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: <1345@cbsck.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 15:44:00 EDT Article-I.D.: cbsck.1345 Posted: Wed Oct 9 15:44:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 14:16:38 EDT References: <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <1673@dciem.UUCP> <5945@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 166 Xref: watmath net.politics:11393 net.religion:7934 A belated response to Ken Arnold: >>>Well, let's see. There have been several cases of churches which >>>inducted people via mail having their tax-exempt status revoked. >> >>The government *has* to make those judgements. Religion is recognized >>by our Constitution. The Supreme Court has to make rulings on what >>constitutes good separation of Church and State. Both Church and State >>have to recognize what is not in their realm of control. > >... and by choosing what to recognize as religion an what not, >and then giving what is judged religious benefits denied to what is >judged non-religious, the gov't is favoring religons which pass its >tests over religions which don't. This is not non-interference. It, >in fact -- by making some religions offically recognized and others not >-- establishes certain religions as state authorized and certified. >Does this violate the first ammendment? Read it yourself and see what >*you* think. If you don't think so, either (a) explain how the first >ammendment allows legal favoritism for certain religions and not >others, or (b) explain why granting of priviliges to certain religions >and not others is not favoritism. Appeals to "their judgement is >correct; those others are *not* religions" are not acceptable (see >below). No, I don't think it does. The government may make a mistake with specific judgements but, so what else is new? Hopefully we can minimize that. It doesn't justify making a global mistake and taxing all religion. What do you propose that the Supreme Court do about the judgements it has made, which you say are of a type that it should not? >>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. >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? >>>The following example, generally drawn from real life, illustrates: >>> >>> Church A resembles standard church worship (say they are >>> mainstream protestant or some such). >>> >>> Church B advertises in the paper that, given a $25 fee, they >>> will make you a priest >>> >>> Church C holds meetings on Sundays, and provides for its pastor >>> a private plane, a large mansion (in which it also headquarters >>> his preaching), a limousine and driver, etc. >> >>I wouldn't worry much about whether B is a valid religion or not. Certainly >>you haven't given enough information to decide. What does ordination >>for a fee really buy those who are paying for it? There is nothing >>wrong with saying that being clergy is more than just buying a paper that >>says you are. Isn't that true with any profession? There is no special >>standard for the Church here. >> >>Your contention for church C can be proved to the same extent that it >>is for businesses. Again, no special standard here and the ruling >>has little to do with whether the church itself represents a religion. > >I consider my point proven by the statement "I wouldn't worry much >about whether B is a valid religion." The whole problem is that some >people have religious views which others would not recognize as valid. >It is not the place of the gov't to decide between them. The rest of >this article is just explication. So, people will always have verious ideas of what is religion and what isn't. The government, which is should be representative of the people, is stuck with deciding these things. Would you answer my question about the Supreme Court? >Assumptions in above: > (a) Preaching is a profession > Says who? Should it be? Church B may have a valid (to > them) argument. What business does the IRS have to say > the preachers must be professionals? Besides, I can't > remember that Jesus had any professional training, nor > did either Peter or Paul. Nor did Joseph Smith. By the same token, who's to say whether "programmer" is a profession? BTW, preaching is an activity, clergy is the profession. They get support for people for the services they perform as such. Anyway, I'm not making this assumption at all. Clergy are paid for a service by their congregation. If those who bought their paper, can find a church to support them, fine. If they can't, there is no "church" to be tax exempt anyway. My church could ordain me as a minister if they wanted to. That wouldn't effect the tax situation where my pay from my present job is concerned. > (b) Standards that apply to business are correctly applied to > religions. > The standards that apply to spending by business can > not be applied to religion. A religion is not a > business. If it was, its purpose would be to make > money, not to serve religious belief. The analogy of what is a valid tax deductible expense does apply, I think. I'm certainly not assuming that *all* standards that apply to business also apply to churches. *You* seem to be arguing that churches and business be treated exactly the same. Why are you making a distinction here which you say that the government can't make in its reasoning? Didn't the government decide that church B above was a business and not a religion? Yes. And it probably used your reasoning to do so. >>>First Amendment: >>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of >>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the fight >>> of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the >>> government for a redress of grievances. >> >>The *free* exercise of religion precludes the power of the State >>to tax the Church. > >Right. Which means, if one accepts your conclusion, that nobody who >claims to have a religion can be excluded from tax exemption without >abridging their right of free exercise of religion. Your *honest* >religious views may be at odds with their *honest* religious beliefs, >but they are still exercising religion, and therefore, to tax them >would interfere with their free exercise of religion. See example >above, in which Churches B and C are not allowed tax exemption, and are >therefore taxed, and therefore are *not* allowed free exercise of >religion. How much clearer can the contradiction be? Church B: taxed on what? They were selling paper. I see nothing unfair about the stipulation that a religious organization is more that one that sells paper to people saying they are clergy. I suppose if those "clergy" could find congregations that honor them as such based on their only having paid out the money for paper, then they could start a religious sect. So what? Church C: I do think the analogy to a business is valid and fair. The church did not loose its tax exempt status. The minister and church collaborated to defraud the government of taxes that *he* should have payed. They were penalized for that action. It has nothing to do with the validity of their religion. In fact, this type of action is needed to be fair to the much larger percentage of religious organizations that do not abuse tax exemption and would probably be taxed out of existence without it. Your proposal is unfair in that respect.