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: <6040@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 10:06:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.6040
Posted: Mon Oct  7 10:06:28 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 04:29:37 EDT
References: <459@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> <584@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.politics:11360 net.religion:7912

In article <584@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:
...
>I feel that all non-profit organizations and corporations should be
>tax-exempt, and churches which do not make a profit, but re-invest into
>charitable and missionary pursuits, should be considered non-profit
>corporations.  To give the government the right to declare a religion "a
>non-religion" is a frightening, Orwellian power.

And the power to tax religion isn't?  What kind of government representation
are religious groups going to get for their tax money?

Why is church income that is not "re-invested" in charitable and missionary
persuits considered profit?  Who defines what aspects of the church ministry
constitute an non-profit venture?  Whose definition of "charitable" do we
use?

Since Tim's criterion for tax exemption can be defined much more narrowly
that "religion" and such a definition would be more the perogative of 
the State than anyone else, it seems to me that it places much more Orwellian
power in the hands of the State than the existing situation.
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd