A MOMENTOUS QUESTION by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Oct 17, 1900

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 26, No. 42.

A MOMENTOUS QUESTION.

By Editor

THE people of California are now face to face with one of those innocent-looking measures that involve much mischief. It is no less a proposition than the exemption of church property from taxation. It is a proposed constitutional amendment, providing as follows:—

All buildings, and so much of the real property on which they are situated as may be required for the convenient use and occupation of said buildings, when the same are used solely and exclusively for religious worship, shall be free from taxation; provided that no building so used which may be rented for religious purposes, and rent received by the owner thereof, shall be exempt from taxation.

One of the arguments used in favor of the amendment is the small amount of money involved—only $240,000—which the people at large would have to contribute in the interest of church support. But it should be remembered that principles are not measured by dollars and cents. The principle here involved is that of adding to the taxes of the people a certain amount for the support of religious worship. That principle is all the same whether it be ten dollars or ten million dollars. Every person who owns property, whether he be religious or not, must pay his portion for the benefit of the Catholic Churches, the various Protestant churches, the Chinese joss-houses, or the places owned and set apart for worship by the votaries of any other religion.

Another argument, put forth by a prominent minister, which we find in a daily paper of this city, is that the churches "are devoted solely and exclusively to the interests of the public." That is not true, for the reason that the public have no control of them. They are all owned and controlled by corporations. The public have no access to them whatever, excepting at the stated times designated by the owners. The owners, and not the public, have the benefit of the collections taken from the audiences, for without these contributions they would have to go into their pockets to that extent. To the extent of the contributions raised apart from the owners, they are pecuniarily benefited.

The same writer says the churches are "as completely devoted to the interests of the public as a sidewalk, a public highway, park, or public fountain." Now it is a pertinent question, How many of the public are interested in the private income of the pastor, the chorister, the soprano, the soloist, the organist, and other salaried persons connected with the church? or, How much salary would either of them get without the church property? It is safe to say that few corporations or congregations would pay them as much for performing in their various roles on the sidewalk or public highway, or in the public square, or before the public fountain. It requires a great stretch of imagination to conclude that property devoted to religious worship is used solely in the interest of the public.

This ministerial advocate of church support by the public indiscriminately further says that "exempting churches from taxation makes them the guests of the State, whereas taxing them carries with it the right of representation in the department of government." The first part of that proposition is a strong argument against the amendment. It is an admission (unwitting, of course) of all the wickedness involved in the principle. Guests are always sustained by their hosts; that condition is what makes them guests. There could hardly be a more expressive presentation of the evil lurk

ing in the proposed amendment. It certainly annuls a previous statement that "taxing churches is not a step in the direction of the union of Church and State in the sense in which such phrases are commonly used."

But we call attention to the latter clause of the sentence quoted at the beginning of the preceding paragraph, namely, "taxing them [the churches] carries with it the right of representation in the department of government." To this is added the further fallacy that "if a corporation is taxed and treated upon a taxable basis, the right to influence and shape the policies of the civil government can not well be denied it." Such doctrine is not merely fallacious, it is monstrous; and, coming from a professed minister of the Gospel, it is astounding. That corporations gain rights in government control over and above what the incorporators as individuals enjoy without such corporation is one of the great evils against which the people of the United States are struggling to-day. While the corporations are vastly strengthening their influence in the government, by a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, every political party has at least formally declared against the policy.

So well known is it that the principle is wrong that even those who are giving it the greatest encouragement find it good policy to publicly profess opposition to it. One of the leading powers in enforcing corporation influence upon the policy of the government has but recently deemed it necessary to publicly deny that any such principle exists. Yet we have here a Protestant clergyman who openly avows that the tax-paying corporation’s right to shape the policies of the civil government "can not well be denied." To such a point is he driven in quest of an argument for saddling a portion of the expenses of religious worship upon the people at large.

The proposed amendment is practically a tax rate for the support of religion of every kind whose votaries are strong enough financially to own a place of worship. True, the rate is small, but the principle is there, and is prominent enough to serve as an opening wedge. With equal propriety might the members of a poor congregation who are obliged to rent a place of worship ask for a tax levy to help them pay their rent. Their work is as much for the benefit of the public as is that of the more wealthy worshipers, and their rent is a heavier burden upon them than is the tax bill of a property-owning church upon the corporation. But under the proposed amendment these poorer renters have not only to pay their own rent, but, in addition, help to pay the taxes of the wealthier church owners.

We are glad to notice in the same journal a timely article on the other side of the question, by a prominent member of the First Baptist Church of this city. He takes the stand of true Christian manhood on this question, as shown by the following extract from his article:—

From my standpoint I can not see why Christian men should vote for the people of the State to pay taxes on their houses of worship. Churches are not charitable institutions, to ask aid of the State, such as insane asylums and orphan asylums. But one says the State doesn’t pay it; the people do. Who are the people if they don’t represent the State, the same as our general government, of the people, by the people, and for the people. Above all things, Christian men should not endeavor to shift their responsibilities upon others. We are too apt to set

aside principle when mercenary ends are to be obtained. When the First Baptist Church of Oakland becomes too poor to pay its just taxes to the State, I will be one of twenty to pay the taxes in the same manner as we are doing at the present time. . . . I never will vote in favor of any law that will compel non-church people to assist in paying taxes on the house I worship in.

Another paragraph from the same article is worthy of note:—

Those whom I have talked with who favor the adoption of the amendment say that other States have adopted a similar amendment and that we ought not to be so far behind our sister States. I can not see any argument in this, for is it not possible that many of the States would rid themselves of this law if they could? I know such is the fact in some of the States. But, one says, if the law is obnoxious why not repeal it?—For the simple reason that they can not. Why?—Because it required the Catholic votes to carry the measure, and you can never secure the Catholic vote to repeal it. Don’t you see?

Now no one will criticise a Catholic for voting for the amendment, for State support of the church is fundamental Catholic doctrine. But Protestants profess otherwise, and they can not afford, for the comparatively small sum of church taxes, to deliberately step over onto Catholic ground. A surrender of one principle to Catholicism logically demands more. No true Protestant ever will ask the civil government to tax the people at large for the support of his worship. G.