Continued from page 1
As history has shown us, church may potentially do anything. They may make charity, but deny Homosexuals. They may give service, but deny African Americans. To other religions, they preach intolerance and bitterness, encouraging an aura of misunderstanding -- embers to violence, cruelty, and brutality. Then, I ask question again: why are churches exempt from taxation? The taxes of people that are collected to ensure a smooth-running society are used in a variety of ways: they build schools and teach children, they help run social programs such as welfare and food stamps, and they lend foreign aid to countries in dire poverty. When church has gains, it may build schools, but they might teach children racism, or intolerance, or sexism, or idea that Evolution is an evil, underground conspiracy, or a number of ridiculous and heartless things. The church might run a charity, but they might just refuse admittance by Homosexuals, members of certain races or religions, or people who dress differently. And, church might donate some of its income to other charities, but they might refuse charity to any hospital that performs abortions. Yes, we have seen churches do all of these things. There is no doubt to these questions. There is no conjecture in my theory. The church has burdened society of men with bigotry and prejudice, making us fight each other when we could have been learning new ways of love, affection, and happiness.
When churches are exempt from taxes, an apologist will often say: "It is because money of churches goes to same causes as taxes: to help general order of society, with charities, schools, and like." But, by understanding our current social situation, and one of past millenium, it is not difficult to see how wrong such an apology is. Churches must be taxed, so that their income can be fairly used and not employed to create racism and poverty. The same must apply to any religious organization. I am not arguing that churches cannot do incredible things that they already do, at least legally. Ethics is another question. I am only arguing that, as private organizations that are allowed to such activity, they must be legitimately required to pay taxes. The churches have their own interests, just as businesses have their interests of maintaining a profit and cutting back on cost. Just as a business is required to pay taxes, so should a church. The difference is non-existent.
Men and women who profess to believe in a god, a goddess, or a multiple of them, are exercising their rights as living creatures. I can never argue against a person's right to believe what they will, to share what they believe, to practice their religion or philosophy in an attempt to satisfy burnings of their heart. So long as a person's actions do not offend sweetness of justice, only argument I can offer him might be one on logical errors of what he believes. And even then, I will not say a word about what he has right to believe or practice. Ultimately, what is real or not real is something for each of us to decide. As a person who highly values Freethought and independence of spirit, I will always find myself combating religion, not unlike any other revolutionary who fights ignorance or superstition. Among great contradictions of religion, there is question on thoughts of god. When a religious follower tells you their ideas of what god believes, you will be hearing a speech about what this religious follower believes -- so it follows a person who believes in god and "knows" what god thinks will rarely disagree with god. And, so we have it today, with millions of religions, each thinking that god thinks something different. In actuality, what god believes is just what their religious followers believe. After all, if god believed in something different than religious follower, why would they continue believing something false? Even with this logic, there remains a slew of religions out there. They have their right to exist and preach, as much as I have my right to criticize and think.
For Life, Punkerslut