Your notion that a lack of taxes is the same as government funding presumes that some portion of everyone's income, assets or both belong to the state and that the state is allowing one to keep part of its property when it declines to tax. The fact is that states choose not to tax many forms of income, transactions or assets. Absent a requirement that governments tax all incomes, transactions or assets identically (which they generally do not), without regard to use or other considerations, then the decision not to tax a certain type or use of property is arguably merely a matter of tax administration. Furthermore, it can be argued (and surely has been) that taxing a facility necessary for the free practice of religion represents an interference in such free practice, which you may not care about, but is not allowed nonetheless.
BTW, by your logic, a zoning ordinance that would deny a permit for a strip club next door to a church, temple or mosque would represent an unconstitutional favorable treatment of that religious organization.
Also, by your logic, non-religious charitable, educational or social service activities of larger religious organizations could not enjoy the same tax-exempt (and tax-deductible to donors) status as purely secular organizations engaging in exactly the same services merely because the religious organization benefits indirectly. After all, they might otherwise have less money to spend on religious activities. Goodbye Salvation Army, YMCA, several universities, and many schools and other worthy organizations. Good thing the supreme court decided you were wrong. |
