, 1889-08-29
SHALL CHURCH PROPERTY BE
TAXED

~ nus Dccn Heciueu 10 leave the SUD
1ect of church taxation to tho disposal Of
necessary to revise the old hymn that
says religion Is free. The vericst intidel,
If he be honest, will say that the
churches arc The ciyilizors Of the people
and the prcservers Of peace. Then, why
tax them? There viii be required IL
certain sum TO be raised by taxation
each year. and II church property Is to
be taxed, the religious man will have u
reEons sESt nrOnStH% nssor to 4y yc 'oH ns f
could better afford to pay premium on
the promoters of morality than TO re-
quire license,-I.atah Times.
without entering into am argument as
to the efficacy OF the church as civli.
ger, or either denying or affirming tie
assumption that tho people arc natu.
rally immoral and would be more so
were they not held in check by the
churches, the REVIEW is constrained TO
take issue with its highly esteemed CON.
temporary on tho specific proposition rs
TO the propriety and the Justice of tax
ing church property. The various
religious denominations throughout
the country are in the habit of uccumu.
lating great deal of valuable property,
sometimes for their own legitimate
uses and sometimes for speculative pur-
poses. The church is close corpora.
tion and its members are jointly inter.
estod in the property thus acquired. As
members of the corporation they have
the power to use this property for any
purpose, us they may see tit, and they
do frequently utilize Il for private
schools, hospitals, and even for business
purposes, from all of which large rev.
cnue Is derived. H. therefore, the man.
agcment of the corporation Is shrowd,
the income from its property may be
made to bring in a revenue largely i'm
excess of the difference between the re.
ligious mans share of the burden of
taxation and that of his irrelglous
neighbor. Thus the claim of inequality
or unjust discrimination in favor of the
irrchgious man falls to the ground.
Another serious objection TO the pro.
posed exemption is that by the recog.
milton on the part of the state of all or.
ganizations pretending to be re.
ligious, and by thus cstab-
fishing close relations with them,
the tendency is clearly in the direction
of nnion of the church and the state.
which would necessarily eliminate in
conflict for supremacy among the church
organizations themselves And 1t is at
least questionable whether or not re-
liglous war, in this nineteenth century
age, could be regarded as ciyilizer of
the people.
So long ms the ship of state maintains
its straightforward course it will have
smooth sailing. but if its masters
hearkcn TO the voices OF Scylla here
and a Charybdis over yonder wreck
and ruin are inevitable. So long
rs the state confines itself to the f,iuc.
tions for which the joint stockholders In
that institution organized 1t, and for
which the parent organization granted
them a charter, It will prove beneficial
concern, but whenever 1t diverges from
the plain course that has been mapped
out for it, dissensions will arise and
there will be danger of disorganization,
If not total disin,cgration.
These are a few of the reasons why the
REVIEW and u large majority of the pco-
pie honestly and conscientiously believe
that all religious and scmi.reigious and
pseudo-rcligious organizations owning
property, whether for legitimate church
uses or for the Purpose of making money,
shall pay the taxes thereon the same us
other corporations and individuals.