COGGINS: The idea that won't go away, ending tax exemptions for churches

James R. Coggins (coggins.ca) is a writer, editor, and historian living in British ColumbiaOverlooked in all of the tariff and economic issues heading into a Canadian election is a barely noticed proposed change to Canadian tax law that could profoundly change Canadian society. Just before Parliament prorogued, on December 13, 2024, the House of Commons Finance Committee tabled a report proposing 462 changes to Canadian tax law. Among them was one to redefine the definition of a charity under the Income Tax Act to remove the privileged status of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose. (Recommendation 430.)Why?.Currently, there are four recognized purposes for charitable organizations:Relief of povertyAdvancement of educationAdvancement of religionOther purposes beneficial to the communityTo put this into perspective, more than 30,000 charitable organizations fall under the “advancement of religion” purpose. That's roughly 42% of all Canadian charities.Canadians who donate money to recognized charities can receive a federal government tax credit of up to 29% of these donations when filing their annual income tax returns. This deduction obviously is an incentive for Canadians to give to recognized charities..Now, back to the proposed change. There is no guarantee that the change will be enacted. Many such recommendations are never passed into law. But it is nevertheless concerning that it is even being considered.What would happen if this change were made by a new government after the next election?A large number of religious organizations would no longer be eligible to receive tax-deductible donations. Canadians could still donate to them, but they would not receive tax credits for those donations. This would undoubtedly reduce donations to tens of thousands of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other organizations. In time, this could be extended to other charities with religious ties, including camps, schools, soup kitchens, and drug and alcohol recovery organizations. Would an organization such as the Salvation Army, with its extensive social programs, cease to qualify, or would it be pressured to change its ethos and become a non-religious charity?.In future, Canadians could still make tax-deductible donations to a wide variety of organizations. They could give to schools, Pride organizations, groups promoting medical assistance in dying, art projects, think tanks, and advocacy groups (lobbyists.) Canadians could still make tax-deductible contributions to a wide variety of charities, but not to any group tainted by “religion.”Canadians could contribute to charities promoting various philosophies and ideas — atheism, Confucianism, agnosticism, and hedonism, for instance — which compete with religions for the loyalty of human minds, but they could not contribute to religious organizations. The government would essentially be favouring some ideas over other ideas. Similarly, Canadians could make tax-deductible donations to abortion advocacy groups, but apparently not to anti-abortion groups because Recommendation 429 of the same report was “No longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.” Like the other, this recommendation essentially would mean that the government is telling Canadians what to think, that certain ideas are more acceptable than other ideas.So, why the attack on religion? In my view, religion poses a threat to the monopolistic power of the state and the current dominant philosophical and cultural ethos. You see, God (however you conceive God to be) represents a power and an authority beyond the control of the state. God, religion, and those who believe represent a standard and ideas that can challenge and judge the state. Religion represents the one external check on the power of the state and the dominant majority.Opponents of religion will argue that charters of rights and freedoms are a better external check on the power of the state and the dominant majority. But such charters were created by governments and can be changed, reinterpreted, and even abolished by governments.There is in religion a powerful challenge to tyranny: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” (US Declaration of Independence.)“The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions…” (Canadian Bill of Rights 1960.)“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…: (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)Those are human-written charters of human rights, but they are based on the idea that there is an authority higher than the state, that human beings, created by God or in the image of God, have value and rights that the state cannot take away. Take away the foundation, and the charters become just another piece of paper. If they are simply government-created documents, they can be overturned by governments at any time.For an earlier example, consider early Christianity in the Roman Empire. Early Christianity challenged Greek and Roman society on a whole host of social, moral, and philosophical/theological issues. Early Christians challenged the practice of abandoning unwanted children in the woods by rescuing those children. Early Christians demonstrated the moral duty to help the weak and needy by helping the weak and needy. Early Christians undermined slavery, not by abolishing slavery (which they didn’t have the power to do) but by treating slaves as brothers. Early Christians countered the widespread sexual promiscuity in the Roman Empire by not participating in it. Early Christians challenged a violent society by refusing to use violence. Very imperfectly, of course, in all cases, but consistently.But what led Christians to be persecuted — the unforgivable crime that they committed — was that they refused to worship the emperor (by offering incense in a state temple.) They refused to recognize the emperor as their highest authority. And for that they were crucified and thrown to the lions.The persecution did not work of course, and Christianity continued to grow. The Roman Empire then decided that “If you can’t lick ’em, join ’em.” The Empire first recognized the Christian church under Emperor Constantine and then took it over, making it an arm of the state. This led to incalculable suffering and injustice in Western civilization in all of the centuries that followed. But the Christian idea and the Christian faith remained, repeatedly rising up to challenge the state and the state church. It does so still today.To return to the present issue. I give you the example of a local Canadian Christian church congregation I know. It is not tiny but not particularly large or influential. Among other things,It gives significant support to a school and orphanage in South America.It gives significant support to a ministry helping widows and grandmothers raising AIDS orphans in Africa.It contributes significantly (money and volunteers) to the largest social ministry in its small city.It gives generously to the local food bank.It supports at least two residential drug and alcohol addiction recovery ministries.It supports a ministry helping prostitutes get off the street.It hosts AA-type meetings.It helps with an after-school program at a local public school.It offers a summer sports program for local children.It supports an outreach ministry to at-risk youth.It offers help and support to seniors and shut-ins.It offers a wide range of opportunities for people to connect and find social support and friendship.Like most churches, it quietly gives food vouchers and emergency rent payments to individuals, some with no direct connection to the church.More could be listed. And this does not count the other good deeds and donations the church encourages its members to contribute outside the church itself.Now, most of these charitable efforts would qualify under one of the other criteria for being a recognized charity. But, under the proposed legal change, donations to this church and all the good it does would not be tax deductible because the church’s current qualification is the “advancement of religion.” Of course, the church could rebrand itself as an educational institution or a social agency. But that would be a lie, and the church and the government would know it was a lie. You see, the “advancement of religion” is not some add-on that could be removed and safely discarded. The “advancement of religion” is what motivates the church and its members to undertake all of those other projects. Take away the teaching of religion, and all of those other good works would eventually blow away like chaff.If the proposed legal change were enacted, donations to this church would undoubtedly decrease, and the people receiving the help the church offers would suffer.But it would not end there. To the great astonishment of the government, the church would not wither away. It would carry on, doing what it could, remaining faithful to the religion it has taught. You see, God represents a power and an authority beyond the control of the state.Religious people do not necessarily make bad citizens. In some ways, they make very good citizens. But they do not make controllable or comfortable citizens — because they owe their primary allegiance to a higher authority than the state.James R. Coggins (coggins.ca) is a writer, editor, and historian living in British Columbia.

COGGINS: The idea that won't go away, ending tax exemptions for churches

Related Stories