I have carefully reviewed the Revised Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools published in the 13 February 1979 Federal Register and partially corrected in the 26 February 1979 Federal Register. Although RBCS meets your ethnic minority quotas and therefore would fit the criteria for neither a "discriminatory" nor "reviewable school," I add my voice to those of hundreds of thousands of Americans concerned about the extent to which big government has extended its social engineering into the family life of our citizens. Your revision of the Procedures failed to remove their repugnance to our Constitutional liberties. The issue is not racial discrimination; RBCS finds racial discrimination contrary to Biblical principles. The issue is whether our freedom to raise and educate our children according to Biblical principles will be trampled upon by bureaucracies such as yours. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent government entanglement in religious affairs. Yet we find that government has violated the Amendment's Establishment Clause by establishing in the government school system the religious presuppositions and practicing faith of Secular Humanism. The unconstitutional establishment of this anti-Christian faith and practice in the tax-financed government schools has driven many Christian parents to pay tuition, in addition to required school taxes, to enable their children to be educated in accordance with Biblical principles rather than those of Secular Humanism. To so educate our children is a God-given responsibility protected by the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Yet we see increasing governmental efforts to deny such liberty. John Dewey and his Humanistic followers have made it clear that they will not be satisfied until all American education is monopolized by those seeking to establish a secular society on a planetary scale. Mr. Kurtz, your organization should not be used as an instrument to eliminate the most precious of our freedoms. The First Amendment bars the Federal Government from using the tax power or any other power to either establish a state religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. Your proposal violates the Constitutional barrier. Tax exemption is not Federal aid. It is not a benefit to be denied to religious groups not conforming to the Humanistic faith. It is part of the mechanism necessary to guarantee that the tax power cannot be used to inhibit the free exercise of religious liberty. Mr. Kurtz, I respectfully request that you withdraw the Proposed Procedures and heed the cry of American citizens--"leave our liberty alone!" Respectfully, RLG:nb Robert L. Grete Attachment 5 Rocky Bayou Christian School 2101 NORTH PARTIN DRIVE NICEVILLE, FL 32670 TELEPHONE® 678-7712 5 December 1983 Senator Robert Dole Chairman, Finance Committee Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Dole: I am so thankful that you have agreed to hold hearings on S 2099, which regards what I believe is one of the most serious threats to religious liberty in American history. The change in the Social Security Act, for the first time in American history, authorizes the federal government to directly tax religious ministries to include the church of Jesus Christ. I have written to four attorneys specializing in First Amendment law. They all agree that the best way to avoid application of this unconstitutional tax upon religious ministries is for Congress to repeal it before it takes effect. Since Congress needs time to consider it, it is necessary to pass the Jepsen Amendment 32099) or a slightly improved version as quickly as possible after it reconvenes. During the delay before implementation Congress needs to thoroughly examine the religious issue in taxation and repeal the tax on religious ministries. If this is not done I fear many of us will be in expensive litigation. There is one deficiency that I see in the current language of the Jepsen Amendment. The final section says, "For purposes of this section a charitable or educational organization which is affiliated with a religious organization shall be considered to be a religious organization." I believe such language is included to insure that parochial schools are covered by the implementation delay. While such a purpose is clearly right, it ignores the fact that many Christian schools (approximately 30%) having the same religious ministry as schools organized under a local church or denomination are independently organized. Such schools are called Category III Schools. The danger of faulty legislative language is illustrated in the court cases involving application of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) to religious schools. When Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall unilaterally decided to include religious schools under the FUTA system, court cases sprang up all over America. In the St. Martin's case, the Supreme Court determined that the language of FUTA exempted schools operated by a church or convention or association of churches. The court went on to distinguish between church schools integrated into a church's structure and those separately incorporated. In footnote #12 it states, "The importance of this distinction...is heightened by the great diversity in church structure and organization among religious groups in this country. ...This diversity makes it impossible, as Congress perceived, to lay down a single rule to govern all church related organizations. Our holding today concerns only schools that have no legal identity separate from a church. To establish exemption from FUTA, a separately incorporated church school (or other organization) must satisfy the requirements of Section 3309(b)(1)(B)...we leave the issue of coverage under 3309 (b)(1) (B) for the future." A serious consequence results from distinguishing between religious schools organized as part of a church and those that are not, even though they have the same religious mission. Following the St. Martin decision, the government continued to attempt to apply FUTA to separately incorporated or independent (Category III) religious schools. This meant that litigation on behalf of Category III Schools had to continue. In the Grace Brethren case, which went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case on the grounds that the case should have proceeded to the Supreme Court through the state court system rather than the federal court system. Since the Salem Academy case had already been proceeding in Oregon through the state courts, the Grace Brethren case has been dropped and efforts have been concentrated in the Salem Academy case. For Rocky Bayou Christian School, an independent Christian school in Florida, state officials have gotten to the point where they wish to serve a tax lien on our property. This action is presently on a hold pending resolution of the Salem Academy case. All of this litigation and hassle would be unnecessary if the language of the law simply recognized that religious ministries, because of 1st Amendment protection, are immune from federal taxation. Since taxation is a means of control and destruction, I would ask that we not make the same error in any language concerning the Social Security Act. Focusing on this point alone, I would recommend that the last paragraph of the Jepsen Amendment be changed to read, "For the purposes of this section, educational ministries organized for religious purposes are religious organizations." Since this is quite a technical point, very few are sensitive to this issue. I know that Attorney William Ball does understand it and if further clarification of the problems introduced into law by language which is not sensitive to this issue is necessary, I recommend discussing it further with him. I attach a 13 September letter from Attorney William Ball to Dr. Paul Kienel giving some of his views. I also attach a brief analysis made by the Christian Education and Research Foundation. Finally, I attach my own analysis of the biblical and constitutional reasons that religious ministries should not be asked to pay such a tax. By way of a summary, let me ask a few key questions. In Matthew 28:18 Jesus says to His disciples, "All authority has been given unto me both in heaven and on earth." Our founding fathers understood that man's law must recognize the higher law of God and conform to it. Has Congress lost this concept? If only a greater can tax a lesser, how can we allow civil government to tax the church of our Savior? In the first century, Christians went to the lions before they would simply make the false confession that Caesar was lord over Christ. If Jesus is Lord, how dare today's Christians confess the lordship of the federal government? If the power to tax is the power to control and destroy, how dare American freedom lovers sit back and do nothing when such taxes are applied to Christ's ministries? If the U.S. Constitution commands that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, how dare Congress pass a law to directly tax religious establishments, and how dare Christians submit to such a violation of biblical and constitutional principles? I note that even the great Persian emperor Cyrus carefully excluded religious teachers from taxation (Ezra 7:24). In the American heritage, until now, governmental hunger for added funds has not run roughshod over religious liberty. I urge the Congress to reconsider, and I thank you, Sir, for allowing us an opportunity to discuss the religious liberty aspect of the Social Security Act. Starting January 1, 1984, all churches and schools which are exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code will be required to pay FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) taxes for each employee who is paid $100. or more in a calendar year. This change was made by the Congress virtually without opposition. Some churches took a position supporting the amendment on the ground of its benefit to their employees. It was also argued that the new tax is necessary to keep the Social Security program in existence. Further, churches and schools in many states already pay sales and excise taxes. The principle involved is plainly a tax on religion. Churches and religious schools are not afforded an option to pay, or not to pay, for an insurance program for their employees. The relatively small size of the tax is irrelevant (though to some the burden may be substantial). If religion may be taxed a little, why not greatly? The tax imposes obligations upon religious bodies in respect to the use and management of their own resources and with respect to the personnel of their ministries. What should be done with respect to this change? it is our opinion opinion that a test that a test litigation would fail. Without spelling out detailed reasons, it is clear to us that the Supreme Court would not strike down the amended law. The bly remedy we see is through the Congress. Corrective legislation should be prepared and introduced at a very early date. bbace |