[net.religion] More Don Black...

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/01/85)

In article <806@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes:
> 	     The Constitution clearly states that Congress shall pass no
> 	law recognizing the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the
> 	free exercise thereof.  (My, how we tend to ignore the second half of
> 	that sentence!)  But yet, who determines what constitutes a "religion"
> 	in this nation?  Why, none other than that bastion of freedom, the
> 	Internal Revenue Service!  If you want to open a church, which is
> 	your right, you must apply to the IRS to be certified as a religion
> 	in order to gain tax-exempt status.  You don't believe me?  Write to
> 	them and ask.  They'll close you down and seize your assets if you
> 	try to claim income tax deductions unless they give you permission
> 	to be a church.

Here we have a classic example of putting the cart before the horse.

Anybody may open a church.  No questions asked.  You may call anything you
like a religion.  There is one major reason why the government might be
interested in what constitutes a religion: tax exempt status.  Tax-exempt
staus is not required to open a church nor to run a church.  As a matter
of fact, JC was explicit about taxes: render up to Caesar that which
is Caesar's.  JC did not have church property or taxable income.  Now I
suppose it's a bit much to ask Christians and their priests or ministers
to follow that example.  :-)

So how do you propose determining who is granted tax exemption?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh