Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: Tax relief for Churches--ARRRRGHH
Message-ID: <1118@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 18:11:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.1118
Posted: Mon Oct  7 18:11:07 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 04:26:22 EDT
References: <40@drutx.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 38
Xref: watmath net.religion:7911 net.politics:11359 net.flame:12220

> I am pissed!!!  Did anyone notice the disgusting act that passed 
> the Senate yesterday?
> 
>   "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday
>    to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the 
>    practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved
>    legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting
>    Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News
> 
> THAT is what is wrong with tax exemptions for churches.  It can
> be used as a battering ram against religions.  By denying tax
> exemption to any religion, as has been done here, it becomes a
> bonus to the others.
> 
> Wicca, running on a smaller budget than the major churches, anyway,
> could be hurt badly by this.  There will probably be an attempt to 
> take tax exemption from Thelema (after all, they will say, Crowley was a
> Satanist.  The people who make such decisions don't know better.)  Then
> how about Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism--after all they have all those 
> dieties with skulls and such, obviously Satanist.  (:-)
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> So Falwell gets his millions without tax, and any religion that
> some IRS person thinks is witchcraft does not.  And you can bet your
> booties that Helms (who sponsered this abomination) wants it to apply
> to anything non-Christian.  The bill itself is Christian in that the
> definition of something as "Satanist" or "witchcraft" has no real 
> meaning outside of the Christian view.  I hope someone takes this to 
> court.  If this is not a law "respecting the establishment of any 
> religion," I don't know what is.

Believe it or not, the Reagan administration is against this bill!  (I was
surprised, too.)  Or, more precisely, they say that they will not (under
current law) attempt to deny tax exemption to any religious group, regard-
less of its tenets.  Their reasoning:  freedom of religion.  The really
appalling thing is that this idiot amendment passed by *voice vote*.  (Source:
today's N.Y. Times.)