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: <6014@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 12:47:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.6014
Posted: Tue Oct  1 12:47:40 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 03:42:10 EDT
References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 156
Xref: watmath net.politics:11285 net.religion:7847


In article <10505@ucbvax.ARPA> arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) writes:
...
>>And the IRS does not have to have the final say.  How many religious
>>organizations can you name that are not tax exempt?
>
>Well, let's see.  There have been several cases of churches which
>inducted people via mail having their tax-exempt status revoked.  Now,
>this may seem quite reasonable to you (it certainly does to some people
>I know), but isn't that the point?  This religion seems fake *to you*.
>It seems so the IRS also.  But it is not the gov't's place to make such
>a judgement.  They may have any one of a number of reasons to consider
>their methods valid, and it is only personal judgement, not
>governmental judgement, which should aid or hinder a religion.

The government *has* to make those judgements.  Religion is recognized
by our Constitution.  The Supreme Court has to make rulings on what
constitutes good separation of Church and State.  Both Church and State
have to recognize what is not in their realm of control.

>Oh, and note the term "religious organizations".  If you only help
>religious organizations, you also favor organized religions over
>decentralized ones, such as most of the new age religions.

The term is not a discriminatory one, but a practical one.  Only
organizations are impacted by taxes.  Taxing religious groups
discriminates against organized religions (i.e. those with property
subject to tax).

>>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.
>
>Oh, not really.  The amount I pay gov't for the services they provide
>does not mean that what I keep is a subsidy.  I am simply paying what
>is my fair share, or some rough approximation thereof.  However, if I
>receive services without paying for them, that IS a subsidy.  Churches
>receive public services.  Police protection, for example.  Roads bring
>them needed supplies, religious and non-religious.  Need I go on?

So who decides what your fair share is?  How is it decided?  The Church
is supported by people who already pay their fair share of taxes (supposedly).
The church is not a profit making organization, yet it does provide services
to the community.  Is the money that is given to support the church
going to be taxed twice?  Can the Church tax the state for the services
it provides?  Can it start taxing the people who use church services?
What kind of representation in government is the Church going to get
for the taxes it pays?  How can the Church *not* benefit from using roads
and the police and fire protection that is provided for the community?
It is the people in the community that support the church who also pay
for those services.  Taxing the church itself for facilities it cannot
avoid using is taxing the very existence of the Church.  This is
an infringement of the State upon the Church's right to exist as apart
from State control.

>>>[tax exemption] 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 ... They not only subsidize, they *validate*
>>>religions and religious beliefs.
>>
>>No, not validate; recognize (validation implies giving a right to exist).
>>The state must recognize places where it has no right to intrude.  The
>>Church is such and institution if the wall of separation means anything.
>
>The IRS has engaged in several well-publicized investigations of the
>spending practices of various small religions.  It is, in effect,
>determining if it is a valid religious expense to keep the leaders in
>the lap of luxury.  Is it?  Well, some religion might find it so (the
>Catholics do a pretty good job of this), and others might not.  What is
>right?  The IRS knows...

So who's going to define what the "lap of luxury" is?  Clergy *do* pay
income taxes, you know.  The IRS already has to decide what is a valid
tax deductible expense (e.g. "business" expenses that keep executives
in the "lap of luxury") for anyone, not just the Church.

>>>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.
>>
>>What claim does the state have to the assets of the Church in the first
>>place?  How would you define what constitutes a "charitable" organization?
>>Is that *all* the church is?  What you are advocating allows tremendous
>>state interference in church affairs.  You seem to grant the state the
>>right to control all other institutions by viewing tax exemption as tax
>>expenditure.  Should the state be in the business of "defining" what is
>>"charitable" if not "religious"?
>
>How do you define what is a charitable institution?  We seem to be able
>to make that decision in some fashion now.  The IRS is not infallible
>in this choice, but it does pretty well.  I would rather they be
>judging charitable-ness than valid religion.  It is more subject to
>relatively judgeable criteria.  But what type of gods exist and what is
>the best way to serve them is a bit harder.

The IRS does not have to rule on the truth claims of a religion to recognize
it as one.  The Supreme Court has already recognized a broad definition
of religion.  You don't even have to believe in God.  (So the Humanist
Fellowship in Columbus is a church).  Shifting from the definition of
religion to "charity" does not solve any problems and only narrows the
criteria.  What are going to be the criteria for a "charity"?  Of course
the State is going to decide that, and since "charity" can be defined
in much narrower terms than "religion" the state gets more power over
religion.  What if certain churches have beliefs that some political
organizations don't like?  Well, then those churches become "uncharitable"
and get slapped with a tax.  This is a powerful way to ensure that
only state-approved religious activity gets promoted.

>The state has the same claim to the assests of a church as it has to
>the assests of the March of Dimes.  Under current law, if it did not
>have explicit sanction from the law, it would be taxed in order that it
>pay its share of the public services it receives.  If one admits the
>right of the government to tax organizations at all, then all
>organizations are potential parts of the tax base.  Then you list what
>kinds of organizations you will exempt, and these regulations lead to a
>list of actual organizations exempted.  Why should one religion be on
>that list, and another not?  What if Paul Zimmerman founds an
>organization to refine study of the Damager-God?  Should it be tax
>exempt?

Yes.  So should Satanists (gasp!) and occult groups.  Tax exemption
is not a subsidy.  It is part of the right to freedom of religion apart
from state control.  Granting tax exemption does not constitute approval
of any particular religion, since it is not a subsidy but a right to
to religious freedom unhindered and uncontrolled by the State.

Some cult groups (e.g. *real* Satanists) perform activities that are
illegal (e.g. human sacrifice, drug abuse, mutilation of animals).
They can be prosecuted for those actions under the *criminal* code
(the tax code is not the place for such judgements).  Because of the
nature of these activities, I doubt very much whether Satanists would
be affected either way by the tax code (e.g. they aren't going to want
to build conspicuous temples for human sacrifices).

>As far as the equivalence of tax exemption and tax expenditure, there
>is a rather strong connection, though not, I believe, an exact
>equality.  If the effect of exemption and and expenditure even out in
>the end, it would be hard to argue that there is much significant
>difference.

You keep avoiding the moral and Constitutional issue here.  What
gives the State any right to control of the Church?  Charitable,
and service organizations don't have any ideological stance that
will balance that of the State (many of them also get *direct* support
with tax money as well as receiving a tax exemption).  That balance
of power must be maintained where Church and State are concerned.
The unchecked power of the State has the same inherent dangers as
the unchecked power of the Church.  I think your argument takes
a very statist posture, Ken.

-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd