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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ucbvax!arnold From: arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches. Message-ID: <10553@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Sat, 5-Oct-85 17:15:48 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10553 Posted: Sat Oct 5 17:15:48 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 06:28:25 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: 135 Xref: watmath net.politics:11337 net.religion:7891 >> = Me > = Paul Dubuc >>(not too much re-inclusion, I promise) > >I think you should have included more *response* to the points of my >article that you left out. I decided on a general statement which I think covered the more important points raised in your letter, rather than a point-by-point rebuttal. In this letter, I am bypassing most of what you said to get to the meat of the matter, which is the legal judging of religous validity. Since this is the central point of my objection to the current tax exemption system, tihs eems reasonable to me. If I am not selective this way, the size of articles will grow steadily and without bound. I have no objections to you focusing on the more important parts of my articles in your responses, either. Now that that's clear ... >>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. ... and by choosing what to recognize as religion an what not, and then giving what is judged religious benefits denied to what is judged non-religious, the gov't is favoring religons which pass its tests over religions which don't. This is not non-interference. It, in fact -- by making some religions offically recognized and others not -- establishes certain religions as state authorized and certified. Does this violate the first ammendment? Read it yourself and see what *you* think. If you don't think so, either (a) explain how the first ammendment allows legal favoritism for certain religions and not others, or (b) explain why granting of priviliges to certain religions and not others is not favoritism. Appeals to "their judgement is correct; those others are *not* religions" are not acceptable (see below). >How long am I going to have to go on repeating myself? Taxing the Church >subordinates it to the State. What right does the State have to do this? >Church and State do not *grant* each other anything! The State does >not *favor* religion by offering tax exemption. It has no right to tax >in the first place! Says who? I can see no *explicit* statement of this in the first ammendment. It must be a matter of interpretation. In fact, let's read the 16th ammendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Note: "from wahtever sources derived". It clearly allows the collection of taxes on any income, including a church's, a charity's, a school's, etc. The only exception I know which has been considered implied by the courts is that various govt's may not tax each other. The rest of it is all statutory, i.e., by legislative act, not by constitutional protection. It has the right to tax churches, and has chosen not to exercise that right, I believe wrongly. >>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. > >I wouldn't worry much about whether B is a valid religion or not. Certainly >you haven't given enough information to decide. What does ordination >for a fee really buy those who are paying for it? There is nothing >wrong with saying that being clergy is more than just buying a paper that >says you are. Isn't that true with any profession? There is no special >standard for the Church here. > >Your contention for church C can be proved to the same extent that it >is for businesses. Again, no special standard here and the ruling >has little to do with whether the church itself represents a religion. I consider my point proven by the statement "I wouldn't worry much about whether B is a valid religion." The whole problem is that some people have religious views which others would not recognize as valid. It is not the place of the gov't to decide between them. The rest of this article is just explication. Assumptions in above: (a) Preaching is a profession Says who? Should it be? Church B may have a valid (to them) argument. What business does the IRS have to say the preachers must be professionals? Besides, I can't remember that Jesus had any professional training, nor did either Peter or Paul. Nor did Joseph Smith. (b) Standards that apply to business are correctly applied to religions. The standards that apply to spending by business can not be applied to religion. A religion is not a business. If it was, its purpose would be to make money, not to serve religious belief. >>First Amendment: >> 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. > >The *free* exercise of religion precludes the power of the State >to tax the Church. Right. Which means, if one accepts your conclusion, that nobody who claims to have a religion can be excluded from tax exemption without abridging their right of free exercise of religion. Your *honest* religious views may be at odds with their *honest* religious beliefs, but they are still exercising religion, and therefore, to tax them would interfere with their free exercise of religion. See example above, in which Churches B and C are not allowed tax exemption, and are therefore taxed, and therefore are *not* allowed free exercise of religion. How much clearer can the contradiction be? This will be the last posting by me on this subject, since from this point on I can only repeat myself, possibly in new and different ways. Unless somebody propose a new argument, or I think of one, ta-ta. Ken Arnold Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com