Will America ever overcome its redneck puritan roots?

[Darth Wong]

America needs to break the power of the Church. Hopefully an inter-faith schism will do some of the work for us, but we need to start taxing churches, removing federal funds from faith-based programs (yes, even the Boy Scouts), banning the teaching of religious works in anything other than history classes, and going for broke to stop the fucking evangelicals

Yes, tax the churches, that will make them less political! Oh wait, no it won't, because now you'll have to deal with every last church moblizing to "ensure our tax dollars are spent morally and wisely."

You'll have to explain to me how they can mobilize more than they already have.

Your little maneveur will increase the power of the churches and tear a gaping hole in seperation of church and state. Just shoot yourself because it will be quicker and less painful.

That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. How will increasing the separation between church and state (by removing one of the special privileges granted to churches by the state) tear a hole in this separation?

[frigidmagi]

You just gave the church an opening to be directly involed.

[frigidmagi]

Allow me to expand, this deserves more than a single sentence snap. You still have a large group of churches sitting on their asses. You have churches in disagreement over what wheter issue A is really any of their business.

This goes away when you tax the church. If you're paying for it, it's your business. Also you can forget any splitting or interfaith conflicts developing, because you handed them something they can't ignore. Even the most moderate, live and let live church is going to start leaning right if it get's taxed to pay for things it cannot agree with.

Your gambit will not break the churches it will strengthen them and extend the issues they invole themselves with. You think you have problems now? Try this and give "we being persucuted" idea some actual ammo.

[Tribun]

How to weaken the churches:

"Divide et emperor!"

[Rogue 9]

You'll have to explain to me how they can mobilize more than they already have.

Easily. There are still masses of churches willing to let politics be. Tax them, and they're suddenly involved, because they're paying for the programs those politics are creating. This gives them a real stake in the process. I don't know if taxation could do it, hell, I don't know if any issue short of the Second Coming could do it, but if any one issue ever managed to mobilize the entire Christian population in the United States behind it in a voting block, it would be crushing. Doing this is tantamount to waking a sleeping giant.

How will increasing the separation between church and state (by removing one of the special privileges granted to churches by the state) tear a hole in this separation?

If you tax something, it is at least nominally a part of government, at least in a republic. Tax the churches, and you give them a stake in what is done with those tax dollars. Naturally, when any organization has a stake in something, they want to make sure they like what's happening with it. The "privilege" of tax exemption exists to keep churches out of the machinations of government as much as possible, and it largely succeeds. Sleeping giant. Taxing the church would be tossing a big ol' bucket of water in the giant's face. For instance, when the Indianapolis Baptist Temple was seized by federal marshals for withholding taxes owed due to it's status as an employer, protesters turned up from all over the country. That was a special case, in which only income taxes on the employees' paychecks was owed, and wasn't really a tax on the church, but rather a tax on the employees that the church was supposed to withhold from the paychecks and then hand over. They stupidly refused to do so. Yet the outcry was still far reaching, if not massive; I learned of the story from a couple fundies who turned up all the way from Virginia to protest the forfeiture of property. How much greater would the outcry be if a general tax was instituted on all churches, incorporated or not, employers or not? I don't know, and I don't care to find out, but it wouldn't be pretty and it wouldn't be the effect you desire.

[Rye]

I can't see what the problem would be with requiring churches to show all their accounts and have charity equivalent taxation on all the money that's shown to be going to charity, and any profit they make to be taxed like any other service.

Do bricklaying companies get a say in where their tax goes? I don't see how it would be different for churches, churches already make their voices known in politics, and I don't see all the ones that don't care about politics suddenly changing their minds because they pay like everyone else. They're just another business and should be treated as such.

"Don't treat the religious equally to everyone else in case they react badly," is a bullshit objection.

[Rogue 9]

"Don't treat the religious equally to everyone else in case they react badly," is a bullshit objection.

It's not "the religious." Christians as individuals have to pay taxes just like everybody else, of course. It's the church itself, by definition nonprofit, which must, by law, be kept completely separate from the functions of government. And the reason for that? You're the one who lives in the country that spawned the primary reason for that clause of the Constitution; you tell me. Having the church involved in the state is not good for the state. Nor is it good for the church. It's in everyone's interests to keep church and state the hell away from each other.

[UCBooties]

I can't see what the problem would be with requiring churches to show all their accounts and have charity equivalent taxation on all the money that's shown to be going to charity, and any profit they make to be taxed like any other service.

Do bricklaying companies get a say in where their tax goes? I don't see how it would be different for churches, churches already make their voices known in politics, and I don't see all the ones that don't care about politics suddenly changing their minds because they pay like everyone else. They're just another business and should be treated as such.

"Don't treat the religious equally to everyone else in case they react badly," is a bullshit objection.

A bricklaying company, is neither a non-profit organization or a social vehicle. Both of which are true about a church. Furthermore, refusing to levy a tax against churches for fear of uniting them ideologicaly is a perfectly valid reason to to tax them. If we can predict a detrimental effect of a course of action that is highly probably, should we refrain from said action because we don't want to be percieved a playing favorites? Well, we're already playing favorites and its keeping the majority of churhes the hell away from the state institutions. Right now they're only active in interest groups and voter mobilization. Start taxation and they'll be able to mobilize to loby on their own behalf, not for issues that may concern them, but for their own ideologies as organizations. Furthermore, it will give the state a vested interest in the church, meaning the church can now pull even more legislative strings.

[Stark]

If (as seems likely) America is becoming more fundamentalist than before in many areas, won't this encourage the PTB to use that support to do all kinds of crazy stuff until they do something that marginalises them too much? Like a casual Christian might vote for Bush because the priest tells him to, but if Bush was waaaay fundamentalist (destroying education, ludicrously right, etc) wouldn't these non-fundy Christians vote against him? A win for the right pushes the right further, perhaps to far?

Then again, its America. I guess its more likely they'll kill themselves economically by breaking education and protectionist policies before they admitted they were wrong. A common western failing, really.

[White Haven]

Because remember folks, admitting you were wrong is FLIPFLOPPING! Riding the Plan down in flames regardless of people shrieking at you, now THAT's resolute leadership.

[Darth Servo]

Well, Western Society DID manage to eventually break out of the Dark Ages. I'm not sure if thats very comforting though.

[Patrick Degan]

Let's see what Ayatollah binFalwell has to say on the matter:

"I hope I live to see the day, when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"

— Jerry Falwell

Building that bridge to the 13th century...

[Stravo]

Let's see what Ayatollah binFalwell has to say on the matter:

"I hope I live to see the day, when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"

— Jerry Falwell

Building that bridge to the 13th century...

Don't we have those now? They're called Madastras in the ME I think. I just love their well balanced and mannered alumni. A few of them even took a nice aerial tour of NYC a few years ago. Yes, fundamental religious education...good for bringing down one tower at a time.

[Darth Wong]

"Don't treat the religious equally to everyone else in case they react badly," is a bullshit objection.

It's not "the religious." Christians as individuals have to pay taxes just like everybody else, of course. It's the church itself, by definition nonprofit, which must, by law, be kept completely separate from the functions of government.

Churches which accumulate tens of billions in assets are arguably not non-profit. The Mormon church in Utah is a good example of this phenomenon.

[The Yosemite Bear]

and it automatically controls local and national politics

[HemlockGrey]

And there's indirect on taxation on a lot of churches *anyway*, and often in rather unfair ways. In my heavily Irish-Catholic hometown, the priests' residence at the local Catholic church is nontaxable, yet Protestant ministers have their church-supplied residences taxed normally, even though the Catholics are a hell of a lot richer.

[neoolong]

And there's indirect on taxation on a lot of churches *anyway*, and often in rather unfair ways. In my heavily Irish-Catholic hometown, the priests' residence at the local Catholic church is nontaxable, yet Protestant ministers have their church-supplied residences taxed normally, even though the Catholics are a hell of a lot richer.

So the Catholic priests live at the church. Do the Protestant ones do that also, or is it separate housing and only paid for by the church?

Because it seems that could make a difference.

[Rye]

It's not "the religious." Christians as individuals have to pay taxes just like everybody else, of course. It's the church itself, by definition nonprofit, which must, by law, be kept completely separate from the functions of government.

They're not "by definition nonprofit," as Mike already said, and this is why itemised accounts are necessary; you can see if the churches are hoodwinking the system or if they're being genuinely charitable. If they're being genuinely charitable, they get charity status. And they pay equivalent.

And the reason for that? You're the one who lives in the country that spawned the primary reason for that clause of the Constitution; you tell me. Having the church involved in the state is not good for the state. Nor is it good for the church. It's in everyone's interests to keep church and state the hell away from each other.

The churches don't play by that rule as it is, church-state seperation is already a myth to these people, propagated by the fag-loving, race-mixing liberals, and I don't see why the ones that suddenly had to show what they've been doing with their money would suddenly feel the impotus to join forces with the religious reich.

The CoE and the state seem to be doing fine here anyway, even though they're not, afaik, legally seperate. The CoE is simply neutered from doing anything, and anyone can ignore the CoE and practise voodoo if they want, thanks to anti discrimination laws. Functionally it's preventing any negative aspects of "establishment of religion" anyway.

A bricklaying company, is neither a non-profit organization or a social vehicle.

If a bricklaying company was, or a public access TV station, whatever, what would be the problem of requiring them to show their accounts and being taxed accordingly?

Start taxation and they'll be able to mobilize to loby on their own behalf, not for issues that may concern them, but for their own ideologies as organizations. Furthermore, it will give the state a vested interest in the church, meaning the church can now pull even more legislative strings.

Don't they already have that? TBN/ICR/etc? Wouldn't they find it incredibly difficult to unite as a whole under one ideology, since it would be multi-faith, as well as the schismgasmic church of christ?

Essentially my argument is: if the church is acting like a charity, treat it like one, if it's acting like a business, treat it like one.

[Durandal]

"Don't treat the religious equally to everyone else in case they react badly," is a bullshit objection.

It's not "the religious." Christians as individuals have to pay taxes just like everybody else, of course. It's the church itself, by definition nonprofit, which must, by law, be kept completely separate from the functions of government. And the reason for that? You're the one who lives in the country that spawned the primary reason for that clause of the Constitution; you tell me. Having the church involved in the state is not good for the state. Nor is it good for the church. It's in everyone's interests to keep church and state the hell away from each other.

Taxing churches is not a violation of the establishment clause. There is no Constitutional provision which says that anyone who is taxed must have some sort of involvement in the government.

[HemlockGrey]

So the Catholic priests live at the church. Do the Protestant ones do that also, or is it separate housing and only paid for by the church?

No, the Catholic priests live at a seperate residence on church-owned land, as do the Protestant ministers. The latter is taxed, the former is not. While I think the Protestant residences should be taxed, so should the Catholic residence, and in the absence of any regular system of church-based taxation stuff like this is bound to flourish.

[fgalkin]

I wrote almost 2 years ago, but nothing has changed since then.

While more than 80 pages of this Paper have been spent on describing the problem, there are very few solutions. To paraphrase Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right is a potent voting bloc, and cows are not, so any solution that attempts to restrict their influence will fail. In addition, their strength comes from their ability to label their opponents “anti-God,” which means a lot in a country where people are more than twice as likely to believe in the devil as in evolution (Kristof, “God, Satan and The Media”, p. A25). Thus, any solution is extremely difficult.

One possible solution involves improving the quality of education in the United States. As the statistics given in the beginning of the previous section show, most of the evangelical Christians have an income below $30,000, and many of them did not attend college, and most of those who did attended Bible college. This lack of a science education is the exact reason why the fundamentalists are able to gain new converts. However, this solution faces many problems, and it is unlikely that it can be implemented. First of all, the Religious Right is wary of any new ideas that contradict the Bible. Billy Sunday said, “When the Word of God says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go to hell,” and that certainly has not changed for many fundamentalists. Any attempts to bring a real education to the Bible belt would undoubtedly end in more book banning, and more claims that the evil “secular humanists” are spreading their godless lies to the “true” born-again Christians. Thus, it is highly unlikely that this solution has any chance of success.

Another solution that is possible is to increase the attention of the mainstream America to the Religious Right. The importance of the Religious Right is increasing, yet most of America is out of touch with them. There are only 3% of mainline Protestants, 4% of Roman Catholics, and 7% of people who described themselves as “non-religious” that are “very familiar” with what evangelicals stand for (Smith, American Evangelicalism:…, p.181). Almost half of those surveyed had no idea what evangelicals stood for (Smith, American Evangelicalism:…, p. 181). This shows that most of mainstream America is ignorant of the Religious Right and what they stand for. This probably due to the lack of media coverage of the Religious Right activities. The problem with this solution is that most of the time the Religious Right does not make interesting news, and, thus, is unlikely to gain the attention of today’s media corporations. Also, since the fundamentalists shun the outside world, most of their contact with mainstream America is limited to attempts to convert the “unsaved.” As a result, there are very little fundamentalists in positions that are known to the general public, and, as a result the public is ignorant of the Religious Right. And, even if some brief event tied to the Religious Right does make the news, it is dismissed as nothing out of the extraordinary and quickly forgotten.
The only way to change this is for the media to pay closer attention to the happenings in the Bible belt, and to alert mainstream America of the growing danger. Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago argues that America is now experiencing a fourth Great Awakening (Kristof, “God, Satan and The Media”, p. A25). If this is true, then it is likely that the Religious Right will grow even more powerful before its power declines.

Another possible solution to this problem is to rally the political left. If more progressive lobbying groups, like the People for the American Way are created, the fundamentalists’ influence might be held in check. This solution seems to be the best option, however, even it is likely to face some difficulties. For one thing, the Religious Right is able to portray its opponents as “godless” secular humanists, who seek to corrupt American society. Another thing that is just as important is that the majority of the people seem to support the godly fundamentalists rather than their opponents. And, finally, even if the fundamentalists’ power is held in check in Washington, there is nothing to prevent them from gaining power on the local level.

As the situation is today, there is no absolute solution to this problem. It is impossible to stop the onslaught of the Religious Right without violating the Constitution.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Dark]

Since I've never heard of these "Sojourners", I won't hold my breath waiting for them to turn the masses.

It began as a local group in Illinois in 1971, but didn't become a national group until the late 1990s. It's still more a loose network than a strong organization like the Christian Coalition, but there're at least 100,000 people who are involved with it, so it's not an itty bitty group either. I wouldn't hold my breath for them to turn the masses either, but even small splinters are a start.

OK, it's usually bad to quote yourself, but I got more information on what media has been reporting on the Sojourners lately (since I'm on their mail-list now):

BBC 4 Radio
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
The Arizona Republic
San Francisco Chronicle
London Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Christianity Today
Dayside with Linda Vester (Faux News! How did we pull that off?!)

That's all in the last week, by the way.

We're still economically retarded compared to the rest of the country.

...

That's just too easy and too mean, even for me. You were lucky this time.

Actually, that was me paraphrasing my economics professor. And note I said ECONOMICALLY retarded. We're not all mentally retarded *sniff* . We just elect all the retards .