Free ACT Test Exam Braindumps
American College Testing: English, Math, Reading, Science, Writing Questions 471–475 (page: 96)

Should Churches Be Taxed? Pros and Cons

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

'PRO' PASSAGE

(1) Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

(2) Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

(3) Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good. Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc. These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.

(4) Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God. Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all."

(5) A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church supports the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees `on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion."

(6) Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven't had to face in the past... We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings." Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.

'CON' PASSAGE

(7) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith... I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional."

(8) A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution.

(9) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return.

(10) A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused."

(11) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income."

(12) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars." The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes."

This question pertains to the "CON" portion of the passage. Choose the answer that best completes the following question.

According to the author, why do churches with tax-exempt status receive "special treatment"?

Should Churches Be Taxed? Pros and Cons

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

'PRO' PASSAGE

(1) Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

(2) Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

(3) Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good. Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc. These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.

(4) Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God. Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all."

(5) A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church supports the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees `on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion."

(6) Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven't had to face in the past... We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings." Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.

'CON' PASSAGE

(7) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided
May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith... I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional."

(8) A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution.

(9) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return.

(10) A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused."

(11) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income."

(12) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars." The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes."

This question pertains to the "CON" portion of the passage. Choose the answer that best completes the following question.

What does the author mean when talking about "startup religions"?

Should Churches Be Taxed? Pros and Cons

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

'PRO' PASSAGE

(1) Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

(2) Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

(3) Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good. Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc. These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.

(4) Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God. Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all."

(5) A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church supports the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees `on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion."

(6) Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven't had to face in the past... We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings." Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.

'CON' PASSAGE

(7) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith... I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional."

(8) A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution.

(9) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return.

(10) A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused."

(11) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income."

(12) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars." The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes."

This question pertains to the "CON" portion of the passage. Choose the answer that best completes the following question.

How does the author seek to characterize the Church of Scientology?

Should Churches Be Taxed? Pros and Cons

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

'PRO' PASSAGE

(1) Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

(2) Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

(3) Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good. Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc. These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.

(4) Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God. Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all."

(5) A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church supports the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees `on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion."

(6) Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven't had to face in the past... We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings." Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.

'CON' PASSAGE

(7) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith... I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional."

(8) A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution.

(9) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return.

(10) A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused."

(11) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income."

(12) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars." The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes."


This question pertains to the "CON" portion of the passage. Choose the answer that best completes the following question.

The authors of the "CON" passage would most likely see atheists as:

Should Churches Be Taxed? Pros and Cons

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

'PRO' PASSAGE

(1) Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

(2) Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

(3) Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good. Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc. These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.

(4) Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God. Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all."

(5) A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church supports the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees `on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion."

(6) Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven't had to face in the past... We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings." Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.

'CON' PASSAGE

(7) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith... I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional."

(8) A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution.

(9) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return.

(10) A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused."

(11) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income."

(12) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars." The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes."

This question asks about both passages.

The accounts of the "PRO" and "CON" passages are similar in that they: