Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!rb
From: rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Tax relief for Churches--ARRRRGHH
Message-ID: <308@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 21:40:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccivax.308
Posted: Thu Oct 10 21:40:18 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 05:40:14 EDT
References: <40@drutx.UUCP> <12090@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 57

> > 
> >    ...the Senate approved
> >    legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting
> >    Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> >                                      Sue Brezden
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Satanism is not just a Christian view, just
> as a crime under the law is not just a Christian view.  Police records I've
> seen talked about on the news gives very real evidence of the doctrines of
> satanic cults.  These doctrines according to the various news reports support
> violence and in some cases murder.
> I'm not coming from an emotional or prejudiced point of view, I'm just echoing
> various news reports I've seen over the years.
> If the doctrines are indeed what police reports seem to indicate, then satanism
> and whichcraft have a very real meaning outside the Christian view and permeatesequally to secular as well as non secular groups.

The unconstitutionality of this bill is not that it excludes Satanists/Witches
from tax exempt status, it is the fact that it NAMES Satanists/Witches.

Had the law been worded, "Non-Profit" organizations engaging in criminal
activities, commercial enterprises, or illegal activities, with strict
definitions of each, there would have been a good chance that it would
have stood up in court.  Unfortunately, a few Christian churches
would also have lost "exempt status".

 Instead, it singles out a specific diety, and specific practices.
Unless "faith healing" comes under the auspices of witchcraft, it
excludes non-satanic cults, therefore can be considered a violation of
the Bill of Rights.  It was precisely because of the "Salem Witch
Trials" that this amendment was passed.

Thanks to Mr. Helms, Rev. Moon can still run his flower business,
Rev. Falwell can still electrocute his congregation, Jim Jones
could still poison his gongregation (If he were still alive),
Pat Roberts can still sell advertizing without paying taxes,
and a small handful of minister's can live in church owned
"housing" in places like Vail Colorado, Miami Beach, Malibu,
and other vacation resorts, tax free.

I suppose, under current law, a church could start making cars,
computers, or even guns, tax exempt under the "religeous freedom"
umbrella.

	Nice Going Jesse!

Has the house passed it? Has the President signed it?
Voice Vote means Bob Dole called it as he heard it, remember that
it 1988!

[opinions are mine and subject to change without notice]