Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <717@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 11:32:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.717
Posted: Sat Sep 14 11:32:34 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 05:28:02 EDT
References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <673@utastro.UUCP> <5878@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.politics:11012 net.religion:7653

> In article <673@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
> >
> >I thought religions were already being helped financially - don't
> >they get tax breaks?
> 
> This is really irrelevant to the issue at hand since public schools
> don't pay taxes either.  Private schools have to charge tuition.
> Parents paying this tuition must also pay taxes to support the public
> schools.  (This is the argument for tuition tax credits.)
> 
> Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd

I hate to disappoint you but it is relevant. I was responding to the remark:

>> OK.  Then we'll make church attendance cumpulsory, just as a
>> state certified education is now.  You'll have to help support
>> the church with your tax money too, just so we're all on an
>> equal footing.  Is it a deal?
>> -- 
>> 
>> Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd

The implication here is that churches don't get help financially from the
tax-payer. If they don't have to pay taxes, then they are being helped.

Padraig Houlahan