Emanuel Haldeman-Julius Quotes

Why should an atheist pay more taxes so that a church which he despises should pay no taxes? That's a fair question. How can the apologists for the church exemption answer it?

I do believe, sooner rather than later, churches will face the loss of their tax-exempt status if they do not engage in same-sex ceremonies.

IRS is very poorly equipped to make a distinction between what is a religion and what is not.

The separation of Church and State in everything relating to taxation should be absolute.

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

The churches rose to power on the income from tax-free property. What earthly -or heavenly- right have they got to enjoy a privilege denied to everyone else, even including nonprofit organizations? None! My contention is that with the churches exempted from property taxation, you and I have to pay that much more in taxes to make up for what they're not contributing.

To exempt the church from taxation is to pay part of the priest's salary.

Religious hatreds ought not to be propagated at all, but certainly not on a tax-exempt basis.

Why should an atheist pay more taxes so that a church which he despises should pay no taxes?

If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission like everyone else.

Church tax exemption means that we all drop our money in the collection boxes, whether we go to church or not and whether we are interested in the church or not. It is systematic and complete robbery, from which none of us escapes.

I fully understand it's important to maintain the separation of church and state. We don't want the state to become the church, nor do we want the church to become the state.

One of the things I'm gonna do and I have tremendous support with the evangelicals and with the Christians and with everybody, is we're going to get rid of the Johnson Amendment that is very, very unfair.

What James Madison and the other men of his generation had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment was that there should be no official relationship of any character between government and any church or many churches, and no levying of taxes for the support of any church, or many churches, or all churches, or any institution conducted by any of them.

HALF of America pays NO taxes. Zero. So they're happy for tax rates to be raised on the other half that DOES pay any taxes.

And I strongly support the faith-based initiative that we're proposing, because I don't believe it violates the line between the separation of church and state, and I believe it's going to make America a better place.

As the magistrate has no power to impose by his laws the use of any rites and ceremonies in any church, so neither has he any power to forbid the use of such rites and ceremonies as are already received, approved, and practised by any church; because if he did so, he would destroy the church itself; the end of whose institution is only to worship God with freedom, after its own manner.

Why should the residence of a preacher be untaxed? Useful citizens must pay taxes on their homes. Yet the Preacher - actually and notoriously the least useful member of the community - lives in a tax-free dwelling.

Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

I don't hear anything from Trump about tax increases. I hear tax cuts from him. I hear tax reform from him.

What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.

To hell with the Church when it becomes a State and the hell with the State when it becomes a Church.

Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between church and state.

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States.

I believe in the separation of church and state and would not use my authority to violate this principle in any way.