[net.religion] Churches and Taxation

slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/07/85)

>tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) writes:
>
>If the police mistreat a suspect, should they then mistreat all suspects in
>order to be consistent?  You seem to be saying a similar thing with respect
>to religions:  if the government mistreats (taxes) one religion, it should
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>mistreat (tax) all religions in order to be consistent. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny, I never viewed taxes as mistreatment.  I always thought they
were the price we paid for living in a civilized society.

I suppose if you view taxes as mistreatment, you have a reason for
your stand.  I, on the other hand, see that churches reap the same
benefits of civilization that I do, and should therefore pay the same 
price, as do corporations.  Charitable organizations, on the other hand,
do nothing BUT pay for civilization, and should therefore be exempt.

Tell me, please--since taxes are mistreatment, do you pay yours?  Or
do you use the same arguement for yourself as you do for churches?
Of course, you may not want to answer that question :-).

-- 

                                     Sue Brezden
                                     
Real World: Room 1B17                Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb
            AT&T Information Systems
            11900 North Pecos
            Westminster, Co. 80234
            (303)538-3829 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I march to the beat of a different drummer, whose identity,
   location, and musical ability are as yet unknown.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (10/09/85)

>>If the police mistreat a suspect, should they then mistreat all suspects in
>>order to be consistent?  You seem to be saying a similar thing with respect
>>to religions:  if the government mistreats (taxes) one religion, it should
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>mistreat (tax) all religions in order to be consistent. 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Funny, I never viewed taxes as mistreatment.  I always thought they
>were the price we paid for living in a civilized society.
>
>I suppose if you view taxes as mistreatment, you have a reason for
>your stand.  I, on the other hand, see that churches reap the same
>benefits of civilization that I do, and should therefore pay the same 
>price, as do corporations.  Charitable organizations, on the other hand,
>do nothing BUT pay for civilization, and should therefore be exempt.
>
>Tell me, please--since taxes are mistreatment, do you pay yours?  Or
>do you use the same arguement for yourself as you do for churches?
>Of course, you may not want to answer that question :-).
>
>-- 
>
>                                     Sue Brezden

The early colonists obviously thought that some taxes could be mistreatment...
If "the power to tax is the power to destroy" (the reason why Federal property
is exempt from state taxes), then churches must be exempt from taxes since the
First Amendment prohibits the government from destroying any religion.  Taxing
a church is thus mistreating it from a Constitutional standpoint.

Both the Church and the State provide benefits to "civilization" that help the
other.  Should the Church be allowed to bill the State for services provided?
It might be possible to measure the most direct benefits in both directions,
but I doubt if it's possible to accurately measure the indirect benefits . . .

My article was in response to the argument that goes "it is better to tax all
churches than to have the government decide what is a church and what isn't."
It wasn't meant to explain WHY churches should be tax-exempt, if consistency
is factored out.

                                        -- Thomas.Newton@spice.cs.cmu.edu