Tax Exemption Protects the Free Exercise of Religion

Churches are tax-exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it.  If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the door is open for the government to censor and control churches and the free exercise of religion.  But that’s not just an opinion.  It’s the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Walz v. Tax Commission, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches “creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.”  The Supreme Court also said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”  Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.  As the Massachusetts State Tax Commission put it in 1897, “The general exemption of houses of worship is a fit recognition by the State of the sanctity of religion.”

For those concerned about an appropriate separation between church and state, no better way exists to ensure it than to keep churches tax exempt.  If the government were to begin to tax churches, it necessarily asserts sovereignty, power, and control over churches.

An example of how the government can abuse its power against churches in this area is in the passage of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches and other non-profits from directly or indirectly supporting or opposing political candidates for office.  A church’s tax exemption has been conditioned on obedience to this mandate since 1954 when Lyndon Johnson was instrumental in adding this prohibition to the tax code.  Scholars agree that the Johnson Amendment was a revenge piece of legislation directed at two non-profit foundations opposing Johnson for Senate.  Johnson did not target churches, yet for 55 years, churches have been prohibited from preaching about candidates for office.  The Johnson Amendment perpetuates a system requiring government agents to monitor and parse the words of a pastor’s sermon to determine whether that sermon violates the law and punishment should be meted out.  That system is an excessive and unreasonable government entanglement with religion.

In 1943, the Supreme Court stated, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in…religion, or other matters of opinion.”  The court didn’t add “...except when pastors address the subject of electoral candidates.”  Since 1954, the IRS and its petty officials have been able to prescribe for churches what is orthodox in matters of religion.  This is not religious freedom in any sense of that phrase.  Rather, this is religious orthodoxy mandated by the government, and it falls heaviest on those churches who believe their faith compels them to do what churches have done for centuries:  address the moral fitness of electoral candidates from the pulpit.

The Johnson Amendment provides a stark example of the power of the government to destroy the free exercise of religion.  The surest way to protect the free exercise of religion is to continue the healthy separation between church and state fostered by tax exemptions for churches.


two's picture

If the lack of a tax was to preserve objectivity and separation, then why are churches prevented from speaking out on current events that involve any kind of political reference?

I'm not saying they should recommend candidates, but they are threatened with losing tax exempt status if they speak out against the actions of Congress or the president.

That sounds more to me like churches are in fact accepting "funding" from the government, in exchange for keeping quiet. Many churches have too large of a platform.

The argument that being tax-exempt preserves religion is a contradiction of terms.

mr average's picture

It seems to me that the constitution prohibits the government from meddling in the people's right to practice their religion. The question in my mind is whether a "Church" is a "Religion". I believe that they are not the same thing. A church is an organization of people engaged in a business. The church buys or rents property, hires and fires employees, collects and redistributes money, etc. - stuff that other businesses do all the time. The Church is ususally an incorporated business entity. Why shouldn't it be taxed like other corporate entities or at least subject to the same tax rules and restrictions as non-profit corporations?

The taxation of a church does not grant sovereignity of the government over the religious rights of the church members. They are free to believe what they want, to assemble if they want to and to perfrom their rituals as they see fit (with limitations). The sovereignity of the government excercised through taxation extends only to the organization - the church corporate entity.

walkinglass's picture

Religion is doctrine and Jesus Christ NEVER, NEVER compliment ANY RELIGION.

Jesus Christ says to the people in religion in Matthew 15:7-9:
"You HYPOCRITES, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
' This people honors Me with thier lips,
But thier heart is far away from Me.
' But in vain do you worship Me,
Teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.' "

They will LIE and say that He was only talking to the Jews but not those that pretend to worship Him inside thier CRAFTED TEMPLES that God does not live in according to God's inspired words in Acts 7:47-48 & 17:24. Like Jesus says, thier heart is far away from Him but they enjoy using God's words totally out of context and they lie and say 'God is in thier heart'.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

OV Social