anthrosciguy

Of course we're seeing in the USA that this isn't being adhered to by many churches, which have become increasingly political. Naturally, they want even more power to engage in politics... while still keeping their tax exemptions.

Agemegos

Because the mediaeval Catholic Church was powerful enough to bully the secular authorities into accepting that Church property belonged to God, and that the authorities had no right to tax God. And religious groups in general have since been powerful enough (at the polls or elsewhere) to protect the tradition.

Every few centuries the Church's land-holdings would reach the point where their tax-exemption and inalienablity threatened the existence of the State. Then the king or the aristocracy would seize most of the church land either outright or in guise of leasing or protecting it. The original 'fiefs', which we now think of as synonymous with mediaeval landholding, were originally 'perpetual leases' of Church land given by kings to their military and political supporters.

apocalypsecow

I think the CSS argument is a good one. On the one hand, it does keep the government from levying unfair taxes on religious groups (taxation in and of itself on religious groups is probably unfair enough,) but it also, in theory, keeps the church from expecting that they've got a say in government matters.

Toto

The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 US 664 (1970). They held, 8-1, that tax exemptions for land owned by religious groups was compatible with the First Amendment. The dissent by Justice Douglas is very interesting and persuasive to freethinkers, but the decision seems quite accepted and solid.

Any political attempt to remove the tax exemption for religious groups runs into a firestorm of opposition, because it would also remove the exemption for other non-profits.

The particular tax provision for religion that is actually the greatest subsidy and the one that should be attacked, is the special provision that ministers get for a tax exempt "housing allowance."

Merlyn_LeRoy

Keep in mind that the courts have also ruled that only exempting religion from a generally-applicable tax is unconstitutional, as in Texas Monthly v. Bullock (1989), where they struck down a Texas law exempting religious magazines from sales & use taxes.

SLD

I don't think that there's any problem with giving any particular organization tax exempt status - as long as it is not done on the basis of religion. Thus if we are going to give churches tax exempt status, then fine as long as institutions like the Atlanta Freethought Society and Universalists are also tax exempt.

Furthermore we need to distinguish between tax exempt and 501(c)(3) status. Any business can be tax exempt and not pay taxes - don't make a profit and you won't pay taxes. Churches are (for the most part) non-profit. Ministers' salaries are subject to taxation. The advantage to being 501(c)(3) though is that contributions are deductible as charitable contributions for tax purposes. To some extent that is giving tax dollars to religious institutions. But I don't see a strong CSS issue here. Lots of secular organizations are 501(c)(3) as well. I suppose that represents the collective wisdom of our politicians that these organizations are for the social good even if not supported directly from the treasury. OK. I don't agree with respect to churches - but then again, none of my money goes to them. So as long as all such institutions are treated equally, churches, Universists, Freethought Societies - then I just don't have a problem.

SLD