What's your Religion?

there are thousands of non profit organizations that do not pay taxes to the government.

again, my position...

I would rather private charities, including the church...help the less fortunate than the government do so.

 

I'll probably regret subbing to this thread within minutes and, at the risk of being on topic...

Secular Humanist, raised Southern Baptist.

 

Deprived to the goverment? Jamie, you can't be serious. Our government couldn't manage proceeds from a garage sale! I can think of another way the gov't can reduce the deficit and responsible stewardship is the first thought that comes to mind.

Here's my take:

All not-for-profit (NFP) orgs are tax-exempt, faith-based orgs (FBO) and 501(c)(3) secular orgs are the most common. Why? Well, it's a complicated answer but it wasn't long ago that churches did pay taxes. If churches and religious orgs paid taxes today, they would be capable of being directly involved in the political arena, with no limitations on the support they could offer candidates (financial or otherwise), political lobbys, etc. Our elected leaders could change the tax exemption status for religious orgs, but having a bunch of pastors/priests/rabbis/imams/warlocks(?) directly preaching political positions/issues to their congregations is not something most politicians would want... ergo, the 501(c)(3) status that effectively shuts the churches up... this is especially true at the local government level, where congregations make up a large portion of smaller communities.

If I were asked, I would like religious institutions and all other secular NFP orgs to remain tax-exempt. There is a great deal of good and charity these institutions offer to their communities, the nation, and worldwide, without regard to the recipient's race, religion, ethnicity, etc. This includes both FBO (Habitat for Humanity) and secular orgs (Doctors Without Borders). I also believe in limiting the amount of money our government gets from all sources, my own taxes included. The government can't manage our money let alone the 100s of billions it would receive from the thousands of religious institutions if they were tax-paying orgs.

Depriving the government of more $$$ to spend (and it's never on the deficit!)... please.

 

I know it goes on... through legal corporations established separate from church congregations that do not enjoy 501(c)(3) status. I'm referring to the tens of thousands of local churches and congregations. Church officials, pastors and the like, cannot discuss political issues without threatening their tax-exempt status. I've witnessed many a pastor skirt an issue and withhold their position or endorsement of a political candidate to ensure they are within the bounds of the law. Most are very careful about this. Unleashed--without tax-exempt status to limit their speech--it would be game on, and supporting my statement above, most politicians would not want this interference and likely substantial and openly proclaimed political influence.

Why couldn't an open atheist or Muslim run for president now? I don't get the point of your statement.

 

Unfortunately the government would probably just compensate for the ding with spending more money on something else. The politicians are like a bunch of kids who just earned 25 cents and want to spend it on the nearest piece of candy.

 

Any other non-profit orginazation. Which is what a church should be and for the most part are. I too am sickened by a story I read this morning, I'll find the link later. In short:

Dallas First Baptist is about done with construction on their new $130 million dollar facility. WTF!!!!!!!!!!

They may not make a "profit" but if they are pulling in enough money to build such a facility, it might as well be profit. Just because you spend lavishly on things the church "needs", in my opinion this does not mean you are not making a profit, even though the intake is poured into back to the church.

P.S. - I hate mega-churches

 

It is not too bad actually in here. Most people keep it civil.

 

I am the same way with mega-churches, I hate them. I visited an uncle once and the church he and his family went to looked and felt to me just like a massive coliseum/large theater room. And I sat there thinking, did you really need the extra stage lights? the extra embroidered seat cushions? the decorated pillars? the 3 projectors? I mean the church had a parking garage.

The best part of it was when my uncle and his family didn't really know anyone in the church besides the few people they went to morning sunday school with.

To me if you overdo the church and spend money where it could have been better utilized elsewhere, you are missing the big picture.

 

x2

 

The extreme example? Jim Bakker; however, I think churches should be nice if the congregation can afford it...gawdy excess goes against the tenets of Christianity though, in my humble (an nonbelieving) opinion.

Edit to spell Jim Bakker's name right. Wow, that doesn't look right, does it?

 

Actually I would consider my example as only slightly above the norm. The norm seeming to be churches usually in downtown established in the past 100-150 years or so.

I more or less see larger churches like what I described, popping up around larger cities. For example there is also another church near where I live that has an indoor playground (just like McDonalds) as well as arcade, massive playroom, then the large auditorium/coliseum that is used for actual church services.

And I see similar churches quite often. And I think the aim was to make church desirable and fun for children, but again, seems to me some people are missing the point of church, not to say it should not be fun, by all means it should be, but it isn't just recreation on Sunday.

And I completely agree with you that gawdy excess is against what Christianity was designed for. But over the centuries large decorated, overzealous church architecture has somewhat stayed intact.

 

You are right that the average, every day citizen that is part of the religious minority probably doesn't care what I do, but when the that majority is also in charge of the government (at all levels), it directly affects me because of laws that can be passed or repealed.

As an example, there are states right now that make it illegal for a person that doesn't believe in God to hold public office. It isn't a small number either, I believe it is 11 states, meaning over 20% of the country. There are convicted murderers that hold public office for crying out loud! We live in a society that in some states REQUIRES faith (you know, belief in something without imperical evidence to back it) to hold office, and in many instances shows that a person that doesn't believe in God is "un-electable"!

There are more examples of this religious majority directly affecting other people. In the military for example, the only people with complete confidentiality is a religious chaplain. Mental health doctors, physicians, JAG lawyers, NO ONE else has that. So if an Atheist or Agnostic has an issue, they have no one that they can turn to with out fear of religion being thrust upon them. The military is also a highly traditional entity. Many functions, official functions that you can get in to trouble for not attending, open with a chaplain giving a prayer that everyone is supposed to stand and recognize. Wrap your head around that one; You have a function that I have to attend or I can get in trouble, and you have prayer that everone is supposed to recognize. How is that not forcing religion on someone!? I can't leave before the prayer and come back, I can't skip the event, and if I don't stand I risk being ostracized and alienated (there are even stories in the news about soldiers being passed over for promotion for refusing to pray, and senior military officials meeting about how to strengthen religion in the services).

Finally, a recent study by the Pew Research Institute also showed that out of all major "religious groups" in the country, Atheists were "trusted" the least, even finishing behind Muslims (not that muslims shouldn't be trusted, just using that to prove a point). This same institute also did research looking at which religious group had the most knowledge about religion. Shockingly enough, Atheists did better on the test (general knowledge questions covering multiple religions) than EVERY OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUP!

 

The shocking part is that Atheist is considered a religion!

On a serious note though, not doubting you just curious, what states mandate religious belief to hold office. I agree that is ridiculous and should be changed. As far as their beliefs affecting their political stance, that is not just religious beliefs. Anything they have "interests" in affect the rules and laws they pass. This is where the political system comes into play, and unfortunately if your beliefs are in the minority, well your guy doesn't get voted in.

I don't think anyone should be forced into prayer, likewise at a football game I don't see why they can't say a prayer and those who don't want to participate not.

 

I know of Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, Maryland, Mississippi and Arkansas and North Carolina off hand... There is debate about Pennsylvania's state constitution not exactly denying Atheists. Cursory research I just now did shows these as the only states, so my numbers were off, for that I apologize... I don't like to be misleading!

 

This may or may not have something to do with the fact that atheists eat babies.

 

http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/religious-tests-for-public-office/