Religion
Related: About this forum
71 Billion Reasons to Tax Religious Organizations.
https://secularpolicyinstitute.net/71-billion-reasons-to-tax-religious-organizations/If religious organizations (ie. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) were taxed like for-profit agencies, it was found that this could generate upwards of $71 billion per year in tax revenue. Even if churches were merely held to the standards of other non-profit agencies, this could generate $16.75 billion in tax revenue per year. Here comes in the notion of bias, it is arguable that no member of Congress has ever been to a Planned Parenthood clinic. Though, the Hill is overwhelmingly populated with theists, with only one member unaffiliated.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
unblock
(52,113 posts)politicians will often take the safest route on many things, and proclaiming belief in god is certainly one of them.
i very much suspect that god plays little to no real role in the minds of many, if not most, politicians.
now, pandering to a strong voting bloc, possibly by claiming or at least implying to be one of them, yeah, that's certainly likely.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)No one can read their minds. Worse, your statement implies that because they are lacking in scruples or integrity, they can't be true believers and therefore must be non-believers. That stance reinforces bigotry against non-believers.
unblock
(52,113 posts)virtually any non-theist who wants to be a politician in this country has motive, means, and opportunity to keep their beliefs secret and to proclaim to be a theist. even those who had previously gone on record as non-theists could claim to have "found god".
a sizable portion of this country is nevertheless non-theist, and it seems remarkably improbable that virtually all of them self-select out of politics or promptly fail at it.
that means that most politicians' proclamations of belief ring hollow. it's a very easy lie to make, so who knows when it's actually the truth? yes, we can't read minds, so we can't be certain any particular politician actually believes as they claim, but statistically, we can have great confidence that a solid number of them are lying and are, in fact, non-theists.
as for "your statement implies that because they are lacking in scruples or integrity, they can't be true believers and therefore must be non-believers," i disagree and i'm really not following how you get that from what i said. imho, ethics, morality, scruples, and integrity exist outside of religion and it is in fact religion that reinforces bigotry against non-believers through false appropriation (morality comes only from god, through faith, etc.). i am not saying that politicians must be non-believers because they lie; that's not what i said at all. i'm saying that virtually all successful politicians pander, whether they are theists or not, liars or not, ethical or not. if they want to win, there are a few things they simply have to do, and pandering is one of the big ones. sometimes they can choose who to pander to and who not to pander to, but pander they must.
it's much like kissing babies even if they can't stand babies. it's simply not good politics to come out against babies. or apple pie or hot dogs. so they just pretend if they have to. maybe they like babies, maybe they like hot dogs, who knows. but they're all gonna act like they like these things.
is that reinforcing some kind of bigotry about babies? or apple pies or hot dogs? of course not.
similarly, i'm not reinforcing any kind of bigotry about non-believers by saying that there's likely to be more than one in congress even though only one is "out". if anything, i'm pointing out the bigotry in our society and political structure that effectively forces non-theists to remain in the closet if they want to serve in congress.
Skittles
(153,104 posts)excellent response 
unblock
(52,113 posts)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)You first say "a sizable portion of this country is nevertheless non-theist", but then leap straight to "that means that most politicians' proclamations of belief ring hollow". The "sizable portion" may be 25%, but it's not "most" - unless you are actually saying that huge numbers of respondents to all the polls that are done are lying (and you use 'lie') so that "most" people are non-believers who lie about it to pollsters.
unblock
(52,113 posts)Such proclamations are pretty empty whether true or not. Hence, most. I'd say "all", but some politicians can reasonably establish faith through more than just proclamations, e.g., a long history being active in a church and/or considerable knowledge of religious literature.
And, again, non-theists choosing to stay in the closet in a society bigoted against them is perfectly reasonable imho. I'm not blaming the victim here.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Everything in post 31 is spot on, and you double down on it.
unblock
(52,113 posts)i said that a sizeable portion of the *country* was non-theist, then said something most *politicians' proclamations*.
post 31 then claimed i jumped from a "sizeable portion" (which they put at 25%) to "most", but i was talking about two different things. so post 31 was objectively wrong in interpreting my post.
i'm baffled at what's supposedly offensive in what i'm saying and can't help but think my posts are being further misinterpreted.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That atheists lie. Also that theists that don't fit your criteria are actually atheists. You are arguing semantics while ignoring the actual complaint.
unblock
(52,113 posts)And they lie because that's part of the hat politicians pretty much have to do to win.
Some of those politicians are non-theists, but it's a bullsh!t twisting of words to claim that that means I'm saying non-theists lie. If a non theist politician lies, it's because they're politicians, not because they're non-theists. And I said absolutely nothing about non-theist non-politicians lying.
Hell, some politicians are various colors or genders or national origins, it would also be ridiculous to claim that i'm saying that people from x country or whatever lie.
I said politicians lie. Since when is that remotely controversial??
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Lie about the color of their skin?
SomethingNew
(279 posts)WTF is going on?
unblock
(52,113 posts)i'm feeling kinda trolled here, lol!
unblock
(52,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)In FY 2017, total US government spending, federal, state, and local, is “guesstimated” to be $7.04 trillion, with federal $4.15 trillion; state $1.72 trillion; local $1.87 trillion.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total
Taxing religions yields one percent of that.
Does the Secular Policy Institute have a position on reducing the Defense budget by, say 2%, or is it simply a one-issue advocacy organization?
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and I'd STILL strip churches of Tax Exemption.
I'll give you 10:1 ratio, dollar for dollar.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Total military spending is not a part of their issues list.
"striving to better, oft we mar what's well"
No reason to bother discussing total military spending as if this org should be chasing a bigger dollar issue. Church tax evasion is a big enough thing to work on for now.
rug
(82,333 posts)If their concern is raising federal revenue, as opposed to crippling religion financially, because "it poisons everything", they should sy so instead of batting their eyes about waste. Another example of masking the irrational with a goss of the rational.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Why not raise federal revenue and end a odious leeching upon taxpayers?
Well, I guess that could apply to the military spending as well. But it's called the Secular Policy Institute, not the Military Spending Institute, so I would expect their aims to be targeted to things related to the actual org.
rug
(82,333 posts)If their actual purpose is the remove the entanglement of every penny from the public purse to the church basket, they should just say so. It doesn't matter if it's a dollar or a billion. They come off as a taxpayer advocate.
Mikey Weinstein does a good job of doing both, as you suggest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/how-much-money-could-the-_b_931436.html
You need to be a CPA to extract the coust of chaplaincy servies across the armed forces.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Poke around. They cover that sort of thing under Taxpayer policy.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)What does or does not please you is not a basis for public policy
I'd say that applies to this organization as well. Unless you have a special case for why your opinion matters here, while others don't.
That remark is allso inept and stupid and a tedious ad hominem.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2017, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)
If the shoe fits. Not an ad hominem if it's your own words. Calling someone inept for using them is an ad hominem, and personal attacks.
rug
(82,333 posts)Here. it remains as inaopt as it is inept.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I mean if we're going to sling 'inept' at people. Let's make sure it gets a fair go-around.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)
Heddi
(18,312 posts)calling someone "inept" while misspelling "inept."
Note to the jury that will get called on this for being a personal attack: It isn't a personal attack. I am concurring with my friend LordQuinton above that another poster attempted to make a personal attack against LQ and, in doing so, made a funny and ironic grammatical error by misspelling the word he was trying to use insultingly against LordQuinton.
iˈnapt/Submit
adjective
not suitable or appropriate in the circumstances.
That post is the deinition of irony. Your mindreading of meaning and intention is what's inept.
Note to the jury that will get called on this for being a personal attack: It isn't a personal attack. I am correctimg my friend Heddi the correct word usage and intent of a post. Unless of course she is making another oblique personal attack disguuised as breezy banter.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)What are we to make of 'also inept', while paired with 'stupid'?
I believe you meant 'Inapt' in the subject line, but I suspect you ALSO used inept on purpose. After all, inept and stupid are synonyms.
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Ignoring your whole subthread of unprovoked personal attacks, you said upthread
What does or does not please you is not a basis for public policy
Which applies directly to what's being discussed here as the only objection you've raised is that you were confused.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)By taxing them you will force churches to close.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Tens of thousands of denominations.. churches all over the place already..
If some smaller ones have to close so what. Things fail all the time.
They can find another church if theirs closes.
We had a couple in my little town close up. They were renting part of a billing for their services.
Never saw them to one damn thing for charity. Nothing.
Anytime they had a bake sale or raised money, it was for their 'church'. Little fringe denomination with a small congregation.. failed.. nobody cared because they didn't do fuck all for the community.
Why not just get together at someone's house or rent a hall once a week for 75 bucks if you really have to all sit together and chant.
Let them close. No skin off my ass.
We had one here called 'living Christ church'.. they were doing ok but there must have been an argument because they split and half of them went and formed the church of the living Christ. . Maybe not exactly.. but you get my point. They both failed shortly after and we're all sad and shit.. wanted help from the community to stay open.. that's not how it works.. that's opposite of how it works.. lol
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Churches benefit from roads, services, regulations, etc. just like taxpaying organizations and people do. I certainly see no problem in not taxing charitable activities but property taxes, the end of the ridiculous parsonage exemptions, etc., all need to be on the table.
rug
(82,333 posts)A silly distinction.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)surface water runoff, emergency medical services, police, ALL that stuff comes out of my property taxes. They're hooked up the roads. The rain fails on their impermeable parking lot (a lot big enough to hold probably 8-10 of my property).
I'm paying, through my property taxes, some of the cost of their ooga-booga weekend nonsense.
rug
(82,333 posts)Other than knowing the sight of a building pisses you off, it's impossible to discuss the public benefits and kliabilities of the "four million dollar piece of shit two blocks from my house."
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I can give you exact dollar figures for how much they are NOT paying, and since they are not paying it, the rest of us actual meatbags who own homes around here (and those that operate brick and mortar businesses) are paying for it.
The water is an undeniable truth that must be handled to prevent downstream flooding.
The impermeable surface is also an undeniable truth.
The $ value of the property and improvements (buildings) is readily accessible.
The tax table for the water runoff costs is also readily available.
Same is true of surface street access, etc.
I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT.
Tax exemption is one of many ways they try to get ME to pay for their shit.
rug
(82,333 posts)Religious belief, uniquely, is protected in the First Amendment.
As noted by Marshall on a different subject, "The power to tax is the power to destry" - McCulloch v. Maryland
The constitutionality of religious tax exemptions was upheld in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970).
There are sound policy reasons why bona fide religios institutions are tax exempt. Whether it pisses you off or not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)they can fucking pay for the water runoff mitigation THEY CAUSE BY DOING SO.
rug
(82,333 posts)Otherwise, that's irrelevant.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)if it was anything OTHER THAN a church.
Just as the 2nd amendment protects not just firearms, but also the means of utilizing them, such as ammo, etc. (Never mind that I pay taxes on my firearms/ammo, and in fact pay ADDITIONAL excise taxes for environmental conservation.)
One could reasonably conclude religion has also exemption for the *means* of expression. Clearly they have a first amendment right, and that right includes means.
What they do not have a right to do, is pave the planet and shirk any and all responsibility for the environmental impact to do so.
rug
(82,333 posts)They do a lot more shit that cut down trees.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Corporations AREN'T, and I can see (I spot checked six including the local Nintendo plant) they are paying for their runoff fees as part of their tax bill for property taxes. (I can see they have filed to challenge the property tax value and lower it, but they are PAYING their BILLS)
Nintendo paid $248,000 this year.
The church, which is half as large, pays $0.
rug
(82,333 posts)Taxes don't confuse me but shifting values do.
I suspect you'd swallow a lot of shit it wasn't done by a church. And that has very littkle to don if taxes are paid.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But environmental impact mitigation isn't free. I don't care if your imaginary friend says it's ok.
Nintendo pays, local megacorpchurch should pay too.
rug
(82,333 posts)You lose.
And this
they can fucking pay for the water runoff mitigation THEY CAUSE BY DOING SO
becomes hyperbole because . . . . blah, blah, RELIGION!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I offered you a rather large attack surface earlier with the 'means to' worship/religious freedom and you did fuck-all with it.
So I'm just going to assume the argument is flawless and you have no leg to stand on. Have a fantastic evening.
rug
(82,333 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,214 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Get 'in god we trust' off our currency at the same time.
Igel
(35,270 posts)They were still tax exempt.
They just didn't have the "no partisan politics" provision that's from 1954. That bit of legislation hobbled them more than liberated them.
tortoise1956
(671 posts)If you decide to tax churches, that removes much of the legal wall that is used to prevent governments from providing funding to religious organizations. After all, if they are now expected to pay taxes to cover government functions, the argument will be that as taxpaying organizations, withholding government funding to, for example, pay for building upgrades that are allowed for secular organizations would be discriminatory. This is especially true if there are property taxes involved. After all, property taxes are used to pay for the services you are receiving. In this case, that would include monetary services as well. Also, if churches are taxed, would other charitable organizations be taxed as well? Taxing one charity and not another is considered discriminatory - I believe this would fall under that umbrella.
I warn you in advance - trying to use the first amendment to head this argument off may not work. There is no true wall between church and state in this amendment. If anything, it is written to prevent government from interfering in the free exercise of religion, not to remove religion from the political or public forum. As a matter of fact, the founders had no problem intermingling church and state in many ways - prayers, religious figures speaking at government functions, even mentioning God - repeatedly - in the founding documents of this nation. The caveat is that the State can't promote one religion over others in a secular manner.
Besides, this story sounds more like sour grapes than anything else. Churches have a tax exemption, yes. If you believe that the vast majority of religious organizations are using that to enrich themselves, then you truly have no idea what the average congregation is like. Granted, I haven't set foot in a church (other than for funerals of friends, of which I've attended far too many recently) for more than 40 years, but I seriously doubt that human nature has changed all that much in that period of time. Even the Mormon church has provided 1.4 billion dollars in emergency aid since 1985, such as the earthquake in Japan and famines in Ethiopia.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/13/13262285-mormon-church-earns-7-billion-a-year-from-tithing-analysis-indicates
That ain't nothing...
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)also, if classified as charities, they need to demonstrate, through such accounting, that they are actually charitable, and not just maintaining their own buildings or spending money on evangelizing.
Igel
(35,270 posts)is preaching. And for that they have the buildings that those who come to hear the preaching sit or stand in.
Charitable institutions do not just "give money to strangers." They also teach, act for the public good (as they, and not the overall collective as filtered through government sees it). Co-opts are non-profits, for example. The Nature Conservancy takes huge tracts of land off the tax rolls in order to preserve them. Harvard is a non-profit, originally a religious one. The Jewish Community Center that I volunteered at years ago was a non-profit, but it didn't necessarily focus on non-Jews and certainly didn't make feeding the homeless a priority. Part of it was trying to educate Jews about their heritage and religion, and that counts as a kind of proselytizing. After all, if you're trying to get an atheist to believe in G-d, then it most certainly is proselytizing.
I get a lot of junk mail that's proselytizing. It argues for helping this group or that group, for this public policy or that one. They're all trying to get money to help change people's minds about things that people may not want to change their minds about. We reserve special scorn for one particular kind of cajoling, which amounts to singling it out for special persecution.
