Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches.
Message-ID: <5975@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 09:20:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5975
Posted: Wed Sep 25 09:20:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 03:58:42 EDT
References: <5958@cbscc.UUCP> <880@abnji.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 35
Xref: watmath net.politics:11193 net.religion:7770

In article <880@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes:
>>I guess I have strong views on it too.  In the example you use above
>>you seem to be implying that the church would count as one of the
>>10 "people".  How's that?  Does the govenment serve the church, or is it
>>entitled to a certian amount control over the churches assets?  Any
>>instance is which tax money is provided to serve church interests is touted
>>as a violation of the separation of church and state.  Doesn't the
>>"wall" of separation work both ways?
>
>If a church catches fire, I would assume that the local fire company
>will go to put out the fire.  Is that a violation of church and state?
>Isn't is a situation where a government does serve a church?
>-- 
>James C. Armstrong, Jnr.	{ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa

Maybe, if the fire dept. is not volunteer.  But the government also has an
interest in any adjoining properties and the lives that might be in danger.
Churches are also compelled to obey local fire and saftey codes.  I think
that is a reasonable demand and expense in return for fire protection.  The
insurance companies that insure church buildings don't want them burning
to the ground.  No, I don't think this is a violation of separation, any
more than it is for public employees to receive the services of the local
church on sunday (and supporting the church is not cumpulsory).  Support
for the church does come from taxpayers who have an interest in the protection
and insurability of the property.

If it is a violation, then maybe public fire depts. should let churches
burn to the ground, and the police shouldn't bother investigating crimes
that occurr on church property, etc.  Is any one in favor of this?  If
not, and you still accept it as a violation, why not accept other violations
also (like direct support with tax money)?

-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd