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!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!arnold From: arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches. Message-ID: <10468@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 21:23:44 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10468 Posted: Wed Sep 25 21:23:44 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 04:46:14 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: 62 Xref: watmath net.politics:11200 net.religion:7773 In article <5958@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >> Me: >> Say there are 10 people paying taxes to support a $100 budget. >> Assuming roughly comparable means, everybody would pay $10. >> Now, exempt one of those 10 people from paying taxes. Now it's >> approximately $11.11 per person for the other 9. The smaller >> tax base caused by exemption increases the tax load on non- >> exempt people. >> > >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? > >Paul Dubuc Well, I should have been a bit more explicit. In this country, corporations pay taxes. If certain curches were not tax exampt, they would also pay taxes. Thus, they are a potential part of the tax base, who are exempted because of their religion. The portion of taxes they would otherwise pay has to be picked up. This constitutes a subsidy, in just the same way we taxpayers subsidize Greenpeace, the American Cancer Society, and any other organization that would normally pay taxes under our laws. As I said at the end of my last letter, this is quite a reasonable thing to do with tax codes. The question is how to choose what to subsidize in this way. I have two main problems with using this kind of subsidy for religious groups. The first is that it mixes church and state, because the laws of the state (tax laws in this case) are being used to subsidize certain relgions and not others, and also to favor organized religion over non-organized (disorganized?:-) religion. Before you flame me on this, think about how you get to be tax exempt. You petition the IRS, and they say yea or nay. Obivously they can say "nay", and they do at times. Thus, some organized religions are subsidized, and others are not. Which leads me to the second part of my objection, which is that it 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, and intrudes upon the independence of religious belief. They not only subsidize, they *validate* religions and religious beliefs. Well, now, what would I like to see? After all, many religions operate to the benefit of society at large in the same way that the Berkeley Free Clinic does, in that they act as charitable and/or educational organizations (in what follows I will say "charitable" and mean "charitable and/or educational"). It would seem wrong to only allow tax exemptions for non-religious charities. 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. This would get the gov't out of the business of judging religions and their expenses, and me out of the business of subsidizing the building of cathedrals, icons, altars, bible classes, and other religious activities and things which are not part of my religion. Ken Arnold Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com