From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:06:55 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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
>distinction.  The courts have ruled (there is nothing about this in the 
>Constitution, to my knowledge) something to the effect that if the government
>could tax religious groups it could selectively tax specific religions out of 
>existence, leaving the State favorite standing alone, or even financially
>demolishing them all with the goal of creating an atheistic state.  
>Therefore, in order to prevent the establishment (or disestablishment) 
>of a State religion by the use of taxation, religious organizations are 
>immune, not exempt, from taxation.
>
>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 
>power of money flowing to the congregation of its choice, the 
>establishment of a State religion.  Not even supporting them all equally is 
>Constitutional, because to do so favors the establish of theism over 
>non-theism.  Are you with me so far?

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 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, 
>fire and police protection and the numerous public facilities from which they 
>benefit.  To argue that the congregations' memberships have already 
>provided these monies begs the question because they were already allowed to 
>deduct their contributions to the congregation from their gross incomes. 
>Movie theaters still have to pay taxes, even though the membership has 
>already payed taxes, the difference being that there can be an extra
>theater tax.  I disagree with tax-exemption for religious groups because
>it does amount to a subsidy.  We should not create taxes that 
>burden only religions, because that would allow us to remove religions 
>with unconstitutional legal surgery.  But that is only my opinion, not the 
>current legal position at all.  

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...

>  ,...,.,,
> /666;    ',    jim tims
>////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
>(/@/----0-~-0
> ;'  . `` ~ \'
>  , `    ' , >
>;;|\..((   -C----> Why do you have so much trouble understanding this, Steve?
>;;| >-  `.__),;;   There is nothing mysterious here. I'm not making this up.
So you're saying you're the anti-Christ?  Well, at least I know who it
is...;-)

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc