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: <5982@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5982
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 05:46:54 EDT
References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <1673@dciem.UUCP> <5945@cbscc.UUCP> <10447@ucbvax.ARPA> <5958@cbscc.UUCP> <10468@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 99
Xref: watmath net.politics:11206 net.religion:7778

In article <10468@ucbvax.ARPA> arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) writes:
>In article <5958@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes:
>>>	Say there are 10 people paying taxes to support a $100 budget.
>>>	Assuming roughly comparable means, everybody would pay $10.
>>>	Now, exempt one of those 10 people from paying taxes.  Now it's
>>>	approximately $11.11 per person for the other 9.  The smaller
>>>	tax base caused by exemption increases the tax load on non-
>>>	exempt people.
>>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?
>
>Well, I should have been a bit more explicit.  In this country,
>corporations pay taxes.  If certain curches were not tax exampt, they
>would also pay taxes.  Thus, they are a potential part of the tax base,
>who are exempted because of their religion.  The portion of taxes they
>would otherwise pay has to be picked up.  This constitutes a subsidy,
>in just the same way we taxpayers subsidize Greenpeace, the American
>Cancer Society, and any other organization that would normally pay
>taxes under our laws.

*Normally* pay taxes?  Why is it that the church should *normally* pay
taxes?  On what basis can the state claim this kind of control over the
assets of the church?

>As I said at the end of my last letter, this is quite a reasonable
>thing to do with tax codes.  The question is how to choose what to
>subsidize in this way.  I have two main problems with using this kind
>of subsidy for religious groups.  The first is that it mixes church and
>state, because the laws of the state (tax laws in this case) are being
>used to subsidize certain relgions and not others, and also to favor
>organized religion over non-organized (disorganized?:-) religion.

And taxing the church does not mix church and state?  What kind of
representation in government could the church get in return for its
tax money?

>Before you flame me on this, think about how you get to be tax exempt.
>You petition the IRS, and they say yea or nay.  Obivously they can say
>"nay", and they do at times.  Thus, some organized religions are
>subsidized, and others are not.

And the IRS does not have to have the final say.  How many religious
organizations can you name that are not tax exempt?  Again, if tax
exemption is to be construed as a subsidy,  then the amount that you
are exempted from your personal income tax (e.g. 70% is you are in 
a 30% tax bracket) can also be considered a subsidy and a expenditure
of the state.  They subsidize everything you own by that reasoning.

>Which leads me to the second part of my objection, which is that it
>places the government in the position of deciding what is a valid
>religion, and what is a valid religious expense  That is not its
>business, and intrudes upon the independence of religious belief.  They
>not only subsidize, they *validate* religions and religious beliefs.

No, not validate; recognize (validation implies giving a right to exist).
The state must recognise places where it has no right to intrude.  The
Church is such and institution if the wall of separation means anything.

>Well, now, what would I like to see?  After all, many religions operate
>to the benefit of society at large in the same way that the Berkeley
>Free Clinic does, in that they act as charitable and/or educational
>organizations (in what follows I will say "charitable" and mean
>"charitable and/or educational").  It would seem wrong to only allow
>tax exemptions for non-religious charities.  What I would like to see
>is tax exemption for religious groups eliminated, but allow churches to
>apply for tax exemption *for that part of their operation which is
>charitable* in the same way any other charity asks for it.  This would
>get the gov't out of the business of judging religions and their
>expenses, and me out of the business of subsidizing the building of
>cathedrals, icons, altars, bible classes, and other religious
>activities and things which are not part of my religion.
>
>		Ken Arnold

What claim does the state have to the assets of the Church in the first
place?  How would you define what constitues a "charitible" organization?
Is that *all* the church is?  What you are advocating allows tremendous
state interferrence in church affairs.  You seem to grant the state the
right to control all other instutions by viewing tax exemption as tax
expenditure.  Should the state be in the business of "defining" what is
"charitable" if not "religious"?

Church and State are two separate, human institutions.  One ought not
to have control over the other.  We need this to maintian religious and
political freedom.  The one keeps the other in check.  If the Church is
not allowed to "tax" the state (i.e. demand direct support in the form
of tax dollars) then the state ought not to be able to tax the Church.
I think we're asking for a lot of trouble when one of these institutions
thinks it has claim to everyone's property and views any exemption from
that claim as a grace rather than a right.

-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd