An Ala. pastor’s letter on tax exemption for churches: Privilege, Inalienable Right, or Constitutional Right

The Dallas Morning News carries this letter purportedly by James L. Evans, pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church in Auburn, Alabama. Pastor Evans argues against ADF’s Pulpit Initiative. Specifically, he argues that tax exemption for churches is a privilege not a right. He writes:

But it is a privilege, not a right. There is no inherent reason for a church to be tax exempt. In fact, the case could be made that by allowing churches tax-exempt status the government is actually subsidizing religion.

And if churches are allowed to engage in partisan political activity, that means that taxpayers are not only subsidizing religion, but partisan political activity as well.

The letter is notable since it is one of the few times that an opponent of ADF’s Pulpit Initiative has tackled one of the most central issues in this debate -  whether tax exemption for churches is a privilege or right.

The letter acknowledges that tax exemption for churches in America has a unique history compared to tax exemption for other kinds of non-profits. It indicates: “With the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, church and state were separated and churches no longer functioned as part of city government. Their tax-exempt status, however, continued.” But, the letter then leaps to the conclusion that the exemption is merely a privilege due to the 1954 tax code.  Justification for this leap is not offered except to cite the tax code itself.

Unfortunately, the letter also repeats the widespread assumption that government is subsidizing anything it doesn’t tax. The apparent widespread acceptance of this assumption is very sad in a country that has historically placed such high value on private property, limited government, and the free market.

Pastor Evans writes: “The underlying premise in this silly debate is that tax exemption is an inalienable right.” This statement fails to acknowledge that in some instances it is appropriate to distinguish between constitutional and inalienable rights.  But, if the debate is silly, why are so many resources being devoted to opposing the Pulpit Initiative?

Related:

The Dallas Morning News also carries this editorial opposing the Pulpit Initiative.