Opinion: Time to stop subsidizing religion
By David Niose, Washington Post
The arguments for taxing churches have been around for many years, but there is reason to believe that America’s changing religious demographics will soon give them more traction. As more Americans abandon organized religion, many of the newly secular are unsympathetic to subsidizing religion via the tax code.
Recent polling shows that almost one in four Americans, and more than one-third of those aged 18 to 33, now claim no religious affiliation. Back when virtually everyone subscribed to a religious faith (the unaffiliated number polled in the single digits for most of the 20th century) an across-the-board tax break for all religions was arguably fair — or at least inoffensive. But times have changed, and so have attitudes about the extraordinary perks that churches enjoy.
Perhaps the most egregious example of religious privilege under the tax code is the so-called parsonage exemption. Under current tax law, “ministers of the gospel” may deduct virtually all costs associated with housing from their income. At its worst, the exemption subsidizes the unseemly: televangelists enjoying multimillion-dollar estates on the taxpayer dime. But even in a more ordinary context, the allowance represents an indefensible benefit running to organized religion, subsidized by taxpayers.
“Subsidizing” is not the same as “not taxing”.
Using words in a deceptive manner is something the left does constantly, to further their own agenda. But since they’ve been in charge the education system in this country for the last 40 years, they’ve been able to raise a batch of marginally educated parrots who don’t know or care about definitions. It’s all about the narrative.
Dogula, The wording is all important. The meaning of your intent can be changed by a slight shift in how it’s worded to change peoples perception of an issue.
Be good and watch the words! OLS
“Government need not be hostile to religion, but neither should it bestow upon it special privileges.”
Whether one calls it subsidizing or not taxing it’s allowing specific organizations which have no legal, binding, obligation to help the needy or any other segment of society (other than what they may offer to their own congregations to keep them happy) tax breaks.
While some may say these organizations operate on a moral sphere I’d say it’s fairly common knowledge that morality cannot be regulated.
Churches are non-profits and are taxed accordingly because most only operate by donation. Unions and just about every other pet project do the same. Get over it.
SCTahoe:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Accept that.
Kae, you seem to be on a mission with some of your recent posts.
Religious politicians DO have an agenda. Some of the above should stop acting as though there is an ‘accidental connection’ between churches and certain political actions and attitudes. Nobody is that naive.
As I am writing this Sierra Community Church is sponsoring through In Jesus Name Medical Missions a free medical clinic for anyone in our community that needs medical attention. This clinic is absolutely free of charge and is run by a host of local physicians, nurses, and administrative staff.
Sierra also until three weeks ago continuously ran a weekly free hot lunch program plus food giveaway every Wednesday from May 1989.
Along with other churches in this community we have sent counselors into the jail for many years, along with hosting and conducting numerous addiction compulsive behavior groups.
Also the school supplies program we do every year to benefit local public schools,
our individual one on one ESL classes we’ve been doing for over four years now,
medical missions trips to Central America, a team of our young adults just left this morning to spend a week remodeling homes on the Navajo reservation, a work we have been doing for over eleven years and several teams a year.
This list goes on and on, our record speaks for itself, we are a bona fide non-profit.
Were do the resources come from to do such things?
Volunteers and Donations. No fees ever charged or expected.
We enjoy the privilege that other 501 3C’s enjoy.
My thought is even if 25% of America isn’t affiliated with organized religion, my math suggest a whooping majority still is, therefore why all the hoopla?
Because folks like this author I believe have an agenda to eradicate the faith from American society simply because they don’t like the idea of faith and religion.
By the way how has all your “enlightenment” improved society?
I hear a lot of words, and a lot of where you want to spend other people’s money, but seriously what have you done lately Mr. Niose?
You are welcome to your opinion. I was referencing laws.
Dan Wilvers:
Congratulations on the wonderful accomplishments that you reported about Sierra Community Church. Your organization sounds like a good example why generalizing and “painting everyone with a broad brush” should always be avoided.
What is unfortunate are those very wealthy and unscrupulous religious non-profit organizations that do exploit the tax codes and the gullible. (Numerous former and current televangelists come to mind.)
By the way, one does not need to be affiliated with an organized religion to be spiritual, enlightened or to help society.
Teatotal and Hmmm I must assu e that you dont like tax exempt statuses, so things like Unions and the ACLU should also not be subsidized by taxpayer money either. They both try to put forth their own political agenda.
4mer….well said.
Mr Wilvers-
No one would deny that the works you do have merit, but I ask you, why do they have to be done under the flag of a church?
Religions and their conflicts with one another are responsible for some of the worlds greatest wars and incalculable suffering of innocent people.
How can you ignore this? We now are involved with a Christian/Islam conflict…AGAIN….does no one remember studying the Crusades where Christians attempted to eradicate Muslims from the world?
Is it any wonder that finally they push back, being Human?
Religion of all stripes is probably the most divisive force on earth, and use the second most divisive thing (politics) as its toolbox for bad deeds.
If religions were at all as magnanimous as they claim, all would cease efforts to get the balance of the world to believe as they do.
It is a power and money thing. It has nothing to do with god, whose existence cannot be proved anyway.
Believe what you want, but let the rest of us believe what we want too. And all of us should pay our taxes.
Cranky G a few points.
One, no one said only the church can do things. My point was we do things all the time, we are a legitimate non profit. I agree there are abuses of every system but throwing the baby out with the bath water isn’t the answer.
Two regarding your last statement, Who’s telling you you can’t believe what you want? Certainly not me or anyone I associate with in the Christian faith.
Thirdly, and I’ve shared this here before, but this argument, your words, (Religion of all stripes is probably the most divisive force on earth,) this is just is so far from the truth.
The 20th century was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. Fact, more people died in the 20th century than in all the other centuries combined. This due in great part to both the world wars, which were not religious wars.
In conjunction with the two wars were the largest genocides ever recorded. Hitler and the Third Reich exterminated Jews, not because they were Christians either, because they weren’t. It was a vast majority of soldiers who were of faith, mainly Christian, from the UK and America, who fought and died to stop them.
Mao, Stalin were atheist communists, they killed over a combined 45 million people. Their own by the way. Let’s not forget Pol Pot another atheist who killed his own by the millions. So I could make a more factual argument that atheists are more likely to do harm than faith based people.
Lastly, I do pay my taxes, as does every one who donates to our Church. Either we eliminate all non profits or we all get the same rights. It is after all how America is suppose to work.
‘By the way how has all your “enlightenment” improved society? ‘
Science.
Billy, science by any accounting, isn’t the exclusive domain of atheists, it just happens to be there only domain. Christians believe in science and in a Creator.
Scientology became a ‘religion’ to avoid taxes and one of my acquaintances in Vegas started a ‘church’ called ‘The Church of Vegetarianism’, so his building, meal charges, etc were all
tax free. So maybe its time to tax some of these areas?
Breaking from the mold of creation and a creator was important step in modern science. Turn out that the god model in science not useful.
Mao and Stalin didn’t kill in the name of atheism so there is a pretty big difference.
Your book club only controls its own members. If you want your rules to apply to others through government it is only fair to pay taxes like everyone else.
And on the 8th day gawd created the king of snakeoil salesman Pat Robertson- and an endless supply of suckers who believe that the earth was created 10,000 yrs. ago-and other equally absurd nonsense
Billy I disagree, they did kill according to their values.
No God, no rules, power determines outcome.
I also disagree that creation and science don’t mix. There are many highly accredited scientists from all over the world who are looking objectively at the evidence of Intelligent design, i.e. a Creator.
But when some scientists claim they have it all figured out, and it’s all naturalism, and yet their are myriads of cognizant arguments against that claim, then I am still quite comfortable with believing in God.
I get we don’t agree, I’m very OK with that, I don’t despise you in the least for having an opinion contrary to mine. But I will not be silent either. 1st Amendment right, we both get to use it. Thank God! :)
relo…don’t assu e, and don’t go off topic.
They didn’t kill in ‘the name of there is no god’, the way people kill in holy wars.
‘No God, no rules, power determines outcome.’
Millions of people are walking around everyday not killing people and often doing nice things because of their own moral compass. Not because their book club tells them its bad and threatens them all kinds of ridiculous things.
Some of us have no use for your book club. Get over it.
‘But when some scientists claim they have it all figured out, and it’s all naturalism, and yet their are myriads of cognizant arguments against that claim,’
Are there? The god model is not predictive with its explanations, that is why it is ignored. If every experiment had to waste time to account for god nothing would get done.
Dan your understanding of the science of evolution and religion is poorly understood. The 95% of Jews understand evolution is real (I be one), the Catholic Church has long accepted the science of evolution, most protestant demolitions are not troubled, neither is the Sik, Hindi, nor Buddists religions; for example 95% of Europeans are quite satisfied the with scientific explanation, America in the industrialized world stands along with evangelicals choosing to believe in a form of creation. No, scientists around the world are debating the reality of evolution, only some right wing Christians.
I direct you to the exchange Scott Walker had with journalist in England, where they pummeled him because no credible politician (right or left) would deny the reality of evolution.
Sadly Only Americans seem challenged by Science.
Rick
Hmm, the topic is taxing non profits, which is what churches are. I am not religious. Though i do believe that all people have the right to worship their higher power be it a god or science. If someone finds comfort in a higher power, who are we to deny them. There are many here that believe that only they have the right to free thought and speach.
it’s encouraging see the outpouring of reflective, thoughtful, and intelligent comments by the growing segment of the population that clearly sees through the smokescreen that is basic to organized religion. shell game+con game+fear=religion. believe what you want, but keep it out of government and schools.
The topic of the article is taxing religious non-profits. Seems some use their free speech to try to gain undue influence over the behavior of others.
Rick, Ben Stein must be in the 5%?
There is a night and day difference between macro and micro evolution.
Your claims about evolution within the church deal with micro (within species) not macro evolution.
The fossil record doesn’t support macro. Macro evolution is religion of the highest order.
I don’t expect to convince you, but others here read who don’t comment.
I’m weighing in for their benefit.
Science isn’t the exclusive domain of atheists not by a long shot.
‘science isn’t the exclusive domain of atheists not by a long shot’…dan is a blue pill kinda guy so a statement such as this makes sense to him. unfortunately, he wields power over his flock with this blue pill doctrine and ‘believes’ that this hocus pocus can favorably be compared to science. if you ‘believe’ you cannot practice valid science. quit indoctrinating children and quit collecting subsidies from those of us that do not buy in.
What exactly is a “blue pill kinda guy”?
Dan:
Yep Ben Stein is in the minority of Judaism. And last I checked being a writer, lawyer and actor does not qualify him to comment on the science of evolution.
You are absolutely wrong about the the church and science of evolution. The major religions (except uneducated evangelicals – and the studies back the fact that creationist on average are less educated) have not debate with evolution by natural selection. The micro vs macro is an invention of creationist and is not taken seriously in the scientific world. In other words the creationist keep loosing ground and find themselves trying to redefine reality – poorly I might add.
The Evangelical Christians are the only one troubled.
You comment about the fossil record shows you are clueless.
Again non-scientists Evangelical Christians are the only ones troubled. There is no debate among scientists (though a handful usually physical scientist like chemist). So lets take the word of less educated non-scientist Evangelical’s or well educated scientists – ummm that is a tough one. Now you know why English journalists laugh on the nutcase Republicans who can’t admit reality.
And yes you will not convince me (an ecologists and published scientists nor any of my colleagues. I truly doubt you have actually ever read any of the peered reviewed scientific literature nor Darwin’s Origin of Species.
I do recommend you read “Finding Darwin’s God, by a respected scientist (and devout Catholic) from Brown University, who respectfully points out the silliness in the creationists arguments and makes a case, that in his view evolution is critical to his belief in God.
Rick
Just for the record dan… according to you, how old is the earth?
“”You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
―Morpheus to Neo
“A bluepill refers to a human that is not aware of the true nature of the Matrix. Bluepills typically have their bodies and minds remain semi-permanently connected to the power plant.”
from Matrix-Wiki
Billy I have no idea
Rick you write: The micro vs macro is an invention of creationist and is not taken seriously in the scientific world. In other words the creationist keep loosing ground and find themselves trying to redefine reality – poorly I might add.
Some thoughts to suggest otherwise.
The Assertion: Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution
The best answer to this claim, which is little more than an urban legend, is to cite relevant cases. First, textbooks:
Campbell’s Biology (4th Ed.) states: “macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction.” [By contrast, this book defines “microevolution as “a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations”]
Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, “In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa.” (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts “microevolution” — “slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species.”]
In his 1989 McGraw Hill textbook, Macroevolutionary Dynamics, Niles Eldredge admits that “[m]ost families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.” (pg. 22.) In Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (Steven M. Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), we read that, “[t]he known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.” (pg. 39)
The scientific journal literature also uses the terms “macroevolution” or “microevolution.”
In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists’ understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology:
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” (Roger Lewin, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.)
Two years earlier, Robert E. Ricklefs had written in an article in Science entitled “Paleontologists confronting macroevolution,” contending:
“The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. … apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.” (Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)
So, if such terms are currently in disfavor, that is clearly because they highlight problems with the Modern Evolutionary theory that it is currently impolitic to draw attention to. In the end, the terms are plainly legitimate and meaningful, as they speak to an obvious and real distinction between (a) the population changes that are directly observationally confirmed, “microevolution,” and (b) the major proposed body-plan transformation level changes that are not: “macroevolution.”
From the article: Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design.
Billy the Mountain it is as old as dirt.
some of you folks remind me of Herb Codington his God was the stop lights on lake tahoe blvd.
What a cop out.
How many zeros do you need to estimate the age of the earth.
Chief…how so?
An article from the Christian Science Monitor.
WARNING: Contains the words ‘fossil’, ‘evolution’, and accepts that the world is “old”.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0921/Why-are-there-whale-fossils-in-California-mountains
dan?
Let me guess… fossils = faith testers.
Dan:
You failed to understand the nuances. Scientist that you mention had no evidence that evolution (micro and macro as you fixate on) did and does not exist, rather they were doing what scientist do best, trying to fine tune our understanding. Roger Lewin is actually pissed off that creationist misrepresent his work.
here is a pretty good summary by someone else
When you do a search and find the text in context, you can see that this sentence is a small part of a larger description of the concept of *apparent stasis* within the fossil record. Namely, that a species may *APPEAR* to be static for long periods of time, and then in an “instant” appear to speciate. But here “instant” is relative to GEOLOGICAL time … i.e. an “instant” may mean within the course of a “mere” 50,000 years, which is an *instant* in geological time.
So part of describing this process is explaining why species *appear* to be “static” in the first place. And that is where this sentence appears (at the end of this paragraph):
“So how can paleontologists suggest that species remain the same through most of their existence? And who in their right mind would contemplate speciation occurring in an instant? The resolution of this apparent conflict is this. Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean: to a paleontologist looking at the fossil record, this shows up as stasis.”
It is in this context, that it sets up the very next paragraph:
“The troubling specter of “instant” speciation is again a product of misunderstandings over scale. What is an instant to a paleontologist is an unimaginable tract of time to either an ecologist or a population geneticist. “I’d be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years,’ said Gould, ‘but that is an instant compared with the 5 or 10 million years that most species exist.’
“However, even the most ardent punctuationists do not dismiss gradual change as a force in evolution.”
So there you have it.
Within the context of that discussion about apparent “stasis” (as a contrast to relatively “sudden” speciation), THAT is what is meant by saying that the capacity for minor modifications is “limited” and often oscillates around a mean, … it is this oscillation that would give the *appearance* of stasis in a fossil record that stretches over millions of years.
Only the most dishonest of misrepresentations would take this out of context and say that die-hard evolution supporters (both micro and macro) like Lewin, or Gould, or Eldredge are somehow “admitting” some fundamental “limitation” of macroevolution such that it *does not occur at all*!!! Even the most cursory reading of this article describing the debate, would recognize that these guys are arguing over the PACE of macroevolutionary change, and what it would *APPEAR* like in a fossil record … they are NOT arguing over whether macroevolution occurs AT ALL!
Ah, but dishonest misrepresentations are the bread-and-butter of Creationism!
I urge anybody who has even an ounce of intellectual integrity, to read this article and decide for yourself if there is ANY justification for taking Lewin’s words as some sort of “admission” of fundamental limitations of macroevolution that is causing Lewin, or Gould, or Eldredge or ANYBODY at the Chicago conference to doubt whether macroevolution can occur as a result of the accumulation of microevolution.
It is one thing to disagree with these ‘evolutionists’ and to insist yourself that macroevolution does not occur.
But when Creationists have to LIE about what their opponents say, and to put false words in their mouths in order to gain some credibility … then that says far more about the honesty of Creationism, than it does about science.
Incidentally, I should point out that the Lewin article was written in November, 1980 about a conference that occurred in Chicago in 1980.
That was 30 years ago!
So if there was some sort of wholesale collapse of “Darwinism” or a revolutionary admission of defeat of macroevolution, then do you think we would have heard something by now?
Why are Creationists STILL quoting this article 30 years later as if it was some sort of foundation-shattering exposé?
Answer:
(A) because intellectual integrity is a foreign concept;
(B) because they can’t find an actual Creationist with enough credibility to be worth quoting; and
(C) Because they have NOTHING else.
All of the scientists you quote would adamantly point out the fallacy of your arguments and how you bastardized their work. I have had the luxury of hearing some of them speak about it. I remind you, none of these scientist take creationist seriously and there is no debate, so when they discuss improvements in the theory and facts of evolution, the furthest thing from their mind is how religious zealots will try and twist their findings.
Worldwide we are an embarrassment.
American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.
Rick
So again, are we to believe a group of religious zealots with lower education or the scientists? I choose the scientists.
Our book club is subject to peer review.
Rick a thoughtful response by you thank you.
In reading your sources are they admitting to what appears to be stasis in the fossil record?
But in actuality no evidence of macro change is present because of the millions of years it takes for all the micro changes to appear?
Did I understand that correctly?
dan, creationists such as yourself still bypass in your statements the fundamental ‘buy-in’ that underlies your pseudoscience: you are trying to prove or justify a supernatural explanation, whereas bona fide science is a tool that starts with no preconception and makes predictions according to evidence. its power is that it tries to prove working concepts to be incorrect, and refine or discard them in the process. the best evidence, real evidence, peer-reviewed evidence, says that you are barking up the wrong tree. of course, you have to continue because your power, influence, and status structure is based on a con game. you really think a reflective person buys your last two sentences? classic bait and switch response to rick’s comment. there exists in all accepted real scientific venues overwhelming evidence of macroevolution, which just doesn’t sit right with your ‘young earth’ book club, does it? wizard of oz…
Dan,
Pretending that you still have some credible argument for your “young earth” spiel after poster Rick’s expose is really laughable. Except of course to your flock of true believers. Do I understand correctly that creationists think that many fossil records are actually the work of the devil testing the faith of the perpetually mystified? I would encourage all people who consider themselves Christian to listen to Pope Francis for a better view of today’s reality.
“I believe that God created Charles Darwin” – Denis Miller
Probably sums up the position of many, including myself.
I don’t believe in evolution never have never will.
I have always held to Creation as a Christian since 1962, I am not going to change to your angry direction.
as far as the Church not paying taxes that’s not for me to worry about.
the Bible says that a day is like 1000 years and a 1000 years is like a day, could you explain that to me.
chief, chief, chief: you are incredible. now don’t go changin’!
‘the Bible says that a day is like 1000 years and a 1000 years is like a day, could you explain that to me.’
Sure. Some human made that up or it is part of an old allegory; those numbers don’t have any quantitative meaning in the real world.
KClancy I made no argument for a young earth that was your assumption.
I have never heard the devil argument regarding the fossil record. Again Ad hominem attacks.
We must define two points: Evolution: change over time that is the answer for the diversity of life on earth (without God). Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Science: is based on testing and observation.
I am less than persuaded because there two Unobserved Events: Unobserved Natural Origin of Life: if evolution is true, you have to get life going. Nobody saw it happen and nobody is close to duplicating it.
The other is the Unobserved Mechanism for change., which means you must be able to change one creature into a fundamentally different type of creature.
Everybody sees highly complex design. Creationists say design comes from an incredibly intelligent designer. Evolutionists say that it only looks like it was designed, but it probably wasn’t, and then attribute it to totally natural forces.
Mutations are random, but in reality you’re not going to get everything you need in the right order, amount and places via mutation. In fact you’re going to get disease. Natural Selection is in fact pure Rational Mysticism.
Regarding Taxing/Subsidizing Religion. Even Pope Francis came out last week and warned, “Some religious orders say, ‘No! Now that the convent is empty we are going to make a hotel and we can have guests and make money.’ Well, if that is what you do, then pay taxes! A religious school is tax-exempt because it is religious, but if it is functioning as a business, then it should pay taxes just like its neighbor. Otherwise it is not fair business.”
This is not about how old the Earth is or Evolution, it is about tax-exempt status.
“I made no argument for a young earth that was your assumption. ”
And you keep avoiding the question. Age of the earth and evolution are related. If one asserts that the earth is only a few thousand years old then that time period makes evolution impossible. If you accept that it is billions of years old then you have to deal with there being a long enough time period for the process.
And if you admit to YEC everyone has a good reason to question your scientific literacy. YEC’s should save everyone some time and preface every scientific discussion they get in to with “I am a YEC”. Then we can just ignore you and do something useful like Soduku. When a witness or whatever bothers me I point to a rock and ask them how old it is. They are usually polite and leave without answering.
Your notion of unobserved events being weak is very revealing about your understanding of science. When a model for reality is predictive (which evolution has been numerous times) the model increases in validity. Your model will never be predictive and is therefore useless. And you are engaging in the typical intellectually dishonest tactic of ‘moving the goal posts’. There is probably a term for being myopic to avoid discussing the bigger picture but I don’t know it.
It seems that Mr. Niose has forgotten one point. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States states in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The power to tax is the power to destroy. In this Country, taxing churches or religious activities is unconstitutional. This Amendment has prevented the religious conflicts experienced by many countries throughout the world. Don’t take down a “fence” until you know why it was put up. Read the Bill of Rights!
The NFL is a non-profit. Did D.W. really say that non-profits and individuals have to have the same rights?
Oh yeah, that’s right. Corporations are people.
Mr Grego, when religious groups become directly involved with business enterprises for profit or political lobbying for changes in said status, then they are NO LONGER religious and are therefor taxable and/or under more regulation.