No Representation Without Taxation

Read the title again. I know you think you know what it read, but read it again. You probably think it is the same as the phrase coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston circa 1750, but it isn't. It is a phrase that should have found its way into our political lexicon the moment the Christian Conservatives arrived on the scene.
During the past 8 years, the Moral Majority has manipulated the political machine in this country. Credited for Ronald Reagan's victory of Jimmy Carter in 1980 by delivering two-thirds of the white evangelical vote, they have been an influential and effective part of the political climate. But the question that comes to my mind is how is this possible if, as a group, they pay no taxes?

The separation of church and state is a phrase that I've heard practically all my life-and has been one of the most memorable political phrases to date. From my understanding, this is why religious organizations are exempt from paying taxes. If you don't contribute financially to wealth of the nation, why is your hand immersed in government affairs? I certainly don't believe that anyone's views should be discriminated against, provided they are within the boundaries of the law. But matters relating to God, (pick one), should be separate from matters of the state. Yes, Christians are citizens of this nation, but religion and its dogma has its place-in the church and not interlaced throughout branches of government.

If the Religious Right, or the Moral Majority want representation, pony up. The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson could never have amassed the wealth they've attained if they had to pay their fair share in taxes. Yet they were allowed access to the White House and the President and have been influential. The mere fact that the first Presidential Q & A session between now President Elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain was held at the Saddleback church, in my opinion, is a violation of the 'separation of church and state' mantra.

¹ The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

With that said, and mandated by the faithful, this should go both ways. The "Moral Majority" should keep it's nose out of matters of the state. Imposing their views upon non believers, and attempting to turn those views into laws violates the very principals for which they fought. They can't have it both ways. Either the government can interfere into their affairs, or vice-versa, or matters of the state are matters of the state, and matters of the church are matters of the church.

Too often the lines get blurred because congregationalists are voters and politicians aren't bold enough to put them in their place. Legally, churches aren't supposed to engage in political affairs. Doing so compromises their tax exempt status. But this didn't stop both John McCain and Barack Obama from participating in a Q & A 'debate' at the Saddleback church in Lake Forest, CA. Both candidates knew that by refusing to participate in the debacle would have alienated a very powerful voting block. At some point someone must send a message to this group and let them know under no uncertain terms are they to support candidates, denounce candidates, or speak of politics in their congregation-ever. There are rules and, like everyone else, they must obey them. After all, it was the church who insisted upon this separation.

At the risk of alienating readers, I'll admit that I am not a religious individual. For lack of a better term one might call me agnostic. In my opinion, we should all be agnostic. Who amongst us can say truly whether or not God exists? If you haven't literally talked to him or seen him, it's pretty safe to say you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists. I'm not talking about hearing your own conscience and attributing it to God. I'm talking about actually hearing a voice that if someone else was in the room they'd hear it as well. We've had too many individuals come along throughout history who've claimed they've heard the voice of God and now they are responsible for communicating the message to the masses. Even man has developed the ability to conference call-God has to have a way to speak to more than one person at a time. But I digress.

To put it bluntly, most evangelists are living, breathing, business men who take advantage of the tax exempt status granted the church to amass untold wealth. That money flows in one direction-from the congregation to the pockets of the church leaders. If a member of the congregation is in financial need, the most the church is able to offer is prayer. Try paying your bills with that. Sometimes, they'll tap the congregation to help said member, but never will they open up the church coffers to help the needy of the congregation. Sadly, most of these individuals are happy to walk away with just the prayers-even though they may have, over the years, contributed thousands of dollars to the church. I don't knock a man his hustle. If you've got people willing to exchange legal tender for that which they could achieve at home, then more power to you. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it, ".....religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God." If this is true, what on earth does one need with a church. I don't think Thomas Jefferson envisioned the nonsense that passes for religion today. But to each his own. My position is simple, as an organization pay taxes like the rest or keep your nose out of matters of the state. And as I so eloquently put it, NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION.

Enough said.

TPOKW

Addendum:
A couple of evenings past, a young man of about 20 came to my door selling magazine subscriptions. I know he thought that it was the first time someone had tried to sell me a magazine subscription I didn't want, but unbeknownst to him, I've been staving off individuals like him since I was 20. Anyhow, he began his script the moment I came to the door and I politely listened. At one point in his monologue he asked if I believed in God and my answer was "No." Perplexed, he then asked me, "What are you, Muslim?" Now I know in the the written form of communication there are no long pauses, but I'd like for you, the reader, to take a Final Jeopardy moment and seriously contemplate what that young man asked me, (play Final Jeopardy theme here). Did any of you hear what I heard? Since when is Allah not a deity? Who kicked him out of the line up? How did Muslims become godless people?

This is my problem with religion. With the exception of Buddhism (which really is a lifestyle more so than a religion), each one professes to be the true religion of God. And for the most part, they all pretty much teach the exact same tenets-thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc. If adhered to, there would be no religious wars. No crusades-No religious 'conversions' at the hands of barbaric Conquistadors. Most religious teachings are beautiful, but there implementation leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know why any person with half a brain couldn't see the chasm that exists between religious practices and religious teachings. I don't want to choose sides in the ongoing holy war that exists between Muslims and Christians, but the Christians have all but declared the Muslims a godless- that's what I got from that young man's question. Again, I'm a neutral party here, I think both sides need to clean up their act, but where is it written that any of us have the power to render a people godless? If you expect others to respect your beliefs, you'd better start by respecting the right of others to believe in what they choose-provided those beliefs do not harm others. Otherwise, there will be an ongoing sibling rivalry while each side jockey's to be God's chosen people, (another concept that disturbs me to no end).

I understand why this young man opted to throw God into his sales pitch-religion, being a instrument of control, can sometimes be invoked to aid consumers in loosening their purse strings. I wonder what his response would have been had I said that I was religious and then subsequently order a subscription to Playboy magazine. Hmmm....perhaps I'll try that next time.

®

References:
¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state