Brandon Crosby wrote:
While I do not want a debate over tax exemptions in churches, 'Free Speech' may very well involve supporting canidates for positions in a democracy. This is the very basis for elections. However, one begins to question this reasoning when a church leader attempts to get into the government, using the church's tax exemptions, for either support of the church, support of self, or some illegal (or, at least, unethical) mix.
The problem, as I see it, is that the laws regarding political donations and resulting political activity are different from the laws regarding church donations, thus leading to the Christian Right using the differences to bypassing the restrictions that are placed on organizations registered as political groups. If 'Joe's Whorehouse and Illegal Drug Emporium' were to engage in the same types of political activities that the 'We Wear Halos Church' did, they would be subject to arrest and imprisonment for a wide variety of violations of electoral law. Vote-Reality is that most politicians would no sooner oppose a totally unconstitutional law that promises to 'save the life of a single child', than they would promote the prosecution of the 'good guys' for doing 'bad things'. Churches hold the same favored 'good guy' status as policemen who violate the civil rights of 'bad' citizens.
Should churches be tax exempt? Without their long history of helping people, I doubt they would have any benifits. However, even if their privillige was removed, they would simply be able to donate less money to community causes.
Churches, like governments, corporations, or any other organized entity, have some wonderful people in them, doing wonderful things. The problem, as always, is what our founding fathers realized--these types of organizations/structures tend to grow and attain power which is then used for the purpose of self-sustained growth (survival). Humanity tends to evolve, while organized humanity tends to de-volve. Biped humans, walking upright, form organizations which move toward becoming quadrapeds dragging large clubs. Most of the issues/problems discussed on the Cypherpunks list are often dealt with in terms of a combination of 'the way things are' vs. 'the way things should be' vs. 'the way things are becoming'. My view is that things have become so askew that any one of the above, or any of them in combination, are not adequate for dealing with what is to come in the near future. The statement of one of the founding fathers, in regard to needing a revolution every twenty years, or so, should be considered in the light of the history of 'forest fires.' Forest fires know that there should be a 'revolution every twenty years' but humans do not. In our foolish wisdom, we decide to intervene in the natural course of things, to 'make things better'. We then proceed to put the natural balance so far out of askew that, once we have 'saved' the forests by not allowing forest kindling to burn for a hundred years, the Forest Stock Market undergoes a major 'correction'. The structure of American government, electoral laws, charitable tax deductions, etc., are not inherently evil in themselves. The problem is that they have all been subject to interference with the basic underlying concepts, in efforts to improve them with a 'more is better' mentality, that they are all ripe for burning. ["Welfare (charity) has resulted in many positive benefits. Hey! I have a good idea! Let's put _everyone_ on welfare!] The structure of government/laws/society is very similar to that of the Internet, with everything being linked in ways that become increasingly complex once individual entities decide that things need to be done a 'certain way' in their own self-interest, instead of in the needs of the underlying infrastructure. The problems multiply as the number of entities deciding which 'certain' way is the 'right' way becomes smaller. "Spam is bad. _I_ am going to _save_ everyone from spam. Flames aren't so good, either. I'd better save you from 'flames' as well. What constitutes a flame? Well, it all begins with disagreement and, since I decide what is and is not a flame, I guess that a flame could be defined as disagreement with _me_!" ("In order to save the list from spam, we had to destroy the list.") Now that we are all aware of the disruptive manipulations of the Evil Dr. Vulis, perhaps he has changed his online persona to that of 'Jodi Hoffman'. (:>} NukeReality! ~~~~~~~~~~~~