For over two hundred years since America’s founding, churches of every kind have received tax exemption. While this isn’t entirely true since almost all churches file their finances to secure the givings of donors, churches remain one of the few institutions eligible to not pay anything in taxes. However, a burgeoning movement has been rising out of the limelight to advocate for slapping taxes on churches. Proponents of this radical idea claim ‘separation of church and state’ must be upheld, and that tax exemptions are actually a form of subsidy that forces Americans opposed to doctrines pushed by various churches to support them. Other fringe arguments have been made, such as the eccentric idea that tax exemptions for churches will lead America to theocracy, but are too loony even for backers of taxation on churches. Not surprisingly, dismantling these policy proposals is not difficult at all. For starters, America hasn’t held churches against taxation since the day this country was founded, and we still haven’t veered into a theocracy. Additionally, the contention that the government not taxing religious institutions binds church and state together is ludicrous. The First Amendment outlines that the government can’t be involved with religious institutions in a way that violates their ability to operate. Churches aren’t for-profit businesses, and taxing them would turn them into such. Imagine for a second that churches had to pay taxes, and we elect a Protestant that taxes Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish church’s, mosque’s, and synagogue’s more while cutting Protestant church taxes. No one on the Pro-Church-Taxing side advocates for this selective bias in taxation, but once voters grant precedent for the government to tax churches, the slippery slope will take us to the way the government subsidizes government contracts, where it’ll be no different than the military deciding whether to give Boeing or Lockheed Martin the contract for a new fighter jet. In effect, taxing churches doesn’t actually separate church and state, it actually fuses the two together in a problematic way. Claiming all you want is ‘separation of church and state’ on this matter is a deceptive means of garnering sympathy for your contradictory Pro-Church-Taxation cause. In addition, claiming that tax exemption is a form of subsidy is full blown nonsense. If the government gave the Catholic Church a tax break but not the Protestants, that’s a form of subsidy. If the government gave all religions an equal tax break, there is no selective advantage granted to either. The only ‘subsidy’ in this case would be protection of their negative rights. Maybe atheist Americans don’t want churches being granted this privilege, but the fact of the matter is, the churches have the First Amendment right to express themselves free from government constraints. After my mentioning of selective funding to each church possibility, you might find yourself saying, “Wait a minute: didn’t the Catholic Church get $1.4 billion in taxpayer funds? Isn’t that wrong for the government to do?” Yes and no. I personally don’t believe in government bailouts, which is why I don’t support giving the Catholic Church taxpayer money. However, the loan wasn’t for the pope to buy a gold throne or a private jet for each cardinal, but was used for all the infrastructure employed by the Church. The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental healthcare provider in the world: they run around 18,000 clinics, 16,000 elder and special need homes, and 5,500 hospitals worldwide, with ~65% of those located in developing nations who need the charity the most. In America alone, the number of church run hospitals has increased 22% since 2001, with 14.5% of all hospitals here being run by the Church. For 10 American states, the Church holds more than 30% of all hospitals. Catholic hospitals treat all patients of every race, religion, you name it, and they received this aid so they can in turn employ this money efficiently to those who need it most. Receiving care at a Catholic Church isn’t like going to Mass, it’s the same care as any other hospital, with the noticeable exception of abortion procedures available. Seeing as how this money is being used to support charity and not fund forced conversions, atheist Americans can rest assured their tax dollars, under the watchful eye of the IRS, aren’t being used to further a doctrine(s) they disagree with. While I don’t agree with government handouts, this subsidy to the Church (and other religious institutions as well) appeared to be a strong case against taxing Churches and the violation of their rights.
By: Zlatan Milanovic
Sources:
