Several churches have filed a lawsuit against the city of Mission, Kansas. They are suing the city because a new fee, the “transportation utility fee” or “driveway tax,” is being equally imposed on the churches as it is on everyone else in the city. The churches are making the argument that the fee is actually a tax and that they are not supposed to pay taxes under the IRS’ 501(c)3 rules.

The irony in all of this is that the churches are suddenly in favor of the separation of church and state! Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Erik Stanley said, “It makes no sense to tax churches and to limit their ability to provide their services, and it does damage to the constitutional separation between church and state.”

This is the same ADL who prominently on their Religious Freedom section of their Web Page declare, “The ACLU’s attacks on religious freedom are more serious and widespread than you may think. In courtrooms and schoolrooms, offices and shops, public buildings and even churches… those who believe in God are increasingly threatened, punished, and silenced.” This is the same ADL that has defended church-state violations in the past all in the name of “Religious Freedom.”

So once again, we see a Christian organization defend the separation of church and state only when it suits them. The great thing about this is that Mr. Stanley acknowledges his selectiveness, “[The separation of church and state] is generally not an argument we would make, but there should be separation here.”

So there are actually two issues here: 1) is the “transportation utility fee” a tax, and 2) is taxing churches a violation of the separation of church and state?

The City of Mission argues that this is a fee and not a tax. Mayor Laura McConwell said, “It was just a fair way to spread the cost among those who are generating the traffic to help pay for the roads that you need to bring people in either for your business or for the churches or to people’s homes.”

The fee is based on figures from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which calculates the number of trips a business, residence, or organization generates on the road. In other words, a church is likely to generate 5.8 vehicle trips per week for every seat in a pew. So the city takes that number and assigns a dollar amount and then extrapolates that out based on the number of members of a church or organization, average number of customers visiting a business, number of residents in a house, etc.

These fees are nothing new actually. Fees have been issued to residents, businesses, and organizations by cities in the past, such as sewage fees, fire protection fees, flooding control fees, etc. Churches in the past have not historically balked at these fees, and Robert Tuttle, a constitutional lawyer specializing in church-state issues at the George Washington University Law School suggests that this has more to do with church member donations being down because of the current economic downturn and that these fees are actually hitting the church wallets harder than they usually would.

Fees are a normal way for a city to supplement tax revenue. Fees are not taxes. If a citizen and business have to pay the fee and also feel the pinch in their wallet, churches should not be exempt.

Let’s pretend for a second that the fee actually is a tax. Is taxing the churches an actual violation of the separation of church and state? No. I would actually argue that not taxing the churches is a violation of the separation of church and state. What exempts them from taxation is not the Constitution, but the IRS’ 501(c)3 rules.

Tax-exempt status to churches and philanthropic organizations were first written into law by Congress from 1913 to 1918. It wasn’t until 1954 with the Revenue Act of 1954 that the current 501(c)3 tax code as we know it today came into existence.

There are two views on the Revenue Act of 1954 and why it was implemented. The Act was primarily pushed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. There are some Christians who believe that Johnson was not a friend of the church and was using the 501(c)3 to politically silence the churches. While I can understand why some Christians would feel this way, I could not find any evidence to substantiate the claim that Johnson pushed this legislation in order to politically silence churches.

In fact, Johnson pushed the Act through by arguing for the second view: that this was favoritism toward churches and gave them an exemption from taxation.

This is why many in the secular community feel that the 501(c)3 exemption should be removed from churches and they should pay their fair share of taxes. I’ll leave that argument for another time.

One thing is for sure, if the city of Cranford, New Jersey (where the headquarters of American Atheists is located) where to initiate such fees, we would do our part to help the city as long as the city made no exemptions for houses of worship: because that would be a violation of the separation of church and state.

By Blair Scott

ON THE NET:
‘Driveway tax’ generates few appeals (KansasCity.Com)
Cash-Strapped Cities Look to Tax Churches (Huffington Post)
Should Tax-Exempt Churches Pay “Fees?” (Religious News Service)

Dear Governor Bentley,

As you may know, there are 300,000 nonreligious people in the great state of Alabama – six times as many as there are Jews. As a result, we are confused by your apology to Jewish leaders, claiming to be everyone’s Governor, while you completely ignored this much larger segment of your constituency.

Intolerance toward atheists runs deep in some areas of our government, so your response to smaller minorities as you ignore the larger bloc is very troublesome. Many atheists doubt the sincerity of your apology.

I write today to offer you an opportunity to right yourself with the nonreligious population of Alabama by issuing a statement to be read at our upcoming Regional Convention on January 30. I will personally read the statement to the attendees, who will include many leaders from organized atheism around the state.
I further offer to meet with you to discuss the issue face-to-face on Monday the 31st, which will give you the opportunity to quell opposition as we learn about each other’s concerns.

We both know politics is serious business, and we also know that people hold grudges, especially when they have ethical concerns about their leadership. As a Republican, I ask you to work with me to avoid any undue criticism against you and our party.
I look forward to your response.

–
Sincerely,

David Silverman
President
American Atheists, Inc

WASHINGTON — A group of California lawmakers is pushing for congressional protection for religious symbols included at U.S. war memorials after the latest court challenge to a San Diego veterans monument that features a 43-foot high cross.

Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Mount Soledad cross — which has been at the center of legal fights for more than two decades — amounts to an unconstitutional display of government favoring a specific religion, and must be changed. Supporters of the memorial have vowed to continue fighting the case to the Supreme Court.
…
But opponents of the cross say its presence replaces the military focus of the memorial with a Christian one. Supporters say a defeat in California could have widespread changes for memorials throughout the country, including Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, where religious symbols are engraved in the headstones of thousands of fallen servicemembers.

Read More

Just for the record, that’s not true. Once again, Christian lawmakers are either LYING or woefully ignorant about the laws of this country.

A huge cross that stands alone is unquestionably Christian endorsement, as is the lawmaker’s fight to make it legal. It is far different than Arlington, where, thanks to the separation of church and state, there are a wealth of symbols which are allowed, including atheism, all equally, all without endorsing one religion over another.

This is another waste of time. Even if this bigoted law passed, it would NOT circumvent the Supreme Court. It would be challenged and shot down as illegal, all at taxpayer’s expense. In Jesus’ name, amen.

An active duty member of the Navy, who is currently at sea aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, reported that the only available meal on a particular day during the holiday season contained a program and menu that specifically included a sectarian prayer as part of the meal.

USS Abraham Lincoln is famous for the "Mission Accomplished" banner. US Navy Photo, licensed under creative commons.

According to our informant, who must remain anonymous in order to safeguard his career, the menu included this prayer: “Praise God, from whom all blessings flow. Eternal God, this joyful day is radiant with the brilliance of your one true light. May that light illuminate our hearts and shine in our words and deeds. May the hope, the peace, the joy, and the love represented by the birth in Bethlehem fill our lives and become part of all that we say and do. May we share in the divine life of your son Jesus Christ, even as he humbled himself to share our humanity. Bless us and the feast that you have provided for us, let us be thankful for the true gift of Christmas, Your Son. Amen.”

You can see the actual menu here (Word document).

This situation has been verified by several sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and according to our source, complaints through leadership and equal opportunity channels resulted in no action.

This is just another example of the military’s failure to ensure religious parity. If you were on the USS Abraham Lincoln during the holidays and didn’t want a Christian prayer with your dinner, on this day, you were out of luck.

By Kathleen Johnson

Governor Bentley (Photo by AP)

Governor Bentley did not waste any time creating controversy in the state of Alabama. The new governor stated during a speech at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church, “Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

Bentley later said he did not intend to insult non-Christians with his comments. Bentley’s Communications Director had to back pedal his comments a bit and said, “He is the governor of all the people, Christians, non-Christians alike.” I hope Bentley’s Communications Director advised him of that.

Bentley may not have intended to insult non-Christians in Alabama, but he did. And Bentley’s view that only Christians are his “brothers and sisters” relegates non-Christians in Alabama to a second class citizen state in his mind. How can we trust Bentley now when he has to choose between two competing bids for a state contract and one is owned by a Christian and the other a Hindu, Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, or atheist?

The irony of Bentley saying this where Martin Luther King, Jr. used to preach, where MLK spearheaded the quest for Civil Rights, does not escape me. If Bentley does not view all citizens of Alabama as equal, and elevates Christians higher than non-Christians, then he has failed Mr. King’s test and ideals. Civil rights are not just about race. Civil rights encompass race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc.

Bentley said he wasn’t trying to insult anybody. That is not good enough for me. I want to know that he will actually treat all of Alabama’s citizens equally and that he is truly sorry for making non-Christians in Alabama feel like second class citizens.

Mr. Bentley, I would ask you to re-read your inauguration speech where you said, “I am the governor of all Alabama: Democrat, Republican and Independent. Young and old, black and white, rich and poor.” You also said, “I have said all along, now I work for you, the citizens of Alabama.” You mentioned several times that you were a “servant of the people.”

Well, Mr. Bentley, I am one of those people you serve, and if you view me as a second-class citizen because I am not your “brother in Christ,” then you do not serve me. Reaffirm your oath and your vision and reassure every Alabamian, regardless of religion, that we are all equal and you will uphold your oath to the Alabama Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom and has one of the best Establishment Clause statements of any state constitution (Article I, Section 3).

I will not hold my breath waiting for your apology or your assurances.

Robert Bentley Sworn In As Alabama’s 53rd Governor
Gov.-elect Robert Bentley intends to be governor over all, but says only Christians are his ‘brothers and sisters’

by Blair Scott

Since posting this blog, the following news items have come up with the American Atheists’ response:
Alabama Governor: Only Christians are my Brothers
Faith leaders consider Gov. Bentley’s brother-sister classifications
Gov. Bentley’s Religious Comments Stir Controversy
New Alabama Gov. Criticized for Christian-Only Message