This article is in response to the suggestion by one commenter to this blog named "Bob" that the state begin the process of taxing churches, including the levying of property taxes on real property owned by churches and religious institutions. To paraphrase one of our nation's most insightful and distinguished diplomats, these assertions provide a "target rich environment". There is no need for, or right of, or duty to, the state to impose taxes on the real property or income of religious institutions, and specifically churches.
In being presented with the argument for the taxation of churches we are told that the taxation of churches will not infringe on the religious liberty of those churches. The taxes are to be regarded like any other cost imposed on the church as part of its endeavor to carry out its ministry. Yet those that make this assertion tend to make clear by the substance of their succeeding points that they do believe churches should either be regulated through taxes or given exemptions to regulations in exchange for the payment of taxes.
Churches and religious-based ministries provide a valuable and important service to society. In meeting the spiritual needs of individuals and families, and in promoting principles of honesty, decency, integrity, character and virtue, churches plays an absolutely essential role in contributing to the order of society. While government can impose penalties on criminals, religion can call men and women to voluntarily exercise virtue for a higher good and purpose. Government can prevent people from being bad, but it cannot make them be good.
This reason alone is sufficient to support the existing standard of no taxation of churches. Do churches make use of local services such as police and fire protection? Yes, though generally speaking the police are not needed to prevent the churchgoers from committing a crime. But the use of these public services is a trade-off that is well worth the public's benefit from the general teachings of religion.
Some, such as "Bob", have narrowed the focus of their request that non-profits pay taxes to mean only that religious non-profits, i.e. churches, be required to pay taxes. This differing level of treatment for churches is merited in their eyes because churches are different than other non-profits. They are allowed to discriminate in who they allow for membership, they are not required to serve all people equally, and they from time to time comment on issues being debated in politics and law. In order to continue to exercise these "privileges" churches should be required to pay taxes.
But what the churches are doing is not exercising privileges, but rights! The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects three important freedoms: the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly. It also contains a prohibition on state support of churches; meaning that the government is not free to support one church or religious group over another church or religious group.
When rights are redefined as privileges, and the exercise of privileges being something that must be paid for in taxes, the debate over the taxation of churches has left the field of fiscal debate and morphed into a discussion of religious liberty, free speech, and the freedom of assembly. If we disagree with a particular church's membership requirements, hiring practices, moral views, or ministry focus, we can disassociation with that church and associate ourselves with a different group of religious adherents.
Requiring a church to pay taxes simply so it can act in accordance with Biblical principles is a direct and serious assault on religious liberty and a fostering of the "excessive entanglement with religion" that some advocates of church-taxation so decry. (As an aside, the phrase "excessive entanglement with religion" is not a Constitutional bar but rather a Supreme Court imposed standard that violates a fundamental concept of American self-government, but I digress.)
With respect to the need to tax churches because of the so-called issues loophole (where pastors and congregations express their views on policies, but not political candidates), it is not required of any other type of organization or association that they pay taxes to exercise their right to speak out about government issues.
Further, the muzzling, censoring, and silencing of churches when they attempt to speak out on the moral issues of the day is to deny them the ability to exercise their religion. It would be the government saying "you can believe whatever you want to believe, but don't you dare apply that belief to modern life or share what you believe with others." Such a totalitarian response to the minor problem of churches using public services without paying taxes should be dismissed without further thought by individuals dedicated to genuine liberty and freedom.
In conclusion, churches provide a very important contribution to society, their role should not be underestimated or slighted, the problem of limiting their access to Constitutionally protected rights by requiring them to pay taxes should not be overlooked, and the difficulty presented by their tax free status, if it can be called a difficulty, is far less of a problem than the problems that would be caused by taxation.
