--one is the one that you refer to: Churches historically did the works of charity that benefited communities, and in the absence of the Churches to do them, tax dollars would have to be expended either to do those works, or to deal with the consequences of NOT providing hospitals for the destitute ill, orphanages, halfway houses for released prisoners, "magdalens" for unmarried single mothers, etc. Therefore the tax exemption was a way of subsidizing those services without any actual expenditure of public dollars.
The second justification is more interesting, and harks back to English law and the early struggles of the evangelical Protestant denominations to enforce the separation of church and state. As the Colonies were under English rule, the Established Church (C of E) was invested with secular as well as religious power. Rather than paying taxes, taxes were allocated by the Crown to support the church, and the church could use government resources to collect its "tithes." If you didn't pay those tithes, you were unlikely to be considered for any public appointment, you were barred from holding many offices, and it was legal to discriminate against you in a whole variety of ways.
In the wake of independence, the Episcopal Church of America took over from the C of E, and was no longer allowed to use government resources to collect tithes. Nevertheless, the power structure in almost all of the Colonies was heavily based on being in good standing with the major church in your state. In spite of the separation clause, in the early days of the Republic quite a lot of institutionalized discrimination was carried out in favor of those major denominations.
It was during the early 19th Century that growing movements of small Protestant evangelical sects took on the issue of enforcing separation of church and state, as a way of leveling the playing field. Baptists, Congregationalists, and other groups were not "mainline Protestants" then-- they were outsiders, discriminated against by the Episcopal power structure. In fact, their establishments were subject to taxes and fees that Episcopalian properties and establishments were not subject to.
So in addition to crusading for the abolition of institutionalized discriminatory provisions for government appointments, hiring, contracting, etc., the evangelical Protestants demanded equity in treatment with the Episcopalians: the same freedom from certain types of taxation and fees.
I think we are more than ripe for some kind of compromise where the money raised by Churches to support hospitals and other charitable works is accorded the same deductability and tax exemption as other charities' revenue, money raised to support strictly religious functions is not taxed as income to the churches but is not subject to deductibility for the donor, and purely religious establishments (as opposed to homeless shelters and other facilities operated by churches) are subject to the same property taxes and fees as any other property owners. Multi-use structures (worship hall upstairs, soup kitchen downstairs) could be taxed on a pro-rata basis. The incomes AND emoluments (cars, houses, etc.) of church employees including pastoral workers, should be subject to individual income taxation at appropriate rates.
If churches want to put up religious displays, they can certainly do so on their own property. And if they want to buy airtime or outdoor advertising for their messages, they should be allowed to do so on the same basis as other advertisers. But such displays and messages in ANY public property should be off limits.
And if the owners of privately-owned, secularly-purposed public facilities want to display religious messages, they should be permitted to do so providing that they make equal display space available on the same cost basis to any and all faiths and to atheist groups. Owners of private property that is not a public facility (as in, my front yard) should be able to display any damn' thing they want.
With regards to religiously-based art, scholarship, and history in the public schools, there is a valid case to be made for allowing it to be studied, performed, etc., as an artifact of culture. Providing that material from all faith traditions and from atheist groups are accorded similar consideration for study as cultural artifacts, and no religious interpretation, involvement, proselytization, or other adjuncts are attached to the educational content, it's relevant and useful. You can't study human history and culture without some understanding of religious and atheist thought and practice.
And tacit as well as explicit discrimination against atheists has to be exposed and abolished, or all the cant about equal consideration for everyone's beliefs is so much meaningless hot air.
adamantly,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
