"You should not be afraid of someone who has a library and reads many books; you should fear someone who has only one book; and he considers it sacred, but he has never read it." Frederich Nietzsche
"You should not be afraid of someone who has a library and reads many books; you should fear someone who has only one book; and he considers it sacred, but he has never read it." Frederich Nietzsche
Craig, too true. And when you add the “prosperity gospel” in which God supposedly gives material riches to the most faithful, (regardless of how many commandments they break to acquire and keep them), then you encourage pride of class and exploitation of anyone not in your group (those favored by your god).
No, it’s the religion preached by preachers like Joel Ostern. “ The Prosperity Gospel (PG) is a fast-growing theologically conservative movement frequently associated with Pentecostalism, evangelicalism, and charismatic Christianity that emphasizes believers’ abilities to transcend poverty and/or illness through devotion and positive confession. The PG is popular among impoverished communities, where at best it is considered to offer the poor a means of imagining and reaching for better lives (at times accompanied by sound financial advice), and at worst is criticized as predatory and manipulative, particularly when churches or pastors require heavy tithing.”
Mary, just send money you don't have to your pastor. I am reminded of the scene in Repo Man where the young man is eating a can of...is it dog food....while his parents are glued to a TV pastor and sending him all their money. My great niece has fallen for this kind of thing and once was on Facebook trying to solicit funds for her pastor. During the pandemic she was upset that she could go to the grocery store, but not church. Pfft, isn' an omnipresent god everywhere. She was also in my will for a family item which i then figured she would either give or sell to help her pastor. So, that item is now going to my nephew here.
Fortunately they all live at least 2000 miles away and so I only see things on Facebook. I did take on something she said once for all the good it did.
The “Prosperity Gospel” is a new name for an old product. In the 19th century, the “Gospel of Wealth” emerged in American as an explanation for and lionization of men like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and others who had amassed great fortunes. It also, later, underpinned non-denominational preachers like, the Reverend Ike who liked to say, “the best thing you can do for the poor is not be one of them.” This, in turn, is what we hear from Joel Osteen and his ilk today.
Nope, but they don't follow the Sermon on the Mount.....too woke. Jesus is also clearly against using religion to get rich. So Osteen and his ilk are running a den of thieves and of course loudly praying.
I am a bit surprised that we are seeing comments where the commentor is not familiar with "prosperity gospel". Yes it is a thing and it has been a thing for a while. Many of Trump's "spiritual" advisory folks were of this bent. Remember Paula White? It was sickening to watch.
Yes Beverly. Should go down as one of the biggest cons in the history of evangelicalism. Few people on earth are more un-Christian than Trump. I do not know how conservative Christians who are Trump bootlickers can look at themselves in the mirror without complete and utter shame. A new meaning of the word hypocrisy.
Check Robert Schuller’s sermons that built the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, CA. (1955 and 1980). Been around for a very long time. The sermons often started with “cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you 10-fold.” That is, give money to this ministry and you will be made rich.
Our system of government and its founding documents are the product of The Enlightenment’s rejection of absolute monarchy and state religion. In a recent essay in The Atlantic, Peter Wehner explains where House Speaker Mike Johnson’s view of government’s role comes from. The essay is worth reading and it’s frightening. Johnson, evidently, believes The Enlightenment either did not happen or should be considered error.
He is a true believer who is full of hubris and arrogance. He has this constant smarmy look as if only he knows and the rest of us dolts do not. He is truly awful.
Anyone who thinks that material wealth is a sign of God’s approval (prosperity gospel), must’ve missed that part about the rich man trying to squeeze through the needle’s eye...
Focusing on Madison and Jefferson and the Virginia Constitution gives a distorted impression of the role of church and state at the founding. It is not helpful to deny that there were strong religious impulses when the nation was founded. The First Amendment was readily accepted because it was a restraint on the FEDERAL government. It pleased the Deists (e.g. Jefferson) because they distrusted all religions but perhaps more importantly, it was supported by many religious people who feared that state level links to particular religions would be overridden in a movement to establish a national church. The Fourteenth Amendment was not interpreted to extend the religious First Amendment protections from state action until 1940 (Cantwell v. Connecticut).
Here are a few other points to bear in mind: In 1776 all but one of the thirteen colonies (Rhode Island) had ties to one or another church. Church-state ties persisted for decades afterwards and were only gradually weakened during a period that was sometimes called the Disestablishment . The last Congregational link in Massachusetts (always the bane of Maine) was not dissolved until 1833. Long ago (as now) religious (and anti-religious) enthusiasm seemed to breed controversy and political conspiracy theories. In 1800 it was the Illuminati who (first) were said to be using Jefferson to end all religions and then, in a new conspiracy, were alleged to be using Adams to impose one national one!
These struggles have continuous life over centuries.
Jesus certainly didn't have anyone like Speaker Smug in mind. In fact, he would have been on Jesus's black list....exactly the kind of person who practices the form but not the essence of a religion. This was part of his dismay with the Temple hierarchy.
Practices the form of what religion? Not any Christian religion. Quite the contrary, as your reference to the concept of black list suggests. But I for one loathe the term "black list" which harkens to mind Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy.
Not sure it was resistance to empire although it was the Romans who crucified. No, it was his calling out of the Temple hierarchy who aided and abetted his being crucified. They were not interested in helping the poor and the outcasts, only enriching themselves. Does this sound familiar.
It sure does. And don't forget welcoming strangers (immigrants).
Some commentaries indicate that the Palm Sunday procession was an act of resistance to the emperor--a royal procession and declaration that Caesar wasn't lord. There are other indications of resistance to empire in the Gospels.
Render unto Caesar. The Romans were puzzled by Jewish resistance because they extended to Jews some things not available to others under Rome like not having to worship Caesar as a god and other duties of Roman subjects. Then Jews continued to resist and the result was their utter defeat by Titus and the destruction of the Temple. Most of the time the Romans were tolerant of other religions as long as people did not rebel. I am not an expert, but I see the life of Jesus as being focused on the problems of the Temple hierarchy and the ignoring of the real problems of ordinary people.
George Bernard Shaw wrote a very interesting and (IMO) illuminating essay about Jesus in the introduction to his play, Androcles and the Lion. Not the Jesus of the Prosperity Gospel.
I recently read “The Petroleum Papers” by Geoff Dembicki (which I highly recommend). I was struck by how many of the early fossil fuel magnates were strong proponents of evangelical Christianity. Apparently, despoiling the planet was consistent with their theology.
I don't go that far. We need churches, and Christian organizations, that reject all of this to remain financially healthy so that they can mount an effective resistance to this stuff. They're the first line of defense against it, because they are best equipped to throw sand in the Dominionists' theological gears.
And most of the kinds of Christians who would be resisting Dominionism and Christian nationalism do service work in their communities that would cost those communities more in social services than any tax revenue they would get from assessing church properties.
Further, taxing churches would probably violate the First Amendment's "free exercise of religion" clause, and probably also subject non-religious 501(c)3 charities to taxation.
So... failed farthest-right politicians embraced religion, converted to pastors, made money tax-free.... and misguided their passive, obedient flock in all things.
I would argue that a church is not a person, and has no constitutional rights, under the First Amendment or otherwise- it's just a type of social club. Human beings have constitutional rights, but entities do not - notwithstanding Citizens United and McCulloch v Maryland. (Citizens United was just plain wrongly decided, in my view, and McCulloch could be more narrowly construed so as to allow reasonable and appropriate taxation). Taxing an organization that one belongs to doesn't impede one's free exercise of religion, because no one is forced to pay to exercise their religion, are they? (Are they?) Churches, especially "the" Church, own vast amounts of very valuable real estate, as well as valuable personal property. As it stands now, people are allowed to take a tax deduction for contributions to their churches, but the church has no concomitant responsibility to pay tax on that income - unlike virtually every other club people choose to join, and pay dues to in order to be members. This damages our economy, particularly local economies in which a church owns valuable real estate but is sheltered from paying taxes on it.
And there's no reason the tax code can't make a distinction between taxable charitable entities and non-taxable charitable entities. Once an entity dives into the realm of politics, it should not be entitled to tax-free status.
Most people can no longer take tax deductions for their church contributions becasue of the Trump tax law. We would have to donate something close to $30,000 in total charitable deductions this year to even begin itemizing them--and that would only be amounts over that $30,000 (I could be wrong about the exact figure, but it's large).
Churches are not social clubs. That's a common attack label, but that's not their purpose; they are organized for the purpose of religious worship and religious instruction, so their very existence very much would fall under the "free exercise of religion" clause. The comparison of churches with corporations is a false analogy.
Most churches would have to close their doors if they were taxed. And that would shutter the social services they provide, putting a burden on taxpayer funded social services. The idea that churches damage our economy is just another attack, on the order of religious bigotry, that has no basis in fact.
Most of the wealth of the church is non-fungible; that is, it's not easily converted to cash, so the claim that the churches' wealth can be used to claim they should be taxed is simply not a valid argument.
Just because a few churches abuse their tax-exempt status (and it's really only a small percentage overall) is no reason to deny it to the many congregations that are trying to be faithful.
And as I wrote above, they are the first defense against the Dominionists and Christian nationalists. You can bet that, should they take over our government completely (God forbid), non-compliant and resisting churches would be the first organizations they would attack. Forcing them to pay taxes would kneecap the needed resistance they would provide.
Don, the large donors are the point - they are the ones getting huge tax deductions against their huge incomes. Not fair at all. And they can and do use their large donations to form policy and procedures - and those are rarely social services without a political agenda attached.
A specific church may have been formed for a specific purpose - allegedly. It isn't what they claim they are organized for, it is what they actually do once they are organized, which should justify their qualifying for non-taxable status. To the extent they carry out political organizing, or just engaging in socializing, they are not qualified for a tax deduction based on their religious instruction or worship. Call it a political club or a social club, that is not religious.
As I said, considering the zillions of extremely detailed provisons of the Code, making distinctions between churches qualified for non-taxable status and those "churches" in name only and therefore not qualified should be no trouble at all for the kind of people who have drafted (and amended, and amended, and amended) that Code.
And the analogy to corporations is apt; it is human beings, not their organizations, that have the right to freedom of religion. A church is an entity separate and distinct from its human congregation, and exists independently of them; if a member dies, the church does not die. If all the congregants die, the entity that is the church still "lives" - exactly what a corporation does.
With respect to the real and personal property of a church, yes, real and personal property can be sold to raise money to pay taxes; if a person has no source of income, and has to sell their stuff to pay their bills, why shouldn't a church? If a church has income, it can pay its taxes - I mean, by definition, it's not going to be liable for income taxes unless it has income; if its income is insufficient for that, it can tithe more. And let's not pretend that many "churches" aren't very wealthy, beyond the dreams of avarice, sitting on property, real or personal, that exists for "investment" (apartment buildings, artwork, items of gold and silver and jewels, etc.), and could be sold in a heartbeat, or used for paying taxes. Not all churches hold services in a congregant's living room.
And regardless of how many in number the cheating "churches" are, they are exactly the ones, the mega-churches come immediately to mind, against which a fair tax code should be enforced. Fix the tax code to prevent the cheating by political organizations masquerading as churches - they should have to justify their tax-free status, and if they actually provide religious instruction and worship and charitable services without political activism, like REAL churches, then they, like the REAL churches, can remain non-taxable.
And if they and other entities paid a fair share of taxes, a lot of the social services they provide could be shifted to the government's shoulders, and could be provided to all and sundry without any religious overtones, as such aid should be.
Finally, with all due respect, there don't seem to be any churches at all fighting in any noticeable way against the Xtian nationalists, end-of-times evangelists, dominionists, or other RWNJ gangs opposed to and working against democracy. Individuals, sure, but have any of the Xtian nationalists or their sorry ilk ceased striving to overthrow our nation as a consequence? I'd love to hear about their successes!
Anyway, taxation is a vexed question always, and with the RWNJs in the House of Reps now trying to fund aid to Israel ($14B) conditioned on defunding the IRS to the extent of every penny allocated to it under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act ($80B), it raises its ugly head again, benefitting the rich tax cheats to the detriment of the rest of us - and, eventually, anyone abroad we'd like to help. They are truly despicable.
Well placed comment, Craig, and Amen, Frederick Nietzche. Hallelujah for the plethora of books that public libraries provide for all.
When I ask people during phone banking when “religion” comes up, specifically white Christian viewpoint, “have you read the Bible cover to cover?”, I have yet to either get a response or a “yes”.
Any teacher will tell you it is impossible to teach without reading and thinking first. One cannot foster varying viewpoints if one does not have a viewpoint. One can harbor a single viewpoint when that viewpoint has been shoved down the throat rather than cured and savored by the brain.
All they have to do is go to church and their pastor will tell them what to believe as will people in Bible study classes based of course, on their interpretation and an emphasis on those things that Jesus did not really teach. We have the Christianity of Paul, not so much Jesus. He managed to prevail over the brothers of Jesus in Jerusalem and that is too bad. I once again recommend God, An Anatomy for an excellent understanding of what is in the OT which reflects ideas prevalent in the ancient Middle East at the time.
The Buybull, cover to cover is an absolute, contradictory mess. From the Hateful Barbarism of the Old Testament to the Proselytizing of Paul, trying to get his Greeks & Romans to give up the old (fun) Pagan ways.
My Bible is very thin. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Something I have noticed that "Poser Christians" never quote from.
But... doesn't it have to be "up for discussion"? The Gospel, in particular, in which Jesus speaks in parables, often grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted by churchmen to fit in with their pursuit of power. If one doesn't probe and study in depth, the Good News may not come into its own.
I thought this was Thomas Aquinas, “hominem unius libri timeo…" ('I fear the man of a single book'). I was not aware Nietzsche had enlarged upon it. I would have thought him too nihilistic and deterministic to have written this.
I'm 78, MA in Religious Studies from VA Theological Seminary, 800 hours of Chaplain training, a former RC nun, and I have not read every single word in the Hebrew Scriptures (what we used to call Old Testament). I bet neither has almost everyone who uses "The Bible" to justify all manner of injustice. Just saying.....
Oh, Mary, thank you for the reminder and the link. It's one of my favorite scenes, second only to Adam Arkin's psychiatrist telling Josh in "Noel"..."because we get better." I cry every time!
Or worse yet, Craig, doesn't read the original tract, but avidly reads and/or listens to others who reinterpret what was said or written to suit their own prejudices. Most of the people I have met, including my mother and her sister, claimed to be devout 'Christians" but who, in reality followed Calvin and Knox.
"You should not be afraid of someone who has a library and reads many books; you should fear someone who has only one book; and he considers it sacred, but he has never read it." Frederich Nietzsche
Craig, too true. And when you add the “prosperity gospel” in which God supposedly gives material riches to the most faithful, (regardless of how many commandments they break to acquire and keep them), then you encourage pride of class and exploitation of anyone not in your group (those favored by your god).
The prosperity gospel?? Is that another name for rogue capitalism practiced by the oligarchs???
No, it’s the religion preached by preachers like Joel Ostern. “ The Prosperity Gospel (PG) is a fast-growing theologically conservative movement frequently associated with Pentecostalism, evangelicalism, and charismatic Christianity that emphasizes believers’ abilities to transcend poverty and/or illness through devotion and positive confession. The PG is popular among impoverished communities, where at best it is considered to offer the poor a means of imagining and reaching for better lives (at times accompanied by sound financial advice), and at worst is criticized as predatory and manipulative, particularly when churches or pastors require heavy tithing.”
https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/faq/prosperity-gospel#:~:text=The%20Prosperity%20Gospel%20(PG)%20is,through%20devotion%20and%20positive%20confession.
Mary, just send money you don't have to your pastor. I am reminded of the scene in Repo Man where the young man is eating a can of...is it dog food....while his parents are glued to a TV pastor and sending him all their money. My great niece has fallen for this kind of thing and once was on Facebook trying to solicit funds for her pastor. During the pandemic she was upset that she could go to the grocery store, but not church. Pfft, isn' an omnipresent god everywhere. She was also in my will for a family item which i then figured she would either give or sell to help her pastor. So, that item is now going to my nephew here.
I was worried there. Must be tough having a family member who has fallen for a cult.
Fortunately they all live at least 2000 miles away and so I only see things on Facebook. I did take on something she said once for all the good it did.
Religion and money = Roots of All Evil
The “Prosperity Gospel” is a new name for an old product. In the 19th century, the “Gospel of Wealth” emerged in American as an explanation for and lionization of men like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and others who had amassed great fortunes. It also, later, underpinned non-denominational preachers like, the Reverend Ike who liked to say, “the best thing you can do for the poor is not be one of them.” This, in turn, is what we hear from Joel Osteen and his ilk today.
The entire LDS church is built on this premise.
Yep
Yes. You got that right!
Whoa! What is that gospel? !?!?! Maybe not from
the sermon on the mount!
Nope, but they don't follow the Sermon on the Mount.....too woke. Jesus is also clearly against using religion to get rich. So Osteen and his ilk are running a den of thieves and of course loudly praying.
My memory is not great, but didn't Osteen refuse to open one of his stores? for people looking for shelter from a major hurricane? Eventually he did
Yes, he refused to open the 16,000 seat stadium church to Hurricane Harvey victims until he was called on it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna797036
Yes, he did. He had to be shamed into doing so. So much "Christian."
Jesus is definitely way too woke!!!
I am a bit surprised that we are seeing comments where the commentor is not familiar with "prosperity gospel". Yes it is a thing and it has been a thing for a while. Many of Trump's "spiritual" advisory folks were of this bent. Remember Paula White? It was sickening to watch.
and they made 45 a golden idol, too.
Yes Beverly. Should go down as one of the biggest cons in the history of evangelicalism. Few people on earth are more un-Christian than Trump. I do not know how conservative Christians who are Trump bootlickers can look at themselves in the mirror without complete and utter shame. A new meaning of the word hypocrisy.
It was UGLY
Always good to get educated!
Check Robert Schuller’s sermons that built the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, CA. (1955 and 1980). Been around for a very long time. The sermons often started with “cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you 10-fold.” That is, give money to this ministry and you will be made rich.
Oh, you mean rich HERE on Earth. Oh, no, I meant in HEAVEN; meanwhile, these false prophets are raking it in.
Just what we need. A bible verse to justify trump.
That’s called tribalism!
Our system of government and its founding documents are the product of The Enlightenment’s rejection of absolute monarchy and state religion. In a recent essay in The Atlantic, Peter Wehner explains where House Speaker Mike Johnson’s view of government’s role comes from. The essay is worth reading and it’s frightening. Johnson, evidently, believes The Enlightenment either did not happen or should be considered error.
He is a true believer who is full of hubris and arrogance. He has this constant smarmy look as if only he knows and the rest of us dolts do not. He is truly awful.
My feeling too except a one word description would be “smug”. Or absolute arrogance - in my opinion
Yes, he is smug as only a true believer can be. Already I can't stand to see his face and that little smile.
No true follower of Jesus is full of hubris and arrogance
Jesus himself said “...i am gentle and humble in heart.”
Jesus words to the proud and arrogant religionists, Pharisees in those days, were
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
Watch Him, listen and learn, Mr. Speaker.
Anyone who thinks that material wealth is a sign of God’s approval (prosperity gospel), must’ve missed that part about the rich man trying to squeeze through the needle’s eye...
Shades of John Ashcroft!!
I had forgotten him with good reason.
Words I never thought would come to mind: Mike Johnson makes me miss Kevin McCarthy.
Michael, So out of the frying pan, into the hellfire?
Focusing on Madison and Jefferson and the Virginia Constitution gives a distorted impression of the role of church and state at the founding. It is not helpful to deny that there were strong religious impulses when the nation was founded. The First Amendment was readily accepted because it was a restraint on the FEDERAL government. It pleased the Deists (e.g. Jefferson) because they distrusted all religions but perhaps more importantly, it was supported by many religious people who feared that state level links to particular religions would be overridden in a movement to establish a national church. The Fourteenth Amendment was not interpreted to extend the religious First Amendment protections from state action until 1940 (Cantwell v. Connecticut).
Here are a few other points to bear in mind: In 1776 all but one of the thirteen colonies (Rhode Island) had ties to one or another church. Church-state ties persisted for decades afterwards and were only gradually weakened during a period that was sometimes called the Disestablishment . The last Congregational link in Massachusetts (always the bane of Maine) was not dissolved until 1833. Long ago (as now) religious (and anti-religious) enthusiasm seemed to breed controversy and political conspiracy theories. In 1800 it was the Illuminati who (first) were said to be using Jefferson to end all religions and then, in a new conspiracy, were alleged to be using Adams to impose one national one!
These struggles have continuous life over centuries.
Jesus certainly didn't have anyone like Speaker Smug in mind. In fact, he would have been on Jesus's black list....exactly the kind of person who practices the form but not the essence of a religion. This was part of his dismay with the Temple hierarchy.
"sacralize"--thanks for a new word, for me, and concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacralism
Spot on!
Practices the form of what religion? Not any Christian religion. Quite the contrary, as your reference to the concept of black list suggests. But I for one loathe the term "black list" which harkens to mind Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy.
Oh, they read it. They just take from it what they want and leave the rest alone.
Yes, the stuff they leave alone is the stuff that they ban other books for
Oh, I think it's more than that--much more. The life and witness of Jesus--his critique of "religion" and his resistance to empire--for a big example.
Not sure it was resistance to empire although it was the Romans who crucified. No, it was his calling out of the Temple hierarchy who aided and abetted his being crucified. They were not interested in helping the poor and the outcasts, only enriching themselves. Does this sound familiar.
It sure does. And don't forget welcoming strangers (immigrants).
Some commentaries indicate that the Palm Sunday procession was an act of resistance to the emperor--a royal procession and declaration that Caesar wasn't lord. There are other indications of resistance to empire in the Gospels.
Render unto Caesar. The Romans were puzzled by Jewish resistance because they extended to Jews some things not available to others under Rome like not having to worship Caesar as a god and other duties of Roman subjects. Then Jews continued to resist and the result was their utter defeat by Titus and the destruction of the Temple. Most of the time the Romans were tolerant of other religions as long as people did not rebel. I am not an expert, but I see the life of Jesus as being focused on the problems of the Temple hierarchy and the ignoring of the real problems of ordinary people.
George Bernard Shaw wrote a very interesting and (IMO) illuminating essay about Jesus in the introduction to his play, Androcles and the Lion. Not the Jesus of the Prosperity Gospel.
Indeed!
I recently read “The Petroleum Papers” by Geoff Dembicki (which I highly recommend). I was struck by how many of the early fossil fuel magnates were strong proponents of evangelical Christianity. Apparently, despoiling the planet was consistent with their theology.
Cafeteria Christianity...
I think that's known as "The Salad Bar Sect" of Christianity....
And require the churches to pay income taxes.
And property taxes, which stay within the community.
I don't go that far. We need churches, and Christian organizations, that reject all of this to remain financially healthy so that they can mount an effective resistance to this stuff. They're the first line of defense against it, because they are best equipped to throw sand in the Dominionists' theological gears.
And most of the kinds of Christians who would be resisting Dominionism and Christian nationalism do service work in their communities that would cost those communities more in social services than any tax revenue they would get from assessing church properties.
Further, taxing churches would probably violate the First Amendment's "free exercise of religion" clause, and probably also subject non-religious 501(c)3 charities to taxation.
So... failed farthest-right politicians embraced religion, converted to pastors, made money tax-free.... and misguided their passive, obedient flock in all things.
Politics disguised as religion -- yuk!
I would argue that a church is not a person, and has no constitutional rights, under the First Amendment or otherwise- it's just a type of social club. Human beings have constitutional rights, but entities do not - notwithstanding Citizens United and McCulloch v Maryland. (Citizens United was just plain wrongly decided, in my view, and McCulloch could be more narrowly construed so as to allow reasonable and appropriate taxation). Taxing an organization that one belongs to doesn't impede one's free exercise of religion, because no one is forced to pay to exercise their religion, are they? (Are they?) Churches, especially "the" Church, own vast amounts of very valuable real estate, as well as valuable personal property. As it stands now, people are allowed to take a tax deduction for contributions to their churches, but the church has no concomitant responsibility to pay tax on that income - unlike virtually every other club people choose to join, and pay dues to in order to be members. This damages our economy, particularly local economies in which a church owns valuable real estate but is sheltered from paying taxes on it.
And there's no reason the tax code can't make a distinction between taxable charitable entities and non-taxable charitable entities. Once an entity dives into the realm of politics, it should not be entitled to tax-free status.
Most people can no longer take tax deductions for their church contributions becasue of the Trump tax law. We would have to donate something close to $30,000 in total charitable deductions this year to even begin itemizing them--and that would only be amounts over that $30,000 (I could be wrong about the exact figure, but it's large).
Churches are not social clubs. That's a common attack label, but that's not their purpose; they are organized for the purpose of religious worship and religious instruction, so their very existence very much would fall under the "free exercise of religion" clause. The comparison of churches with corporations is a false analogy.
Most churches would have to close their doors if they were taxed. And that would shutter the social services they provide, putting a burden on taxpayer funded social services. The idea that churches damage our economy is just another attack, on the order of religious bigotry, that has no basis in fact.
Most of the wealth of the church is non-fungible; that is, it's not easily converted to cash, so the claim that the churches' wealth can be used to claim they should be taxed is simply not a valid argument.
Just because a few churches abuse their tax-exempt status (and it's really only a small percentage overall) is no reason to deny it to the many congregations that are trying to be faithful.
And as I wrote above, they are the first defense against the Dominionists and Christian nationalists. You can bet that, should they take over our government completely (God forbid), non-compliant and resisting churches would be the first organizations they would attack. Forcing them to pay taxes would kneecap the needed resistance they would provide.
Don, the large donors are the point - they are the ones getting huge tax deductions against their huge incomes. Not fair at all. And they can and do use their large donations to form policy and procedures - and those are rarely social services without a political agenda attached.
A specific church may have been formed for a specific purpose - allegedly. It isn't what they claim they are organized for, it is what they actually do once they are organized, which should justify their qualifying for non-taxable status. To the extent they carry out political organizing, or just engaging in socializing, they are not qualified for a tax deduction based on their religious instruction or worship. Call it a political club or a social club, that is not religious.
As I said, considering the zillions of extremely detailed provisons of the Code, making distinctions between churches qualified for non-taxable status and those "churches" in name only and therefore not qualified should be no trouble at all for the kind of people who have drafted (and amended, and amended, and amended) that Code.
And the analogy to corporations is apt; it is human beings, not their organizations, that have the right to freedom of religion. A church is an entity separate and distinct from its human congregation, and exists independently of them; if a member dies, the church does not die. If all the congregants die, the entity that is the church still "lives" - exactly what a corporation does.
With respect to the real and personal property of a church, yes, real and personal property can be sold to raise money to pay taxes; if a person has no source of income, and has to sell their stuff to pay their bills, why shouldn't a church? If a church has income, it can pay its taxes - I mean, by definition, it's not going to be liable for income taxes unless it has income; if its income is insufficient for that, it can tithe more. And let's not pretend that many "churches" aren't very wealthy, beyond the dreams of avarice, sitting on property, real or personal, that exists for "investment" (apartment buildings, artwork, items of gold and silver and jewels, etc.), and could be sold in a heartbeat, or used for paying taxes. Not all churches hold services in a congregant's living room.
And regardless of how many in number the cheating "churches" are, they are exactly the ones, the mega-churches come immediately to mind, against which a fair tax code should be enforced. Fix the tax code to prevent the cheating by political organizations masquerading as churches - they should have to justify their tax-free status, and if they actually provide religious instruction and worship and charitable services without political activism, like REAL churches, then they, like the REAL churches, can remain non-taxable.
And if they and other entities paid a fair share of taxes, a lot of the social services they provide could be shifted to the government's shoulders, and could be provided to all and sundry without any religious overtones, as such aid should be.
Finally, with all due respect, there don't seem to be any churches at all fighting in any noticeable way against the Xtian nationalists, end-of-times evangelists, dominionists, or other RWNJ gangs opposed to and working against democracy. Individuals, sure, but have any of the Xtian nationalists or their sorry ilk ceased striving to overthrow our nation as a consequence? I'd love to hear about their successes!
Anyway, taxation is a vexed question always, and with the RWNJs in the House of Reps now trying to fund aid to Israel ($14B) conditioned on defunding the IRS to the extent of every penny allocated to it under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act ($80B), it raises its ugly head again, benefitting the rich tax cheats to the detriment of the rest of us - and, eventually, anyone abroad we'd like to help. They are truly despicable.
Lynn, are you involved with a congregation? Because it appears that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Well placed comment, Craig, and Amen, Frederick Nietzche. Hallelujah for the plethora of books that public libraries provide for all.
When I ask people during phone banking when “religion” comes up, specifically white Christian viewpoint, “have you read the Bible cover to cover?”, I have yet to either get a response or a “yes”.
Any teacher will tell you it is impossible to teach without reading and thinking first. One cannot foster varying viewpoints if one does not have a viewpoint. One can harbor a single viewpoint when that viewpoint has been shoved down the throat rather than cured and savored by the brain.
Salud!
🗽
All they have to do is go to church and their pastor will tell them what to believe as will people in Bible study classes based of course, on their interpretation and an emphasis on those things that Jesus did not really teach. We have the Christianity of Paul, not so much Jesus. He managed to prevail over the brothers of Jesus in Jerusalem and that is too bad. I once again recommend God, An Anatomy for an excellent understanding of what is in the OT which reflects ideas prevalent in the ancient Middle East at the time.
The Buybull, cover to cover is an absolute, contradictory mess. From the Hateful Barbarism of the Old Testament to the Proselytizing of Paul, trying to get his Greeks & Romans to give up the old (fun) Pagan ways.
My Bible is very thin. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Something I have noticed that "Poser Christians" never quote from.
The core... of what survived after Constantine used religion as an immensely powerful unifying factor (hence, of course, the birth of heresy).
I've found it useful to add other dimensions, other viewpoints that cast light on the canonical gospels, via the often difficult Gospel of Thomas.
Thumpers. My brother's one, smack you with a literal, out of context quote that suits their grossly ignorant view of Christian style humanity.
Absolutely. Even the Bible is up for discussion. Many interpret-it to their liking.
But... doesn't it have to be "up for discussion"? The Gospel, in particular, in which Jesus speaks in parables, often grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted by churchmen to fit in with their pursuit of power. If one doesn't probe and study in depth, the Good News may not come into its own.
There in lies the problem because there are many who preach and don’t truly understand The Word.
So yes to your response!
I thought this was Thomas Aquinas, “hominem unius libri timeo…" ('I fear the man of a single book'). I was not aware Nietzsche had enlarged upon it. I would have thought him too nihilistic and deterministic to have written this.
I liked that line too Craig, Happy Thursday🫶
I'm 78, MA in Religious Studies from VA Theological Seminary, 800 hours of Chaplain training, a former RC nun, and I have not read every single word in the Hebrew Scriptures (what we used to call Old Testament). I bet neither has almost everyone who uses "The Bible" to justify all manner of injustice. Just saying.....
Terry, I love this scene from The West Wing in which President Bartlett tests an Evangelical leader’s knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures.
https://youtu.be/S1-ip47WYWc?si=a08DpzDNRkJS784u
Oh, Mary, thank you for the reminder and the link. It's one of my favorite scenes, second only to Adam Arkin's psychiatrist telling Josh in "Noel"..."because we get better." I cry every time!
Or worse yet, Craig, doesn't read the original tract, but avidly reads and/or listens to others who reinterpret what was said or written to suit their own prejudices. Most of the people I have met, including my mother and her sister, claimed to be devout 'Christians" but who, in reality followed Calvin and Knox.
Oh. My. Yes.
Boom!
Love love love this!!