America’s National Origin Myth

APPENDIX 1:

Tax-Exempt Status For “religious organizations”

When Jefferson penned his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists on New Year’s Day 1802, he stated that “religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his god.”  As a result, there must be “a wall of separation” between the affairs of the church and the affairs of the government.  This relegation of religion and politics to their respective domains was seen as a prerequisite for a genuine (liberal) democracy.  The question arises: Has this view been validated since?  Until the Federalist Society—essentially, a factory for Roman Catholic theocrats—began to hold sway in the judicial appointments of the U.S., the answer was an unequivocal YES.  Let’s review.

In the Supreme Court decision, Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the conclusion was unequivocal: Government could not aid one religion over any other.  The implications of this are loud and clear: tax-breaks for religious institutions are categorically un-constitutional…as is the use of public facilities for the practice or promotion of ANY religion.  If the public subsidizes a venue, then that venue cannot be used to facilitate religious activity; as the wall of separation between religion and governance is symmetrical: the liberty TO practice a religion of one’s own choice entails others’ prerogative to remain unencumbered by those practices.  In other words: freedom OF religion entails freedom FROM religion.  I’m not obligated to subsidize your religious activities.

In a secular society, one’s own exercise of religion cannot in any way burden (that is: impose obligations and/or restrictions) on any given bystander.  Ever.  This is incontrovertible.

It helps to remind ourselves that churches are institutions that are run so much LIKE businesses that they effectively ARE businesses—even as they claim “non-profit” status (ultimately a specious characterization).  Under U.S. law, in order to qualify for tax-exemption, an institution “must demonstrably serve—and be in harmony with—the public interest.”  Moreover, “the institution’s purpose must not be at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred.”  This makes perfect sense; and is entirely reasonable.  Alas, it is almost NEVER enforced.  Not only do cults like the Church of L.D.S., the Watchtower Society, and Scientology not qualify; but the Roman Catholic Church clearly doesn’t qualify either…nor does any fundamentalist synagogue or evangelical church.  Such (private) institutions do not come anywhere near meeting the above standard.  In fact, it is easily demonstrable that they are conducted like businesses; and, on balance, their operations are counter to the commonweal.

Hence Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Scientologists (as well as Haredim / Hassidim, Roman Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, mega-church congregations, Salafis, Wicca covens, et. al.) should not be exempt from any civic duty anywhere, at any time.

If a certain (identifiable) element of said institutions are, indeed, providing a bona fide (demonstrable) public service, then THAT ELEMENT may tacitly qualify for tax exemption—that is: insofar as it can be shown that it raises funds that go directly to philanthropic operations FOR EVERYONE, with no strings attached.  (It might be noted that “strings” are often “attached”, entails that the operation is being used as a pretense for some sort of proselytization, or has some sort of evangelical angle.)  But here’s the catch: That element of the institution cannot serve as cover for the ENTIRETY of the institution; as the charity is often isolated from the other (ecclesiastical) operations.  The charity typically has nothing to do with the central mission of the institution qua religious entity.

Those who deny the secular spirit behind the American Republic’s founding seem to think that religiosity—specifically, Christianity—is necessary to maintain American heritage (and/or sustain a distinct “American” culture).  This is false.  What such people seem not to realize is that the hallowed Americana needn’t involve religiosity to subsist from one generation to the next—even when it comes to things that were initially (ostensibly) quasi-religious.  Hence something like Christmas can continue as a marvelous, secular holiday—replete with Christmas carols, Christmas trees, secret Santas, crèches, and nativity lore.  This is true even in a society that is completely secular.  (Freethinkers love singing “Silent Night” and decking the halls with boughs of holly as much as anyone else.)

Others are under the impression that (Judeo-Christian) religiosity is necessary to maintain civic order.  This is not only false; it is the opposite of the case.  The most secular societies are invariably the most democratic.  Enforcement of piety (i.e. blasphemy policing) has no place in a civil society.

And some are besot with the misapprehension that religion is somehow a prerequisite for living a meaningful life.  It isn’t.  The panoply of social perks that religion brings—communal solidarity, a dependable support network, a sense of belonging, a shared ethical framework—are all wonderful things, indeed.  Each can be realized sans religion; and arguably realized BETTER.  The same goes for those seeking existential ballast.  The panoply of existential perks—giving meaning to one’s life, robust spirituality, a sense of purpose—can be cultivated without succumbing to institutionalized dogmatism.  Sacred doctrine is required for none of these estimable things.

To resolve whether or not civil society is somehow predicated on religion, we might look again to Thomas Jefferson.  In a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper (February 10, 1814), he rightly observed that “Christianity neither is nor ever was a part of the common law.”  For the Founders, “natural law” or “common law” was not a function of this or that religious doctrine; it was a set of universal principles that transcended the particulars of this or that creed.  And it was realized via our capacity to reason, not via piety.

When Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptists immortalizing the idea of “a wall of separation” between church and state (January 1, 1802), his primary point was that “religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his god.”  Therefore each of us “owes account to none other for [our] Faith.”  Not only was religious freedom a private affair, it entailed not being burdened by ANYONE ELSE’S exercise thereof.

In other words: On your own time, on your own dime.