Are Churches Making Atheists Bankrupt?

[Fisher]

Some religions benefit the poor and/or the public, others just make their leaders rich. The problem is that religions have no legal obligation to provide a public benefit. Every tax payer subsidizes them, but they are not held accountable.

Could say the exact same thing about the poor, but I bet you don't mind them not paying taxes. The difference between the two, of course, is that taxpayers aren't subsidizing churches at all except to the extent that they qualify for funds aimed at helping poor and at risk people like the starving and sick, but can't really say the same about the poor not getting a subsidy. Hell, the earned income tax credit is like a winning lottery ticket to addicts and their dealers.

 

[Hard Truth]

No, I didn't. The people who contribute to the church itself are funding the aquarium.

As a tax payer, you paid more for government services because that church didn´t pay anything for them. Religions use government services, just like every business and household does. The public subsidizes all religions recongnized by the IRS and other levels of governement..

 

[LowDown]

Legislators benefit from votes and donations that come (indirectly) from the religions in exchange (indirectly) for their tax breaks and other benefits. The portion of the public that uses religious organizations benefit from the cost savings, but the remainder of the public gets nothing. There´s also that pesky first amendment that people choose to forget about.

Yes, that's the way it works in a democracy. The rest of the public benefits from their own religious organizations, or tax exempt organizations, which perform various public services. It benefits the whole community if religious orgs perform works of charity, especially in terms of providing food, clothing and shelter. I've never been to a Salvation Army facility nor attended their services, but I contribute to them because they provide food, clothing, shelter and other services to the homeless, and that benefits my whole community, especially these days when we have such a sorry President in office who doesn't know the first thing about economics.

 

[winston53660]

Yes, that's the way it works in a democracy.

We live in a Republic not a democracy.

The rest of the publc a benefits from their own religious organizations, or tax exempt organizations, which perform various public services.

Only to advance their own bigotry and agenda. Thanks but not thanks.

 

[Cephus]

FYI-Most non-profits are restricted from blatant political activity. That is why many have two separate organizations: one for political activity and another for public benefit activities.

It doesn't stop a lot of churches from blatantly violating their tax-exempt status and daring the IRS to take it away from them. Luckily, it was just ruled that atheist groups can sue the IRS and force them to equally enforce the rules on everyone.

 

[LowDown]

We live in a Republic not a democracy.

So democracy isn't involved at all?

Only to advance their own bigotry and agenda. Thanks but not thanks.

What you regard as bigotry other people regard as enlightenment.

In any case, it is indeed a decision made democratically to extend a privileged status to these organizations, many of which support agendas that most people don't agree with. It's all about freedom of religion, which is in the Constitution, and if you don't like it you can move to Russia, or some other hell hole you like better. I hear they only permit one religion in Qatar, maybe you'd like that better. I'd direct you to an officially atheistic state, but I can't think of one. All of the officially atheistic states failed because they were run by sorry pieces of leftist crap.

 

[Hard Truth]

So democracy isn't involved at all?



What you regard as bigotry other people regard as enlightenment.

In any case, it is indeed a decision made democratically to extend a privileged status to these organizations, many of which support agendas that most people don't agree with. It's all about freedom of religion, which is in the Constitution, and if you don't like it you can move to Russia, or some other hell hole you like better. I hear they only permit one religion in Qatar, maybe you'd like that better. I'd direct you to an officially atheistic state, but I can't think of one. All of the officially atheistic states failed because they were run by sorry pieces of leftist crap.

There is a reason why we have a bill of rights to limit the ability of the majority to impinge on the rights of minorities. Otherwise democracy can become two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Among those protections was a prohibition on the establishment of religion. When the majority votes to subsidize religions they are establishing religion, although admiitedly in the most minimum manner. It is essentially the wolves voting to buy dinner a restaurant with the lamb uninvited, but paying for one third of it.

 

[ChezC3]

This could have been posted in the religion section, but I think it may be considered too critical...so I put it here.

Taken from wearepeople2.com (follow link for full article): "The church exists as a singular entity within societies, that aren't subject to the limitations from our laws and government, but receive all the benefits. Churches exist as a parasite on society where we (atheists) supply most of their money, and they take all of it."

They receive tax-paid services like access to the police or fire department, yet they don't help fund either. We're then required to pick up the slack that churches don't pay... Well there is truth behind it but there is more to the story, right?

Do the communal services churches supply make up for the taxes they don't pay? Taxing them could be a viable solution, but would it get in the way of their day-to-day operations?

I'm likely missing something here, so if so please explain

:lamo

Atheists are an insignificant percentage of our society. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[roughdraft274]

You're missing that all the church members are taxed before they get to church. There is no link, but everything you quoted from wearepeople2.com is absolutely false.

I'm taxed before i purchase something. Should the company that sold me that thing therefor be tax exempt?

If a church is making profit off of people, then it should be taxed. If their profit goes in to charity then they should not pay taxes on it.

 

[LowDown]

There is a reason why we have a bill of rights to limit the ability of the majority to impinge on the rights of minorities. Otherwise democracy can become two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Among those protections was a prohibition on the establishment of religion. When the majority votes to subsidize religions they are establishing religion, although admiitedly in the most minimum manner. It is essentially the wolves voting to buy dinner a restaurant with the lamb uninvited, but paying for one third of it.

No, the privilege of tax exempt status is extended to all non-profit institutions devoted to the public good whether religious or not. It doesn't bother me, for example, that American Atheists is a tax exempt organization but I do wish they wouldn't be so hypocritical about it by challenging the tax exempt status of religious organizations. I guess they are just totally blind to irony.

 

[Cephus]

:lamo

Atheists are an insignificant percentage of our society. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Significant and growing. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[ChezC3]

Significant and growing. Let's not pretend otherwise.

You're free to pretend however you'd like...:2razz:

 

[Cephus]

You're free to pretend however you'd like...:2razz:

I don't have to pretend, every single poll in the past 30 years has shown that the non-religious are the fastest growing demographic in the country.

Maybe it's you that's free to pretend.

 

[ChezC3]

I don't have to pretend, every single poll in the past 30 years has shown that the non-religious are the fastest growing demographic in the country.

Maybe it's you that's free to pretend.

I'm not the one seeking converts, therefore I am free to, but I have no need....

 

[Cephus]

I'm not the one seeking converts, therefore I am free to, but I have no need....

No one here is seeking converts, reality is what it is and the evidence only leads to a single conclusion. When you've got the Baptists reporting a 100,000 member loss last year alone and the Catholics closing schools and churches because they can't get anyone through the doors, that says something about the health and welfare of religion.

 

[Thrilla]

This could have been posted in the religion section, but I think it may be considered too critical...so I put it here.

Taken from wearepeople2.com (follow link for full article): "The church exists as a singular entity within societies, that aren't subject to the limitations from our laws and government, but receive all the benefits. Churches exist as a parasite on society where we (atheists) supply most of their money, and they take all of it."

They receive tax-paid services like access to the police or fire department, yet they don't help fund either. We're then required to pick up the slack that churches don't pay... Well there is truth behind it but there is more to the story, right?

Do the communal services churches supply make up for the taxes they don't pay? Taxing them could be a viable solution, but would it get in the way of their day-to-day operations?

I'm likely missing something here, so if so please explain

you're operating under the assumption that if peter doesn't pay more in taxes , Paul will pay more to make up for it..... which is false.

Paul will continue to pay the statutory rate he always pays, regardless of what Peter pays.

atheists contribute very little to local,state,or federal coffers... primarily because there isn't very many of them.

most of the money churches get are in the form of donations, very very little comes from the government through any sort of payment. ( lower or no taxes =/= a payment)
if atheists are donating to churches, I would laugh my ass off

it's also false to argue that churches pay no taxes... it all depends on what actions take place, what their property is used for, etc... it's not as easy as atheists want to make it out to be.
for examples, someone mentioned an aquarium built by a church.... the property the aquarium is on with be subject to property taxes in the State of Texas ( and every other state in the union).
property not used directly for the stated purpose of the church ( worship, religious education, etc) it will be subject to property taxes
for example, the Mormon church pays millions in state taxes in Nevada.. due to the differing natures of the properties they hold and the types of commerce and community action they engage in.

 

[Thrilla]

No one here is seeking converts, reality is what it is and the evidence only leads to a single conclusion. When you've got the Baptists reporting a 100,000 member loss last year alone and the Catholics closing schools and churches because they can't get anyone through the doors, that says something about the health and welfare of religion.

\

other religions and denominations are still experiencing strong growth...and i believe the stats show that less people are affiliated with a specific religion, which is very different from being an atheist.( lots of believers are non-religious)
if we were to look at the growth of atheism next to ..say.. the Mormon church... we would see the LDS having a much higher growth rate.. and it has about 5 times as many adherents. ( it's not a competition, just putting things into perspective)

there is no fear of atheism "taking over" anytime soon... maybe in 3 or 400 years, but I doubt even then

 

[Cephus]

other religions and denominations are still experiencing strong growth...and i believe the stats show that less people are affiliated with a specific religion, which is very different from being an atheist.( lots of believers are non-religious)
if we were to look at the growth of atheism next to ..say.. the Mormon church... we would see the LDS having a much higher growth rate.. and it has about 5 times as many adherents. ( it's not a competition, just putting things into perspective)

there is no fear of atheism "taking over" anytime soon... maybe in 3 or 400 years, but I doubt even then

The only one that is still showing sustained growth is Islam, and then not in first world countries.

The polls clearly show a decline in overall religiousity and a rise in non-belief. Between 2007 and 2012 alone, the rate rose from 14% of Americans to 19% of Americans and those who are most fundamentalist tend to be older and thus will die off sooner rather than later. Mormonism did show some growth in the most recent Pew survey but I think that's mostly because Mormonism has become more accepted, not because there are a growing number of Mormons. I haven't seen data to suggest that these are new converts to Mormonism, just people who are identifying as Mormons for the first time. We'll have to see what happens in the next poll.

In any case, rejecting religion, especially traditional religions, is the wave of the future and it's increasing.

 

[Thrilla]

The only one that is still showing sustained growth is Islam, and then not in first world countries.

The polls clearly show a decline in overall religiousity and a rise in non-belief. Between 2007 and 2012 alone, the rate rose from 14% of Americans to 19% of Americans and those who are most fundamentalist tend to be older and thus will die off sooner rather than later. Mormonism did show some growth in the most recent Pew survey but I think that's mostly because Mormonism has become more accepted, not because there are a growing number of Mormons. I haven't seen data to suggest that these are new converts to Mormonism, just people who are identifying as Mormons for the first time. We'll have to see what happens in the next poll.

In any case, rejecting religion, especially traditional religions, is the wave of the future and it's increasing.

meh, the LDS has been showing strong growth for 30 years... it's not recent..... and yes, it's primarily because there are more of them ( near 16 million now).. over 300k new Mormons every year,
Momons, in hte grand scheme of things, are a small denomination... and they still outnumber atheists ( and outbreed them too :lol

I just visited Pew to look at their poll... 16.1% unaffiliated....which contains 1.6% atheist... 2.4% agnostic.
for a "wave of the future" those are pretty meager numbers.

i think Atheists are overstating their case by quite a bit.

 

[winston53660]

meh, the LDS has been showing strong growth for 30 years... it's not recent..... and yes, it's primarily because there are more of them ( near 16 million now).. over 300k new Mormons every year,
Momons, in hte grand scheme of things, are a small denomination... and they still outnumber atheists ( and outbreed them too :lol

I just visited Pew to look at their poll... 16.1% unaffiliated....which contains 1.6% atheist... 2.4% agnostic.
for a "wave of the future" those are pretty meager numbers.

i think Atheists are overstating their case by quite a bit.

Are they counting every sperm or something?

 

[Hard Truth]

No, the privilege of tax exempt status is extended to all non-profit institutions devoted to the public good whether religious or not. It doesn't bother me, for example, that American Atheists is a tax exempt organization but I do wish they wouldn't be so hypocritical about it by challenging the tax exempt status of religious organizations. I guess they are just totally blind to irony.

Non-religious non-profits have to prove that they are providing a public benefit, religions do not. That is why they don´t deserve a tax break.

 

[Thrilla]

Are they counting every sperm or something?

the number would be much much higher if that were the case...:lol:

300k new Mormons internationally... not just domestic...

 

[Slartibartfast]

Religious organizations provide benefit by default.

technically, what charles manson was doing could be called a religion.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

technically, what charles manson was doing could be called a religion.

Fair enough.

 

[ChuckBerry]

I've said this in similar threads and I'll say it again...tax the church, and the church then gains political power. Taxation without representation is tyranny. Do you want the Catholic church to have a lobbying organization in Congress to push favorable legislation?

There's no such thing as a free lunch.