From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Humphrey/Mondale
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:35:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.075702.12428@mr.med.ge.com> gorney@picard.med.ge.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. 
>
>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 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.
>
>
>Felix Gorney
>
>
> -- 
>: These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>: occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.

The reason most liberals (tm) think of evangelists as representing
all Christians (also tm) is because the right-wing conservatives
allow the evangelists to represent themselves as the voice of America.
Remember "family values"?  WHere do you think that came from?  
The televangelists and right-wingers like Pat Robertson, who use religion
as an excuse to further their own political agenda (and their $$).
But I think churches (and synogogues, and mosques...) should not be taxed,
for a very simple reason- "No taxation without representation".  Remember
that?  One of those founding principles of America thingys?  The founding
fathers wanted this to be a free country.  Separation of church and state,
and all that.  So the simplest way to keep churches from being able
to be active in politics is to take away their taxes.  No taxation, no
representation.  Anyone who wants churches to be taxed, but agree
to let them have a political agenda.