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.