To return to the topic of taxation of churchs, the issue is not as simple as either the proponents or the opponents of taxation of churchs and church property and assets would want us to believe.
This is from an atheist author, and can hardly be said to be a false statement on the basis of a prejudie
against church taxation:
Austin Cline wrote:Tax exemptions for religious groups have existed throughout American history and are a legacy of our European heritage. At the same time, those tax exemptions have never been total or automatic. For example, some states have broad tax exemptions for parsonages while others have narrow restrictions on such exemptions. Some states have exempted Bibles from sales taxes while others have not. Some states have exempted church businesses from state corporate taxes while other have not. Private donations to churches have also had varying degrees of tax exemptions, while direct payments to churches for goods or services are rarely exempt from taxes.
Over the years both the courts and various legislative bodies have limited the ability of religions to benefit from tax exemptions. There are appear to be two possible means for this: either by generally eliminating tax exemptions for all charitable and non-profit groups, or by eliminating churches from the classification of charities.
Eliminating tax exemptions for charities generally would provide a great deal more money for governments, which is part of the argument for eliminating tax exemptions for religion. However, it is unlikely that there would be much broad public support for such a radical change in the tax code. Tax exemptions for charitable organizations have a long history, and for the most part, people tend to have a favorable impression of them.
When he says that church tax exemptions are a relict of our pre-revolutionary past, he is not far off the mark. Massachusetts and Connecticutt both had Congregational establishments, and Virginia and South Carolina both had Anglican establishments. In the year before the Stamp Act Crisis, Patrick Henry came to prominence when he defended (as a lawyer) a parish being sued by the parson of the established church. That parson was to be paid in tobacco receipts. Specie (gold and silver coins) were rare in Colonial America, and bills of sale for tobacco were commonly used as paper money in Virginia. The House of Burgesses had provided that the rectors of the established church would be paid in tobacco receipts. In the early 1760s, however, there was a huge depression in the tobacco market in Europe, and the parson in question sued on the basis that his tobacco receipts were no longer worth what they had been when his salary had been set. Patrick Henry lost the suit, but only nominally: the jury awared the parson in question one penny in damages.
I agree with this author that most people consider the exemption of churchs from taxation as reasonable, on the basis that they are charitable organizations. I also agree with those who object that many churchs have enormous resources, multi-million dollar estates, and that religion is often used as a scam for personal gain. Churchs in the United States receive literally billions of dollars in donations each year. However, for me, the clincher is that ending the exemption of churchs would probably involve the end of exemptions for charitable institutions of all kinds, and i don't think that's a good idea, nor do i believe that people would favor ending the exemptions.
Finally, i consider that it is up to each state to determine what they will or will not award churchs in the way exemption from taxation. Personally, i don't feel that i am under any great burden because churchs are exempt from taxation. I don't consider the argument that i pay more taxes because churchs don't pay any to be a valid one. Government budgest expand to encompass all of the revenue they can secure. If churchs were taxed, the government would simply have more money to spend--there is no good reason to assume that my taxes would be reduced as a consequence.
