EoiscopaI Church /, the State Church.
"a where persons Of all religions and
nr,sous Of no reIipisn at aiI'' are taxed
4 snpport II. But the iniustics Of tki q
~ become so apparent even In England
shst the disesl ablishment of the Church
n England Is only a question OF time.
snd only very short time at that. II,
shsn. the State has no right 70 levy
tarfs directly for the support Of the
Church, upon what principle of right
or iustice can it proceed TO do indirectly
vhst Il cannot do directly? To exempt
aknrot property from taxation Ia in
e6eot levying a tar for the benefit Of
ths shurch. For example, let rs sap
pose that the church property of Seattle,
being assessed in the same proportion
a other property. should be charge able
sith tax of $1,000. If the Law exempts
church property from taxation. this tax
81 $1,000 must be paid by the other tax
savers for the church. Thus the church
becomes tax charge upon every tax
psyer Ia the community.
II will not be denied that a large pro-
portion perhaps majoritg-of the
psopie Of this Territory belong 10 no
church. A great many very good peo-
ulo do not uelisve In the religion taught
ln tho churches. There are still others
Who, while believing In the fundamental
principles OF the Christian religion. yet
hold IN utter adherence the doctrines
in some Of the so-caiied
Christian churches. Upon what prin-
ciple Of equity or Justice ID person or
cIaas of persons taxed for the support
of church whose teachings they sim
nerely believe to be pernicious? Upon
what principle, for example, 10 q Bap-
list or Methodist taxed for the sup
port OF the Catholic Church 2 or a
Catholic, who may believe that the de-
votees OF the Baptist and Methodist
Churches are doomed to eternal pun
shment?
Take the case of the Catholic prop
'rsy holder, who sincerely believes that
he Baptist or the Methodist Church 10
n institution of the devil that by It's
IL is leading men 10 perdi-
ion. Isn't II the very refinement Of
to compel such mas 10
,sy n tax TO support such chu .h
jpon what principle, in n county like
his, where there is no union of church
nd State, can the State directly or in
|irectly tax person fer the support of
religion that may be hateful to him
{ can be done upon no principle OF
nstice. The churches should be indie
,endent Of the State. as well as the
,sate Of the churches. And the wise
man disposed TO take
arQe and liberal view OF the situation
,annot fail 10 see by the light OF reason
md Of history that the church would
be injured, rather thar benefited, in the
ong run, by such an invidious favor.
The argument that the church confers n
areat benefit upon society has no force.
II We we're to exempt from taxation
avery agency that benefits society, every
that liRhtens the burdens,
slleviates the troubles or increases the
somfofts OF mankind, very few of the
Rreat Industrial Institutions would be
laxed at all. The factory, honestly
tnht ktNNn CtbbtoyAhuAt w ~
thousand people and fills two or three
hundred homes with the comforts of
life; that enables the parents to feed
and clothe and educate their children.
% surely benefacsor that ought not TO
BE- sighted or overlooked when favors
are going reund. The sober, honest,
laborer, who owns his little
humble home. and has to work hard ak
days In the week to keep II, and 10 rear
IN comfort his little family, IL gsaerally
esteemed, both for bis good example
and the good work he does, a use ful
member OF society. II you plea se.
Where is the justice in taxing this poor
mans humble home and exsmptin1 the
thusoh parsonage or the church itself
And il IL should chance that this man
was sincere free thinker, or. being
Christian, regarded with abhorrence
the doctrines preached in the church,
the discrimination against his home
and IN fayer of the church would fall
little short Of crime against him. We
think that most of the intelligent
church people will. upon reflection,
aekEawledge the imp llicy and injustice
OF any legislation exempting church
property froal its share OF the burdens
OF taxation.