Re: Taxing Churches for their views? Bad idea.
Tim May wrote:
At 7:10 PM -0700 11/4/97, Anonymous wrote:
More telling, she doesn't seem to have a problem using a religious (and therefore tax-exempt) organization to push a political agenda. Apparently that whole 'separation of church and state' thing only applies when it's convenient.
If religions want to play politics, the least we can do is get them to pay for the privilege. I'd feel a certain guilty pleasure seeing some of those bottom-feeders taxed into penury.
Nonsense. And a dangerous course.
One can decide to "tax churches" or to "not tax churches." I have no particularly strong opinion on either option.
But one must definitely _not_ base the decision to tax or not to tax on the opinions expressed by a church!
I feel that Tim is correct, in terms of "opinions," but the Christian political agenda goes beyond 'opinions' and into the realm of political activism which is regulated by law. It is a fact that the Moral Majority/Christian Right/Felons For Jesus, etc., make no bones about using their tax-deductible resources to mount political campaigns that illegally skirt the rules pertaining to the direct support of political parties and candidates. If the Commie Chincs brunching at the Whithouse and sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom tried to excuse their illegally made payoffs to the current administration by getting a glazed look in their eye and speaking about answering to 'a higher power', the press and the citizens would lynch them. Certainly, the Christian political movement is no 'dirtier' or more criminal than the rest of the Fools On the (Capitol) Hill, but they are all the more hypocritical for claiming the higher moral ground in their illegal activities. Criminals is criminals... JHFCMonger
At 9:22 PM -0700 11/4/97, Anonymous wrote:
I feel that Tim is correct, in terms of "opinions," but the Christian political agenda goes beyond 'opinions' and into the realm of political activism which is regulated by law.
It shouldn't be. "Political activism" is speech. And "Congress shall make no law...." The First doesn't say that Congress gets to restrict some kinds of "political activism" (assuming it is speech, writing, etc., and not invading property, extortion, etc.). This is why "campaign spending limits" are thought by many constitutional scholars and all libertarians to be unconstitutional. If Bill Gates wants to spend his money talking about how great gun control is, no one can stop him. (The current "campaign financing laws" are already afoul of the First. They may eventually be challenged and, I hope, struck down.) Needless to say, telling churches what they can say and cannot say is a slam dunk violation of the First.
It is a fact that the Moral Majority/Christian Right/Felons For Jesus, etc., make no bones about using their tax-deductible resources to mount political campaigns that illegally skirt the rules pertaining to the direct support of political parties and candidates.
So? Then change the tax laws for _all_ religions, churches, creeds, and cults. As for the Christian Right lobbying, what of the Christian *Left* lobbying for the Sanctuary Movement, the anti-Sandinista side, against the Viet Nam war, etc.? Those Berrigan brothers and their antiwar rhetoric...surely that was enough to cause the Catholic Church to be "taxed into penury"? Or the liberal pinko commie jew Quakers...too bad Nixon wasn't able to shut those pinko fags down (er, I guess Nixon _was_ a Quaker...never mind). I think you should see where this is all going. Shut down the Buddhists for protesting the Viet Nam War. Shut down the Baptists for arguing against abortion. Where would it end? Fortunately, we have the First. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
At 8:26 PM -0800 11/4/97, Tim May wrote:
This is why "campaign spending limits" are thought by many constitutional scholars and all libertarians to be unconstitutional. If Bill Gates wants to spend his money talking about how great gun control is, no one can stop him.
You might be able to define campaign spending limits in terms of qualifications for the job. (I think it would take a constitutional amendment for federal office holders). Then you might see the amusing sight of, e.g. the anti-Clinton people spending heavily on pro-Clinton TV spots to force Clinton to be disqualified from the job. Another way which should appeal to the property owner's rights crowd would be to say that since the 1034 Communications Act says that the airways belong to the people (i.e. the government), they may not be used for political advertising more than 6 weeks before an election. The spread of private systems such as cable will frustrate this direction. Please note, I don't advocate either of these "solutions". I am just amused to think about them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Internal surveillance | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | helped make the USSR the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | nation it is today. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
participants (3)
-
Bill Frantz -
nobody＠REPLAY.COM -
Tim May