I’m freely admitting my ignorance here so be gentle if my premise is flawed.
Now, I’m assuming “respect”: in this case means “about” as opposed to “deference.”
How is it then that organizations get a pass from federal income tax? I can see the benefit to allowing charity organizations operate without the burden of federal taxes. But churches are, at best, just social clubs that (sometimes) perform charitable works as a cover for proselytizing. It would be trivially easy to determine what portion of an organization’s financial efforts are directed to tax-free charitable activities as opposed to self-enrichment.
So the GQ part: How is tax-exempt status for religious organizations not a violation of the constitution?
My understanding is that the key aspect to tax exemption is not charitable activities as you describe, but rather non-profit. Churches meeting the criteria for non-profit status are then given tax exemption.
There are many theories about what “establishment of religion” means, but the current predominant thinking is that it’s ok to favor ALL religions, but not to favor ONE religion. You can’t do anything that “establishes” a single state religion as preferred over all others. If you give benefits to religious organizations in general, there is no establishment of one state religion.
That benefiting religion equal to non-religion is a violation of the 1st Amendment is a valid theory, but it is not the predominant thinking right now.
The latest interpretation of the establishment clause resides in the Lemon Test..
As long as they don’t grant special status to religious institution, the SCOTUS says it’s OK. In this case, it’s just another Charitable, non-Profit Organization.
It’s more restrictive than that, per the second item in the Lemon Test.
In practice, it isn’t. As long as the primary purpose is not to advance religion, it passes. If religion is advanced by the action, it’s still fine, as long as that isn’t the primary purpose or result.
Just about any non-profit can get tax exemption. I could create a social organization that does no charitable work and still get tax exempt status if it is a non-profit. In that respect, religious organizations are no treated any differently from other non-profits.
Court decisions forbidding prayer in school appear to disfavor all religion.
Also, I recall the NC Attorney General issuing an official public statement
about 30 years ago to the effect that law prohibiting atheists from running
for office was “clearly unconsitutional”. I am not sure the issue has gone to
the Supreme Court, but if it did the SC would certainly concur.
There are some significant misunderstandings about non-profits in the OP. “Charitable” and “non-profit” are not synonymous. Some non-profits perform charitable functions. Other non-profits include social clubs, industry organizations, homeowner associations, benefit funds for people like firemen, hospitals (even with no charitable function) and educational organizations (again, even with no charitable function).
So even if you want to argue that churches are civic clubs, they’d still meet the definition of a non-profit. The only difference is that contributions to civic clubs would not be considered a charitable contribution for income tax purposes, but that affects the givers and not the organization. (Also of note: a nonprofit like a civic club could be much more active in political campaigning and contributions than a church, so you might actually prefer to keep churches right where they are in the federal tax code.)
Those decision aren’t just about the Establishment Clause. They’re also about the fundamental right of parents to control their chilrens’ upbringing (including indoctrinating them, or not, as they see fit), which is protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
That’s a very weak argument. Everything the school does “indoctrinates” children. If someone for some weird reason doesn’t believe in evolution (or chemistry, or physics, or in global warming for that matter) is it ok for the school to “indoctrinate” his children in those subjects?
How do you decide which indoctrinations to allow and which to forbid?
Even as a social club, churches contribute just as much as any other tax-exempt social club out there. What would your explanation be for specifically excluding churches from non-profit status that doesn’t run afoul of the 1st Amendment?
I’m not sure “self-enrichment” means what you think it means, and I’m certain you don’t know what it means in terms of “non-profit” versus “for-profit”.
Thank you. Every time this comes up I see the same misunderstanding.
Personally, I’d like to see churches have to report what percentage of their non-profit intake actually goes to charity and their congregations only be allowed to deduct that percentage of their donations. But, churches aren’t the only abusers of the charity deduction so it probably isn’t worth fussing about.
If there were such a decision, it would indeed disfavor all religion. And maybe there’s some country somewhere where the courts have issued such a decision. It’s never happened in the US, though.
What the courts have decided in the US is that agents of the government, acting in that capacity, are not allowed to lead prayers with those over whom they have authority. Which is something very different from what you said.
I have to wonder why advancement of religion counts as charity but wouldn’t want to question the IRS this close to tax time. That is very, very broad definition.
As Munch points out, there is no abuse of the charity deduction under the current law. Religious purposes are a charitable cause and make the organization eligible under 501c3 as a tax exempt organization.
By the way, look at the other elements of a charitable organization. Besides promotion of religion, they include education (which churches do), social assistance (which churches do), providing public buildings (many churches do) and fostering amateur sports competitions (hello, church softball team). So even if you take promotion of religion out, churches still meet the 501c3 definition on several points.
My point about the different kinds of nonprofits is that tax-exempt status under federal law is available to a wide range of organizations. The OP argues that “churches are, at best, just social clubs” but social clubs are tax exempt under 501c7.
And that is, of course, why my kid’s “Winter Concert” last year included hits like “We wish you a happy holiday” (to the music of “We wish you a merry Christmas”).
Inigo, click on the Walz case from the link, it addresses, property tax, but you can see the legal logic. I did not check the others, but am familar with Lemon as mentioned in the other post.