RE. Scopes II
e.m.eades
>In article <33...@jhunix.UUCP>, ins_...@jhunix.UUCP (cloudbuster) writes:
>> Also, either no religion should be tax-free or all religions should be
>> tax-free. Personally, I say the former. I was given to understand that
>> a bill sponsored by Sen. Jesse Helms last year was passed into law; a
>> bill that excluded from exemption such religions as Wicca and Satanism.
>
>What is a religion? I could worship cats, invite people with cats to my
>home, call my home the House of Cat Worship, and not pay any
>property taxes. Is this what you want? There are religions and then there
>are organizations who pass themselves off as a religion. Some organizations
>can, CAN, WITH OUT A DOUBT, no matter what they consider themselves, be far
>from the tax-free status of a religious organization. Charles Mansion had
>a cult following, not a religious following. But there are those nuts out
>there who would have said back then, and even now, that if the Catholic
>church gets tax free status, why don't cults like Mansion's?
A small nit to pick here (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a tax lawyer):
I thought that to gain tax free status you had to be a non-profit
organization, and that all religions automatically got that status. I
don't see why Mansion's cult should not have tax free status IF 1 they abide
by the laws (which clearly he didn't) and 2 they are running a truely
non-profit organization. A religious sect should not be discrimminated
against because it is small and not popular with the mainstream religions.
They (and probably the larger religions too ) should only have to prove
that they are a non-profit organization. Personally I would be infavor
of taxing all religions. I wonder if the Catholic Church could show
that it is truely a non-profit organization. Which brings up another
point, what is the legal definition of non-profit? If say EXXON plowed
all thier profits back into their own organization instead of distributing
it to share holders would that make it non-profit? It seems that a
large organization like the Catholic church (my apologies to the catholics,
I'm only picking on the Catholic church because it is the only religion
that comes to mind that could compare to a international corporation)
has billions in assets all over the world most of which go to running
sugh a large organization. While the C. church runs massive charities
so do several large organizations (like the ATT Foundation).
>YOU kind of
>people scare the hell out of me even worse than the cults you are trying
>to protect. Luckily you are in the minority and always will be, but like
>an undisciplined child, you make an awful lot of noise and waste an awful
>lot of energy. Now, where did I put those ear plugs.
Why is she like an undisciplined child because she makes noise about
preserving freedom of religion? You're making at least as much noise,
and not being as nice about it. Why does freedom of religion scare you?
Afraid if you have other choices you might convert? (or worse yet your
childern might)
>
>> What's next? After we are rid of all the "evil cults,"
>> maybe we'll hit on Islam, and then Judiasm. Pretty soon it'll be so
>> that there's only one government approved religion.
>>
>
>Yea, and be careful a meteor doesn't fall on your house just because you
>are out star gazing, after all, they are related events aren't they?
>
>ray
Ray now you are getting ridiculous. Its easy to lose freedoms alittle bit
at a time, they slowly get erroded away. Remember, Hitler was an elected
official and the Germany government voted away their democracy for a
dictatorship. Alittle paranoia about our freedoms keeps us alert. We
are the ones who are the checks on our government.
-Beth Eades
Ray Frank
>
> Ray now you are getting ridiculous. Its easy to lose freedoms alittle bit
> at a time, they slowly get erroded away. Remember, Hitler was an elected
> official and the Germany government voted away their democracy for a
> dictatorship. Alittle paranoia about our freedoms keeps us alert. We
> are the ones who are the checks on our government.
>
> -Beth Eades
A little paranoia is good. Too bad we don't have just a little paranoia.
What we do have is a lot of paranoia. Why aren't people paranoid about
other things such as abortions? Killing an unborn child or a child that will
be born deformed could lead to societies killing of what they deem to be
worthless lives such as old people or mentally or physically handicapped
people. Sounds like selective, self serving paranoia to me. I can sound just
as paranoid as some of these other people, ie, eliminating prayers in school
will lead to children becoming atheists, or the use of sexually oriented
television programming will lead our children in promiscuity, or the use
of violence in movies and television will lead to a greater crime rate, etc.
ray
e.c.leeper
> I'm only picking on the Catholic church because it is the only religion
> that comes to mind that could compare to a international corporation)
Let's not forget the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (a.k.a. the
Mormons).
Evelyn C. Leeper
(201) 957-2070
ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
mtgzy!e...@topaz.rutgers.edu
Celestial navigation is based on the premise that the Earth is the center
of the universe. The premise is wrong, but the navigation works. An
incorrect model can be a useful tool.
--Kelvin Throop III
Oleg Kill the bastards Kiselev
>A little paranoia is good. Too bad we don't have just a little paranoia.
>What we do have is a lot of paranoia. Why aren't people paranoid about
>other things such as abortions? Killing an unborn child or a child that will
>be born deformed could lead to societies killing of what they deem to be
>worthless lives such as old people or mentally or physically handicapped
>people.
I see SOMEONE bought Steven Rice's bullshit line! "But it's killing a
*baby*!" "Where will the killing stop?" "There is no such thing as a life
not worth living!..."
You want to discuss abortion? Do it in net.abortion! You want to support
deformed and mentally defective? You can donate money to a thousand different
charity organisations and keep them alive and miserable -- you can debate
morality of euthenasia and social Darvinism in net.philosophy. Mean while,
we will ignore religious and racial discriminations, human rights violations,
invasion of privacy and restrictions of freedom of speech -- so that Ray can
go save an unwanted, unneeded fetus and pat himself on the back ever after,
while the kid possibly grows up hungry, unloved, unwanted, to breed more
unwanted babies.... Where will the feeding lines stop?
HASA, "A" division member,
Oleg Kiselev
Andrew Marti Elizaga
> I thought that to gain tax free status you had to be a non-profit
>organization, and that all religions automatically got that status.
a lawyer -- this information comes from a time when I helped establish a
non-profit organization in the state of Idaho. Laws will be slightly different
in your state.)
A non-profit corporation is roughly defined as a corporation that does not pay
money to the stockholders. (Yes, if Exxon stopped distributing its dividends,
that would make it a non-profit corporation. And a darn poor investment.
That's why they don't do it....) They are usually established for a definite
(if vague) purpose, such as charity (the Salvation Army), research (American
Cancer Society), religion (First Church of Christ - Computer Programmers 8-),
or education, general do-gooding, etc.
Note that only the *owners* of the corporation are not paid. Since employee
salaries are not traditionally part of the profits, owners can (and do, in
some cases) make out like bandits from the salary(ies) they pay themselves
as president, prelate, chief council, or grand poo-bah. This is the usual
method for fraud involving non-profit organizations.
Non-profit organizations are still taxed, with the exception of religions.
This makes sense, if they actually *are* making profits, that they should pay
taxes on it. Most show no or a minimal profit. Most of them survive on
donations, which are encouraged by our tax system (deductions for "charitable
contributions.") Of course, there are a few groups out there who take advantage
of the tax laws by depositing all their salaries with a group and having the
group as a huge checking acct, but that's normal business $ethics....
Now, why should religions not be taxed when the Red Cross is? I can only
offer one real justification -- the power to tax is the power to destroy.
How many of you have ever filled out the *real man's* tax form, the one with
eight thousand schedules that comes complete with a glossary 8-) Probably
all of the little lines in there were put in to encourage or discourage
putting your money in one place or another. (IRA's? They encourage saving,
not consuming. Long term capital gains? Put it in the stock market! And
so on....) You notice you can't deduct gambling losses (unless you win, in
which case they can't exceed your winnings....)? Guess who doesn't approve
of gambling!
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if religions were taxed, some
dimwit Congress(wo)man (is there any other kind?) would introduce a change in
the tax code that would affect some religions more than others. I don't think
it's unreasonable that he/she/it would do it deliberately, since his voters are
all redneck funnymentalists. (Example : Taxing church real estate at half
its market value. Kind of hurts the churches that don't own much real
property, doesn't it? Gives a *huge* break to the Catholics, since there
aren't many Moslem mosques about to take advantage of it.)
Take this to any extreme, and the only religion that can *afford* to practice
is the official, state-sponsored one. You can't even hold services in your
basement -- that violates the zoning regulations....
Theocracies scare me....
>A religious sect should not be discrimminated
>against because it is small and not popular with the mainstream religions.
Definitely.
>I wonder if the Catholic Church could show
>that it is truely a non-profit organization. Which brings up another
>point, what is the legal definition of non-profit? If say EXXON plowed
>all thier profits back into their own organization instead of distributing
>it to share holders would that make it non-profit? It seems that a
>large organization like the Catholic church (my apologies to the catholics,
>I'm only picking on the Catholic church because it is the only religion
>that comes to mind that could compare to a international corporation)
>has billions in assets all over the world most of which go to running
>sugh a large organization. While the C. church runs massive charities
>so do several large organizations (like the ATT Foundation).
I'm almost sure that the ATT foundation is a separate company from Ma Bell,
that "just happens" to be owned by AT&T. If not, the tax lawyers have found
a better loophole to funnel their profits through. The point is that the
Pope doesn't make money from "owning" the Catholic church. Heck, I own
a bit of AT&T myself, and I enjoy the dividend checks.
--
seismo!umcp-cs \ Pat Juola
ihnp4!whuxcc > !jhunix!ins_apmj Hopkins Maths
allegra!hopkins / When in doubt, lead trump.
Andrew Marti Elizaga
>What we do have is a lot of paranoia. Why aren't people paranoid about
>other things such as abortions? Killing an unborn child or a child that will
>be born deformed could lead to societies killing of what they deem to be
>worthless lives such as old people or mentally or physically handicapped
>people.
you can come up with an argument that doesn't look like a classic case
of "Coincidence implies causation," mail it to me and I'll rebut it.
>Sounds like selective, self serving paranoia to me. I can sound just
>as paranoid as some of these other people, ie, eliminating prayers in school
>will lead to children becoming atheists,
And putting Hebrew prayers in school will lead to them becoming lawyers!
With big noses and a taste for bagels with lox!
Which is worse?
>or [more random flames deleted]....
>
>ray
Wonderful! I just *love* all you people who are out to save me from myself....
Ignore this man, folks...
ir708
These are circular arguments. The anti-abortion argument claims
the fetus is a human being. The pro-choice argument claims the mother
is a human being.
The pro-prayer in school argument claims it is
necessary to have prayer in child's daily life for moral fortitude.
The anti prayer in school argument claims prayer belongs in the home
and church.
The anti-sexually-oriented media argument claims moral
degeneration of our children, the anti-anti-sexually-oriented media
argument claims first amendment/anti-censorship, same for the violence
issue.
One side yells "look out for the lightning," the other says "the
thunder can make you go deaf." There's no direct point to point
argument here.
In the end, we each know our own values of human lives, and the qualities
of life and live/vote by them. We raise our children to think as we do,
and similarly find friends who support our ideas. Gut reactions aren't
going to change. I have never known anyone to change sides without it
coming from inside/personal life experiences in matters such as these
unless there was an external motivation involved.
Finally, I know, I'll flame myself:
This doesn't belong in net.taxes, does it? It belongs in net.abortion,
net.religion, and net.tv-violence (or whatever!)