In reply to Time To Start Taxing Churches?:

I can imagine that at one point in time, churches were more centered around charity - doing something useful for those less fortunate, opening hospitals, etc. There was some sort of social give-and-take that kind of justified government looking the other way.

Nowadays, churches are more proselytizing social clubs that manipulate politics and in many cases attempt to force the will of a small vocal number of people on a large number of people who don't care. Even if they self-identify as "christian". If it were any other kind of social club, would they expect a tax break - a government hand out and endorsement?

Because churches are not taxed, my property taxes are slightly higher. Why should I as an unbeliever be expected to pay for this social club which wants to tell me how to live and run my life? A social club that I'll never be a part of (and don't want to be)?

Just a thought ... so why not tax them AND ban them from politicking? I don't see this as an either or. Because of their large size and the (in many cases blind) devotion of attendees, they have a special place of power and trust. Pastors/preachers/priests can easily manipulate their flocks into voting their way and this has to be guarded against.

This question came up on Yahoo Answers! but was deleted. After I had written a response. So I post that here:



Summary:

Because I am not a sociopath or somebody with a pathological personality disorder, I don't actually need to believe in a magical sky god to keep me from wanting to hurt other people.

Today we were driving around and I noticed the local police department in the turn lane of a larger highway standing around with their reflective vests. It took me a few moments to put everything together, but they were directing traffic for one of those new non-denominational yuppie-targeted christian churches.

Normally, I wouldn't care. People at large events request police support for directing traffic all the time. Police are paid by the collection of fines for traffic infractions and by taxation support. But churches don't pay taxes, even though they typically demand a tithe of 10%. That tithe is pocketed tax free. And the police department has to go out and direct traffic every Sunday, incurring the cost.

Couldn't the church in question spring for a traffic light? Are they really that cheap? Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?

On of the things that some Christians seem to be particularly proud of is deathbed conversions of unbelievers back to Christianity. You can often see the smug and morbid glee in their musings, "He came back to god in the end". And there are countless variations on this. No atheists in foxholes. Everybody turns to god in a time of need. And so on and etc.

When you think about this, this is really inhumane and completely fucking insensitive. I imagine myself, laying in a hospital bed, far away from my prime, facing death. My faculties are failing, my health already failed. Do you think that my brain chemistry is going to be the same at that moment? At that moment when I'm writhing in pain, neurons constantly firing and the brain trying to keep a handle on things by secreting its own array of neurotransmitters - to deal with the over stimulation. When I'm doped up on morphine and slipping in and out of consciousness? At that moment when age and disease has robbed me of my sanity? When entropy wins? When I'm so feeble minded that friends and family seem strangers?

I've often heard that when a person goes on chemotherapy, it completely changes the way they think. And apparently this is pretty common, as many people call it 'chemo brain'. I know when my own father passed away from cancer, he became quite a bit more interested in religion and paranormal phenomena. And the pain is horrendous. Personally, when I'm sick or in pain, I become quite grumpy and quite melancholy. I can only imagine what facing death in sickness will be like for me.

I think the only thing to do is the humane thing to do. To let people face the end of their life in peace and on their own terms. Neither believer or unbeliever should count a score based on whether a person "converted" or not. That is silly, dishonest and hypocritical.

If you need validation for your faith (or lack thereof) so badly that you're willing to take as evidence the fear-based coping attempt of a sickly feeble-minded person, then it says something about your religion (or lack thereof) and character.

Remember, it's okay to be afraid of death. We'll all have to go through it someday (save for the cryo-frozen people, if that ever works). And it's big and scary and uncharted territory.

Are you an atheist or are you an agnostic? That is a question often posed in many a online profile. On the surface of it, the only definite difference between the two classifications seems to be the degree of certainty. Agnostics aren't sure and atheists are sure.

But is that it? Many people who self-identify as atheists are most accurately agnostics. Because, until you die, you do really know for sure what lies beyond? I submit that to both the atheist and agnostic it probably doesn't matter too terribly much. But can a rationalist really know for sure that nothing exist? Probably not.

But I submit that it's also more. The label 'atheist' carries a harsh connotation in contemporary society. There is a certain semiotic evil attached to the word. The mention of 'atheist' implies the unbeliever is some kind of horrible person, some moralless and groundless subhuman monster seeking to destroy civilization. Or some cold intellectual who doesn't understand the human condition. You must not believe so if wonderful theist hangs around you too much, they may start to not believe. It's like atheists are the spiritual equivalents of spouse tempters - faith wreckers if you will.

Agnostics on the otherhand are given the benefit of the doubt. The very label itself pleads ignorance. How can you attack somebody who pleads ignorance? That just seems harsh and inhumane. So agnostics skirt under the radar, not offending anybody, staying on good terms with the believers, etc.

Agnostics theoretically can be lead back to the fold of politically correct religious acceptability. Atheists are the god-forsaken apostates who have committed anathema.

And it isn't right. And it stinks that the dominant cultural meme can't tolerate views that don't validate itself. It stinks that people have to make atheists back down into agnosticism. It stinks that theists can have a definite expression of faith and yet not tolerate a definite expression of a lack of faith. Have you Christians died yet? Do you truly know by experience what lies beyond? No, you do not. And anybody who claims they do is a liar. So Christians would be more correct in labeling themselves as Christian-agnostics.

And really, why is it okay for believers to attack our atheism, to tarnish our character and then when turnabout occurs, the defense is always, "it's not polite to talk about religion"? Is that not like the naughty school boy who throws rocks at an otherwise benign dog and then hids behind his mommy's legs when the dog snarls back?

Imagine Christians in the audience, imagine what it would be like if you lived in the first century C.E. and you were Jewish and living in Israel. Imagine if what you believed in then would make you a social pariah. And ask yourselves, are you not doing something similar to your human brethren or sisters? It is easy for the dominant ideology to ignore those who don't agree with it and become downright hostile towards it.

It is as though you have a bunch of visible zombies in society. And they march around, randomly flaring up into mobs and destroying shit. Most of the time they're benign. But every so often, they flare up on some truly fucking stupid issue like abortion or birth control pills or condoms.

And you cannot call them on it. You simply cannot say, "This is my fucking body and I don't believe your fucking superstitions and you're a bunch of mindless fucking morons for believing them". That apparently is socially unacceptable. And yet it is socially acceptable to ignore the unwanted pregnancies that denying contraception brings, to ignore the STIs that are spread by banning condoms, and to deny non-monogamist heterosexual parents the right to adopt those children.

And we keep sticking our fucking head in the sand ...

We keep telling ourselves that religion is good, that god is love, that Jesus is saviour, ...

We keep deluding ourselves that we actually care.

Most people if christians or jewish in the USA are so only by birth or convenience.

And it isn't working.

But we're so afraid of offending.

People who believe in stupid shit should feel shame for those beliefs. Not people who question those beliefs. When those stupid beliefs hurt other people.

It's fine if you want to believe in whatever, so long as it doesn't harm people. Belief in the fucking tooth fairy, the easter bunny, whatever you need to get through life and give yourself meaning and cope with your own mortality. But don't impose your beliefs on people who don't share your worldview and act as though "that's the way society is". Stop asserting your "christian privilege" and stop making decisions that affect other people's lives because of your religion.