I'm actually surprised that they don't pay taxes on investment income. That really doesn't seem right. Although I dont agree with it, I can at least understand tax exemption on direct income like donations, but investment for profit is something else entirely. Still, I don't see this changing anytime soon.
The author is really playing fast and loose (or perhaps simply being ignorant) by equating tax exempt status with subsidies (which are when funds previously collected through taxation are redistributed to certain, special interests). Churches aren't receiving money from the state. The state simply isn't taking their money away from them. It makes one wonder why the author doesn't target other tax-exempt entities in his critique, such as all 501c3 non-profit organizations. I'm sure, by his definitions, you could find billions more in "unclaimed revenue." The original intention of the Founders was that the land churches were built on belonged to God; we were just stewarding it temporarily. As such, it should not be subjected to the same taxes as the populace (especially given the value churches and other places of worship add to communities in terms of communal identity, education, health services, charity, etc. - see this list published by Forbes of the top U.S. charities in terms of Revenue, and look at how many of them are religiously based: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html) Moreover, in 1971, the Supreme Court upheld the law in Lemon v. Kurtzman saying "non-taxation of churches is undergirded by 'more than 200 years of virtually universal practice imbedded in our colonial experience and continuing into the present.' " (Source: http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/churches-are-tax-exem...) FTA: "There is a distinction between constitutionally separate “sovereigns.” For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient to that authority. This is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the tax and in the practical effect of supporting the sovereign party. So, in our constitutional structure, states may not tax each other, and they may not tax property of the federal government. The District of Columbia does not tax the property owned by foreign governments, and New York does not tax the property owned by the United Nations." Really, what this author is saying is that he looks at his neighbor not paying taxes, while he is paying taxes, and feels it is unfair. Therefore, tax them as well! But wouldn't it be just as logical to say, "Hey, why can't I have the same tax rate as them?" You see; it's not really about fairness, because if he were evaluating it logically, he could arguably get a better deal out of the situation by getting rid of his tax burdens as well. So, it's not about fairness by any logical definition. It's about punishing people who believe differently from him, because he doesn't like them. And of course the atheist author wants the state to punish the church. So many atheists these days worship at the alter of the state (and thus, state violence). (See: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2008/04...)
The First amendment: Where does the it say that land on which churches are built belongs to God? The point of the first amendment is to protect religious minorities from government intrusion or persecution by preferentially adopting one religion over another. Taxes have nothing to do with it. There was no such thing as an income tax in the USA until the Civil War, so I'm not sure this is what they had in mind. Which groups do and do not receive tax exemption is a matter of current policy and popular sentiment, not some grand design put forth by the Framers.The original intention of the Founders was that the land churches were built on belonged to God; we were just stewarding it temporarily. As such, it should not be subjected to the same taxes as the populace...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is a false interpretation, and not one the courts have historically given. The courts view taxation as a form of control (as the founders did - which is why there was, as you say, no income tax). If you were to tax a church, you'd be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" since taxation is a control, and thus, in violation of the First Amendment.
I'll have to disagree. Freedom of Religion is like Freedom of Speech. It is about what you are allowed to believe, like Freedom of Speech is about what you can and cannot say. Freedom means that you can believe (or say) whatever you want. You could for example believe that all humans are part of a giant neural network which is used as a computer by aliens. It is in no way related to the institution, it is al about the freedom to believe whatever you want. Now lets take a closer look at churches. Churches (in the broadest sense of the word, also including Mosques etc.) are in essence nothing more than a community of people who share a religion, right? Now, while these communities are important for the believers, they are in no way required to believe. I take it you agree, if not, please say so, because I believe this is completely logical. I could set up my own religion and practice it without ever having to go to a church. So, with this in mind, I state this: Taxation is in no way impeding the practice of religion. I can say this because of the distinction between the institution and the religion. Now let us look at the first amendment. It states in relation to religion: Let us look at that statement. It states that we cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. OK, so I already showed that by assuming that there is a difference between religion and the institution. Now let us look at the first part. It states that we cannot make any law respecting an establishment of religion. So how about religions without churches? Like the Wiccans. Do they get tax exemption? I'd say probably not, because they don't have a church. Mind you, they do have communities, but they don't collectively own a building. People who believe "there is something, but don't know what"? No tax exemption, since they don't massively organize. We can see that in this isn't according to the first amendment, right? Either in your own words, if tax is indeed a form of control, then all these people would have to get tax exemption, otherwise it would not be according to the second part of the first amendment or when we take the route I just constructed, then the state "picks favourites" by not taxing the big religious institutions, which is also in violation of the first amendment. I hope I have made my train of though clear. I am of course no legal expert, especially not of american law, since I am from Europe. Also, it is past midnight over here, so it might be that there are some errors in my post.If you were to tax a church, you'd be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" since taxation is a control, and thus, in violation of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I don't think you've demonstrated this at all. A lot of people who don't really care one way or the other about theistic dogma look at the situation and simply see massive organizations raking in tons of money and paying zero taxes, and don't think it's fair. Just doesn't pass the smell test at first glance or upon extremely careful scrutiny. Just because somebody may be ideologically opposed doesn't mean that this simple truth does not also exist. This argument doesn't stand up to common sense. Most people (besides maybe anarchists) believe that everybody needs to be taxed something to pay for services that the government provides. Doesn't matter what the percentage you believe it should be is (large or small) to realize that arguing that everybody should "try to get it to zero" is fundamentally untenable, unfair, and unreasonable.You see; it's not really about fairness...It's about punishing people who believe differently from him, because he doesn't like them.
because if he were evaluating it logically, he could arguably get a better deal out of the situation by getting rid of his tax burdens as well.
Before I begin; sorry, I don't know hubski markup yet, so I don't know how to quote you efficiently. To address the first paragraph; given the democratic nature of the republic, and the past 200+ years of Judicial history, I'd say that for the vast majority of people, it does pass the sniff test. At any rate, majority has little to do with the "rightness" of a subject. If you really want me to demonstrate it, I'll start with the idea that this atheist worships the state. How do we know this? Because from the get-go, he presumes the state owns everything. This is why he willingly confuses subsidies with tax exemption. To him, it's not that the government isn't taking away something from the church. It's that they're letting them use what the government already owns, while the same privilege isn't being extended to everyone else. This is an arrangement he despises, and as such, thinks it should be changed. It's the equivalent of a petulant child demanding their mother take away their sibling's juice box because they don't have one. For the second paragraph: full disclosure - I am an anarchist of sorts. Taxation is violent theft. It's a group of people taking money away from people who've worked for it (mostly so they can buy bombs and bullets to kill brown people in the Middle East). I think it's actually unreasonable to say that someone is justified to take another person's money just because they wear a badge or sit on a seat of authority. Really, how do you justify it? I mean, really, how is that a reasonable position? How is the unilateral use of force and violence to rob people in any way remotely reasonable? The simple truth is: it's not reasonable. It's just statist philosophy; a violent, immoral system that many can't even see because they were raised in it and have had their head pumped full of statist nonsense in public schools.
But I'm an atheist that does not worship the state, nor to I believe the state owns everything. Furthermore, most of my friends are atheists, and none of them believe anything close to these ideas regarding state ownership. What the state owns, or does not own, actually has absolutely zero to do with atheism. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And no atheist I've ever met believes otherwise. Nor will you find a stance on state ownership of property in any definition of atheism in any book on the subject, because it does not exist. I just wanted to clear that up since your premise regarding atheists is immediately and obviously flawed. It's called being part of society. This has nothing to do with my stance on religion mind you, but I do believe as a social creature born into a community, that it is eminently fair and just that all members that want to be a part of that society must contribute if they want to stay in it, and that the levying of taxes and the spending of such taxes at the hands of elected representatives is probably a better system than any alternative. I think this position is the very definition of reasonable. I think you can have an honest debate as to the amount of taxation, and how that money should be utilized, but the premise is sound. But I do believe people should have the right to leave the society/nation/community that they were born into and go somewhere else without owing anything back if they so choose.If you really want me to demonstrate it, I'll start with the idea that this atheist worships the state. How do we know this? Because from the get-go, he presumes the state owns everything.
I think it's actually unreasonable to say that someone is justified to take another person's money just because they wear a badge or sit on a seat of authority. Really, how do you justify it?
Is it? I mean, we like to pretend our ideas and such are isolated and affect nothing outside their own little realms, but nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism affects the whole man, and as a result, society. Look at the Soviet Union. It was a state that was officially born out of atheism. Here's a list of other atheistic states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism Here's a recent thread from r/atheism that highlights the trend I'm pointing out: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/y3275/so_i_noticed_... My premise is anecdotal, yes. But that's entirely different from saying it's flawed. And the only reason this premise is anecdotal is because there's no real way to be empirical about it (or, indeed, much of social science). The reason this premise is true is because the only power in a completely naturalistic system is violence and coercion (aka, control). The state organizes these into the largest, most coordinated body possible. Therefore, the state is supreme. (Note: the only difference between the state and the mob is that the state is usually bigger than the mob. Some anarcho-capitalist scholars say the state uses the "Mafia model" of government). That is why atheism almost always goes hand-in-hand with statism. Even you deceive yourself when you say: Really? It's reasonable to force every living creature shaped by millions of years of diverse evolution into a box of conformity? And what elevates one man over another that they get to decide what the criteria is? Thought experiment: replace "social creature" with "black people." Imagine it's being spoken by a white person of privilege, during slavery in America. It's the exact same language used to defend slavery. (And truly, we're all slaves to the state). It's reasonable to threaten violence against those who want to opt out of the system? It's reasonable to have armed men raid the homes of families because they didn't pay protection to the biggest mob of all? As an atheist, you don't even have any logical grounds for morality (a fact I will defend to the death). Yet you employ the language of morality to obfuscate unilateral mob violence against people. Reasonable? Right? Good? Fair? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A (Now, I'm a Christian, so I won't always agree with him, but stefbot makes some amazing points in that video).I just wanted to clear that up since your premise regarding atheists is immediately and obviously flawed.
but I do believe as a social creature born into a community, that it is eminently fair and just that all members that want to be a part of that society must contribute if they want to stay in it
| Atheism affects the whole man, and as a result, society. Look at the Soviet Union. It was a state that was officially born out of atheism.| You're making the mistake of correlating the abuses of the Stalinist dictatorship with tenets of atheism that don't exist. A glance at the various abusive theistic dictatorships throughout the world's history effortlessly reveals that not a single abusive attribute of Stalinist Russia is unique to its dictator's views on religion (aside from those very views themselves). You can't be forced into a state in which you exist since your inception. Regarding conformity, I already said that you should be able to leave the society and community that you were born into should you choose, and go somewhere else. You're making an artificial and arbitrary distinction. It is a fact that humans are social creatures in the aggregate. Not up for debate. But to use your bad analogy, it doesn't matter WHICH community one is born into, -you're born into one. You use the collective resources of it for the duration of your time in it. You shouldn't be able to do that without contributing as it is theft, and if you don't like that arrangement, you should be able to exit of your own free will, whether you are black, white, American, Brazillian, -whatever. This betrays a lack of understanding of atheism, which takes no stance on morality and has nothing to do with it. But on the topic, I will say that you don't need belief in a being that does not exist in order to act morally. Morality is defined culturally, and this is evidenced by the different moral codes that have, in reality, existed across different cultures throughout history and exist today. What was moral at one time may not be today and vise verse. Concepts of morality are taught, and are shaped and created by the people in the culture itself, with some concepts of morality likely having biological roots tied to out inherent self preservation instinct (near universal prohibitions on certain types of killing for instance, even though most cultures allow all sorts of killing to take place in certain situations). As horrifying as some absolutists view fear it is, history shows us that moral codes have been fluid across cultures. Additionally, many people rightly understand that certain types of religious affiliations (like Christianity) PREVENT you from being moral, due to their treatment of women and homosexuals. Now, you may not agree with this, but as morality is defined by culture and always has been, a large segment of culture deems these views as horribly immoral. In order to claim otherwise, -that morality stems from a creator, you must first prove that there is a creator, which has not been done.Really? It's reasonable to force every living creature shaped by millions of years of diverse evolution into a box of conformity?
Thought experiment: replace "social creature" with "black people." Imagine it's being spoken by a white person of privilege, during slavery in America. It's the exact same language used to defend slavery. (And truly, we're all slaves to the state).
As an atheist, you don't even have any logical grounds for morality (a fact I will defend to the death). Yet you employ the language of morality to obfuscate unilateral mob violence against people.
Aside from his confusion regarding tax exemption v subsidies, which I confess I am not very knowledgable about either, the rest stands up to any test of logic. And the author makes the point that churches benefit from government services such as firefighting, etc., that the rest of us have to pay for. So in a sense, they are indirectly receiving what you might call a "subsidy", since they are being handed free service. And I personally don't give a shit what the "Founders" intended for churches, as I sure as hell don't feel I should be personally obligated to set aside a special place for someone else's god. I'm sure the founders had many backwater ideas that haven't stood the test of time and progress. After all, we all know how many of them felt about women and slavery. I perused the list of charities you posted. Most of them did not sound like religious organizations to me. Am I wrong? But even if they are, what about the thousands of other religious organizations who are doing very little to support charity. And what about the author's suggestion? Why not have churches separate their charities from their spiritual rituals? We could just tax those who like to spend their time performing rituals, and leave their charities out of it. Just like all the rest of us, hey? And then we have this. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I am not a lawyer or even well versed in law. But I am not so sure that this means that churches are guaranteed freedom from taxation. And even if it does, I think that it presents a glaring flaw in our constitution, as exception to civic duty is clearly unfair to any but those who benefit from it. Even if that statement should mean that we can't tax religious organizations, why shouldn't superrich individual pastors have to perform their duty to their country? And what does that say about those who use their faith to take advantage over their neighbor? It is not about punishment, artifex, it is about fairness. The author never suggested to leverage penalties against churches, instead he is suggesting they carry their share of the burden. What's with the dig about atheists worshipping the state? Clearly a sweeping generalization and unfounded. Bad form.
This was the point of the "opposing views" article I referenced above. The First Amendment has repeatedly been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that Churches are free from taxation, since taxation, by definition is a form of governmental control, and the First Amendment calls for, as you quoted, "no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If you tax churches, you violate the first amendment because you are now, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is something that's been upheld by the courts repeatedly. If you have a problem with this, you literally have a problem with the First Amendment. So go ahead, hold a Constitutional Convention, and re-write it. As far as the Charities are concerned, I counted at least 15 religiously affiliated charities in the first two pages. I'm not going to go through and list, line-by-line, the religious status of all 200 charities for purposes of brevity. And true, my quip about atheists worshiping the state is a bit of a generalization, the point of me saying this is to point out that most atheists simply aren't consistent in their rejection of hierarchy. For most, they simply replace a religious hierarchy they find distasteful, with the State. Thus, they pay tribute to the state (and get mad at anyone who doesn't). They attack anyone who attacks the existence of the state. They cheer when the state chooses to smite their enemies (and go to great lengths convincing it to do so). And they find security in the state (which is why we see a greater demand for state-funded education and healthcare). Tribute. Loyalty. Dogma. And a sense of Security. If that isn't a kind of worship, what is?
I only counted 8, but of course, that's why I was asking. And of course I don't expect you to go through all 200 line by line, but thanks for the snide comment. And even if churches to contribute to charity, so what? There are many secular organizations contributing on your list as well, with difference being they pay their taxes like all the rest of us. At any rate, you did a good job here acknowledging everything I acknowledged by way of concession in my previous post, but failed to respond to each of my challenges. First, although it's true, as your reference supports, the supreme court has upheld an interpretation of the constitution that frees churches from taxation, it is obviously not explicitly written in the constitution, and thus we may as a society choose to interpret it differently in the future, no? And again, your statement about atheists worshipping the state is nothing but smear.
I wasn't trying to be snide with anything I wrote. I think you're misreading my voice. As far as secular organizations; yes, and they're called 501c3 non-profits. Who also don't pay tax. Should we be demanding they all pay their "fair share" as well? I also never conceded anything. I basically said you brought up some points, but failed to realize the full implications of them - such as forgetting about the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause in the 1st Amendment. And the thing is... I still don't think you grasp that part. Taxation is a form of control. If they tax the church, they prohibit the free exercise of religion when they do so. Therefore, churches being tax exempt is explicitly written in the 1st Amendment, and this is why the Supreme Court has always ruled in favor of no church taxation. To suggest otherwise is to be utterly ignorant of 200 years of this republic's legislative history. The only way you could ever tax the churches is if you held a Constitutional convention and completely rewrote the 1st Amendment. And, let's face it: that will never happen.
I see. So when you explained that you weren't going to "go through and list, line-by-line, the religious status of all 200 charities for purposes of brevity", you were being sincere, not snide. I find it hard to believe that you seriously thought that I expected that of you, and thus needed to explain that you wouldn't. I think you were being snide. But that's okay, I won't let it bother me. And the whole purpose of 501c3 organizations is to cut taxes on organizations that serve a public benefit. All 501c3 organizations serve a demonstrable public benefit but one. Guess which. And you can't fall back on the charity thing again, because even if churches to support a great deal of charity that is not at all their primary purpose, and much of their tax-free dollars are spent on building luxury churches and mega-salaries for their pastors. Thank you also for condescending to tell me what I do and don't understand. I have stated up front that I am, as you say "ignorant" of 200 years of this republic's legislative history. I have about as much knowledge of legislative action as the average layperson. I understand very clearly how you believe that taxation should be interpreted as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. What I am saying is that I, as a layperson, am not certain that taxation necessarily must be interpreted as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And what I am saying is that if the courts of this country have seen fit to weigh the issue at all, then it must not be quite so clearly, so explicitly, so definitely written as you say it is. The language sounds a bit loose to me, and I can see a couple ways of looking at it. But again, I am not a lawyer or a politician, and I am unversed in the subtleties of law and the language used to express it. At the very least, it seems to me that the amendment says nothing about forcing other citizens to pay for the benefits that religious organizations enjoy from the government, such as, again, fire departments, etc. (a point I made earlier). We could go on, but honestly, I'm starting to lose interest. As you say, nothing I can do about it anyway. Too deeply ingrained in our culture and, as you pointed out, legislative history. I will continue to pay money I worked hard to earn to support some stranger's Sunday pastime, and he will continue to regard that as my personal obligation.
If you're going to go to church, find one that doesn't pay their pastors. Incidentally, the figures on mormon and/or methodist charitable giving are not only inaccurate but couldn't be verified unless you know some one inside either organization.much of their tax-free dollars are spent on building luxury churches and mega-salaries for their pastors.
>I think you were being snide. Alright, whatever. Think what you want. >tax-free dollars are spent on building luxury churches and mega-salaries for their pastors. You are aware that all church employee salaries are taxed, right? I love how I cite specific Supreme court cases, and quote the judicial record, and you respond with: > And what I am saying is that if the courts of this country have seen fit to weigh the issue at all, then it must not be quite so clearly, so explicitly, so definitely written as you say it is. I think the issue is quite clear for those who want to look at it. >At the very least, it seems to me that the amendment says nothing about forcing other citizens to pay for the benefits that religious organizations enjoy from the government, such as, again, fire departments, etc. Why should the government force anyone to pay for these services? These weren't laid out in a constitutional manner. Why don't we pay private fire brigades and police forces, like they do in Brazil? I don't think you should have to subsidize anyone either, but it's not the church's fault the the government is robbing you.
I've enjoyed being a fly on the wall for this conversation. The markup can be accessed at the bottom right of the comment box. It's written in light blue and is a bit difficult to see. Hope that helps.