Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State

Feb

2011

Demonstrations at Texas Capitol for Church Taxes to Support Education

Author: admin / admin's blog

Log in or register to post comments

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

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 02/11/2011 - 11:36

The argument at the end of the article:

"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."

I would expect better logic from a free-thinker/atheist.

Do you want the church to have a foothold in the school or not? Your argument is like saying that you don't want KKK members demonstrating at Disney World, but since a couple managed to sneak in, you might as well just charge them admission and let them stay.

Any movement to try to tax churches hurts our credibility when we fight to preserve our Constitutional rights and the separation of Church and State. A better movement would be to use a public forum to ASK the church to DONATE some of that "charity" money to help children get a better education. Public pressure would work better than strong-arming, and would preserve their Constitutional rights.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/14/2011 - 14:46

If the church exemption were repealed, they could still write off the cost of charitable donations and activities, just like [other] corporations, so an equitable mechanism already exists.
.
Church-state separation is about all parties being treated equally by the govt, rather than with favoritism. How does it approximate equal treatment when a religious organization that spends 1% of revenues on actually helping people gets off tax-free, but a secular organization or corporation spending the same percentage to help the less fortunate has to pay?

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/10/2011 - 13:06

Updated news item on this from Joe Zamecki:
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/politics/gov-bbudget-suspends-four-agencies

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 02/13/2011 - 06:54

Seriously people, we DO NOT want to start taxing churches because then they will demand a bigger say in how the government is run. Taxing churches to pay for public school costs is an especially dangerous idea.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 02/13/2011 - 17:06

Why do you think so? I pay taxes and have little or no say in the government. The wealthiest .01% or so of the population pay next to nothing and are running everything. I think our representation is indirectly proportional to the taxes we pay.

This makes sense.

Those who have a say have said they don't want to be taxed. Don't reverse the cause and effect.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/14/2011 - 02:35

Quote from MisanthropicScott: "The wealthiest .01% or so of the population pay next to nothing and are running everything."

I think your information is incorrect (the simplest Google search will provide you with the data).

In any case, even if we assume you are correct, doesn't that suggest that the whole process of government control is inherently corrupt? It allows for powerful minorities to control and use the system to their own advantage, while excluding those actually paying for it. Shouldn't we be arguing for less government involvement by allowing individuals to make their own choices without government interference?

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/15/2011 - 08:20

The whole process of government is corrupt. What do you suggest in its stead? Anarchy? The fact that our current implementation is somewhat broken does not mean that the answer is to throw out the entire concept of government.

Further, remember that we're discussing Texas here. Texas is a relatively lean government in a state full of so-called conservatives who don't want a lot of government programs. And, they're in worse shape than some states that are more liberal.

So, I'm not really sure why your answer is to throw out reasonably clean bath water just because there's a dirty baby in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/07krugman.html

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/16/2011 - 02:38

Quote from MisanthropicScott: "The whole process of government is corrupt."

A point we can agree upon. I would suggest a lot less government would be a good place to start. Why would we want more of something inherently corrupt?

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/16/2011 - 07:42

Texas already has a lot less government than most states.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/14/2011 - 14:37

I don't perceive religious leaders as humbly recusing themselves in discussions of public policy because they don't pay any taxes. Quite the contrary, they take the tax savings and spend it on election ads, PAC's, lobbyists, and shadow groups.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/14/2011 - 18:04

Why should churches be taxed any differently than any other nonprofit organization?

The article says that churches should be taxed on their profit... they already are. Any time a church buys something and resells it in retail commerce like their book stores or whatever, they pay taxes on that. Also, all church staff pays taxes on their income just like any employee in the nation.

Churches are not-for-profit organizations just like the Red Cross. Even in their religious training they serve the community because they provide character development and ethics training. In the public schools today the system has had to step up and offer these classes to the children because it is such a need in the culture where so many students have been found to believe that cheating to pass a test is acceptable.

As far as the church paying admission.... the Church was here long before the atheists... so in that vein it would be the atheists paying admission. The church invented the public education system in this country.. check your history. IN Early America the community used the church house as a school house.

Those donations given to churches, regardless of how large or small, are given from money that is already taxed and the giver receives no goods or services in exchange for the donation.

It is tax free under those circumstances.

After Katrina struck, FEMA was running around scratching their heads while these evil tax exempt churches were housing, clothing, feeding and counseling the victims.

The idea that churches should be taxed may one day come to be reality, but it will because of envy and hate and not because they don't provide for the community like all other nonprofits.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/15/2011 - 06:29

Any time a church buys something and resells it in retail commerce like their book stores or whatever, they pay taxes on that.

Willing to bet they don't pay taxes off the collection plate.

Even in their religious training they serve the community because they provide character development and ethics training.

Oh, that's hysterical. It's so cute you think that. Some of the worst parts of any town are shot thru w/churches.

In the public schools today the system has had to step up and offer these classes to the children because it is such a need in the culture where so many students have been found to believe that cheating to pass a test is acceptable.

& I'm willing to bet the rent that 100% of those kids were raised to be religious.
See, it sucks to be the majority. Take credit for the bad, too.

The church invented the public education system in this country.. check your history.

Oh, more of your historical nonsense.
http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/PublicEd...
American public education differs from that of many other nations in that it is primarily the responsibility of the states and individual school districts. The national system of formal education in the United States developed in the 19th century. Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century.
(snip)
After the Declaration of Independence, 14 states had their own constitutions by 1791, and out of the 14, 7 states had specific provisions for education. Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society.
And for the capper:
The Catholics were, however, opposed to common schooling and created their own private schools.
Put that in your smoke & pipe it. (?)

Those donations given to churches, regardless of how large or small, are given from money that is already taxed and the giver receives no goods or services in exchange for the donation.

Oh, you are joking now.

After Katrina struck, FEMA was running around scratching their heads while these evil tax exempt churches were housing, clothing, feeding and counseling the victims.

That's funny, because they had to. The Church district in NL was the hardest hit. Of course they were providing aid. It happened on their front porches.
Religion doesn't inspire or compel good works: it provides people w/an excuse to do what they would anyways.

The idea that churches should be taxed may one day come to be reality, but it will because of envy and hate and not because they don’t provide for the community like all other nonprofits.

Actually, James Madison was against the tax exemption of churches. Finally, the concept came about (but not enforced), was that churches were tax exempt, but only if they stayed exempt from politics.
Now here, I can say, "check your history," because I'm usually right, where you're usually wrong.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/15/2011 - 17:34

Your little snip from your website talks about the gov't's establishment of a gov't system. That has nothing to do with the communities that were already educating their children by using the church property as school buildings and the Bible as a text. There is more to historical scholarship than Googling a website. As for your Katrina response, you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. The relief efforts of the Church took place all over the country. I was evacuated to Dothan, Al where the churches there were housing, feeding, clothing victims as well as finding employment for them. Churches from all over the country sent teams of people and roofed, gutted and rebuilt home---- completely free of charge. Yes, people donate to the church without receiving any goods or services in return. Nope, they do not pay taxes on the collection plate because there isn't a legal precedent to do so. No nonprofit organization pays business taxes on their contributions. What you all are asking for is discrimination against a church because of its religious beliefs. That is illegal under Civil Rights legislation and the Bill of RIghts.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/15/2011 - 20:27

Your little snip from your website talks about the gov’t's establishment of a gov’t system.

You claimed the church invented the school system in this country.

That has nothing to do with the communities that were already educating their children by using the church property as school buildings and the Bible as a text.

The fact that they were colonies & had no real resources in the matter doesn't likely factor in there?

There is more to historical scholarship than Googling a website.

Of course there is. You refuse, however, to accept Wikipedia on the smallest of points. Or more likely, refuse to accept anything on the web that contradicts your viewpoint.

As for your Katrina response, you haven’t the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

Dude, it was common news, especially after Robertson slobbered all over the disaster.

The relief efforts of the Church took place all over the country.

Which church? The Catholic church? The 1 "were, however, opposed to common schooling and created their own private schools."

I was evacuated to Dothan, Al where the churches there were housing, feeding, clothing victims as well as finding employment for them.

Okay, now I know you're pulling my leg. I can see the 1st 3, but finding employment?

Churches from all over the country sent teams of people and roofed, gutted and rebuilt home—- completely free of charge.

Correction here - it wasn't the church, it was people.

Yes, people donate to the church without receiving any goods or services in return.

"A fool & his money..."

Nope, they do not pay taxes on the collection plate because there isn’t a legal precedent to do so.

Exactly my point. No other organization on earth can pull that crap, but some Byzantine trappings, some flung water & a false promise can get away w/anything.

No nonprofit organization pays business taxes on their contributions.

You're definitely not going to like this...
http://nonprofit.about.com/od/faqsthebasics/f/allnonprofittaxex.htm
I. The Organizational Test
Tax-exempt nonprofits must be organized for a lawful purpose in one of these categories:

* Educational
* Religious
* Charitable
* Scientific
* Literary
* Testing for public safety
* Fostering certain national or international amateur sports competitions
* Preventing cruelty to children or animals

II. The Political Test
Organizations seeking 501(c)(3) status must state explicitly in their organizing papers that they will not participate in any political campaign on the behalf of any candidate or make expenditures for political purposes. There are 501 groups that can engage in these activities, but not 501(c)(3) organizations.
III. The Asset Test
A nonprofit's charter must state that it prohibits distribution of assets or income to individuals (except as fair compensation for their services). The organization must also explicitly state that it will not be used for the personal gain or benefit of its founders, employees, supporters, relatives, or associates.

A nonprofit must meet all three of these tests in order to qualify for 501(c)(3) status from the IRS.
So a large majority is no long an NP when it violates 1 of these rules. I guess the Mormon church should lose its status due to the Proposition 8 debacle in CA.

What you all are asking for is discrimination against a church because of its religious beliefs.

No, what's being asked for is equal treatment. What you people are whinging on is the removal of sacred cow status. You want it to be like in the good old days, when all it took was a collar to get out from under the average taxpayer's problems.

That is illegal under Civil Rights legislation and the Bill of RIghts.

Oh hey wait...so you're saying that as an organization, it should be treated better than other organizations? A level playing field is just (sputter...sputter!) out of the question!
So treating you as ordinary is persecution?

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/16/2011 - 07:48

Hey Krystalline,

Excellent points! I especially like the bit about 501(c)3s not lobbying or paying exorbitant salaries. Given the way that many churches have been behaving of late, it's seriously time to enforce this.

Church advocates voting for a candidate or proposition? 3 years of back taxes!

Church lobbies to change education curriculum regarding evolution? Ditto.

Preacher takes a salary that allows him to pay for his meth and male prostitutes? Ditto.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 01:18

But see Mr. Scott, what you are talking about is the motivation of the churches and/or the atheists. I'm not speaking to that because you and I have no way of knowing what their motivation was.

What was said here and in the letter from your president was that the church doesn't provide very much for the community that the gov't does or would have to do were it not for the church.

So, there were atheists also helping people while the gov't ran around in circles... GREAT! Then those groups are worthy of nonprofit status and tax exemption. I would help fight for their rights to be tax exempt, right along with you even though I disagree with their philosophical positions.

The motivation for helping people does not negate the value of the help itself.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 02:36

Dane,

Atheists rarely form groups (American Atheists being an exception rather than the rule) because we don't share a belief.

Red Cross would be an example of a non-theistic group. There is nothing about religion in their charter. Their members are probably a mix of theist and non-theist and are not bound together by religion.

But, when you form your group of non-chess-players or of non-golfers, or of non-stamp-collectors, you will see how sharing something we don't do rarely brings people together to organize for anything.

It's just the nature of the beast. Atheists probably give as much to charity as religious folks, though I'm not aware of any statistics on the subject. It's just hard to get a bunch of people together when the only thing they have in common not taking part in mass delusion.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 14:08

I’m not speaking to that because you and I have no way of knowing what their motivation was.

You were inferring on a huge scale that it was primarily a religious motivation. You tried to leverage credit for it.

What was said here and in the letter from your president was that the church doesn’t provide very much for the community that the gov’t does or would have to do were it not for the church.

Horse manure. I've re-read this post several times: show your work. Prove that assertion.

I would help fight for their rights to be tax exempt, right along with you even though I disagree with their philosophical positions.

Mighty white of y'all.

The motivation for helping people does not negate the value of the help itself.

Don't recall saying otherwise. Don't recall anyone else saying otherwise, either.
Hmmm...

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 17:24

Dane,

Theoretically what you say is true, but many atheists do have a common belief—- that the Earth should be purified of all religion.

Bzzzt!! Wrong answer. The correct term is antitheist. I am one. I believe religion to be evil so I oppose it. I am not opposed to religion. Nor do I think it is reasonable to expect to expunge religion from the world, much as it would be an improvement. But, to say that atheists feel this way is incorrect.

I do have atheist friends who go about their daily lives and couldn’t care any less about me religious beliefs. We get along just fine. They don’t believe and I do, but we get along fine because there are loads of other things to talk about. They don’t try to disparage me for believing and I don’t try to encourage them to believe.

Some of my best friends are atheists??!!? Oh please.

Yes. I too have friends and family who are religious. I personally find that respect for other viewpoints is increased through actually discussing the subject. Though the discussions often get heated, they are always respectful.

I even, at the request of one friend, read an entire book espousing purported evidence for fundamentalism. I handed the book back with large, lined post-it notes in nearly every page explaining the particular fallacies point by point.

We had a good discussion afterward. He told me he could hear my voice as he was reading my comments. We're still in touch despite the fact that we started as merely coworkers.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 02/18/2011 - 01:59

Dang. I meant to say that I am not opposed to religious people, but to the religion itself. I must have lost my train of thought while typing that.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 13:34

Misanthro,

Mr. Scott cited several atheistic and free-thinking organizations who assisted in the relief efforts after Katrina. That is what I was responding to. Theoretically what you say is true, but many atheists do have a common belief---- that the Earth should be purified of all religion. I do have atheist friends who go about their daily lives and couldn't care any less about me religious beliefs. We get along just fine. They don't believe and I do, but we get along fine because there are loads of other things to talk about. They don't try to disparage me for believing and I don't try to encourage them to believe.

However, there are then the most visible, vocal groups of atheists who organize. Their main thrust seems to be the same thing--- to cleanse the world of religion. It's done with a religious fervor, too. The Christian religion seems to want to cleanse humanity of sin, but these groups' "sin" seems to be religion itself so they band together around that common goal.

This is such a pronounced thing that when i try to talk to them about other issues it is almost always them that introduce religious rhetoric. It's as if they cannot discuss issues based upon their own merit without bringing up what they believe are fairy tales.

This is an example. I said that while the gov't was running around in panic after Katrina that the churches were housing, feeding and clothing the people so they do provide services that the gov't would have to provide or can't provide. Mr. Scott's response was that atheists were there too, but that they didn't do it for credit.

So.. ok... what difference does that make? The atheists that were there deserve tax exempt status just like the churches did. The fact that they hold a different philosophical position than I do doesn't make a difference.

If the atheistic organizations were helping the community then they deserve nonprofit status even though I believe that they are wrong philosophically.

However, I find that the same position isn't held by most atheists, especially those here. When the church is doing the same things (which is does globally and has for centuries) the atheists seem to want to negate the merit of the assistance because the church has a different philosophical position than they do.

So, the church provides homeless shelters, orphanages, hospitals, soup kitchens and all sorts of things for the community that the gov't would have to provide if the church didn't... or else the community would do without. Because the church believes in things like Creation and God the people here say that the services aren't valid and they shouldn't be tax exempt like every other nonprofit. The homeless man with a clean bed tonight at the Rescue Mission thinks otherwise.

There is a secular day-center down the street from the Rescue Mission in Mobile. They provide all sorts of things for the homeless... know what? I say "more power to them as long as they are helping people!" I don't care that they are secular as long as people are served.

Would I like to see everyone at "15 Place" become a Christian and the program be an explicitly Christian one?

SURE I WOULD!

But, nevertheless they are still easing the suffering of the people so the last thing I'll do is disparage them simply because we differ philosophically.

What AA and those protesting are saying is the opposite. Because the church holds a different philosophical position they believe that they shouldn't be allowed to serve the people. If the Waterfront Rescue Mission weren't tax exempt then they could not function any more that 15 Place could.

I say get in 15 Place and help the secularists there help the homeless or get in the Rescue Mission and help the Christians help the homeless or else sit down and shut up... BUT... don't get in either one organizations way and impede there efforts.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 02/20/2011 - 19:09

What I'm saying Misantho-Scott is that AA seems to try to unite atheists in order to work towards a common set of goals. However, there doesn't seem to be any agreement amongst its members other than "religion is bad... ignornat or whatever." Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be any unified statement whatsoever.

On the other hand, truth is true. I know that sounds redundant, but what I'm saying is that if something is true then it won't contradict itself and it will be consistent. Atheists claim to have some corner on the market of truth... ostensibly through scientific inquiry and logical reason.

In reality, as you've said, there is vast disagreement between atheists and other assorted "ists" as to what is true. This doesn't make sense because what you two have stated is true cannot both be true at the same time.

At any rate, this is all a big digression from the topic at hand regarding the tax exempt status of churches.

They are tax exempt for the same reasons as all other tax exempt charitable organizations. Whether we prefer the Church or some humanistic or atheistic organization doesn't make a difference in the worthiness of both types of organizations for tax exempt status.

To say that churches shouldn't be taxed is simply saying, "If I hate your philosophical positions then regardless of the community work you provide, I want to steal part of your money. If I agree that you think correctly then I will not tax you."

It's bias rooted in relio-philosophical hatred.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 02/20/2011 - 19:58

Your first paragraph is a total agreement with what I've been saying. Atheists do not have a common belief. However, you still assert, even while claiming that there is no common belief, that there is. How do you make such silly statements. There is no common belief among atheists that religion is bad. The segment who believe this are, despite your unwillingness to read what I've written and rewritten and rerewritten, antitheists.

Again and again and again, not all atheists have any problem with religion. Antitheists are atheists but not all atheists are antitheists. That you still persist in making this mistake over and over makes you sound like an idiot. Are you an idiot? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that those who detest religion (though not the religious) are antitheists? What is your problem?

Your second paragraph is BS in the extreme. You make that claim. Atheists do not.

As for people disagreeing about what is true, atheists don't have the market cornered on that. The only recognized truth among atheists is a common belief that without a shred of evidence, a hypothesis should not be given any credence. All else is strawmen that you're putting forth, not a common belief or even a claim for a common belief about atheists.

So, since you believe all atheists must accept anything another atheist claims as true, a silly strawman if ever there was one, I will turn the tables on you and ask how religious people can vary so widely in their beliefs even when considering a subset who all read the same book? Why is it that some Christians can accept evolution while others cannot? Why is it that some claim the world is less than 10,000 years old while others do not? The world either is as old as science says or it is not. Yet religious people make both claims. How can that be?

Yes. That stupid assumption that all Christians must agree on the age of the earth is exactly as stupid as your claim that all atheists must share common opinions.

You really are becoming tiresome. Why must I keep remaking the same points about atheists having no common beliefs? Why must I keep redefining antitheist for you? Which single sentence will you read of this post while still ignoring the basic definition of atheist?

As for stating that churches should be taxed, if they lobby politically, they are in violation of the law that grants them tax free status. So, those churches who espouse political views on abortion, teaching of evolution, voting against the views of Jesus Republican, etc. etc. etc. are in violation of the law granting them tax free status. Similarly, churches who pay exhorbitant salaries to their meth-and-man-ass ministers are also turning a profit and have violated the law regarding tax free status. Those churches have failed to be churches and should indeed be taxed.

Churches that pay reasonable salaries to their preachers and that don't involve themselves in politics are welcome to their tax free status in my opinion.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/21/2011 - 10:32

What I’m saying Misantho-Scott is that AA seems to try to unite atheists in order to work towards a common set of goals. However, there doesn’t seem to be any agreement amongst its members other than “religion is bad… ignornat or whatever.” Beyond that, there doesn’t seem to be any unified statement whatsoever.

Have you read the mission statement? No, of course you haven't.

On the other hand, truth is true. I know that sounds redundant, but what I’m saying is that if something is true then it won’t contradict itself and it will be consistent.

Wait...what? Never heard of irony? Paradox? Quantum mechanics? There's loads of evidence to counter that.

In reality, as you’ve said, there is vast disagreement between atheists and other assorted “ists” as to what is true.

Trust the religionist to deal in complete absolutes.

This doesn’t make sense because what you two have stated is true cannot both be true at the same time.

Wow, you're just bristling w/fallacies, aintcha? That's known as a false dichotomy.

At any rate, this is all a big digression from the topic at hand regarding the tax exempt status of churches.

Coming from the guy who brought up homosexuality @ the drop of a hat, that's hysterical.

They are tax exempt for the same reasons as all other tax exempt charitable organizations. Whether we prefer the Church or some humanistic or atheistic organization doesn’t make a difference in the worthiness of both types of organizations for tax exempt status.

You're missing the whole point: religion is based on falsehood, & as such, shouldn't receive any special dispensation.

To say that churches shouldn’t be taxed is simply saying, “If I hate your philosophical positions then regardless of the community work you provide, I want to steal part of your money.

Typo: it should read "that churches SHOULD be taxed".
No. You're receiving preferential treatment that's unwarranted. If the church stays clear of political electioneering, then a compromise can be made.

If I agree that you think correctly then I will not tax you.”

Do you ever tire of making shit up?

It’s bias rooted in relio-philosophical hatred.

Whoops, martyr complex is showing again.
You have every right to practice whatever supernatural fantasy you want - I'd not dream of stopping you.
But not on my dime. Tired of paying extra because you clowns don't pay any.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/21/2011 - 10:34

The only recognized truth among atheists is a common belief that without a shred of evidence, a hypothesis should not be given any credence.

Exactly, hear, hear.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/23/2011 - 07:36

The only recognized truth among atheists is a common belief that without a shred of evidence, a hypothesis should not be given any credence.

Exactly, hear, hear.

I would add that statement is also true of science. A Hypothesis is just a hypothesis until it can be tested and shown to be falsifiable, etc. Then it has to be duplicated and replicated and peer reviewed and tested over and over again. There can be no contradictory evidence to the hypothesis. And once it has been rigorously shown then it has a chance of moving up to theory.

The fact he said that with disdain is why we look at religious people and often laugh. Do religious people give credence to Leprechauns? Zeus? Isis? Gnomes? Ghouls? Vampires? Ghosts? Thor? Zoroaster? Pixies? Faeries? etc. etc. etc....

Nope: but we damn better well give them that same credence for their imaginary friends! It's laughable at best.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/23/2011 - 07:31

What I’m saying Misantho-Scott is that AA seems to try to unite atheists in order to work towards a common set of goals. However, there doesn’t seem to be any agreement amongst its members other than “religion is bad… ignornat or whatever.” Beyond that, there doesn’t seem to be any unified statement whatsoever.

The three goals that we work on, to which we have never found an atheist who disagrees, is 1) the separation of church and state, 2) civil rights for non-theists, and 3) true freedom of religion, which means freedom from religion. Now we have certainly run into nuances on what does and does not count as a violation of SOCAS, etc: but all atheists we've met and talked to agree with those three goals.

That is why we focus on them and stay out of politics and other issues: that is up to our members to hash out on their own.

Not every atheist is fully knowledgeable of the facts, or as you say, "the truth." Not every atheist knows about the Council of Nicea or who wrote the Bible, or has read the Koran or visited Jerusalem and watched the fun ensue. Not every atheist knows all the logical fallacies and some atheists fall prey to those logical fallacies. There are varied degrees of education on theological issues, historical issues, biology and other sciences, etc.

But the real issue is that we vary in such degree on opinions (not facts) because unlike religious people, we do not have a Pope or a Bible or a preacher who tells us what we must think and believe. What you are criticizing us for is one of the things that makes us great: that we constantly test each other and make each other prove our points and defend our positions with evidence. That is not a bad thing: unless of course you're a fact-denier, science-denier, or have a preconceived belief that biases your view.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 14:09

Theoretically what you say is true, but many atheists do have a common belief—- that the Earth should be purified of all religion.

Yet interestingly enough - we seem to be using reason, the scientific method, empiricism. Whereas religious folk have a really bad track record.

I do have atheist friends who go about their daily lives and couldn’t care any less about me religious beliefs.

Void where prohibited.

They don’t believe and I do, but we get along fine because there are loads of other things to talk about. They don’t try to disparage me for believing and I don’t try to encourage them to believe.

Yet you seem to be firing salvos across our stern. Hmmm....

However, there are then the most visible, vocal groups of atheists who organize.

You really don't get the actual problem. We've been a silent ideological minority, mostly due to threats of punishment.

Their main thrust seems to be the same thing— to cleanse the world of religion.

It's crap. It's holding the species back. It's worthless, basically.

It’s done with a religious fervor, too.

Definition of RELIGIOUS
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

The Christian religion seems to want to cleanse humanity of sin,

A non-existent state of being...

but these groups’ “sin” seems to be religion itself so they band together around that common goal.

Again, unless you are actually being 'persecuted', i.e., churches are being closed, xtians being rounded up, crucified believers being hoisted up on hills, etc. you've got no real complaint.

This is such a pronounced thing that when i try to talk to them about other issues it is almost always them that introduce religious rhetoric.

Hey excuse me, but you were the person who waltzed in here & tried to attribute everything good to your religion. So spare us the miniature violins, please.

It’s as if they cannot discuss issues based upon their own merit without bringing up what they believe are fairy tales.

But you seem to be ignoring some of the folks here who are pointing out the blatant mendacities inherent in what you consider 'talking points'.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 18:27

See Krys, I'm mostly ignoring what you're posting because you don't really add anything to the discussion, but what you're doing here in your last post is agreeing with me.... that atheists DO have a common belief (that religion is bad) and and agenda to propagate that belief. Thank you for your support.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 18:32

Krys and Misanthro....

Youtwo may want to exchange emails and get your arguments in order. One of you is saying that you do not have a common belief and the other is saying that you do, but that the belief that religion should be done away with is justified because of science. Then one of you who said you didn't have a common belief goes on to describe his belief which is that he is opposed to religion and in the same post that he was not opposed to it.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 20:31

See Krys, I’m mostly ignoring what you’re posting because you don’t really add anything to the discussion,

I keep telling you, call me Kryst. & no, I'm actually dissecting your 'discussion'.

but what you’re doing here in your last post is agreeing with me…. that atheists DO have a common belief

Wait...when did I disagree w/that?

and and agenda to propagate that belief.

Lamest tu quoque I've seen yet.

Thank you for your support.

What...twiddling your thumbs in triumph? Support for what? How was this disputed? When? How does 1 correct point prove all your little mini-theses? It doesn't. & no, we're still on a level playing field, & you keep brushing off the astro-turf at the 20 yard line & call it a touchdown.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 20:36

Youtwo may want to exchange emails and get your arguments in order.

Actually, no. We're individuals, & we don't agree on a lot of things.

One of you is saying that you do not have a common belief and the other is saying that you do,

You've changed the topic so often, maybe you should do the blockquote thing, & illustrate it. Because I'm getting tired of tracking mistakes you refuse to acknowledge.

but that the belief that religion should be done away with is justified because of science.

Wow! Who said that? I sure as fuck didn't.

Then one of you who said you didn’t have a common belief goes on to describe his belief which is that he is opposed to religion and in the same post that he was not opposed to it.

You take that up w/him - I dunno what he meant. Mostly because he's not me.
Here's another mistake theists make - they lockstep in sync so often, they think everyone else is doing the same step.
So no - I'm engaging you, & he's engaging you, so do try to respond to us as individuals, not as representatives of atheism.
Jackass.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 02/19/2011 - 04:08

Dane you ignorant slut! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I was very clear.

Atheists do not have a common belief as atheism is not a belief, other than in the required level of evidence to entertain a hypothesis. Not all atheists have any opinion at all about religion.

Antitheists, on the other hand, have a very strong belief about the effects of religion on humanity. As for ridding humanity of the scourge of religion, I find that highly unlikely through peaceful means and would certainly not advocate any other means.

But, I can do my best to spread better memes than those contained in religion and hope that they spread. That is the extent of my opposition to religion.

Do not confuse atheism and antitheism. They are wildly different.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 02/19/2011 - 04:11

Oh ... and Dane ...

Krystalline and I should get our stories straight you say? Why? I already pointed out that atheists (as opposed to antitheists) do not share common views. Why should it surprise you that Krystalline and I do not agree on every subject?

On this one, however, I suspect that the disagreement is only in your own mind and your confusion of the meanings of atheist and antitheist. Learn the difference. It will help you sound intelligent.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 02/11/2011 - 04:01

This is a real issue…I never understood why religions get a free pass on taxes. If some chooses to support a church then they should pay like everyone else. It cripples local communities.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 02/11/2011 - 05:41

How about we tax the public schools, too.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 02/13/2011 - 03:00

American Nonsequitur Society: We don't make sense; but, we love pizza.

Seriously, how did you get from the possibility of taxing a private organization to the possibility of taxing an organization paid for by taxes?

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/14/2011 - 02:20

Public schools use other government services and don't pay for them, the same as any non-profit organization. They're getting a free ride and we're getting a distorted view of the real cost of their service. If an organization is using some service, then they should pay for it, no matter how they get their original funding.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 02/15/2011 - 08:12

Non-profit != public. I think you need to learn the difference.

I don't mean to be excessively snarkey. I just don't know how to explain this any other way.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/16/2011 - 02:18

I know the difference. One firm is funded voluntarily, the other collects money through threats and coercion.

It doesn't change the fact that neither pays for all the services they receive.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/16/2011 - 07:40

So, what? Would you tax us more so that the government could pay itself taxes? And then, do what with them? Do you not see the inherent problem you raise? This idea flies up it's own asshole in endless recursion.

To me, having an educated public is something for which I am quite willing to be taxed, despite the fact that I have no children to partake in the benefit.

If I got to choose what to avoid paying taxes for, it would not be schools, but oil wars, corporate welfare, bailouts of the wealthy, etc.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 02/16/2011 - 08:39

Quote from MisanthropicScott: "If I got to choose what to avoid paying taxes for, it would not be schools, but oil wars, corporate welfare, bailouts of the wealthy, etc."

That's wonderful. The only way that will happen is if you take that power to do these things away from government altogether. Goverment is corrupt. You cannot give it any power and not expect it to be abused.

If you like giving your money for education, then you can do that without the government making you do it. You could give it to schools you know won't teach things you think are wrong, and change your mind whenever you feel like it.

As for government paying taxes to itself, you're over simplifying the issue. Schools use the roads and the police and the fire department, etc., yet don't have to pay for it. Since they aren't paying for it, we don't get a true accounting of the cost of the schools.

The same goes for the police and the fire department. If police property is stolen, or there's a fire in the fire house, the police and the fire department still respond. Police officers and fire fighters still have to be paid, and they can't be in two places at once.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 02:40

geoih,

Like a neutered dog, you just don't get it!

To whom would the school pay taxes? The government.
Where would they get the money to do so? The government.

So you are literally suggesting that they rob Peter to pay Peter.

How on earth does that make sense to you?

Think it through please!

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/17/2011 - 03:47

geoih,

I think I just realized where you're going with this. You want government completely out of education, correct?

So, without government education, there is no defined curriculum. Christian schools can teach that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

Saudi Arabia can come in and build schools in the U.S. as they are doing throughout many of the Muslim countries of the world.

The poorest people in the nation would be completely illiterate. The middle class, for as long as it lasts, would get a basic education that might include reading, some math, and the history of what a devout Christian Thomas Jefferson was.

The wealthy would get an excellent education in business, law, and creative accounting. Science and technology education would be available only overseas, a trend that has already begun.

What would you expect from an education system with no government requirements and not even a requirement that one send their children to school?

Hey! Since the kids are no longer required to go to school, perhaps they can finally get to work! Cheap child labor is exactly what would be required to get factories producing goods in this country again. What a great idea!

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 02/18/2011 - 04:32

Quote from MisanthropicScott: "To whom would the school pay taxes? The government. Where would they get the money to do so? The government."

Again, like all collectivists, you're oversimplifying. The "government" isn't some single monolithic entity. It's many thousands of different entities, run by millions of individual bureaucrats, each with their own goals, their own incentives, their own desires, and they are not the same for any two. And just like individuals outside of government, if they can get something for free, then they will. They will get as much of it as they can, and since it's free they will not include the scarcity (the cost) of it in their decisions.

It's simple economics. Supply and demand. It doesn't change simply because you include the word "government".

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 02/18/2011 - 04:19

Quote from MisanthropicScott: "So, without government education, there is no defined curriculum. Christian schools can teach that the world is less than 10,000 years old."

Wow, you apparently have very little respect for your fellow man. People are so stupid and gullible that without enlightened people to lead them around by the nose, they are completely incapable of raising and educating their children to function in a modern society. Or maybe you're more interesting in forcing your own views of the world on to other people's children.

Maybe instead of worrying about how stupid people want (or don't want) their kids educated, why don't we just have some really smart people deicde who is allowed to have children. That way we will only have smart people having children and they'll be smart enough not to argue with other smart people on the right way to educate children. Now that would be a great system.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 02/18/2011 - 08:12

geoih,

"It’s simple economics. Supply and demand. It doesn’t change simply because you include the word “government”."

So, let's be specific. Schools take in money from local property taxes. To whom would you have them pay taxes? The state? The federal government? What is the benefit to anyone of a school taking their local tax dollars and funneling them up to bigger government that you hate?

As for my respect for my fellow man (or woman), 49% of this once-great nation now believes that the world is less than 10,000 years old. My fellow man (or woman) can have my respect when s/he earns it.

How are we to compete in the 21st century espousing 11th century views and using 19th century energy?

We need to move forward.

Most of my fellow men/women want to go back to the dark ages. With just 4% of world population, most of my fellow men and women in the U.S. want to continue to consume 25% of world energy, produce 50% of the world's solid waste, and consume 56% of the world's medication.

We're taking giant steps backward when we need to move forward.

Respect must be earned.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/28/2011 - 05:15

I was very specific. The schools would pay taxes for police and fire and all the other local services they use, the same as every other customer. You keep making the assumption that one government agency is automatically conntected to all other government agencies simply because they use the word government.

But you are right about the bigger government problem. We could solve that by making all of the schools private, or all local government services private for that matter.

Of course that would make it very much harder for people such as you to force your beliefs of the "49%" of people who don't agree with you on world history. It's much easier to coerce beliefs and confiscate property when using the guns of government.

I guess liberty is no longer an inalienable right, but is something that must now be "earned".

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 02/14/2011 - 14:49

I say we tax the IRS, and use the IRS to collect the taxes to pay for the IRS so that they can tax themselves, under threat of penalty from the IRS.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 02/10/2011 - 16:58

Tax televangelists? Even main stream religious folks shouldn't really have an issue with taxing the likes of Ted "meth-and-man-ass" Haggard and others. We could even call it a sin tax and main stream, thinking, non-extremist religious folks probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

NSFW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MDQkXodLyY