Tax exemption amendment

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
Tax exemption amendment				August 28, 2002

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote one of the most important interpretive letters that has ever been penned relative to the constitutional relationship between a secular state and the forces of religion within it. As president, Jefferson had been solicited by the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association to follow the lead of his predecessors, Washington and Adams, and proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving.

Ever wary of the incursion of religion into the machinery of state, Jefferson responded that religion is a matter “that lies solely between man & his god.” He then goes on to say that, in denying their request, he is following the lead of the people, that “their legislature make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

In short, Jefferson firmly believed that it was the place of neither the legislative nor the executive branch to do anything that might be construed as the establishment of religion.

As we move from the early 19^th to the early 21^st century, however, we find ourselves constantly ducking out from under the bricks that have been raining down from the crumbling Jeffersonian wall. In Virginia, the legislature, with the assignation of the executive branch, just last year decreed that “In God We Trust” be posted on the walls of all public buildings. At the same time, on the national level, the Supreme Court approved spending public money on school vouchers for religious schools.

As an indication of what a remarkable muddle this mixture of religion and state has produced, we now find fundamentalist Christians, backed by some state legislators, protesting the fact that the University of North Carolina has asked its freshmen to read and discuss a book dealing with the Qur’an. Ironically, their protest, claim the Christians, is based on Jefferson’s concept of the separation of church and state.

The fact is that there has been a constant erosion of Jefferson’s beliefs over the years. The battle over teaching creationism vs. evolution in the public schools is still being waged in many southern and midwestern states. And just about every state, and indeed the federal government, subsidizes religion by exempting church property from taxation.

In our area alone there are almost 100 churches, most of them Protestant and 99% of them Christian. Many of them sit on extensive and expensive pieces of property and sport elaborate buildings. And none of them is taxed.

But things may get worse.

This November we will be asked to approve an amendment to Article X, Section 6 of the state constitution. This amendment would allow local governing bodies, as opposed to the state legislature, to pass ordinances to exempt from taxation “property used by its owner for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes.”

In other words, localities no longer need petition the state legislature for exemptions. It now will be up to them to decide whether a tax exemption should be granted to a property owner who is using his or her property for religious, patriotic or any other of the listed purposes – subject, of course, to the “restrictions and conditions provided by general law.”

And this, I suggest, might well open up a can of very nasty worms. Obviously localities will have to set up guidelines as to what, in their opinion, constitute “religious purposes.” Local boards may now be faced with choosing between exemptions for Maude Flicker, who conducts prayer meetings in her house, and a local Islamic center.

In addition, local boards will have to decide what constitutes “religion.” For instance, would an appeal from the Wiccans for an exemption for the land on which they hold their services receive the same reception as one from a newly formed First Baptist Church of Norge? Or might the Ethical Culturists claim an exemption, even though their “religion” is non-theistic?

The fact is that this section of the code is so broadly constructed that its interpretation should never be left in the hands of local governing boards and the biases that attend them. It’s bad enough that the legislature has chosen to include so may exemptive possibilties in this section. But at least when it makes the decisions about religious exemptions, it is after, one would hope, meaningful discussion by legislators familiar with the restrictions of the code.

The point is that, if we abide by Jefferson’s text, we should not be subsidizing religion by exempting church property from taxation. Indeed, a proper amendment to the constitution would allow localities to rescind such exemptions. But I fear that the wall of separation has fallen too far for that to occur.