Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches.
Message-ID: <1709@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 18:03:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1709
Posted: Tue Oct  8 18:03:40 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 20:22:45 EDT
References: <421@persci.UUCP> <582@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> <176@l5.uucp>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 19
Summary: 


>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?
>Laura Creighton         (note new address!)

Substitute "business" for "church" in the above, and it makes the same
kind of sense.  Whether it is good sense or bad depends on your viewpoint,
but it is hardly an argument for differentiating between churches and
other businesses.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt