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!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!arnold
From: arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches.
Message-ID: <10519@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 22:08:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10519
Posted: Wed Oct  2 22:08:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 03:23:51 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: 74
Xref: watmath net.politics:11310 net.religion:7861

>>>, > = Paul Dubuc
>> = Me
(not too much re-inclusion, I promise)

>>>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.
>
>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.

If there were no tax exemptions for religious reasons, the seperation
of Church and State would be accomplished, in that the Congress would
have made no law establishing a religion or prohibiting anyone from
belonging to any religion they chose.  Currently, the IRS judges an
organization's claim to religiousity, and can find them wanting.  It
has done so in the past, and will again.  The Constitution does not
*recognize* religion by granting it special powers, only by forbiding
the government from favoring one religion over another, and by
protecting people's choice of religious worship (1st Ammendment quoted
in full below).

The following example, generally drawn from real life, illustrates:

	Church A resembles standard church worship (say they are
	mainstream protestant or some such).

	Church B advertises in the paper that, given a $25 fee, they
	will make you a priest

	Church C holds meetings on Sundays, and provides for its pastor
	a private plane, a large mansion (in which it also headquarters
	his preaching), a limousine and driver, etc.

Now, pure neutrality would say either all are tax exempt, or all
aren't.  The problem with complete tax exemption for anyone who claims
religious belief are obvious, since anyone can invent a "religion" and
profess it publicly.

In the current situation, the result is the following

	Church A is tax exempt, no problems from IRS

	Church B has its tax exempt status revoked

	Church C is investigated for tax fraud, and is judged guilty.

Prove to me that Church B is not a valid religion.  Prove to me that
Church C has no valid (within their religious beliefs) reason to put
their pastor up in grand style (without paying him much salary, which
would be taxed).

Now, I may be wierd, but it looks like Church A, and similar religions,
are favored by the governement over Churches like B and C.

If you want seperation, describe why this is not favoritism of one
religion over another by a U.S. governmental agency acting under its
authority from laws passed by Congress.

Again, the above example is drawn from real life examples.  Specific
names of religions are not used because they are not relevant.

		Ken Arnold

First Ammendment:
	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
	religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
	abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the fight
	of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
	government for a redress of grievances.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com