There really is no other way to phrase it, the response from the Right to the Charleston church shooting has been...well it's been disgusting.

So here we are on the third day after this horrific shooting and both sides of the political spectrum are firmly entrenched in their positions.

On the Left there are calls for more gun control and a serious discussion about racism in this country, and on the Right there are calls for arming pastors, and an aggressive attempt to deflect any blame for the violence from one who is clearly on their side of the ideological fence.

Here are some responses from those Republicans who claim to want to lead this country.

Chris Christie: 

“Laws can’t change this.” 

“This type of conduct is something that only our display of our own love and good faith that’s in our heart can change,” he said.

That of course it completely untrue.  As can be proven by looking at the example set by Australia.

Jeb Bush (Same article):  

“But I do know what was in the heart of the victims,” Bush said. “They were meeting in brotherhood and sisterhood in that church. … They were praying. They were learning and studying the word of the Lord, to find grace in his kingdom, to fill his house with love.”

Actually we DO know what was in the shooter's heart. Hatred for black people:  

"You all rape women and you're taking over our country."

Not only that but like all sociopaths it appears he has written a manifesto, which comes complete with pictures, angry rants, and tons of racism:

Couldn't be much clearer than that.

Here is what Mike Huckabee, a Christian pastor himself, had to say: 

“All the proposals this president and others have put forward on gun control would not have stopped this shooting anymore than it would have stopped Sandy Hook,” Huckabee said. “The one thing that would have at least ameliorated the horrible situation in Charleston would have been that if somebody in that prayer meeting had a conceal carry or there had been either an off duty policeman or an on duty policemen, somebody with the legal authority to carry a firearm and could have stopped the shooter.”

In other words we can do nothing to keep ourselves safe except prepare ourselves to return gunfire if fired upon. 

Which unsurprisingly is essentially the opinion of Charles Cotton, a board member for the NRA: 

Cotton, who did not return a message left at his Houston-area law firm, pointed out on a Texas gun forum that Pinckney was a state senator who had voted against a law allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons without permits. 

“Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton wrote. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

So apparently these people deserved to die because they were not  prepared to take a life in a place where they felt safe and were learning about love and compassion. Good to know.

No in the Right Wing bubble all gun violence is the result of mental illness, ill prepared victims, or radical Islamist terrorists from who the President is failing to protecting us.

However about that mental illness thing:  

We do have statistics showing that the vast majority of people who commit acts of violence do not have a diagnosis of mental illness and, conversely, people who have mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

(As somebody who works with the mentally ill, I can concur that most of what we do is to protect them from others, not protect others from them.)

Personally I think that this recent Rolling Stone article really hit the nail on the head:

The fact is, this is political because American movement conservatism has already made these kinds of killings political. The Republican Party has weaponized its supporters, made violence a virtue and, with almost every pronouncement for 50 years, given them an enemy politicized, racialized and indivisible. We can't afford to allow political discussions of these events, because if we do, we might notice what's already there, wracking the body politic like gangrene. 

Movement conservatives have fetishized a tendentious and ahistorical reading of the Second Amendment to the point that the Constitution itself somehow paradoxically "legitimizes" an armed insurrection against the government created by it. Those leading said insurrection are swaddled by the blanket exculpation of patriotism. At the same time, they have synonymized the Democratic Party with illegitimacy and abuse of the American order. This is no longer an argument about whether one party's beliefs are beneficial or harmful, but an attitude that labels leftism so antithetical to the American idea that empowering it on any level is an act of usurpation. Leftism no longer constitutes a debatable misuse of American power, but theft and governmental overreach. 

In other words as the Right Wing sees their power diminishing as a more diverse population begins to outnumber their base, they start to talk about "protecting our rights," "2nd Amendment solutions," and "retaking our country," and ALL of that is the kind of rhetoric that leads to people being shot to death in their own house of worship.

What could have been done to protect these nine people in South Carolina?

Well making it much, much harder to get a gun would be a nice start, but also making people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Sarah Palin shut the fuck up would certainly make a vast difference as well.

Which of course is why Bill O'Reilly became so defensive when a guest made a similar point: 

“You’re equating what Dylann Roof did in that church to our commentary?” he asked. “Are you saying that Fox News justifies brutal crimes against black Americans?”

Yes, yes I am. 

"When God Left the Building" a documentary on the decrease in church attendance in America.

Courtesy of the film's website:  

A pervasive part of the American fabric is fraying and decaying before our eyes. THE CHURCH IS WITHERING. 

Though the vast majority (77%) of Americans identify themselves as Christians, they have largely stopped attending church. LESS THAN 20% OF THE POPULATION now makes it to church in a typical week. Some 4000 churches are closing every year. It’s a major and unprecedented social upheaval. 

The film follows a church that has seen its attendance plunge from 900 to 40. In addition to external cultural factors that affect all churches, this church is disintegrating from the inside from a variety of human storms. A pastor who doesn’t know who or what God is. Fights over petty things. A faction of angry ex-members that devises a plan to take over the church. 

Throughout the story, cameras also visit other dying churches—as well as innovative new forms of church that are thriving. These range from a ministry in a Pennsylvania pub to an outreach in Los Angeles that brings joy to skid-row moms. 

By the end of the film, viewers will EXPERIENCE HOPE and a refreshing glimpse into how faith may be pursued in the future.

As you may have noticed this is not an anti-religion documentary but really one exploring the reasons behind the decrease in church attendance and suggesting that perhaps there needs to be a new paradigm created to meet the needs of today's believer. 

You may be surprised to learn that I have nothing against that idea.

I actually have nothing against people embracing ancient superstitions so long as they do not bleed into the political spectrum, undermine science, or negatively impact our education system.

After all people believe in all kinds of things, like Tarot card reading, horoscopes, feng shui, and all kinds of silly things. The only time that I find that offensive is if they try to push their superstitious nonsense onto others.

That is essentially why I am not at all sad to see that church attendance is dramatically down these days. 

While I am perfectly fine with individuals believing in nonsense, I am not at all comfortable with large groups who believe that nonsense and then feel it is their duty to convince others to believe it as well.

The states with the highest and lowest church attendance. Where is your state?

Courtesy of Gallup: Slightly more than half of Utah residents say they attend religious services every week, more than any other state in the union. Residents in the four Southern states of Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Arkansas are the next most likely to be frequent church attendees, with 45% to 47% reporting weekly attendance. At the other end of the spectrum is Vermont, where 17% of residents say they attend religious services every week.

Here is a list of the states with highest church attendance.

 And here is the list of states with the lowest.

As you can see Alaska is on the list of the states with the lowest attendance. 

And trust me that is not for lack of opportunity, The only thing that outnumber churches in Alaska are liquor stores and bars.

I know that Sarah Palin's radical religious rhetoric has people confused about Alaskans, But trust me the vast majority of us avoid church like the plague.

Now if they had an open bar.......

Pat Robertson calls for more firearms in church. Praise Jesus and pass the ammo.

Courtesy of Crooks And Liars:  

After showing a report about how some churches were forming armed "eyes and ears teams" to watch for trouble during services, Robertson suggested an approach slightly more measured than giving the congregation military-style assault rifles. 

"What is the new Beatitude? Blessed are the fully armed for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven," the CBN host laughed. "I really believe that if the bad guys understand that the citizenry are able to react against them then they won't be as free to go into a crowded mall or a school or a church and start blowing people out." 

"I do believe that that if people are trained with firearms, and they're able to protect themselves, I don't think it will lead to more violence, it will lead to less," he continued. "The idea of having citizens who are trained or to have off-duty police in your church is not a bad thing." 

"Anyhow, it's something to consider," Robertson concluded. "You don't even think about it. You want to go to church to praise the Lord. You don't want to go to church to shoot people or to get shot."

Okay seriously whatever happened to the idea that all things are possible through Christ, and that prayer will solve any problem?

Now instead of relying on faith, these people are being urged to rely on bullets.

I mean they still advocate fasting and prayer, but apparently only when stopping to reload.

Just another one of those Jewish liberals attacking praying in public again.

Seriously I don't know where this guy gets off.

You would think he felt he had the right to explain Christianity to Christians or something.

The audacity of the man!

The IRS is about to start taxing churches that engage in electioneering. And here you thought the conservatives were upset about the so-called "IRS scandal."

Courtesy of Christian News:  

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has reached a settlement with a prominent atheist organization, agreeing to crack down churches and religious groups for infringements of its prohibition against ‘electioneering.’ 

As previously reported, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, sued the IRS in 2012, asserting that many non-profit religious organizations have been “blatantly and deliberately flaunting … electioneering restrictions,” but the government has not enforced its rules pertaining to the matter. 

According to the IRS website, “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.” 

However, while candidates may not be promoted or opposed, churches and ministries that obtain 501 (c)(3) status may speak out on political and moral issues and/or generally encourage others to vote. 

“Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office,” the IRS outlines. “However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate.”

Well damn!

If you are like me you undoubtedly think this kind of thing should have been happening for years now, but I think we know that the Religious Right is going to lose its collective mind.

The conservatives are already on the warpath against the IRS, and this will surely push them over the edge, with renewed calls to abolish the agency.

All in all it is going to be great theater, though I wonder if they will actually ever be able to remove a church's tax exempt status without rioting in the streets?

And since this comes as a result of efforts from an Atheist organization? Well they really could not hate us anymore than they already do anyway.

Openly atheist lawmaker in Nebraska introduces bill that he says honors Jesus by asking churches and religious organizations to pay their taxes.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

An atheist lawmaker has proposed legislation in Nebraska that would essentially tax churches and other religious organizations. 

Ernie Chambers, who may be the highest-ranking openly atheist politician in the country, introduced a bill that would eliminate a state property tax exemption for those organizations. 

Chambers, an independent, submitted the bill, LB675, as simply a copy of the existing statute with the word “religious” crossed out at each mention among groups that are currently exempt from property taxes. 

The lawmaker, who is the longest-serving senator in Nebraska history, suggested the measure to generate more revenue and reduce local government reliance on state funding. 

“Religious people say they want to carry out the directives of Jesus who said, ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,’ when he was asked whether taxes should be paid to Caesar. In short: ‘PAY YOUR TAXES,’” Chambers wrote in the bill’s statement of intent. “This bill simply carries out what Jesus wanted to see his followers do, and they certainly want to see the Scriptures fulfilled.”

Sounds fair to me.

And since we are on the subject of honoring the wishes of Jesus perhaps these churches might want to remember Matthew 6:6:  

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.

In other words gathering in a building to pray together, is exactly what Jesus did NOT want people to do.

You know I am never going to be comfortable with religion, but it would do much to improve my relationship with them if they would start to act as if they have read, and actually understand, the teachings of the man they claim to love and respect.

Atheist group is taking IRS to court to challenge the tax exempt status of religious organizations. Happy Holidays!

Courtesy of The New Civil Rights Movement:  

American Atheists and other secular groups are taking the IRS to court over what they say is the preferential treatment the tax-collection agency gives to religious organizations. 

Studies show that Americans subsidize religious organizations to the tune of an estimated $71 billion annually, in the form of tax-exemptions. “This is about equality,” American Atheists President David Silverman said in a statement. 

“This is about the U.S. government holding everyone to the same standard and giving the same rights to all. No exceptions. We are seeing religions getting preferential treatment by our government, a government that is supposed to serve us and respect us all as equals, and that’s wrong. It’s not what this country is about and it’s unpatriotic.” 

Dave Muscato, a spokesman for American Atheists, told Newsweek, “We find it discriminatory, so we’re suing. The way that this is set up, we all pay for it. We’re all supporting churches for what they do.” 

Because religious organizations are automatically granted a tax-exempt status and are not required to file forms that non-religious organizations must, American Atheists claim secular groups are unfairly burdened, while religious organizations have a fundraising advantage that includes not having to reveal their donors.

I know I am looking at this from a very prejudicial angle, but you have to admit American Atheists have a point. 

It is unfair to ask nonmembers of a religious organization to subsidize churches through their tax dollars, when often the churches themselves have money to burn.

Churches should pay their fair share, ESPECIALLY if they are going to dabble in politics, which is increasingly the case these days.  Not only that, but I think that the new Pope would agree with me on this topic.

Federal District Court declares at least one religious income tax exemption unconstitutional.

Courtesy of The New Civil Rights Movement:  

A federal district court judge has declared “unconstitutional” a portion of U.S. law that allows “a minister of the gospel” to not pay income tax on a specific portion of their compensation. 

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that the so-called “parish exemption,” which allows religious ministers to avoid paying taxes on the value of their housing granted to them by their religious employers, “violates the establishment clause” of the U.S. Constitution and must be discontinued. 

The law, 26 U.S. C. § 107(2), has been on the books since 1954. 

The tax exemption was estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers $2.3 billion from 2002-2007 alone, likely more in the years since. 

Heralding it as a “major federal court victory,” the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which brought the lawsuit along with their co-presidents, Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, offered an explanation of yesterday’s ruling. 

Ministers may, for instance, use the untaxed income to purchase a home, and, in a practice known as “double dipping,” may then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes. 

“The Court’s decision does not evince hostility to religion — nor should it even seem controversial,” commented Richard L. Bolton, FFRF’s attorney in the case. “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.” 

Crabb wrote: “Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility. It is important to remember that the establishment clause protects the religious and nonreligious alike.” 

The 1954 bill’s sponsor, Rep. Peter Mack, argued ministers should be rewarded for “carrying on such a courageous fight against this [godless and anti-religious world movement].” 

“I agree with plaintiffs that §107(2) does not have a secular purpose or effect,” wrote Crabb, adding that a reasonable observer would view it “as an endorsement of religion.” 

Crabb wrote that “the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.” 

All taxpayers are burdened by taxes, Crabb noted. “Defendants do not identify any reason why a requirement on ministers to pay taxes on a housing allowance is more burdensome for them than for the many millions of others who must pay taxes on income used for housing expenses.” 

One study has estimated that in total, combined religious tax exemptions cost American taxpayers $71 billion each year.

And now with this one declared unconstitutional I am not sure what the argument would be to protect the rest of the exemptions. Does that mean that we will soon see the day when churches are taxed just like ever other big profit making, politically connected, corporation? Because THAT would be awesome!

Gee I wonder how Sarah Palin will work THIS into her book tour?

It's Sunday, so let's talk religion. More specifically tax exempt religion.

Courtesy of The Washington Post:

If, all of a sudden, churches, synagogues, mosques and the like lost their tax privileges, how much tax revenue would that generate? 

Ryan T. Cragun, a sociologist at the University of Tampa, and two of his students, Stephanie Yeager and Desmond Vega, took it upon themselves to figure it out. They’re not exactly disinterested parties; their research appeared in Free Inquiry, a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism. But Cragun is a serious sociologist of religion and the data seems to check out. The full scale of subsidies religions get is pretty staggering:

When people donate to religious groups, it’s tax-deductible. Churches don’t pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don’t pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don’t pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don’t pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get “parsonage exemptions” that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they’re doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits). 

Cragun et al estimate the total subsidy at $71 billion. That’s almost certainly a lowball, as they didn’t estimate the cost of a number of subsidies, like local income and property tax exemptions, the sales tax exemption, and — most importantly — the charitable deduction for religious given. Their estimate that religious groups own $600 billion in property is also probably low, since it leaves out property besides actual churches, mosques, etc. 

The charitable deduction for all groups cost about $39 billion this year, according to the CBO, and given that 32 percent of those donations are to religious groups, getting rid of it just for them would raise about $12.5 billion. Add that in and you get a religious subsidy of about $83.5 billion.

83.5 billion a year. Just imagine how much actual good could be done with that money.

And I mean REAL good, not the fake charities that these organizations set up to launder their money and sheer the sheep, but rather money spent on improving roads, school, and infrastructure.

But why should we care if people want to try and buy their way into heaven by giving these charlatans their hard earned money you may ask?

Here's why: 

Religious exemptions from taxation is no trivial matter. It is estimated that churches and other religious bodies may own anywhere between twenty and twenty-five percent of all of the land in the United States. This represents a huge portion of the possible tax base and billions of dollars in potential revenue which could be used to fund schools and other portions of the social infrastructure upon which the churches depend, just like the rest of us. The assets of the Roman Catholic church alone exceed those of the five largest American corporations combined and cash donations to churches total tens of billions of dollars every year. 

Every dollar not paid by churches or other religious organizations must be made up from some other source. When all tax exemptions are taken into account, it is estimated that the average family may pay up to $1,000 in extra taxes every year to make up for the lost revenue not received from churches and religious groups. This includes sales taxes, inheritance taxes, income taxes, personal taxes, and ad valorem taxes.

They get 83.5 billion in subsidies,  they own upwards of twenty five percent of the country, and this costs the average American family $1000 per year.

Now as a non-religious type this infuriates me. Especially as I have made it one of my goals in life to NEVER, even accidentally, support any religious or church group. As it turns out apparently I have been subsidizing them my entire life.

Shit!

Atheist group sues government for claiming they are a "religious organization" and for trying to give them a tax exemption. I know, right?

Courtesy of Yahoo News:  

The leader of an atheist group sued because she didn't believe she qualified for tax exemptions afforded to clergy. When the government says she does qualify - as a minister - she got even angrier. 

"We are not ministers," Annie Laurie Gaylor, chief of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, told The Tennessean newspaper. "We are having to tell the government the obvious -- we are not a church." 

The lawsuit is over the personage exemption for clergy, which allows ministers to claim part of their salary as a tax-free housing allowance. 

Gaylor's Madison, Wisc.-based group is organized, united by faith that there is no deity, and essentially builds fellowship around those beliefs. Thus, the Department of Justice filed a brief stating that Gaylor, as the group's leader, is eligible for the exemption since atheist groups can essentially function as a religion. 

That complicates the foundation's federal lawsuit, first filed in 2009, after the foundation board voted to give Gaylor and her husband Dan Barker a housing allowance of $15,000 per year. The couple then claimed they didn't qualify for the same tax exemption as clergy so the foundation sued the federal government. In August 2012, a federal judge ruled the case can move forward. 

But the Justice Department contends that since Buddhism or Taoism don't include a belief in God and are still considered religions, atheism could qualify as well. Thus, a minister can be seen as a spiritual leader and provide services for a religious organization - and a belief in God isn't legally necessary. 

"Plaintiffs may not presume that a law's reference to religion necessarily excludes beliefs that are specifically non-theistic in nature," the government argued in a motion to dismiss the suit. 

Gaylor contested, "That's not what we are after."

Now imagine, just for a moment, imagine a Christian church arguing to give back a tax exemption. 

Can't do it can you?

That's right because the Christian religions is basically a business who is often focused on bringing in as many dollars as possible, and avoid having to pay out as many dollars as possible.

Now if you will excuse me I have to spend the rest of the day walking around with an overinflated sense of superiority.

Arizona family flees America due to gay marriage and "state controlled churches," deciding to leave their fate in God's hands. God leaves them stranded in the middle of the ocean for three months.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

A northern Arizona family that was lost at sea for weeks in an ill-fated attempt to leave the U.S. over what they consider government interference in religion will fly back home Sunday. 

Hannah Gastonguay, 26, said Saturday that she and her husband “decided to take a leap of faith and see where God led us” when they took their two small children and her father-in-law and set sail from San Diego for the tiny island nation of Kiribati in May. 

But just weeks into their journey, the Gastonguays hit a series of storms that damaged their small boat, leaving them adrift for weeks, unable to make progress. They were eventually picked up by a Venezuelan fishing vessel, transferred to a Japanese cargo ship and taken to Chile where they are resting in a hotel in the port city of San Antonio. 

Their flights home were arranged by U.S. Embassy officials, Gastonguay said. The U.S. State Department was not immediately available for comment. 

So they fled America because they felt oppressed and yet they then after damn near dying in  the middle of the ocean they eagerly accept a free plane ride back to the states. Yeah America sucks alright.

Hannah Gastonguay said her family was fed up with government control in the U.S. As Christians they don’t believe in “abortion, homosexuality, in the state-controlled church,” she said. 

U.S. “churches aren’t their own,” Gastonguay said, suggesting that government regulation interfered with religious independence. 

Among other differences, she said they had a problem with being “forced to pay these taxes that pay for abortions we don’t agree with.” 

Seriously when was the last time that anybody fled this country searching for religious freedom?

Isn't it usually the other way around?

But here's the kicker.

The Gastonguays weren’t members of any church, and Hannah Gastonguay said their faith came from reading the Bible and through prayer. “The Bible is pretty clear,” she said.

Did you get that? These people were not even members of a church, and yet they say they fled the country because of "state controlled churches."  Makes perfect sense, if you're crazy.

Methinks SOMEBODY may have been watching a little too much Fox News.

The pro-life movement has its roots, not in fighting abortion, but fighting desegregation.

Courtesy of Salon:  

As the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wadepassed, evangelical leaders marked the occasion with histories of how their community took up the anti-abortion cause. Mark Galli, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, has suggested the movement formed out of grassroots reflection on “the terrible and inevitable consequences of legalized abortion.” Albert Mohler, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, insisted it arose from moral outrage triggered by Roe v. Wade. 

Both histories provide pristine portraits of the origins of the evangelical right, suggesting its founders based their advocacy on scholarly assessments and aspired to noble political ends. But a history can be told that is significantly less flattering. 

The right-wing evangelical movement was not an immediate backlash to Roe v. Wade. The evangelical community, unlike Roman Catholicism, showed little interest in combating abortion until almost 1980. As Jerry Falwell lamented in 1979, “The Roman Catholic Church for many years has stood virtually alone against abortion. I think it’s an indictment against the rest of us that we’ve allowed them to stand alone.” 

Although evangelicals were mostly silent on abortion after Roe v. Wade, they were not silent on other political issues. Paul Weyrich, one of the evangelical right’s most influential founders, recalls that the movement initially emerged to defend racially segregated Christian schools from government intrusion: 

[W]hat galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their minds was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation. 

In other words, as Randall Balmer has succinctly put it: “the religious right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination.” 

Only after the movement was underway did it begin advocacy on abortion. It did so, in large part, based on highly dubious arguments advanced by the popular writer Francis Schaeffer.

You know I started to write something about this very thing about a year ago, but I had trouble finding the information online that I needed.