Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbsck.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!pmd From: pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches Message-ID: <1373@cbsck.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 08:49:11 EDT Article-I.D.: cbsck.1373 Posted: Tue Oct 15 08:49:11 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 00:16:16 EDT References: <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <1673@dciem.UUCP> <5945@cbscc.UUCP> Lines: 62 15 Oct 85 12:49:11 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 56 Xref: clyde net.politics:11383 net.religion:7487 Another response to Ken Arnold: >>>>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! >>> >>>Says who? I can see no *explicit* statement of this in the first >>>ammendment. It must be a matter of interpretation. >> >>The "free exercise" clause is explict enough. > >Not about taxation. That is what I was refering to. The First >Ammendment doesn't say the gov't cannot tax the church *in >so many words*. So? The 16th doesn't say it *can* tax the Church "in so many words". Our whole long argument has been about reasons why the Church should or should not be taxed. Here you seem to be basing your argument on what the First Amendment does *not* say. >>>In fact, let's read the 16th ammendment: >>> >>> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on >>> incomes, from from whatever source derived, without >>> apportionment among the several States, and without >>> regard to any census or enumeration. >>> >>>Note: "from wahtever sources derived". It clearly allows the collection >>>of taxes on any income, including a church's, a charity's, a school's, >>>etc. The only exception I know which has been considered implied >>>by the courts is that various govt's may not tax each other. The >>>rest of it is all statutory, i.e., by legislative act, not by >>>constitutional protection. It has the right to tax churches, and >>>has chosen not to exercise that right, I believe wrongly. >> >>"From whatever source derived" does not mean "from any source it wants". >>Where are the "explict statements" giving the State the right to >>tax the Church? > >I did not mean that it said "from any source it wants". It means that >the gov't may tax an income, no matter what source that income is >derived. What's the difference between this and "from any source it wants"? >That would include the collection plate. In "so many words", no. The government already passed it's collection plate by me enought times and, unlike the church's plate, contribution is compulsory. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd