Question: Should religious institutions involved in politics have a tax-exempt status?
The purpose of politics is to create government — to find an ordered solution for public life that the majority of people within a particular region can agree upon, or at least tolerate. Most of the business of government involves the passage and enforcement of legislation that only concerns day-to-day business — policies like how to issue drivers licenses or how to manage budgets and pay for public programs. But we have another set of laws that are, for all intents and purposes, set in stone.
Our founders, at the very outset of our nation, agreed upon certain defining principles. These defining principles are outlined in our Constitution and its first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. One of those principles was the separation of church and state. That is the popular name for the ideal that comes from a particularly famous part of the First Amendment known as the “Establishment Clause” — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Forged from stories about horrifying experiences at the hands of religious theocracy in Europe, founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson tried to create a boundary between church and state through the Constitution. Their letters and memoirs provide strong evidence for the idea that they wanted it to be a clear distinction.
In an 1802 letter to Baptist ministers in Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
James Madison echoed that sentiment in an 1811 letter to Baptist churches in North Carolina, writing that he “always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.” No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
But that only handles the philosophy behind the separation of church and state. We know the founders clearly sought a wall between the two, but what about the practical application? How should this defining principle be seen in the day-to-day policies of government?
The answer comes from the 1954 tax code, which established the law that non-profit organizations, including religious institutions, should be given tax-exempt status, on one condition: they cannot engage in political activity. I know half of you fell asleep the instant you read the words “tax code.” Hopefully I’ll keep the other twelve of you awake for the rest of this.
Churches and other religious institutions have the right to freedom of speech as much as any individual or corporation; this includes the ability to endorse or contribute money to political candidates. But we cannot encourage this behavior. Government naturally involves arguments about the best course of action.
In any argument, when one side appeals to a higher power or uses a supernatural justification, it tilts the playing field in their favor. Churches that enter politics are just muddying the waters.
As long as churches are allowed to play the political game, they should be held accountable. Tax-exemption is an incentive that can be used to deter them from entering an arena they don’t belong in.
Ryan is preaching to the choir at ryan.m.sweeney@asu.edu
