Horizon

Sometimes I wonder whether it wouldn't be a good idea to stop protecting religion, take the gloves off, and let them all go at it. And, of course, the government would be given a free hand to suppress religion. It might be a small price to pay in order to avoid things like flaps over bill signings in churches.

I do wonder if it's a violation of the separation of church and state to exempt religious groups from taxation. Tax exemption is, after all, a public subsidy. Maybe religious groups should be denied this subsidy unless they can re-qualify themselves as useful 501(c)(3) charities. Back in 1996, people who qualified for disability benefits based on hopeless addiction were denied both cash aid and the accompanying medical insurance unless they could re-qualify on the basis of a psychiatric or physical disability. The SSI cutoff victims suffered far more acutely -- most of them did indeed have bad physical and mental problems but weren't organized enough to prove it -- and taxation of religious organizations would bring in far more money to the treasury than starving a few wretches.

Sounds good to me. But honestly if not signing bills in churches is such an onerous side effect of the US government's preferential treatment of religion (and, de facto, protestant christianity), then really let's just stop protecting it. That way no one has to sneak around to the IRS on the one hand, and on the other politicians can govern from the vatican for all it matters. I really think it's worth considering.

Try being the only one in the room who isn't saying the prayer out loud because you're the only one who believes something different (or, anyhow, who owns up to it). Try being told officially, by your government, that you're weird.

Been there, done that, still think the no-taxes/no-endorsements setup we've got is an excellent trade-off.

Try being the only one in the room who isn't saying the prayer out loud because you're the only one who believes something different

Well, not being religious, that happens to me quite often. What's so terrible about it?

Been there, done that, still think the no-taxes/no-endorsements setup we've got is an excellent trade-off.

Yeah, but it apparently never seems quite so attractive to the religion that thinks it could win.

What's so terrible about it?

I suspect that Martha is under the mistaken assumption that her adolescent experience was more unpleasant than it was for us well-adjusted types.

Hey buddy, who you callin' a well-adjusted type?

Sorry to be unclear, but I wasn't talking about my own adolescent experience. If it matters, my own upbringing was comfortable when it came to religion, in a town and a time where religious difference was normal and people didn't make assumptions about each other's beliefs. But obviously there are lots of other folks, even in the U.S., who haven't been so lucky.

Been there, done that, still think the no-taxes/no-endorsements setup we've got is an excellent trade-off.

Actually, idle chatting aside, I don't want to mess with current First Amendment law at all for the practical reason that any change at present would probably be for the worse.