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 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com