Roz Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Sorry if this mule's already been beaten, and from the get go this is going to be a semi-rant on my part. I was having a conversation today with someone who had the opportunity to get her kid into a private parochial (SDA) school, so that her child would be spared from learning about 'evilution.' She didn't know that I blasphemed the holy ghost, and I let her go on thinking that I was still one of the sheep. "Yeah, in 4th grade, she was beginning to be taught evolution, so luckily I got her out." Small aside, there was a genuinely scared look in the mother's eyes when she said the naughty word. Suffice to say, she's now relieved that she's squeezed enough money for parochial school tuition, and that her kid will now be taught young earth creationism (it's an SDA school, all SDAs are YECs). This got me thinking, aren't we still technically funding YEC/ID education? Sure there's a constant battle to keep it away from public education, but didn't they already win this one? At least to me, the Christians have the upper hand and will likely keep it in the future. Churches (and church schools in their property) pay zero taxes, so essentially we're all funding them. We could certainly get tax revenue off that property if it were any secular business. -BTW, if my train of thought is wrong on this, please feel free to correct me I wondered how much uproar would be generated if laws were passed mandating the teaching of evolution in church schools, but realistically there's a virtually zero chance of bio professors trying to get their 'darwinian religion' taught in those places.
Guest Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 She should keep saving her money, cause her daughter will most likely need therapy as an adult after going to one of those schools...
seven77 Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 This got me thinking, aren't we still technically funding YEC/ID education? Sure there's a constant battle to keep it away from public education, but didn't they already win this one? At least to me, the Christians have the upper hand and will likely keep it in the future. Churches (and church schools in their property) pay zero taxes, so essentially we're all funding them. I think it depends a lot on where you live. Where I live, ID is taught alongside TOE in high school curriculums in most places. Some districts have opt-out clauses that allow the teaching of two seperate courses or that allow students to opt-out of evolution units if the school doesn't offer an equivalent course. This isn't enough for some parents, so they choose to send their kids to private schools or homeschool their kids to protect their minds/souls from the "evil". Homeschooled kids have access to public school services, books, etc and in some districts, vouchers can be used to send kids to faith-based schools. So it really isn't even about taxing the church. We are paying for these kids to learn a bunch of made-up, feelgood bullshit that they will have to unlearn on their own dime should they choose to go into a STEM profession or pursue an education at a secular university in the future. The area where I currently live is very conservative and overwhelmingly evangelical Christian. There are some bands of liberal Christianity around here, but even they fall prey to the "evilution" issue. Most of the people at my former church either paid through the nose to send their kids to private Christian academies for K-8 and then homeschooled for high school or they just homeschooled the whole way through. Families who sent their kids to public school were looked down on and those who were ok with evolution were not considered to be "true Christians". Then again, my former church actively spoke out against Carl Sagan's "Cosmos", Morgan Freeman's "Through the Wormhole", and pretty much any and all science-y stuff unless it was ID-friendly. Hell, they even spoke out against higher level maths and I was throughly criticized for standing up during a science discussion where I argued that one of the mathematical models used by the speaker was fundamentally flawed. He was trying to prove irreducible complexity using a supposedly random sequence of numbers. I found a pattern in the numbers, pointed it out, and the pastor and several of my fellow attendees got really pissed off.
Bhim Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 This got me thinking, aren't we still technically funding YEC/ID education? Sure there's a constant battle to keep it away from public education, but didn't they already win this one? At least to me, the Christians have the upper hand and will likely keep it in the future. Churches (and church schools in their property) pay zero taxes, so essentially we're all funding them. We could certainly get tax revenue off that property if it were any secular business. -BTW, if my train of thought is wrong on this, please feel free to correct me OK, let me start out by saying that personally, I think Christianity should be an illegal religion in America and that churches should all be burned down (not with the chuchgoers inside). Having said that, I will also observe that giving churches and their schools tax-exempt status isn't exactly the same as public financing, since in principle this status isn't Christian specific. All religious institutions are exempt from taxes. I guess it's roughly analogous to the way a Ten Commandments monument in a courthouse would be legal if it were accompanied by icons of other religions, so as to avoid the appearance of public support for Christianity. Personally I'm OK with this, since as a religious non-Christian I enjoy having the right to give money to my place of worship, tax-free. Largely, the issue of tax exempt status boils down to a question of freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion. The Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion at the federal level, but it also prohibits us from making any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Taxing any place of worship could be seen as a prohibition on religion. So I suppose that not taxing a church can be seen as protecting people's constitutionally-protected right of free exercise of religion. Again, I think we should add an amendment to the Constitution stating that Jesus is a false god and a false messiah, so please don't take anything I've said to be any kind of support for Jesus or Christianity.
sdelsolray Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 … Largely, the issue of tax exempt status boils down to a question of freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion. The Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion at the federal level, but it also prohibits us from making any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Taxing any place of worship could be seen as a prohibition on religion. So I suppose that not taxing a church can be seen as protecting people's constitutionally-protected right of free exercise of religion. … Nitpick re: bold part above. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution extends First Amendment protections and restrictions to state and local governments too, i.e., those governments are also bound by the First Amendment.
Roz Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 Having said that, I will also observe that giving churches and their schools tax-exempt status isn't exactly the same as public financing, since in principle this status isn't Christian specific. All religious institutions are exempt from taxes. I guess it's roughly analogous to the way a Ten Commandments monument in a courthouse would be legal if it were accompanied by icons of other religions, so as to avoid the appearance of public support for Christianity. Personally I'm OK with this, since as a religious non-Christian I enjoy having the right to give money to my place of worship, tax-free. Largely, the issue of tax exempt status boils down to a question of freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion. The Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion at the federal level, but it also prohibits us from making any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Taxing any place of worship could be seen as a prohibition on religion. So I suppose that not taxing a church can be seen as protecting people's constitutionally-protected right of free exercise of religion. Again, I think we should add an amendment to the Constitution stating that Jesus is a false god and a false messiah, so please don't take anything I've said to be any kind of support for Jesus or Christianity. All religions are tax exempt? Not really. From my understanding the US government has to first recognize and acknowledge an organization as a religion before getting tax exempt status. I could form a "Most Holy Sacred Order of Roz" right now and it's a religion to me, but I would still be paying taxes. The reason I brought this up is because I haven't seen the argument come up in the 'teach ID in public schools!' debate. Christian schools are tax exempt and they openly teach ID/YEC. They make no bones about it, but instead advertise the fact. I highly doubt that religious institutions would suddenly be taxed; imagine the uproar from the moral majority. However, instead of forcing public schools to 'teach the controversy,' just use the damn church property to teach the nonsense.
Bhim Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 All religions are tax exempt? Not really. From my understanding the US government has to first recognize and acknowledge an organization as a religion before getting tax exempt status. I could form a "Most Holy Sacred Order of Roz" right now and it's a religion to me, but I would still be paying taxes. The reason I brought this up is because I haven't seen the argument come up in the 'teach ID in public schools!' debate. Christian schools are tax exempt and they openly teach ID/YEC. They make no bones about it, but instead advertise the fact. I highly doubt that religious institutions would suddenly be taxed; imagine the uproar from the moral majority. However, instead of forcing public schools to 'teach the controversy,' just use the damn church property to teach the nonsense. Well, all religions are tax-exempt, as per the legal definition of a religion. I don't know the specifics, but the law does seem to allow for "common sense" so that people can't make up a religion to justify tax exemption in any and all cases. Regarding the "teach the controversy" debate, aside from the fact that there is no controversy about evolution among scientists I do agree that evangelical hijacking of American schools is deplorable. Again, I think that freedom of religion should be suspended for Christians and that the New Testament should be classified as hate speech. All I'm saying is that I have no problem with the general idea of tax exemption for religions. I'm fine with letting a person practice his religion tax-free, as long as that religion doesn't teach that I'm going to eternal hell and need to be converted. ...or more specifically, as long as no one acts on any belief that I'm going to eternal hell and am in need of conversion. Nitpick re: bold part above. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution extends First Amendment protections and restrictions to state and local governments too, i.e., those governments are also bound by the First Amendment. Quite right, I stand corrected. Though as long as we're being nitpicky, to be fair my comment about freedom of religion at the federal level doesn't preclude any conclusion about state-level freedoms. I do agree that it's important for us non-Christians to understand these rights and insist on them.
Recommended Posts