--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > One of the ways in which we can see exactly how > strongly religion has bilked America is the > reaction to this issue when it comes up. When > someone like myself or Curtis proposes taxing > the churches and taxing religion, the majority > of the people TUNE OUT, as if someone had said > something heretical, and as if they don't want > to get any of God's spittle on them when he > reacts to the heresy.
Far from "tuning out," there's a very active debate on this topic. And it's not just the religious people on one side and the secularists on the other. It isn't a cut-and- dried issue; there are a lot of ins and outs. > They are just PEOPLE. The things they believe > in are FICTION, unless you happen to believe in > them, too. Those who believe in the fictions > have set aside a block of thoughts and concepts > in their minds and said, "These are sacrosanct > and can never be challenged. God exists. The > churches must never be taxed. No, wrong. That isn't what they say. There are excellent *rational* reasons for not taxing churches, and excellent rational reasons *for* taxing them that have to do with how churches function in society. Has nothing to do with whether churches are or are not sacrosanct. The issues would be the same whether churches taught about God or taught secular humanism. >From Barry's earlier post on this: > Please don't claim their "good works." Anyone > who has ever looked at the financial records of > a large religious organization knows how little > of that is actually spent on "good works." Far > more would become available to help society if > they just paid their fair share as tax revenues. Even if this were true across the board, which it isn't, contributions to churches would fall sharply if they weren't tax-deductible. Smaller churches, which play a *major* role in providing social services of all kinds, would have to cut back significantly, and the people who need them would be left in the lurch unless the gummint stepped in with the funds it received in taxes from the churches. And that's just one of the side effects. It's not just the political angle, although that's important as well. Like it or not, churches play a major and complex role in society in this country, and the revisions of that role that taxing them would require are not all automatically desirable. It's probably best not to leave it up to the folks with a hatred of churches and their membership that is no less irrational than the members' beliefs.
