Section 5. All States and Congress shall tax religion.

  • Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
  • And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
  • Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
  • But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
  • Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
  • And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
  • They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
  • When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

    There is no such thing as privileged faith so weigh faith.

    The Dread

    Section 5. All States and Congress shall tax religion. With this section when State law and article 1 of amendments to the constitution are in conflict; State law trumps article 1.

    Article 1 of amendments to the constitution reads:

     

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    “when State law and article 1 of amendments to the constitution are in conflict; State law trumps article 1.”

    This amendment seeks to rectify a problem with the modern interpretation of the constitution, which separates the church from the state and thereby removing religion from all aspects of public service. To understand the effect it is thus best to begin at where this section and amendment 1 run parallel.  Hence where does congress and states begin to establish a religion? In other words conflict between the two laws is fine parallel movement is establishment.

    Certainly the most powerful force of both the congress and the States is the power of coercion and compulsion and thus establishment.  It is some power below this that we must seek to find as it relates to religion.  When one examines religion and its role in the state the main focus is to use the state to expand its ranks to proselytize.  However establishment proselytizing is prohibited by the constitution so a lesser standard would be peer pressure.

    So any law passed by the States that is above peer pressure proselytizing would put both amendments on a parallel track and would be unconstitutional.  What is above peer pressure proselytizing is a matter for the High court to decide but a separation of church and state is the basement standard coercion the roof, times and circumstances will dictate the range of possibilities in-between.

    “Section 5. All States and Congress shall tax religion. With this section…”

    Taxation with representation vs. no taxation no representation.  The current provision of the law is religious organizations be tax exempt and that they have no representation in the government they can neither express political opinions and they may not compete for states funds.  Since Congress cannot establish religion it cannot designate what is religion and which religion should be taxed.  The decision is entirely up to the Supreme Court.  However once faith has been defined and taxed then they have earned the right to participate in the entire spectrum (national, state and local) of the political process, especially the financial spectrum of government. Religion must be able to comment on and bid for state and national spending (Qt) with only state regulations to regulate the dispursement of these funds and the national court being the final arbiter of what actions exceed peer pressure proselytizing. Finally this section would leave the regulation of business and religion almost entirely within the relm of State government.

    Hence...

    If one assumes that it is human nature to demand more than one produces (both from an individual and Government standpoint) and the core of all major religions is to delay current consumption in return for a future benefit; then religion must play a vital role in the ability of States to control costs and payouts. However this cannot be at the expense of the consumer goods and services being allowed to freely and fairly participate in market place. Simply put if one sues the State over a religious contract it has to be adjudicated in a State courts up to and including looser pay before one can proceed to Federal Court.

  • Back to ARTICLE 28