PDA

View Full Version : Tax churches.



cushioncrawler
11-26-2011, 05:57 AM
Atheists are the most generous—even without heavenly reward!
By HANK PELLISSIER - IEET
Added: Saturday, 26 November 2011 at 3:09 PM

Who gives the most to charitable causes? Those who believe in gods or those who don’t?

“Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven…” (Mark 10:21)

“Any charity you give is for your own good. Any charity you give shall be for the sake of GOD. Any charity you give will be repaid to you…” (Koran 2:272)

Charitable behavior gets big perks in the afterlife, according to Christian and Islamic theology. Philanthropy, in these creeds, is a highly profitable long-term investment, a down payment on ecstatic immortality. Quite the bargain!

But atheists? No heaven awaits them. No pearly gates, eager virgins, harping angels, fluffy clouds, or succulent oasis. No reward whatsoever. Atheists have no faith, no expectation of benefit from a deity. So, atheists are probably selfish, right? Pitiless, parsimonious. Totally stingy misers, not passing a penny off to the poor…correct?

WRONG! Atheists, non-believers, secular humanists, skeptics—the whole gamut of the godless have emerged in recent years as inarguably the most generous benefactors on the globe. That’s right. Hordes of heretics are the world’s biggest damned philanthropists. Both individually and in groups, heathen infidels are topping the fundraising charts.

First, the facts.

The current most charitable individuals in the United States, based on “Estimated Lifetime Giving,” are:

1) Warren Buffett (atheist, donated $40.785 billion to “health, education, humanitarian causes”)

2) Bill & Melinda Gates (atheists, donated $27.602 billion to “global health and development, education”)

3) George Soros (atheist, donated $6.936 billion to “open and democratic societies”)

A century ago, one of the USA’s leading philanthropists was Andrew Carnegie, atheist.

Regarding “group efforts”—Kiva.org, the micro-financing organization that has distributed $261 million to people in 61 nations, has “lending teams” that post their generous efforts online. The leading team on November 22, 2011, is “Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists, and the Non-Religious.” These 18,127 benevolent blasphemers have lent $5,623,750 in 187,920 loans. Their simple motto is: “We loan because we care about the suffering of human beings.”

Trailing behind in the #2 slot are the “Kiva Christians” who have loaned $3,211,250. Their supernatural rallying cry is, “We loan because: Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:27)”

I’m gleeful that the irreligious are the most altruistic because I was incessantly told the inverse by credo-worshipping commenters after I published my article “Tax the Churches and Give the Revenue to Hungry Children.” Pious posters informed me that my secular proposal would seriously damage charitable causes, because it would hamper the vast, sublime generosity of the devout. Ha! The numbers above suggest that their contention is just the usual sanctimonious drivel. A favorite slogan of atheists is, “We Don’t Need God To Be Good” and the philanthropy figures I’ve presented indicate that is exactly the case, indeed, we seem to be “BETTER without God.”

In actuality, there are complex difficulties in funding religious organizations; I discovered this five years ago when I donated money to a impoverished tribal village in the Philippines that was being educated, and medically treated, by a Catholic layperson. The tribe had a sickly population of 66 individuals; within two years it had ballooned up to 100, even sicker at this point, with tuberculosis and malnutrition. When I strongly suggested to the Catholic layperson that my next contribution should be a bag of 10,000 condoms, to halt the population explosion, she replied, “Oh no, we are Catholics, we only practice natural birth control.”

After that exchange, I moved my atheistic generosity to Kiva.

Soflasnapper
11-26-2011, 12:52 PM
The billion dollar plus charitable largesse of John D. Rockefeller isn't mentioned, and he and his family were Baptists. A billion dollar donation back at the early part of the 20th century is worth many times that amount now.

Nor does this list pretend to include the millenias'-long historical total of charitable giving by religious persons, and religious organizations, somehow using the very recent Kiva kind of charity (which are LOANS, requiring repayment, btw) as an adequate proxy for this claim. It is not.

It is worthy of note that so much has been given by atheists, and I welcome this information and fact. But I hardly think the case in general is proven with this. If it is so, it would be mainly that a handful of multi-billionaires who are atheists have been ultra-charitable, in terms of billion-dollar plus bequests, because only in recent times have people HAD multi-billion dollar fortunes to disperse. And shockingly, or really, not so shockinglyl, many or most of these multi-billionaire types aren't religious. Perhaps having a lot to do with this amassing of such titanic sums of money in the first place.

I thought this was going to be a call to tax property held by churches and charitable organizations, which I support, if it is not directly where the church or organization is HQ'd.

cushioncrawler
11-26-2011, 03:57 PM
I dont agree with the gist of that article -- nor its flavor -- nor its slant. The writer iz an idiot of sorts, in my book.

I wouldnt giv $1 to any humanitarian charity of any sort. But i would giv for fauna and flora (exklooding ignorant selfish pink-arsed apes).

But churches shood be banned. Churches shood be taxed -- and donations shood not be tax deduktable. Alltho if i were king there would be no income tax -- and no tax of any sort.
mac.

Gayle in MD
11-28-2011, 08:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dont agree with the gist of that article -- nor its flavor -- nor its slant. The writer iz an idiot of sorts, in my book.

I wouldnt giv $1 to any humanitarian charity of any sort. But i would giv for fauna and flora (exklooding ignorant selfish pink-arsed apes).

But churches shood be banned. Churches shood be taxed -- and donations shood not be tax deduktable. Alltho if i were king there would be no income tax -- and no tax of any sort.
mac. </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alltho if i were king there would be no income tax -- and no tax of any sort.
</div></div>


Then there would have been no United States Of America, either....

There can be no independent nation, safe from invasion, without taxing the citizens of that nation.

BTW, Only The Bush Administration was irrational and stupid enough to launch two wars, and cut taxes, at the same time, big part of our current problems, along with Bush's spending and borrowing while fear mongering, warring and lying to the American People for eight years.

We need a central Government, it is a must, and taxes provide for the general walfare...that includes defending our land from foreign invaders....keeping our food, air and water clean, providing public education for our children, investing in our infrastructure, responding to national emergencies of all kinds, and regulating industry and the financial sector, as well.

There should be a ten year period both before and after serving as a Government Representative, with NO involvement in "Corporate interests" since money has corrupted the protections which a central government should provide for the General Welfare, and hence, wars for oil interests and cronies, pollution destroying the environment, corporations buying the representatives that will do as Bush did, and give them loopholes and subsidies while they outsource our jobs, and pollute the environment, making people ill, and as Bush did, removing competition in the states, for health insurance, which greatly contributed to the unsustainable rising costs of health care, and pharmaceuticals, all under Bush's corporate cronyism.

Corporate GREED and CORRUPTION, require laws and regulations.

A Corporation is NOT a person.

A corporation is an entity which does not care about polluting the air, the soil, the water or preserving the pristine natural environment which belongs to all of us. Corporations do not care about killing people with filth. Corporations do not care about oursourcing Americann jobs.

If we care about the environment, then was must realize that Government must protect it, for the GENERAL WALFARE of it's citizens. Repiglicans are <span style='font-size: 14pt'>most</span> negligent of this basic responsibility to our citizens.


As for religion, the problem is that religion has invaded government as a political entity,....negatively impacting our elections, our Constitutionally insured personal freedoms, decisions and privacy, while this nation was founded on the principle of Separation of Church and State. Another attack on American Principles by Repiglicans.

Churches have as much potential for corruption and greed, as any other businesses, that's what they are, a business.

How many of the leaders of these humongous churches and religions do you see living like Kings and Queens, accumulating vast personal wealth, selling "Faith" to assuage and soften man's fear of death and dying?

Either they should pay taxes just like any other business, or stay the hell out of politics and elections.

Additionally, there is no accurate way to fairly account for who gives what to whom, when it comes to charity. Any attempt to do so is just absurd and false.

G.,.

sack316
11-28-2011, 08:41 AM
A) Buffet/Gates' are agnostic

B) Gates quote "I’m not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I’m a huge believer in. There’s a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very, very positive impact." (maybe his giving came from such elements? Not saying so, just maybe).

C) The article shows Buffet, Gates, and Soros are giving. it doesn't show anything about a group as a whole. Oprah is very giving and charitable... (ie African American Female daytime television hosts are the most charitable demographic would not be an accurate statement based solely on her actions)

D) The etymology of the word "charity" itself /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

cushioncrawler
11-28-2011, 03:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dont agree with the gist of that article -- nor its flavor -- nor its slant. The writer iz an idiot of sorts, in my book. I wouldnt giv $1 to any humanitarian charity of any sort. But i would giv for fauna and flora (exklooding ignorant selfish pink-arsed apes). But churches shood be banned. Churches shood be taxed -- and donations shood not be tax deduktable. Alltho if i were king there would be no income tax -- and no tax of any sort. mac.</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....Then there would have been no United States Of America, either....
There can be no independent nation, safe from invasion, without taxing the citizens of that nation......</div></div>Gayle -- I hav mentioned this before. U dont need tax etc. Gov duz what it uzually duz -- and debt iz then 100% of expenditure instead of 10% or whatever.

Kollekting tax kosts say 5% of the tax kollekted. If zero tax then u save 5% straight away.

If u hav zero tax then everyone pays a share of the gov expenditure, ie there iz no tax evasion. But its a bit diffikult to explain.
mac.

And az u say -- charitys benefit the CEO's of charitys. In most cases a faux-christian.