The Taxation of Religion
The Taxation of Religion
By Punkerslut
[Author's Note: Written on Monday, November 8, 2004, with the
Salt Shaker of Doom (TM) -- a salt shaker full of Codeine,
Valium, Klonopin, Xanax, and sugar. Completion made on Friday,
December 3-5, 2004, while high and drunk.]
Why should an atheist pay more taxes so that a church which he
despises should pay no taxes? That's a fair question. How can
the apologists for the church exemption answer it?
-- E. Haldeman-Julius, The Church Is A Burden, Not A Benefit, In
Social Life
It has been a historically valid argument that churches never
contributed to society, but have had the habit of leaching off
of it. For all the morals they purport to have given us, whether
it was the infamous and treacherous silence during the Jewish
Holocaust, or the embers they supplied to the millions of human
burnings, the church has done nothing but suck at the sweetness
that honest humans have labored to created. The thoughtfulness
of our nation's creators gave us the freedom from having to
support these churches. Unfortunately, some framers of the
states decided to form state constitutions that authorized one
religion over another. It cannot be expected that all humans
shall follow the road to freedom all at the same time.
While it happens to be true that the church cannot receive tax
money, the are allowed the exemption of paying taxes -- which
one might accurately say is the same thing. If the collective
running of the society of money requires so much tax money,
exempting one or two parties only means that the others are
required to pay more, are required to work more to maintain the
same degree of luxury, while the exempt parties are allowed more
luxury with the same amount of work, or the same amount of
luxury with less work.
This dissertation is not about the deceit and villany that the
church has provided humanity with. It is not an attack on the
ideals that preachers claim that they are guardians of. It is
not an assault on the principles which are part of Christian
doctrine, or any religious doctrine for that matter. The bitter
irony that religion is a source of spirituality as much as it is
of hate and violence, the thousands of books which have been
sacrificed to flames by the heads of the church, the cloak
pastors have placed over the eyes of their churchgoers in order
to turn them in to sheep -- all of this I have elsewhere written
at length. This essay is not about the past crimes of a
heartless regime. It is about the present policy that our
civilization has enacted: that is to say, the tax-exempt status
that churches and other religious organizations currently are
allowed.
The first argument that must be considered is this: what church
proceeds are going to be used for. The church apologists argue
that the funds the church receives by donation are used for
charitable purposes, that these churches improve their
communities and help people better their lives. I cannot say
that this is always wrong, but no honest person can say that it
is always true. Yes, the churches do use their funding to create
some community things. In most cases, before one can use these
community activities, one must be a member of the faith, not
using alcohol or drugs, and must be Heterosexual. The home of
the scripture that reads: "Love thy enemy" is inhabited by a
priest, a pastor, and a preacher whose words speak: "Jew,
Muslim, and Hindu, begone. Those who intoxicate and indulge,
whether to make their lives easier or to discover sublime and
revered truths, begone. Men who lust after men and women who
pine after women, these satanic abominations, begone."
The churches are private organizations. If it is their will to
exclude the teaching of Evolution from their sunday school, it
is allowed. If they also wish to teach children that women are
inferior to men, that the Bible is a good book and must be
obeyed when it reads: "Women are to be silent," then it is
taught. As a private organization, they are allowed these
liberties and freedoms. If a church be so bold and daring as to
refuse admittance of black people to their ceremonies, they are
allowed this right. Universities of our era, or so-called
"institutions of learning," have passed rules that disallow
blacks and whites from courtship -- a ruling that predates at
least three decades of progressive and humanizing reform. If
churches wanted to donate some of their excess income to these
universities, there would be no way to stop them. If they wanted
to focus and centralize the income, by preaching against secular
schools and supporting racism in the classroom, and by donating
only to those places which promise to oppress blacks, then that
is their right, as a private organization.
The church knows no end to cruelty, and this is not an
indictment against the church. It is a fact that has been
recognized, year after year, person by person. However, it must
be accepted and understood that when it comes to the funding of
the church, we will find some of the most merciless and brutal
acts that arrise out of our own human frailties. Perhaps we will
find a church that refuses the rights of blacks to even enter or
use their charity money. Churches were once the divine guardians
of the institution of slavery. Today, they do nothing to stop
the slave traffic that continues to flourish, the wretched one
by the name of Capitalism. Today, the churches have done little
to nothing to foster the ideals of acceptance, tolerance,
understanding, open-mindedness, for the sole sake that to preach
these ideals is to deny the divinity of the Bible -- to admit
that the cruelty inherent in those pages came from the heart of
man, not the mouth of god.
As history has shown us, the church may potentially do anything.
They may make charity, but deny Homosexuals. They may give
service, but deny African Americans. To other religions, they
preach intolerance and bitterness, encouraging an aura of
misunderstanding -- the embers to violence, cruelty, and
brutality. Then, I ask the question again: why are the churches
exempt from taxation? The taxes of the people that are collected
to ensure a smooth-running society are used in a variety of
ways: they build schools and teach children, they help run
social programs such as welfare and food stamps, and they lend
foreign aid to countries in dire poverty. When the church has
gains, it may build schools, but they might teach children
racism, or intolerance, or sexism, or the idea that Evolution is
an evil, underground conspiracy, or a number of ridiculous and
heartless things. The church might run a charity, but they might
just refuse admittance by Homosexuals, members of certain races
or religions, or people who dress differently. And, the church
might donate some of its income to other charities, but they
might refuse charity to any hospital that performs abortions.
Yes, we have seen the churches do all of these things. There is
no doubt to these questions. There is no conjecture in my
theory. The church has burdened the society of men with bigotry
and prejudice, making us fight each other when we could have
been learning new ways of love, affection, and happiness.
When churches are exempt from taxes, an apologist will often
say: "It is because the money of the churches goes to the same
causes as taxes: to help the general order of society, with
charities, schools, and the like." But, by understanding our
current social situation, and the one of the past millenium, it
is not difficult to see how wrong such an apology is. Churches
must be taxed, so that their income can be fairly used and not
employed to create racism and poverty. The same must apply to
any religious organization. I am not arguing that churches
cannot do the incredible things that they already do, at least
legally. Ethics is another question. I am only arguing that, as
private organizations that are allowed to such activity, they
must be legitimately required to pay taxes. The churches have
their own interests, just as businesses have their interests of
maintaining a profit and cutting back on cost. Just as a
business is required to pay taxes, so should a church. The
difference is non-existent.
Men and women who profess to believe in a god, a goddess, or a
multiple of them, are exercising their rights as living
creatures. I can never argue against a person's right to believe
what they will, to share what they believe, to practice their
religion or philosophy in an attempt to satisfy the burnings of
their heart. So long as a person's actions do not offend the
sweetness of justice, the only argument I can offer him might be
one on the logical errors of what he believes. And even then, I
will not say a word about what he has the right to believe or
practice. Ultimately, what is real or not real is something for
each of us to decide. As a person who highly values Freethought
and the independence of spirit, I will always find myself
combating religion, not unlike any other revolutionary who
fights ignorance or superstition. Among the great contradictions
of religion, there is the question on the thoughts of god. When
a religious follower tells you their ideas of what god believes,
you will be hearing a speech about what this religious follower
believes -- so it follows a person who believes in god and
"knows" what god thinks will rarely disagree with god. And, so
we have it today, with millions of religions, each thinking that
god thinks something different. In actuality, what god believes
is just what their religious followers believe. After all, if
god believed in something different than the religious follower,
why would they continue believing something false? Even with
this logic, there remains a slew of religions out there. They
have their right to exist and preach, as much as I have my right
to criticize and think.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut