From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Humphrey/Mondale
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:43:52 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:
|> : |> : One persons controversial issue is anothers natural right.  I think we
|> : |> : should remove the tax exempt status of all churches.  Not being a member,
|> : |> : I resent paying for their guady edifices to greed and waste.
|> : |> :
|> : |> 
|> : |> 
|> : |> What about seperation of church, and state? Do you remember the constitution?
|> : |> If one cannot say a prayer in a public building, then how does the govt. have
|> : |> a right to intrude into the affairs of these churches. I would also like to 
|> : |> know, in what way one ends up paying to support churches, when one isn't a 
|> : |> member. I didn't know they were subsidized by govt..
|> : |> 
|> : A church uses and is supported by the local infrastructure (roads, police, fire,
|> : etc.) which everyone pays for through property taxes and income taxes.  The
|> : church takes in money and uses those services and does not pay its share.  So
|> : I am carrying a share of their support, and I am not a member.
|> : 
|> : I would have thought this was obvious.
|> :
|> 
|> You're right. It was so obvious, that I knew you were going to use this example.
|> The answer to this is also obvious, however. Sinse the members of these churches
|> work for a living outside of the church, they already pay taxes. There is also
|> a limit to what one can claim as a charitable deduction on income taxes. 
|> Furthermore, this is only one of many forms of taxation. I pay for the infra-
|> structure, every time I buy Gasoline. Last time I looked, this was close to   
|> $0.40 per gallon. The members of these churches also pay property, and other
|> taxes. Furthermore, all are paying for public education, even though many send
|> their children to private schools. 

This is obvious?  Why can't they meet in their homes?  They use the infrastructure
paid for by their individual taxes in the course of non-religious living, just
like those of us who are not religious.  The multi-acre, million $, gold decorated
churches are not providing any of the services you describe below.  All of those
are provided by the members of the churches, and could easily be done with out
all the expensive property and buildings.

|> 
|> Churches also benefit society, by providing humanitarian aid. The church I
|> belongto sponsors a kitchen year round. This provides food for needy people, and
|> families. This is a very efficient operation. The people are all volunteers. 
|> The food is donated, also. Utilities however, are paid by the church. These are
|> public utilities provided by the govt.. However, churches are charged for these
|> utilities, just like everyone else. Nevertheless, if the church is taxed, they
|> may not be able to afford the utilities. The city will loose a utilities
|> customer. These people will have to rely on a much more expensive, and uncaring
|> system for their sustinence, which the govt. will have to pay for with even 
|> higher taxes. 
|> 
|> To tax churches, is just another example of how liberals do not consider the 
|> consequences of their plans. So long as their plans espouse "fairness", and 
|> their intentions are good, the consequences be damned. Not to mention the
|> constitution, most of which has been destroyed, or swept under the rug, at the
|> hands of the liberals/socialists. 

The consititution does not guarantee churches tax free property or tax free
salaries.  It does not guarantee that the catholic church can send millions
of untaxed US dollars to the Vatican.  Treating churches differently is
a violation of state support for churches.
|> 
|> The power to tax is the power to destroy. This is the real reason liberals want 
|> to tax churche. 
|> 
|> Lastly, I suppose when liberals think of churches, they think of televangelists,
|> like Jim and Tammy Baker. The fact is, however, most churches are in debt up to
|> their steeple.

Many liberals are religious and do not agree with me at all.  Be careful
how you characterize and label.  Clinton wouldn't propose taxing churches
in a million years.  It is athiests like myself that find little difference
between the Baker's and any other religious organization.
 
Are you implying all liberals are athiests?  WOW.  When you come back 
from your mental vacation, check back in with the net.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh