Religion Subsidized by Government Tax Code

Manhattan Home of Cardinal Dolan
"Parsonage Exemption"

In the United States, as in other countries, religion is frequently used and abused for the sake of personal and political gain. As Bill Shakespeare would say, "let me count the ways." Among the most peculiar examples of religious "exemptions" from the Law of the Land are the multiple ways religions reap significant benefits from the tax code.

The most obvious benefit is that donations to the "religion" (church, mosque or synagogue) are tax deductible both for the donor and the religion. However, unlike other charitable organizations, churches are exempt from 990 requirements. Thus there is no accounting for the donations received or for the use of the money. One would think this situation would result in public outrage, but the system has been in place so long, no one gives it a second thought. And of course, politicians are not going to get near this issue. They may recognize the injustice and constitutional problems, but they do not want to fight the combined power of the various religions and their followers.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

When the government provides a financial benefit to religious institutions, the government is in fact supporting religion. Although the tax exemptions pertain to all religions, the government is still supporting religion. All US taxpayers: non-believers, atheists, and religious, are bearing the cost of the lost tax revenue and therefore paying to support religion. In 1970 Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith.... I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional." (Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York) 


As a result we as citizens and taxpayers financially support a variety of religions -- religions we may disagree with or actually consider dangerous, or at the least opposed to our beliefs. In 1983 former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Regan v. Taxation with Representation: "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization...."  By granting a tax exemption, government is subsidizing a religion.

So why are we still allowing this? Perhaps, for the same reasons we allowed segregation. As in the case of religious "exemptions," everyone realized that segregation was unconstitutional (not to mention, morally wrong), but no one did anything about it until some brave individuals forced the country and the Supreme Court to confront the issue. Back then, of course, we had courageous justices on the Supreme Court who were dedicated to the Constitution. Today, unfortunately, we have a cadre of five justices  (all Catholic males) following their own political agenda.

And there is the question of what constitutes a religion. If the Ku Klux Klan decides it is a religion, are they entitled to tax-exempt status? Former IRS agents are fond of telling the story of a brothel which claimed to be a church engaged in "charitable work" and thus tax-exempt. Their church offered "sisterly love" to male parishioners in exchange for donations. The IRS did not buy it, although no one is clear about what constitutes a religion. The test seems to be: if it walks, talks and acts like a religion, it is. Perhaps I could start a religion: The Sacred Order of Couch Potatoes. Our god would be the almighty and all-consuming Television.

Religions,as you know,  are also exempt from real estate taxes. They in effect receive governmental services like police and fire protection without contributing a dime, with the result that everyone else has to pay more. Again, the people are subsidizing a religion because of the tax code.

But that's not the whole story  There is also the "Parsonage Exemption." "Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, [63] and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. [64] Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage."* In addition to these examples is the multitude of parsonages and rectories of main stream religions. What do you suppose the taxes would be on the Catholic Cardinal of New York's Manhattan mansion?

As a Catholic, I benefit from this system by:
1. receiving a tax deduction for my contributions to my parish,
2. knowing my church does not have to pay taxes or even account for the money I donate,
3. knowing that we do not have to pay real estate taxes on our beautiful building,
4. knowing that we do not have to pay taxes on our priest's home.
But he problem is: all of these benefits mean that my government is subsidizing my religion,  contrary to the U.S Constitution.

I offer the following quote from George Carlin:
'You know what they ought to do with churches? Tax them. If holy people are so interested in politics, government, and public policy, let them pay the price of admission like everybody else. The Catholic Church alone could wipe out the  national debt if all you did was tax their real estate.”  I am not sure Mr. Carlin is correct about the national debt since we have  engaged in several costly, ill-advised  wars since he made that comment, but if one were to include all religions, he may be correct.

Many are wont to say: We provide the same exemption to all religions, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Evangelicals, Mormons, and a plethora of  off-beat denominations, so what's the problem? The First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Another problem is, in recent election cycles, pastors are using their tax free pulpits to endorse and attack political candidates. This practice is in direct conflict with the 1954 amendment to the tax code. These pastors want their tax exempt status but violate the condition that goes with that exemption. 

The problem is this: Our Constitution forbids subsidizing religion - and, for good reason. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the problems of the marriage of religion and government.

 When our government, in any way, subsidizes religion,  it is violating the First Amendment. 

*ProCom. org