Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ex-preacher · 09-05-2002, 09:49 AM

In my opinion, the failure to have churches pay property tax erodes the wall of separation. Why? Because it puts the government in the position of deciding what constitutes a valid religion and to what extent its property can be considered as used for religious purposes. The government has no business legitimizing or delegitimizing any religion. To tax all propoerty equally would end this unconstitutional interference of government into religion.

Godless Dave · 09-05-2002, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
Naturalism encourages challenges and critical thinking within its own bounds. Religion encourages challenges and critical thinking within its own theological bounds.

Nope, naturalism encourages challenges and critical thinking with NO bounds. Schools should teach how to think, not what to think.

Evolution is not something some of us think is right. It is something that has been scientifically demonstrated to be right. No relgious belief has ever been scientifically demonstrated to be true.

On the Laramie Project, it doesn't really teach that homosexuality is OK. It teaches that beating someone to death is wrong. I thought almost all Americans would agree with that, but not the AFA apparently.

nogods4me · 09-05-2002, 10:20 AM

during a recent budget crunch in my fair city the mayor attempted to get all non-profits to pay an energy excise tax of 8% which the rest of us all pay. He was soundly trounced for the suggestion by all the affected entities from local churches to major universities. During the course of debate on this subject it was brought out that in the city of Baltimore 30% of all the property is owned by non-profit groups (including churches). 30%, that is outrageous, my tax bill is 30% higher because Our Lady of Perpetual Motion and the Kiwanis club don't pay property taxes. tax them all equally, and give us regular folks a little break.

Toto · 09-05-2002, 10:22 AM

ManM's position represents the convergence of religion and post-modern relativism. Both reject the Enlightenment and the scientific world view.

Unfortunately, both are based on quicksand. ManM seems to think that there is no way of testing evolution, when in fact it is firmly based in scientific observation and tests. If you have any doubts about this, take the question to the Evolution-Creationism forum.

ManM is left grasping at the straw of the placebo effect, which shows only that one's mental state can effect one's own body chemistry. Unfortunately for his position, it also shows that no one religion has any advantage over another, so none can claim any truth value.

Post-modernists have made some valid criticisms of the personal arrogance and cultural blindness of some scientists, but the cure for this is better science, not a return to medieval mysticism.

And to say that theology is a way of correcting errors in religion is laughable. Errors in religion are corrected when the church supporting them loses a war or its government support, or is hit by a metaphorical 2 by 4. Then the theologians try to rationalize what happened.

simian · 09-05-2002, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me:
during a recent budget crunch in my fair city the mayor attempted to get all non-profits to pay an energy excise tax of 8% which the rest of us all pay. He was soundly trounced for the suggestion by all the affected entities from local churches to major universities. During the course of debate on this subject it was brought out that in the city of Baltimore 30% of all the property is owned by non-profit groups (including churches). 30%, that is outrageous, my tax bill is 30% higher because Our Lady of Perpetual Motion and the Kiwanis club don't pay property taxes. tax them all equally, and give us regular folks a little break.

Minor quibble. Your tax bill is 43% higher because 30% of the property is owned by non-taxed groups. (1/0.7) = 1.428. 1 is the total taxes paid. 0.7 is the fraction of the property being taxed. if all property was taxed, there would be no extra cost (1/1.0 = 1), if only half the property is being taxed, then each person is paying double(1/0.5=2), or 100 % higher tax.

Sorry for pointing out your tax bill in increase by a higher fraction than you previously thought....

Simian

edited to add - hopefully I have the math right. I would hate be be less than correct when pointing out another person's error. (pretend there is a <scared> icon here)....

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: simian ]

nogods4me · 09-05-2002, 11:29 AM

I knew the numbers would be off a bit, and actually since property taxes are based on assesed value the difference may be even larger since the non-profs have some really sweet property in some high rent areas. All I know is that it is fundamentally unfair that individuals and businesses foot the bill essentially subsidizing all the non-profs. you want some tax relief, tax the non-profs

Corwin · 09-05-2002, 11:46 AM

I don't have a problem with not taxing non profits per se... the problem is that most churches only have non-profit status because they're churches. Come on... can you HONESTLY say that the Catholic Church is a non-profit? With all their assets? How about the fundie churches with their huge ministries? (And all the donations coming in?)

ex-preacher · 09-05-2002, 11:58 AM

Remember too, that much of the tax-exempt property includes city and state owned property such as schools, parks, libraries, hospitals. It would be interesting to see how much property in the typical American city is exempt for religious reasons. I would guess that it's closer to 10%.

ManM · 09-05-2002, 12:27 PM

ex-preacher,

Quote:

Being coerced into reading material you might not want to be exposed to is the heart of a decent college education. What are you afraid might happen to someone who actually read something they disagreed with? Afraid they might change their mind? Is your ideology that weak?

No, learning something so that you can get a job should be the heart of a decent college education. And yes, I'm afraid that you might change their mind. People don't think anymore, and they go whichever way the propaganda and/or peer pressure takes them.

Corwin,
I get the sense that your wall of separation is a one way street. The government can make laws regarding religion, but religion can have no say in the government. That clearly establishes the preconditions for oppression. It also sounds like taxation without representation. That would be the difference between your tax dollars and a church's tax dollars. You had a say in it. So if you really want to be fair, you would have to give the Churches the political power that comes with paying taxes.

brighid,

Quote:

The hatred that caused the murder of Matthew Shepard was vile and wrong and THAT is what needs to be addressed. His sexual orientation, racial makeup, or anything else is IRRELEVANT to the subject at hand.

I dare say the complaint is not about fighting against hatred, but rather about legitimatizing homosexuality. "Don't hate homosexuals because homosexuality is acceptable" is a much different message from "Don't hate homosexuals because they are people too". Which way does this particular play approach the situation? Has anyone here read/seen it?

Quote:

Unfortunately, the hatred of the homosexual, the hatred that dehumanizes to the point that murder is acceptable to a person just so happens to stem from your religion.

And this hurts me to no end.

ex-preacher,
You make a valid point, but what do you think about my comments to Corwin above? If churches have to pay taxes, shouldn't they also get a say in government?

Godless Dave,

Quote:

Nope, naturalism encourages challenges and critical thinking with NO bounds.

Your claim presupposes naturalism is true. Naturalism is bound by nature, right? As such it literally defines the transcendent out of existence.

Quote:

On the Laramie Project, it doesn't really teach that homosexuality is OK. It teaches that beating someone to death is wrong. I thought almost all Americans would agree with that, but not the AFA apparently.

If this is the case, then yes, the AFA is messed up in their collective heads. Still, if the motive was only to show that beating someone to death is wrong, why so insistent on using a controversial play? There is probably a number of ways to get across the idea that beating someone to death is wrong without getting the AFA's panties in a wad.

nogods4me,
See my comments to Corwin.

Toto,

Quote:

Unfortunately, both are based on quicksand. ManM seems to think that there is no way of testing evolution, when in fact it is firmly based in scientific observation and tests. If you have any doubts about this, take the question to the Evolution-Creationism forum.

I might just do that after things settle down in this forum. It seems to me that evolution is like philosophy. We gather a set of data and try to make up a theory tying it all together. Due to the time scale of macroevolution we can hardly test it. Unless of course someone has seen a couple monkeys naturally give birth to a human recently...

Quote:

And to say that theology is a way of correcting errors in religion is laughable. Errors in religion are corrected when the church supporting them loses a war or its government support, or is hit by a metaphorical 2 by 4. Then the theologians try to rationalize what happened.

How do you explain the ecumenical councils? No wars were lost, no governments crumbled, no metaphorical 2x4s... Just democratic dialog and all the lovely politics that goes with that sort of thing.

nogods4me · 09-05-2002, 12:43 PM

the 30% figure was property owned by non-profit groups, not all exempt property.
many non-profit organizations like hospitals, colleges, and universities also have large amounts of cash coming in and if they are using up property that could otherwise be generating tax income, they should pony up like the rest of us.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-05-2002, 09:49 AM	#41
ex-preacher Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: University of Arkansas Posts: 1,033	In my opinion, the failure to have churches pay property tax erodes the wall of separation. Why? Because it puts the government in the position of deciding what constitutes a valid religion and to what extent its property can be considered as used for religious purposes. The government has no business legitimizing or delegitimizing any religion. To tax all propoerty equally would end this unconstitutional interference of government into religion.

09-05-2002, 10:20 AM	#43
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	during a recent budget crunch in my fair city the mayor attempted to get all non-profits to pay an energy excise tax of 8% which the rest of us all pay. He was soundly trounced for the suggestion by all the affected entities from local churches to major universities. During the course of debate on this subject it was brought out that in the city of Baltimore 30% of all the property is owned by non-profit groups (including churches). 30%, that is outrageous, my tax bill is 30% higher because Our Lady of Perpetual Motion and the Kiwanis club don't pay property taxes. tax them all equally, and give us regular folks a little break.

09-05-2002, 10:22 AM	#44
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	ManM's position represents the convergence of religion and post-modern relativism. Both reject the Enlightenment and the scientific world view. Unfortunately, both are based on quicksand. ManM seems to think that there is no way of testing evolution, when in fact it is firmly based in scientific observation and tests. If you have any doubts about this, take the question to the Evolution-Creationism forum. ManM is left grasping at the straw of the placebo effect, which shows only that one's mental state can effect one's own body chemistry. Unfortunately for his position, it also shows that no one religion has any advantage over another, so none can claim any truth value. Post-modernists have made some valid criticisms of the personal arrogance and cultural blindness of some scientists, but the cure for this is better science, not a return to medieval mysticism. And to say that theology is a way of correcting errors in religion is laughable. Errors in religion are corrected when the church supporting them loses a war or its government support, or is hit by a metaphorical 2 by 4. Then the theologians try to rationalize what happened.

09-05-2002, 11:29 AM	#46
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	I knew the numbers would be off a bit, and actually since property taxes are based on assesed value the difference may be even larger since the non-profs have some really sweet property in some high rent areas. All I know is that it is fundamentally unfair that individuals and businesses foot the bill essentially subsidizing all the non-profs. you want some tax relief, tax the non-profs

09-05-2002, 11:46 AM	#47
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	I don't have a problem with not taxing non profits per se... the problem is that most churches only have non-profit status because they're churches. Come on... can you HONESTLY say that the Catholic Church is a non-profit? With all their assets? How about the fundie churches with their huge ministries? (And all the donations coming in?)

09-05-2002, 11:58 AM	#48
ex-preacher Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: University of Arkansas Posts: 1,033	Remember too, that much of the tax-exempt property includes city and state owned property such as schools, parks, libraries, hospitals. It would be interesting to see how much property in the typical American city is exempt for religious reasons. I would guess that it's closer to 10%.

09-05-2002, 12:43 PM	#50
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	the 30% figure was property owned by non-profit groups, not all exempt property. many non-profit organizations like hospitals, colleges, and universities also have large amounts of cash coming in and if they are using up property that could otherwise be generating tax income, they should pony up like the rest of us.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.