-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The concept of charity most people have in mind is “serving the people’s physical needs.” How do religions stack up in performing this work? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), which touts its charitable work, spent 0.7% of it overall revenue on charitable causes. Compare that figure with the American Red Cross which spends 92.1% of its revenue on the physical needs of those it helps.
The other side of this coin is the estimated $71 billion in annual government subsidies that are granted to religious establishments.
The $71 billion doesn’t include property taxes from which religious institutions are exempt. States are estimated to subsidize religion to the tune of $26.2 billion per year on property worth $600 billion.
The $71 billion doesn’t include religions’s exemption from investment taxes (such as capital gains taxes) on their investment portfolios. For example, the Presbyterian Foundation manages $1.9 billion in assets.
The $71 billion doesn’t include the exemption from sales tax when religions purchase goods and services.
The $71 billion doesn’t include the “parsonage exemption.” That’s where ministers are allowed to deduct mortgage or rent, utilities, furnishings, upkeep, etc. from their taxable income.
The best of the worst appears to be the United Methodist Church which allocated about 29% of its revenues to charitable causes in 2010. Any secular charity that posted a 29% rate would be given a score of “F” by CharityWatch.
Religions are quick to point to their “spiritual charity” that addresses the spiritual needs of their parishioners. However, “charity is the giving of something, not the exchange of something for something else.” Addressing spiritual needs is what religious functionaries are paid to do. The fundamental nature of a priest’s or preacher’s job is to provide the spiritual services in exchange for pay and benefits.
These tax breaks are laws and clearly directed at religious institutions and establishments in violation of the First Amendment.
H/T: Council for Secular Humanism, Pharyngula, CharityWatch.
ID,
The first time I remember you posting here you were “biting my a– ” so “what you talking about Willis?”
GeneH,
Thank for the amusement.
I did not support Bron, I was acknowledging his support of mine.
It is always amusing to see you try to hide your malice by swathing it in the white cloth of love of mankind, asd a wish to intruct them.
I have to suppose that your buddies are so seldom subject to your corrections is due to their being without logical error. The only one I recall recently was Rafflaw, and it was no major thingy.
Irrevelant for myself—only meant as a warning to others. Do not get GeneH angry or he never stops biting your A**. Mine hss become hardened.
You read my writing poorly. I had in my earlier reply acknowledged the situation as being as you describe in your last two paragraphs.
My attention and responses to what you write will be dictated by myself.
No reply needed. But as always that is a personal option. Which you will certainly remind me.
But I will ignore that. Watching with amusement.
Buzz away.
id707,
In accepting Bron first premise, you again display the Nirvana fallacy. Also, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. It may influence the decision to bring charges, especially in a malum prohibitum violations, or mitigate sentencing, but it is not an excuse. There are exceptions to this general rule. To see examples of these exceptions, look at Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957) and Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). Lambert revolves around such a malum prohibitum charge (violation of city ordinances) and Cheek is particularly relevant to the issue at hand because it involves violating the tax code and the role willfulness plays in such a charge. Ignorantia juris non excusat is not just a legal maxim of both the common law and (Roman) civil law traditions, it is integral to the concept of the Rule of Law.
Your options are to either prove me wrong or learn to live with the fact that I’m going to point out such illogic and factual inaccuracies whether they comport to your opinion or not.
Your approval and/or appreciation is not required nor is changing your ways and, in fact, such errors present an opportunity to teach.
To think; I started all that with a common logical fallacy!!!! At least GeneH said so, and he knows.
I learned when I was a kid the difference between can and will. But most kids used them as emphasis, they were neither interested in logic nor gemometry.
So you learn to accept “caveman speech” as I called it. Later I found there were indeed nuances and evem complete differences between ugh and ugn. It was as we know now a toning language; with lovely nuancible phrases such a “that guy”, and “screwed”, etc-
To GeneH: I do understand now. Thanks. But not sure if you will get what you want. Ma-a-lish as in Arabic.
To Bron, I support your first supposition. But not the laters ones
Shall we all put together a fine certificate to give GeneH awarding him the honor of being logic master of the world; but also asking him to take his logic criticism and draw? Don’t think he would, but he might get the message, even if it is not purely logica.
I’m ganna use my will and cans just as most do, and his criticisms without will be to no effect on my side of the internet.
Actually, what would we do without GeneH. One can develop affectionate feelings even for a mosquito—-particularly if it does not sing off key or bite too frequently.
I can’t help it Gene!
Don’t be such a square, raff! 😉
Bob,
I am still trying to forget geometry!
Remember Geometry?
GIVEN: Nal has an obsessive, bordering on fanatical, preoccupation with religious skepticism.
“A man’s got to know his limitations.” — Clint Eastwood
“Pure reason has its limitations” — general idea proven by Immanuel Kant
Here is a real religious man speaking today in Philly, Chris Hedges:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/23707651
raff,
I’m always right except when I’m mistaken or deviate from 90 degrees to become acute or obtuse.
Bron,
An appeal to probability is a fallacy when stated in terms absolute, i.e. it is no longer a statement framed in probability, but in certainty. See the distinction again between the words “WILL” and “CAN BE”. Possible, probable (and its inverse improbable) and certain are not the same things.
Compare:
It will rain tomorrow.
It could rain tomorrow.
It’s likely to rain tomorrow.
The first is a statement of certainty.
The second is a statement of possibility.
The third is a statement of probability.
Gene,
I am always right. At least that is what I told the good Benedictine nuns! Except for Geometry!
Then perhaps you should park some of that hostility demonstrated above, slick. If you should think you’ve found a hole in my logic or proof that I’m factually wrong in an assertion, as always, you’re welcome to try and prove it, but pronouncements like “just between me and you, his logic is based on a fallacy: his self taught axiom that he is infallible. Since he is always right everyone else is wrong and therefore illogical” tell me another story about your reactions. I’ve never said I’m infallible and saying that I think I am is a straw man (speaking of logical fallacies).
What I am saying though, and what I’ve said in the past, is that I operate under the premise that I am correct until proven otherwise by logic and/or proof just as any trained critical thinker would. I also adjust my thinking based on new proven facts and/or logic as any trained critical thinker would. Other people being illogical is and my pointing it out is a result of them being illogical, i.e. not using the tool properly. Nothing more, nothing less. My fallibility has nothing to do with it.
That logic is a tool and I’m an expert user of that tool and ergo less likely to misuse it than a non-expert user is a matter of training and proclivity, but mostly training. Using/applying logic is also a skill. Almost anyone can learn it just like almost anyone can learn to play baseball. Just so, not every player is going to be a Hall of Fame player or win the Cy Young award.
Gene H:
“The fallacy of appeal to probability (because something might happen doesn’t mean it will happen)”
ID707 talked about cheating on taxes and loopholes. There is a very strong probability that because of the complexity of the tax code, we all “cheat” from time to time. Not voluntarily but out of ignorance.
The improbable happens so it is probable. So how does the appeal to probability square with just because something hasnt happened doesnt mean it wont?
Gene H:
I dont hate you at all, but I do find you entertaining, educational and at times enlightening.
id707,
Object? I didn’t say you did. “I preferred in my original comment to trust that probability would be supreme in that postulated situation.” Which is an appeal to probability (and a logical fallacy) by definition. That it is your preference is your choice, just as it is my preference to point such things out.
Just so we understand each other.
__________________
How about I clear up your case of sour grapes at never once winning an argument instead, Bron? Just because you are immune at learning how to use a tool like logic properly doesn’t mean everyone else is. Is an appeal to probability a logical fallacy? Why . . . yes it is. Noting the probability of an event is a fallacy when put forth in the language of absolutes, such as the above usage of “will” – a term absolute. If id707 had said, “Even thresholds CAN BE be loopholed”, it would have been a statement about probability, but not a fallacious appeal to it. However, since you have a demonstrated proclivity for thinking only in absolutes, I doubt this critical distinction concerning logic and the precision use of language registers with you. Don’t hate me because I’m a trained logician, Bron. Hate me because that is your natural reaction to those in disagreement with your “unpopular ideas” who use logic to dismantle said “unpopular ideas”.
idealist:
yes, Gene is the potentate of the syllogism and the vicar of fallacy. Dont mess with him.
just between me and you, his logic is based on a fallacy: his self taught axiom that he is infallible. Since he is always right everyone else is wrong and therefore illogical.
I hope that clears it up for you.
leejcaroll,
OCWM is the overall umbrella. Google AMA (American Missionary Association) to see just have activistic (not a word) Congregationalist were and are.
GeneH,
I did not protest. Repeat, did not protest.
I preferred in my original comment to trust that probability would be supreme in that postulated situation.
Positions vv logic I leave to you.
And you are free to criticize me or anything you like, free choice. And I am free to do as I wish. Great situation I think.
So in a vain hope of trying to explain my position, I tried to do so. But that’s not easy all the time.
You are as free to be illogical as you wish, id707.
Just so, I’m free to point it out as I wish.
If you don’t like me pointing out illogic, the best way to avoid that is not to be illogical.