Is Atheism a Belief System? (split from the Political Views thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know who else gets tax exemptions? Universities. The largest landowner in the city of Philadelphia is UPenn. They pay no property taxes whatsoever.

People calling for churches to be taxed maybe don't realize this, but churches don't make money these days. Hospitals and universities in cities occupy large tracts of extremely valuable land, bring in tons of revenue, and pay no taxes.

I'm fine if you want to do away with tax exemptions, but at least apply it fairly. Targeting a specific type of tax exempt entity, the one with by far the least ability to pay in most cases, isn't a sincerely thought out policy stance. It's simply open hostility to the existence of churches, usually with absolutely zero regard for either what those churches do, or whether they could even afford to pay the tax bill.

Some of those churches - and I'll give you one guess as to which city population would have the most closures - would probably not be able to stay open. Many churches can barely afford to keep the lights on and pay staff, and some can't really even afford those things. Taking people's churches away hurts them. It's not progressive or good to hurt people to make a stupid point about religion.

Churches aren't the only ones I'd remove tax breaks from. Anything that masquerades as a charity but isn't. In the UK that would be public (which are actually private) schools and "educational" bodies that exist to push a political viewpoint like the Institute for Economic Affairs. Wouldn't be hospitals or universities here. You say churches would be hard up, let their members support them, not the general public through tax breaks.
 
It's not progressive or good to hurt people to make a stupid point about religion.

But age-old in a world of conflicting religious dogmas.

Oh hey, it's the topic of the thread! ;)
 
Churches aren't the only ones I'd remove tax breaks from. Anything that masquerades as a charity but isn't. In the UK that would be public (which are actually private) schools and "educational" bodies that exist to push a political viewpoint like the Institute for Economic Affairs. Wouldn't be hospitals or universities here. You say churches would be hard up, let their members support them, not the general public through tax breaks.

The vast majority of churches don't make any money anyway, so I don't see what the uproar is about here. Admittedly, the ones that do would be just as well removed from exemption, but that has more to do with a whole lot of factors beyond "it's a church."
 
Churches aren't the only ones I'd remove tax breaks from. Anything that masquerades as a charity but isn't. In the UK that would be public (which are actually private) schools and "educational" bodies that exist to push a political viewpoint like the Institute for Economic Affairs. Wouldn't be hospitals or universities here. You say churches would be hard up, let their members support them, not the general public through tax breaks.

So poor people should lose their churches. Might as well make religion into a luxury for the wealthy too, huh?
 
So poor people should lose their churches. Might as well make religion into a luxury for the wealthy too, huh?
In the UK when the state only supported the Anglican Church (and in Scotland the Church of Scotland) the Quakers, Baptists, Methodists and others managed pretty well without any state help.
 
So what if my religion doesn't have a God?

Is it an atheist religion?
 
Short hand for, "Like, duh, obviously".
Not necessarily part of this thread but my secretary's kids, now in thier early and mid 20's attended a charter school where they were taught that all Republicans are literally fascists, so I see your point regarding indoctrination.
 
In the UK when the state only supported the Anglican Church (and in Scotland the Church of Scotland) the Quakers, Baptists, Methodists and others managed pretty well without any state help.

OK, that has no bearing on whether it is a good idea to reserve access to community religious services as a social benefit only available to people who have the means to support it on their own.

Not necessarily part of this thread but my secretary's kids, now in thier early and mid 20's attended a charter school where they were taught that all Republicans are literally fascists,

Closer to the truth than most schools get.
 
OK, that has no bearing on whether it is a good idea to reserve access to community religious services as a social benefit only available to people who have the means to support it on their own.
I think there may be some talking past each other, here, because in Britain, it is unusual for individual parishes to be financed directly by their parishioners, so this sort of concern wouldn't arise, unless we assume that a particular denomination is comprised entirely of poor people. In the United States, with its stronger congregationalist tradition, church funding models are more varied.
 
Can't speak for the Episcopalians, but here the Methodists and UCC-ians not only are responsible for self-funding through member giving, they are also asked to send money to the central church organization.

Tons of churches are shutting down, and others joining together in the wake of declining interest in religion among young people and the consequent decline in members that will give money to the church. It seems kind of cruel to me to then pull the last little nugget of a rug out from under the ones fighting for survival and start hitting them with tax bills they can't afford.

If organized religion is going to die, then let it die. But you don't have to proactively contribute to its death. A lot of people still count on it for support.
 
Last night I lead a group of army lieutenants in prayer at a bar. I had us all hold hands in a circle while I said some stuff.
 
Or you can just keep the TV turned off and think for yourself.

That's exactly my point on previous post though. I mean you have to believe in yourself enough to turn the TV off in order to turn your head around and think for yourself.
 
Coming from you, can't tell if this is hyperbole or plain nonsense :confused:

Republicans have never been particularly shy about their hostility towards democracy.
 
Coming from you, can't tell if this is hyperbole or plain nonsense :confused:
Republicans have never been particularly shy about their hostility towards democracy.

He believes what he says, which is more consequential in practice than whether it's true or false (and ironically, he was making a remark on religion). Peoples' reasoning powers are bent largely in the service of their intuition. You can convince yourself of anything you want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom