From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:24:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.094317.9858@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

|>In article <1992Nov2.213553.17871@leland.Stanford.EDU>
|>yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
|>
|>> You still haven't convinced me that vouchers are public support of 
|>> religion (any more than the tax-free status of churches being public
|>> support of religion).  
|>
|>The tax-free status of churches does constitute public support of
|>religion.  
...
|> Chief Justice Burger
|>wrote the majority decision for the court and asserted, as you do, that
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^
|>"the grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship". 

I did not say that the tax-free status of churches is NOT public
support of religion.  I said that vouchers are no more public support
than is the tax-free status of churches.

Much of Douglas's argument (at least what you presented) is based on
the problem of deciding what is a "religion".  Since it is the
government that decides what constitutes a valid religion for
tax-exempt status, the government is violating the establishment
clause.  The "public support" is a violation because the selective
nature of how it is applied.

I may have been misinformed, but I thought that the original
justification for granting tax-free status to churches was that the
power to tax these institutions is equivalent to the power to control
them.  Thus, taxing churches would be a violation of the establishment
clause so the government was prohibited from taxing churches.  Of
course, this was back when taxes were simple, and the government was
far less powerful than it is now.  

Let's consider trying to tax churches/religious organizations today.
For property taxes, do we use individual property tax rates?
Commercial tax rates?  For income taxes, do we consider them to be
non-profit?  What about if they ship their "profits" overseas to fund
other causes (e.g. the Vatican, Israeli construction)?  Should we tax
their income of "donations" as the sale of a service or product?

These are just simplistic generalizations of potential areas that may
be considered for taxation.  Consider how these may fit into the stack
of telephone books know as the Tax Code.  The "establishment
possibilities" are mindboggling. (By "establishment possibilities", I
mean selective, non-uniform taxation of different religious
organizations by seemingly independent criteria).  Note that if we go
to a much simplified Tax Code with flat rates, then there would be
much less room for "establishment" when taxing churches, but I don't
think a simplified Tax Code will happen under this government.

It seems that either side (taxing or not taxing) can be interpreted as
establishment.  The question is "Which is worse?"

What's my position?  I'm going to remain neutral on this.  I 
suppose that the only real solution to this problem is to 
change the tax system completely (abolish income taxes; make
property and sales taxes a flat rate with no exemptions).

|>>  - [Off the topic of K-12 education, but still relevant to public
|>>    funding of religious education]  Do you oppose government grants to 
|>>    college students (formerly Pell grants, but I'm not sure what they 
|>>    are calling them now-a-days) being used to pay tuition at religious 
|>>    colleges?
|>
|>I haven't made up my mind about this.  It is certainly not the same
|>kettle-o-fish as parochial secondary schools.  The mission of the vast
|>majority of parochial secondary schools (in the US, at least) is to
|>educate and indoctrinate.  Many universities with religious
|>affiliations, on the other hand, often have little to distinguish them
|>from public universities.  To deny loans to students wishing to attend
                                     ^^^^^
|>these institutions would, in my opinion, go beyond neutrality and
|>become hostile to religion.  

I did not say "loans."  I said "grants" (i.e. direct "gift" to a
student, valid only for the purpose of paying tuition at a certain
accredited institution of the student's choice).

|>I do, though, think that some religious colleges are a
|>sham.  An acquaintance of mine has a sister attending an college where
|>(from the descriptions I've received) the tuition is high and spending
|>is low.  It seems that student tuition is being redirected to fund
|>whatever the church wishes.  I think that providing public support to
|>attend such institutions is questionable.

If the school is accredited by the state AND if the grant is provided
by the state in a manner independent of the amount of tuition, then I
cannot justify expecting the state to deny the grant.  If the grant is
not independent of the amount of tuition, then the state has an
interest in how the money is spent, and, hence, would be justified in
refusing to give money to institutions that do not meet its spending
guidelines (or, at least, in reducing the amount of the grant).


-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.