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: <6024@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 16:53:09 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.6024 Posted: Thu Oct 3 16:53:09 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 06:23:18 EDT References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 122 Xref: watmath net.politics:11315 net.religion:7867 In article <10519@ucbvax.ARPA> arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) writes: >(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. >>>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 separation >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 forbidding >the government from favoring one religion over another, and by >protecting people's choice of religious worship (1st Amendment quoted >in full 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! >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. But what income are they going to necessarily get by doing so? There must be property to tax or be exempt. This doesn't come just by declaring a religion. There must be followers to support it. If there is, then who has a right to tell those followers that theirs is not a valid religion? You agree that no one has. If there are no followers, then what is there to tax in the first place? Nothing worth bothering about. >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). 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. Churches themselves have an interest in standards of honesty, which they share with the State. That is a different question than the standard of what is a religion. I think that most clergy are under paid and over worked, and they are honest. Should they suffer for the dishonest ones? Do we take away the freedom of speech (or tax it) because we feel that some abuse it? >Now, I may be weird, but it looks like Church A, and similar religions, >are favored by the government over Churches like B and C. ... if tax exemption is indeed a favor that the government has a right to bestow as it see fit. It isn't. Again, Church and State have to recognize their own bounds. The State has no right to indiscriminately tax the Church. Neither does the Church have an absolute right to withhold what rightly belongs to the State. This tension has to be maintained to prevent either institution from gaining inordinate power over the other. If maintaining that tension means that some ambiguities exist, so be it. The alternative (i.e. totalitarianism, whether under the Church or State) is too high a price to pay. Democracy is a raucous process, but it has done well to preserve the freedoms we have come to take for granted. It has worked well because it ensures that countervailing forces (Church and State in this instance) each have a fair part to play, an that no one single institution gets control over the others. The "pure neutrality" you refer to above is a fiction. Something close to neutrality (call it "balance") exists only when an active tension exists between Church and State. Taxing the Church does not make Church/State relations neutral. It subordinates the Church to the State. >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. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com