Do all Churches try to use government to enforce their beliefs? I don't know nor is this the issue. I left the evangelical sect I was a member of in the 1960s when it became crystal clear that they had become right wing political organizations. Since then I have heard the many arguments supporting their tax exempt status and can only laugh. Maybe Justice Douglas says this b etter than I can:
Justice Douglas strongly dissented, saying: "one of the best ways to 'establish' one or more religions is to subsidize them, which a tax exemption does." Douglas rejected the idea that it would be "disruptive of traditional state practices" to end the arrangement. "A tax exemption is a subsidy" he wrote. Douglas noted that James Madison, primary architect of the Constitution, famously objected in his Memorial and Remonstrance to any citizen being compelled to contribute even "three pence" to support a church.
Citing Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, Douglas quoted: " 'We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250, 449. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon.' Ibid. State aid to places of worship, whether in the form of direct grants or tax exemption, takes us back to the Assessment Bill and the Remonstrance. The church qua church would not be entitled to that support from believers and from nonbelievers alike."
Douglas suggested that it would be "constitutionally proper" to grant tax exemption to church agencies that perform functions of the state, such as care of orphaned children and the destitute. " Under the First Amendment a State may not, however, provide worship if private groups fail to do so," he added.
"The religiously used real estate of the churches today constitutes a vast domain," Douglas warned " Their assets total over $141 billion and their annual income at least $22 billion. Id., at 232. And the extent to which they are feeding from the public trough in a variety of forms is alarming. Id., c. 10."
At the time Supreme Court ruled against tax exemption of churches, constitutional scholar Leo Pfeffer opined that had the court ruled the other way, Congress, at the behest of church lobbies, would doubtless have responded by amending the constitution to guarantee such exemption. Nevertheless, there are many unanswered legal questions.
These are old arguments and times have changed drastically since they were made. Read on below for a fresh look.
More recently the use of tax exempt organizations to mount political mov ements has only accelerated. Here is a more recent legal battle:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation took home an important victory on Monday, when a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that the group could proceed with its lawsuit over the Internal Revenue Service's alleged failure to enforce a ban on partisan politicking by tax-exempt religious groups.
The IRS had earlier filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the national foundation for atheists and agnostics had filed after the November elections last year. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman denied the motion on Monday, writing that the FFRF "has standing to seek an order requiring the IRS to treat religious organizations no more favorably than it treats the Foundation."
Tax-exempt religious organizations, as well as other educational and charitable groups registered under 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code, are prohibited from partisan electioneering. The FFRF suit contends that the IRS is failing to enforce that restriction particularly when it comes to churches, which the group argues constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The suit also claims that the alleged IRS inaction undermines equal protection rights by giving preferential treatment to tax-exempt religious organizations over other 501(c)(3) groups, including the FFRF.
The violations of these principles is so obvious that it hardly needs more evidence than the daily actions of the spokespersons for religion in congress. All sorts of hate and censorship abound.
Here is another set of views: Preaching Politics From the Pulpit
The current rules have been in place since 1954, when Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code to impose limits on the political activities of religious groups and certain other tax-exempt nonprofit organizations. In recent years, some have voiced strong opposition to these limits, especially as they are applied to religious groups, arguing that they amount to an unfair abridgement of free speech. Indeed, since 2008, the conservative Christian advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) has organized Pulpit Freedom Sunday, a date on which the group encourages pastors to speak out on election-related issues.1 Others, including some religious leaders, have vigorously defended the Internal Revenue Code rules, asserting that they correctly prevent churches from getting too deeply involved in partisan politics.
The use of the pulpit is but one way the Churches can exert influence. Church members acting on what they believe to be the teachings of their Church can make a political force as well and this should not be seen as separate from the Church.
I had my own experience with respect to a group of Tea Party activists basing their opposition to the ACA on so called religious principles. While the bill was being debated I held a teach-in in front of our local Food Lion out on the public pavement. I was surrounded by these people who made it hard for me (I am not able to stand or walk very very well so was in a chair) to get to interested people. Instead they passed out their literature which we looked up on the web and found to be copied from Jerry Fallwell's group's webpage. The information was said to be taken from the bill ittself but none of it was. It was formatted to look like the bill but the stuff was all lies already debunked by reputable fact checkers.
I'm sure we could compile thousands of other examples. The point is that we are being turned into a oligarchy with a pseudo-religious front. The people who claim that thiese are only a fraction of the religious community are missing the point. The voice we hear is theirs and all this stuff gets done in the name of religion. The shelter provided to religion is a bias being used to destroy our democracy.
Yes the corporations need to be taxed as do the wealthy. Yet the foot soldiers that protect them are so often doing it in some sham religious manner. It is time for all of this to stop.