Taxing of Churches

It's fairly well known that religious institutions don't get taxed.  They can claim that they're nonprofit charitable organizations, and can claim to be exempt from taxes.  Ok, that's fair, I think.  Nonprofit charities may not be required to pay taxes since all the income they get goes to things that don't directly benefit the organization.  For example, donations to a homeless shelter go to pay employees, buy food and supplies for inhabitants, etc., but the end result is not to make a buck.  Churches can claim similarly.  The donations collected go to upkeep, the pastor, his family, and... well the rest can go to whatever the church deems fit -- unless it involves politics.  Now, Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty says that Americans have decided that churches are good for us all, including believers and nonbelievers.  He says,

"Whether it is the Quakers opposing slavery, Reverend King arguing for equality, or a Catholic soup kitchen feeding and sheltering all in need, our history is full of examples of confirming the great public benefit of our religious diversity."

I accept that these things are all good, but do I attribute it to the churches?  Of course not.  These things were done by good people doing good.  The people supporting slavery used the bible to justify using slave labor, but the Quakers used the exact same book to condemn it.  Dr. King claimed his faith was what drove him to fight for civil rights, while the bigots used the same faith to fight against him.  Catholic soup kitchens may be helping the homeless because they read in the bible that Jesus wants them to, while republican Christians are telling the homeless that they're homeless because they didn't work hard enough, and Prosperity preachers claim that bad things happen to people, because they weren't faithful enough.

My point is that it doesn't take faith to do good things.  Most atheists understand that slavery is wrong, that racism is wrong, and that helping the needy is good.  We don't need to be told these things!  So where am I going with all this?  Dr. Ryan Cragun, and assistant professor of sociology and two students from the University of Tampa took a good, hard look at the tax laws of Florida and found that our country is missing out on $71 billion of revenue annually.  Some things to consider:

• States lose 26.2 billion dollars a year in property taxes.
• Capital gains tax exemptions may be as much as $41 million
• US clergy may claim as much as $1.2 billion, due to parsonage

All this money lost to churches.  I know that in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that tax exemptions for churches is not unconstitutional, because it does not favor one religion over another.  That's all fair and good.  Churches are exempt from taxation, because they can benefit everyone.  

I challenge this.  Churches do not benefit everyone.  There are churches out there who do, sure.  You can go to a Catholic soup kitchen and they probably won't demand you say that you're Catholic or they'll boot you.  But, that's a soup kitchen, not a church.  Suppose the soup kitchen is for profit, but is using a kitchen in a church.  What happens then?  Honestly, I'm not sure.  I can't really think of any reason a soup kitchen could profit, but that's beside the point.  Soup kitchens benefit everyone.  All a church can do is offer a prayer or sermon.  The church members can help, but that's not the church.  A priest can roll up his, not her, sleeves and spoon some soup into a bowl, but the church obviously has no hands, and therefore no sleeves to roll up.  My point is that these church members are doing what they're doing regardless of their position, regardless of faith.

One might argue that if we tax churches, they can interfere with our politics, and that would violate the separation of church and state that we secularists hold so dearly.  To that I say that churches already do interfere, even if it is indirectly.  As said above, Dr. King fought for civil rights on the basis of his faith.  This helped change the law.  The opposition used their faith to justify their racism; they tried to prevent the law from changing, because of their faith.  There is only one reason for a person to oppose a woman's right to vote or speak in church: faith.  Whether a misogynist is Baptist, Muslim, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc., he has only one argument aside from "I just think that."  I took a moment to compile a few bible verses that order the submission of women to men:

• Genesis 3:16  
• 1 Corinthians 11:3
• 1 Corinthians 14:34-36
• Ephesians 5:22-24
• Collosians 3:18
• 1 Timothy 2: 11-15
• Titus 2:4-5
• 1 Peter 3:1

Clearly, faith had a part in the opposition to women's rights.  Let's also not forget who wasn't in the pulpit, yet.  All this stuff is old hat, true, but the implications are still relevant, considering the fight by the Catholic clergy and congregation fighting against the coverage of contraceptives for women.  Let's not forget the non Christians who do the same.  Let's not forget the only possibly reason to oppose homosexuality. Faith. As with women's rights, I've compiled a list of bible verses condemning homosexuality:

• Leviticus 18:22
• Leviticus 20:13
• Deuteronomy 22:5
• Deuteronomy 23:17-18
• 1 Samuel 20:30
• 1 Samuel 20:31-33
• Romans 1:26-28
• Romans 1:31:32

Now, I'm going out on limb here... But I suspect that if the churches didn't say these things, women would have always had an equal say in politics, same-sex marriage would be legal, and slaves would have been freed much sooner. Apologists may point out that not all believers are like this.  To them, I say good.  Good for them.  But until they call other believers out on acting like this, I have nothing to say to them.  Apologists may also point out that people are the ones opposing these civil rights progressions.  To them I say true, but what is their reason for being a person to oppose equality?  Until faith stops being an excuse to oppose civil rights that don't even affect the faithful, I say let them be taxed.  Churches themselves may not be against progression, but the man in charge of most churches is.  This man who gets in his tie on Sunday goes in front of people who believe he is interpreting the word of God to them, who says it is the perfect, infallible, unchanging word of God is necessarily, by extension interfering with politics.  Should there be a separation of church and state? Absolutely.  But as long as faith weighs in on people's vote, the separation is not complete.
And that demands taxation, just like everyone else.