From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:29:23 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   Steve Adams <adams@spss.com>
>
>p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
>
>>>FROM:   Steve Adams <adams@spss.com>
>
>>>'establishment' of religion.  And by the way, if 'subsidizing' religion
>>>were unconstitutional, then churches wouldn't be tax exempt, now would
>>>they?
>
>>Religious groups are not so much tax-exempt as untaxable.  There is a
[...]
>>
>>The corollary to this position is that the government cannot use 
>>taxpayer dollars to subsidize religious groups, because the government 
>>could be selective in its disbursements, thereby favoring, with the 
[...]
>
>Your comments on theism/atheism and theistic/non-theistic state seem to
>support my point.  If the governemnt *forbids* religion from PBS, that is
>promoting non-religion over religion.  In other words, all views, except
>religious ones are permitted, and religious ones are excluded.  Hardly in
>line with the 1st Amendment.

I have a hard time conceiving of a TV show which could be construed 
as religious programming that would not carry the message of some specific
religion in some form, either in providing a forum for worship, 
advertising for new converts, or improving public relations for the benefit 
of the organization.  Programming intended to destroy religion would be 
equally unacceptable.  Religious programming, by definition, promotes 
religion in some form.  I don't want to quibble about programs sponsored by 
some religious group that deals only with religiously inert subjects, and I 
doubt if they would be disallowed.  Your conjecture that forbidding 
religious programming equates to promoting non-religion simply doesn't 
wash.  Do you mean that people watching *An Evening with the Boston Pops* 
would interfere with attendance at evening Mass?  How does Hercule 
Poirot work against religion in the same way that the Pope would work 
for it?  Children's educational programs, like *Sesame Street* (that is 
PBS isn't it? No kids, so I'm not sure, but there ARE children's ETV 
shows on PBS) do not include debunking of the Bible or Krishna 
Consciousness -- at least not to my knowledge.  There are three 
positions, not two: 1) religious 2) anti-religious 3) non-religious.  
The third category is neutral with respect to religion.  I'm sure you 
can find an origin for the Ballet in Medieval Passion Plays or some such 
thing, but in today's world the Ballet does not conjure up much of 
anything in the way of religion.  My guess would be that the Opera would 
provide a few Xian messages, but the Tchaikowski Competition hardly 
could be said to encourage the establish of a non-theistic state.  About 
the closest thing I can come up with that would fit the second category 
is the NOVA show debunking the utter nonsense of the Erik von Daniken 
books.  I suppose you could call that claptrap a religion of sorts.

>
>I agree that 'the power to tax is the power to destroy.'
>
>>My position on the matter is that religious groups should pay ordinary 
>>taxes that prevail in the community, taxes that provide roads, water, sewage, 

[...]

>While I can see a good argument for religious organizations to pay 'user
>fees' (ie sewer & water bills, an assesment for police protection ,etc),
>there can't be any 'income' taxes, unless the church is being run for
>profit...nor should 'general' property taxes be assessed.  Fees, yes, taxes
>no.  An opinion only...
>

Among the catalysts that free minds from the myth of religion, I doubt
any is stronger than this very point -- that the churchs do, indeed, appear 
to be in it for profits above all else, and use their enormous capital 
base for luxury and political leverage.  Charitable works seem to be the 
smallest, least significant activities of the major religions.  While they 
have huge resources and do run substantial charitable operations, the 
portion of religious income that religious organizations allocate to this 
function is but a tiny fraction of the obscene (and untaxable) income.  We 
see the religions taking economic advantage of people that cannot afford 
it, people who damage the welfare of themselves and their families to fatten 
the wallet of some sadistic con-artist like Pat Robertson or Robert 
Tilton.  We see the churchs, especially Xian ones, doing little besides 
saving souls -- in other words, bringing home the bacon -- and 
investing in real estate.

>So you're saying you're the anti-Christ?  Well, at least I know who it
>is...;-)
>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558

  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C----> Just one of many.  Sorta like Messiahs. 8^) I'd like to
;;| >-  `.__),;   limit the hate mail, so I junked everything but alt.atheism.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:25205 talk.religion.misc:25365 alt.pagan:15026