Why can't we tax churches and religious organizations?

[Hugabear]

I've always been told that churches cannot be taxed, because it would violate the First Amendment. How so? If you tax all churches, treating them all equally, how would that violate the separation of church & state? AFAIC, if you're a church and you're raking in millions of dollars every year, then you damned well should be paying taxes - regardless of religious affiliation.

[Taverner]

1. Because it makes the baby Jesus cry

[4 t 4]

56. Baby Jesus please don't cry

things just have to change

[Taverner]

57. But Baby Jesus always cries when you try to take money away from it

Even though Baby Jesus is a mythical beast. Much like Unicorns and Manticores.

[anonymous171]

2. There are so many churches that are abusing their tax exempt status right now

The law simply needs to be enforced.

[HEyHEY]

3. I am not religious, but I think the state has no business making money off my deepest beliefs

But, what needs to be done is a crackdown on obvious tax shelters and such.

[katandmoon]

8. Why not? What is so special about your deepest beliefs? Your deepest beliefs are costing ME money

By forcing me to pay higher taxes to essentially subsidize your religious belief organization, whose tax exemption isn't paying its fair share of expenses for the tax-supported services it receives.

So really, you believe it? Then YOU subsidize it.

Fair?

[anonymous171]

10. lol wut?

[katandmoon]

13. Churches don't pay taxes but receive tax-supported services. Who do you think picks up the slack?

[anonymous171]

14. What services?

Serious question.

[katandmoon]

18. Police and fire protection? Trash pickup?

[anonymous171]

19. I was hoping that wasn't actually your argument.

[katandmoon]

21. Why not? Let these fucking churches pay taxes like the rest of the business world. That's what they

are, businesses.

[anonymous171]

23. lol

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Sigh

More broad brush statements from someone whose experience of religion (if any) is limited.

[katandmoon]

26. Typical religionist arrogance.

[PurityOfEssence]

32. What makes them any less a business than a psychiatric practice?

No aspersion meant there about sanity, I just see it as an analogous service: helping people through difficulties. To say that the activity of religion is more important than that of psychiatry is pretty hard to justify, don't you think?

Churches are businesses. If you want to rent some space for a film shoot or a meeting or some kind of business gathering, they'll happily take your money. This money is never taxed and goes to fund their staff and other activities.

Here in Los Angeles, I pay rather hefty property taxes, as well as city sales tax and this money goes to pay to put up traffic lights at popular churches, pay for city road and police services for at least one major parade a year, provide fire protection, police protection and who knows what else. Somehow it's in the minds of many believers that they "deserve" this because religion is so "good", but many of us not only don't agree, we disagree strongly.

Looking the other way when dealing with the law breeds scofflaws and engenders cynicism about the system. I, as a liberal, LIKE government and want people to respect it.

Why must we be forced to subsidize beliefs we don't benefit from or like?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Read noel711's response farther down this thread

You might learn something.

[ColbertWatcher]

65. If you're in LA, you could have used another business for your comparison, like ...

... a pornographer, for instance.

I find it strange that you'd use a science when dismissing superstition.

[yodoobo]

16. Its not subsized. Its seperated

As in separation of church and state.

To imply that that are subsidized, infers a fiscal connection between the church and state as you would have in a 3rd world theocracy.

[katandmoon]

20. Churches don't pay taxes? Fine. Then they should not receive any tax-supported services.

SOMEBODY is paying to provide them to the church, and if it's not the churches then it's you and me.

[wolfgangmo]

28. Great point

Religions with property get all sorts of publicly paid support in terms of roads, signage, water and sewer and other infrastructure.

I wonder just how much of a subsidy that actually is?

[polmaven]

80. Since when do "churches"

get free water and sewer services or free "signage"? You'll have to define "other infrastructure" for me.

My church certainly gets regular bills for our water and sewage, based on the value of the property, just like everyone else. We pay for, and place our own signs, just like any Town business would.

As far as roads go, do you expect that all non profit institutions should perhaps purchase their own roads? Or should the Town stop maintaining the public roadways that run by the homes in the area because a nearby church gets a benefit?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Any "tax subsidy" that churches get is TINY compared to

corporate loopholes and the Pentagon, which has "lost" $2.3 trillion in the past 20 years.

Go after them first, and then maybe I'll really believe that you're trying to be fiscally responsible instead of just having a blanket hatred of religion.

[skepticscott]

40. Tiny?

On what do you base that? Have you added up all of the taxes on income that every tax-exempt church and religious organization in the country didn't pay over the last 20 years? How about all of the taxes on their property (which for many churches is far more than they need)? And how about all of the tax deductions that people have taken for money given to churches for non-charitable purposes? Add all of that up for the last 20 years first and then maybe I'll believe that you're not just a shill for religion who's slinging BS.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. SOMEONE has to counter the religion haters who are spreading

misinformation.

I'm all for taxing any church that tells its members how to vote or isn't under financial oversight by an outside body and for taxing churches IF all non-profits, including secular charities, are taxed and IF contributions to secular charities are removed from tax-exemption.

[skepticscott]

50. I see

so you'll counteract what you perceive as misinformation with more of your own? That'll work. But if you have a fact-based response to my "misinformation", by all means let's hear it. What is your claim of "tiny" based on?

And for the record, I'm all for giving churches tax-exemptions for legitimate charitable work they do that does not involve proselytizing, but not for choir robes, hymnals, bibles, organs, stained glass windows, 25 ton brass doors or any of the other trappings of worship and faith. Would you care to justify why any of the latter deserve a public subsidy?

[ColbertWatcher]

4. I asked that in a poll a while ago, and ...

... someone reminded me that if churches pay taxes, they can start spouting off about politics.

Imagine if you had to run against the Christian Party's candidate?

[Hugabear]

6. What do you mean, they can "start" spouting off about politics?

They've been doing that already for years. I remember when I was a kid, forced to go to a fundie mega-church, the pastor would often talk about the evils of Democrats, abortion, and sing the praises of Saint Ronnie.

[ColbertWatcher]

45. My paraphrasing wasn't fair ...

Here's the link to the poll, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4760709&mesg_id=4760709 , and here's the link to the better explanation http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4760709&mesg_id=4763029

[yodoobo]

5. Sure. If you want to see proposition 8 x 100,000

Right now churches have a huge disincentive to not get involved in politics. If they get involved, they lose their tax exempt status. Sure some do violate it, but most don't

Take away the tax penality, and churches will jump headfirst into politics.

How does the idea of the Catholic party strike you? How about if Scientology party runs its pick for President?

Taxing churches would be a good first step if you wanted a Theocracy.

[marimour]

62. great point.

The pastor of my small baptist church (basically 100% black) had to basically bite his tounge not to outright support Obama for President. he got chocked up a few times talking about the chances of seeing a black president in his lifetime but he stopped himself from saying his name or outright giving his support for Obama, even thought we all knew what he meant and agreed. Thi was all b/c he knows hes not supposed to get involved in politics and he really respects that. Also, while some churches allow Congressmen to come and talk to the people and get support around election time he doesnt. Not one politican in the 50 years hes been a our pastor.

Plus, its not like most churches make a profit. The mega churches might seem like they are everywhere but in reality, the small churches that are just trying to make the mortgages and pay the bills each month are really the norm while the mega churches are the exception.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. There was a thread about this just a few days ago

As usual, people who know nothing about how mainline churches are actually run and who know nothing about religion except what they see on the televangelist channels seem to think that all churches are rolling in money and that the clergy personally profit from them.

If you want to see my arguments, do a search, because I'm tired of making them, but essentially, any church in which the minister manages the finances without oversight from a board elected by the congregation and a national church body should warrant a careful look by the IRS. Leave the others alone. They're mostly struggling and doing good works in ways that never make the headlines. They also have overhead expenses that allow them to do good works without regard to the recipient's worldview.

And if you just hate religion categorically (as some here do), you're not going to be satisfied anyway, so I'll say nothing further.

[Hugabear]

12. That's why I clarified my position

If you're a mega-church bringing in millions, then I think you should be paying taxes. That's just my thought. Just like with individuals, if you bring in under a certain amount, you don't pay anything.

[Andy823]

15. It's the bigger churches

Who make millions or billions that need to be looked into, and in my opinion taxed. Small churches that do not send money to the main HQ in another town are a different story.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. There's a good reason that the small churches send money to the HQ

The HQ is precisely the body that OVERSEES the finances of the individual congregations to make sure that no hanky panky is going on.

The churches in danger of being financially dishonest are the free-lance fundamentalists with a charismatic leader, who uses the members' contributions as a personal bank. A couple of years ago, one of the bitter atheists on DU spoke of a minister in a poor neighborhood who took up a collection for his daughter's college tuition. If any mainstream clergyperson tried that, the local governing body would get a complaint from the members, and that minister would be hauled before the denomination's disciplinary committee and perhaps thrown out of the ministry.

Financial crookedness is difficult to carry off in a mainstream church, because of oversight by both a board elected by the membership and by the regional and national headquarters. In the Episcopal Church, each parish sends a percentage of its income to the diocesan headquarters for its operating expenses. The diocesan headquarters handles oversight of the individual parishes, guidance and resources for priests, communication among parishes (such as coordinating charity drives), and anything else that comes up in providing regional governance for a national organization.

[JerseygirlCT]

55. LOL. I should have read this first - it would have saved me the typing! nt

[JerseygirlCT]

54. Actually, those smaller, independent ones are more likely

to have shaky financial controls. No one checking on them, no rules for how money is collected or on what it is spent.

Churches with a national organization, OTOH, usually have to follow very strict accounting rules and you betcha they follow the regulations to the letter - a national church doesn't want to risk its status because of a rogue parish, you know?

Probably most dangerous though are the independent mega-churches - sort of the worst of both worlds, perhaps.

[Dorian Gray]

71. Seriously

They could tax my church, but the government wouldn't get very much. The amount that they do take in for collections is all spent every year (just like any other not for profit) on all the programs in which they give back to the community.

The government will be making a MINT off of churches like that!

(Sarcastic...)

In other words, I agree with your post, Lydia.

[Andy823]

9. I agree, but

Most politicians wouldn't touch this issue for fear of losing the so called "christian" vote.

Back in the early 90's they passed a law saying that if you charged people for books or other things your church was selling, you had to pay taxes on that. Most churches got around that by asking for a "donation", which is not taxed. The Jehovah's Witnesses used to ask for 25 cents for their monthly magazines and had set prices for all the books they pushed. When the law passed they simply asked for donations from those they tried to "sell" there stuff to. The members of the group had to pay the set price when they picked up the literature, and then ask for donations at the doors, then put the donations into the donation box at the hall. It was great for the organization because they got more money this way with the members paying in advance and then putting the donations in the donation box. Most organized religion is a scam and they should be taxed. The Witness organization makes "billions" world wide and pay no taxes, as do other religions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. "Most organized religions is a scam"

If you don't believe, fine, but you obviously know nothing about the actual finances of mainstream churches.

[ProfessorGAC]

58. Lydia, That Tune Is Getting Old

That one trick isn't going to fly. You can keep saying it, and keep accusing others of knowing nothing, but what's really obvious is that you think you're the only one who knows anything about how churches operate.

A pretty convenient debating tactic.
GAC

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. Welll a lot of them DON'T know, judging from what they say

:shrug:

They get impressions from what they see on TV, or they grew up in a fundy church, or they read something on an atheist website, or they're just piling on because all their friends are piling on.

I was a (mainstream) preacher's kid, and I sat on the board of a mainstream parish for three years. I do know more about church finances than someone who spent their childhood in a megachurch or who is an atheist who lives in the South surrounded by fundamentalists, thank you.

(As does noel lower down on the thread or mycritters or RevCheesehead or other clergy who participate on this board.)

If someone made statements about government finances or corporate finances comparable in cluelessness to some of the statements being made about churches on this thread, you'd rightly take them to task, especially if you had inside experience. For example, if some freeper came on here and said "Democrats want to raise taxes because they want to live high on the hog off government benefits" (a sentiment I've actually seen on my local paper's website), you wouldn't criticize anyone who corrected that misperception.

[ProfessorGAC]

63. Well, At Least Narrow The Brush

I am all for taxation of churches, but it's NOT because i don't know anything about their financing. My dad was a volunteer who handled bookkeeping for a large catholic parish. And my mom has worked for the diocese since i was a freshman in college. (I'm in my 50's now.)

So, i do know a few things about how they operate and i am still in favor of taxation. If, in fact, your beliefs are true on this issue, as well as the three clergy you mentioned, then there's nothing to tax! But, the value of property is value of property. That should be taxed no matter what. It's owned property, and it shouldn't matter who owns it.
GAC

[Dorian Gray]

72. She's not the only one....

I think she knows what she's talking about. I'm sure she thinks that others in the world also know how churches operate, too.

[derby378]

11. I think it dates back to the Middle Ages

In various medieval European states, there were three types of people who didn't have to pay taxes: the king, the knight, and the priest. The king justified his own exemption because his position as the nation's divinely-appointed ruler qualified as service to his country. The knight was deemed exempt because the fact that he could be ordered into battle at any moment by the king also qualified as national service. The priest was deemed exempt because his tending to the moral and spiritual health of the nation's people (from peasants to princes) also qualified as national service.

Hope this helps!

[jwirr]

25. Millions? Most churches barely get enough to keep the building and heat

and workers wages paid. However, I do agree that if the church is making a profit it would be fine to tax them - the church is not about making a profit.

[katandmoon]

27. Isn't that their problem?

[jwirr]

66. Yes, but the idea that most churches are that wealthy is just laughable.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. Maybe the product they're selling just isn't up to snuff.

My neighbors are Episcopal Ministers and they make quite a pretty penny. It seems like there should be enough money to not have to mooch off the common purse.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Well, they ARE a double-income couple then, and BTW, Episcopal clergy

are on a salary scale based on the size of the parish and their years of experience and they DO pay income taxes.

They are NOT taking an arbitrary cut from the offering plate. If you have reason to suspect that they ARE doing that, you should call their bishop.

[PurityOfEssence]

64. Not so fast

Somehow, this "enterprise" of theirs is making enough money to pay them QUITE well. Part of how it does so is because it doesn't have to pay taxes. That the individuals pay taxes on their earnings is not the question here; the issue at hand for me is that I am personally subsidizing this enterprise, and quite handsomely, I have to say.

Religions do good work, and religions do bad work. They're neither all good nor all bad. Still, they're part of the service industry, and get many services from the communities in which they engage in their enterprise.

It's not the end of the world, and it's not anything I'd actively pursue rescinding, but there's a very legitimate issue here, and to not concede the special exemption they enjoy is to either be duplicitous or to put oneself and one's view of organized belief in a privileged, aristocratic and anti-democratic (small d) stance.

I WOULD, however, like to see "In God We Trust" removed from our currency and have the Congressional Chaplains either have their roles reduced or their pay provided by private sources or both. "Ceremonial Deism" is a huge lie of the soul; although some think "it's not such a big deal", many are using this encroachment to justify further encroachment. I want to draw the line before it gets worse. It's getting worse. Obama has really stepped over the line on this, and it's had nasty, unintended consequences for him. The Founders were very clear about all this, and the Constitution is being violated on a daily basis. That's bad enough, but to use this as justification for further encroachment is the real danger.

Some--many, even--see religion as an obvious "good" influence, and their views are premised on this assumption. It is seemingly impossible for many of them to understand those who see religion as mixed at best and a net "bad" influence, even if only marginally so. Like most intractable problems, the nut of the issue is in the assumption. Those who argue that this is the killjoy reaction of a bunch of heathens don't seem to acknowledge the REAL hurt caused by religion in many cases and the true distaste many have for it. This, in truth, plays right into the very heart of the religious consciousness: other viewpoints are flawed and don't deserve equal footing. That is conservative, xenophobic and runs contrary to the philosophical roots of this country.

What is being asked for is that religion isn't viewed as SUPERIOR, UNDENIABLY GOOD, and due some form of blanket endorsement and subsidizing. Religion currently enjoys an aristocratic privilege in this country, and people are asking that this pedestal be lowered a few steps. Most non-religious types--myself included--don't want to "punish" religion, and are even perfectly happy to let religions get a few breaks, but want some careful controls on it, especially where it slops into the political realm, and DEFINITELY where it seeps into the actions of government itself.

It's got a huge advantage and we'd like to chip that advantage down a little; that is hardly persecution, and those who think it is are refusing to play fair.

This is not a black-and-white situation, like most important things in life. I know people who would be lost without their religion and I'd never want to take it away. I never argue about an afterlife with anyone over, say 70, and anyone with disabilities; that would be mean. I don't generally bring it up and I generally try to fluff the issue unless it's being foisted off in an uninvited way. Here, on the other hand, it's my principal bugaboo and the source of my greatest frustration with Obama so far.

I have also known a couple of people whose childhoods, larded with serious religion, have effectively destroyed their lives; one has been in and out of institutions all her adult life and is in a terrible state. The idea of Faith-Based organizations being simply "benign" is just unimaginative or dishonest bullshit. Funding social services through belief systems just further drives it into the heads of the needy that there is no good except for that from God. It's not from God in those cases, it's from the people and should be advertised as such. It's a cynical attempt to sleaze in an endorsement and use the public purse to do so, unless one is so wrapped up with the concept of the undeniable goodness of religion that this point can't be seen. Members of the latter group may be good, though facile and unimaginative, but that doesn't excuse it.

You and others expect privilege--based on nothing--and are frustrated at any resistance. We are not the oppressors, we're interested in getting rid of unfair advantages and we want political discourse to be judged on its merits, not by the resounding cosmic trump card of an infallible superior thingey.

[jwirr]

67. What is a common purse? None of the churches that I know get free

(mooch) money from anyone other than their own members. It is really interesting what people on DU think that churches do. I hate the rw bastards as much as any but I belong to a VERY liberal church and what you are describing is absolutely foreign to me.

[stopbush]

29. If all churches were taxed equally, probably 80% of them would go out of biz.

That would be a good thing.

What would be left would be the fundie megachurches and a few of the major denominations like the Catholics and Mormons, ie: the denominations that are already abusing their tax-exempt status by getting involved in politics.

Such a scenario would be a net gain for rationality as few mid-line Protestants would go over to fundie churches for their succor. They'd either keep their religion private or look for some on-line version. Overall religious affiliation would drop considerably, and that could signal a beginning of the end to the idiocy that has plagued the human race for untold ages.

I say tax 'em.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. If you think that would be a good thing, then you obviously are another one

whose experience is limited to stereotypes.

In other words, you'd set up the system so that only the exploiters survived. Yeah, that makes sense.

[stopbush]

38. You seem to be the kind of person who jumps to conclusions.

Talk about a limited experience.

Q: does the world really need over 30,000 sects of Christianity alone?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. They meet different people's needs

Does the world need 200 TV channels or an infinite number of kinds of foods?

[stopbush]

51. Golly, I thought that for Xians the "need" was to accept Jesus

and be saved.

Considering that's the primary "business" that the Xian church is supposed to be about, one would think that 3-4 different denominations would cover the variables outside of that primary mission.

BTW - the world doesn't "need" 200 TV channels, and nobody "needs" an infinite variety of food, but these things develop nowadays because people are pursuing their ability to make a buck by offering "choices" that are hardly substantial...just like the churches.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. There are any number of books on the history of Christianity

I've got a translation job to finish.

[anonymous171]

49. lol Such an American-centric view of the world.

[stopbush]

52. As befits a thread whose OP is American-specific.

[deaniac21]

30. I see your red door

[noel711]

31. Well... I'm the mousie in the woodpile here...

I get annoyed with folks who assume churches make millions
(and its all untaxed)...

YOu all need to get out more; the particular mega-churches that
suppposedly rake in millions, and are all run by the suppposed
'pastor,' are rare, and are not the way it is supposed to be.

I've pastored churches since the early '90s,
my husband has been ordained since '77,
and neither of us, nor anyone we know in ministry
is rolling in dough. We work in financially strapped
organizations which have served their communities for
generations.

99% of churches struggle financially to pay their bills;
most of us send at least 60% of our money to missions,
to help the poor, the sick, the homeless and the forgotten.

OUr buildings are used by community groups: scouts, music,
literacy tutoring, after school programs, senior citizens groups,
12 step programs, and many of us do grief counseling, and feeding
programs. If we weren't there, I wonder who'd do these important
social outreach programs?

Most folks who rant and rave again 'organized religion'
don't bother to ask us in the trenches what's really going on.

My husband and I make barely enougn in salaries to be considered
'middle class' even though we have 5 advanced degrees between us.
And yes we pay personal income taxes. pastors are considered 'self-
employed' and pay the same tax rate as doctors.

Sure, you're going to ask my why I don't get a more lucrative
job in a market that pays.. but those of us in ministry
aren't in this calling to make money; we care about people,
and about bringing them some dignity, and hope.
We are not all shysters. There is an important spiritual
part of life that is denied, and mocked, and vilified by
those who think life is about material success.

Why should churches be taxed? Perhaps they should:
in Europe, the countries have 'state sponsored churches'
where a certain portion of everyone's income tax goes into
a pool, and that money goes to the churches, to pay for their
buildings and the salaries of the employees. Any extra cash that
comes in the plate is then taxable to the state.
And because there's a 'state endoresed church' the government
can rule on what occurs in the church. In fact, in Germany,
even if you are an athiest, part of your taxes must go to one
of the endorsed churches. That's what happens when the government
gets its arm in the church doors.

But frankly I don't want the government telling me what to do
and say. Our history teaches us that the early colonies were a
haven to immigrants fleeing countries with 'state religion.'

[stopbush]

46. A few thoughts:

1. I'm an atheist who lives in the USA, and part of my taxes pay to support churches right now. Ever heard of bush's faith-based initiative? Ever heard of government services like police & fire that churches are provided without paying taxes? My taxes fund lots of government programs I don't like - churches and the war machine are only two of them.

2. It would take a Constitutional amendment to make the European state-supported church model work here, and that will never happen. Moot point.

3. As far as your buildings be used by non-religious community groups - if you all paid taxes there would be enough money in the public coffers to build plenty of non-religious community centers. Presently, it's a zero-net game that the churches win because they don't pay taxes. And what about those churches who refuse the use of their space to organizations that don't conform to their religious beliefs? How does that help them?

4. Helping the helpless - again, local communities would be able to do a better job of this if they had the tax revenue to do so. Taxing churches could give them at least a bit of that revenue. Churches could support these public institutions by urging their congregants to donate their money to them, rather than putting it in the collection plate. That would allow the churches to focus on their spiritual mission while leaving the bodily mission of shelter and nourishment to the public sector. But I don't think churches would go for this - they rather depend on that well-worn formula of feeding a person's hunger as an opportunity to proselytize about god and faith. The RCC feeds lots of Africans as long as they refuse to use condoms.

5. Spirituality v materialism - sure, there's a spiritual aspect of life, but I don't know what it has to do with regurgitating stale superstitions from our Bronze Age ancestors. Surely we can do better than this in the modern era.

[noel711]

74. A few thoughts... my turn..

1. Yes, Scott, I HAVE heard about Bush's idiocy. Please don't assume that because I'm religious (and also a progressive) that I leave my brain at the door.

In my reply I mentioned I don't want the government in my church.
I don't support Bush's efforts; Bush and I are on opposite ends of the
faith spectrum. I don't want my tax money funnelled into questionable
community efforts either. But then, I don't want my tax money spent
on that horrific war, nor on the military, nor on 'chastity only'
sex ed programs. But I'm only one voice in the wilderness.

2. Did I say in my post that I wanted a government sanctioned church?
I don't think so. I know what it would cost us. We need that to be a matter
of personal choice. Our government should stay out of it.

3. As to churches that refuse to lend their space to people they don't agree with..
its their building, they can make the rules. I don't have to allow people into my home
that I don't trust either. Most groups that are refused the use of a particular
church building can usually find a welcome in another space.

4. Yes... but.. there are many government agencies that do an excellent job of caring for
people.. but there are also many exceptions. What about illegal immigrants, who if they attempt
to get government aid are sent back across the border?
I find it offensive that you assume that all of us 'religious' folk force-feed doctrine
before we feed the hungry/care for the sick. That's not my practice, nor my experience
with other pastors in my circle. I know it happens, but that's not our practice.
It's nasty business, and I'm not standing up for the fundies.. can't stomach them.

5. Bronze age superstitions...? When was the last time you went to church?
If all churches were still living/preaching the bronze age song, I wouldn't be allowed in the pulpit... I'm one of those loud mouthed feminists... sadly, we've come so far, and yet we have to fight the same old battles over and over again...

It's your choice to believe what you want; that's one of the benefits of a free
society. But one imporant feature of a real democracy: allowing others that same
privilege. To promote one philosophy as the only way is just as narrow and divisive
as the fundies who pound the Bible and demand that everyone get on their knees.

Of course if all churches would just be rubbed out, the world might be a better place,
but then would we also rub out the gifts of Martin Luther King? And Malcom X?
And Bishop Tutu? And MOther Theresa? And Bill Moyers? And Jim Wallis?
And the witness of Ann FRank? And Elie Weisel? None of these people perfect,
yet their strong faith formed their witness to justice in the world.

[stopbush]

75. Noel wrote:

"It's your choice to believe what you want; that's one of the benefits of a free
society. But one imporant feature of a real democracy: allowing others that same
privilege. To promote one philosophy as the only way is just as narrow and divisive
as the fundies who pound the Bible and demand that everyone get on their knees."


Oh, you are allowed to believe anything you wish to believe in this country, that's true. BUT there's nothing in the Constitution that says that the rest of us have to treat your beliefs as if there is a shred of truth to them, especially your faux history about a guy who most likely never existed (Jesus), dead people who come back from the dead (Jesus again), supernatural all-powerful, all-seeing beings (gods) and the rest of the Bronze-aged BS that the religious traffic in. Nothing in the Constitution says that I must sit around with my lips sewn shut as the religious prattle on about their superstitions and traditions as if they were FACT and not mere opinion.

I don't accept that there's any truth to your beliefs. I don't accept the "proofs" that people offer as the foundations for religious beliefs. Your proofs don't meet the modern-age standard of what constitutes evidence. You're not entitled to your own standard of evidence for what constitutes truth, at least not if you wish to be taken seriously by me and other rational people. You don't get a carve out for your fantasies just because there's some woo-woo threat of eternal damnation hovering about your fantasies that doesn't attach itself to the fairy tales that even you accept as fairy tales. You know, fairy tales like Zeus and Thor and the 99.999% of the OTHER gods that man has invented for himself over the centuries that even YOU scoff at as being pure fantasy...and which scoffing marks you as being much closer to the atheist "philosophy" than you'd care to admit. Face it, you're an atheist 99% of the time...oh, but YOUR god tales are TRUE. Right.

Your privilege to believe whatever you want - be it religion, Republicanism, supply-side economics, demon possession, whatever - does not come with a free ride when it comes to evading well-founded criticism. And hiding behind the shield of "philosophy" - as if, for example, religious fantasy somehow occupied the same plane of reality as scientific fact and archaeological evidence - as some equalizer in such a discussion is to afford religious fantasy a standing in fact that it neither deserves nor that it can sustain if the discussion is indeed held on a level plane.

As far as the "gifts" of the religious leaders you cited: are you really saying that but for religion, these leaders wouldn't have had such gifts? Please. BTW - to include Mother Teresa in such a list is to insult the others. I suggest you give Hitchens' book on the subject a quick read. She was no saint, at least not in the human sense of the word.

And, yes, the world would be much, much better off were it freed entirely from the shackles of religion. If you wish to keep a few religions around, then let's at least agree to keep the few that don't pedal in stupid and childish beliefs in supernatural deities, dead people returning to life and eternity in some Elysian field. I'm fine if you wish to keep the ones that deal with inner peace arrived at without the help of mythical and imaginary all-powerful "friends" and their ever-present threats of your and my eternal suffering at their hands if we don't scrape before them in abject terror/worship.

It's the 21st century after all. Time to grow up as a species and as a society, and to put away childish things.

[noel711]

77. Just one last word..

Why are you so angry?
I'm not forcing my beliefs on you; just speaking up in a thread
where religious folks are being trounced.

But you oblivously don't wish to have conversation with someone
who can be religious and progressive.

I won't bother you further. I wish for you a good life, free from annoyances,
and I wish for you compassion, peace and good will.
But your arguments won't feed the hungry, nor care for the broken.
Live the way you want to. All I ask is that you refrain
from condemning those you know little about.

YOu keep using the pronoun 'man' in your discussion of religion.
That speaks volumes.

You said: "Time to grow up and put away childish things.."
Do you realize who you've quoted?
"put away childish things?" Read I Corithians 13.
he's not my favorite person... I prefer other philosophers,
I have read them. Yes, I've read philosphy. I'm not stupid.

Once again, give me credit for having a brain.
I know all about Mother Theresa's doubts.
I've read her writings. And most of the people I cited also had doubts.
EVen the Dalai Lama has doubts.
I didn't put her on a pedestal, just the good she has done for the very poor.
Having doubts is part of faith.

[stopbush]

78. You make alot of assumptions out of either ignorance or misinterpretation.

Working backwards:

1. My reference to Mother Teresa had nothing at all to do with her doubts about her faith. It had to do with her being a fraud, with her NOT providing relief to the afflicted but believing that other people suffering and her observing the same would bring her closer to god. I reference Hitchens because he wrote a book on her fraudulence and even appeared as a counter witness during her beatification process at the Vatican (see a short article on the subject by Hitchens here: http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/).

In short, Teresa provided not even basic medical attention to the poor saps who sought refuge in her hell holes. Her elevation to sainthood was based upon a fraudulent "miracle" that was attested to by a Bengali women who claimed a beam of light shot out of Teresa and cured the woman of pancreatic cancer. The woman's personal physician testified that she never had pancreatic cancer and that the tubular cyst she DID have was cured through prescription medicine. The Vatican couldn't be bothered to interview the physician, though they did do a perfunctory interview of Hitchens as part of their show that they were being objective. Teresa was made a saint and the fraud continues post-mortem.

2. My quoting St Paul was as obvious as it was intentional.

3. My use of the word "man" has nothing to do with gender, and everyone knows that (except you, apparently), anymore than my wife saying "it's time to go to school, guys" is gender specific when she collectively addresses my son and daughter.

This is really an empty argument from any perspective.

4. As far as "arguments" feeding the hungry et al, arguments don't feed anyone. Actions do. You seem to believe that the arguments for your beliefs are somehow NECESSARY to feed people. If that's true, then god help you - you're lacking a basic gene that the rest of humanity possesses and has nurtured by their environment (BTW - my use of the phrase "god help you" is not an indication that I believe there's a god. Ref: #3 above.).

Can you name a charitable act performed by a religious believer that could not be performed by a non-believer? Didn't think so.

Can you name a hurtful act that requires the inspiration of religion to occur? A quick look at Gaza this week may give you the obvious answer.

5. Angry? Moi? Don't think so. Incredulous at the persistence of blatant mythology in the modern world? Sure, why not. Perhaps you're not used to having your basic beliefs challenged. Perhaps you view such a challenge as anger. Perhaps you expect deference from your audience when you discuss your particular superstitious beliefs (as does the proverbial crazy uncle)? That's fairly typical. You'll get used to it...or over it.

6. Religious folks getting trounced. It's the beliefs that are getting trounced, not the folks. There's a difference.

[skepticscott]

48. Why is how much a church takes in relevant

to whether it should pay taxes or not? Or to whether people who give money to churches for non-charitable purposes get to deduct that money from their income, forcing everyone else to pay that much more? Why are religious trappings necessary to accomplish any of the good works you tout? Maybe if governments were less strapped for money because of tax-exemptions for religion, you wouldn't have to wonder who'd pick up all of those social outreach functions.

And what is your statement "99% of churches struggle financially to pay their bills; most of us send at least 60% of our money to missions" based on?

Btw...what entitles you to decide how religion "is supposed to be"?

[noel711]

70. What entitles ME to decide?

As an educated pastor in my denomination I alone don't make the decision as to how much of our church
income goes to help folks; we have boards and advisory groups helping to decide how to help others.

"How religion is supposed to be..." Good question; but I doubt that your question
is a theological one.

Religious 'trappings' have nothing to do with caring for others. It's what people should do, but obviously there's more need than there is people caring for them..
What is my basis to claim: '99% of churches struggle...'
My national church body publishes figures from local congregations as to their
statistics. YOu just go to the database to compare figures.
"60% of our income to missions.." Same source.
If you're interested, I'd be glad to private email you the website.
There are very few congregations in my denomination that are rolling in cash.

What entitles ME? My faith has certain foundations of how to relate to others:
I'm in the community day after day; I spend a lot of time with families in need
and people who feel shut out of the promises of life.

I suppose social workers could do what I do... but many a time I get a call from
the neighborhood social worker because they don't have the time, nor the patience
to deal with the personal issues:
Like the schizophrenic lady who babbles and walks the streets...but she trusts me because I listen to her and buy her a cup of coffee...

But does the government visit the dying in hospice.. or should they languish alone because spiritual faith is all hoo-ha?

Does the government comfort a couple whose child has died from cancer? Or should they just get over it?

Does the government listen to the grief of a gay couple who are denied the dignity
of family rights?

My faith is centered in the life of a man whose life was much like us; he didn't make the people he helped take a doctrinal purity test, he just listened, and helped them.
That's my model. We're not bible thumpers, but hope to build bridges by building up
community. Like any credentialed profession, like doctors or lawyers,
we have equivalent amount of education, training and superivision,
and no its not all mumbo-mumbo... Not every pastor is a fly-by-night nutcase.

Taxes? Any taxpayer can deduct from their taxes donations to non-profit
institutions, not just religious groups. And as to the notion that if churches
were taxed, then the government could take over our 'good works.' The problem
with that is most of our folks are volunteers. The lady who cooks in the kitchen,
the retired man who oversees donations of clothing, and the team who does
'after school care' do all those things without pay.
If the government were to take over, much of the income would go to pay salaries,
and then there would be various oversight costs.

Sadly, when the local government attempts to take-over 'good works,'
they become centralized, moved to larger sites, so there's no local
after school care for the kids, its been moved 2 miles away to a large
community center... so the kids can't walk there after school.

And No, most of church's 'good works' have nothing to do with
religious trappings. Most of the church I've worked with
do what they do without regard to who's recieving the benefit.
We don't make recipients of our feeding programs pass a
doctrine test. They need, and we supply the need.
We don't care if the hungry/poor/sick are Christian or not.
We don't 'foist' our beliefs on others.
Kindness, compassion, geneosity are not just simply
faith issues.

[skepticscott]

79. Here were your statements

You all need to get out more; the particular mega-churches that
suppposedly rake in millions, and are all run by the suppposed
'pastor,' are rare, and are not the way it is supposed to be.

Again, where is it written how a church is "supposed to be" run? Where is it written how religion is "supposed to be" practiced"? In the Bible? Well, the people doing it in the way that you apparently disapprove of have their own interpretation of what the Bible requires that is every bit as valid to them as yours is to you. And is there only one way (your way) to be a pastor? What gives you the wisdom to decide when someone is a real pastor and when they are only a "supposed pastor"

99% of churches struggle financially to pay their bills;
most of us send at least 60% of our money to missions,
to help the poor, the sick, the homeless and the forgotten.

But when pressed, you acknowledge that you were only talking about 99% and 60% of the churches in your own denomination, which is quite different than the way you tried to paint your argument originally, to support the contention that virtually no churches are well off financially.

And where did the notion come from that churches have a monopoly on volunteerism? Not only do many government supported programs depend on volunteers, but so do many secular charities that use none of their tax-deductible donations to pay for someone to preach the doctrines of Christianity. And are you saying that if your church was no longer able to do charitable work that all of the people who volunteer there now would stop?

[Skittles]

36. I agree

and I'm sick of some of the sanctimonious responses in this thread

[Igel]

42. Some responses.

First, if the government can tax something, it can make the taxes prohibitive.

Square that with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." "Separation of church and state" is a fine principle, but not in the Constitution, nor the entirety of what the Constitution says on the matter. I also don't see where "equal" treatment is involved in the first amendment.

Second, many religious organizations do a lot of decent work. They run schools and soup kitchens, they do charitable and educational work, as well as educational. In some respects, they differ little from things like Greenpeace or PETA or any number of thousands of other non-profits. Non-profits can be considered working for 'the common good', even if some violate the principle, and even if they work at purposes not in keeping with my political, ideological, or religious ideals. I'm not going to set myself up as a dictator, the Decider of what is acceptable for other people (at least not in this matter).

Third, non-profits overall take in millions of dollars per year. Not just religious organizations. They also have large land holdings and pay no taxes on them. Presumably we "subsidize" them, as well, if we assume that government--not 'we the people' and organizations we set up to help ourselves and others--has first dibs on our cash.

[anonymous171]

47. Fuck non-profits! nt

[stopbush]

53. Like churhces?

[Dorian Gray]

73. How

very magnanimous of you.

[cliffordu]

44. That's right.

If they want to shape the political landscape and form social policy they need to pay their freight like anyone else.

I mean anyone except a few huge corporations.

[sarcasmo]

61. Kick and Nom. It's time to TAX jesus.

[TheKentuckian]

68. Because if you do the Catholic Church (now with friends) will cycle up a

Dark age (again..probably) and take direct control.

[Canuckistanian]

69. Most countries don't tax churches and it's not a problem

It only seems to be in America that churches "push the envelope" by getting heavily involved in politics.

The only other precedent that comes close is the theocracy in Iran. And the only way they can sustain it is by brutal force.

Even Israel with it's 70% Jewish population can manage to keep the church (at least symbolically) OUT of the halls of power.

But I can't imagine any other country that let's it religious leaders pick, pass judgement on and partake in government functions more than America. And Shrub's maladministration has proven that it doesn't work for the good of the country.

If America is really going to be perceived internationally as a force in secular global politics (as it formerly was), this government/religious alliance has got to be curtailed.

[defendandprotect]

76. The problem isn't NOT TAXING a church and its surrounding property . . .

or their charities.

Of course, American taxpayers are now contributing to those charities thru Bush's

"faith based" initiatives scam.

The problem is NOT TAXING their real estate holdings, their stock portfolios . . .

And, a lot of the real estate is still carried at the value it held when it was turned

over to the church!