Religion and Politics—A Taxing Issue

June 10, 2009

Debate about the exact meaning of the Establishment Clause will probably endure as long as this nation endures. However, even many of those who have a narrow interpretation of the EC’s restrictions on government aid to religion would agree that the government can’t directly subsidize religious institutions. Yes, billions do flow to churches and religiously affiliated institutions, but the money flows indirectly (e.g., parents use a voucher to pay for parochial school tuition) or there is some purported secular justification for the government handout (e.g., the money supports a faith-based charity but only insofar as it provides secular services). I find these rationales unpersuasive, but at least they pay lip-service to the notion that state and church should be kept separate.

How about the exemption that religious bodies enjoy from income and property taxes? The traditional rationale provided for this exemption is that other nonprofits that meet certain criteria enjoy this exemption. Churches are nonprofit institutions, so why shouldn’t they enjoy this exemption as well?

To begin, other nonprofits that enjoy this exemption provide services to the community. Organizations such as Red Cross, Oxfam, Amnesty International —and, yes, the Center for Inquiry—support disaster relief, feed the hungry, provide educational services, and so forth. What do churches do? (I’m not referring to charitable activities associated with churches, but the churches themselves.) Get people to pray? To worship? To accept claims based on blind faith? Are these activities the government should support?

But the situation is even worse than government support of activities of dubious value. The fact is that churches, mosques, and temples often abuse their status as nonprofits. Nonprofits are not supposed to engage in partisan political activity, but, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, a pulpit is a bully pulpit. Priests, ministers, imams, and other spiritual leaders not infrequently yield to the temptation to use their perceived status as spokespersons for God to instruct their flock on the “correct” way to vote. And if you think it’s only conservative clergy who abuse their privileges, think again, as   this recent article in the Washington Post indicates.

IRS doesn’t have the time, resources, or will to investigate each incursion into the political realm by clergy, so it’s the exceptional case in which a religious body is even threatened with a loss of a tax exemption. Meanwhile, your tax dollars not only support worship of imagined beings but the use of religion as a vehicle of effective political manipulation. “God is with us” is a powerful slogan, in the contemporary Middle East or the contemporary United States—just as it was in Nazi Germany. (This motto was inscribed on the belt buckle of German soldiers.)

Clergy should have the right to express themselves as they see fit—but not on my dime.

 

Comments:

#1 Happy Atheist on Wednesday June 10, 2009 at 6:44pm

I just wanted to make sure you are aware that theatheistmind.info is copying your RSS feed to their site in full and without proper credit.  Another site had to send them a cease and desist letter to get them to stop.  Feel free to contact me laetusatheos @ gmail.com and I can provide more information on what is going on, I don’t want to spam you with links.

Btw, great article.

#2 Hey Ron (Guest) on Thursday June 11, 2009 at 6:37pm

Nonprofits are not supposed to engage in partisan political activity, but, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, a pulpit is a bully pulpit. Priests, ministers, imams, and other spiritual leaders not infrequently yield to the temptation to use their perceived status as spokespersons for God to instruct their flock on the “correct” way to vote.

Hey dumbfuck!

Here comes the clue train, next stop you. Your organization is a non profit association and you are espousing a political viewpoint.

#3 Ronald A. Lindsay on Friday June 12, 2009 at 4:56am

Isn’t it interesting how often the coarsest language is associated with those who make the most egregious errors in reasoning?
To my honored guest: Please read my post again. I discuss partisan poltical activity, not all activity that in some vague sense might be characterized as political. Churches and nonprofits in general cannot engage in partisan poltical activity, such as endorsing candidates, which, if you had bothered to read the linked article, is what a clergyman did.
Hope you have better luck catching “the clue train” next time. Here’s a hint: adjectives usually serve a purpose.

#4 Nairb on Friday June 12, 2009 at 12:40pm

Good article

When the Catholic church is the largest renting organisation in the city of Paris despite the revolution taking away many of their assets at the time.
When in Ireland the religous Orders have hundreds of millions of euros in Trust
When the church has millions available to pay out in pedophile lawsuits in the US.

Why shouldnt they pay tax on the assets they have?

Its grotesque enough to have an organisation giving us moral lessons about not being materialist and how we should give to the poor when they are not taxed on their assets.

#5 Secular Humanist (Guest) on Friday June 12, 2009 at 3:23pm

<<<Hope you have better luck catching “the clue train” next time. Here’s a hint: adjectives usually serve a purpose.>>>

ROTFLMAO!!!

#6 darshialoo (Guest) on Monday June 15, 2009 at 8:19am

The last place I thought I would read angry statements was on this blog.  Someone is a real low life with the name calling. 

You are clueless, Ron Guest responder.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.