- Home
- About
- FAQ
- Law & Politics
- Media
- Events
- Press Information
- Christians Take Over Interfaith Army Chapel in Combat Zone
- Press Kit
- 9/11: 'Never Forget' Must Include All Victims
- Atheists Advocate Separation of Church and State at DNC
- Congressman Pete Stark to Speak at 2013 National Convention
- American Atheists Announces 50th Anniversary Logo Design Contest
- American Atheists Announces Harassment Policy for Conventions and Conferences
- American Atheists Jubilant Over Latest Religion Report
- American Atheists Removes Religious Billboards from Charlotte
- Former Pastor Now American Atheists Public Relations Director
- Former Pastor Teresa MacBain New Public Relations Director
- ITALIAN JUDGE LUIGI TOSTI ACQUITTED!
- American Atheists to Protest Bradford County, FL Decalogue on May 19
- Join
- Shop
Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State
10
Feb
2011
Demonstrations at Texas Capitol for Church Taxes to Support Education
PICKET AT TEXAS CAPITOL DEMANDS CHURCH TAX TO SUPPORT PUBLIC EDUCATION
They're going to be out there every weekday in front of the Texas Capitol Building in Austin, Texas: and they're demanding that lawmakers begin levying a small tax on the wealthy churches of the Lone Star State in order to rescue public education.
The project is the brainchild of American Atheists State Director Joe Zamecki. Joe and a coterie of fellow activists hope to draw attention to the "war on public schools" that is taking place throughout the state. Indeed, every time the legislature huddles in Austin, there is a flurry of bills that would further erode the public education system, and undermine the quality of education in the classrooms.
Mr. Zamecki explains in the following announcement...
Public education in Texas is in a financial crisis. This year’s state legislature is about to slash spending on education, to include the laying off of possibly hundreds of teachers, and the closing of public schools all over the state. Apparently the state budget is short this year, by billions of dollars.
Right now, parents, students, teachers and others are rallying around their schools, and speaking out about the very real need to keep the teachers and schools we have now, as one of our state's top priorities.
Meanwhile mega-churches and televangelists in Texas are doing very well. So the recurring theme of church taxation is in the air again, although it's still a somewhat shocking idea to most people. Not so shocking as in the past.
Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church alone is doing famously well, operating in the physically largest church building in the USA, tax free. Like so many Texas mega-churches, Joel and his church have the ease of marketing that some corporations have, so we feel that they and other successful mega-churches could help with public education too. We've proposed just a 1% tax on profits taken in by just the top 1% of the most profitable mega-churches and televangelists in Texas. They can easily afford it.
Not the small, poor churches we hear about so much. This is not an idea to harm or hinder any churches in their operations. We feel that giving churches blanket tax-exempt status is giving them a special privilege. The overwhelming financial success of some of those churches has some economists standing in awe. The idea isn't new, and it isn't going away, as long as Texas’ children have a grossly inferior system of education, a financial balance like this is needed.
Studies show that our state is lagging behind in education very badly, and knowing that the current legislature with the Texas governor are working hard together, it's clear that spending cuts will happen before any tax increases or new taxes are implemented. So without that normal financial balance, Texans are considering alternatives. This is one idea for an alternative that could solve the issue of insufficient tax funds.
As unusual and unpopular as this type of idea is, it just needs to be said again, loudly. And for those who feel that a church tax would invite churches and religious activists into the public schools, the legislature, and other areas of secular government existence: too late. They’re already well established in those institutions, which is one reason why we have a state/church separation movement. They just need to pay their admission fee, finally. It would really help the people of Texas.
Atheists and other state/church separationists will be picketing the2011 Texas State Legislature each weekday at 1 p.m. CST for the next few weeks, while the legislature works out a state budget. Our short and sweet message is: "Don't close a SINGLE school! TAX THE CHURCHES!"
Who: Joe Zamecki, Texas State Director for American Atheists
What: An ongoing picket project, of the 2011 Texas State Legislature
When: Every weekday at 1 p.m., until further notice
Where: The front gate of the Texas State Capitol building, at 11th Street and Congress Ave., in Austin
Why: To vocally offer up the idea to replenish tax revenue for education in Texas by creating a small tax on the most profitable mega-churches and televangelists in Texas.
MORE INFO: Contact Joe Zamecki at [email protected] or (512) 758-0060
Your contribution to our Matching Billboard Fund is DOUBLED!
50th Anniversary National Convention
The convention was a great success!
We are now offering on-demand video
of all the talks for $20! (6 months' access).
DVDs are also coming very soon.
Like our Page on Facebook and
Follow us on Twitter
for updates on DVD availability.
50th Anniversary T-Shirts, polos, & fleece jackets
still available in very limited supply—
Get your piece of history before they're gone!
Available for web purchase soon.
See you next Easter weekend in Salt Lake City!
March 28-31, 2013
Austin, Texas
Featuring: A.C. Grayling, Congressman Pete Stark, Katherine Stewart, Jay Jay French, Cara Santa Maria, Dave Silverman, Matt Dillahunty, Teresa MacBain, Seth Andrews, Hemant Mehta, and many more!
American Atheists Magazine 
is now available on your iPhone and iPad!
User login
Archive
- January 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (1)
- October 2010 (1)
- November 2010 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
- January 2011 (9)
- February 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (12)
- April 2011 (2)
- May 2011 (6)
Pages
Online
There are currently 2 users online.
- dmuscato@atheis...
- Ari Bialik
Who's new
- coryjaynesmiffhgnsr
- Rattdaddy
- rupohojqyqa719t
- codyosborntquctin
- coltbolt101
- sherlene8605lxeb
- ofcourseilikepasta
- jamelsteuqejact
- KevinStarr
- Jeremy Lacroix
Popular content
- What is atheism? (59,324)
- American Atheists Removes Religious Billboards from Charlotte (52,844)
- Aims and Principles (51,764)
- FOX News Facebook Page on 9/11 Cross Generates Death Threats Against Atheists (44,651)
- Billboards 2012 (43,714)
Pages
Popular Today
Pages
Get our Website Updates!
Do you want the latest AA news as soon as it happens?
Sign up using the link below and be the first in the know!
American Atheists Visa
Apply for the American Atheists Visa Card
and show your support with every purchase you make!
Comments
Texas, the Dark Ages state. The state bird must be the Ostrich, head buried in the ground.
The thing is, it says in the bible that Christians should pay taxes. There is no good reason for churches to be tax exempt. Certain organizations obtain tax exempt status because they provide a public service that would otherwise need to be provided by the government. Churches don't automatically provide this public service. Furthermore, if all they are doing is teaching/promoting a religion, the government certainly wouldn't be providing that service in their absence. The only reason why a church would receive tax exemption would be if they ALSO provided a public service separate from the religion AND it consumed a significant portion of their income in the process. At the very least, I would argue that they shouldn't have to pay taxes on the money they use for public service, but should have to pay taxes on money used for purely religious reasons.
This is also a separation of church and state issue. The issue is that churches are getting free money from the government, in the form of tax exemption, for purely religious reasons. Furthermore, it is discriminatory in that young, relatively unestablished, religions and secular organizations do not get this automatic exemption. The religious right loves to bring up separation of church and state when they think it means they shouldn't pay taxes, but extol it's evils when they want to take over the government. The thing is, the government isn't telling religion how to operate, just telling them that they would need to pay taxes like everyone else. The problem is that religion is getting special treatment from the government and "recognized" religions are getting special treatment over "unrecognized" religions... especially when there is not an official list of recognized/unrecognized religions. This means the policy is completely up to the prejudice of the enforcers. It's blatantly unconstitutional.
Actually, the bible says Christians should pray alone in a closed room of their house. Remember that next time one of today's pharisees tells you they follow the bible literally. Most Texas-sized churches also have a built-in gift shop engaging in commerce, funny since that was the one time in the whole bible Jebus was supposedly provoked to violence.
http://bible.cc/matthew/6-6.htm
The Birmingham Atheists, Birmingham Freethought Society, Alabama Freethought Association, North Alabama Freethought Association, Gulfport Atheists & Freethinkers, South Mississippi Humanists, and other groups also helped by getting donations of food and money and also helped with employment where they could: especially helping with access to the Internet for looking at classifieds online. We housed where and when we could. Then many representatives from groups all over the country went down and helped in the cleanup efforts.
Of course no one noticed, but that was okay... we did it because it was the right thing to do: not for the publicity like churches do.
But the reality is that it has nothing to do with the church and everything to do with the people. It is our human nature to help other humans in need. In your case, the church in Dothan just gave those people who wanted to help a central location to do it. And in the cities and places I listed above, those groups did the same thing.
It's great that churches can be a central organizing place and facility for the general goodness of mankind, but the church shouldn't be getting the credit: the people should.
I know what my motivation was to help: I wanted to help my fellow human beings who had been displaced. It is the same motivation that makes me donate money to the American Red Cross, that makes me donate canned goods to the local homeless shelter and battered women's shelter. It is the same motivation that makes me do any charitable thing: from the largest to the smallest (like helping people get their cars unstuck in an ice storm in Cincinnati).
And that is a true statement. What has happened is that the government has become lazy and allowed the church to take over services. Now the argument over whether or not the government should be engaged in those services we'll leave for another time and place, as the views vary to greatly on that, but when it comes specifically to this issue, it is clear that the church cannot feed the homeless any better than the government can. For example, the largest and most efficient food bank and shelter in Duval County, Florida is run by Duval County. The government placed it centrally to other government facilities so they can walk people to and from food stamps, welfare, vocational training, etc.
Instead of using our tax dollars toward this purpose, the government, under the Bush Administration, decided to give billions of dollars away in the unconstitutional Faith-Based Initiative. Then they took away all the restrictions that came with it, such as if you receive government funds you cannot discriminate in your hiring practices, and now not only is the government paying for the services through the church and lining their pockets, but they are supporting discrimination against religions, sexual preference, etc. It's a shame, really.
Of course not! I think you may be confusing two issues (correct me if I'm wrong) here: the idea of individuals volunteering through the church and the idea of the church being the only source of charity where government could do it on their own without having to hand out billions of dollars to religion.
Here's a little secret about Texas government, they do not care about educating children. They think the fairy tales in the bible are more important. Also when these uneducated children grow up and can not get jobs there is a good chance they'll go to crime, especially since here in Texas we have access to cheap illegal drugs. Governor Rick Perry also is a fan of privately owned prisons. Create criminals, let companies buy out the prisons, keep pushing police to bust people because of the war on drugs and that is how you have modern day slavery (make the prisoners work for $.10 an hour). The other incentive less education means more Christians are created that have a good chance of supporting neo-con republicans if some can stay out of trouble. I would say push to legalizing gambling and somehow marijuana to pay for education.
MistaX,
Legalizing gambling to pay for education? That would be like ... Lotto.
I've been busy for a few days, but I see some people have responded. I'll start with MisanthropicScott.
I understand what you are saying when you use the word "antitheist." The problem is that it is a word created by a group of people who gain some benefit from the differentiation between atheist and antitheists. It is like when people want to silence opposition to Sharia Law and call a person an "Islamaphobe." That isn't a real word either.
When looking for a definition in merriam-webster.com for the word you'll find this:
"The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."
I found one definition on dictionary.com:
"Antitheist
An`ti*the"ist\, n. A disbeliever in the existence of God."
And for antitheism dictionary.com has,
Antitheism
An`ti*the"ism\, n. The doctrine of antitheists. -- An`ti*the*is"tic"
I did eventually find your definition of this word on sites like Wikipedia and wikitionary and etc, but absolutely none of these are considered to be scholarly research sources. Dictionary.com isn't either.
Also, looking through all of my books in my library I've found absolutely no reference to "antitheism" as a delineation from atheism. It does show up on websites that are like this one, a rallying place for atheists. That tells that it is a word created by atheists for the convenience of atheists, but that it holds nearly no philosophical or academic significance.
I've tried looking through my online academic journals and databases for an etymological listing of the word because Wiki gives it as Greek, but I can't find it there either.
So, to answer your question, "No, I'm not a complete idiot. Some parts are missing, but your word is a convenient way for atheists to distance themselves from other atheists for whatever reason. It's like saying, 'Some atheists are black but not all atheists are black.'
As for your questions about the variances in Christian beliefs about evolution and creation. Yes, there are people who claim to be Christians who believe things completely different that other people who claim to be Christians.
How can this be?
Simple... someone is wrong. If one Christian believes that we evolved from the primordial ooze thousands of years ago and another believes that we were created by God 6000 - 7000 years ago then they cannot logically both be correct at the same time. If one Christian believes that God ordains homosexuality and the other believes that it is an abomination against God then one of them has to be incorrect. If one believes that a man can have multiple wives and the other believes that you can have only one wife then one of them is incorrect in their position.
You seem to assume that they can all be correct, but that isn't logical regardless of what you or I believe philosophically.
If i say it is raining and you say it is not raining then one of us is wrong.
Instead of simply declaring my argument straw man how about you actually respond to them. If they are truly staw men then you should easily be able to defeat them directly rather than simply saying something that amounts to, "I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer."
Now, back to the topic again.
As I've said, churches do not make profits. Profit is when a business takes materials and manufactures a product or they purchase of product and then sell the product for more than they invested.
Churches do not do that regardless of the size of their building or their budgets. They provide services to the community whether it be human relief or providing a place for people to worship. Some people donate money to the churches and that money is used to pay operating costs and to fund the operations of the church.
Church is not a show that the congregation pays admission to see. No church charges admission at the door. If they did then you could take the door, subtract operating costs and assess a profit.
They do not do that so they do not make profit. A business must have profit to survive so without making profit a church is not a business.
Have you ever take an economics course?
When you say, "Churches that pay reasonable salaries..." you are simply taking your value system of what you deem "reasonable" and imposing it on other people. That's a bit arrogant don't you think? I mean, how do you arrive at which salary is "reasonable" and why is your idea of "reasonable" the authority?
Hate to chime in on this - but where the fuck did anyone say any of that? I think the point is, you folks can't agree on anything except that you need to have some imaginary sky daddy watching your every move so you're compelled to do the right thing.
Also, you don't do philosophy. You do superstition.
Please elaborate: who here has done that? You're all over the place, Dane. Blockquotes would've kept it better organized, & easier to read.
Elaboration is what I'm asking you to do and your blockquoting is just the opposite. What you do is float out a few lines I've said and pop in a couple of cutesy, sarcastic one-liners but you never seem to actually engage in debate or conversation. It's a very cheap way to avoid honest academic discourse.
Oh yeah, you have no idea what I "do," by the way. You must assume that I sit all day staring at the Bible without ever considering anything else. For that matter, if you think that the only thing that's in the Bible is stories about supernatural events then you haven't studied it either.
Ahem - no, I've asked you to justify your accusatory claims.
Actually, still no. It's a technique used on a few blogs, & not solely by me.
Actually, that's not correct in the slightest. I've engaged your points honestly. It's not my fault some of them are amusing.
Oh, so you're an 'honest academic' now? Weren't you the fella who said lying was okay?
It's none of my business what you do.
That's some vivid imagination you got there, padre. I have better things to occupy myself than imagine what you do w/your time.
(Chortle) Fella, I've read the fucking thing. I used to be able to quote chapter & verse. The book of fables is shot thru w/superstitious cautionary tales. Most of which, I might add, are egregiously ahistorical, non-factual, & downright barmy.
It's a book of lies. None of the 'prophecies' ever came true. It contradicts itself wildly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
As for atheists distancing themselves from atheists, seems to me that we could do away with a whole cadre of subclasses of Christians by your same logic. Labels help describe people. They are a shorthand for a belief system. So, just as one might use Fundamentalist for an idiot who believes the literal word of the bible or Catholic for an idol worshiper or evangelist for a sheep who prefers to be in a large flock, we can use antitheist for an atheist who also opposes religion actively.
Since you seem to understand that the 2 billion sheeple of the world all following the New Testament do not necessarily agree on the interpretation of the same literal instruction manual, I find it hard to believe that you can be so pig-headed (no offense to pigs intended) as to believe that a group of people with no instruction manual to guide them would all agree on everything.
No. I think you really are just completely inept at understanding any point of view other than your own. It's a shame really as it's one of the things that the brain in your head should be fairly good at. You may not agree. But, yes, your lack of understanding of this key fact does in fact make you seem like an idiot. So, I ask again, are you really that stupid?
"If one Christian believes that God ordains homosexuality and the other believes that it is an abomination against God then one of them has to be incorrect."
Actually, they are both incorrect as there are no gods of any kind and by any name.
As for a reasonable salary, it seems that there is a definition for 501c3 organizations. Why should churches be exempt from having that same standard applied?
Alright Krys,
I'll forgo your sarcasm and respond to a couple things you've said.
You're stuck on the fact that you disagree with what religion teaches. As I've stated time and again, that has nothing to do with the tax exempt status of churches. You're beating a dead horse that is really a raccoon. Tax exempt status doesn't have anything to do with the veracity of the organization's claims on truth.
As far as your offer of a compromise on tax exempt status if the church stays out of politics... that's just silly. The church isn't looking for a compromise. We've had tax exempt status from the beginning. We used to levy the taxes on the colonists. You are the upstart philosophy who is begging for recognition and elbow room. You have nearly nothing to stand on yet you are bold enough to offer the Church a compromise? Put down your Darth Vader helmet and say something useful.
Wrong. Religion doesn't teach anyone. People teach wrong things.
I have also repeatedly stated, it shouldn't get special status.
Metaphor epic FAIL.
Witness...Enron. I'll bet those guys were all xtians too.
So - an organization's dishonesty, intentional or otherwise, should have no bearing on tax exempt status? What world are you from?
Ummm....that was James Madison's stand on the issue. If you knew your history, you'd know that.
Oh, that's been clear from the get-go.
Yeah, & the US had slavery from the get go too. This will be rectified, no doubt.
No, you clowns used to levy your taxes on the poor, not collect for the government.
"Upstart philosophy"? ROFLMAO! Are you kidding me? Now you're implying that there's a hierarchy of 'philosophy'? & the fact that you think what you practice is even remotely philosophical is risible at best. & also, you've managed to blend in 2 different logical fallacies is amazing. An appeal to authority wrapped in reification.
ROFLMAO again! I was tossing you a bone, nimbnuts. What are you, the Pope? Is it Cardinal or Monsigneur Dane? Do you wear funny hats too? Mumble in Latin?
Fancy myself more as Marc Antony.
of course you were throwing a bone... and yes, atheism is a relatively new philosophical school compared to religion. This is why AA is so interested in atheistic evangelism... well, that and the fact that they can sell memberships to the new converts to atheism.
I know history, silly. I'm saying that your offer to compromise with the church is silly... really silly. That's like the house-fly buzzing around my head offering me a compromise if I'll leave out some rotten meat for it.
Wow - for an 'honest academic', you sure do get things wrong a lot.
Atheism is the lack of belief in the supernatural. That's it. Not really a philosophy per se. Of course, neither is religion. That's just more hubris & a lack of self-awareness.
At the end of the day (and hopefully this exchange) it is easier for you to say that religion is a false belief than it is to actually defend your idea that churches are businesses that make profit and should be taxed... which is absolutely false.
We can split hairs on etymology of atheist, "antitheist" and all of that too, but regardless of any of that, churches are are not businesses who make profit and therefore are somehow getting a "free ride" at your expense.
This organized idea of atheism with its lobbying and recruitment is absolutely new on the world scene relative to the religions of the world, but even if it were, the fact is still that churches provide charitable community services to the community free of charge and they are not a business that makes profit or needs to be taxed.
Yes, there are some mega-church pastors like Osteen, Jakes, and Hybels that make really great salaries... you may not think that that is ethical, but it has nothing to do with the fact that churches are charitable, nonprofit organizations that do not sell a product and owe any tax on that profit.
(For the record, Rick Warren doesn't draw a salary from his church. He makes money on his books.)
So... we can banter back and for about our personal opinions about the necessity or evil of religion, but none of that has anything to do with the subject.
Is a church a business? If so, what product does it sell? Where does it buy it? How much did it cost to buy it? did it manufacture it? what is it made of? what is the going price on religion? How is the amount of religion measured? Is it sold at a flat rate or is it in quantities like ounces, bushels or acres? Where is it sold? Is it cash and carry or is there financing terms? Does it come with a warranty? If you do go to church and buy some religion, where is the checkout at? Will they ship the religion to my home? Where is the church that I can go to and buy some religion? Do some churches discount their religion at certain times in order to move excess stock and gain customers?
Please answer these questions rather than simply ramble on quoting me and making silly one-liner responses.
How is a church a business?
Daylight still out.
Actually, it'd be easier for me to nod politely & kiss your ass for having an opinion.
Wait - gullible people are giving them free money. Based on superstition alone. Maybe you don't understand what the word 'business' means.
Yeah, Loki's wager isn't a thrill for me.
Hey, my dime has inflated to a dollar, & these folks use the same services we do.
Again, atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color.
Free money.
For the record, Warren is a freak. He's a Young Earth creationist (which automatically falls in the retarded category) & a dominionist to boot. He's organizing his own version of brownshirts via stupid children.
Firstly, I'm doing you a favor by blockquoting: it's a way to regulate myself as well as pay attention to what is being said. Secondly, since we're on a public record of sorts, I can easily reference what was said where & when, so as to check on whether either of us have committed contextomy (yes, I check myself regularly, & am capable of self-correction). If you cruise the Pharyngula site, you'll see that I am not the only 1 using the technique.
Dude, are you serious?
A business (also known as enterprise or firm) is an organization designed to provide goods, services, or both to consumers.
A church sells salvation. It provides the feeble-minded w/a false cure for their thanatophobia. Furthermore, it not only promotes the afterlife, it charges for 'services' rendered in facilitating the rube's entry.
Really.
Ah - no you got another 1 wrong. AA exists to ensure that atheists get equal treatment under the law. The issue that arises is that theists seem to get preferential treatment, not equal treatment. So saying religion should take credit for 'creating' atheism is ridiculous. Of course, irrelevance seems to be your medium.
You STILL don't know what you're talking about.
I'm fine w/that. No more superstition? YAY!
You keep repeating yourself over & over. Polly want a cracker? This BMOC crap is childish. But then, you believe in fairy tales, so no surprise there.
Dying for a belief doesn't validate anything. Anyone can suicide for any reason.
Wrong again Dane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha
Atheism predates Christianity by centuries.
In fact, were it not for the existence of doubt, there would have been no need for Christianity to suddenly come along and make belief such a big factor in religion. Judaism from which Christianity sprang emphasized obedience to the law rather than belief in God. Obeying the law was enough for Judaism.
Hey! He got 1 right! Write it on the calendar! Yay! However, Confucius was NOT.
So you absolutely refuse to acknowledge Wiki as anything? How open-minded.
Nice change of goalposts.
First smart thing you've done yet, since you drop by to nag us about your POV.
Wait, so you refuse to accept his hypothesis, AND you refuse to demonstrate why?
So...the atomists of ancient Greece, Lucretius, Epicurus, etc. don't count? That's an interesting (if ridiculous) effort @ special pleading.
HA! You religious nincompoops don't HAVE any ideas to 'sell' in the marketplace. You have but the whisper of old ghosts that never were.
It was actually based on legal precedent, you fucktard.
I wish I could say that your ignorant arrogance amazes me, but sadly, it does not.
Buddha was actually a Hindu. Get off of Wikipedia (the Dollar General encyclopedia)and practice real scholarship and you would know that. As for Judaism... I'm not going to get into what Jews and Christians believe because this isn't a place for me to pontificate about religious beliefs. You'll notice that I don't talk a lot about what Christianity teaches on this blog. You're welcome to come find me on Facebook or something and I'll discuss that there.
For the record, you are very misinformed about Judaism and Christianity if you believe what you posted. For that matter, you are misinformed about your other two references too.
So you know, Buddhists have a very supernatural element to their system. They believe in Samsara, the Brahamn, and the Atman as well... all supernatural ideas.
Either way, this topic isn't about that.
The fact remains that atheism (in its current form) is an upstart philosophy that has only come to real prominence in the last 150 - 200 years.
My point is that you guys are the new kids on the block in the marketplace of ideas... so... when the whole offer of a compromise from an atheist to the church was spat out on this blog it was simply funny to me.
You people are the ones clamoring for power and recognition... not us.
Why does the AA exist? Without quoting their "Aims and Principles" page, the essential exist in order to promote separation of theism from the public square. The exist to accomplish this by networking atheists through seminars, publishing and other means.
They exist because theism exists. They do not have a purpose inherent to themselves. If religion were not the controlling paradigm that it is, there wouldn't be a reason for the AA. If theists were just some weak minority whack-job that few people took seriously then there wouldn't be a reason for the AA.
The AA and other atheists activist organizations like them exist because Theism exists. They are not a group that actually offers anything. They simply stand and say, "That ain't so. You need to shut up."
This is because Theism in some form or fashion is the controlling paradigm for most of the world. Within that paradigm has grown up a movement in the last 150 years of politically active atheists whose atheism centers around public policy and a grappling for power and influence rather than around real philosophical reflection like the ancient thinkers you speak of.
The Hitchenses the Dawkinses, the AA, the Ohairs, and those types are a flavor of atheism that thrives within Western societies because of the allowances of the cultures which began in Christianity and their core activities center around a struggle against the controlling paradigm.
It is not based on any deep philosophical thought... simply, "I'm right, you're wrong, now shut up."
If theism went away then so would this Western sort of atheism that you seem to be a part of.
That is wholly different than the philosophers you are trying to appeal to. That is an upstart little faction.
Socrates died because of his beliefs. When have these new, modern atheist died because of their disbelief?
They don't. This group is very new.
Mr. Scott,
I appreciate your post, but the reality is that simply being a Christian does not mean that you submit to the Pope or that you have some preacher feeding your beliefs to you. On the contrary, most us submit our evidence and argument to others and insist that they consider it as well as ponder their own positions out for themselves. As a pastor I spend a lot of time trying to compel people to not merely accept what I say, but rather to consider everything and arrive at their own conclusions. Every credible pastor I know does the same thing.
Yes, there are these people who seek out some preacher to cling to blindly, but religion isn't unique in that regard.
The Church does have a common agreement on those things which are orthodoxy but that is because, as I said earlier, truth has to be true so there can't be opposing truths and both be true at the same time. So, without getting into some exposition about orthodoxy, things like the deity of Christ and things of major importance there is agreement. On things like baptism's prominence to salvation, female clergy and etc, there are variances, but none of that was handed out to the Church by any one person or group of persons at any one time. It has been worked out through thousands of years of studying religion and God.
The idea that some man or any one book is blindly being followed by Christians without any academic or intellectual considerations is a myth.
Regarding your explanation of the scientific process, hypothesis is simply an Latin word for "guess." From that point, the process has to, as you have said about religion, "have a preconceived belief that biases your view." From the point of the hypothesis, in order to do any testing whatsoever, you have to begin from the philosophical position that the process will tell you what is true or untrue. If you begin from that position then you will blindly accept what the process tells you and that conclusion may or may not be, in reality, true.
Yes, science has the ability to decipher some truths. The fact that I am on a Toshiba laptop is proof of that, but it does not follow that science can decipher ALL truths and that there is nothing true that science cannot detect and explain. So, to depend on scientific endeavor to discover and define all truths requires you to "have a preconceived belief that biases your view."
In a nutshell, science can tell me that burning a man's holy book will reduce it to ashes and why it is reduced to ashes, but it cannot tell me whether I should burn it. Deciding whether I should burn it takes me to an arena in which science is absolutely useless.
What does any of this have to do with the tax exempt status us the Church?
I've already answered that question.
No, you've declared that it happens. That's an entirely different thing.
How much do churches charge for a certain amount of religion and where do the customers pay their fee. I've been in a lot of churches and I've never been charged.
Taxes are levied on profit margin and inventory value.
How do you decide how much profit was earned if you cannot establish a cost of goods and services and how can you tax the value of the inventory if you cannot establish a value for it.
Even if there were an inventory of religion, your position is that religion is worthless.
Well, you can't tax something that is worthless.
So Krys, if the church is a business that charges for goods and services, how much does the church charge in order to let people come in and worship? Where does the customer make his payment?
Are you really that stupid? I answered the question. You can't comprehend the answer, how much time do I want to spend re-explaining it to you?
That's the fallacy of reification. You can't treat an abstract like it's concrete.
You can tax something that's making money, worthless or no.
Ever heard of a tithe?
Really, you are so NOT clever.
I'm not trying to be clever.
YOU said you can't treat an abstract like it's an absolute. I assume you mean that religion is an abstract that can't be treated like an absolute.
If it is not an absolute like you have said and therefore isn't subject to my question, then how do you sell it or pay for it? Where else does a business buy, sell or trade an abstract?
I understand that your answer is that churches are a business that sells religion, but your premise is false and I am asking you to support it by pointing out the characteristics that it shares with other businesses.
The fact that a church collects money doesn't make it a business.
If that made it a business then the IRS would be a business.
You have said that a business is something that offers a good or service for a fee. I have said that profit is the cost-price so in order to tax a church for its religion you need to establish those values just like any other business.
You don't seem to be able to do defend your assertion that a church is a business, but you continue declaring that it is.
The tithe is not a fee in exchange for religion. MANY people in the world are religious and never tithe or even go to church. Statistically speaking, a very small percentage of church going people actually tithe. That would make the vast majority of church church-goers into shoplifters because they go to church without paying for what YOU have said is a good or service that is for sell.
Your position (and that of the AA) that the church is a business that should be taxed is completely false because you cannot explain to me what characteristic the church has that is the same as other businesses.... well, other than saying,
"Well, they have a lot of money!"
In other words, since they have the money the gov't should go take it.
That's not taxing... that's stealing and it's stealing of the wost kind. It's stealing based on your distaste for religion and nothing else.
It's based in hate.
Yes you are. & it's failing.
Reading comprehension FAIL. I said it couldn't be treated like it's CONCRETE.
There's really not very much you to can claim is absolute, really. But still, wrong.
Wow, too much C.S Lewis has rotted your brain. That is just moronic.
Every business deals in the abstract concept of positing value. Books, art, even currency is ascribed some value. But the point here is that religion deals in abstracts that people are willing to pay for - regardless of how many people actually pay for it.
Oh great. I have to re-explain it again? It sells salvation, dude, it sells the afterlife, it sells false hope.
I defer you to my post where I actually used the real definition of 'business'.
Holy crap, look up the history of the Catholic church. 'Indulgences'? Relics? @ least they weren't liars about it.
That's the beauty of the falsehood. All are welcome. Donate if you like. There's businesses who do that.
I'm not speaking for AA - & for the umpteenth time, I have explained it to you. You're just playing little word salad games that don't work.
NO - they have had a free pass, & it should be revoked. They should pay as many taxes AS ANYONE ELSE.
It'd be stealing if the govtmnt took all of it, instead of the portion due.
OH!! OH!! I'VE HAD AN EPIPHANY!! YOU'RE SO RIGHT!! OH, I'M A HATER!!
Get stuffed.
Krys, you're simply restating your original points without qualifying them at all.
"A church is a business because it sells religion." No it doesn't sell religion. Religion isn't a good or service and churches do not charge any sort of admission fee.
Your idea that taking only a portion somehow means that it isn't stealing is ridiculous. How about I come to your house and only take one of your cars or how about I mug you but I only take part of your money.
the "Amount due" is something completely subjective. I say they don't owe anything and you say they do.. who's to decide?
You still haven't explained to me how they are a business other than simply saying that they have money and they sell religion.
Yes, they have money that was donated to them.. but not in exchange for any good or service. So, they aren't a business. Also, they don't make profit because you can't assess a value for the thing that you claim they sell.. without fixing a cost on the good or service, you can't assess a profit and since taxes are figured according to the profit earned, your entire premise that they are a business who owes taxes on their profit completely fails.
You can can repeat your same statements about they are a business who sells religion and stuff if you want.. but you can't support those points with any logic at all.
The church is a tax exempt nonprofit organization for the same reasons as all other nonprofit organizations.
Get over it or die with it on your mind.
No, I've qualified them properly. Illustrate otherwise.
Yes, they are providing a service, or why even exist @ all? They provide all sorts of things - weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. They also encroach on thanatophobia.
Lame analogy. We're talking about the state taking a taxable portion, not individuals taking each others possessions.
Uh, did you see where I posted the definition? Even read it? Read any of my posts?
I'll bet if an organization subtracted the supernatural aspect, you'd consider it a business then.
& no, taxes are not only figured according to profit earned. They're assessed as to total net worth, liabilities vs. assets, etc.
This is typical Lewisian nonsense, BTW. Stay on 1 track, don't listen to what's been said, repeat your points, claim the other person is doing just that, because stubbornness is a virtue in the religious world.
If you were paying attention, I did that, but you weren't, so I won't repeat them again.
WTF does that mean? I'm not obsessing on it every waking second. I have other things to do.
Krys,
all you've done is said that the church was a business that should be taxed like all other businesses.
When I ask you haw they are a business you basic response is that they collect money... well so does every other nonprofit organization on the planet.
Then you said that they sell religion and the afterlife. When I ask you where they get the religion or afterlife to sell, how much they charge, where do they store it, how do they manufacture it, where the customer goes to pay their cost, what the profit/loss ration is, and those sorts of things (which are all legitimate characteristics of businesses) you say that you can't treat abstracts as if they are concrete and that I'm being clever.
In other words, religion isn't a product like any other product you can name and the church isn't a business any more than any other nonprofit in the world.
Yet, you just keep stating that it is... without any sound reason to believe it.
The Church does provide a service.. you have me on that one. They provide a place for Christians to gather for worship and they provide a place for them to organize in order to provide services for the community like schools, hospitals, feeding clothing housing the poor, paying for basic necessities, and all sorts of things so yes... the church offers services... lots of them and they have for 2000 years...
but the "catch" is that they do this free of charge. People from within the group make donations in order to support the church's work, but it isn't a charge for the service.
Just because you think that Christians are brainwashed, conned or somehow bamboozled out of their money in hopes of making it to heaven and that that is why they contribute.... because they are buying their way to God... just because you believe that, doesn't make it true.
The church is tax exempt because of the same reasons that every other organization is tax exempt.... get over it.
It should be taxed like all other organizations are taxed.
So does every business too.
Which they do.
Corrections: you're trying to be clever, & not succeeding. & you're deliberately avoiding the point.
History proves me right.
Your insistence on strict parameters is duly noted & ignored.
Got bad news - got you on all of them.
All of which takes cash.
You can't conjure it out of the air.
Oh stop. If you think the collection plate is voluntary, it must be soothing to be that naive.
Dude, it's a Pavlovian system, it works w/mammals.
No. You people will simply have to get off your high horses & wallow in the mud w/the rest of us.
Wait - I always forget this.
My point is NOT my personal preference. It's a logical progression, not an emotional one. How I feel about a topic is inconsequential to the logical steps that need to be taken.
Brilliant idea haha. If only all the money put into religion was spent on things worthwhile... you should check out my blog, particularly this post @ religion nonconformistjournal.com/archives/25
Alright Krys,
A business is something that charges for goods and services so a church is a business because it charges goods and services?
What is the charge and where do the supposed "customers" pay?
When they pay their fee, what portion of the fee is the cost of the religion and what portion is profit?
Logical progression?
Your argument in your post before this one amounts to,
"The church collects money just like every other nonprofit organization... but it still has money. Businesses have money too so the church is a business even though I can't explain how it is a business beyond stating that it is so it must be taxed."
Again Krys, the church is a nonprofit organization just like any other nonprofit in the country. They do not sell anything, although you like to think that they do and you make this stretch that doesn't work at all.
Again (and hopefully for the last time) the church is a tax exempt, nonprofit because it collects donations and provides free services for the community just like every other nonprofit.
I know you hate the things that they teach, but that doesn't matter.
They do not pay taxes so get over it.
Since you seem to be so deficient in the listening department:
They don't deserve a special pass. Nobody does. Especially since it is entirely mired in superstition. They should pay the same taxes that everybody else does. Insisting that they keep their status because 'that's the way it's always been' is ridiculous.
You're right, it doesn't matter 'how I feel' (& trust me, you know very little about anything anyways) - I say they get treated like everyone else. That you object to that fairness, is elitist snobbery.
That they get treated like everyone else is exactly what I'm insisting on.
Please point me to any other nonprofit organization that get's taxed because a group of people do not agree with their philosophical or religious positions. This is all I'm asking you to do. Churches are nonprofit for the same reasons every other nonprofit is nonprofit....
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MAKE A PROFIT ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF "PROFIT."
This is why I've asked you to explain to me their cost and their fees so that we can assess a profit margin.
You cannot do that because they DO NOT make a profit.
You think they should be taxed simply because they have money and because you hate what they believe... well, that's an affirmative action issue because it amounts to religious discrimination.
(...race, CREED, color...)
To charge them taxes simply because they are religious amounts to you being a bigot against religion.
So yes, equality is what I'm asking for too.
In accounting, profit can be considered to be the difference between the purchase price and the costs of bringing to market whatever it is that is accounted as an enterprise (whether by harvest, extraction, manufacture, or purchase) in terms of the component costs of delivered goods and/or services and any operating or other expenses.
Your precious church has a huge profit margin.
Money for nothing. Hmmm....
Asking for equitable treatment is bigotry? Yet despite all the logical points you want preferential treatment. Earlier in the thread, I pointed out that churches should lose their tax exempt status if they electioneered, & you thought that was funny. Oh but wait - it's still personal isn't it? You keep attacking my character, as if that has any bearing on my points.
Do surrender.
Krys, most of your responses didn't respond to what I have said at all. You simply made snide comments which didn't rebuff anything I've said other than to call me naive and ignorant... so ignorant that you can't really respond with anything of substance.
Your quotes from a few presidents are interesting, to say the least, but they aren't legal precedent or policy at all. Ok, so they seem to agree with your position that the church should pay taxes... wow... they bear the same burden that you do in showing some equitable cause for levying those taxes.
If the church is a business then show me what they do that is unlike any other nonprofit in the country like the YMCA and Red Cross, both of which outright charge for some services yet retain their nonprofit status.
Presidents Garfield, Grant and Kennedy have the same burden as you. How does the church differ from any other nonprofit that requires them to be taxed.... other than the fact that you hate their religious beliefs?
None.
You are not "asking for equitable treatment" or else you would demand that the YMCA, Red Cross and other nonprofits also pay taxes.
You aren't.
Again... the church is tax exempt for the same reasons as other nonprofits. Their religious teachings are protected speech by the Bill of Rights. The gov't cannot tax them simply because they exercise those rights.
Again, get over it.
Your definition of profit is a good one.
Please explain to me what the"(difference between the purchase price and the costs of bringing to market whatever it is that is accounted as an enterprise (whether by harvest, extraction, manufacture, or purchase)"
Where have the churches harvested religion? Understand too that the word refers to farming.
Where have they extracted anything for sell. Understanding too that the term refers to mining and chemical processes.
Where have they manufactured anything? Understanding too that the word refers to taking small component parts and pieces and creating a new product out of the parts.
Where have they purchased anything for sell?
Let me give you an example that will illustrate what I am saying, that you know I am saying, that you know is 100% true, but that you continue to deny.
From the website for the YMCA: http://www.ymca.net/news-media/about-the-y-fact-sheet.pdf
"The Y is the nation’s leading nonprofit committed to strengthening communities in the areas of youth development, healthy living, and social responsibility."
So... The YMCA is a nonprofit organization...
My family just joined the YMCA... it's a cool place... They do a lot of community work....
We have to pay 57 dollars a month for access to their resources. The going price is 65 dollars, but I am an employee of the Mobile County School System so we get a discount. two of my 5 children are going to take swimming lessons there too.... that was another 45 dollars each.
So, the YMCA is a valid nonprofit but they actually CHARGE FEES for access to their services.....
So, they charge fees, they have budgets, their workers make a living working for the YMCA, they own millions of dollars in real estate and facilities....
But... they are still nonprofit.
So, your whole argument that because the church teaches something that you believe is false and because they have a lot of assets that they should be taxed completely falls apart in the light of fairness. You SAY you want equity, but you don't... you want to tax the church because you have some bias against the church that you do not apply equitably to all nonprofits.
AND... your "electioneering" is a myth too. The church does not "electioneer" anything. It doesn't have the power to do so. The church takes social positions, yes, but that is a part of its freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The pastor and other teachers tell members what they believe scripture teaches, but they do not follow them to the ballot box... they do not throw politically dissenting members out of the church, they do not make campaign contributions to candidates, they do not do any of these things.
The pastor and other leaders may stand in the name of the church and say that this politician or that policy is in biblical error, but that is a part of his freedom of religion and speech. He does not lose his human rights simply because he is tax exempt. Freedom of religion and speech are inherent rights for all humans. If the gov't can deny the pastor his human rights simply because he works for a nonprofit organization then it can deny any man his human rights for whatever reason it deems worthy.
Know why the YMCA doesn't take part in politics? Guess why they can't take political positions without losing their tax exempt status.... because they don't have freedom of religion because they are not a house of worship of any kind.
Ya know what though... they Directors, Donors, employees and customers of the YMCA are free to take part in any political activities that they want.
SO, if you want to tax the church you will have to first go change the founding documents of the country and deny all men freedom of religion and speech. Be careful though, because when you do that you also deny yourself those freedoms and the same rights that allow the pastor to state his religious positions allows you to do the same things.
So, like I said several posts back... the church is tax exempt. They are not a business by any definition. Get over it.
Here's another example for you:
http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d229a5f06620c6052b1ecfbf...
The Red Cross is a nonprofit organization too, but they charge for blood. Sure, they do so because there are administrative costs involved in providing the blood, but under your definition since they take a product and receive money for it then they should be taxed as a business.
Under your definition, the church is MORE nonprofit than the red Cross because it provides it's services COMPLETELY free of charge and its members pay for the salaries, facilities and other costs.
Again... your position and the position of the AA that the church should be taxed is rooted in your bigotry against their religious position.
Ah, the Great Dane - all bark & no bite. Are you joking? Prop 8? Falwell got Bush Jr. elected & re-elected? Indiana? Oklahoma? If you knew your history, you'd know that many churches stick their noses where they don't belong.
Dude, they tell them how to vote.
Your naivete is cute.
But somehow, that doesn't count as influencing people politically?
Sure it is.
Never said that.
Wow. My only point is that they pay like anyone else. Somehow, that's persecution?
LOL. All I need to be the villain of the piece now is a top hat & handlebar mustache.
Heard of the Johnson Amendment? It's purpose is to clean up the political funding, & the IRS actually has some power:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
Because the constitution isn't static - it's a dynamic document that can be amended...which you'd know if you knew your history.
Wow - again, atheists are more persecuted in this country than you folks are. If you'd kept abreast of events...but you don't. You live in your own little bubble.
Must be nice.
Heard you the 1st time. You were wrong then, & are still wrong now.
Let's see what some presidents say:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."
( John F. Kennedy, speech to the Greater Houston ministerial Association during the Presidential campaign, 1960; from Samuel E. Morison, Henry S. Commager, and William E. Leuchtenburg, The Growth of the American Republic, 7th ed., Vol. 2, New York: Oxford University Press, 1980, p. 744. )
"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community."
James A. Garfield, 1874 Congressional Record, 2(6):5384; from Gene Garman, America's Real Religion: Separation Between Religion and Government in the United States of America, Pittsburg: America's Real Religion Pub., 1991, p. 104. )
"I would also call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land before the close of the nineteenth century. It is the acquisition of vast amounts of untaxed church property. [In 1850, I believe, the church property of the United States, which paid no tax, municipal or state, amounted to about $83,000,000. In 1860 the amount had doubled. In 1875 it is about $1,000,000,000. By 1900, without a check, it is safe to say this property will reach a sum exceeding $3,000,000,000. So vast a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of government without bearing its proportion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be looked upon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes.] In a growing country, where real estate enhances so rapidly with time as in the United States, there is scarcely a limit to the wealth that may be acquired by corporations, religious or otherwise, if allowed to retain real estate without taxation. The contemplation of so vast a property as here alluded to, without taxation, may lead to sequestration without constitutional authority, and through blood. I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation."
( Ulysses S. Grant, address to the Army of the Tennessee, Des Moines, Iowa, September 25, 1875; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: The Citadel Press, 1983, pp. 287-288. )
Actually yes they did, a long while back.
I don't know what to say. Is your comprehension terrible, or am I not speaking English?
Like how you gloss over the Johnson Amendment.
So...you're more correct than 4 US presidents?
I quote law to you. I show logic. You try to play special pleading games by excising the mega-churches from the discussion earlier on, but mega-churches are actually full on extensions. & if you're a Christian anything, you get an automatic customer base. If C.S Lewis (king of the 3rd rate 'philosophers') had been Muslim or Hindu in tone, he'd have had a smaller customer base. Because, in marketing terms, the US is saturated, inundated w/Krystianity. A guaranteed buck. It's absurd for you to say there is no money in religion - they make money, they get taxed like everyone else. It's also absurd to say they play little or no part in politics.
It's the height of absurdity to make any claim that those presidents, who really didn't need your specious parameters of 'business', hate religious belief at all.
Uh hello, YMCA pays property taxes. Do illustrate how they do & don't. Given your sketchy knowledge of history, I have cause to doubt your statements.
Short version: show your work.
Krys,
I have said several times that the church receives money. That does NOT make them a business. Go re-read your own definition. The YMCA and Red Cross receive money too, but they charge fees outright. They Church doesn't.
The YMCA and Red Cross are tax exempt nonprofits.
The 4 Presidents have to measure up to the same standards of logic and rhetoric as anyone else. Simply because they, and you, state that something is true doesn't make it true unless you (and they) can show how the church is any different than any other nonprofit that isn't taxed.
Also, I have not said that the church isn't involved in politics. I have said that their teachings and statements that influence political outcomes is protected under their human right to practice religion and speech.
Again, get over it. They are tax exempt for the same reasons as all other tax exempt organizations. They practice their religion just as anyone in the country is free to do.
You are beating a dead horse here. You don't want the church to be be tax exempt... I get that, but you don't have any grounds legally for that.
Get over it Krys.
Your own holy book states that the worshiper is to surrender 10% of their annual salary.
(You will of course deny that too.)
The burden of proof has been met, you just refuse to admit it.
There's a vast difference between having a discussion about politics, & telling people exactly how to vote. If you can't see the ethical difference, then you're not the 'honest academic' you claim to be.
Why you keep parroting that stupid comment is anyone's guess.
That doesn't entitle them to not pay taxes.
If you were so confident about all this, why are you responding?
I see now why honesty isn't a virtue among the religious. It's hard admitting anything to yourselves, isn't it?
Pages