From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 22:15:30 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <21687@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> Actually, being a church isn't sufficient.  See the recent Supreme Court
|> decision which held that some church (and I forget the name, but it was
|> pretty outrageous and included the word "Aviation") had ceased to be a
|> church and was now a for-profit organization.

Thanks for the pointer.  The closest thing I could find was 

91-1743   UNITED MISSIONARY AVIATION V. CIR

Is this the case you're referring to?  In this case, the Supreme Court
denied certiorari, meaning they refused to hear the case, so they
didn't "hold" anything.  I'd be interested in knowing what the Circuit 
Court's criteria was for a "real church", and if they would apply the
same criteria to Robert Tilton or PTL.  Was it based on them
not doing charitable works?  This sounds like another one of those
"some religions are more equal than others" cases, like the case
involving Mormon polygamy, or the case involving Native American
religious use of peyote.  I'll see if I can find out more about this
case.

|> >Actually most of those social services are government-funded, with the
|> >church *members* donating some of the labor.  What exact value-add the
|> >church itself provides is a mystery.
|> 
|> Labor has value.  Try getting a brick mason to build you a BBQ pit if you
|> just hand him a stack of bricks.

Of course it does.  The individuals doing the work should get the
deductions (if anybody).  As a matter of fact, they can deduct some of
their expenses incurred while doing charity work.  So the question
remains:  why does the church itself deserve a deduction on top of
that?

|> Our church contributes
|> literally tons of food to local food banks.  It also provides the labor
|> to deliver and prepare that food.  It also provides the labor to staff
|> free health clinics.  Etc.  These are just a few examples of federal
|> programs that we provide either the materials or labor to implement.

Actually these are state and local programs that the federal
government throws a bone to now and then.  OK, I guess you
could say that the federal government benefits indirectly.  Secular 
food banks have to pay ad-valorem taxes on property that they hold.  
Why is that?  Obviously because they don't have the common decency to
preach the gospel.

|> I know you're having trouble with Fred and his "I'm an economic God,
|> you're a worthless peon", but you really need to attend church regularly
|> to see what churches do.  It isn't just cannibalism, funerals and weddings.

I really have no interest in what churches do.  I just wish they
didn't do it with my tax money. 

|> >If it makes such good sense, why did the feds get rid of the
|> >charitable contribution deduction for non-itemizers?
|> 
|> Why did they raise the standard deduction?

That's even worse!  Now the people who don't contribute get a free
ride on the people who do.  You have less incentive to contribute.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
                "Fight the real enemy" -- Sinead O'Connor