|
A right to
religious exemption?
BY BROOKE
ALLEN
Religious organizations throughout the United States are accorded
countless exemptions from taxes and federal regulations. A New York
Times article this month claimed that since 1989, more than 200 such
special arrangements, protections and exemptions have been included
in congressional legislation and endorsed by politicians of both
major parties. The practice of regulatory exemptions and tax breaks
for churches and religious groups gained momentum under President
Clinton and has greatly accelerated under President Bush, who has
tried through his faith-based initiative to create legal precedents
for such advantages and to make religious groups eligible for
numerous state and federal grants and contracts.
Supporters of the Bush initiative have vigorously denied that its
programs contradict the principles of church/state separation laid
out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. House Speaker J.
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., insists that "radical courts have attempted
to gut our religious freedom and redefine the value system on which
America was built."
The people who really did build this nation most
definitely did not define "religious freedom" as the right of
churches or other religious groups to benefit from taxpayer dollars.
In fact, James Madison, who is frequently referred to as the father
of the Constitution, was unambiguous on the subject.
First of all, he thought the idea of a church any church
acquiring property and wealth to be directly contradictory to the
principles of the Constitution. In his "Detached Memoranda," a
collection of private reflections, Madison warned against "the
danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government" as
well as "an evil which ought to be guarded ag(ain)st in the
indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it
in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations."
Further, in a direct swipe at what people today would call
faith-based initiatives, Madison stated his objection even to
governmental sanction and support of a church's charitable
activities. "Because the Bill vests in the said incorporated
Church," he said, "an authority to provide for the support of the
poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority,
which being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the
result of pious charity, would be a precident (sic) for giving to
religious Societies as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect
a public and civil duty."
He did not approve, in other words, of churches and religious
societies being given a "legal agency" (including taxpayer funds) to
carry into effect "a public and civil duty." The public weal is the
responsibility of the government itself, funded through taxation.
Any charitable work churches might undertake is "pious charity" and
as such a voluntary act on the part of church members.
Supporters of the faith-based initiative point out the many
wonderful charitable programs religious groups have provided, and
some of them accuse separationists of waging a war against religion.
This distorts the argument.
Separationists are not attacking religion. They are merely
reminding us that religion and church membership, under our
Constitution, are defined as voluntary the general population
cannot be compelled to underwrite any particular church. That is
what freedom of religion means.
Brooke Allen is the author of "Moral Minority: Our Skeptical
Founding Fathers." This article was written for the Los Angeles
Times. | 
