Disclaimer: The Omnipotent Poobah, aka Jack Koeneman, is a former Christian turned atheist. He has nothing against most theists and respects their beliefs – up to the point where they step on his.

PROSPERITY! - It's time for churches to share some of that prosperity with those they profess to want to help.

I have dozens of theist friends. Our discussions are generally polite and lean toward the relative merits of atheist and theist beliefs, not mundane secular topics like religious tax breaks. But with the hew and cry over taxes and spending, perhaps it’s time to start that conversation in earnest.

Feel free to jump in anytime.

Everything has a consequence and despite popular belief, cutting taxes and spending have consequences far beyond the ideological argument that we’ll be just hunky dory if government is limited to the political equivalent of forcing Americans to work without a net.

DIY Ass Wipes
It’s not uncommon for teachers to buy school supplies from their own pockets or firefighters in Rick Perry’s capitalist paradise to pay for their own equipment and fuel. In some schools, teachers buy toilet paper because the schools can’t afford it. A sort of DIY ass wipe. It’s sad, but I have boundless admiration for the sacrifices they make while selfish no-taxers bitch about how bad they have it.

Except for the most lunatic-fringe zealots, theists preach a deep spirit of hope and charity. Yet, most don’t walk their talk by volunteering to give up their churches’ tax exempt status.

The primary argument for tax exempt houses of worship is that  theists need the money to exercise their right to worship. However, that argument is a little weak. They’re not only insistent on tax exemptions, but are apparently looking for exemptions to important parts of their faiths too.

I don’t think everything religions do is wrong. On the contrary. By and large, theism is a good thing for society. But with funding disappearing for social safety programs, someone has to take up the slack. My beef isn’t that religious exemptions wholly disappear, but limited to exemptions for the secular parts of the business of their religions.

For those of strong faith, axing the exemption for purposes of building Crystal Cathedrals, installing air conditioners, and proselytizing shouldn’t matter one whit. It wouldn’t interfere with their ability to freely practice their religion. It would force them to make hard decisions on what they do with the tax money we give them.

Let Aunt Milly Rock On at the Organ
No, I suggest exemptions only apply to the parts of their truly secular holdings that have nothing to do with spreading the gospel. A salary for a new organist is an option that could be dealt with by having Aunt Milly play for free. If a church decided a professional organist was essential they should carry the weight of their own hiring decisions.

Conversely, decisions that have nothing to do with freedom of religion shouldn’t be exempt. If theists want to run their own businesses, like Pat Robertson‘s African blood diamond and gold mines or extensive land holdings, or acting like holy day traders, they should pay tax like GE…we’ll if GE actually paid the taxes they owned.

Obviously, there is a scant chance this will happen. I don’t see the Tea Partiers lining up for some sacrifice and politicians are as terrified by the religious lobby as they are the NRA or AARP.

Many would assume that taxing secular business interests would cut the amount of money for charity. However, you could make the argument that the money taken in through new tax revenue would offset a loss and encourage theists to make sacrifices and shift their charity toward more beneficial, secular endeavors.

More fully following your faith is the least God would ask.

Related articles

• More From the Poobah on Religion, Economics, and Politics (omnipotentpoobah.com)
• Tax Exempt Churches: Religious Freedom vs Tax Exemptions (atheism.about.com)
• Every Atheist vs Theist Debate in a Nutshell (patheos.com)
• 54 Ways to Piss Off An Atheist (futuretwit.com)
• Is there such a thing as an “atheist community”? (revdlesley.net)
• Real Shared Sacrifice: It’s Time For Churches To Pay Taxes (politicsusa.com)
• Tax exemption for churches (crown.org)
• Hew and Cry Over Obama’s Faith Based Initiative (talkingpointsmemeo.com)
• Hard Hitting Questions for Theists? (irrationalbob.wordpress.com)
• Witte: The State Property Tax Exemption for Churches and Charities (taxprof.typepad.com)

LONG MAY SHE WAVE - Waving the flag is exactly what the freedom to not wave it is all about.

In a bit of a twist, a Christian school has banned the National Anthem. “As a result of a thoughtful, thorough, prayerful period of listening, learning and discerning,” the Goshen College Board of Directors said, “it is the board’s judgment that continuing to play the national anthem compromises our ability to advance the vision (of Goshen College) together.”

What? None of the usual insistence that not wearing a flag pin makes you a traitor and not placing your hand over your heart is tantamount of crapping on Old Glory? Nope, because Goshen is a Mennonite college, a religion that is vehemently pacifistic and probably more devout than your run of the mill spaghetti dinner fund-raising crowd.

Many Americans conflate flag waving and God-fearing so I suspect many of them will look at Goshen’s decision as “politically correct” or an attempt to inflame the delicate sensibilities of the “true Christian” majority of conservative Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, et al.

(In fairness, that hasn’t happened on a wide scale yet even though one Catholic athelete seems a put off by it as are several of Goshen’s city council members. However, I suspect the story will gain traction soon.)

This is as a legitimate decision based on strong Mennonite religious beliefs, applied to their religion’s school, and in line with the belief that not singing about rockets glaring and flags still being there is a choice. In this case, a choice that doesn’t impinge on anyone else, secular or non-secular. The school even supports the ball player’s right to speak his mind.

It’s also in line with another important American value: Freedom. Being forced to sing the national ditty doesn’t perfectly symbolize respect for the country, nor does it diss the sacrifices of others. It exercises the free speech to say no and celebrates that freedom.

I’m an atheist and a veteran who does sing the anthem and put my hand over my heart, but I’m with these Christians on this one.

Related articles

• College bans national anthem at sporting events (hotair.com)
• Small Pacifist College Ends Playing National Anthem, Draws Ire From Nationalist Warmongers (hooglyboogly.wordpress.com)
• No More National Anthem (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• No More National Anthem at Pacifist Indiana College (davidscommonplacebook.wordpress.com)
• Mennonite College Bans National Anthem Because of War References (answersforthefaith.com)
• You Have to Respect a School that Has Principles, And Stands by Them (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Benefits of singing the anthem (search.japantimes.co.jp)

DENIGRATION IS A FINE WAY TO TREAT A HERO - Many patriotic people stake a claim on Pat Tillman's heroism. However, it turns out he's an atheist (hero) in a foxhole denigrated, along with his family, by some Christians for his beliefs. Click photo for more >>

In joining the military, young troops give up some basic Constitutional rights given the civilian population. The vagaries of war sometimes require it. The military is not a democracy and that’s as it should be.

However, there are some rights they don’t and shouldn’t give up, including the right to worship or not worship as they see fit. A slew of recent events and complaints about the religious components of the Army’s mandatory Soldier Fitness Tracker (SFT) test show abuses that cannot stand.

I’m not a militant atheist. I’m not particularly troubled by most of the many Christian symbols and deeds that appear in clearly secular places. Whether you want to worship Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, or rocks and trees is none of my concern. I even say Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays on occasion.

In God Some of Us Don’t Trust

Just Another Atheist Braving Danger for the Christians Back Home

However, I strongly believe that one’s rights stop at the point where they infringe upon others’. Scribbling “In God We Trust” on a dollar doesn’t make it  worth less. It doesn’t infringe on my right to spend the dollar as I see fit. I prefer to see it as a label that identifies God’s cash when it goes into a collection plate or tithe, even though you’d think an omniscent being could figure it out on their own. No harm and no huge foul. More of a bum call actually, but nothing to get dangerously huffy over.

War is Hell, even if Hell is a religious construct. It’s a dark place that breaks bodies and minds and that’s why I’m not against SFT in principle. Everyone could use a little help on the battlefield. If God is your answer, who am I to deprive you of that comfort? If God isn’t, who are you to deprive me of that comfort?

My objection stems from non-Christians and non-theists being tested against a purely Christian scale. Not only are they deemed failures if they don’t answer questions “properly”, but they receive help clearly not right for them. In effect, they get no help at all. Worse yet, they’re compelled to see the chaplain about arrangements for being “born again” or attending Christian concerts.

The problem is less SFT than the measuring metrics used, how the Army interprets the results,  and whether or what kind of emotional support the non-Christians may need. There’s nothing in the test that can’t be remedied with more attention to the needs of all soldiers, not just the select few.

The Army is No Theocracy
As a group, it’s probably safe to say that the majority of those agreeing with such Christianization of the military are the same ones who prattle on about DADT victims being such grave dangers to “unit cohesion and morale”. Doesn’t it seem a soldier labeled a failure, told their beliefs are wrong, and deprived of support offered to Christian soldiers wouldn’t have such great morale and possibly feel alienated enough to damage unit cohesion? The Army may not be a democracy, but it’s not a theocracy either.

American Christians represent a far greater portion of the population than non-theists, polytheists, and non-christians combined. Yet, their constant hosannas are about their rights being lost to the Great Godless Hordes – even to the point that the new Alabama governor publicly suggests his relationship with Christian constituents is greater than his relationship with other Alabamans.

Christians’ insistent imposition of their beliefs on other Americans is exactly what drives the more militant Atheists to distraction. Christians have built a slippery slope not unlike the NRA‘s where many Atheists feel the need to fight every new slight as though it means the death of the Constitution and their inevitable excommunication as Americans. And we’re all – Christians and non-Christians alike – going for a long slide if it continues.

My Christian friends – this isn’t persecution of you, but by you.

Related articles

• More from the Poobah about religion and atheism (omnipotentpoobah.com)
• More from the Poobah about the military (omnipotentpoobah.com)
• A Christian Soldier on the Spiritual Fitness Test [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
• The Separability Of Metaethics From Questions Of Theism (camelswithhammers.com)
• How Many Secularists and Non-Secularists Can Dance on the Head of a Pin? (omnipotentpoobah.com)
• Ask Richard: Christian Concerned About Her Husband’s “Fundamentalist” Atheism (friendlyatheist.com)
• Being Personally Moral Is Not Enough, Atheists Need A Coherent Metaethics (camelswithhammers.com)
• What should I ask an Atheist? (friendlyatheist.com)
• Atheists angry over Army’s ‘Spiritual Fitness’ test ()

NO TIME FOR (ATHEIST) SERGEANTS - Atheists are in foxholes, a lesson to remember.

The mandatory program measures soldier fitness in a variety of dimensions to help them cope with the rigors of combat. It’s spiritual dimension has a wealth of information for believers. However, it  implies that only believers need or can be helped in this dimension. In short, non-theists need not apply.

There’s nothing wrong with measuring and grading this dimension. It is critical to overcoming battlefield trauma. Whatever gets you through the terrors of war is great. But grading and providing solely religious-based feedback can demoralize non-believers and deprive them of helpful information in much the same way DADT chose to simply ignore the presence of gays. Non-theists are similarly marginalized.

Clean Toilets or Go to Chruch?
And, this ignoring of other than religious – more often than not non-Christian points of view – is larger than this program.

As a young airman in basic training during the 1970s everyone was offered two choices each Sunday – attend church or stay in the barracks and clean toilets.

Hmm…clean toilets or escape the tedium of 24×7 training for an hour singing and laughing with friends? Which shall I choose?

To the Air Force’s credit, the services were non-denominational and mentioned God only once or twice per service. There were two prayers, both of which were generic enough to interpret in any way, including as a non-theist statement. Services were comprised of signing vaguely religious, up tempo, and “modern” songs. To escape cleaning toilets with a toothbrush most atheists saw it as a good trade.

Nods to religion for the rest of my Air Force career were limited to my dog tags – which you could label as atheist, any religion, or not applicable. I entered “Granitellism” a faux belief that race car driver Andy Granitelli was God because he could pick up a screwdriver covered in oil. It didn’t cause an eyebrow to flutter.

It seems there has been a steady movement backward since those days.

In addition to CSFP, the Air Force Academy has suffered a long-standing bias against all but Christians and despite several Pentagon attempts to change, it continues. Individual unit commanders sometimes cross the same line and chaplains – which in my day did more social work than God’s work – have upped the ante.

Service members sometimes refuse to attend nondenominational services conducted by Islamic chaplains or vice versa. The Navy has squabbled over building mosques on large bases. National cemeteries banned atheist and multi-theist symbols on graves until recently because they “offended” the religious.

Unreasonable Demands?
Generally speaking, non-thesists haven’t made unreasonable demands for accommodation just as gays haven’t. When services build chapels and mosques there isn’t a clamor for an atheist house for contemplation. Asking for a symbol on a veteran’s grave is hardly a big thing. But, the CSFP goes a step beyond.

By refusing to include non-theists in CSFP the Army denies help to those service members, even though they remained atheists while in the foxholes…arm to arm with straight, gay, and minority soldiers.

The military is all about releasing some individuality to serve a greater purpose, a non-religious purpose. The Army used to call this, “An Army of One”. It degrades the contributions of non-believers because they didn’t give up an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution, and at least nominally by military training.

It’s simply wrong for the military to tout individual rights during training while denying those rights when the bullets fly.

After all, bullets don’t have an opinion about God.

Related articles

• Annoying Atheists (dangeroustalk.net)
• I Guess There Are Atheists In Foxholes (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Is There a Better Word Than ‘Anti-Theist’? (friendlyatheist.com)
• Don’t believe in God? Read this | Fred Edwords (guardian.co.uk)
• Atheists: Make a Donation This Holiday Season (friendlyatheist.com)
• How useful is faith for obtaining knowledge? (atheistexperience.blogspot.com)
• Maybe there are more atheists in foxholes! (secularnewsdaily.com)
• There Are No Atheists in Trapped Mines, Says Bill Donohue (friendlyatheist.com)
• At War: Where Did God Go in Afghanistan? An Atheist Writes. (atwar.blogs.nytimes.com)

When will politicians learn that running on personal values is a non-starter, particularly since most voters don’t care? But more importantly, how is it that the most sanctimonious pricks are usually the ones who turn up in compromising positions with those they hate on?

I don’t care what a person does behind doors. Really, I don’t. Plushies, fisting, or sex with park benches, it’s all good with me. By the same token, if you don’t like something, I’m OK with that too as long as you don’t try to force others to embrace your kookie, holier than the holiest of holies blather. But when a lout like Carl Palidino screams about the evils of the “homosexual life style” and is then caught emailing “awesome lesbian porn” (BTW Carl, lesbians are homosexuals) it’s rank, “large H” hypocrisy.

However, I expect a some “little H” hypocrisy, even though it too is wrong. There are a variety of reasons for candidates to change positions – from legitimate conversions of opinion to taking a slightly different spin on an issue to placate a particularly important constituency. But, there is something different about ignoring what you preach, particularly when you scream it at the top of your sinning-assed lungs.

And, here’s the difference.

When a candidate changes position on, for example, whether the Department of Education should be abolished, most voters – if they notice at all – forget about it within days. Most wouldn’t vote based on that single issue anyway.

But when a sanctimonious ass cake preaches the evils of homosexuality and is then found in bed with hookers or shipping porn spam around like a Nigerian Viagra dealer, values voters never seem angry about the breach of faith. In fact, they often scapegoat others, from the media to some innocent party, to protect the “sinner”. Values voters are much more likely to care less that a soldier who was never asked and never told was discharged than the sin of the anti-gay, red-handed jackwad pulling his pud over lesbian porn.

And values voters do often vote purely on values issues. They seem to have an attitude of hating the sin but loving the sinner only when the sinner is one of their own – even if the sinner has compounded their original sin with the sin of lying about it – repeatedly.

It’s also different in another important way.

If someone is elected and succeeds in abolishing, say, the Department of Education, the Republic may suffer from a stupid decision, but it’s unlikely to perish. However, if values voters continue to ignore and defend the transparent imbeciles like Palidino and nibble away at constitutional protections because someone is gay or Muslim or black or just different in some way, the Republic will perish.

If you think the worst thing that can happen is the repeal of DADT or gay marriage, you ain’t seen nothing like a country turned into group-belief theocracy.

Especially if you’re not a member of the theocratic elite.

Related articles

• Are Anti-Gay Christians Responsible for the Suicide Trend? (friendlyatheist.com)
• Are Lesbians Only For Porn? Google Instant Thinks So (gayrights.change.org)
• Misleading Poll Released By Military Group Opposed To DADT Repeal (lezgetreal.com)
• Carl Paladino Releases An Apology (perezhilton.com)
• Do Atheists ‘Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin’? (friendlyatheist.com)
• Denouncing Homosexuality, In New York? (plastic.com)
• Andrew “I’m Sorry” Marin Lurvs Peter “Porno Pete” LaBarbera (slog.thestranger.com)
• Michele Somerville: Homophobia in the Church: What Catholics Are Doing About It, and What Still Needs to Be Done (huffingtonpost.com)
• A God of Love (slog.thestranger.com)
• Mark Olmsted: O’Donnell and Gays: What Kind of Hypocrite Is She? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Love and Let Love or Bully and Let Bully (zackfordblogs.com)