In the New Testament, members of the church laid the proceeds from their possessions at the feet of the Apostles. (Acts 4:34-37) The practice was important enough that when it was not adhered to in honesty, divine consequences. (Acts 5:1-11) Frequently, missionaries and other traveling authorities were asked to travel without "purse or scrip." (Mark 6:8) In later reports, Christ's Apostles confirmed that they had lacked for nothing in these conditions. (Luke 22:35) This could only have been possible because of the contributions of members who desired to help the Kingdom of God according to their faith.
There are numerous examples of people who have been blessed tremendously when they have given of their substance to support the temporal needs of God's priests, prophets, and servants. The widow of Zarephath who gave to Elijah was blessed with enough food to endure the drought in Israel. (1 Kings 17) The Nephites who lived in the Christian utopia after his arrival in America completely alleviated poverty because they gave of themselves. (4 Nephi 1:1-3)
Unfortunately, Christians (and many who masquerade as Christians) have in many cases abused this time-honored tradition.
These abuses have not gone unnoticed by secularists. In a spectacular stunt, John Oliver of HBO's Last Week Tonight created his own church called "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption." (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com) In doing so, he demonstrated the ease with which he could obtain donations from supporters, and be free from taxation because these donations were made to a "church."
While the idea was ridiculous, it was sadly not far from the schemes of some "televangelists" who promise their supporters blessings for making contributions to their "churches," when they are actually spending the money on luxurious lifestyles. Because these contributions are made to churches, they are protected from taxation under the first amendment.
These practices have inspired many secularists to call for the taxation of churches. The reasoning is that any institution that collects money and operates like a business should be subject to taxing power of the government like any other business.
On the surface, this argument may seem reasonable. It appeals to the natural sense of fairness that most people embrace by suggesting that all organizations be treated the same.
Of course, the flaw in this thinking is that not all organizations are the same. This is true even if at times they do similar activities.
A security company that provides armed guards for clients may perform similar activities as a military unit providing security for individuals of national concern, but a security company should not be treated the same as a military unit. There are special characteristics of a national military force that necessitate treating these organizations differently. Many of these characteristics are defined by the Constitution and federal law.
Similarly, religion is not the same as opinion.
The Constitution explicitly protects the rights of an individual to practice their religion... and prohibits the government from making laws that would prohibit the free exercise thereof. (Amendment I)
The right of an individual to support a particular faith, to practice a faith, or to abstain from associations or practices based on their deeply held religious beliefs, is not just a preference... it is protected. The right of an assembly of individuals is similarly protected.
If a person contributes of their own property to exercise religion, any law that would exact a portion of that contribution diminishes the freedom of that individual to full exercise their faith. Imagine a tax collector taking one of the widows two mites that she wanted to give to God. (Luke 21:1-4) Would she then have been giving all she had to God? No... because of taxation.
Additionally, being a part of an organization does not mean that these liberties dissolve. A person is not free to exercise their religion unless they are at work, or unless they are in a church, or unless they are in a group. These rights persist unless there is a compelling case of direct harm.
A society that, using taxes or regulations, takes the contributions of individuals to religious organizations or for religious purposes cannot pretend they guarantee freedom of religion.
That is not to say that religious individuals and organizations do not have a responsibility to society. The importance of religious liberty is strengthened when religious persons "promote the general welfare" and act to "secure the blessings of liberty" for themselves and their families... which are the declared purposes of the Constitution of the United States.
This may mean ensuring that funds associated with your faith are audited. It may mean having the good judgment to know that a tear-out page in a magazine that sells prayers for you to get a new car may not be the best way to exercise your faith. It may mean volunteering to be a part of service activities, so that more than just money is contributed.
It always means following God according to your conscience.
Society (including the secular portions of society) benefits when people regularly persuade one another to do good, and to become better. Religious liberty (including financial religious liberty) promotes this outcome more effectively than any other freedom.
