{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38371/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38371","id":"gutenberg_38371","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38371","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Sociology","Church property"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEXEMPTING THE CHURCHES\n\nAn Argument for the Abolition of This Unjust and Unconstitutional\nPractice\n\nBy James F. Morton. Jr.\n\n\"No person shall be required to support any ministry or place of worship\nagainst his consent\"--The accepted American principle.\n\n\"To relieve the property of a church from taxation is to appropriate\nmoney, to the extent of that tax, for the support of that church....\nTo exempt the church from taxation is to pay a part of the priest's\nsalary.\"--Ingersoll.\n\n1916.\n\n\n\n\n\nEXEMPTING THE CHURCHES\n\nAN ARGUMENT FOR THE ABOLITION OF THIS UNJUST AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE.\n\nThe history of the democratic spirit, from its first inception to the\npresent day, is that of a ceaseless struggle with special privilege. The\nprinciple of caste, in its numerous manifestations, is constantly at\nwar with the right's of man. After centuries of incessant conflict, the\nadvance of democracy is beyond all question; and its ultimate triumph\ncan be denied only by those who hold that progress is destined to cease\nand civilization to decay. It has become evident that what is democratic\nis good and beneficial to mankind, that what is undemocratic is evil and\nharmful to the human race. Kings, kaisers, emperors, czars, hereditary\naristocracies and oligarchies of every kind, however necessary or useful\nfactors they may have been in certain early stages of the transition\nfrom barbarism to civilization, are now recognizable as drags on the\nchariot wheel of progress. The world has begun to rid itself of\nall these anachronisms; and the day of their entire and permanent\ndisappearance can now be foreseen in the not extremely distant future.\nComplete autocracies have practically ceased to exist. Monarchy by\ndivine right is recognized for the monstrous lie which it always was;\nand the few atavistic survivals who continue to mouth that once revered\nphrase are abhorred, pitied or despised by all sane men and women. Mixed\ngovernments are the general rule, since the old and exploded fallacies\nof personal government yield unwillingly to the march of progress and\njustice; but in each case the authority is slowly but surely passing\nmore and more into the hands of the people; and the hereditary\nrulers are becoming mere figureheads or subsidiary agents of popular\ngovernment, pending their final disappearance. In our own and a few\nother lands, we are happily rid of them long since, and we wish the\nsame good fortune at an early date to the rest of the nations. The\nreactionaries of the different countries vainly declare that democratic\ntriumph is a sign of degeneracy. On the contrary, where democracy\nflourishes, all forms of progress are found to thrive best. Each new\nstep in the direction of human liberty has been bitterly opposed by the\nworshipers of the past. They have poured forth eloquent jeremiads, and\nvehemently predicted the collapse of society and the deterioration of\nthe race, whenever religious liberty, freedom of the press or of\nspeech and assembly, a republican form of government, the abolition of\nhereditary office and titles of nobility, the overthrow of slavery or\nany other great forward step was proposed; and in every single instance\nthe result of the increase of liberty proved so beneficial to the human\nrace as to give the lie most unequivocally to the false prophets of\nevil. Never has autocracy been proved to be superior to democracy in any\nsingle particular of a fundamental nature.\n\nTHE MEANING OF THE PRINCIPLE.\n\nReading the future in the light of the past, we may safely maintain that\na fuller application of the democratic principle in our own republic can\nbe fraught with nothing but blessings to our people. Democracy does not\nmean merely the election of officials by popular franchise, nor is it\nsynonymous with unlimited majority rule. Starting from the premise of\nthe equal rights of all men and women, it necessarily signifies the\nparamount importance of the individual, and next to the individual, the\nrights of the collective community. It must protect the individual\nto the fullest possible extent in his \"inalienable rights\" of \"life,\nliberty and the pursuit of happiness.\" It is only when he alleges the\npursuit of these rights as a pretext for meddling with the equally\nfundamental rights of his fellows that the community, as the\nrepresentative of the total rights of all its members, finds warrant for\ninterference, and for restraining the invader. There can be no question\nas to this general principle. The difficulties in application arise\nonly from the facts that the relative rights of individuals are not\nmathematically determinable and that human judgment is not infallible.\nLawmaking is an attempt, more or less successful, to reach a workable\napproximation of absolute justice, based on the general democratic\nprinciple.\n\nThe antithesis of democracy is special privilege. This is the extension\nof certain powers to one or more individuals, at the expense of one or\nmore other individuals, without proper compensation and in violation of\nequal justice. Whatever interferes with equality of initial opportunity\nfalls under this head. Democracy abhors all forms of favoritism. There\nis no injustice in unequal remuneration for differing degrees of social\nservice; but there is grave wrong in rewarding equal services unequally\nor unequal services equally. All theories of social reform are based on\na more or less clear realization of this truth, and on the supposition,\nwhether correct or incorrect, that conditions exist at present which\nconfer undue advantage on a favored class or on favored classes.\n\nPRECEDENCE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.\n\nWhat is true of material advantage is equally true of prerogatives of\nevery description. The state cannot legitimately restrict any form of\npersonal liberty, unless its indulgence involves some definite injury\nto the liberties of others, and that so great as to overbalance the\ninterests of individuals in maintaining the liberty in question. Where\nthere is a reasonable doubt, democracy demands that it be resolved\nin favor of the individual. Mere majorities cannot decide the issue.\nRedheaded men and women form a very small percentage of the population;\nbut the overwhelming majority of others have no right whatever, under\nthe democratic principle, to decree that this small group shall be\nexterminated, or even that it shall be subject to a special tax or to\nany other burdensome restraint not applied to all the people. Freedom\nof the press is a vital democratic principle, which becomes absolutely\nworthless, unless it be recognized as a right of even the smallest\nminority, no less than of the largest majority. The humblest citizen\nis entitled to trial by jury and the use of the writ of habeas corpus,\nalthough his enemies and accusers constitute the great mass of the\npeople. Majority tyranny is in no sense genuine democracy, but is a\nwretched counterfeit. As a practical necessity, the majority must be\nheld to govern in all matters of strictly collective concern; but it has\nno right to meddle with that which is strictly of a private nature.\n\nThe absolute and perpetual separation of church and state is among the\nmost imperative requirements of the democratic principle. Nothing can\nbe so essentially the private concern of the individual as his personal\nbeliefs on subjects of abstract speculation. Here, of all places, the\nstate cannot intrude without rendering itself guilty of the foulest\nconceivable crime against its citizens. Religious conviction can never\nbe a collective matter. Only if all the brains in a group of persons\ncould be fused into one, would it be possible for such group to hold\nan opinion of its own. Each of ten men may accept the doctrines of the\nRoman Catholic church; but the moment an eleventh man, who is of another\nway of thinking, joins the group, it can no longer be said that\nthe group believes in the tenets of Catholicism. A majority of the\nindividuals composing the group so believe; but there is no one mind\nthinking for all. Apparent exceptions exist only in the case of mobs,\nin which the free play of individuality is temporarily suspended, the\nmembers of the crowd being hypnotized and maddened out of the capacity\nfor intelligent thought or action by some influence which has been\nbrought to bear on them. This is not a collective mind, but the\ntemporary surrender of a group of individuals to an overpowering and\nirrational impulse. The mob spirit is at the opposite pole from the\nspirit of democracy.\n\nOPINION NOT SUBJECT TO MAJORITY RULE.\n\nNot only can a group or a nation not hold a collective religious\nopinion, but no majority in it, however great, can change the opinion of\na single individual by any form of coercion. It may suppress the outward\nmanifestation of opinion, and may indirectly present considerations to\nthe mind of the individual which will lead him ultimately to recast his\nviews in some respects; but it cannot directly command the humblest\nor most docile of its members to change his mode of thinking on\nthe instant. The pretense of uniformity of faith in a people must,\ntherefore, be the sheerest humbug. Could belief be collective, and made\nto continue so, there would be some pretext for the advocacy of a state\nchurch. Since, however, there is no way of making every individual an\norganic part of a believing whole, a real state church is an unqualified\nimpossibility. A dominant party or number of individuals may by sheer\nbrute force compel the rest of the community to pay lip-service to a\nformal organization labeled a state church; but the total amount of\nbelief in the dogmas of such an institution will not be increased in the\nslightest degree by the false label which seeks to represent it as an\nexpression of community-belief. A state church cannot become a centre\nfor collective worship, since no such thing is possible; it can only\nbring together for joint outward expression of worship a mass of\nindividuals, the real believers among whom will engage in actual\nworship, while others, under persuasion or coercion, will go through\ncertain mechanical forms of no value to themselves or to others, in\nsimulation of the reverence which they do not feel, and without which\ntheir participation in the external rites of religion is meaningless.\n\nUNION OF CHURCH AND STATE--ITS ORIGIN.\n\nHistory joins forces with reason in proving that union of church and\nstate is an intolerable evil. The state religions of antiquity were\neither the agents of political despotism, or themselves, as in Egypt,\nformed a special despotism under which both rulers and people were\ncrushed to the earth. Since the advent of Christianity, the rule of the\nchurch has never failed to bring disaster. The beginning of the calamity\nis traceable to the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine, sometimes\nmisnamed \"The Great.\" Of many bad emperors, this man stands out\nconspicuously among the worst. Usurper, liar, perjurer, thief, murderer,\nand villain in many other regards, he adopted Christianity as a state\nreligion from motives of an unusually crafty policy. So little did\nhis newly professed faith influence his underlying character, that\nhis crimes of the blackest type continued unabated after his professed\nconversion. He did not even respect the foundation principles of\nChristianity sufficiently to become baptized until he lay on his\ndeathbed, when his grossly superstitious mind deluded itself with the\nfantasy that a few drops of water and a few mumbled incantations would\nhave the magical effect of atoning for a lifetime of infamy, and would\ncarry him straightway into a region of eternal gratification of every\ndesire. During Constantine's reign, organized Christianity began by\ndividing official honors with the more ancient Roman religion, and ended\nby usurping the entire authority, and by persecuting those who still\nclung to the faith of their fathers. Later emperors carried the process\nstill further, ostentatious piety and unbounded corruption going hand in\nhand, until Rome became a synonym of utter rottenness, and fell an easy\nprey to the barbarian hordes which poured down from northern Europe.\n\nWith the union of church and state under Constantine began a period of\nmental and moral stagnation, which continued for about ten centuries.\nIt was an anti-millennium, a thousand years of distinctively Christian\nrule, productive of every conceivable evil, with scarcely a redeeming\nfeature. So black a night settled down on the human race that by common\nconsent the epoch is appropriately known as that of the \"Dark Ages.\"\nThe church was sole master, and independence of thought was visited with\ntorture and death. Persecution, massacre, religious wars without end,\nand extermination of whole populations and the merciless slaughter of\nthe noblest of the race were its characteristics. Rome, the alleged\n\"holy city,\" the centre of church power, was a pestilential swamp of\nvice and crime beyond the ability of words to describe. Not a ray of\nhope appeared in the blackness until the raising of voices against the\nextreme control of the church. The human mind refused to remain forever\nin fetters, and the rising movements of humanism and the renaissance\nwitnessed the beginnings of the great revolt. The Protestant\nReformation, an attempt to purify Christianity from within, succeeded\nin rending the church asunder, but failed to redeem it from the worst of\nits inherent evils. Its leaders loved religious liberty as little as did\ntheir Catholic rivals. Calvinism proved to be as ready to murder in\nthe name of God as ever Romanism has been. Persecution of heretics,\nwitch-hunting and the oppression of the whole people for the profit of\necclesiasticism went merrily on in all lands. The gradual fading out\nof these horrors has been brought about step by step by no other agency\nthan by the gradual emancipation of the state from the clutches of the\nchurch.\n\nRELIGIOUS LIBERTY THE TEST OF PROGRESS.\n\nLooking around the world today, it is easy to measure the progress\nof the different peoples by the degree in which they have attained\nreligious liberty. The strictly Catholic countries, where least light\nhas penetrated, and where the right of the church to control the\nlawmaking power and to dominate public education has been longest\nrecognized, are precisely those most backward in all the essentials of\ncivilization; and in each of these lands, any uprising of the people on\nbehalf of liberty and progress is invariably accompanied by an open war\nagainst the special privileges of the church. Thus France and Portugal\nhave found it impossible to win and hold their fundamental liberties\nexcept by shaking off the ecclesiastical yoke; and in these lands\nthe clerical element is foremost in the evil work of plotting the\nrestoration of the monarchy and the annihilation of the rights of man.\nIn Mexico, the priesthood has been fully recognized as the most deadly\nenemy of the people. In Spain, the founder of secular education,\nFrancisco Ferrer, was brutally murdered at the behest of the clerics;\nand their associates in this and every land have not ceased to spread\nabroad lies that are intended to blacken his memory and to excuse his\nassassins. The anti-clerical and republican movements in Spain and Italy\ngo hand in hand.\n\nThe United States of America started right in theory, although it has\nnot been always firm and loyal to the democratic principle. Observing\nthe evils of a state church, as they had existed in Europe and in the\nAmerican colonies, our forefathers wisely incorporated into the federal\nConstitution strong provisions intended to save our land from\nreligious tyranny. By this fundamental document, the right of political\norganization is expressly derived from the people, and not from any\nsupposed divine sanction. No recognition of any religious doctrine\nappears anywhere in the instrument. To make perfectly clear the\ndemocratic purpose of the Constitution, a bill of rights, consisting of\neleven amendments, was added as a condition of the ratification of the\ninstrument by the original states. To the eternal honor of the framers\nof this bill of rights, the first words of its first article are:\n\"_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,\nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof_.\" The Constitution itself\ncontains the no less highly significant clause: \"_No religious test\nshall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust\nunder the United States_.\"\n\nThe various state constitutions, while not so thoroughly and\nconsistently secularistic as the fundamental document of the nation,\nin practically every instance contain a general provision guaranteeing\nreligious liberty. The legislatures and courts have often enough\nbetrayed their trust, and have imposed on the people of the respective\nstates measures of the grossest unconstitutionality and of the most\nshocking disregard of private right in this regard. Rarely, however,\nis warrant to be found in a state constitution for legislation looking\ntoward the patronage of any form of religion by the state. The numerous\nexisting encroachments on our liberties are as unlawful as they are\nimmoral.\n\n     *  For a fuller discussion of the principles of Secularism\n     (the democratic doctrine of absolute separation of church\n     and state) and of improper religious legislation in this\n     country, see \"The American Secular Union\" (J. F. Morton,\n     Jr., 5 cents), \"Christian Sabbath\" (J. E. Remsburg, 3\n     cents), \"Congress and Sunday Laws\" (3 cents), \"The Fourth\n     Demand\" (Woolsey Teller, 10 cents). All for tale by The\n     Truth Seeker Co.\n\nTHE PEOPLE GREATER THAN ANY CONSTITUTION.\n\nEven were the facts otherwise, democracy is greater than any\nconstitution; and its vital principles would remain valid. From a\ndemocratic point of view, the state has no right to impose any religious\nobservance on a single individual, nor to limit any of his actions\nin accordance with the doctrines of any religion; it has no right to\nappropriate a single cent of public money for any religious purpose,\nnor to cast its moral influence for or against any religion or religious\nsect. Its plain duty toward all forms of opinion concerning religion is\nto maintain a perfect neutrality, and to treat all citizens on a plane\nof absolute equality in this respect. The state is officially\nneither Christian nor anti-Christian. It is simply an organization of\nindividuals for mutual protection and for the more effective forwarding\nof their strictly collective aims and interests, which are exclusively\nsecular. The moment it passes beyond these boundaries, its actions\nbecome _ultra vires_ and tyrannical.\n\nAs already shown, nothing can be more completely and essentially a\nprivate matter than religion. Where the beliefs, words or acts of an\nindividual do not affect the equal rights of any of his fellows, singly\nor collectively, the state can under no legitimate pretext interfere\nwith them. Not only may it not interfere with the free exercise of any\nform of religious worship or the performance of any religious acts not\nproperly prohibited on grounds of public policy independent of their\nconnection with religion, but it is guilty of a flagrant denial of equal\njustice, if it shows the slightest partiality to any form of religious\nor anti-religious belief, or practices any discrimination against any\nsuch. It has no right to help or encourage any or all forms of religion,\nany more than to hamper or discourage them. The one thing to which they\nare all, from Roman Catholicism to Atheism, entitled to receive from the\nstate on precisely equal terms, is protection in the peaceable exercise\nof their rights, involving full liberty to spread their respective\ndoctrines at their own cost. No honest cult would ask for more, and\nno self-respecting school of thought would accept less. Whether any\nparticular religion or religion as a whole thrives or decays, is none of\nthe state's business. All it has to do is to give a free field to all,\nand let them succeed or fail in proportion to their own merits and their\nability to convince men and women of their truth and of their claim to\nsupport at the hands of individuals.\n\nTHE INEQUALITY OF EXEMPTIONS.\n\nThe exemption of church property from taxation is a direct and\nunqualified violation of every one of the foregoing principles. It is a\ndenial of the foundation truths of democratic government. It is a\nmean and underhanded attempt to do indirectly what cannot be done more\ndirectly. In its essence it is nothing more or less than the indirect\nsupport of the church by the state. It is the connivance of the state in\nthe picking of the pockets of its citizens by the church. Every dollar\nof taxation which the church is allowed to dodge is one dollar more\nlaid on the shoulders of the honest taxpayers. To exempt the church\nfrom taxation means to lighten its load at the expense of the people.\nIt means that the state helps to proselytize in the interests of special\ncults. The smaller or incipient sects, which own no land or buildings,\nare placed at a relative disadvantage, regardless of their merits\ncompared to the older and stronger religious bodies. The state rewards\nmere acquisition in such a way as to facilitate greater acquisition. It\nhelps the strong as against the weak, the wealthy as against the poor.\nThe trifle saved by the small country church, with its cheap structure\nlocated on land of a nominal value, is relatively of immeasurably less\nhelp to it than that given to the rich city church, with its magnificent\nedifice erected on a plot worth its tens of thousands of dollars and\nconstantly appreciating in value. Even as among the churches themselves,\nthe system of exemption works thus unfairly and in the direction of\nconcentration of wealth. It affords temptation to the churches to\nprocure and hold much more land than they really need, regardless of the\ngrowing wants of the community.\n\nTalk of the ethical and educational attributes claimed for the church is\nwholly beside the question. It is not the business of the state to raise\nits revenues only from the baser elements of the population. As its\nprivate citizens do not pay taxes in proportion to their lack of\nvirtuous qualities, so neither should the institutions which enjoy\nstate protection. Our great philanthropists, scientists, inventors and\neducators are not exempt from taxation on the ground of the great good\nthey are doing. As citizens of the state and nation, they receive their\nshare of social advantages, and do not whine over the fact that they are\nasked to pay their quota toward the maintenance of those advantages for\nthe common good. Their good deeds in addition are voluntary, and not\nperformed in the expectation of being permitted to shirk their social\nobligations by way of reward.\n\nCHURCHES DOCTRINAL, NOT MORAL.\n\nNo amount of sophistry can disguise the fact that the church is\nprimarily a doctrinal organization. No theories of supernaturalism\nare needed, in order to teach a pure morality, founded on the social\nrelations of human beings. If the church existed primarily for\nethical purposes, we should not have the spectacle of some hundreds of\nstruggling sects, each loudly proclaiming itself as the great repository\nof fundamental truth. The religious denominations, at their best, are\nrival establishments, vociferously competing for public favor. To say\nthis, is to cast no reflection on their sincerity. But even the highest\ndegree of sincerity does not necessarily involve freedom from error.\nAs mutually destructive theories cannot be alike true, it follows as\nan imperative conclusion that not more than one religious body can be\nentirely correct in its doctrinal formulas. All may be wrong; all but\none must be. And if the truth rests in a single religious sect, there\nexists no competent and wholly impartial arbiter to settle the dispute\nin the eyes of everybody. Even if it were not a fact that majorities\ncannot determine truth, no one denomination has anything like a\nmajority. The largest single body is the Roman Catholic. Yet even\nthis powerful body numbers less than a sixth of the population of our\ncountry. Far behind it comes the Methodist, a much subdivided body. Even\nif all its branches be counted as one united organization, it includes\nless than one in ten of the population, and is far from containing even\na majority of the Protestant Christians. Exemption from taxation is\nprimarily assistance toward the spreading of doctrine. Inasmuch as only\none of the beneficiaries of this disguised state aid (if even one) is\nthe repository of basic truth unmixed with glaring error, it follows\nthat, no matter where the truth may lie, at least five-sixths and\npossibly an enormously higher proportion of the money thus released for\ndoctrinal proselytism represents the subsidizing by the state of what is\nmathematically proved to be false teaching. On this simple proposition\nall must agree.\n\nTHE PREPONDERANCE OF ERROR.\n\nIf all religious bodies are exempt from taxation, no member of any\none of them can dispute the fact that for every dollar which the state\nindirectly contributes to the cause of truth, it gives from five to a\nthousand times as much to error. If all but a mere handful of the people\naccepted some one creed as divinely inspired, while exemption from\ntaxation would still be an unjustifiable infringement on the rights of\nthe minority, there would at least be some plausibility in the attempt\nto justify it on the ground that the balance of probability might fairly\nbe claimed for the views of the overwhelming majority. Unsound as\nsuch an argument would be, it would possess an overwhelming weight in\ncomparison with the present position of the tax exemptionists, who\nwould not merely leave the enemy to sow tares amid the wheat, but would\nthemselves fairly choke the good seed with a crushing preponderance\nof foul weeds. If the democratic principle of separation of church and\nstate forbids the manipulation of public funds, and by an obvious parity\nof reasoning the taxing power of the state, for the promotion of any\ngiven sect which may possess the whole truth, the general subsidizing\nof all sects, so far from being less obnoxious to objection from the\nstandpoint of honest administration, is even more so, since it ensures\nthe survival of a mass of falsehood, incapable of being sustained by its\nown unaided efforts. It fosters the less worthy among the sects, which\ncould not win their way by merit; and it insidiously corrupts the\nmore worthy, by inviting them to thrive by parasitism, rather than by\nappealing to the force which resides in truth and in the consistent\ndevotion to high ideals.\n\nTHE PARTIALITY OF EXEMPTION.\n\nIn thus granting an indiscriminate subsidy to a vast number of doctrinal\nbodies, the state violates the fundamental doctrine of democratic\nneutrality and impartiality. It favors a portion of the community at the\nexpense of all the rest. The millions of dollars which are thus given\nback to the churches do not come out of the air, but out of the pockets\nof the taxpaying citizens. It is the worst form of taxation without\nrepresentation. It places a premium on dogmatic faith. It is an\nestablishment of religion in direct defiance of the spirit of the\nConstitution. Contrary to the rudimentary principles of democracy, it\nplaces the state in the position of formally endorsing the proposition\nthat religion is a public function and not an affair of the private\nconscience. It differs from medievalism only in degree, but not a whit\nin kind. It is worse than robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is robbing Peter\nand Paul to pay Judas.\n\nRights of Conscience Disregarded. Not only is exemption from taxation a\ncovert subsidy for the spread of doctrinal proselytism; not only does\nit place the state in the position of paying for the circulation of\nincomparably more error than truth; not only does it rob part of the\ncommunity for the benefit of another part; not only does it violate\nthe principles of justice and of impartiality as among the conflicting\nbeliefs of its various citizens; not only does it force the taxpayers\nto support religion, whether they wish to do so or not; not only does it\nunite church and state in defiance of democracy and equal liberty; but\nit constitutes a direct and deliberate violation of the fundamental\nrights of conscience. It is not a mere matter of making individuals pay\nfor that toward which they are indifferent; it is stealing their money\nto assist in the circulation of dogmas which they regard as positively\npernicious and evil. In a democracy, all citizens possess the same\nrights, and can lawfully be called upon to surrender no freedom or\nprerogative except for some public end of paramount consequence.\nNo majority, however large, can offer the faintest valid excuse for\ntrampling on the private convictions of the humblest member of society.\nBy all uncorrupted minds, it would be at once recognized as the most\nglaring tyranny to demand that any individual be compelled to make\npublic or private profession of a faith in which he did not actually\nbelieve, or that he be required to participate in public worship against\nthe dictates of his own reason and conscience. Such infamies have been\nperpetrated in the history of mankind; but they are now justly abhorred\nby all who have assimilated the elementary lessons of civilization.\nNo longer are men and women hunted down as heretics for their honest\ninability to believe that a muttered priestly conjuration can turn a\ncracker into the flesh of a deity or a cup of wine into his blood. No\nlonger are the fires of persecution kindled for those whose mathematical\ntraining has made them incapable of accepting the paradox that one is\nthree and three are one. The thumbscrew and the rack no longer punish\nwith a hell on earth all who have too high an opinion of any God whom\nthey can conceive as existing to believe that he is so vile a monster\nas to have prepared a hell beyond the grave for any of his own children.\nEven in the backward countries where democracy and religious liberty are\nequally obnoxious to the powers that make their rule a curse to their\nsubjects, and where the miserable thing known as a state church thrives\nto the fullest extent, such concessions to the growing decency of the\nworld have been forced upon a reluctant priestcraft, that its venom\nis largely drawn. Once in a long time, after years of patient and\nincalculably subtle plotting for its nefarious end, it may achieve a\ncrowning infamy, such as the murder of a Francisco Ferrer; and even for\nthis triumph it pays dearly in the end, by arousing against itself\nthe loathing of all that is honorable on earth. In the main, however,\npriestcraft, growl as it may, even in the lands where its strength for\nmischief is greatest, can only suppress free speech, free press and\nfree assemblage; indulge in acts of petty persecution, which arouse\nresentment rather than inspire terror; punish refusal to bow to a\nreligious procession or indulgence in the expression of honest opinion\nwith fine or relatively brief imprisonment. It can annoy, but it can no\nlonger crush.\n\nABUSE OF ECONOMIC POWER.\n\nIn a land of democracy, even these last remnants of the scourge of\nmedievalism are wiped out. We look with indignation and disgust at the\npriest-ridden countries where a slavish population submits to the lash\nof bigoted despots, and rejoice that our lot is cast under a freeer\nheaven. Such religious persecution as may still be found among us finds\nno warrant in law. It consists of the abuse by individuals of their\neconomic power over others. In any community where human beings are\nfound vile enough to wish to destroy what they can of the happiness\nof all who do not pronounce their shibboleth, they can only resort to\nprivate activity in the way of ostracism, boycott, blacklisting and\nother weapons of cowardly malignance; and the state gives them no\ncountenance in their criminal enterprises. It is our proud boast that\nin this land of freedom the state protects every person in the full\nexercise of his right to choose his own religion, and to abstain from\nrecognition of any other.\n\nWhat a pity that words are not always equivalent to deeds! So curiously\ncompounded is the human mind that few are capable of carrying a\nprinciple to its logical conclusion. In some matters, a middle ground\nis possible; but there can be no compromise in cases where the slightest\nconcession vitiates the entire contention of one side or the other. In\nmatters of policy or of tactics, it is often feasible and just that\neach of the contending parties should recede somewhat from its extreme\ndemands, in order to break a deadlock, or to promote good feeling;\nand refusal to yield a non-essential point may be justly condemned as\nobstinacy. Even in matters of principle, there is no sacrifice of one's\nown sacred convictions in manifesting respect for the convictions of\nothers. But between manifesting respect for the views of an opponent and\nsurrendering one's own conscience to him, there is a great gulf fixed.\nWe may agree that truth needs no artificial props, and that nothing\ncan be safer than to allow even the most flagrant error full liberty of\nexpression. This, however, is something very different from ourselves\nfurnishing the medium of expression for that which we believe to be\nfalse and pernicious, and giving it the unmerited advantage of our moral\nsanction. When we realize that exemption from taxation is as palpable\na subsidy as direct appropriation of funds for the propagation of the\ndoctrines of the exempted institution, and that every taxpayer must not\nonly bear a heavier burden in consequence of such exemption, but must\nalso, with or against his will, be counted as part of the organic\nsocial whole which officially pronounces in favor of the merits of such\ndoctrines, we immediately perceive that the wrong done to the citizens\nis not to be measured in dollars and cents. Standing at the parting of\nthe ways, the state deliberately chooses to follow the path which\nleads in the direction of ecclesiastical domination of the protesting\nindividual. It denies the sacred and blood-bought principle of full\nreligious liberty. It asserts that the private conscience of the\nindividual is the property of the community. This is the theory of the\nSpanish Inquisition, and is diametrically hostile to democracy. If the\nstate has the right to decree that its citizens, regardless of their\ndesires and convictions, shall be forced to contribute to the support of\nthe church, it has an equal right to declare that they shall give their\ntime as well as their money to its upbuilding; that they shall attend\nits services and give it the benefit of their membership; that they\nshall refrain from any word or deed, public or private, which may tend\nto weaken its influence; that they shall submit all their affairs to\nits guidance, and shall obey its ministers in all things. There is\nno logical stopping-point short of this consistent application of the\ndoctrine that religion is a matter of public concern. If this doctrine\nbe true, every step away from the Middle Ages has been a ghastly\nmistake; and we should return in all reverence and humility to the ideas\nand efforts of Torquemada and Simon de Montfort. No person has a logical\nright to condemn medievalism, who does not fully and consistently accept\nthe democratic principle that religion is a strictly private affair and\nthat it is in no way the business of the state to concern itself\nwith the question whether the church is to live or to die. From the\ndemocratic standpoint, the church is simply a voluntary group of\nindividuals, who hold certain beliefs and aims in common, and who have\nthe same right as all similar groups to associate for the carrying out\nof such aims, provided that they do not involve lawlessness of any kind,\nand to use their own means in propagating their ideas among such men\nand women as choose to lend a hearing to them. Like all other groups of\nlaw-abiding men and women, it is entitled to protection against lawless\ninterference with its peaceful and lawful activities, whether the\nmajority of the community may approve or disapprove of its specific\ndoctrines; and it is bound, in its turn, to refrain from interfering\nwith the equal freedom of other groups or individuals. In case of a\ndispute, the state is the proper umpire, not with reference to the truth\nor the wholesomeness of the doctrines professed by the church or by its\nopponents, but solely with reference to the question whether the civil\nrights of either faction have been infringed by representatives of the\ncontrary party. There is no room here for the favoritism inherent in tax\nexemption. This measure cannot satisfy the claims of either democracy or\nmedievalism. It gives to priestcraft either too much or too little.\n\nTHE ENEMY IN DISGUISE.\n\nIf the church is entitled to put its hands in the pockets of individuals\nto further its own purposes, tax exemption is a cowardly subterfuge;\nand the honorable way would be to announce openly the abrogation of\nreligious liberty and democracy, as proven incompatible with the higher\ntruth, and to require every individual, as a lawful tributary of\nthe church, to contribute directly to its support. If the church has\nrightful authority over us all, the sooner we know it the better. Let\nus then cease to prate of freedom, and bow our necks meekly to the yoke.\nLet it be distinctly recognized that the priests are absolute masters,\nand that we of the common herd have no human rights but the duty simply\nof passive submission. In such a reversion to the Dark Ages, there\nwould at least be the merit that we should at last have done with\nthe miserable hypocrisy which pays lip-service to democracy, while\ninsidiously making the state the tool of ecclesiastical influences. We\nshould know the worst, and could choose whether to submit or to raise\nthe banner of open revolt against an undisguised enemy and usurping\ndespot.\n\nAs this happens to be the twentieth century, and as the pet dream of\nthe Vatican that in some way the world may be brought to return to the\ndegradation and servitude of the tenth century is one fortunately\ndoomed to disappointment, few beyond an occasional Spanish Jesuit or an\nirresponsible Billy Sunday will regard the foregoing program as possible\nor desirable of realization. No matter how untrue we may be to our\ndemocratic ideals, we know in our inmost minds and hearts that the\nprogress and well-being of humanity depend on their realization. We\ndo not propose to take a single step backward into the darkness of the\npast, or to forfeit any of the liberties already won through centuries\nof struggle. It is too late in the world's history to dispute the right\nof private conscience. All that is necessary is to realize how far\nthat right actually extends, and not to be cheated by a remnant of\nreactionary tradition. This being true, tax exemption is at once doomed\nin the court of enlightened morality, since we unite in rejecting its\nlogical implications. If priesthood has no lawful power over our private\nactions, it has no right to claim a subsidy at our expense. What it\nmay not do directly, it has no right to do indirectly. If we may not\nbe compelled to a full support of the church, it is nothing short\nof larceny to require us to render even a partial assistance to its\npropaganda. We ask no discrimination against it, but simply that it be\nrequired to exercise its functions at its own cost, supported by the\nvoluntary contributions of those, and those only, who believe in its\ndoctrines and its methods, and who desire to help it. This is simply\ncommon honesty, to which the church, as the professed exponent of the\nhigher ethics, should be the first to give its enthusiastic adhesion.\n\nPAYING TRIBUTE TO POSITIVE EVILS.\n\nThe sin against private conscience becomes the more glaring, when it is\nconsidered that in the eyes of many individual citizens the creeds and\nconduct of certain at least of the churches represent not merely error,\nbut positive evil. It is irrelevant to assert that these citizens are\nwholly mistaken. None of us being infallible, their opinion is entitled\nto the same consideration as that of anybody else. The exemption of\nchurch property from taxation forces them, as citizens of a secular\nstate, to pay tribute to what their consciences condemn as organized\nvice. The teachings of the Mormon church are anathema to many, so much\nso that in more than one otherwise law-abiding community missionaries\nof this faith are even denied a hearing and are subject to persecution,\nwhich naturally strengthens them in the conviction that they are\nsuffering for righteousness' sake. Yet the Mormon church is a\nbeneficiary of tax exemption, no less than any other Christian sect;\nand every citizen must pay a higher tax, in order to put money into\nthe treasury of this gigantic fraud and to enable it to carry on\nits propaganda more fruitfully. The Roman Catholic confessional, its\ncelibate priesthood, its non-producing and parasitical monks and nuns,\nare held in holy horror by many conscientious Protestants, who look\nupon these features as conducive to vice and as reeking with immorality.\nEvery one of these Protestants, however, is forced by the state to\npresent the Roman Catholic church with a portion of his earnings, and\nthus to provide it with the means of increasing its power for evil. In\nlike manner, the zealous Catholic, who is certain that Protestantism\nis dragging millions of souls to hell, and who earnestly believes that\nmarried pastors sin against God and lead others away on the road to\nperdition, must help pay for the perpetuation of this ministry of Satan.\nThe liberal sects, which thunder against the villainy of creeds that\ndrive human beings mad with despair by visions of an imaginary hell and\nfiery devils, cannot protect their adherents from being compelled to\nenrich the purveyors of these hateful and injurious dogmas. Nor can the\northodox denominations, on the other hand, escape from the outrageous\ncondition which requires their members to pay for the circulation of\nUnitarian and Universalist teachings, which they regard as the most\nhideous and soul-destroying blasphemy. In the logrolling attempt to\ngive every hog a chance at the trough, the only result is that nobody's\nconscience is free from violation.\n\nTOUCHING THE POCKET NERVE.\n\nAs for the vast number of the unchurched, they might as well have no\ncivic rights whatever, for all the attention that is paid to their\nsincere convictions. In defiance of the elementary right of religious\nliberty, so sedulously professed by politician and priest, millions of\nour citizens are informed that if they are not members of some church,\nand so getting their share of access to the swag, it is their own fault;\nand that they have no right to complain of the robbery of which they are\nvictims. Since it is impossible to apply direct force, in order to make\nevery individual become a churchman, the next best ecclesiastical scheme\nis to soak him in the pocketbook for not doing so. In other words, the\nstate is used as a tool to force men and women into the church on the\nground of pecuniary self-interest. The proposition is a brutally plain\none. If they join the church, they get something for the money stolen\nfrom them in the shape of increased taxation; if they remain outside,\nthe added tax is a dead loss. The idea is worthy of corrupt political\nhirelings of a degenerate church, which is out for nothing but profit.\nIf this is modern Christianity, it is fit only for persons dead to all\nsense of honor and of shame.\n\nIf all institutions or groups of like-minded individuals received\nthe benefit of tax exemption, a better defense might be made of the\npractice, although it would still involve an injustice toward those who\nare perfectly good and useful citizens, in spite of their choice not\nto participate in the affairs of any organization. But the favoritism\nextended to bodies of a religious nature is at once invidious and\nunjust. While the whole theory of our government is hostile to special\nprivilege, the church arrogates to itself the right to be made\nan exception, and to become a particular pet. It ardently craves\nparasitism, and is not denied its wish. When other groups of citizens\nmeet together to consult over their common affairs, or to engage in\ncommon activities, they are not pauperized by the community. If they\noccupy land and build upon it, they pay their share of the public\nburden, based on the property they possess, just like any other person\nor persons, and do not sell their self-respect for the sake of saving a\nfew dollars. It remains for the one institution which constantly puts\non airs of superior virtue, and which expects to take front seats on all\noccasions and to have everybody kowtow to it, to come with the beggar's\nwhine, and to demand charity of the state. Its dishonesty is only\nexcelled by its impudence.\n\nCHURCHES NOT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.\n\nThe church cannot be heard to claim that it is a public or a\nquasi-public institution. It exercises no public function of any\ndescription which should warrant granting it immunity from the general\nlaws binding on all members of the community. Its mission is to preach\nsomething which it calls the gospel. By its own insistent declaration,\nit derives its authority to teach solely from the being whom it worships\nas its deity.* It is not in any sense commissioned by the state or by\nthe people, and asks no permission of either to carry out its purposes.\nIts members are held together by a body of doctrine accepted by them\nall; and they maintain a form of worship which they count pleasing in\nthe sight of their God. If they are mistaken, it is labor and\ndevotion thrown away; if they are right, they will be individually and\ncollectively rewarded by heaven, either in this life or in some other.\nAll this is strictly their own business and that of their deity. It does\nnot concern the state in any way whatever. The state has no means of\nknowing whether they are right or wrong, and is not being served in any\nway by their ceremonials. Its work and theirs do not lie parallel in a\nsingle respect. The further function of the church, _as a church_, is\nsimply to seek to convert others to the body of dogma which it puts\nforward as the message of God to man and the revelation of the divine\nwill. Here, again, the state is in no way concerned, provided the\nalleged divine will is not an incitement to any form of lawlessness or\ncrime. If the attempt at proselytism fails, the community is in no way\naffected; and if it succeeds, the state receives no possible benefit,\nand owes the church nothing for the putting forth of its activities. As\nGod is the only possible beneficiary of the church's efforts, it is for\nhim to pay its taxes*, if it is itself unable to do so. The state is\nunder no moral compulsion to discharge his obligations. If he does\nnot see fit to come to the rescue of his needy representatives, their\nconclusion must logically be that he expects them to pay their own\nbills. The church, like every other organized or unorganized group of\nhuman beings, receives certain definite and regular services from the\nstate, which cost money to render, and which create a debt just as\npalpable as the debt to the carpenter who builds the meeting house or\nthe coalman who furnishes fuel to keep it warm. If the church had any\nadequate conception of common honesty, it would pay its taxes without\na whimper and as a matter of course*, just as it pays its gas bills or\nsettles any of its accounts with individuals. It does not inform its\nprivate creditors that it should be exempt from payment for services\nrendered, just because it is a religious body; and it would be given\nsmall shrift by any court, should it attempt to evade such claims on\nsuch a ground. As little has it a moral right to take from the public\nwithout returning an equivalent in material remuneration.\n\n     * Even by a miracle if necessary. It is recorded that when\n     Jesus was called upon to pay taxes in Capernaum (Matt, xvii)\n     he made no argument for exemption, but straightway\n     dispatched his disciple Peter after the didrachma, with\n     which, it is assumed, the debt to the community was\n     discharged.\n\nTHE NO-PROFIT SOPHISTRY.\n\nA weak attempt to justify church graft consists in the affirmation that\nit is engaged in purely altruistic labors, and is not a profitmaking\ninstitution. It is not engaged in any openly commercial undertaking.\nSalvation is free, and all are welcome to its inestimable blessings. The\nsophistry and lack of ingenuousness which make it possible to present\nsuch an argument with a straight face can scarcely be characterized in\nparliamentary language. It fairly reeks with self-evident fallacies.\nFirst of all, if the church chooses to run its affairs on a non-profit\nbasis, that is strictly its own business, and does not concern the state\nin any way. If it has no property, it escapes taxation as a matter of\ncourse, like the individual who has nothing. But if it is able to own\nproperty, it immediately incurs a specific obligation to the state,\nwhich is totally independent of the use it makes of its property.\nThe man who retires from business, and lives on his income, is not\nthenceforward exempted from all taxation, because he is no longer making\nmoney. Nor does it serve as an excuse that he is making no profitable\ninvestments, but is using up his bare capital, and is spending his time\nand part of his means in philanthropic work. In spite of all this, he is\na member of society, and must meet his obligations as such, whenever\nthe tax collector comes around. The same is true of an organization. The\nchurch takes up just as much space, receives as much social protection\nand as much benefit from every civic improvement, whether it is making\nmoney or not. The state does not forbid it to make money or to engage\nin commercial enterprises; and its failure to do so is purely voluntary,\nand is entirely irrelevant to the discharge of its pecuniary obligation\nto organized society. Its privileges may be free; but what does that\nmean to those who count them as worthless? It is a cheap evasion of\nresponsibility to offer in lieu of the specific payment of a debt, to\nrender the creditor some form of alleged service for which he has no\npossible use, and which means nothing whatever to him. This remains\ntrue, even if the unbeliever is under the spell of error, and ought to\nappreciate the blessings of religious counsel. The dance may be one\nof the most beautiful forms of art; but if Vernon Castle offered to\ndischarge a monetary obligation to a blind creditor by the execution of\nthe most wonderful Terpsichorean evolutions in his presence, there would\nbe no payment of the debt, even though the artistic performance might be\nintrinsically worth far more than the sum owed, and would be readily so\nappraised by all who had their eyes. No matter how valuable religious\nexercises may be in themselves, nor how much satisfaction they may give\nthose who believe in them, the civil rights of the unbeliever remain on\na par with those of the believer; and it remains true that the offer\nby the church of un-desired services can in no way constitute an\nobligation. Let the church be supported by those who accept its offer,\nand who desire to profit by its privileges, such as they are. This\nremains no affair of other persons, or of the state. The benefits of\nreligion are subjective and strictly personal; and the state is in no\nway qualified to pass on their value. To say that non-churchmen should\nhelp pay the expenses of the church because they can become churchmen\nif they wish to do so, is to say that a debt can be contracted without a\nconsideration.\n\n     * Not that the church always regards the payment of its\n     private debt as \"a matter of course.\" The Rev. Dr.\n     Huntington of Grace Episcopal Church, New York city, and\n     William R. Stewart, one of the church wardens, in 1908 asked\n     an architect, J. Stewart Barney by name, to prepare plans\n     for extensive and expensive alterations in the church\n     building. The architect did the work in good faith and to\n     the full satisfaction of the church, but was deliberately\n     cheated out of his pay on the pretext that, though the\n     church wanted the work done, knew and approved of its being\n     done, received and was fully pleased with the benefits of\n     it, yet it had not technically authorized its pastor and\n     warden to give the order! Grace church is one of the\n     wealthiest religious bodies in New York. Such is Christian\n     honor and morality, the exalted character of which is\n     supposed to lay the community under a burden of gratitude\n     toward the church!\n\nTHE CHURCH'S COMMERCIAL ASPECTS.\n\nIt is not strictly true, however, that the church is in no sense a\nprofit-making institution, or that it has no commercial aspects. If the\nchurch were not successful in a business sense, it could not accumulate\nproperty or capital, and would not have to worry about exemption. There\nare more ways of making profits than by straight buying and selling.\nAn organization which is able to play on the hopes and fears, the\nsuperstitions and sentiments, the beliefs and enthusiasms of its members\nand of those who come under its spell, and thereby to secure the means\nof buying land, erecting buildings and paying v current expenses, cannot\nhonestly pretend to be a purely benevolent society. Let its teachings\nbe true or false, good or bad, the principle is precisely the same.\nIt receives money from individuals, who believe that they receive,\nin spiritual, to some extent in intellectual and esthetic and even in\nphysical values, an adequate return for what they pay. This is a plain\nbusiness proposition, whether the value is really there or not. The fact\nthat no definite price is fixed for the services, but that payment is at\nleast nominally voluntary, is wholly irrelevant. A restaurant conducted\non the liberal plan of \"eat what you like, and pay what you think it is\nworth,\" would be no less a business enterprise, and its property taxable\nas such. As a matter of fact, business men in some lines have actually\nbeen known to follow a similar plan. How successful the church has been\nin this regard may be seen by the enormous wealth which various\nchurch corporations have acquired, always under the claim of being\nnon-profit-making institutions. Trinity Church corporation of New York\nowns hundreds of houses, and pays taxes on some $15,-000,000 worth\nof property, which it cannot deny that it uses for purely commercial\npurposes, besides its immense holdings of valuable land and buildings\nclaimed to be used by it only for worship and hence exempt from\ntaxation, amounting to approximately an equal value. Where did Trinity\nchurch, which keeps up the sham of representing the faith of the poor\nNazarene reformer, who \"had not where to lay his head,\" and who lived\nmainly by hand-to-mouth charity, get the means of purchasing some\n$30,000,000 worth of property, if it is a purely non-profit-making\ninstitution, which has honestly followed its alleged master's express\ninjunction to \"take no thought for the morrow,\" and to \"lay not\nup treasure on earth\"? Exemption on that part of its property used\n\"exclusively for worship,\" by setting free a large proportion of the\nmoneys accruing to it from its members and benefactors, which would\notherwise have been used in paying its debt to the community, enabled\nit to use its surplus in investments which were of a directly commercial\nnature. One hand washes the other, and the state is the dupe of the\npious legerdemain.\n\nA STRICTLY CASH BUSINESS.\n\nEven the religious and ceremonial features of the church are not free\nfrom commercialism. The Romain Catholic church represents the extreme\nexample of the money-making aspect of religion. Its audacity in\npretending to deserve consideration as an organization devoted purely\nto worship, and in no sense to profit, is beyond the power of words to\ncharacterize as it deserves. The dupe of papistry pays, in good, hard,\ncurrent coin, for all that he gets, and for a great deal more than the\nactual value that he receives. For the pious and credulous Catholic,\nlife is one long litany of \"pay, pay, pay,\" wherever the priest and the\nchurch are concerned. The shouting Methodist may be satisfied to yell\nthat \"salvation is free,\" and to take a chance on the collection as a\nmeans of defraying the high cost of delivery on the \"free\" article; but\nthe Roman Catholic priest knows a better trick. It is strictly a cash\nbusiness with him. The Catholic believer must pay his little ten\ncents every Sunday for the \"privilege\" of sitting on a hard bench, and\nlistening to a ceremony very little of which is intelligible to him. In\norder to catch him in all the relations of life, and to entangle him in\na network from which there is not even a momentary escape, the astute\nhierarchy has devised a series of no less than seven sacraments. So\ncleverly is the scheme arranged for the trapping of credulous flies\nthat a consistent Catholic can take scarcely an important step in life\nwithout incidentally paying tribute in some form to the church, the most\nmonumental beggar history has known. Every real or pretended service of\nthe church has its price, and no evasion is tolerated. The confessional\nand the system of penance are finely constructed to wheedle or frighten\nmore money out of the ignorant and susceptible. The greedy priest\nhovers about the sickbed, ready to take any possible advantage of human\nweakness. The patient or his relatives may be reduced to a sufficient\nstate of imbecility to seek the aid of the church's pretended miracle\nsystem or of some of its holy relics. If recovery seems hopeless, there\nis always the pleasing possibility of coaxing or bulldozing the half\ndead and mentally decayed victim to make a will in favor of the church,\nno matter what cruel and unjust deprivations are thereby imposed on\nhelpless dependents. What would be baseness in any other human being,\nbecomes transmuted into the most exalted virtue on the part of the\npriest; and any graft is permissible and commendable, from the Romish\nviewpoint, if the church is the beneficiary. An immense traffic is\ncarried on in all sorts of \"consecrated\" objects for the greatest\nvariety of purposes. Even at death, the church does not relax its hold,\nbut has concocted the preposterous fable of purgatory, in order to\nkeep its foolish dupes continually paying out money for which nothing\nwhatever is given in return. Then there are all sorts of indulgences and\ndispensations for those able and willing to pay for them, besides the\npractical coercion by which, under the guise of voluntary beneficence,\nthe slave of superstition is continually mulcted for various alleged\nneeds of the church.\n\nFREE-WILL OFFERINGS NOT ALWAYS VOLUNTARY.\n\nThe Protestant churches adopt a different method, not quite so\nsuccessful in dragging the hard-earned dimes out of the worn purse of\nthe poor washerwoman or in stealing the coppers off the eyes of the\ncorpse, but reasonably efficacious. They, too, to at least some extent\nmake merchandise out of \"the house of the Lord.\" The pew rent system\nis as plain a business affair as the buying of seats in a theatre.\nThe collection is the most important item in almost every Protestant\nreligious service. It is nominally voluntary, but there are numerous\nways of inflicting acute mental discomfort on those who do not come\nup liberally \"to the help of the Lord.\" By skillfully playing on the\nemotions of the congregation, and if possible inducing in them a\nstate of hysteria, an astute moneyseeker like Simpson of the Christian\nAlliance or Billy Sunday of the \"gutter gospel\" can induce a scared,\nmadly excited, hypnotized crowd to help the Lord to the extent of\nthousands of dollars, none of which can be recovered by the victims on\nthe next day, when they have become sobered and ashamed of their fit of\nspiritual intoxication. And the church has the phenomenal impudence to\nboast that the money thus tricked out of persons reduced to a frenzy in\nwhich they did not know what they were doing was \"voluntarily\" donated!\nLarge funds are also secured by this \"non-commercial institution\"\nthrough church fairs, grab bags, special entertainments and other\ndevices which are held to be decidedly commercial when carried on by\nworldly people, but which become mysteriously sanctified when conducted\nfor the benefit of the church.\n\nThe claim that the church, as a non-commercial institution, is entitled\nto the kind chaperonage of the state in the shape of exemption from the\nobligation of paying its honest debts, besides being bad and invalid\nin itself, has not even the poor merit of resting on a basis of fact.\nMoreover, since there are plenty of other noncommercial institutions,\nwhich pay taxes like any other concern, no reason is given why the\nchurch should be the one special pet. Social and recreative institutions\nare not conducted for profit, nor are Socialistic or Anarchistic groups,\nthe property of which is not exempt from taxation. All of these, like\nthe church, meet the desires or gratify the tastes of individuals, and\nare of the greatest subjective value to those to whom they appeal, while\nworthless to everybody else, and in no way connected with the legitimate\nfunctions of society in its collective aspect. Hence none of them\ncan justly make the slightest claim to be exempted from the duty of\n\"rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's.\"\n\nTOWARD THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH.\n\nExemption of church property from taxation is a deliberate invitation\nto the concentration of wealth, in opposition to its equitable\ndistribution.\n\nWhile social reformers are straining every nerve to devise and apply\neffective methods for the breaking down of monopoly, the policy of\nfavoritism toward ecclesiastical bodies is building up the evil in its\nmost aggravated form. If the churches really regarded themselves as\nsimply trustees of the resources placed in their hands by private\nbenevolence and state favor, and spent all or practically all that they\nreceived for the benefit of humanity, some defense, though even then an\ninsufficient one, might be made of the practice of tax exemption. The\ntendency, however, is wholly in the reverse direction. The more the\nchurches receive, the more property they accumulate, heedless of\nthe stern warning of Isaiah, the iconoclastic Hebrew reformer, who,\naccording to tradition, was sawn asunder for offending the priests and\nthe king by the heretical doctrine that Jehovah \"would have mercy and\nnot sacrifice\" and preferred social justice to religious ceremonialism.\n\"Woe,\" cried the prophet, \"unto them that join house to house, that lay\nfield to field, till there be no room, and ye be made to dwell alone in\nthe midst of the land!\"\n\nIt needs no expert knowledge of political economy to comprehend how\nreadily untaxed property can be made to multiply. Sharing all the social\nadvantages, and bearing none of the social burden, its owners can bide\ntheir time through all the tips and downs of the market, sure to gain in\nthe end.\n\nAll things come to him who is in a position to wait longest. While the\npossessions of others are automatically limited by the effective lien\nplaced on them by the taxing power, the churches can placidly increase\ntheir holdings to their hearts' content. In the long run, they can\noutbid competitors, who must add the cost of annual taxation to the\noriginal payment for the property acquired. Safe in the evasion of their\ncivic duties, they have nothing to do but to grow richer and richer.\nPaying no taxes, they become independent of the state, an _imperium in\nimperio_, a power rivaling that of organized society itself.\n\nWEALTHY CHURCHES, IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE.\n\nNo class in the community can grow steadily richer without causing other\nclasses to grow relatively poorer. The two tendencies are halves of the\nsame process. If a larger and larger percentage of the land falls into\nthe possession of a given institution, it is mathematically demonstrable\nthat a greater number of individuals must remain landless and homeless,\nand that the cost of access to the remaining land in the community must\nbecome greater and greater, making it harder and harder for the common\ncitizen to live. Untaxed property in any community adds heavily to the\ncommon burden.\n\nThat this is not mere speculation may be seen by a glance at history,\nwhere it will be found in land after land, and in century after\ncentury, that favoritism to the church, wherever tolerated, has wrought\nincalculable evil to the people, largely through the heavy accumulation\nof wealth by the ecclesiastical body. So unendurable has the condition\nbecome that in country after country the only possible relief was found\nto be through wholesale confiscation, thus settling accounts at one\nstroke. Thus, Henry VIII of England became a reformer in spite of\nhimself, and though personally a dishonest tyrant with few if any\nredeeming features, at least conferred a lasting blessing on the people\nof England by forcing the church parasites to disgorge enormous values\nwhich had become means of the most intolerable oppression. France and\nPortugal, though for centuries staunch Catholic countries, found\nthe wealth of the church and the impoverishment of the people to go\nregularly hand in hand, and were finally forced, in decreeing the\nseparation of church and state, to adopt stringent measures for breaking\nthe monopolistic power of the hierarchy. The Philippine insurrection\nagainst Spain was largely an uprising of an outraged people against the\npriests and friars, who were coming to own everything, and to reduce the\npopulation to a state of vassalage. The part played by the priesthood\nof Mexico in the impoverishment of the people, while the church revenues\nwaxed greater and greater, is familiar to all who are acquainted with\nthe causes which have brought that unhappy land to a state of chaos and\nwholesale bloodshed.\n\nSOME RESULTS OF THE SYSTEM.\n\nLike tendencies are to be observed as a result of exemption of church\nproperty from taxation, wherever the false principle is in vogue, the\nonly variance being one of degree. In Montreal, for instance, we have\na striking example of the effect of wholesale exemptions. In 1913, when\nthe evil had reached its height, and relief was imperatively demanded,\nthe church had already come to own no less than one-fourth of the real\nestate in the community. This was simply the logical outcome of favoring\nthis class of landholders at the expense of all others. The Montreal\nprovisions were unusually lax, thus hastening the inevitable result; but\nthey did not differ in principle from those of the American states which\nfavor monopoly by leaving church property untaxed. The case of Trinity\nChurch of New York city, already cited, with an accumulation of about\n$30,000,000 in property, is ominous of the fearful possibilities of an\nindefinite continuance of the policy of permitting one group of citizens\nto prey upon all the rest. The one missionary society named for St. Paul\nthe Apostle, in the same city, owns not less than fifteen lots of land,\nappraised at various amounts from $2500 to $11,000 each, and is still\nadding to its accumulations. It would be hard to conceive of a more\nunwholesome state of affairs; and the process continues with unabated\ncelerity. The peril against which England found it necessary to provide\nin the Statute of Mortmain is a very present one. If church property is\nto be permanently exempted from taxation, it is not difficult to see\nhow an enormous percentage of all the property of the community\nmay ultimately come to be tied up in the hands of these wealthy\necclesiastical corporations which have already made so substantial\na beginning in this direction. We are jeopardizing the rights and\nliberties of future generations.\n\nIn this connection, it must be borne in mind that nothing is stationary.\nThe minds of men change from age to age; and that which appears to one\ngeneration to be the most rootedly established truth, is in the course\nof a few decades completely rejected. Religion is no exception to the\ngeneral rule. The Greek, the Roman, the ancient Norse gods have had\ntheir day; and not a worshiper remains on earth to bow before their\naltars. Christianity may likewise pass; already its active devotees form\nbut a minority of the population. And if Christianity as a whole may\nultimately relinquish the field altogether, it is still more unlikely\nthat the tenets of any particular sect known today should hold permanent\nsway over the minds and consciences of sincere men and women. We are\nallowing hundreds of millions of dollars of property to be insidiously\nwithdrawn from the community, and tied up in the hands of great\ncorporations which in fifty or a hundred years will be the mere shells\nof soulless organizations. We are making it possible for them to become\nour economic masters, long after men and women shall have ceased to\nfind spiritual nutriment in any part of their creeds. By what species of\ncasuistry does any person think it possible to put this forward as sane\npublic policy?\n\n     \"O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,\n     And men have lost their reason!\"\n\nTRUTH OF THE DOCTRINE IS NO TEST.\n\nIf the argument has thus far been conducted from the standpoint of\nthe outsider, it is not intended to imply that the case against the\nexemption of church property from taxation rests in any fundamental way\non the assumption that the teachings of Christianity or even the creeds\nof the churches are false. On the contrary, every most material ground\nfor condemnation of the practice in question would continue to be\nvalid, even if the truth of the Christian doctrine were assumed as\na starting-point. \"My kingdom is not of this world,\" is the express\nutterance put into the mouth of Jesus by his biographer. This obviously\nimplies the principle of absolute religious liberty, so far as the\nsecular state is concerned. The Christ of the New Testament disclaimed\nthe intention of constraining the actions of unwilling followers. Even\nthe man who had resolved to betray him was suffered to go forth in peace\nwith the exhortation: \"What thou doest, do quickly.\" In no part of his\nteaching is there warrant for religious domination of the state, or for\ncontrol over the private actions of individuals. The only penalty for\ndisobedience was withdrawal from the privilege of communion with\nhim. Even the passage of dubious authenticity which smacks most of\necclesiastical judgment of the individual, goes no farther than to\nprescribe excommunication from the fellowship of the saints. \"Let him be\nto thee as the Gentile and the publican,\" involves at most no more than\nan injunction to withdraw personal companionship from the unworthy. It\nis by man's own conscience and by the judgment of God in another world\nthat Jesus expects evildoing to be punished. It never occurs to him to\nmake religion a state affair.\n\nNay, it is possible to come closer home to the present subject. Unlike\nthe church, which mutters \"Lord, Lord,\" but departs from his teaching\nand example whenever its convenience is promoted by doing so, Jesus\ndecided this very question on the side of honesty and justice. When\nthis exact issue was placed before him, he not only paid his taxes,\nbut plainly declared the duty of so doing, even though the existing\ngovernment was one imposed by aliens. That, unlike the church which\nmocks truth by misusing his name to cover its utter antagonism to all\nthat was vital in his teachings, he was so poor that he must needs work\na miracle in order to obtain the tribute money, in no way touches the\npoint at issue. The fact remains that he refused to take advantage\nof his exceptional position, but set the example of paying his tax to\norganized society. If the Lord of the church recognized the obligation\nof performing his civic duty, despite the fact that he was the\nexemplification of the religious principle, by what right does his\nchurch make itself more highly privileged than its master, and seek to\nset itself above the state?\n\nHOW JESUS MET THE DEMAND FOR TAXES.\n\nNot satisfied with example, Jesus is quoted as setting forth\nthe principle specifically and unequivocally in plain words. The\nrepresentatives of Judaism put the question to him plainly. \"Is it\nlawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?\" There could be no dodging\nthe issue. They who inquired of him stood for the church of his period,\nthe church which he himself recognized as such. \"They were intrusted,\"\nsaid Paul, \"with the oracles of God.\" Jesus himself referred to their\ntemple as the house of God, and indignantly drove from its precincts\nthe traders who sought to commercialize the sacred enclosure. It was his\ncustom to attend the synagogue, and occasionally to take an active part\nin the service. If the ministers of sacred things are rightfully exempt\nfrom taxation, the Jewish nation, constituting as a whole a priesthood\nto God, as the channel of his revelation to man, might surely, from the\nstandpoint of the faithful Bible believer, claim that exemption. Nor\nwere indications wanting that they themselves felt so, and looked upon\nit as blasphemy to assert the contrary. In the hope to fasten a charge\nof either blasphemy on the one hand, or sedition on the other, on the\nwandering teacher, they eagerly awaited his answer. When it came, it was\nunanswerable. \"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto\nGod the things that are God's.\" Caesar was the lord of the coinage which\nbore his \"image and superscription,\" God of the thoughts of their hearts\nand their private lives. Hence, the former rightfully laid claim to the\ntribute which enabled the public treasury to carry on not only the work\nof the coinage, but all other public works of a secular character; while\nthe latter would hold them in the end accountable for their failure to\nobey his commandments, summed up in the injunction to \"love the Lord\nthy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy\nstrength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.\"\n\nThe difference between the Pharisees, to whom Jesus laid down the law in\nfavor of the payment of honest taxes, and the churches, who are called\nupon to-day to perform this elementary civic obligation, lies simply in\nthe greater impudence of the latter. The interlocutors of Jesus, says\nthe text, \"marveled, and left him, and went away.\" It is not stated that\nthey proceeded to mend their ways, and to become honest; but they at\nleast had the decency not to attempt to bluff themselves out of a false\nposition. Confronted with the same issue, the churches of our time\nreject the commands of their alleged lord and master, and consult only\ntheir own greed of profit. They will cheat both Caesar and God out of\nwhat is due. That which they themselves hypocritically pretend to\nadore as the word of God they spit on in their actual performance, by\ndeliberate disobedience. In spite of the almost unlimited capacity of\nhuman nature to deceive itself, it is practically incredible that they\ncan seriously believe in the puerile sophistry by which they seek to\nconjure up pretexts for stealing the public revenues. The one plain\nreason is that they want the money, and are not honest enough to do\ntheir duty to the state which shelters and fosters them. They know\nthis perfectly well, however glib they may be in trying to persuade the\ncredulous that in cheating the community out of part of its revenues\nthey are actuated only by the highest and holiest motives, and that\nthe fact that they happen to be beneficiaries of the steal is merely an\nirrelevant coincidence. It is possible that there are still marines, to\nwhom such a tale can be told.\n\nIn justice to sincere believers in Christianity, who do not make their\npiety a cloak for greed and dishonesty, it should be stated that a\nconscientious minority in the churches has consistently accepted the\nprinciple of religious liberty and of equal justice and has steadily\nprotested against every infringement of the secular principle, even when\nthe abuse seemed to favor their own interests.\n\nAMERICA'S FIRST SECULARIST.\n\nThe first great voice raised on these shores for the complete separation\nof church and state was that of the Baptist preacher Roger Williams,\nfounder of the Rhode Island colony, which as a state has proved in\nthe latter days one of the worst traitors to the spirit of democratic\njustice. While the Baptist church as a whole has become no more loyal\nto religious freedom than any other, and has thus cheaply and basely\nsurrendered its once glorious heritage, it has always embosomed\nindividual members who could not forget that the founders of their\nsect suffered persecution to the death for proclaiming full freedom of\nconscience, and for declaring that the state could not lawfully meddle\nwith affairs of religion. The Rev. Dr. Alvah Hovey, for many years head\nof the famous Newton (Mass.) Theological Seminary, wrote more than\none book in which the principles of Secularism were proclaimed in\nfull measure from the standpoint of orthodox religion, and enforced by\nnumberless arguments drawn from the Bible and from theological lore. The\nrelatively small sect of Seventh Day Adventists is constantly active\nin fighting for the complete separation of church and state, maintaining\nwith ardor that Christianity stands in no need of patronage from human\ngovernment. Indeed, it is amazing that any Christian, who is not playing\na part, but truly believes in the divine origin of his faith, can come\nto any other conclusion. If the church is of God, it will live and\nconquer, though all men forsake it, and needs not the feeble prop of\npolitical favor; if it is of man, and must therefore risk failure unless\nbolstered up by artificial aid and by state subsidy, there is no reason\nwhy anybody not directly interested in its prosperity should wish to\npreserve it. Whether of God or of man, it is in no legitimate sense\nthe ward of the state. In recent years, numerous church members are\nbeginning to have some inkling of these truths, and to express their\nwillingness to renounce the adulterous union with the politicians.\nAt the hearings before the Committee on Taxation of the New York\nConstitutional Convention, in June, 1915, for example, preachers and\nlaymen, representatives of individual churches and of Men's Christian\nclubs, appeared in favor of abolishing the exemption from taxation\nenjoyed by the churches. They did so, not as enemies of the church,\nbut as its most far-sighted friends. Thoroughly believing in its divine\nmission, they were convinced that it could not afford to make itself\ndependent on graft for its very life.\n\nTHE GENUINE SHOULD BE CONSCIENTIOUS.\n\nFrom the Christian standpoint, the argument against church exemption is\nas unanswerable as that from the standpoint of the independent citizen.\nA sham Christian, to whom the church is a means of getting ahead in the\nworld, and whose profession of faith is a cloak to cover his greed and\negotism, or a means of purchasing popularity and business success at any\neasy rate, may find it natural to carry over into his religious life the\nspirit of commercialism with which he gouges his fellowmen every day\nin his business relations. It is only natural that such a one should\nbe impatient of any attempt to introduce ethical considerations into a\nquestion of self-advantage; for to him it is axiomatic that any way\nof getting money without being arrested is good enough for himself and\ntherefore good enough for the church, honesty being merely a question of\nkeeping out of the clutches of the police. He is so ignorant of the very\nelements of morality that he does not even know that he is a hypocrite,\nand that the kind of thing which stands for religion to him is\nas worthless as the cheap varnish which constitutes his imaginary\nrespectability. To such as he, church exemption is justified by the fact\nthat the church is clever enough to get away with it. A genuine believer\nin the Christian revelation, however, will wish the church, as its\ndivinely commissioned repository, to \"keep itself unspotted from the\nworld.\" He will insist that, so far from seeking its private advantage\nby questionable means, which may by casuistry be made to appear\ndefensible, it shall conceive of itself as \"a city set on a hill,\" which\n\"cannot be hid,\" and shall, in all things and at any sacrifice, let its\n\"light shine before men,\" that by reason of its good works and spotless\ncharacter it may prove that it is of God, and not of men. In case of\ndoubt, he will demand that it refuse to set an example whereby the\nweakest observer may be caused to stumble.\n\nWith a keener jealousy for its purity than that ascribed to the ancient\nRoman, who declared that \"Caesar's wife must be above suspicion,\" he\nwill insist that it avoid the very appearance of evil. Such a believer\nwill never be found in the halls of legislation, howling for the loaves\nand fishes, and asking that a secular state stultify itself by\nstealing money from its individual taxpayers, in order to subsidize\nthe proselytism of the sects. And a church composed of such sincere\nbelievers will not give occasion to the enemy to blaspheme by evading\nits obligations through shallow quibbles about its moral influence in\nthe community, but will prefer to give a practical demonstration of its\nboasted moral quality by willingly paying its honest debts.\n\nTHE CHURCH HARMED BY GRAFT.\n\nLike all false principles, the habit of accepting a subsidy from\nthe state does not fail to bring harm to the church itself, as the\nintelligent and high-minded among its friends are beginning to realize.\nIt is not with impunity that an individual or institution adopts\nparasitism as a basic condition of existence. At the New York hearing\nalready referred to the Rev. Charles T. Terry, pastor of the Brick\nPresbyterian church of New York City, did not hesitate to aver that\nthe removal of the exemption graft would kill many churches. A divinely\nordained institution is indeed in a parlous state when it has no shame\nin confessing that it is dependent for its very life on the favor of the\npoliticians, its God having totally forsaken it. Such an organization\nis better dead. If the alleged divine head of the church is not able or\nwilling to preserve it, in accordance with his emphatic promise, \"even\nunto the end of the world,\" it is plain either that his promises are\nspurious, and hence the whole Christian fabric rests upon imposture and\ndeserves to perish; or that the church which fails for lack of divine\naid is a pretender and not the real body of believers whom he is pledged\nnever to forsake. Let those so-called Christians, who cling frantically\nto the legislature instead of to Christ for the preservation of the\nagency for preaching his gospel, take which horn of the dilemma they\nplease.\n\nEvery form of union with the state has not merely made of the church\nan instrument of oppression by reason of its preferred position and the\nartificial power thus conferred on it, but has been poison to the church\nitself. Its political alliance invariably sullies whatever primitive\npurity it may be believed to possess. No person having faith in its\nspiritual mission and anxiety to see it kept \"unspotted from the world\"\nand faithful to its \"high calling\" can fail to oppose every \"entangling\nalliance\" which may tend to corrupt it in even the smallest degree. In\ntheory, the church should be purged of all motives of self-interest, and\ndevoted solely to the good of mankind. Exemption from taxation and the\nlobbying necessary to maintain this special privilege infallibly defeat\nits alleged aims. In the scramble for political favors, it learns the\ntricks of \"practical politics\" at the expense of the unselfish devotion\nby which alone it could justify its claims to spiritual leadership.\nIt gains material wealth at the cost of its own higher purpose. It\nunconsciously learns to regard money as the chief object of attainment,\nand to compromise its sterner principles for self-advantage. \"_Facilis\ndescensus Averno_\" is the motto over its downward path.\n\nARMING CHURCH OPPONENTS.\n\nEven if the church could, by some miracle which has never yet been\nvouchsafed to it, retain its purity of character while remaining the\nrecipient of state graft, the crippling of its influence would continue.\nIf it wishes to win the world to its gospel, it does ill to put the most\npotent of arguments in the mouths of its enemies. Let Christians make\nno mistake on this point. So long as the church continues to mulct the\ntaxpayers for its own profit through the exemption of its property from\ntaxation, it will be held by the multitude to give the lie to its own\nprofessions; and it will drive thousands of earnest seekers for truth\naway from its doors. We do not go to a thief for lessons in the higher\nmorality. If rejection of the Christian message means the loss\nof immortal souls, their destruction lies on the heads of those\nrepresentatives of Christianity who prize a few dollars stolen from the\npeople at a higher rate than the privilege of coming forward with clean\nhands, and being listened to with respect and in a teachable spirit\nby those whose ears are now sealed against the admission of the gospel\nmessage by their unconquerable distrust and contempt for those who come\nwith lessons of moral and spiritual uplift, but whose hands are tainted\nby the acceptance of graft from politicians who never give without\nexpecting an equivalent in return. In receiving this dishonest money the\nchurch is not only guilty of an immoral act, but is legitimately subject\nto many suspicions of unworthy conduct of which it may be innocent, but\nwhich it has debarred itself from being in a position to refute. It has\nthus tied its own hands with reference to its real work of benefiting\nthe spiritual natures of human beings. Whether the teachings of\nChristianity are true or false, the adulterous union of church and state\ncreates a reasonable and just bias against them, and prevents them from\nhaving a fair hearing. Those who believe that the eternal salvation of\nmankind hangs on the acceptance of these teachings are, from their own\nstandpoint, incurring a fearful responsibility in placing so huge a\nstumbling-block in the way of inquiring minds. They have no reply, and\ncan only hang their heads in shame, when we outsiders sharply demand\nwhat value a religion can have for mankind if it cannot breed common\nhonesty even in the institution which embodies it and which has no other\nfunction than to spread its teachings.\n\nCHIEF DEFENSE OF CHURCH SUBSIDIES.\n\nSince no corrupt condition has ever wanted for apologists, it is not\nsurprising that self-interest has prompted many voluble spokesmen for\nthe churches to cast about for plausible arguments in favor of a system\nby which they fatten on avoidance of responsibility. While most of such\nattempts to excuse the inexcusable have already been refuted in advance,\na brief summary of those currently employed is desirable, as revealing\ntheir utter ineptitude. In practically every case, it becomes\nself-evident that they are not the true reasons for church exemption,\nbut worked up by way of afterthought. Having already decided to rob\nus, on quite other grounds, our plunderers sit down to devise specious\nphrases which may serve to cajole their victims. In reality, the\nexemption of church property from taxation is, of course, a survival\nfrom the times when it was frankly regarded as the duty of the state to\nsupport the church and to enforce the dogmas of religion. This medieval\nview having passed away, so far as the enlightened members of the\ncommunity are concerned, the subsidizing of the church by the state\nshould have perished with it; but since the churches do not wish to lose\ntheir easy money, they have manufactured pretexts for the continuance of\nthe favoritism to which they are self-evidently not entitled in a land\nand an age of religious liberty and equality.\n\nThe chief defense of church graft is based on the claim that religion\nis the supreme moral agency of the community. This argument is found in\nmany forms, and is highly elaborated by those who put it forward. Boiled\ndown, it expresses the point of view that the church is a voluntary\nadjunct of the police power; that it lessens crime, and therefore\ndirectly saves expense and trouble to society, for which exemption from\ntaxation is only a reasonable return. In part, this argument has already\nbeen tested and found valueless. The church claims a kingdom, which \"is\nnot of this world,\" and its main business is to create subjects for that\nkingdom. To receive salvation, faith is all-essential, moral character\nbeing subsidiary. A single act of penitence may atone for a lifetime of\ncrime. The great work of the church is to develop faith, without which\nthe righteous deeds of the purest and best man on earth are nothing but\n\"filthy rags.\" The vilest murderer, \"converted\" under the fear of\nbeing presently precipitated into a yawning hell, and having no further\nopportunity to enjoy life on this earth, may pass directly from the\ngallows or the electric chair to the bosom of Jesus, while his\ninnocent victim, struck suddenly dead without a chance to reflect on\npossibilities beyond the grave, has sunk to everlasting perdition in\nspite of possessing a character above reproach. Is this the form of\ndoctrine calculated to raise the moral tone of the community? Let it not\nbe replied that this is the antiquated theology which the liberal and\nmost of the orthodox churches have long since outgrown. On the contrary,\nit is the teaching of the entire Roman Catholic church and of the\nlargest section of the Protestant church. In its coarsest and crudest\nform, it has in our own day been preached to huge audiences from one end\nof the country to the other by the spectacular evangelist, Billy Sunday,\nas the only true Christianity; and this otherwise negligible religious\nmountebank has received the explicit endorsement of the principal\nevangelical organizations and an overwhelming majority of the orthodox\npreachers in every one of the largest and a multitude of the lesser\ncities of our land. The churches in which this repulsive and vicious\ndoctrine is taught receive much the larger share of the benefit from tax\nexemption.\n\nDOUBLE PRICE FOR SALVATION.\n\nBut from a social point of view the case is even more serious. It is not\nthe most intellectual and refined classes which even the wildest zealot\nwill claim to stand in special need of religion to restrain them from\ncrime and from all forms of conduct calculated to injure their neighbors\nin the community, but the most ignorant and crude; and it is precisely\nthese latter types which remain totally impervious to highly developed\nforms of religious expression, and throng to the Catholic cathedrals and\nthe revival meetings of the Billy Sundays and Gipsy Smiths, where belief\nis emphasized above integrity of character. Just those persons who may\nbe assumed to need whatever ethical element is to be found in religion\nare those who receive the least of it. If, in spreading its gospel\nof faith and obedience to ecclesiastical superiors, the churches\nincidentally lead an occasional individual to a more honest and upright\nsocial life, this result is simply a by-product of the religious\noperation, and creates no claim on the state. In reclaiming the\ndown-fallen, the church wins another supporter for itself, and adds a\nsoul to the \"kingdom.\" In seeking a subsidy from the state, it foregoes\nits higher pretensions, and seeks to be paid double for a work which\nit undertook on its own account. If it is part of the function of the\nchurch to teach morality, so is it part of the function of the home;\nand in the average decent home there is much more specific, concrete\nand effective teaching of good morals, brought closely home to the\nindividual, than there is in the best of churches. Yet the home does\nnot claim exemption from taxation because of its moral influence. As has\nbeen suggested elsewhere, the argument as to moral influence speedily\nleads to a _reductio ad absurdum_, implying, as it does, that all\ntaxes should be raised from the vicious and immoral elements in the\ncommunity--that criminals should be the only taxpayers, or that taxes\nshould be levied on citizens and institutions in inverse ratio to\nthe moral character and ethical influence of each! Every legitimate\nenterprise of any description exercises a wholesome moral influence in\nthe community, and directly benefits society in one way or another;\nand the church, even taking it at its own valuation, is but one of many\ninstitutions which, while existing primarily for ends of their own, are\nincidentally of benefit to society as a whole. Why should it be the\nonly one to demand a favoritism incompatible with self-respect or with\njustice to its fellows? The question as to the exemption of educational,\ncharitable and certain other institutions need not here be raised to\nconfuse the issue. Each of these must be settled on its own merits. It\nis enough to suggest that where their primary function, like that of\nthe church, is something with which the state is not directly concerned,\nthey fall in the same category, and have no right to any subsidy. Where,\nhowever, their entire work is directed toward meeting a recognizedly\ncollective need, which the state finds it less practical or satisfactory\nto discharge in a more direct manner, exemption from taxation is\nproperly invoked as an indirect means of accomplishing the social end.\nThe impropriety of exempting any sectarian or partisan institution\nresults from the entire argument herein contained. As to non-partisan\nand non-sectarian institutions, the question of propriety is one of\nfact, to be determined by the best public judgment in accordance with\nthe foregoing principle.\n\nBELIEF AND CRIMINALITY.\n\nWhile the argument has thus far proceeded on the assumption that the\nchurch, in spite of certain questionable teachings, is to be taken at\nits own valuation as a moral agency, fidelity to truth demands the plain\nstatement of the fact that such definite particulars as are available\nfail to bear out the claims so positively put forward. This is\nespecially true of our criminal statistics. Even on the most generous\ncalculations, the church membership of the country embraces considerably\nless than half of the population. If the church were so powerful a moral\nfactor as its supporters declare it to be, we should expect to find the\naverage criminal a wholly irreligious being, with no contact or sympathy\nwith the doctrines of Christianity. What we actually observe is that of\nall the criminals in penitentiaries in this country, not less than 75\nper cent, are of Christian antecedents and profess a belief in religious\ndogmas; while the number of Christian preachers convicted of crime is so\nlarge as to be almost incredible, in spite of the fact that most\ncases of minor clerical offenses and some of the more serious ones are\nsystematically hushed up, to avoid public scandal for the church.*\n\n     * See \"Religion and Roguery,\" by Franklin Steiner. Price 10\n     cents. For sale by The Truth Seeker Co. Also \"Crimes of\n     Preachers,\" for sale by the same. Price, 35 cents,\n\nBenefit of clergy, though theoretically as obsolete as it is inexcusable\nin a secular democracy, is known to all who are on the inside to be\na tangible fact in our land today. It is one of the forms of indecent\nfavoritism of which the church and its agents are always eager to avail\nthemselves. In any one of the annual reports of the Society for the\nSuppression of Vice, the reader may observe that the late Anthony\nComstock, though an excessively pious Christian and hater of all\nforms of unbelief, bears reluctant testimony in tabular form to the\noverwhelming preponderance of religious offenders among those whose\nconvictions he has secured. For example, the total number of arrests\nfor crimes against the obscenity and lottery laws from March, 1872, to\nJanuary, 1915, was 3,641. Of these (annual report for 1914) 1078 were\nJews, 964 Catholics, 954 Protestants, and 564 of no known religion,\nleaving only 80 to be distributed among the several classes of\nFreethinkers, Spiritualists and \"heathen.\" The figures speak for\nthemselves. Turning from statistics to scientific criminology, we find\nabundant confirmation of the close relation between religion and crime.\nSo far from being a restraint, religious faith of a very intense sort is\ncommonly found closely associated with criminal tendencies, and is\none of the most marked characteristics of the typical criminal. This\nconclusion, unpalatable though it is to the defenders of the churches,\nis irrefutably proven valid by the most competent observers. (See \"The\nCriminal,\" by Havelock Ellis, fourth edition, pages 185-190, with facts\nand citations from Ferri, Garofalo, Casanova, et al.) Let it not be\nthought that the writer is here attempting to prove that religion is\na frequent cause of crime. It is enough to show that it is practically\ninoperative as an inhibition. The many good men and women who are also\npious put the cart before the horse in crediting their religion with\ntheir moral character. Whatever ethical elements the higher forms of\nreligion contain in theory, it is not these on which the incidence\nis laid in religious teaching or in the performance of religious\nceremonies. Consequently, no matter how much is said in the churches of\nrighteousness, as an observed sociological fact religion has little to\ndo with it, one way or the other. The good man or woman, on becoming\nreligious, remains good; the bad man or woman does not cease to be bad\nbecause of possessing a strong religious faith and participating in\nreligious exercises. Those who have been both virtuous and religious all\ntheir lives would have been no less virtuous if they had never heard\nof religion. Even the tyro in the study of the evolution of religious\nbelief knows that primitive forms of religion are entirely void of\nethical content. The moral imperative is a gradual development of the\nsocial instinct; while the religious \"instinct\" is the reaction of the\nindividual to external influences which inspire him, in his ignorance\nof their real nature and of their subjection to iron laws of cause\nand effect, with fear and wonder. (Admiration, gratitude for imagined\nfavors, hope for protection and support, and other forms of mental or\nemotional reaction, come somewhat later, and are efficient in reshaping\nthe primitive phases of religion into more specific conceptions of\nanthropomorphic deities.) In the course of time, it becomes natural that\nthe worshiper of beings above himself, to whom his supreme reverence is\ndue, should come to endow those beings with the highest qualities he is\ncapable of conceiving, and hence should represent them as authors of the\nmoral law which has become an ingrained part of his personal and social\nexistence. Yet it remains a fact with both the savage and the civilized\nman that his moral conceptions change from age to age, and that his\nattribution of any particular ethical mandate to his deity is always an\nafterthought. In other words, both in general and in detail, morality\ncaused and determined by social needs and the growth of the social\nspirit precedes morality under a religious sanction, and would persist,\neven if all forms of religion should be annihilated. The church does not\ncreate moral standards for the community, but is at most a register of\nthem. Without the church, it is probable that few individuals would\nbe either more or less moral than with it; they would simply use other\nterms in which to interpret their moral sentiments to themselves and\nothers. There need then be no fear of the consequences of recalling the\nchurches to the exercise of common honesty. As recipients of graft, they\ncan certainly not claim to exemplify the morality which they profess to\nteach. Such of them as cannot live without theft from the taxpayers are\nbetter dead, since their dependence on dishonesty for existence must\nmore than nullify any conceivable good which they can do the community\nby the hollow mockery of teaching a morality which they do not practice.\nOn the other hand, such churches as find it possible to live on an\nhonorable basis, without claiming a subsidy, will stand some chance of\nbeing listened to when they seek to preach morality to others.\n\nINSTITUTIONAL WORK NOT MENACED.\n\nIt is further claimed that the church is directly engaged in social and\nphilanthropic activities, which would become sorely crippled by a forced\ndiminution of revenue. Advocates of this view have declared that the\nchurch is specially fitted for many branches of social service, being\nable to command invaluable volunteer assistance, which the state could\nnot hire at any price. Hence they conclude that the elimination of the\nchurches would throw on the state a burden far in excess of the amount\nnow conceded to these institutions in exemption from taxation.\n\nIt will be seen that the foregoing claim of the church rests entirely\non assumptions of the most gratuitous nature. In the first place, only\na minority of the churches are of the \"institutional\" order, and\npractically engaged in social welfare work; and in the exemption laws\nno distinction is made between this minority and the large majority of\nchurches which render no such public service. In fact, the law works\nentirely in favor of the parasitic churches, the mere accumulators of\nwealth. The institutional churches attract to themselves the support of\nindividuals who wish to see the work done, and who will stand by them to\nany extent needed; while the other class of ecclesiastical bodies, which\nexist mainly for the promulgation of effete dogmas, lean on the state\nfor a much larger proportion of their total revenue. With state help,\nthey fatten and become rich; while the few socialized churches spend\ntheir revenues as fast as they come in. The repeal of exemption laws\nwould not kill any churches which are doing a work felt in the community\nto be one of public necessity; it is the socially useless churches which\nwould be forced to perish, if they could not win sufficient voluntary\nsupport by showing some indication of deserving it. The fallacy that the\nrepeal of exemption laws means the killing of the institutional churches\nor the crippling of their work is a most glaring one.\n\nIt is further not true that the supporters of the social work now done\nthrough the higher type of churches would lose all interest in it if the\nchurch were to disappear from the scene. Such a claim is an insult to\nhuman nature and a fatal confession with reference to the quality of the\nreligion which is thus assumed to teach its followers to labor only for\nthe sake of the church and not for the love of mankind. The desire to\nminister to social needs, found among the nobler men and women of all\nforms of faith and of unbelief, would persist in undiminished degree. If\nthe church were gone, it would simply use other channels through\nwhich to work. They would likewise be joined by others, who cannot\nconscientiously assist in the promulgation of dogmas they consider\nfalse and pernicious, even though the doctrinal teaching is subtly\ninterblended with philanthropic work; and by still others, whose\nearnestly proffered services are rejected by the religious bodies,\nbecause, although eager to help in social service, they cannot pronounce\nthe doctrinal shibboleths of ecclesiasticism. The spontaneous response\nof men and women to proven human need has been demonstrated again and\nagain, and never more than during the great world war, in the immense\nsums of money and quantities of needful articles eagerly proffered and\nthe vast amount of personal service freely rendered, sometimes at the\nrisk or cost of life itself, to alleviate the sufferings of military\nand civil victims resident in alien lands and totally unknown to the\nmillions of volunteer helpers. No church activity was needed to stir\nall this active and uncalculating benevolence into life; and none is\nrequired to arouse the higher sentiment in the community to co-operate\nin combating its poverty, illness and degradation.\n\nTHE CHURCH SHOWS ULTERIOR MOTIVES.\n\nMoreover, the church is far from being the best agent for the carrying\non of social service. The trouble is that it has its own axe to grind.\nIts eye is not single to the relief of human suffering, but it has also\nto think of converting the sufferers to its creed. It is constantly\ntempted to play upon the gratitude of those whom it helps, to induce\ntheir attendance at its services, if not to dragoon these helpless\ndependents into an outward expression of belief. Even where it does not\ndiscriminate against non-believers in its creed, or seek in any way to\nabuse its position in order to proselyte them directly, it too often\ndoes its alms to be seen of men, and turns its social work into a huge\nadvertising scheme, after the fashion of an ostentatiously philanthropic\nRockefeller, who gives with one hand and with the utmost publicity about\none-hundredth part of what he extorts from the masses with the other\nhand. At best, its activities are such as to generate a reasonable\nsuspicion that its aims are not wholly pure, nor its work of unmixed\nquality; and the net result is not a wholesome one.\n\nFor the best good of the community, social service needs to be entirely\ndivorced from dogma, whether performed by the state as part of its duty\ntowards its members, or by private individuals or groups as a voluntary\neffort to lessen the sorrows and evils of humanity. If the church\ninsists on doing a part of this community work, let it, like others\nengaged in such work, do so at its own cost. If it is sincere in its\nwish to help mankind, it will not balk at this condition; if not, it\nbetrays the selfishness of its aims. The argument in favor of exempting\nfrom taxation organizations doing nothing but philanthropic work, and\norganized for no other purpose, cannot be honorably stretched to embrace\nbodies formed to propagate particular creeds, which simply take on\nphilanthropic activities as a side line. If this were otherwise, every\nfactory which introduces a \"welfare department\" should by a parity of\nargument immediately have all its property exempted from contribution to\nthe public revenues.\n\nCHURCHES AS ENHANCERS OF REAL ESTATE VALUES.\n\nThe curious argument has sometimes been urged that churches raise the\nvalue of adjacent property, and should therefore escape taxation. If\nthis be indeed a fact, it proves either nothing to the purpose or a\ngreat deal too much for the comfort of those who put it forward. It is\ndifficult to see why the taxpayers of an entire city should reward the\nchurch for enriching the few property-owners canny enough to secure land\nadjoining clerically owned property. By merely increasing the value\nof certain pieces of property at the expense of land less fortunately\nlocated, the community as a whole is not made a substantial gainer.\nEven taking the most favorable view, it is certain that the \"unearned\nincrement\" of the property adjoining the church will never rise so high\nas to overbalance the total value of the church property withdrawn from\ntaxation; and hence the encouraging of church-building by tax exemption\nmust represent a net financial loss to the community. Moreover, every\nimprovement on land increases the value of neighboring property;\nhence the argument, if valid at all, warrants the exemption of all\nimprovements from taxation, and the equal taxation of all land values,\nwhether the land is built on by churches or otherwise utilized, or left\nwholly unimproved.\n\nThe fact should also be recognized that to many the existence of\nchurches adjacent to their property is anything but a benefit. So far\nfrom regarding the value of their property as increased by the coming\nof a church, many an owner will resent the intrusion, and sell out at a\nloss, rather than be exposed to some of the features of church activity\nin his immediate vicinity. To many, the ringing of church bells is an\nintolerable nuisance and a positive grievance. The collection of crowds,\neven of the most decorous nature, is most objectionable to others.\nIn New York and other cities, property in certain sections is highly\nrestricted by deeds which provide against the erection of churches, no\nless than of livery stables and other structures considered undesirable\nin a residential neighborhood. Real estate men do not bear out the claim\nthat the inevitable or even the usual result of the erection of churches\nis to increase the value of property in the vicinity.\n\nSOPHISTRY AT THE NEW YORK HEARING.\n\nThe weakness of the case for the exemption of church property is\napparent from the fact that the foregoing easily refuted claims\nrepresent substantially the entire case in its favor. At the New\nYork hearing of 1915, and at all other hearings before the various\nlegislative bodies of our land, they have been the only points on which\nstress was sought to be laid. Incidentally, of course, minor assertions\nhave been made, such as the alleged fact that the church is a public\nutility, in the maintenance of which the community has a direct\ninterest. This plea, on which small reliance is usually placed, has been\nfully disposed of by the analysis on a preceding page of the function of\nthe church. Sometimes attention is called to the apparent preponderance\nof interest in favor of exemption, as witnessed by the number of\nspeakers who appear in its favor at committee hearings and by the number\nand size of the organizations which they represent. This is obviously\nthe most transparent sophistry. Principles are not to be gauged by\nnumbers. A country in which the mob may dispose at its lightest whim of\nthe rights and liberties of the individual or of the minority is a\nland of tyranny, and cannot prosper in the end. Moreover, the alleged\npreponderance does not even prove that the majority of the citizens are\nin favor of the special privilege dishonestly demanded by the churches.\nIt merely furnishes fresh evidence of the well-known fact that parties\nwith special interests to be subserved by class legislation will\norganize more efficiently than those appearing for the general interest\nof the citizens, but not backed by powerful existing organizations well\nsupplied with funds and having much to gain or lose in a financial way\nby the passage or defeat of the proposed legislation. It is hard to stir\nup popular interest to the point of action in matters that involve the\ncivic conscience. Nevertheless, the people are slowly awakening to a\nrealization of the iniquity of the manner in which the churches, for\ntheir own profit, have played upon the religious emotions of those under\ntheir influence; and a day of reckoning is imminent. The sentiment\nin behalf of the repeal of the dishonest exemption laws is growing\ncontinually stronger, and must finally become irresistible.\n\nIt has sometimes been asserted that precedent is against the taxing\nof churches. At the New York hearing, this was gravely put forth by a\nPresbyterian preacher as a serious argument; and he sought to dismiss\nthe proposition by cavalierly remarking that it was part of the present\ncraze for new taxes of all sorts. His deliverance was echoed by a lawyer\nhired to represent Grace Episcopal church, the church which showed\nits moral standards by cheating its architect out of his fee on a\ncontemptible legal technicality. \"I am old-fashioned enough,\" remarked\nthe lawyer, metaphorically patting himself on the back for his astute\nappeal to religious prejudice, \"to believe that the house of God should\nnot be taxed.\" In other words, whatever is, is right. No old abuse must\never be abolished, and every new idea must be wrong. Could there be a\nfiner admission that the bent of the churchly trained mind is against\nall progress, and prone to resist change merely because it is new?\n\nCONFESSED TREASON TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLES.\n\nThe defenders of church graft never fail in the end to reveal their real\nposition. At no public hearing has it ever happened that the shrewder\nrepresentatives of the church were able to restrain their less subtle\ncolleagues from avowing their disbelief in the separation of church\nand state, and their conviction that the government should consider the\nsupport of religion as part of its business. The important hearing\nso often quoted had several such confessions of treason to American\nprinciples. The Rev. Charles T. Terry of the Brick Presbyterian church\nof New York city, when asked whether he would think it proper for the\nstate to appropriate money directly for the support of the churches,\nsince exemption was but an indirect way of accomplishing the same\nresult, completely missed the object of the question, and instead of\nattempting to distinguish the two methods in principle calmly assumed\nthat there could be no question of impropriety in either, and explained\nthat he preferred the exemption method as _more dignified_. If he had\nbeen entirely frank, he might have confessed his doubt whether a direct\ntheft from the taxpayers would be tolerated in this enlightened period.\nThe American churches would be only too glad to adopt the English method\nof open and unabashed robbery of dissenting citizens for the support of\nthe churches in whose doctrines they do not believe. This, however, has\nbecome an impossibility.\n\nIn our colonial period we passed through the mental condition in which\nchurch and state were considered as one, and neglect of religious \"duty\"\nwas punished as an offense against the community. In default of a\nreturn to those days, so blessed in the view of the enemies of religious\nliberty, the churches are willing to accept the indirect contribution\nof the state to their private expenses incurred in the interest of\nsectarian proselytism. True Americanism, however, finds no logical\ndistinction between the one method and the other. A difference of degree\nmay exist, but not one of kind.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. D. C. Potter* of Brooklyn, who attended the hearing,\nscorned to argue with unbelievers in any way except by ejaculations. He\nfairly screeched his horror of the idea that anybody should propose to\n\"tax the house of God.\" The finely-spun fallacies of his colleagues,\nwho talked of the \"social services\" of the churches and their alleged\nprotection to the community from a flood of vice and crime, went down\nin the wind before his anguished yells at the thought that religious\nliberty and the separation of church and state were in danger of\nbecoming complete realities in a democracy nominally pledged to the\nunwavering support of these great principles. In the same spirit, Herman\nMetz, a politician and former officeholder, irrelevantly remarked that\nthe plea that non-churchgoers should not be forced to meet the expenses\nof an institution which is of no value to them is like the objection to\npaying taxes for schools if we happen to have no children, or for the\nfire department if our house has never been on fire! The utter lack of\ndistinction between the ministering to private wants and the performance\nof a public function would do discredit to an imbecile. Still worse,\nbecause less excusable, was the assertion of Nicholas Murray Butler,\npresident of Columbia University, a man of education and formal culture,\nthat a person who did not believe in religion should be taxed to\nsupport the churches just as an Anarchist should be taxed to support\nthe government! With greater suavity and shrewdness, but no less\nindifference to historic fact and democratic principle, William D.\nGuthrie, appearing as attorney for the Roman Catholic interests,\nrejected the easy way out of pretending that the churches subserved some\ncivic function, and defended their claims on the ground that \"immemorial\npractice\" sanctioned the exemption graft. In other words, a wrong\nbecomes right, an abuse a virtue, if it is only continued long enough!\nMr. Guthrie went so far as to assert that Christianity is part of\nthe common law of the land. If this be true, our case even yet is\nnot hopeless, for the \"common law\" of England, from which American\njurisprudence is derived, did not drop down from heaven as a sacred\ndeposit, forever perfect and unchangeable. As a matter of fact, most\nof it has long since been superseded by the constitutional law of the\nnation and the states, and by innumerable statutes. From the moment\nof the adoption of our Federal Constitution, expressly forbidding an\n\"establishment of religion,\" Christianity, whatever its status under\nthe common law, ceased to form an integral part of the law of the United\nStates, and became simply one of many forms of private belief, the\nrelative number of its adherents being totally immaterial. In the treaty\nwith Tripoli, secured during the administration of George Washington,\nour first great President placed his signature to the specific statement\nthat the government of this land is in no sense founded on the Christian\nreligion. The forenamed gentlemen, one and all, far from lending\nstrength to their cause by invoking the outworn traditions of the past\nand by appealing to the brute force of religious bigotry against the\nequal civic rights of all citizens, have turned state's evidence against\ntheir accomplices by the unthinking confession that the case for church\nexemption rests in the last analysis on treason to the Constitution and\nto the principle of separation of church and state. When the enemies\nof religious liberty and the rights of man thus come out in their true\ncolors we know how to meet them. It is the insidious method of seeking\nto shelter church graft under pretensions of the common weal that is\nable to deceive the public for a time.\n\n     * See \"Crimes of Preachers.\"\n\nCHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.\n\nOur fight against church graft is not new, for through the ages of human\nhistory men slow in learning the lesson of equal liberty have made this\nwarfare inevitable. Even those honestly desirous to be fair have found\nit easy to cheat themselves with convenient sophistry, and to frame\nfantastic reasons for deeming the public weal inseparably bound up\nwith their particular group of dogmas, so that the good of mankind must\nrequire the submission of dissenters to the popular creed. That\nthe whole community should be forced to support the church appeared\naxiomatic to the New England of Governor Bradford, Cotton Mather and\nJonathan Edwards. The settlement of Rhode Island by Roger Williams and\nhis associates, on the basis of complete religious liberty, was the\nfirst event to startle Puritanism into a realization that the right\nof the church to control the state was not as self-evident as had been\nthought. Later were heard bold voices to demand that the church take its\nproper position in the community as a voluntary body of believers,\nfree to worship in its own fashion, and leaving all others free to do\nlikewise or not to worship at all. And finally the foremost and boldest\nthinkers began to see that there could be no equal justice while\nunbelievers were mulcted in taxation to support the churches. One of\nthe first protests against the wrong which still prevails, although now\ndisguised under the form of exemption, took the shape of a memorial to\nthe general court (legislature) of Massachusetts in 1775. The core of\nthe argument is contained in the following paragraph:\n\n\"For a civil legislature to impose religious tax is, we conceive, a\npower which their constituents never had to give, and therefore going\nentirely out of their jurisdiction. We are persuaded that an entire\nfreedom from being taxed by civil rulers to religious worship is not a\nmere favor from any man or men in the world, but a right and property\ngranted us by God, who commands us to stand fast to it. We should wrong\nour consciences by allowing that power to men which we believe belongs\nonly to God.\"\n\nIn the same spirit, the pious and learned Rev. Dr. Wayland, in his\n\"Political Economy,\" wrote:\n\n\"All that religious societies have a right to ask of the civil\ngovernment is the same privileges for transacting their own affairs\nwhich societies of every other sort possess. This they have a right\nto demand, not because they are religious societies, but because the\nexercise of religion is an innocent mode of pursuing happiness. If it\nhappens accidentally that others are benefited, it does not follow that\nthey are obliged to pay for this benefit. It cannot be proved that the\nChristian religion needs the support of the civil government, since it\nhas existed and flourished when entirely deprived of this support.\"\n\nAN OPINION BY FRANKLIN.\n\nAfter the theologian, the philosopher. These are the words of the\ntruth-loving friend of justice, Benjamin Franklin:\n\n\"When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and\nwhen it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support it,\nso its professors are obliged to call for help from the civil power, it\nis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.\"\n\nThe soundness of Franklin's test cannot be successfully disputed. If the\nchurches must look to the state, instead of to their God, for continued\nlife and prosperity, it is \"a sign,\" indisputable as a voice from\nheaven, that they are not divinely commissioned, but are impostors. The\ndemand for exemption from taxation is a confession of lost spiritual\nvalues.\n\nWHAT GRANT AND GARFIELD SAID.\n\nTwo presidents of the United States, braving ecclesiastical censure,\nhave had the moral courage to speak out on the present question. One of\nthem, the heroic Grant, was heretical in his religious views; the\nother, the martyred Garfield, was an orthodox Christian, and had been a\nclergyman and president of a religious college. In Grant's presidential\nmessage in 1875, he said:\n\n\"In connection with this important question, I would also call your\nattention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted\nto continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land before the\nclose of the nineteenth century. It is the acquisition of vast amounts\nof untaxed church property. In 1850, I believe, the church property of\nthe United States, which paid no tax, municipal or state, amounted\nto $87,000,000. In 1860 the amount had doubled. In 1870 it was\n$354,483,587. By 1900, without a check, it is safe to say, this property\nwill reach a sum exceeding $3,000,000,000. So vast a sum, receiving\nall the protection and benefits of government, without bearing its\nproportion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be looked\nupon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes. In a growing\ncountry, where real estate enhances so rapidly with time as in the\nUnited States, there is scarcely a limit to the wealth that may be\nacquired by corporations, religious or otherwise, if allowed to retain\nreal estate without taxation. The contemplation of so vast a property\nas here alluded to, without taxation, may lead to sequestration without\nconstitutional authority, and through blood. I would suggest the\ntaxation of all property equally.\"\n\nWith no less emphasis President Garfield put himself on record in the\nfollowing words:\n\n\"The divorce between church and state ought to be absolute. It ought to\nbe so absolute that no church property anywhere, in any state, or in\nthe nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the\nproperty of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax\nupon the whole community.\"\n\nWEIGHTY PRESS UTTERANCES.\n\nThe New York _Evening Post_ in its greatest days, when edited by William\nCullen Bryant, spoke boldly on the subject of church exemption. Hear it:\n\n\"The _Evening Post_ has long been of the opinion that the American\ntheory of a self-supporting church ought to be carried out to its full\nand legitimate conclusion, and that the separation of church and state\nought to be complete. It should include the total discontinuance of\ncontributions of public money, direct or indirect, to the support of any\nreligious establishment. We have never been able to see the slightest\ndifference in principle between the appropriation of a certain sum of\nmoney raised by tax to a particular church, and a release of that church\nfrom a tax on its property to the same amount. The cost of the act in\neither case falls upon the taxpayers generally.\"\n\nAn admirable summary of the vital principles involved is contained in\nthe following editorial from the San Antonio _Express_:\n\n\"The _Express_ is not antagonistic to the churches. It believes that\nmany of them are doing a great and noble work; but it does not believe\nin exempting sectarian property from taxation in a land of alleged\nreligious liberty at the expense of men who regard the church as a brake\non the wheels of progress, an incubus on civilization, the preservator\nof antique ignorance, the storehouse of foolish superstition. It does\nnot approve of the church posing as an almoner while the thin purse of\nlabor is annually mulct to make it a present of several millions. Let\nit be just before it attempts to be generous. Let it assume its due\nproportion of the public burdens, and perchance there will not be so\nmuch need of its dole. The church should not profit at the expense\nof the poor; it certainly should not fatten at the cost of those who\ndespise it.\"\n\nEven the New York _Independent_, when it was a distinctly clerical\nmagazine, allowed the following clear statement of principle to appear:\n\n\"The time has come when all religious denominations must affirm that no\npublic moneys shall be used for sectarian instruction; the time-honored\nprinciple of the separation of church and state must be again\nemphasized. If a church is not willing to support its own schools, it\ncannot come to the state for aid. I would go so far in the application\nof this principle as to be willing to see all our churches taxed as is\nother property. We have no right to tax unbelievers that churches may be\nmaintained; no more right than they would have to tax churches for the\nsupport of Infidel clubs.\"\n\nEXPRESSIONS BY INGERSOLL.\n\nThe efficacy of the arguments contained in the foregoing expressions,\nchosen from among many others, is independent of the weight attachable\nto those who uttered them. One and all, they express the attitude of all\nwho view the subject without bias, and who refuse to allow self-interest\nto swerve them from a frank recognition of what is due to the principle\nof civic justice. No better summary of the main issue could be found\nthan the vigorous answer of Robert G. Ingersoll to an interviewer. That\nthe great Agnostic orator should show strong feeling on the subject, is\nnot surprising, nor does it in any sense weaken the logical force of his\nprotest. It is only natural that the victim of a burglary should be more\nenergetic in his complaint than a third person who has slight interest\nin the matter. The churches have had many a fling at the peerless\nchampion of freedom of thought; but they will find it easier to slur his\nmemory than to refute his arguments. He says:\n\n\"I have seen a memorial asking that church property be taxed like other\nproperty.... Such memorials ought to be addressed to the legislatures\nof all the states. The money of the public should only be used for the\nbenefit of the public. Public money should not be used for what a few\ngentlemen think is for the benefit of the public. Personally, I think\nit would be for the benefit of the public to have Infidel or\nscientific--which is the same thing--lectures delivered in every town,\nin every state, on every Sunday; but, knowing that a great many men\ndisagree with me on this point, I do not claim that such lectures ought\nto be paid for with public money. The Methodist church ought not to\nbe sustained by taxation, nor the Catholic, nor any other church. To\nrelieve their property from taxation is to appropriate money, to the\nextent of that tax, for the support of that church. Whenever a burden\nis lifted from one piece of property, it is distributed over the rest\nof the property of the state; and to release one kind of property is\nto increase the tax on all other kinds.... To exempt the church from\ntaxation is to pay a part of the priest's salary. The Catholic now\nobjects to being taxed to support a school in which his religion is not\ntaught. He is not satisfied with the school that says nothing on the\nsubject of religion. He insists that it is an outrage to tax him to\nsupport a school where the teacher simply teaches what he knows. And yet\nthis same Catholic wants his church exempted from taxation, and the\ntax of an Atheist or of a Jew increased, when he teaches in his untaxed\nchurch that the Atheist and the Jew will both be eternally damned! Is\nit possible for impudence to go further?... In my judgment the church\nshould be taxed precisely the same as other property. The church may\nclaim that it is one of the instruments of civilization and therefore\nshould be exempt. If you exempt that which is useful, you exempt every\ntrade and every profession....\n\n\"There was a time when ministers were supposed to be in the employ of\nGod, and it was thought that God selected them with great care--that\ntheir profession had something sacred about it. These ideas are no\nlonger entertained by sensible people. Ministers should be paid like\nother professional men, and those who like their preaching should pay\nthe preacher. They should depend, as actors do, upon their popularity,\nupon the amount of sense, or nonsense, that they have for sale. They\nshould depend upon the market like other people; and if people do not\nwant to hear sermons badly enough to build churches and pay for them,\nand pay the taxes on them, and hire the preacher, let the money be\ndiverted to some other use. The pulpit should no longer be a pauper. I\ndo not believe in carrying on any business with the contribution box.\nAll the sectarian institutions ought to support themselves.\"\n\nTHE MAGNITUDE OF THE WRONG.\n\nThe foregoing chapters having demonstrated the iniquity and\nindefensibility of the exemption of church property from taxation,\nthe sole remaining point of interest concerns the amount of the wrong\ninflicted on the community by legalized church graft. That it is very\nconsiderable, a bare inspection of the wealth of the more favored\nchurches makes abundantly plain. The enormous holdings, for example,\nof Trinity Church corporation in New York city prove the immense\npossibilities in this direction. Incidentally, it is an interesting\nfact, pointed out in detail some years ago by John E. Remsburg, that\nexemption is not only unfair to the general public, but a means\nof favoring the city churches, already rich and well-supported, as\ncontrasted with the relatively poor and weak country churches. The\nlatter have certainly good ground to complain that they do not get their\nfair share of the swag. In the country, land is cheap and abundant, and\nunder normal conditions does not change much in value over a long period\nof years, while general taxes are comparatively low. It is the cities\nthat pay the mass of the taxes; and it is in the cities that the rapidly\ngrowing population causes frightful congestion, and allows the most\nunscrupulous land speculation to return the largest profits. In the\ngeneral scramble for \"unearned increments,\" property holders who are\nexempt from the payment of taxes are given an overwhelming advantage.\nThey take no risk, can wait as long as they please for the expected\nrise, and pocket the entire amount of the increase in land values,\nto which they have made no important contribution. The state actually\nencourages and urges the churches to become land gamblers, and to enrich\nthemselves at the expense of the people. As the city grows, the churches\ngradually find excuses to move away from their earlier locations,\nselling out their sites at huge profits, not one dollar of which is\nrestored to the community as conscience money, and to buy less costly\nland with part of the proceeds, investing the balance where it will\nbring substantial returns. No wonder they grow rich while the poverty of\nthe tenement dwellers proportionately increases! And no wonder the city\nchurches, luxuriating in their bloated prosperity, are able to lord it\nover their country associates, and to rule the affairs of their sect\nwith an iron hand, despite their gross numerical inferiority. No\nwonder that the general assemblies, synods and the like of the various\ndenominations are so frequently characterized by peanut politics which\nwould disgrace a ward caucus, and by bitter wrangling and exhibitions\nof ill-will which contrast strikingly with the professions of Christian\nlove.\n\nURBAN MONOPOLY AND UNFAIRNESS.\n\nAs Mr. Remsburg's article (Truth Seeker, Jan. 14, 1911, p. 22,) is not\nnow available except to those possessing files of the paper, no apology\nis required for reproducing the following paragraph from it:\n\n\"Ecclesiastical property is confined chiefly to cities. One city\nin Massachusetts owns nearly one-third of the church property of\nMassachusetts; one city of Pennsylvania owns nearly one-third of the\nchurch property of Pennsylvania; one city in Missouri owns nearly\none-third of the church property of that state; one city in Nebraska\nowns nearly one-third of the church property of that state. One city in\nIllinois, Chicago, owns more than three-eighths of the church property\nof Illinois. St. Paul and Minneapolis, practically one city, own\none-half of the church property of Minnesota. One city in Louisiana owns\nmore than one-half of the church property of Louisiana. One state,\nNew York, owns nearly one-fourth of the ecclesiastical property of the\nUnited States; while one city in New York owns more than one-half of\nthe church property in that state. One city in Rhode Island owns\nnearly three-fifths of the church property of Rhode Island; one city in\nDelaware owns nearly three-fifths of the church property of Delaware;\none city in Colorado owns nearly three-fifths of the church property\nof Colorado; while one city in Maryland owns nearly two-thirds of the\nchurch property of Maryland. Thus, a dozen cities own one-half of the\nchurch property of their respective states. This property includes only\nchurch buildings. The proportion of ecclesiastical property other than\nchurch buildings owned by the churches of these cities is much greater.\nTwo-thirds of the ecclesiastical property of these states is confined to\nthese cities. And yet, nine-tenths of the churches in these states are\noutside of these cities. One-tenth of the churches in these states,\ntherefore, own two-thirds of the church property of these states. Adding\nthe other cities and large towns of these states, it is safe to say that\none-fifth of the churches own four-fifths of the church property. The\nproperty owned by four-fifths of the church organizations consists\nprincipally of modest, inexpensive church buildings. If church property\nwas taxed, the amount of taxes levied on these churches would not be\ngreat. The greater portion of taxes would come from the costly churches\nand from the real estate owned by wealthy church corporations in the\ncities; and even the advocates of church exemption cannot deny the\njustice of taxing this property. Municipal taxes are enormously high;\nand the exemption of so large a property imposes an unjust burden on\nthose who have to pay these taxes. In every city is to be found property\nthat taxes have devoured--families who have been rendered homeless by\nexcessive taxation.\"\n\nA CHURCH MASKS A SALOON.\n\nOf the many queer things that can be done by virtue of tax exemption\nlaws, a recent episode in New York city furnishes an apt illustration.\nA saloon keeper had for some time a monopoly of trade in one of the\nless settled but growing districts. With the opening of a new boulevard,\nhouses began to go up; and a rival was not slow in taking advantage of\nthe opportunity to set up in opposition to the first comer. The newcomer\nwas an energetic business man, and knew how to draw custom, so that\nhe at once made considerable inroads on the patronage of his older\ncompetitor. The latter, however, was a man of resources. Among the\nfew lots of land not yet occupied for building purposes was one in the\nneighborhood of the second saloon. This was quietly purchased by the\nolder saloonist, and the other awaited results, expecting to see a third\nsaloon established with a view to stealing some of his trade. His wily\nrival, however, knew a trick worth two of that. Almost over night, a\nrude shack was erected, with a slight steeple which pointed heavenward,\nthough not with what usually pass for heavenly aims. This was turned\nover free of charge to a handful of persons, to hold meetings of a\nnominally religious nature. Having no taxes to pay on property thus\ndedicated to holy uses, and being thus able to hold it indefinitely at\npractically no expense, the original saloon keeper straightway appealed\nto the police department to enforce the law forbidding the existence of\na saloon within a certain distance of a church, and thus, at the latest\nreport, was on the eve of triumphantly driving his rival from the field.\nThe next move would naturally be to purchase the abandoned saloon at a\nlow figure, allow the \"church,\" having served its purpose, to give up\nthe ghost in an unobtrusive manner, and to resume business with the\nsecond saloon, where the discomfited competitor had been compelled to\nleave it off. Whether the ingenious scheme worked out to the finish\nor not, the writer is not informed. At least, it went far enough to\ndemonstrate the remarkable possibilities under legislation encouraging\nthe juggling with religious things for purposes of private advantage.\n\nANOTHER VULNERABLE DEFENSE.\n\nThe apologists for church exemption find themselves in a position of\ngreat embarrassment when the nature and amount of the exempted property\nare called into question. In the difficulty of securing accurate and\ncomplete figures they attempt at once to minimize and to magnify the\namount involved. In pleading for the country churches, they raise the\ncry of poverty, and solemnly aver that these feeble institutions are so\ndependent on state help for their existence that without it they must\ninevitably perish. The claim is both false and irrelevant. It is false,\nbecause the taxable property of the country churches, as may be readily\nseen from the preceding discussion, and may be learned by any person\nthrough direct observation, is of extremely low value, and bears far\nless proportion to the available income of their aggregate membership\nthan the holdings of the city churches. The few dollars of taxes which\nan honest fiscal policy would impose on the average country church would\nbe raised without the slightest difficulty. As a matter of fact, it\nis not the \"poor and struggling country churches\" which are lobbying\nagainst the removal of exemption; it is the wealthy city corporations,\nwhich use the \"poor country church\" argument as a means of drawing a\nred herring across the track, and diverting attention from their\nown handsome pickings. The claim, even if true, would obviously be\nirrelevant, since it is not the business of the state to keep churches\nalive.\n\nForgetful of their professed fear on behalf of the struggling country\nchurches, however, the apologists for religious graft lay tremendous\nstress on the assertion that the amount which the state loses through\nthe churches is a mere bagatelle, and that the taxpayers would not gain\nenough to help them much, if it were reclaimed. A pat retort, of course,\nis that if this be the case, it is amazing that the churches have become\nso terrified at the idea of handing over so small an amount to the\nstate. Wealthy as they are, if the sum is as trivial as they say, they\nwill never miss it, and can afford to be honest, and to conciliate the\nfavor of those who are now driven away from the gospel by the greed and\ngrafting spirit of the agencies which represent it. Like the fiction\nof the dying country churches, however, the claim is both false and\nirrelevant. It is false, as will presently be shown by some of the\nfigures which have become available; and it is irrelevant, because the\nmoral character of a thief is not to be graded according to the amount\nof loot which he has succeeded in acquiring. The recognition of the\nright of the church to receive a subsidy from the state, and thus to\nmake the separation of church and state a dead letter, would remain as\nserious a crime against the democratic principle, if not more than a\nsingle dollar were involved.\n\nNEW YORK'S BLANKET EXEMPTION LAW.\n\nBefore taking up the subject of statistics, it will not be amiss to\nquote the exemption law of New York as typical of church graft at its\nworst. It will be seen that references to religious uses and purposes\nare ingeniously smuggled in, side by side with much verbiage as to\ninstitutions serving a public purpose, so that they may appear to fit\nnaturally among such bodies as so minister to the collective needs of\nthe community that they deserve to be subsidized by the state. For this\nreason, it is best to cite the germane portions of the statute in\nfull, instead of isolating those that relate solely to the churches.\nIncidentally, it will be noted that the churches are not once mentioned\nby name. It is the nature of graft to seek shelter under evasion, and to\navoid clear expression of its intentions. The following, then, is drawn\nfrom Section 4, subdivision 7, of the Tax Law of New York:\n\n\"The real property of a corporation or association organized exclusively\nfor the moral or mental improvement of men or women, or for religious,\nbible, tract, charitable, benevolent, missionary, hospital, infirmary,\neducational, scientific, literary, library, patriotic, historical or\ncemetery purposes... and the personal property of any such corporation\nshall be exempt from taxation. But no such corporation shall be entitled\nto any such exemption, if any member or employee thereof shall receive\nor may be lawfully entitled to receive any pecuniary profit from the\noperations thereof except reasonable compensation for services in\neffecting one or more of such purposes, or as proper beneficiaries of\nits strictly charitable purposes; or if the organization thereof, for\nany of such avowed purposes, be a guise or pretence for profit... or if\nit be not in good faith organized or conducted exclusively for one or\nmore of such purposes. The real property of any such corporation or\nassociation entitled to such exemption held by it exclusively for one\nor more of such purposes, and from which no rents, profits or income\nare derived, shall be so exempt, although not in actual use therefor by\nreason of the absence of suitable buildings or improvements thereon, if\nthe construction of such buildings is in progress, or is in good faith\ncontemplated by such corporation or association.... Property held by\nany officer of a religious denomination shall be entitled to the same\nexemption, subject to the same conditions and exceptions, as property\nheld by a religious corporation.\"\n\nIn the comprehensive list of exempted classes of property enumerated\nabove, it will be observed that all save those of a religious nature\nhave at least some show of claim to be regarded as ministering to public\naims, or as essential to the existence of a civilized community, and\ntherefore deserving of public encouragement. Whether the claim is in all\ncases sufficient to warrant exemption from taxation, need not be here\ndiscussed. In the opinion of many students of the problem, nearly all\nexemptions are illicit. Whether that be the case or not, it has been\nmade clear that the argument for taxing churches is stronger than that\nfor taxing any of the other classes, and the argument against it weaker.\nThis results from the fact that religion is more distinctly a matter of\nthe individual than is literature, science, education or philanthropy.\nHence, even if it be good public policy to subsidize these agents of\nsocial progress, it by no means follows that the same is true of the\nchurches; while, conversely, the taxation of churches need not logically\nembrace the taxation of any of the other classes. Each must stand on its\nown merits; and in each case enter considerations that make it improper\nto draw the fate of any one of them into that of any other. That a\nmischievous and loosely drawn statute has bracketed them all together\nshould not blind us to the radical differences that exist among them, or\nto the fact that none of the grounds on which exemption of most of the\nothers is defended apply in any degree to the churches.\n\nLAND SPECULATION INVITED.\n\nThe recklessness of the enactors of the New York tax law is visible in\nits blanket nature. Not satisfied with exempting property in actual use,\nthe statute contains a provision by which the tax assessor is called\nupon to become a telepathic expert, and to divine the intentions of a\ncorporation holding land out of use! Not only property actually used\nfor religious purposes is to go untaxed, but also land where the\nconstruction of buildings for the purpose of worship \"is in good faith\ncontemplated!\" No method for testing the \"good faith\" is provided, nor\nany safeguard against abuse of the \"good faith\" clause. No more\nopen invitation to fraud could be devised. No penalty for evasion is\nprovided, and no means of collecting back taxes, in case the church\ncorporation, after grabbing land from the heart of the city, and holding\nit ten or twenty years under the pretense of intending to build on it\nat some future time, shall find it impracticable or undesirable to carry\nout the \"contemplated\" action, and shall sell the land at an increased\nvaluation, and put a handsome amount of money into its treasury through\nthe kindness of government in promoting this species of land speculation\nwithout risk. Should the property depreciate instead of rising, there\nis still time to use it for church purposes, and nothing is lost. Every\nother land speculator must at least take some risk; but the church is\nplaying a sure game and cannot lose. The community pays the bill for the\nbenefit of the sure-thing gambler. If it be urged that this particular\nclause allows the same abuse by any other form of exempted corporation,\nthe answer is that this only makes the evil all the greater. The clause\nwould be bad, even if it applied only to corporations rightfully held\nexempt from taxation on the property in actual use by them for public\npurposes; and the wrong is multiplied by its application to the\nchurches, which have no legitimate claim to exemption under any\nconditions.\n\nTurn now to the last sentence in the law as quoted. This works in two\nmain ways. In the first place, it is special legislation in favor of the\npolicy of the Roman Catholic church of placing church properties in the\nhands of bishops, over whom there is no adequate check. The congregation\nmight as well be so many cattle for all the rights they have over the\nchurch property accumulated through their sacrifices. All they are for,\nin the eyes of the hierarchy, to which they submit with the docility of\nsheep, and less than a sheep's intelligence, is to pay. Contrary to the\nentire spirit of self-government, the State of New York endorses this\nexploitation and tyranny, and ordains that the irresponsible bishops\nshall hold other people's property free from all taxation, to use or\nabuse as they see fit. The provision also makes it possible for any\nindividual to start a church on his own hook, for any ulterior ends\nhe may see fit, and to maintain sole authority over the property as an\n\"officer of a religious denomination,\" thus under the color of religion\nto claim divine sanction for the most anti-social ends, and to receive a\nsubsidy from the state while doing so. Its second use is to complete\nthe parasitical status of the ordinary parson by exempting his house\nand land from taxation, provided only he is not using it to buy and\nsell goods, but only for the pretended service of God. When the land\nappreciates, he may sell at a profit, and start to \"serve God\" in a\nbrand new parsonage, putting into his own pocket the surplus cash thus\nsweated from the community. Like the church, he may gamble in land\nvalues to his heart's content. As he pays no taxes, he cannot lose, and\ncan hold on indefinitely, where the ordinary real estate dealer must\nlet go his holdings if the market runs against him. The state thus\ninterposes to favor one land speculator above another, and to tempt\nthe clergyman to neglect his spiritual duties for financial profit. The\nprovision is thus an outrage on the community, an unfairness to the real\nestate interests, and an injury to whatever is good in religion.\n\nA FEW FIGURES.\n\nThe amount of the indirect subsidy annually paid to the churches by our\ngovernment which pretends to separation of church and state cannot\nbe exactly determined. Statistics of the value of church property are\ninaccurately gathered, with a tendency to underestimate; and tax rates,\nof course, vary within very wide limits. Taking the figures as we find\nthem, however, and assuming an average tax rate of $1.50 per $100, we\nshall still arrive at striking results.\n\nAs we have seen, President Grant, in his presidential message for 1875,\nquotes the amount of church property exempt from taxation in 1850 as\napproximately $87,000,000. This had doubled, he states, in 1860; and\nthe official figures for 1870 were $354,483,587. This terrific rate of\ngrowth, far in excess of the growth of any other form of wealth, could\nnot, of course, be maintained in full; but the actual increase has, none\nthe less, been enormous and alarming. In 1890, the admitted value of\nchurch property, as compiled by H. K. Carroll, LL.D., the well-known\nauthority on religious statistics, had risen to $679,694,439. The latest\navailable figures of the present time are those of 1906, in which year\nthe church property of the country was valued at $1,257,575,867. Keeping\nwell within bounds in estimating the value of this favored class of\nproperty in the present year (1915), we shall be more than safely\nconservative in calling it at least $1,500,000,000; and it is still\nrapidly increasing. Thus, from 1850 to 1915, the value of church\nproperty was multiplied not less than fourteenfold. In the same space of\ntime, the population had increased less than fourfold; and church\nmembership has just about kept pace with the population; showing a\ngrowing tendency to fall behind. In other words, the churches are making\nmoney from three to four times as fast as they are gaining members\n(winning \"souls\" in their own phrase), and the same number of times as\nrapidly as the population is growing. They are \"laying up treasures on\nearth\" faster than any other class in the community and at the expense\nof the whole community; and it is no wonder that their clutch on the\n\"things of this world\" and their opposition to any check on their graft\nprove them amenable to the saying: \"Where thy treasure is, there will\nthy heart be also.\" When an organization so rapidly absorbs the wealth\nof the nation it cannot resent the imputation that acquiring wealth is\nits chief concern.\n\nAt the assumed rate of taxation ($1.50 per $100), the money actually\nfilched from the public treasury by the churches is at least $22,500,000\na year; and this minimum calculation, far below the actual amount, is\nincreasing swiftly from year to year. In all the talk of economy\nin taxation, and of seeking new sources of revenue, when will our\n\"statesmen\" have the intelligence to stop this frightful leak? The\nchurches owe the money, they can afford to pay, and they should be made\nto pay. Did they not set the satisfaction of selfish greed above moral\nand civic considerations, they would do their duty without compulsion.\nSince, however, they will do nothing for the community, except when\nthey are forced to obey the people's will, the problem is only that\nof enlightening the public as to the manner and degree in which it is\nrobbed. If legislatures cannot be found with moral courage to withstand\nthe threats of the church lobby, and with sense to penetrate the\nsophistries of the hired lawyers arguing in behalf of the church's\ndemands, a counter force must be provided in an enlightened public\nsentiment so strong that the politician will find his political future\ndependent on his deafness to the ecclesiastical sirens and his support\nof full justice to the taxpaying citizens as against the pious harpies\nnow permitted to prey upon them.\n\nTo enter upon the figures for each of the different states and for the\nprincipal cities would savor of iteration. In no case will analysis\nof the figures for any state or city negative the foregoing facts or\nconclusions. Those interested in pursuing the question of statistical\ndetail may find food for study and reflection in the work of H. K.\nCarroll, LL.D., \"Religious Forces in the United States,\" edition of\n1912, pages 378-381 and 418-421. Dr. Carroll was in official charge of\nthe department of churches in the census of 1890 and is a recognized\nauthority on church statistics. Active in Methodist circles all his\nlife, he may be trusted to resolve all doubts in favor of the church,\nand his testimony cannot be put aside by church apologists.\n\nWEALTH INCREASES FASTER THAN CHURCHES.\n\nIllustration of the looting of the public treasury by church exemption\nmay be drawn from New York. In this state church property in 1890 was\nvalued at $140,123,008. In 1906, a period of fourteen years, it had\nrisen to $255,166,284. Here, as elsewhere in the country, Dr. Carroll\npoints out (\"Religious Forces\" Introduction, p. 59) that the increase\nin church buildings comes nowhere near keeping pace with the increase\nin values. In the country as a whole the increase in values from 1890 to\n1906 was 85.1 per cent., while the increase in church edifices was only\n35.3 per cent. In New York, the increase in the number of buildings\nwithin the period given was only from 7,942 to 9,193, or less than 16\nper cent., as compared to the increase in value of more than 82 per\ncent. Even with this small increase of churches, it is notorious that\nmore buildings exist than are needed or used. But taking the figures as\nthey are, it is self-evident that for this huge increment of value the\ncommunity gets nothing. Even the friendly Dr. Carroll is forced to\nadmit this, and to draw the inevitable conclusion (Int., p. 60) that the\nincrease results from more costly edifices and the \"natural\" increase in\nvalues, which can mean nothing but speculative land values. This removes\nthe last faint pretext for exemption. Even supposing that the services\nrendered by the churches were indispensable to the community, it is\npalpable that the performance of such service draws upon only a fraction\nof the wealth possessed by these bodies. Out of the immense margin they\ncould well afford to bear their honest share of civic burdens, and would\nnot be compelled to curtail their beneficent activities in order to\ndo so. Honest church taxation would merely prevent the storing up of\nsuperfluous wealth at the expense of the whole people.\n\nSince the most valuable church property is concentrated in the cities,\na glance at their statistics should not be omitted. Figures for 1890 are\ngiven by Dr. Carroll in the volume cited, pages 400-415. From these, it\nappears that in that year $313,537,247 of the total previously given\nwas situated in the 124 cities of the first, second and third class. The\npopulation of these cities amounted to 13,988,938 in 1890; that of the\nwhole country to 62,622,250. Thus were the enormous profits from the\nexemption graft poured mainly into the swollen coffers of the city\nchurches. While serving considerably less than one-fourth of the\npopulation, they had amassed nearly one-half of the property owned by\nall the churches of the country. The churches of New York city alone\nowned in the year stated property to the value of $73,352,437, more that\na tenth of all the church property in the country, although then, as\nnow, containing only about one-twentieth of the population. While\nno exact figures are at present available as to the value of church\nproperty in the metropolis to-day the amount cannot be much short of\na quarter of a million dollars. In a printed brief presented to the\nCommittee on Taxation on the New York Constitutional Convention,\nWilliam D. Guthrie, retained as attorney for the Roman Catholic\ninterests, estimates, according to figures as of May, 1914, the amount\nat $170,445,725.* As his whole aim was to minimize the amount of\nexemptions this is certainly none too high a figure, and is probably\nmuch too low. Allowing it to stand, however, a comparison with the\nforegoing data will show that either New York churches are at a fearful\nrate growing richer and richer at the expense of the other churches of\nthe country, or that the total of church property in the land has risen\nto the appalling figure of at least $1,700,000,000.\n\n     * In 1913 an analysis of the official figures given in the\n     City Record to show the amount of exempt property in New\n     York City was made for The Truth Seeker. The exempted church\n     property listed was appraised at $244,-445,955.\n\n\nPOPULATION AND PROFITS.\n\nTaking the church population instead of the general population as, from\nsome points of view, a fairer measure of the degree to which the city\nchurches amass wealth at the expense of the country churches, we find\nthat the total number of communicants in 1890 was 20,618,307 in\nthe entire country. In the 124 cities of importance, the number was\n5,302,018. It should further be remembered that the Roman Catholics are\nconcentrated in the cities, about one-tenth of all the Catholics in the\ncountry being in the single city of New York; and that this sect does\nnot keep honest records of its communicants, but practically forces all\nthe children of nine years of age and above, born in Catholic families,\nto become communicants, and then on the basis of \"once a Catholic,\nalways a Catholic,\" counts them forever after in its doctored figures.\nThus the hundreds of thousands of born Catholics who have turned\nProtestants are counted twice in making up religious statistics, once\nas Catholics and once as members of the denomination to which they have\ntransferred their allegiance; while the ex-Catholics who have left the\nchurch altogether are still counted in to swell the total. Thus through\naccepting the crooked Roman Catholic statistics, the ostensible number\nof church members in the country is greatly overestimated by Dr. Carroll\nand others, while the proportion of Catholics to the whole number is\nlikewise immensely exaggerated. Could we squeeze out the water from the\nreligious statistics, it would be found that the actual percentage of\ngenuine communicants in the cities is much less than one in four. Even\nfrom Dr. Carroll's figures, however, it is but little more. Thus a\nchurch member in one of the cities is a partner in twice the wealth of a\nchurch member in the country; and \"where the treasure is, there will the\nheart be also.\" By the same census, the number of communicants in New\nYork city was only 866,564, or less than one-twenty-third of the\ntotal, and this in spite of having much more than its share of persons\ndishonestly counted as Catholic \"communicants.\" So, according to the\nsystem of church exemption, the rich New York churches, with less than\none church member in every twenty-three in the country as a whole, have\nswept into their hands, by the method attributed by the author of the\nProverbs to the daughters of the horseleech, more than one-tenth of all\nthe church wealth. No wonder they can afford to hire expensive counsel\nto appear before the state legislature and the Constitutional Convention\nto demand that they be left undisturbed in the profitable enterprise of\nimpoverishing the community to provide more luxury for themselves.\n\nPREPONDERANCE OF CITY PROPERTY.\n\nA final comparison will prove even more startling than what has gone\nbefore. In 1890, the total number of church buildings in the country\nwas 142,639; in the cities referred to, the number was 9,722; and in\nNew York city it was 917. That is to say, 124 cities, with less than\none-fourteenth the number of church buildings, possessed practically\none-half of the church wealth; while the single city of New York, which\nabsorbed more than one-tenth of the wealth, had less than one out of\nevery 155 of the church buildings of the country! No wonder the churches\nof the large cities, and of New York in particular, howl bloody murder\nwhen asked to part with some of their popular graft and pay their debts!\nTo them, at least, Christianity is no longer a religion for the poor\nand disinherited of earth, but the special enjoyment of idle wealth and\nheartless vanity.\n\nWhat New York lacks in number of churches to the population, it makes\nup in the luxurious elegance of those it does possess. Its houses of\nworship are magnificent religious clubs for worship on the _de luxe_\nplan. What the poor, wandering Nazarene, if any credence is to be placed\nin the story of his life, would have said to this cynical burlesque of\nhis teachings, may be left to the imagination. Were there any honest\nexcuse for asking the state to bear part of the burdens of the church,\nit would apply in a tenfold degree to the struggling country churches,\nwhich form a much more organic life of the community than do the\ncity ones, and may much more plausibly be credited with genuine and\ncommunity-wide social service. As has been seen, however, tax exemption\ngoing in the main to multiply the superfluous wealth of the city\nchurches, does next to nothing for them.\n\nTHE RICH AGAINST THE POOR.\n\nIn addition to all the other unanswerable objections to the\nexemption system, it is thus irrepealably convicted of a systematic\ndiscrimination in favor of the rich as against the poor. This, in a\nnutshell, is the spirit of present-day Christianity. The plethoric\nchurches of the cities are the main foes of economic honesty. It is\nthey, rather than the country churches, which, feeing expensive lawyers\nand maintaining elaborate lobbies at our state capitals, menace our\npoliticians with ruin and bring all forms of pressure to bear to\nterrorize our legislatures, in order to prevent the withdrawal of the\nspecial privilege that heaps up in their hands the earnings wrenched\nfrom others by legal favoritism; and in all this they are not seeking\nto protect their existence against threatened destruction, nor to keep\nthemselves from being crippled in their legitimate work, but to add more\nmillions to the superfluous treasure they have already extorted from\nthe people, and to cater to the decadent demand for extravagant display.\nIsolated instances of churches engaged in serious attempts to grapple\nwith the larger social needs prove nothing to the purpose. Such churches\nneed no graft to win the cooperation of devoted workers and benefactors.\nIf they join in the cry for exemption, it is because they are made\ncatspaws by the parasitic churches, and have not enough faith in\nrighteousness to shun the practice of doing evil that good may come.\n\nIn order that the issue might be made as clear as possible, the\ndiscussion has been confined directly to churches and church property.\nOf the property of religious and semi-religious bodies other than\nchurches, and of the educational, hospital, philanthropic, reformatory\nand other institutions controlled by religious bodies and exempt from\ntaxation--although in many cases making their ostensible activities a\ncover for sectarian proselytism, and in all cases using their otherwise\nexcellent work as a means of advertising their sects--little has been\nsaid. The reasons against exemption of church property apply largely,\nif not fully, to these as well, although they have at least certain\nspecious grounds for favor which the churches cannot show. It cannot be\ndoubted, at least, that the more completely society, in city, state\nand nation, performs all its collective functions directly, rather than\nthrough the medium of any semi-private institution partly withdrawn from\nits direct supervision and control, the better. If some compromise is\nfound necessary, it should be looked upon only as a temporary expedient,\nand not as a permanent policy.\n\nThe evils attendant upon subsidizing any form of sectarian institution,\nwhatever its social services, are too great to be ignored. Yet, making\nthe largest possible concessions to these bodies, such grounds of\nexpediency as may at present be held to justify their exemption from\ntaxation cannot legitimately be extended to the churches, whose mission\nis in no way allied to any function of organized society.\n\nThe taxation of church property is demanded by every consideration of\nsound public policy, common sense, democracy and justice. In the day\nwhen these principles are heeded, the people will come into their own.\n\nThe matter in this pamphlet is an expansion of the argument made by the\nauthor, June 1, 1915, at a hearing held in the Senate Chamber at\nAlbany, New York, before the Committee on Taxation of the Constitutional\nConvention, in support of an amendment offered by James L. Nixon of\nBuffalo, to abolish all exemptions of church property from taxation.","title":"Exempting the Churches: An Argument for the Abolition of This Unjust and Unconstitutional Practice","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":28009}