Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches.
Message-ID: <7800476@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Sep-85 08:46:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800476
Posted: Mon Sep 30 08:46:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 04:40:04 EDT
References: <5945@cbscc.UUCP>
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #R:cbscc:-594500:inmet:7800476:000:956
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Sep 30 08:46:00 1985


By all means: let's let churches, (if they wish the services of
a municipal fire department) make explicit payments for such a service.
Of course, they should be free to subscribe to alternative fire
departments instead (as should everyone else).

How should the "separation" clause operate here?  The founders saw the
opportunity for a government to tax particular churches out of existence
so well, and provided for it so nicely (by refusing to tax churches at all)
that the problem of unpopular churches being taxed to the ground doesn't
come up ("Sorry, we'll have to charge you 10 times the usual fire-insurance
rate because, er, Stars of David are MUCH more inflammable than 
Crucifixes").

Right now, governments supply some services free to churches, and
since I pay taxes, I "help" supply such services (whether I like it or
not), but private stores and services do or do not according to their
own inclinations.  I much prefer the second way.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com