Re: Taxing Churches for their views? Bad idea. (fwd)

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

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!
~~~~~~~~~~~~