1st Church of Jesus Christ, Atheist

[Danmark]

After realizing that most churches in America only give 1% of their budget for benevolence, and almost all the rest for their buildings and to pay personnel, I've decided it is more appropriate to call their buildings 'Club Houses' than 'Churches.'

So why not start our own church? Americas tax laws are designed to favor non-profit and charitable institutions which presumably benefit the community. These club houses don't really benefit the community. They just provide a place for people to hang out and falsely believe they are doing something good when they are really just spending the money on themselves. So why can't we do the same and avoid paying property taxes and tax on [strike]revenues[/strike] donations?

Fitness and pleasure is going to be at the heart of my church, so we'll have a pool, spa, and exercise equipment. Plenty of wine for communion. At first, I think I'll just donate my speaking fees until it gets up and running. I've already got my Universal Life Church 'Credentials of Ministry' and my parking pass. So I think we're set.
I've just discovered there's at least one other DCR member in my community, which apparently is an Atheist Vortex, so we've got an inchoate planning committee.
If you want to send donations, pm me for my address.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 13 by Danmark]

As you say, one of our greatest challenges is to help the truly needy without increasing their dependency, and without giving an incentive to avoid work. I agree. So, then, why do you fault the church? ....

I fault the church because it gives virtually nothing to the poor, but claims to be an institution devoted to helping others. After all, that was the the principle message of Jesus. Yet the church largely abandoned such goals long ago and has replaced the laudable message of Jesus with self promotion.

This false image of the church has won it tax advantages it does not deserve. People attend church and give money to it as if they are doing some great thing when in actuality they function more like the local Elks club, or 'Good Old Boys' club.
How to help the poor is a completely different subject.
My focus here is to point out the charitable arm of the church has withered to become an almost useless limb. It is the hypocrisy that is my target, AND the fact the U.S. government rewards such nonsense.

[Danmark]

This may not be a true 'apples to apples' comparison, but the percentage of $ going to programs is fairly high in this list, compared to the percentages attributed to the average church:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Guide ... -they-rate

[SailingCyclops]

So why not start our own church? Americas tax laws are designed to favor non-profit and charitable institutions which presumably benefit the community.

You don't want to emulate the very injustice which you oppose. Tax law favors non-profits which claim a belief in a supernatural deity over non-profits which don't. That is the injustice, and in the opinion of many legal scholars, unconstitutional.

In order to qualify for nonprofit tax-exempt status, any religious or secular organization must demonstrate it exists to benefit the public. After that basic element is established, religious non-profits are almost always declared automatically tax-exempt under the current IRC rules and definitions. However, secular non-profits face a lengthy application and a fee, which can be as high as $850.

Religious organizations and churches are treated differently from secular organizations. The exemptions are applied in a way that discriminates solely on the basis of whether an entitys members express beliefs and practices accepted as religious. The IRS treats your organization better if you profess belief in a supernatural deity.

An "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron, both in the IRS sense, and in reality. Instead of emulating and perpetuating the unconstitutional discrimination, fight it where it matters --in the courts.

American Atheists was founded on the notion that atheists deserve full equality from the government and that using the courts as a tool to enforce the Constitutional separation of religion from government is sometimes necessary.

Be the change you wish to see in the world instead of emulating it's injustice.

See:
AMERICAN ATHEISTS V. SHULMAN

[Danmark]

So why not start our own church? Americas tax laws are designed to favor non-profit and charitable institutions which presumably benefit the community.

You don't want to emulate the very injustice which you oppose. Tax law favors non-profits which claim a belief in a supernatural deity over non-profits which don't. That is the injustice, and in the opinion of many legal scholars, unconstitutional.

In order to qualify for nonprofit tax-exempt status, any religious or secular organization must demonstrate it exists to benefit the public. After that basic element is established, religious non-profits are almost always declared automatically tax-exempt under the current IRC rules and definitions. However, secular non-profits face a lengthy application and a fee, which can be as high as $850.

Religious organizations and churches are treated differently from secular organizations. The exemptions are applied in a way that discriminates solely on the basis of whether an entitys members express beliefs and practices accepted as religious. The IRS treats your organization better if you profess belief in a supernatural deity.

An "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron, both in the IRS sense, and in reality. Instead of emulating and perpetuating the unconstitutional discrimination, fight it where it matters --in the courts.

American Atheists was founded on the notion that atheists deserve full equality from the government and that using the courts as a tool to enforce the Constitutional separation of religion from government is sometimes necessary.

Be the change you wish to see in the world instead of emulating it's injustice.

See:
AMERICAN ATHEISTS V. SHULMAN

A. It's a joke.
B. It's a joke meant to point out exactly the problem that American Atheists is fighting against.
C. Altho' I believe AA has a valid position, they will lose if their case get to the Supreme Court. Reference the 5-4 decision just handed down in the Town Hall prayer case.
D. Actually turning the joke into reality via the ULC or similar entity is an alternate way to either give ALL groups the same tax exemptions or get rid of the churches'.
Either result would be fair. The current tax code is not.

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 21 by Danmark]

Danmark, here are some points you have made.

let's agree that reports from particular individuals don't mean much.

What I personally do or have done is irrelevant to the discussion.

One of the greatest challenges we have is to find a way to help the truly needy without increasing their dependency and without giving an incentive to avoid work.

I fault the church because it gives virtually nothing to the poor, but claims to be an institution devoted to helping others.

How to help the poor is a completely different subject.

First of all, I do not agree that reports from particular individuals such as yourself 'don't mean much'. 1st-hand experience is everything. The awful thing about the internet is that it's such a jumble of decontextualized, often misleading information, that all bets are off. What it offers in scope, it lacks in credibility. True, your first-hand accounts are narrow in scope. But so is my understanding, and so is my impact.

Secondly, what you personally do or have done is paramount. You are making an accusation - that the church is not helping the poor. I want to know that your personal experience enlightens you to the logistical, psychological, spiritual, and practical difficulties of helping the poor. If it doesn't, your accusations are ungrounded. Personally, I have devoted a lot of time to this effort, and much of it has been futile, but for the lessons I got out of it of "what not to do". After having gained personal experience, I feel that I can better contextualize studies, facts, and reports by others - to constructively deal with the issue at hand. But before I ever got any experience, I simply did not know what I was talking about.

Thirdly, your whole point here is to 'joke' as you have stated. You mock the church because you feel it does not hold up its end of the bargain - to help the poor. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated that the church does help the poor - precisely because its methods are indirect. The studies you presented only show that the church does not contribute much directly to 'benevolence'. It says nothing to the deep-rooted impact the church has on society as a whole. I believe that impact is profound, and historically proven. Therefore, I cannot believe that 'how to help the poor is a completely different subject'. The 'how' is the point at which your accusation hinges.

If you still feel that 'how to help the poor' is irrelevant to this discussion, I would be glad to discuss it with you in depth in another thread, where we can constructively focus on solutions, rather than mock a system neither of us fully understands.

[Danmark]

First of all, I do not agree that reports from particular individuals such as yourself 'don't mean much'.
....
Secondly, what you personally do or have done is paramount. You are making an accusation - that the church is not helping the poor.
....
Thirdly, your whole point here is to 'joke' as you have stated. You mock the church because you feel it does not hold up its end of the bargain - to help the poor.
....
If you still feel that 'how to help the poor' is irrelevant to this discussion, I would be glad to discuss it with you in depth in another thread, where we can constructively focus on solutions, rather than mock a system neither of us fully understands.

You've taken several 'points' you say I've made, but I'm not sure of the context of some of them. Perhaps it's like what I've just done, taking the lead sentences of your arguments.

1st, anecdotal reports should not be confused with proper sampling and scientifically derived data. SOME reporters' reports are worse than worthless. Others may be brilliant, so it is more accurate to say that I believe 'reports from particular individuals' do not necessarily mean much.

2d, My point about churches not helping the poor was derived from data compiled by the churches themselves. I wouldn't use the word 'mock,' for this observation. It is strictly factual.
My central point is that if any institution from a church to the local Elks club, spends 97% to 99% of it's budget on running the church itself and programs for the benefit of its members, it has no right to pat itself on the back for 'helping the poor,' because they are not helping the poor. They are helping themselves.

3d, I simply made the point that the percentage of an institution's budget that goes to help the poor [which was my point] is an entirely separate issue from 'what is the best strategy to help the poor.'

If you want to start a subtopic on the best strategies to help the poor, I think that is a great idea and I would probably want to contribute to that subtopic.

[Wissing]

Then this marks the first time this year that anyone has used the "putting our heads together" section of the forum. I've started a thread: Poverty.

[Danmark]

Then this marks the first time this year that anyone has used the "putting our heads together" section of the forum. I've started a thread: Poverty.

Great! It may be helpful to provide a link:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=25718