Is religion harmful to society?

[Moontanman]

Modest, when i say religion is harmful to sociaty i do not mean all individuals who are religious or even most, a great many religious people do great things, they help society in ways that cannot be ignored. That is one of the contradictions of religion. as individuals helping others people can be wonderful, the non religious can be wonderful too. Many of these great people use religion as a vehicle to do good. Sadly this is not the rule, religion in general soaks up resources that would be best used to help the down trodden directly instead of building huge buildings making evangelists rich and otherwise being squandered. Religion claims to help the down trodden but they actually help themselves first. For every dollar spent by religion helping society a great many are spent simply promoting religion and the collection of money. This angle cannot be ignored, religion at the very least should account for every dime and pay taxes just like any other Enterprise. virtually all religions are guilty of this to some extent

[pamela]

you want them to pay taxes on donations? If I donate my organs to research, should that be taxed as well? What if I volunteer my time and skills with Habitat for Humanity to build houses for the poor...tax that?

 

Wikipedia

" a donation is a gift given, typically to a cause or/and for charitable purposes. A donation may take various forms, including cash, services, new or used goods i.e. clothing, toys, food, vehicles, emergency or humanitarian aid items, and can also relate to medical care needs i.e. blood or organs for transplant.

Donations are gifts given without return consideration"

[Moontanman]

you want them to pay taxes on donations? If I donate my organs to research, should that be taxed as well? What if I volunteer my time and skills with Habitat for Humanity to build houses for the poor...tax that?

 

Wikipedia

" a donation is a gift given, typically to a cause or/and for charitable purposes. A donation may take various forms, including cash, services, new or used goods i.e. clothing, toys, food, vehicles, emergency or humanitarian aid items, and can also relate to medical care needs i.e. blood or organs for transplant.

Donations are gifts given without return consideration"

 

Yes! My point exactly, when you donate your time it goes to help someone or if you donate your organs they go to help directly. When you donate to Religion the lions share of it goes to pay a for a televangelists mansion or a cathedral or to gather up more even more money and influence even more people to convert and donate. Very little goes to help anyone but the religion and it's acolytes.

[pamela]

well Habitat has its origin in Christianity and well, that's a religion.You can't tax donations just because some cat misappropriates the funds. And yes, some churches are in the "business" of evangelizing and that costs money.Do you really want the government's hand in religion's pocket?:)

[Buffy]

Yes! My point exactly, when you donate your time it goes to help someone or if you donate your organs they go to help directly. When you donate to Religion the lions share of it goes to pay a for a televangelists mansion or a cathedral or to gather up more even more money and influence even more people to convert and donate. Very little goes to help anyone but the religion and it's acolytes.

Not really. In order for it to be a *real* donation, you ought to have to fork over the costs of storage, transit and even the transplant.

 

When you donate your organs you've enabled a whole slew of people to prey on the person who gets the organ, including not only the selfless doctors but the altruistic insurance companies that take a cut for their shareholders....

 

Now if organ transplants were handled like interest on loans under Sharia Law, they'd have to be *free*!

 

Man those religions are so bad, they even outlaw capitalism!

 

As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it, :)

Buffy

[Moontanman]

well Habitat has its origin in Christianity and well, that's a religion.You can't tax donations just because some cat misappropriates the funds. And yes, some churches are in the "business" of evangelizing and that costs money.Do you really want the government's hand in religion's pocket?:)

 

Habitat for humanity is a great thing but it would be much better if the money raised by religion was skimmed off to the tune of 1% to habitat 99% to the religion.

It's not misappropriation of funds, the lions share of the funds is is never intended to go to anyone but the religion. it's the way it works, Even the government manages to bring a much higher percentage of funds directly where it's needed. yes i think the government should keep a very close track of religion, not the other way around. religion brings in trillions of dollars world wide, hundreds of billions just in the US, the money goes to what ever the religion needs it to go to, very little goes to help anyone but the religion.

[pamela]

the funds remark was referring to your televangelism preacher's mansion.I imagine some of those folks would like him to live sweet, but others may not. I am a little confused on your Habitat remark-all the money goes to the building of homes.Even the employees at the Restore are volunteers.

so, in other words, you want to regulate and tax donations? or only church donations?

[Moontanman]

the funds remark was referring to your televangelism preacher's mansion.I imagine some of those folks would like him to live sweet, but others may not. I am a little confused on your Habitat remark-all the money goes to the building of homes.Even the employees at the Restore are volunteers.

so, in other words, you want to regulate and tax donations? or only church donations?

 

I am confused as well i thought you meant that the habitats money came from the church, if so it is only a small fraction of what the Church brings in, Not only televangelists are in this, all churches spend the lions share of their money on the religion. Most of it goes to the building of more churches, proselytizing and bringing in more money. I am talking about donations to a religious cause or church, not donations that are already monitored by the government. No other reorganization brings in even a small fraction of what religion does. It's not only tax free but it's totally unaccounted for, no other charity is so free and clear of accountability.

[Buffy]

if so it is only a small fraction of what the Church brings in, ...all churches spend the lions share of their money on the religion. Most of it goes to the building of more churches, proselytizing and bringing in more money.

So? I don't think even the most demented followers of religions or cults are unaware of this. They're *happy* to make sure that their religion is successful and survives.

 

Now unfortunately there's that little thing in the constitution that prevents the government from interfering with anyone's "free exercise thereof" that prevents those taxes you speak of, but really, if someone wants to give away their money to anyone for anything--or heck just throw it in the fireplace--shouldn't they have the right to?

 

You know even if you're a religion, you can get into trouble if you *misrepresent* what you're doing with the money, but no one who has a religion has the need to do so, so they rarely do, and those that do get hauled off to the pokey (see Jim Bakker!)...

 

No other reorganization brings in even a small fraction of what religion does. It's not only tax free but it's totally unaccounted for, no other charity is so free and clear of accountability.

Actually, there are lots of em. They probably call you all the time like the Policeman's Benevolent Whatever raffle, most of which are total scams but even the police don't have time to chase them down.

 

Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving, :)

Buffy

[REASON]

Donations are gifts given without return consideration"

 

Do you believe the tithings people give to their church are given "without return consideration?" Are they not taught that it is their duty as a Christian to give ten percent of their income to support the church? Are they not told it is part of the path to righteousness and the Kingdom of Heaven? Is their no shame, whether outward or implied, on those who do not?

 

Personally though, I have no problem with people deciding to give their money, or their time and energy to the church. To each their own.

 

But it does bother me when I hear stories, like I did this evening, about how President Elect Obama has stated that he intends to continue Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, but with a caveat. Under Bush, recipients of government funding as a part of this program have been allowed to be discriminatory with who they hire and bypass the the requirements of the Civil Rights Act. And it has been the practice of some Christian organizations to only hire those who prescribed to their particular faith, excluding those who did not. Obama intends to change the rules such that those who receive government assistance can no longer use discriminatory hiring practices, and must comply with the Civil Rights Act.

 

As a result of this anticipated change, faith-based organizations are expressing concerns that they will be forced to discontinue their participation in the program, and that people who are benefitting from their assitance will pay the price because of the change in the rules. What they are really saying is that they are willing to make people in need pay the price if the government tries to put any restrictions on the money they are given under this program. These faith-based organizations believe that their right to use discriminatory hiring practices is more important than helping the needy with government donated funds.

 

Under the circumstances, I agree with Obama. Although I would add that I'm generally leary about government involvement with, and expenditures of tax dollars on religious organizations. But if this is the attitude of a faith-based organization, then they don't deserve to participate in the program, and the notion that they value providing assistance to the community is revealed as a sham.

[Moontanman]

So? I don't think even the most demented followers of religions or cults are unaware of this. They're *happy* to make sure that their religion is successful and survives.

 

I have no problem with this, I just think they should have to account for what they do with the money.

 

Now unfortunately there's that little thing in the constitution that prevents the government from interfering with anyone's "free exercise thereof" that prevents those taxes you speak of, but really, if someone wants to give away their money to anyone for anything--or heck just throw it in the fireplace--shouldn't they have the right to?

 

How is accounting for money taken in interfearing with the worship of who ever you want? Even taxing it doesn't keep anyone from freedom of religion.

 

You know even if you're a religion, you can get into trouble if you *misrepresent* what you're doing with the money, but no one who has a religion has the need to do so, so they rarely do, and those that do get hauled off to the pokey (see Jim Bakker!)...

 

Actually, there are lots of em. They probably call you all the time like the Policeman's Benevolent Whatever raffle, most of which are total scams but even the police don't have time to chase them down.

 

Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving, :phones:

Buffy

 

As i said no other charity takes in even a small fraction of the money religion does and doesn't have to account for it. I don't thing the policeman's ball is in any danger of taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. those scams are not charities, they are scams, different thing buffy.

 

What ever you want to smoke, shoot, snort, rub into your belly, or what ever:phones:

[modest]

Modest, when i say religion is harmful to sociaty i do not mean all individuals who are religious or even most, a great many religious people do great things, they help society in ways that cannot be ignored.

 

I understand.

 

That is one of the contradictions of religion. as individuals helping others people can be wonderful, the non religious can be wonderful too. Many of these great people use religion as a vehicle to do good. Sadly this is not the rule, religion in general soaks up resources that would be best used to help the down trodden directly instead of building huge buildings making evangelists rich and otherwise being squandered. Religion claims to help the down trodden but they actually help themselves first.

 

A good deal of the money going to the Christian church isn't intended to feed, cloth, or otherwise lift up the downtrodden. It's intended to convert them. Of course, I find this ridiculous and problematic. Nevertheless, this doesn't make "religion in general" harmful to society. If, for example, a certain philosophy has a negative connotation, this does not make "philosophy", or philosophy in general, harmful to society.

 

This angle cannot be ignored, religion at the very least should account for every dime and pay taxes just like any other Enterprise. virtually all religions are guilty of this to some extent

 

You can't tax a religion, like you can't tax a philosophy—it doesn't make sense. But, I know what you mean and I strongly support separation of church and state. As much as fundamentalism in religion scares me, government control of religion scares me even more, and to tax something is to control it. Just think how quick it would take the government to deny some wackjob a church tax license. This would mean said wackjob could not collect donations. The government just destroyed a church which may not have broken any laws. That can't happen.

 

~modest

[pamela]

hi Reason, that was part of the Wiki quote...

As far as Christianity goes, then yes they are expecting a return on their investment.Biblically, they are required to tithe 10 percent in order to support the church.It is not however, stated in the Bible that it is the path to righteousness, that would only be implied by a preacher.And I am sure that some people would probably look down on those who did not contribute.I am reminded of a few nasty practices from way back in Catholicism- Simony and the selling of indulgences- both of which used monies to buy a church position or pay for prayer. Not to dissimilar than what i currently see today in mainstream Christianity;)

[Moontanman]

If not tax religion's money intake would it be so bad to have them account for where it goes? I think the public should have access to this information , some of the misrepresentation of religion could be avoided this way, after a real disclosure of what is being done with the money people could make an informed decision, it could even make the church better for society by making different sects and or religions compete with each other to show the who is really helping the people they claim to care for.

[HydrogenBond]

The money churches use to help the poor, is more efficiently used than the approach of the secular religious free government. If you compare the education value of an average Catholic School to Uncle Sam's public schools, the religious backed one is cheaper, creates a better service, with less resources. It's efficiency is closer to free enterprise.

 

The government doesn't pay taxes either, but instead of guilt to get the masses to participate, its tax tithe uses the force of law. The original US constitution didn't include an income tax. Because it was in God we trust. The church tithe tax was an unofficial 10%. The income first appeared during the Civil War and finally stuck in 1913. That tithe is connected to atheism due to separation of church and state, correct.

 

Religions in the west only needed a 10% tax across the board. But it wasn't enforced with some giving even more. The atheist approach is not as efficient and requires from 30-70%, with those who are the most productive having to pay a higher tax tithe. That was not taught by religion which only required 10% for all. Socialism is an inefficient atheists version of religious giving. It tries to do the same thing but lacks the volunteers who give willingly.

[Buffy]

I have no problem with this, I just think they should have to account for what they do with the money.

Why? Do you think that you should have to publicly account for your own income? I suppose your neighbors would like to know how much you spend on alcohol, but do you really want them to? Even businesses that have extensive public reporting requirements, really don't have to say that much about how their really spending their money in detail because its proprietary and would benefit their competitors.

 

If it's not going to be public, are you going to have a government agency that decides what's a "legitimate" use of funds or not? Even if it is public, who's going to decide what is "charity" and what is "proselytizing?"

 

What is the point of adding all this overhead and thus providing even *less* money to the real charities?

Even taxing it doesn't keep anyone from freedom of religion.

Who gets to decide who gets taxed? How much? We gonna have progressive taxes? Is it weighted toward assets (the Catholic church is one of the biggest landowners in America), or just income? Do you see how the fact that different religions who have different mixes would be put at a disadvantage because *political* organizations can decide which is which?

 

This is exactly why taxation is almost by definition a limitation on that "free exercise thereof" thingy.

As i said no other charity takes in even a small fraction of the money religion does and doesn't have to account for it. I don't thing the policeman's ball is in any danger of taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. those scams are not charities, they are scams, different thing buffy.

I don't know, but I'll tell ya' they call me every year even though I still don't donate. Must be some real money in it. But I guess we'd need that enormous Internal Religion Revenue Service to find out, eh? ;)

 

And then pot came along and gang fighting went away and just in one semester, guys in shop class went from making zip guns to hash pipes, y'know, :hyper:

Buffy

[modest]

If it's not going to be public, are you going to have a government agency that decides what's a "legitimate" use of funds or not? Even if it is public, who's going to decide what is "charity" and what is "proselytizing?"

 

That same government agency will need to somehow compel churches that refuse to report and look into claims of fraudulent reporting in others. I'm not sure this would get to the point of imprisoning priests and deacons, but churches would certainly be forced to close.

 

~modest