Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Taxing the "God" business



James Madison wanted to tax church property, as did James Garfield, and most notably, Union general and President Ulysses S. Grant:

"In 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant's message to Congress included a 900-foot petition containing 35,000 signatures stating, "We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall be no longer exempt from taxation."

"I would," said Grant to Congress, "also call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land....it is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property....In 1850, the church properties in the U.S. which paid no taxes, municipal or state, amounted to about $83 million. In 1860, the amount had doubled; in 1875, it is about $1 billion. By 1900, without check, it is safe to say this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion....so vast a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of government without bearing its portion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be looked upon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes....I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation."

Unfortunately, Grant's warning went unheeded by Congress. By 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches had ballooned to approximately $110 billion.

In New York City alone, the amount was $750 million in 1969, $1 billion in 1982, and $3 billion in 1989.""""""

Cough it up, monotheists.

TaxingReligion

13 comments:

J said...

Oh wow the Archies, er McArchies! Ulysses S. Grant a bit too deep for Archies.

Archonius and McReg of course fancy themselves like intellectuals and wits, ala Monty Python. Alas, the TechnoArchies remain as far from Monty Python or Shakespearean wit as are small-town shriners.

J said...

"besmirched by a gratuitous comment filled with.....personal crap."

Ah McReggie, the crap-o-meter (which takes into account lies, insults, libel, ad homs, endless pop-freudian BS) reading for your Archonius out-ranks us substantially. For instance, he'sg called us a conservative or (neo-nazi) for months on end, or worse. I have never been in GOP: can ArchieRon say that? I doubt it (tho' he 'll lie about it). I voted for Billy Clinton back in 90s. Then Nader, and then Kerry. We even agree that Gore may have won in Florida (tho' refusing to make definite claims without sufficient acquaintance with evidence: the Dem election bosses say it was fair, and they were involved in recount. Anyway , Gore got his one recount allowed by law.)

Yass we read a bit of Hitchens, while taking issue with his points, especially after 2004, and the Robb-Silbermann report. He's an entertaining writer--and an atheist, if a bit of centrist (tho' knows his Founding Fathers, and even Orwell)

We also read Chomsky and Alex Cockburn, Palast, other progressive leftists (tho' with a skeptical, and one might say Orwellian eye--one distrusting of authoritarians, whether fascist or stalinist, or PC snitch-liberal).

I am not a Xtian, and don't attend church either (another of ArchieRon's deceptions---especially when he chimes in, positively, with Orson Scott Card threads, and makes quite a few religious sounding comments). It's not gratuitous, whatsoever.

Max said...

Are your standards based on those whom you despise?

The point stands. It was a very good post. The comment was garbage. It contributed nothing.

J said...

Thx.

Hate? No, more like amused. As Mr. T said, "Pitay Da Fooo".

Yeah taxing religious organizations--an important point. I seem to recall that NWs had a secular, even atheist tilt a few months back--Dawkins, etc.--maybe until your Churchie pals started to kvetch.

J said...

Like his latest little sycophantic brain-fart: narcissistic, self-indulgent, pointless, not to say wrong (not true for one). Reader's Digest is hiring!


(maybe y'all could like finish Ulysses for starters. Or say Gravity's Rainbow. Or even easier Pynchon like Vineland or COL49)

He's a mental case, really. That you can't see that means you are most likely one too.

Darlin' said...

What's with this "bitte," bitte?

J said...

Ah, schlecht Deutsch, and sort of euro-RP, perhaps. Imagining the chateau with the Wittenbols in the foyer.

Apart from the more alarming imagery, she's quite a talented artiste, is she not.

J said...

As far as the phantom convo goes, you don't care to know all the details.

Rather lengthy protracted battle with some Xtian salesmen-on-drugs and sci-fi dudes who consider themselves PC.

J said...

Ah, Rev. B approves of Grant's proposal to tax churchies, and Contingencies posting Grant's proposal to tax churchies. How nice--and typically patronizing, deceptive, Janus-faced.

.

J said...

Ah Rev. B, snitch grrl opened his little fart-hole mouth and offers ..... more moralism!

I'm finding your church ,ItchRon. And you're gonna be known for the deviant bag of shit you are. Got dat? Phuck you, scumbag. You don't know Darwin from your Douchebag.

Max said...

Nothing like a little free speech to rile your ass up, eh?

J said...

You show your piss-poor reading skills once again. First off, free speech would entail unmoderated posting, especially when some, uh, stooge reads a bit of Darwinian realism, and has a little baptist fit, starts into his usual "fascist" BS, makes all sorts of bogus accusations and unwarranted, paranoid inferences.

Not free speech at all. Quite the opposite. Besides, you can shriek Sally-Field-like all day and sound like an idiot and call that free speech, when it is merely hysteria. That's the usual fare at New Hysterical Worlds.

(btw, I have never said anyone should be denied a vote because of race, or any other factor (except intelligence). That's a palpable lie, indeed libellous: I said a while back (quoting Matt Stone from South Park) that a popular vote in and of itself should not be considered sacrosanct or inherently just (indeed that's a rather traditional view, going back to French revolution and before) . Not that that matters to you.

I also assert that energy/PeakOil issues have a Darwinian aspect, and am called a fascist for that. And you allowed it. You're the one destroying intelligent discussion, and indeed censoring--as with your refusal to post the Hawthorne quote on John Brown: "no man was ever more justly hanged". I'll take Nate's word over some loudmouthed crypto-communist such as Petey Seeger.

J said...

UH oh! Rev. Brownius in da McHouse, doin' some representin', and "singing" about his favorite........Space opera! Deeeeep thoughts from a certifiably insane hick, that's what your semi-free speech has enabled.

You're too stupid and tasteless, McK, to know hamfisted moralizing and pointless noise when it's right in your face. (Managed to like get say one Mingus or even Lesh line down yet?)

As far as your dogmatic belief in Occi-boy Gore (and his israeli pimp Lieberman), had you read a bit about his real political career in the 90s, you might not say that. That is, if you were able to read. The Origin of Species might be a good place to start with your reading skills. Or review Dawkins TGD again.

(Though Hobbes' Leviathan, some Locke, Adam Smith, Ricardo and even a bit of Marx might provide you some insight--like Poli Sci 101--- into what secular politics/economics consists of).

Custom Search

Blog Archive