Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!arnold
From: arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches.
Message-ID: <10468@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 21:23:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10468
Posted: Wed Sep 25 21:23:44 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 04:46:14 EDT
References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 62
Xref: watmath net.politics:11200 net.religion:7773

In article <5958@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes:
>> Me:
>>	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?
>
>Paul Dubuc

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.

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.
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.

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.

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