An Open Letter to President Obama from American Atheists
American Atheists would like to extend hearty congratulations to our ground-breaking new President! We are all hopeful that, under your leadership, this country will rise from the recession ready for the future.
The most important thing that you must accomplish as President is to fix the economy. This includes reducing wasteful spending and making sure the money spent is used properly and for the greater good. This need not be done at the expense of the taxpayer or the “newly needy.”
In fact, a simple adjustment to the tax code would dramatically improve the situation: remove the IRS exemption for religious institutions. In other words, tax the church.
This is not a new idea. In 1875, President Grant pleaded to a Joint Session of Congress:
"I would call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land....it is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property...so vast a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of government without bearing its portion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be looked upon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes....I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation."
President Grant was correct – right now, every taxpayer in America is paying higher taxes than they need to pay, because religious institutions pay none. Between the churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and meetinghouses, there are more places to pray than there are to buy pizza, and none of them pay property taxes.
But there is more, because church-owned property is not just for churches. This untaxed property can also be used for schools, daycare centers, even cell towers – anything, or nothing at all.
Church income, which is largely unregulated and undeclared, can be substantial enough to build huge mega-churches and bankroll tremendous salaries for preachers, which is also untaxed. Additionally, many churches – too many – are taking advantage of the system, using tax exemptions for selfish or even antisocial goals (e.g., Branch Davidians, the “Holy Land” terrorist front, Scientology, and multi-millionaire televangelists).
Every taxpayer is, in effect, supporting every religion and cult via forced taxation – an unseen, unquantifiable “religion tax.” It’s illegal and it’s wrong.
It’s illegal because it offers benefits to religious institutions but not to their secular counterparts; it’s wrong because it assumes that every religious institution benefits society by merely existing. Churches need not perform any service at all in order to get these massive exemptions; they merely need to declare themselves religious to be tax-free.
This can and must change, and the results will be substantial and overwhelmingly positive. By removing the tax exemption for religious institutions from the IRS nonprofit code, one of the following three changes will take place at every religious institution:
1) They will pay their rightful taxes. This, in turn, will benefit everyone in the community by lowering the tax burden, producing more household income which taxpayers can then turn around and donate to the church of their choice. As an aside, this will also allow religious organizations to express political views, as many so desire.
2) They will earn nonprofit status by performing real charity work for the community at large (note: “outreach” is not charity, but merely another word for “marketing”). Many churches are already doing this, and as long as they can prove their charitable activity in the same manner as other nonprofits, this would continue. However, the possibility of losing tax exemption would be a strong stimulus for churches that are not earning their status to step up their charity work, again helping the community at large.
Churches have been and will continue to be useful to society on the whole, and such earnest organizations should keep their rightful place beside other tax-exempt organizations that serve community and country. By eliminating the religious exemption you would implement a fair and equitable tax provision that benefits everyone except those who abuse the system or leech from it.
President Obama, it’s time for America to stand and work together toward the common good. That means everyone shares the burden, even if they preach about a god, and everyone has the same choices. By giving churches the choice of charity or taxation, you create an inevitable benefit to the community by reducing the tax-load and/or increasing real charity. In the end, it’s not a bad choice at all.
United we stand, Mr. President!
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The idea that churches are non-profit organizations is naive at best. Before the sack of Rome in the 1500s the papacy and the Apostolic Palace were de facto states, owning vast amounts of land and launching crusades upon the holy land. And a state is anything if not non-profit. Today churches use their tax-exempt status and their revenues to build larger and more grandiose churches to further increase their constituencies and in turn their profits. And these glorious exemplars of free market capitalism get by without paying a single cent to Uncle Sam.
Just because someone wants to make their place of worship more grandiose does not mean that they should be taxed. Should I be taxed extra because I decided to replace the light bulb in my ceiling with a chandelier? Should the fact that I replace my cardboard boxes with actual shelving increase the amount of money the government decides to "re-appropriate"?
And now on to your note about the church-run state: the only church-run state for many years has been the Vatican state, which could be fit in a corner of Manhattan with plenty of room to spare. The fact that the Papal states were significant temporal powers 200+ years ago does not mean they are today. France and Britain were quite the power houses then, but now no one would call France a power house, and the people of Britain can't even get good health care thanks to their nationalized "health system": doctors are so worried about the consequences that they just prescribe aspirin without doing an examination on a regular basis.
Also, none of the Papal estates were ever described as the "Apostolic Palace," mostly because the apostles were all dead by the middle of the 2nd century A.D. I've heard of the Vatican Palace and the Lateran Palace and the Papal Palace at Avignon.
Also, because some of these churches are really bottomless-pockets, may way decide that all tithes wind up in the hands of some priest or bishop who is swimming in gold? So may I assume that based on the fact that certain charities are scams that all charities ought to be treated as mafia fronts?
I am assuming you paid for that chandelier with money, in which case you paid a sales tax. The church did not pay a tax for their brand new glass ceiling. Yes, they should pay sales tax unless they are a charity.
And yes, I agree that just because the Vatican was "a significant temporal power 200+ years ago" does not mean that it is so today; I was including that merely for reference. That said, I still believe the Vatican is indeed a significant powerhouse today. As for the Apostilic Palace, let's not argue over semantics. I'm just going on the Wikipedia article. For the sake of clarity I'll call it the Papal Palace, that suits my purposes better anyway. I'm not sure why you're talking about Britain's nationalized health care system. And yes, I would call France a powerhouse (it's one of the G20).
And no, we shouldn't assume that all charities are scams. We just shouldn't allow ourselves to believe that just because there is a cross or a star or a Buddha or whatever on the wall that these people aren't out to screw us over. More scrutiny is all I ask for. And if the churches really are in it for the people and not the money, let them be tax-exempt.
What glass ceiling is this that you are talking about? I have never attended a church anywhere that had one of those. But I digress: I do not think that sales tax should be applicable to all items purchased by a church, for example, new vestments, repair costs, a new chalice, paten, or incensor, but on things like a glass ceiling, I can certainly see an argument for sales tax: it is not exactly something critical to the functionality of the church. Admittedly, the items I mentioned, apart from the repair costs, are usually donated by church members, but there are times that the church has a fundraiser for these sorts of items, and in cases like that, there should certainly be no sales tax.
The reason I brought up the British health system is to point out that while less than one hundred years ago Britain was the greatest military power in the world, now they cannot even get adequate medical care, let alone rule the seas. This is true in the case of France as well: they can get adequate healthcare, yes, however, I would never describe them as a power house. They don't exactly have much of an international presence, except when Jacques Chirac tells Poland and other eastern European countries to shut up about the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan at an EU conference.
They are certainly also very good at ignoring the problems of allowing militants who have proclaimed a reckless hate of everything Western run wild anywhere in the world. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit unfair; a good number of our citizens seem to be clueless on that issue too: they elected a man who is interested in the "constitutional rights" of foreign terrorists but not the rights of a human being less than nine months away from birth, who upon delivery, would be an American citizen. Apparently, however, the fact that it is in the womb nullifies any rights whatsoever, including the 'inalienable rights' listed in the Declaration of Independence. You know, life, liberty, and property(which Jefferson changed to 'the pursuit of happiness'). I find it extremely ironic that terrorists who are not even United States citizens have constitutional rights, but a life that has less than a year to enter the world does not even have the inalienable rights granted to man by his Creator.
As to the question of the Vatican, they are certainly an important SPIRITUAL power, but they have very little TEMPORAL significance.
Agreed about the first paragraph, we can put that behind us. Sales tax unless it's critical or a fundraiser.
As for Britain and France as world powers, we could argue about that for years and not get anywhere.
Now about abortion , I am forced to respectfully disagree. Yes, upon delivery, the child is an American citizen. You could even go so far as to say during the 3rd trimester the child is an American citizen since 3rd trimester abortions are illegal, but that's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, there is a reason we count our age from BIRTH and not from CONCEPTION.
So I am going to assume that you think that a fetus is a human being at the moment of conception, while I will argue that it becomes one at birth. This begs the question because any attempt to draw a sharp division between non-person and person will necessarily remain completely arbitrary for the following reasons: 1. the concept of a person is a loose and hard-to-define concept and 2. the transition from fertilized egg to adult is more of a steady upward curve than a series of stages with abrupt transitions. Certainly a fetus is more of a person than a zygote, a newborn is more of a person that a fetus, and a 5-year-old is more of a person than a newborn if our conception of a person is defined as possessing consciousness.
At this point we go our separate ways. I set birth as my arbitrary boundary line, you set conception. I do not wish to get into the long and convoluted process of describing why my arbitrary line is better than yours.
May I assume based on your statement that premature births during the second trimester don't count as the births of human beings? And that microscopic life forms cannot be described as "living" because we cannot see them with the unaided eye? And if a fetus isn't human, then why does it always result in a human child? Except in myth and folklore, I have never heard of a woman who gave birth to a cow, cat, or slug, let alone a cow, cat, or slug who gave birth to a human being. Based on the fact that it hasn't taken it's first breath, it isn't human? What about people on life support systems who can't breathe on their own? Are they not human either? Does a fetus not move and kick inside the mother's womb? Does it not think because it can't express it's ideas? I've yet to see the newborn who can critique Shakespeare, and I've met a great many people who are legally adults who can't either. One of the things the fetus knows before it is born is its mother's voice. Because it can't demonstrate that inside the womb, it doesn't hear? It can't see because we don't see it's eyelids flutter? It's heart doesn't pulse because we can't test it with a stethoscope? It has a different set of chromosome's because it has not yet been born? What is it about an unborn child that isn't human? Is it the fact that it's still attached to the mother? So, are siamese twins not human?
Until 40 years ago, the law in every state classified the murder of a pregnant mother a double homicide, triple if there were twins, etc. It wasn't until the Roe vs. Wade decision, a decision that never should have been due to the fact that it created law without going through the legislative branch, that this was changed in a number of states.
On another note, I have yet to see the definition of a person refer to an ant or an orangutang by someone other than a PETA type eco-nut, and that type of person doesn't believe humans really have a place in this world. Please, don't get me started about their concept of "Barn-Fowl Culture." I have also yet to see a case in which a retarded or brain-dead human being was not defined as a person except when the proponents were social darwinists, scientologists, ancient Spartans, or (neo-)Nazis. And except for the Spartans, who I otherwise admire, I despise these people with all my heart. Scientologists and social darwinists are people who would kill their own parents once they turned 65, earlier in many cases. Nazis, I don't even know where to BEGIN my tirade. Let's see… the most extreme nationalists and racists that have ever walked the earth, the greatest mass-murderers who have ever existed, oh, let's not forget Charles Manson: the only man to be convicted of first-degree murder without actually committed any of them with his own hands. So, like I said, except for disreputable individuals, I have yet to see anyone who has defined anything other than a human being as a person, or a living out-of-the-womb human being as a non-entity.
You're really all over the place man. I don't know what to begin. Anyway I got my viewpoint from this book Causing Death and Saving Lives by Jonathan Glover. I'm sure he can explain it a lot better than me. Good luck on your Nazi hunt.
And here I thought you were smart enough to look at all sides of an issue. You disappoint me.
This is not about taxing all churches. Those churches that actually perform charity will remain tax-free, not because they are religious but because they service the community. They would have to prove their activity, but they would not be penalized.
This is a great idea because ONLY those churches taking advantage of the situation would be taxed, as well they should be. Private schools, daycare centers, and investment land also force all of us to PAY MORE.
I DON'T WANT TO PAY HIGH TAXES so some freeloading church pays none! If they do somehting for the community, then fine. Otherwise, pay up!
Do you know what Not for Profit means? It is the thing that guarantees churches not to have to pay taxes. However, they are not the only not for profits out there. There are many not for profit organizations that do nothing for the community that they are in yet they pay not taxes.
To begin to tax churches, the government would have to over haul the whole Not for Profit tax laws and begin to charge taxes to every one who as many here say provide no service to their community.
Not all churches in this world exist to syphon money from the people. In fact, most churches I know of spend every penny that comes in on things that will help their community. So why tax them? Those churches are the ones that make up the majority.
I doubt this would solve anything but really make things worse.. as the money the church has to put in the taxes takes away from the ministries most churches have for the poor, homeless, etc.
To generalize every church as being dishonest is as unfair as you say generalizing every Atheist to be dishonest.
Theists or a-theists are both forms of ontological opinions. Both are "ways of being in the world", and as such, individuals choosing between ethical paths (tao, ethos).
Fiscal policy tries to attain certain goals, not all of them financing the state.
Some of them try to discourage certain behaviors.
As with all taxes, this of yours "church tax" will be passed on last consumer, making all of them poorer.
Your "church tax" will feed churches apocalyptical rhetoric regarding the (new) attempt of the enemies of God against lord's herd...and will ask for "resistence" (meaning, "render more of your money to us, help us to fight the enemies of Christ").
You should ask for more social work from churches instead.
Ask for investment transparency, and results.
Regarding your argument for taxes based on "political agendas" (I guess thinking on the effect churches pressures might have on public policy), it could not be a more misguided one.
The acceptance by the state of such an "argument" will provide the perfect tool to tax anything, and through that to stop anything.
And forget the dream of getting away from Caesar...he will be even on your lettuces tonight.
During this last election many church leaders promoted specific candidates. This was prohibited by their non-tax status.
Churchs' non-tax status not only makes every individuals taxes higher, it helps to alleviate taxes on it's members through the contributions they make. This money is not scrutized as to it's uses unlike other organizations which must make an accounting of where their funds go. It is time to eliminate this immense tax shelter. Doing so will strengthen the separation of Church and State as the general population will not be involuntarily supporting religion.
Taxation is punishment. If you don't pay your taxes, you could land in jail. Not all churches are mega-churches with vast resources. Most are small congregations of a few people. Not all churches have a political agenda. Most simply want to pass on universal truths to their congregation. Taxation of churches is government meddling in an area it needs to stay out of. Churches should be sanctuaries where people can get away from Caesar.
You mean the "wall of separation" that so many of your ilk are busily trying to pretend doesn't exist?
You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
Taxation is punishment? I'm sure every taxpayer would love to hear about that idea. I happen to agree that taxation should not be imposed BECAUSE churches have been meddling in political issues. I think that churches should ALWAYS have been taxed. Or do you think that churches should give up on social services, like having the ability to call on police or fire departments?
Personally, I'd be happy to see churches all burned down or vandalized, but I don't think that's what you are going for.
Similarly, I think it's great that not all churches have vast resources. That just goes to show that their own congregations don't consider them to be as important as the clergy considers themselves to be. It also means that they will fail that much quicker when they are called upon to pay their own way.
Finally, it's the churches that are meddling when they claim themselves to be in the business of disseminating "universal truth". There's no such thing, and churches do a great disservice to everyone by claiming: a) that there is such a thing, and b) that the only way to apprehend these "truths" is by talking it over with an invisible friend. And his clerical interpreter of course.
I get it now, how you consider taxation to be punishment. Presumably you would claim a god given right to not pay, and thus end up in jail.
an·ti·no·mi·an·ism (ăn'tĭ-nō'mē-ə-nĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.
1. Theology. The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace.
There's a word that you don't hear every day, but it's definition is all too familiar to those of us who don't trust you Christians. You always want to talk about how the secular want to deny you your rights, yet you secretly (or not) don't believe that you are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
Sorry, but folks are waking up all around the world. Soon you won't be able to talk about that god noise without your audience breaking into laughter.
So, pay your church taxes, until you decide it's better to just give up that God delusion. The economy could use the help.
So many churches played the political game this election and thus should be forfeiting their tax-exempt status. Instead of trying to investigate which did and which didn't, just change the policy and revoke their tax-exemption.
Pointing at the small churches and saying they can't afford it is asinine. They would be tax via percentage similarly to a business; so if they are small their tax is less.
This really seems a good suggestion for stimulating some economic recovery.