The law also recognizes the role of religion alongside that of education and other activities. The core purpose of churches and other faith communities is worship, ritual and spiritual teaching. Religious activity is concerned, among other things, with the transmission of the virtue of charity, which is another word for love. Governments and society, by giving tax breaks to churches, are acknowledging this vital role of religious communities.
Not everyone recognizes the importance of worship, ritual and religious teaching. By the same token, not everyone requires a nursing home or language training, uses libraries or appreciates classical music. Charitable organizations in general have low administrative costs and are required by law to channel their income towards charitable activities and purposes. They are also closely audited. Most importantly, perhaps, religious traditions provide a moral foundation for the kinds of charitable services society depends on and which government is ultimately responsible for funding.
Exempting churches from taxes is a way of recognizing this role too. My dialogue partner has tried to change the topic question in an effort to equate churches and religious groups, first and foremost, with charitable organizations.
This main mission is to proselytize. Charity is secondary—and in some cases the charity work even provides an outlet for the main mission of proselytizing. My argument, then, is against the assumption that they be given tax breaks and charitable status automatically, and I further contend that advancement of religion cannot be the only benchmark.
In order to qualify as a charity in our country, you must show that your organization follows laws and public policies, including those against discrimination. While my dialogue partner points out that religion is concerned with teaching the virtue of charity, some beliefs within some religious teachings can directly conflict with public policies.
For example, while public policy does not allow for discrimination, some religions actively discriminate even within their own hiring and hierarchical systems. An Embarrassment for Biden Failure to pass the spending bills is still very much an option. Michael Brendan Dougherty. Zachary Evans. Left-Wing Commentators Rush to Condemn Rittenhouse Judge as Prosecution Flounders Some liberal commentators explicitly tarred Schroeder as a racist while others settled for euphemism and innuendo.
Isaac Schorr. Daniel Sokol. Dominic Pino. Evangelical dissenters from the established churches like Isaac Backus and John Leland joined with freethinkers like Thomas Jefferson to end religious establishments by separating church from state. When evangelicals were on the religious periphery looking in, they were opposed to special government favors for religious groups.
However, as membership in evangelical denominations swelled during the Second Great Awakening, evangelicals went from outsiders to insiders. At the same time, government taxing authority grew—with new forms of income, property, and corporate taxes—and churches were given favorable treatment.
The result was a new form of religious establishment, albeit a more generalized version, with tax exemptions. There were periodic attempts to limit the church tax exemption, like when President Ulysses S. Many Christians today simply assume that the tax exemption is a natural prerogative, the potential loss of which should be either lamented or fought against with whatever political influence remains.
They have become so used to tax-exempt status for churches that they struggle to imagine a world in which that status does not exist yet churches still do. United States The proximate issue in that case was not opposition to same-sex marriage, rather opposition to desegregation at religious institutions, especially fundamentalist high schools and colleges.
Bob Jones University claimed its ban on interracial dating was rooted in religious belief and, as such, ought to be protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Internal Revenue Service IRS rules from the s said organizations that discriminated on the basis of race were not entitled to tax exemptions. Conservative political activist Paul Weyrich used the threat of losing tax-exempt status for segregated Christian schools—reframed, of course, as a matter of religious liberty—as the wedge issue to organize a conservative grassroots movement.
They perceived themselves to be victims of secular elites who disdained the faithful. We were in the mainstream.
You no longer live in a nation that is religiously free. None of the conservatives involved at the time showed any concern about whether the blessings of God might instead be withheld from their religious institutions because they had fought so hard to defend the vestiges of a dying white supremacist order.
Hyperbolic claims about the end of religious liberty have often been followed by deafening silence. Public opinion has shifted to the point where many Christians have forgotten that appeals to religious liberty were once a crucial buttress for Jim Crow segregation. But the rhetoric that conservative Christians used in the early s is very similar to the rhetoric used today, albeit directed at same-sex marriage rather than interracial dating.
And it is not only secular views that are changing: Many young evangelicals say they are fine with same-sex civil marriage. This dramatic shift is visible in recent court decisions. During oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges , in which the Supreme Court invalidated state bans on same-sex marriage, Justice Samuel Alito asked whether the case at hand, combined with the precedent from BJU v.
US , would empower the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of religious schools opposed to same-sex marriage. The tax-exempt status of churches opposed to same-sex marriage has not been challenged in court, but it may only be a matter of time. Ross Douthat, a conservative Catholic columnist at The New York Times , alluded to this in a prescient essay written a year before Obergefell.
Conservative Protestants and Catholics had lost the battle over same-sex marriage. All that remained was for the spoils from the culture war, among them tax exemption for churches, to be divvied among the victors, who would decide whether to be magnanimous or punitive to the defeated. This is in sharp contrast to the hawkish defiance of other conservative Christians, such as Graham. Despite the difference in mood between the likes of Douthat and Graham, there is something that unites both doves and hawks.
It is the assumption that the religious tax exemption has been good for churches and Christians—a failure to account for the costs of this government-granted privilege.
The most straightforward downside of tax-exempt status is that it prohibits clergy from expressly endorsing or opposing any politician and from advocating for particular pieces of legislation. The prohibition on endorsements—known as the Johnson Amendment after its sponsor, Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson—was passed in Just in Greater Cincinnati, a small portion of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Catholic Charities of Southwestern Ohio on average serves the needs of more than 43, people yearly.
It provides mental health services and supports Su Casa Hispanic Center, the Second Harvest Food Bank, refugee resettlement services, family services, senior services and much more. Its annual report is also available online.
Home Letters Editorials Columnists. Facebook Twitter Email.
0コメント