From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:25:07 GMT
 <1992Nov5.094317.9858@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Nov6.212452.28438@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Nov6.212452.28438@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).  [Dan Yergeau]

>> 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". [Joe Francis]
 
> 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.   [Dan Yergeau]

I misunderstood you.  I took your first quote above as analogous to
"You still haven't convinced me that oranges are purple any more than
banana's are purple".  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Instead I see
now that you are saying, "You still haven't convinced me that apples
are fruit any more than oranges are fruit".  I have to admit that I
can't argue with that!

> 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.

There are several problems with your assertion, the foremost being that
the government by necessity must determine the nature of religion and
religions in order to successfully avoid violating the 1st Amendment.

> 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.  

As far as I'm aware, the original justification was that the elected
representatives wanted to, the constituents wanted them to, the courts
looked the other way (and still do), and so it is done.  If you wish to
discuss why the courts look the other way, I believe the real reason is
a desire (totally unrelated to law) to have churches remain tax-free. 
The stated reason of Burger, which has some merit, is that taxing
churches necessarily entangles the government and the church, and this,
on balance, is a "bad thing" with respect to the Free Exercise clause. 
I will admit all of this, but its effect is small in comparison to the
sponsorship problem.  We might as well say that the government can't
buy lands from churches when building highways, or any other obligation
that normal property owners must bear.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism