I suppose when the weight of the State starts to collapse in on itself and you’ve mismanaged your own finances, why not go after the one thing that’s been generally off limits to your rapacity? The Washington Post reports there is serious conversation in Europe about taxing churches in various ways.
Governments have a long history of this. The Roman governors of Judea, like Pontius Pilate and Gessius Florus, among others, often tried to finagle their way metaphorically or literally into the Jewish Temple’s treasury, which was more or less loaded, as (in principle) every Jewish male adult had to pay a half-shekel (=two drachmas) tax annually in support of the Temple and its operations. You can imagine such Roman moves almost precipitated a war several times, and indeed Gessius Florus’ rapacity in this regard was one of the contributing factors to the outbreak of the Jewish War (also known as the First Revolt) in AD 66. And we all know how Henry VIII basically stole the properties and wealth of the Church of his day to enrich his own coffers while establishing an alternative Church that would serve his power.
Why shouldn’t churches be taxed, in general? One reason has to do with preserving a healthy separation of Church and State. If Churches can be taxed, then the government can get into the business of running them (or crushing them) through tax policy, like it does most everything else. Another reason is that private institutions like churches contribute to the common good both as charitable institutions directly serving people through its various programs and also as space as a community mediating between individual and the State. A third reason is more practical: Churches generally do a better job administering social programs than government does (which, one suspects, grates government functionaries). A fourth reason applicable to Europe in particular: The reason most people bother visiting Europe and spending significant tourist dollars there is the legacy of beauty produced by Europe’s Christian heritage. I speak here of course of the great Cathedrals and churches of Europe, as well as European art, much of which is Christian.
Obviously the situation is different in the many countries in Europe which have State churches than it is in America. For instance, in my sacred Germany both Catholic and Protestant (Lutheran) churches are supported by but also to a big degree controlled by the State in arrangements going back to Otto von Bismarck’s policies (and his “War against Catholicism“, his Kulturkampf) in the Second Reich. Nevertheless, whether here or there, the libertas ecclesiae (the freedom of the Church) must be respected.
Of course, one knows why government wishes to control religion, going back at least to Hobbes. Religious institutions have often been the only entities effective in challenging State power, reminding rulers that there is a higher law than their whims and will, that they too stand under the judgment of God and nature.
One example in our own day that comes to mind concerns the former Communist East Germany, the German Democratic Republic. The churches — primarily Lutheran, since as history and geography would have it, eastern Germany was where the Lutheran Reformation took strongest hold — were the one place where there was a decent modicum of social space to think, to speak, to plan, to pray. And so it was out of the Churches that the movement that ultimately ended European and Soviet communism arose.
East German authorities had been less concerned about crushing the Church than Communists in other places. (Indeed, in 1983, the celebrations of Luther’s 500th birthday in East Germany were spectacular.) I’ve asked quite a few German academics and pastors why this was so, and there are basically several answers. First, Luther had woven his way deeply into the German people, and so even under communism the Lutheran heritage was respected. Second, the East Germans weren’t necessarily all that committed to communism, given that they had been fighting the Soviet communists until 1945; east Germany’s conversion to communism was less than pure. Third, the East Germans thought they could co-opt religion to serve their ends, and so one often finds old East German posters portraying Luther as a proto-revolutionary, ironic as that is: “Widerrufen kann und will ich nicht!” (“I cannot and will not recant!”) Fourth, Germans are an intellectual and rational people, and assumed that as communism grew religion would die out of its own accord, essentially losing in the arena of ideology and culture.
Whoops. In any event, and regardless of what has happened to German religion after — capitalism often seems a better destroyer of faith than communism — the churches deserve credit for providing the space that birthed the death of oppression.
Watch The Church and the Fall of the Wall on PBS. See more from Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.
September 16th, 2012 | 2:47 pm
“as (in principle) every Jewish male adult had to pay a half-shekel (=two drachmas) tax annually in support of the Temple and its operations. ”
That seems a more reasonable ground for revolt, than the Romans wanting their fair share of compelled contributions.
September 16th, 2012 | 7:21 pm
How do you define “fair share”? Why would you think the local population would find the exactions of an occupying army legitimate?
September 17th, 2012 | 8:59 am
It seems as if there are lots of large churches occupying land tax free right in the middle of expensive real estate, and hardly anybody goes there for worship. If the churches were full, you could make a case that society gets a return on this, and it’s a fair deal. I also agree that taxing churches opens up a lot of options that would not turn out well, given the government’s desire to control everything.
But why should the government allow the churches to use up expensive land so they can sit there empty and preach to almost no one?
September 17th, 2012 | 9:04 am
Art: How do you define “fair share”? Why would you think the local population would find the exactions of an occupying army legitimate?
Because it’s not money coming out of their pocket. The Romans, who displaced a theocracy, merely wanted a share in the forced exactions of religious authorities (which did come out of the pocket of the ordinary Jew). And for that, people partook of the benefits of the Pax Romana, free travel, free trade, and the influence of Greco-Roman culture.
September 17th, 2012 | 10:40 am
Maximilian The Romans, who displaced a theocracy…
…replacing it with another one, firmly in the grasp of the Roman state — which was itself, before long, a theocracy whose god was Caesar.
And for that, people partook of the benefits of the Pax Romana, free travel, free trade, and the influence of Greco-Roman culture.
…and slavery, the gladiatorial games, crucifixion of innocents, harsher taxation than anything imposed by the Hasmoneans, denial of self-determination, repeated civil war, and even genocide.
Crowhill It seems as if there are lots of large churches occupying land tax free right in the middle of expensive real estate, and hardly anybody goes there for worship.
It depends on the location, but very often, churches that seem empty were once full, and have lost their usual congregations to redevelopment and/or population movements. The replacement of houses and apartments by office skyscrapers has as much to do with that as anything else.
Europe differs from the US, and many buildings attached to religious structures are used as purely commercial enterprises. Even so, the echo of Kelo v. New London is a little loud.
September 17th, 2012 | 11:10 am
“But why should the government allow the churches to use up expensive land so they can sit there empty and preach to almost no one?”
Wow. So private property rights are a function of “popularity”? Creepy. Would you say the same for symphony, or art house theater, or museum, that “nobody” goes to? Surely “we’re not getting our return” from them.
September 17th, 2012 | 11:38 am
Jack: …replacing it with another one, firmly in the grasp of the Roman state — which was itself, before long, a theocracy whose god was Caesar.
Rome was never a theocracy. The living Caesar was never considered a god. Only the dead ones, and having people be deified is not unusual in polytheism (see Herakles). Augustus Caesar had already declared himself “son of God” (divi filius was made part of his name) at the time that probably most interests you. All in the Roman Empire were free to believe as they wished, as long as they performed sacrifices to the gods of Rome. And Jews were even granted the extraordinary privilege of refusing to sacrifice to the gods of Rome, instead, they were to pray to their own god for the Emperor. This is a thousand times more tolerant than the tolerance that Jews gave any religious dissenter, or that the Christians would later be. Not to bash these two religions, it’s just that polytheism is generally much more tolerant than monotheism.
Jack: …and slavery, the gladiatorial games, crucifixion of innocents, harsher taxation than anything imposed by the Hasmoneans, denial of self-determination, repeated civil war, and even genocide.
Read the Old Testament. A father was permitted to sell his own daughter into slavery. I bemoan slavery, but it was unfortunately near-universal in the classical world (save for particular groups, like the Alemanni). Gladiators were generally criminals. Crucifixion was seldom applied to innocents, in the case of Jesus at the insistence of religious preachers who feared him (and do you honestly believe he would have been better off, had the Romans not displaced the theocracy – he would have been stoned to death).
Self-determination is good, but not when it is used to do evil, and theocracy is a great evil – especially when it leads people to stone young girls to death. I am very glad that a British Christian outlawed widow burning in India, notwithstanding the denial of self-determination.
Repeated civil war and harsh taxation, not during this period, nor during the time of the second revolt. Genocide, sadly yes, but very rarely. Knowing the Old Testament, it’s difficult to imagine you would complain about genocide. Of course, the Israelites did it because they felt threatened, but thanks to the mighty protective hand of Rome that descended on them, they needed fear no more. Rome would defend them against any would-be attackers.
September 17th, 2012 | 11:39 am
In this whole thing we see our own future if Obama is re-elected. There will be relentless moves to enforce immoral behavior (a la HHS mandate, which is only the highest-profile of many offenses) and relentless moves, via courts, executive decisions, and possibly even legislation, to remove the tax-exempt status of the Church. By which I mean particularly the Catholic Church, but the others will follow.
For all this I do not blame Obama himself, though his evil empire is all about these things. If this manifestly corrupt, mendacious, and failed president is re-elected, it says something very ominous about the evolution of our own poor, broken culture. The evils which will ensue are cultural, not simply administrative.
However, we can be confident of this: long after the story of these United States has been told, the Catholic Church will still be standing, fulfilling its mission–and being persecuted besides. We have it on good authority.
September 17th, 2012 | 1:19 pm
It seems as if there are lots of large churches occupying land tax free right in the middle of expensive real estate, and hardly anybody goes there for worship.
The utility of property taxes is that property assessments are (in the absence of meticulously compiled information on income flows) the best means available of ascertaining productive activity to tax or income to tax. In a predominantly non-agricultural society where most real property is a consumption good and there is only a weak relationship between how lucrative an activity it is and how land-intensive it is, property taxes are an archaism. Churches are seldom income generators and, as philanthropic concerns, generate no profits.
September 17th, 2012 | 1:20 pm
Because it’s not money coming out of their pocket. The Romans, who displaced a theocracy, merely wanted a share in the forced exactions of religious authorities
There is a certain tension between arguing for anarchism and arguing for the Pax Romana.
September 17th, 2012 | 1:35 pm
Maxmilian Rome was never a theocracy.
You yourself write that Augustus had himself proclaimed son of God. Sounds theocratic to me, especially as he had the public worship his spirit. Then there’s Caligula… and others.
Read the Old Testament. A father was permitted to sell his own daughter into slavery.
Yes, please, by all means read it, and compare its restrictions to the state of a slave in Rome.
Repeated civil war and harsh taxation, not during this period, nor during the time of the second revolt.
The taxation was always pretty harsh as implemented, if not as intended, hence the eventual change away from the original system. Tax officials in Palestine weren’t hated merely because they were representatives of Rome, but because they were typically corrupt.
As for civil wars — I was speaking of coups as well, along with the narrow period of Augustus’ and Tiberius’ rain — both before and after.
September 17th, 2012 | 2:17 pm
In the UK, churches and other charities are only exempt from local taxes (rates, council tax) on property they occupy. The occupiers of business and residential investment property (about £4bn worth in the case of the Church of England) owned by the churches do pay local taxes, which obviously diminishes the rent they are willing to pay for those properties.
They are, however, exempt from income tax on their rental income and from capital gains tax on disposals.
September 17th, 2012 | 3:14 pm
There will be relentless moves to enforce immoral behavior (a la HHS mandate, which is only the highest-profile of many offenses) and relentless moves, via courts, executive decisions, and possibly even legislation, to remove the tax-exempt status of the Church. By which I mean particularly the Catholic Church, but the others will follow.
It is rather difficult to see how the churches (and particularly one church) in the United States could be singled out as taxable entities when their tax-exempt status is not specifically because they are religious, but because they are nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations. From the IRS:
For example, when, say, a Catholic hospital gives up it’s official Catholic affiliation, it remains tax exempt because it still remains a 501(c)(3) organization. And of course it would work the other way. If a tax exempt nonprofit affiliated with the Catholic Church, it would still be a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.
To start taxing the Catholic Church, the government would either have to set up a different category for religious organizations, or it would have to start taxing all the tax-exempt nonprofits!
Let’s make the utterly paranoid assumption that the evil Obama and his evil Democratic followers have this as their goal. Would the GOP (God’s Own Party) and the six Catholics and three Jews on the Supreme Court have nothing to say about it?
It just amazes me how little faith some people have in the stability and continuity of American democracy. Don’t the concepts of division of power and checks and balances mean anything to people any more. Supposing Obama is reelected and the Democrats take both the House and Senate. Does anyone imagine the Republicans are going to lie down and play dead for four years? Or the federal courts and the Supreme Court are going to reverse 200 years of jurisprudence?
September 17th, 2012 | 4:49 pm
Churches aren’t exempt because they are 501c3′s. That is merely the present organization of certain organizations identified and regulated as non-profits. Religious institutions find their tax exemption not in 20th century tax laws, but within the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the sovereignty of church and state. The church can not control the state through its conferences (only its influence on voters). The state can not control the church, even though its taxing powers.
September 17th, 2012 | 4:49 pm
Art Deco: There is a certain tension between arguing for anarchism and arguing for the Pax Romana.
I am not aware that I have argued for anarchism, here or elsewhere.
Jack: You yourself write that Augustus had himself proclaimed son of God. Sounds theocratic to me, especially as he had the public worship his spirit. Then there’s Caligula… and others.
Not theocratic, just a violation of the church-state separation – which is a distinctly modern idea. The Roman Empire supporting paganism makes it no more a theocracy than state support for the Church of England makes England a theocracy. In Israel, however, religious commandments were enforced by the state, which makes it a theocracy. Romans also had infinitely more personal freedom than did people under the Israeli theocracy.
Jack: Yes, please, by all means read it, and compare its restrictions to the state of a slave in Rome.
But you didn’t object that Rome did not have one or two strictures too few on the practice of slavery, your complaint was that the institution existed. I’d grant you that the Alemanni were morally superior to both the Romans and Israelites in this respect, but I would leave it at that.
Jack: The taxation was always pretty harsh as implemented, if not as intended, hence the eventual change away from the original system. Tax officials in Palestine weren’t hated merely because they were representatives of Rome, but because they were typically corrupt.
I am not familiar with the history of this particular outside province of the Roman Empire, but what I do know is that the burden of taxation in the first and second centuries was very light – especially when weighed against the benefits of Roman free trade, travel, freedom and culture. Tax officials in Palestine may have been corrupt, I would not know about that. In any case, my original argument was that people in Israel would be far better off objecting to forced exactions by their own religious authoritarians, than the Romans taking part of their compelled contribution.
Jack: As for civil wars — I was speaking of coups as well, along with the narrow period of Augustus’ and Tiberius’ rain — both before and after.
But there were rather few significant civil wars in the first and second centuries – and the ones that did exist were extremely brief. In fact, they’re rather stable. This is, after all, a period that includes the Five Good Emperors – and the dynasties of Vespasian and Septimius Severus. Coups during this period were just palace intrigues and did not cause much or any instability. Compare that to the third century, when army commanders just decide that they should be emperor (without there being a vacancy), and proceed to march on Rome.
September 17th, 2012 | 6:55 pm
Churches aren’t exempt because they are 501c3′s. That is merely the present organization of certain organizations identified and regulated as non-profits.
Charles,
Churches that don’t request, and qualify for, 501(c)(3) status are not tax exempt. My point is not that it is not a classification invented by the government. My point is that the law would have to be changed if churches were to be taxed, and either they would have to be reclassified as something other than 501(c)(3), or all 501(c)(3)s would have to be taxed. I am not talking about any basic principles of separation of church and state. I am talking about the practicalities of taxing churches.
My basic point is that if anybody believes Obama or any other president could get the House and the Senate to change the tax laws so that churches could be taxed while other non-profits would be tax exempt, they are living in a fantasy world.
What could theoretically happen is that certain religious organizations could lose their 501(c)(3) status. That is why the Supreme Court decision in the Bob Jones University case troubles some people.
September 17th, 2012 | 9:54 pm
I don’t think any one doubts it will be a difficult process to accomplish in the U.S. Like every other progressive goal, it will require a generation of lies like “we don’t intend that”, “that won’t happen”, “stop executing the law for only case X”. It will require infiltration of opposing interests and the public funding of advocacy groups. Then eventually the SF city council will pass the law. Baltimore, Chicago, DC and NYC, fearing their liberal credentials threatened, will soon follow. Then it will becomes a part of platform of the Democrat political machines. Primary candidates will be tested for their support. Eventually the only Democrat you won’t find advocating it will be those in North Carolina or Nebraska who will eventually sell out their constituents for enough pork or under sufficient threats.
September 18th, 2012 | 10:53 am
“Churches that don’t request, and qualify for, 501(c)(3) status are not tax exempt.”
Yes they are. Not all churches are incorporated at the local level, but all churches are tax exempt.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact