[net.religion] Moon Gets the Slammer

fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (05/15/84)

(oo)
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday their refusal to hear the
appeal of Sun Myung Moon's tax evasion case.  In so doing, the
way is clear for Moon to pay a $25,000 fine and begin serving an
18-month prison sentence on June 18 of this year.  The High Court's
refusal to hear the case came down despite intensive lobbying by
religious groups who fear erosion of the tax-exempt status of churches.

Now, Moon is getting what he deserves, but is it for the right reasons?
Would the IRS have gone after the Methodists or Presbyterians in this
manner?

Who thinks that Moon will actually spend time in jail?  With the wealth
he controls, can he weasel his way out of it?  I say he'll never see the
inside of a cell.  What do the rest of you think?
-- 

                               Bob Fishell
                               ihnp4!ihu1g!fish

dya@unc-c.UUCP (05/16/84)

References: ihu1g.348


      OOOOOOOOHHH, Yipppeeeee! I don't think it was long enough, I hope
that he sees a jail cell for 18 YEARS.

      Folks, this has been a long standing flame with me. I can see the
intent of the Congress when it saw fit to exempt the income of your typical
minister, who has things tough trying to eat especially with a small
congregation. I don't think that Congress could have anticipated entire
TV networks, national churches investing heavily in the stock market, millions
of dollars of solicited contributions, the vast holdings of land which are
well above the requirements of any church whatsoever, and so on. Yeah, I
know that some of these activities serve useful purposes, and that profits
from playing the stock market by a church may actually go towards legitimate
things.  HOWEVER:

     Do TV stations who accept money for the playing of religious videotapes
over the air ( or carrying PTL live ) get taxed at a rate of (n-x)/n where
n is the total number of hours of broadcasting and x is the number of hours
of religious broadcasting ? Of course not. Prorating a TV station's income
taxes would be UNHEARD OF even if it were for religious broadcasting. On
the other hand, Jim Bakker and his infamous PTL Club can operate absolutely
tax free and broadcast the SAME material ( accepting compensation for same
from his TV audience ).

     The "separation of Church and State" clause which is often cited (and
does not even exist in the Constitution as dictating strict separation ) was
designed by the Founding Fathers to keep government out of the business of
watching who worships what. It was not designed to put religion above the law.
Quite frankly, I think it is high time that every church which has an annual
cash flow above a certain level per bona-fide member, and who does not put
that cash into bona-fide charitable deeds, should be TAXED. Similarly, I think
that all churches should have to pay property tax. Churches enjoy the same
comforts that I do ( running city water, sewerage service, polcie and fire
protection, etc. ) why should they all be subsidized when I am in general
going to go to only one of them ( if any at all )?

     It is high time that the US Congress conducted a national investigation
of all religious orginisations with a annual cash flow or property holdings
that are completely out of line with the costs of providing religious services
and/or church-operated education and chairitable deeds.

dya

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (05/16/84)

[But I thought Messiah was supposed to be Jewish...]

The main problem is that the funds were in Moon's name rather than in
the church's. Virtually all of the churches I know of in this country
maintain the corporation separate from any personal. Moon's outfit has
not seen fit to do so, and have gotten into trouble with it.

Paul Harvey made a rather pointed note about Moon to prison - he'll
undoubtedly claim martyrdom, and thus try to increase his following.
-- 
			The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
			{decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
			decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA

moriarty@uw-june.UUCP (05/17/84)

My gut guess is he'll never see the inside of the penn... or it'll be in one
of those nice places where they play golf and tennis all day, at most.
However, don't knock tax evasion laws... it's brought Al Capone & Moon down,
it can't be faulted for its taste.  Frankly, anyone responsible for the
movie "Inchon" deserves a life sentance or the electric chair or Broderick
Crawford running him down in a Highway patrol car.
 
				Blah, Blah, Blah.....
 
The Napoleon of Crime  |  Currently skulking around
                       |  UUCP:
         MORIARTY      |   {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!moriarty
                       |  ARPANET:
   AKA  -jwm-          |   moriarty@washington
                                 

kim@analog.UUCP (Kim Helliwell ) (05/18/84)

This is in re an article (signed only "dya") in which the writer expressed
happiness that Moon is going to jail, and then went on to suggest that
a general investigation of the use of money by churches be launched, and
that churches should pay property tax.

     I for one would be very distraught to have Congress or any governmental
organization begin a general investigation of how churches use money.  This
is tantamount to suggesting a witch-hunt, a far different thing from 
responding to specific complaints against a specific organization. This sort
of government supervision of religion is precisely what *IS* proscribed in
the Constitution, and in our tradition of religious freedom.

I am the treasurer of the church I belong to, and my church *DOES* pay a
certain amount of property tax--the assessment is on the parking lot, not the
building proper.   We also pay the normal amount of tax on the home used
for housing the pastor.  So it is not strictly true that churches pay NO
property tax (in California, at least).  We also pay vehicle tax on the 
vehicles we own, and sales tax on all purchases, and FICA for the pastor's
and secretary's salary, and  . . .   Property tax is a small part of the
picture.

Most church finances are fragile, at best, and would not stand any major
changes in the current tax status.  Therefore, suggesting such a change is
tantamount to asking that most churches be put out of business, or at least
severely curtailed in their activities.  If this is what the writer of the
article wants, it is certainly his right to express it, but I question whether
that is what he had in mind.



						Kim Helliwell
						hplabs!analog!kim