Where I live a new church pops up ever other month. I ask why form a new church when there are so many a christian can attend?. the answer.....'we are presenting the gospel in a different way than other churches'. And of course 'we present the gospel in a more accurate way than the other churches do'.
Has religion just become a franchise? A franchise just hoping they will be the next mega church that will spread across the nation like the Calvary franchise?
Indeed, and since they are tax exempt-it's even more of a crime.
The biggest waste of real estate after graveyards, is all these empty churchs.
Make them pay their own taxes, and there wouldn't be so many.
Not to mention that all you christians are forced to pay taxes for the other tax exempts (we all are-that's how they get it free), including Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Satanists.....
Now why would you pay the taxes for those who denounce your god? It's a bad system.
I agree about taxes. If a church really engages in charitable work on a non-profit bases, they can file their tax forms just like any secular charitable agency. But the notion of being tax exempt because they are churches (or synagogues, or mosques, or whatever) is wrong.
Though I am not a lawyer, it seems like a clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Many people mistakenly assume that it forbids the government from establishing any particular church as the official religion, but in fact it does much more than that: it forbids the "establishment of religion." Not just the establishment of a particular religion but of religion in general. That is exactly what it says.
To give tax-exempt status to churches is tantamount to official governmental recognition of God. I'm sure that lots of religious people will say, "Yeah! What's wrong with that?" What's wrong is that America is not a theocracy. "Well, what about 'In God We Trust'? You one of those atheists trying to get rid of that, too?" No! The courts, in their great wisdom, have ruled that this phrase is cultural and historic, not religious, so it's okay. But then I have to wonder why the religious types have not demanded removal of the phrase from coins and public buildings? For if it is not a religious message and therefore not a violation of the First Amendment, then it is a cheap and worthless use of God's name and therefore is a violation of the Third Commandment.
What to do? What to do? Violate the Constitution or violate God's commandment? It's one or the other. This is the what comes of the miscegenous union of religion and politics.
One other area where religion gets a free pass is religious defenses in criminal trials, usually involving lunatics who refused to allow medical care for their sick children, who then died. Yes, it's tragic. And the parents are guilty. As for the churches that taught them this lunatic notion, if they are not legally guilty, then they are at least morally responsible. There is nothing problematic about such cases. If atheist parents did the same thing, there would be no hand-wringing, no pious editorializing; they would be reviled, tried, convicted, and imprisoned. If religious parents are treated any differently, it means we have a separate legal system for religious people and nonreligious people, and that would be a violation of the 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection under the law.
Taxing churches is really just the beginning. All special privileges and exemptions that favor religion should be revoked. I am not looking to destroy or outlaw religion; I would just like to see an end to special favors for religion.
I prayed for deliverance from the hard world of facts and logic to the happy land where fantasies and prejudices reign. But God spake unto me, saying, "No, keep telling the truth," and to that end afflicted me with severe Trenchant Mouth. So I'm sorry for making cutting remarks, but it's the will of God.
"One other area where religion gets a free pass is religious defenses in criminal trials, usually involving lunatics who refused to allow medical care for their sick children, who then died. Yes, it's tragic. And the parents are guilty. As for the churches that taught them this lunatic notion, if they are not legally guilty, then they are at least morally responsible. There is nothing problematic about such cases. If atheist parents did the same thing, there would be no hand-wringing, no pious editorializing; they would be reviled, tried, convicted, and imprisoned. If religious parents are treated any differently, it means we have a separate legal system for religious people and nonreligious people, and that would be a violation of the 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection under the law."
I could not agree more! It is mind boggeling why the watchtower societies board of directors haven't been imprisoned due to forcing by threat of excommunication parents refusing to allow doctors to administer blood transfusions leading to thousands of deaths of children. Teaching children that they must die instead of accepting a blood transfusion. Fortunatley tides are turning and more and more justices are temporarily taking guardianship/custodialship away from jw parents.
This same religion by the way is one of the biggest abusers of tax exempt status. Printing 42 million publications a month, being on the list of top hedge fund managers and not spending one dime in contributing to run charities or work with other charities to provide aide relief.
They are also a good example of a mcchurch as all the donations go straight to the headquaters and from there it's divied up, the mortgages are held by HQ, most decisions go through HQ and they are now building in prime upscale neighborhoods.
