That the power of taxing by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

That principle is a cardinal part of our nation's constitutional jurisprudence. And Yet, the NY Times would set it aside in the case of religion, and with it the First Amendment rights of Americans.

Religious institutions should be protected from excessive intrusion by government. Judges should not tell churches who they have to hire as ministers, or meddle in doctrinal disputes. But under pressure from politically influential religious groups, Congress, the White House, and federal and state courts have expanded this principle beyond all reason. It is increasingly being applied to people, buildings and programs only tangentially related to religion.

In its expanded form, this principle amounts to an enormous subsidy for religion, in some cases violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It also undermines core American values, like the right to be free from job discrimination. It puts secular entrepreneurs at an unfair competitive disadvantage. And it deprives states and localities of much-needed tax revenues, putting a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers.

Like most special-interest handouts, these privileges exist in large part because the majority is not aware, or is not being heard. With property taxes growing ever more burdensome, it is likely that localities will start to give religious exemptions closer scrutiny. People who care about discrimination-free workplaces, the right to unionize and childrenÂ’s safety should also start to push back.

Indeed, the NY Tmes akes a specific call for taxation of xhurcxhes, a much learer and much more substantial threat to the First Amendment than the exemptions it complains of could ever be. After all, who is going to determine what is essential to the free exercise of religion or cetral to a church's religious mission -- the church or the government? The authors of the editorial would support an entanglement of religion and government that they would never accept if we were talking about, for example, giving vouchers to allow shchool choice.

And more to the point, in every case that the NY Times raises a question regarding exemptions from taxation or regulation of religious institutions, it fails to ask a question that I think would be central to the issue if one does not believe in virtually unlimited government power -- is it the burden of taxation and regulation imposed upon society that is onerous, and not the exemptions permitted to those who do the work of God? Are the rest of us too oppressed by government, rather than religious institutions too free?

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.