The other day, I was re-evaluating my views on the separation of church and state and a crazy idea occurred to me—a revelation, if you will. Were we to deny the tax exemptions that religions currently enjoy, we should also lift their political prohibitions.
The reason we are currently able to preclude religions from substantial political lobbying and partisan electioneering is because they are tax-exempt. Absent that tax-exemption, how can we justify denying them the First Amendment rights we afford to other special interests and (especially now, after Citizens United case) corporations? Taxation requires representation—that’s a quintessential American belief.
Don’t get me wrong. I think increased religious involvement in politics would, for the most part, be bad. But that I disagree with religions’ agendas hardly warrants their disenfranchisement (again, assuming we tax them).
This is an uncomfortable position for a secularist, and I’m not yet fully convinced of it. What do you think of the argument I briefly sketched out?
Do keep in mind that, whether you like it or not, taxing churches effectively puts a massive curtail on the First Amendment. That’s the reason churches are not taxed: taxes are a tool for enforcing public policy. If the government can tax churches, the government can tell churches what to do, i.e., regulate them through fiscal stick-and-carrot.
That only works if we allow a system of taxes that allow that. A “flat tax” type system eliminates that problem
Warning — off topic comment! Wup, wup, wup.
I am always amazed that a flat tax rate has become such a heavenly concept.
A flat tax system inevitably burdens the poor and middle class because other taxes (sales, property) are a significantly larger percentage of the poor and middle class income. They must spend more of their income just to live day-to-day. The rich can save and invest and avoid these other taxes. The progressive income tax is necessary to help provide a more balance tax burden on the wealthy class.
The your wealthy Republican leadership really has duped the Republican middle class into thinking a flat tax is a benefit to them. Nearly all studies of the flat rate income tax indicate that the middle class would increase their real tax rates from around 10% (percentage of AGI) to 17% to support the tax breaks to the wealthy under the flax tax. The overall tax load to the wealthy would be significantly reduced while the middle class tax burden would be significantly increased.
Agree with Kullervo.
Taxing churches is a violation of the first amendment.
Churches have a right, just like any other organization, to speak out on their views of politics. Its a funny issue with the LDS Church because it spends far less time and energy on political issues than almost any other religion.
That’s why cries from the left about Prop 8 are so funny. They don’t seem to complain about the Catholic Church’s stances on Iraq or the Death Penalty. It is only when abortion comes up that they get uncomfortable.
When southern African-American dominated churches bus their constituents to vote and tell them they’ll go to hell if they vote for George Bush, the left is thrilled. When the LDS Church teaches that homosexuality is immoral, they get angry.
The inconsistencies are funny and sad at the same time.
Pshah! I’m a leftist and I neither spend energy crying about Prop 8, nor am I thrilled by this alleged action by a southern black church.
In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find a single leftist who is “thrilled” by such coercive behavior.
Your hyperbolic generalizations reveal you, specifically, to be an ignorant anti-leftist. (Which is not necessarily to say all conservatives are as stupid as you.)
Wait! Tyler Page! I expect better from you, dude, which is to say you are not stupid but parts of this post are.
I fail to see how taxation necessarily equates to a curtailment of free speech. Individual citizens are taxed but can nonetheless exercise their First Amendment rights.
Churches are businesses. Getting them to contribute their fair share of the tax burden does not constitute disenfranchisement, nor is it an abrogation of their freedom of speech, any more than it would for any other business.
Oh, and that ‘precluding them from political lobbying’ thing? It’s not working.
I said “substantial political lobbying.” Churches can currently and legally take political stances on issues and can even campaign for them.
Non-profits, like churches, are not allowed to take a side on political candidates, pay no corporate tax, and it is tax-deductible to donate to them. Unlike churches, non-profits have to pay property taxes and this is the unfairness that the “Tax the Churches!” battle-cry attempts to go after. Churches also don’t have the same level of transparency.
In the status quo, churches are allowed to give up their tax protection, incorporate, and in doing so endorse political candidates. They seem to think they can get all their influence they need without doing so.
Oh Zach… assuming your last name is Meyer…
My post wasn’t stupid. Didn’t mean to indict all leftists, but I think this anti-religion-in-politics train of thought coming from the left is really an outgrowth of two things:
1. Frustration with the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on abortion. (this is particularly hard due to the way Kerry was treated in 2004)
2. Anger with the LDS Church on gay rights.
My point was simply that the leftists who want this now seem to enjoy the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on the death penalty and war. Moreover, they seem to enjoy those churches involving themselves.
My point is simply that leftists object to religion (and its involvement in the public square) because they find some of our beliefs are inconvenient for their political goals. This is not a principled objection by any measure… at least not to the Nation, Arianna Huffington, Soros, etc.
Jon,
Taxation necessarily implies government control. There are very limited ways in which the government can tax journalistic organizations for the same First Amendment reasons.
I’m with you that many church’s behave like businesses or political bodies. However, the biggest examples are from the left… like the one Obama attended in Chicago.
Rather than try to split theological hairs, we exempt religion from government influence… and we should. The right to believe and worship free of government intervention is critical to our freedom. Without it, the rest of our freedoms would mean nothing.
Tyler, I don’t feel you addressed my question. Taxation may imply control, but that control is still constrained by the Constitution (some control is appropriate as the First Amendment isn’t absolute). If we can tax individuals without curtailing their religious freedoms, why then can’t we tax churches?
I would say that the separation of church and state is a two-way street.
The moment you allow the government to tax an entity, the government may also give exceptions. This amounts to coercion. We see it throughout our tax code. I pay about 15% in taxes, but that could come down if I buy a house (courtesy of construction entities that purchased a tax incentive). The same is true of buying a Chevy Volt (which inexplicably manages to get worse gas mileage than my Corolla) and thousands of other stupid things.
It is a can of worms that isn’t worth opening when it comes to our most important freedoms: the freedom of thought, belief, and worship.
I think religion and government have created a detente where they operate separate. Religions can certainly infuse values and take stances on issues (just like any association, union, etc.), but they would operate as a completely separate entity. Government can’t create a state religion, tax religions, etc. They are completely separate.