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 l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches.
Message-ID: <176@l5.uucp>
Date: Sun, 6-Oct-85 15:48:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: l5.176
Posted: Sun Oct  6 15:48:41 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 04:23:41 EDT
References: <421@persci.UUCP> <582@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Ell-Five [Consultants], San Francisco
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.politics:11358 net.religion:7909

> from Tim Maroney:
>Churches receive the benefits of many government services.  Among
>these are (1) fire fighting, (2) maintenance of the public roads, (3)
>garbage collection (except, of course, where it's a billed utility), and (4)
>police discouragement of criminality.  There are plenty of others, but I
>think these will do for a start, particularly since you have not responded
>to any of them yet.
>
>Since they receive government services without paying for them, unlike
>secular organizations, then they are being supported by taxes.

I think you are aiming at the wrong problem.  ``Churches'' as such can not
recieve benefits.  It is only the individuals who are members of those
organisations who can recieve benefits.  Does it make sense to tax any
sort or arganisation for these benefits?  Most of the churches are supported
by taxpayers.  They have already paid for these services *once* with
their income tax -- should they have to pay for them *again* because of
their other beliefs?

Note that implicit in this argument is the idea that taxes are in some way
a ``fair price'' for these services. If you want to shift me from this
position to ``taxation is theft'' all you have to do is blow.

-- 
Laura Creighton		(note new address!)
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa