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 ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!arnold
From: arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Tax Supported" Churches
Message-ID: <10654@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 18:07:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10654
Posted: Mon Oct 14 18:07:46 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 08:00:13 EDT
References: <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <1673@dciem.UUCP> <5945@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 45
Xref: linus net.politics:10830 net.religion:7586

... and I promised not to write anything more on this.  However, from
something Paul said in a response to my article, it is clear that I was
unclear, so, for the benefit of all who misunderstood my inadvertently
unclear statement.

In article <1345@cbsck.UUCP> pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:
>>>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*.

>>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.  That would include the collection plate.

		Ken Arnold