Some have questioned the proposal to eliminate the tax privileges of churches as an anti-religious measure. But is not. It is a defense of the principle of secularism, which protects not only politics from the undue influence of religions but also religions from the undue influence of politics. It is then a measure that protects religious spirituality, against its contamination by politics and money.
It is relatively clear how secularism protects democratic politics from the undue influence of a certain religion. By establishing a separation between the State and religious confessions, secularism prevents the existence of an official religion. This reduces the risks of persecution of those who are not of that religion, either because they follow other faiths or because they are atheists or agnostics. Albert Camus’s admonition remains valid: politics cannot be religion because it ends up being the inquisition.
Less clear to many people but equally important is that secularism protects religions from the undue influence of the state and politics. By being separated from the State and from power, religions preserve their autonomy and thus protect their spirituality and the freedom of believers. Secularism is truly a protective shield of religious spirituality.
This role of secularism as a protective principle of religious spirituality has been highlighted by some Christian theologians. For example, Cornel West, the American professor of theology, has argued that the worst thing that happened to Christianity was that the Roman emperor Constantine made it the official religion because he made it lose the spirituality of primitive Christianity, deeply linked to the search for justice. and the defense of those who suffer. “Constantine Christianity”, as West qualifies it, which arises from the imposition of Christian ideas by state power, thus weakened “prophetic Christianity”, which was truly genuine and spiritual. That is why, following these views of authors like West, one can maintain that the first to defend secularism would be God, as I argued in a column about ten years ago.
The elimination of the tax privileges of the churches is not then an anti-religious measure but quite the opposite: it protects the true religious spirituality since it prevents the proliferation of religious organizations just to obtain those economic benefits. That’s why churches must file and pay taxes similarly to other nonprofit organizations. That is, if they carry out work of social interest, which can be carried out by lay organizations, such as supporting children, they should receive exactly the same benefits as lay organizations. But that they do not receive benefits for the religious cult as such nor that they amass fortunes that do not pay taxes.
The elimination of these tax privileges to the churches is then a good measure from any point of view. It benefits the State, which would collect more resources to fulfill its functions. And they are not minor money. A magazine calculation Briefcase estimated in 2018 that supplementary tax revenues could be of the order of 1.6 trillion pesos. This measure also eliminates the discrimination that these privileges mean for those who do not belong to any religion. And finally, it defends true religious spirituality, which should not be contaminated by politics or by the profit motive. Who then can oppose such a measure?
* Researcher in Dejusticia and professor at the National University.