ABSTRACT
Social differentiation remains an accepted core of the secularization thesis. In modern life, the sacred has become separated from the secular sphere. As much comparative research has shown, this process has not resulted in a homogeneous global secularity, but a multitude of secularisms. Even among stable and secular democracies, state-religion relations can take very diverse forms.
The secular sphere, which becomes differentiated from the religious one in modernity, is not limited to the realm of politics and the state, however. It also encompasses the economy. Here very little comparative research has been undertaken regarding the economic shape of secularisms. That the differentiation between what is god’s and what is the emperor’s has been the focus of the literature of comparative secularization is certainly justified. Yet, the lack of interest in the economic secularization of religious communities and organizations is also surprising to some degree. Despite the common view across religious divides that the sacred should not be defiled by the quest for wealth and that the moneychangers and merchants should be cleansed from the temple, religious institutions have always and necessarily been economic enterprises. The building and maintenance of religious sites as well as the training and employment of doctrinal and ritual specialists has always required and still requires today economic resources. What has changed in modernity is that now religious organizations are subject to the regulatory and taxing authority of the secular state. This chapter compares the regulation of the economic activities of religious organizations in six countries. Here, economic activities are understood to comprise both non-profit charitable activities and for-profit business activities. Related to these questions are further comparisons of the tax treatment of income derived from donations and economic activities, the tax treatment of donors, as well as the issue of the requirements to keep accounts imposed on them by secular authorities. Despite large differences between the countries included in this comparison, they all are secular free-market economies, promising to make the comparison insightful. The variety of state-religion relations that can be observed in these countries is also reflected in the form of how religious groups acquire juridical personhoods, a necessary prerequisite to enter the realm of the money-changers and merchants. This in turn impacts regulatory requirements regarding the keeping of accounts. Arguably, however, of greater significance are the similarities. In all countries the religious ‘core-competencies’ of the religious organizations are tax-exempt. Yet, if they venture into the free market, tax rules and other regulations ascertain that their tax-exempt status does not give them an unfair advantage over non-religious market participants. In this sense, the economic sphere is a common and crucial component of secular modernity deserving more and more in-depth research.
