« Jews heart Obama | Main | Knoxville shooting but a symptom of the disease »

July 28, 2008

Got Debt? Tax the Priest

(editor's note - we've previously posted a guest essay by Sankara Saranam back in January on Carbon Farming.)

Got Debt? Tax the Priest
By Sankara Saranam

In an era where money is tight, perhaps we ought to start taxing beliefs that, like cigarette smoke, cause damages that have real costs to society. I'm not suggesting that we tax ideas in people's heads, but if a belief is making someone money, and the benefits to society of that belief are hardly found, then taxing the spread of beliefs might not only be justified, but would also help toward paying off the national debt.

Something tells me religious leaders won't jump at the opportunity to serve in this way, but if we inspect belief and show what preachers are really selling to parents and children alike, maybe they'll think twice. Let's define our terms as the devil's advocate would.

Belief: a statement repeated sufficiently for the mind to cease to question its veracity.

Religious rituals: opportunities to repeat statements of belief in differing contexts.

Faith: adherence to religious rituals resulting in the successful avoidance of contexts that question a statement of belief.

Crisis of faith: a context in which a statement of belief was not sufficiently repeated.

Denial: the failure to take the opportunity of a crisis of faith to question the veracity of a statement of belief.

Apostasy: the process of adopting and repeating a statement of belief that lies contrary to a statement previously repeated.

Disbelief: a statement of belief framed in the negative.

Any epistemologist worth his or her salt will tell you that belief, even in facts, is not an avenue to knowledge. Neither is disbelief an avenue to knowledge.

Disregarding considerations of belief and disbelief is an early step in clearing the avenue to knowledge, and countless cases provide evidence that poorly educated minds afford beliefs while richly educated minds find them unaffordable.

The mother of all beliefs is the belief in the god Yahweh. Millions of humans believe in the existence of Yahweh, but the need for evangelism to spread the word of Yahweh is evidence that Yahweh does not exist independent of the minds of believers. That stories of Yahweh being independently discovered exist only in Yahweh-based literature is itself further evidence that Yahweh does not exist.

At the same time, since the absolute existence of Yahweh, or any other deity from whatever culture or pantheon, does not for these and other reasons enter the realm of probable knowledge, it is totally immaterial to scientific considerations.

But the existence of Yahweh is a religious consideration if the existence of Yahweh ultimately informs ethical considerations. Does it?

Yes, the existence/nonexistence of Yahweh does inform ethical considerations, but only vis-a-vis whether the ethical structure found in Yahweh-based literature is to be strictly heeded or not.

Organized religions historically received freedom from taxation because they were believed to be society's traditional domain of ethical considerations -- a domain into which science cannot enter.

This belief was itself a religious one, ironically propped up by centuries of religious rituals to the degree that lawmakers had unquestioning faith in organized religion�s capacity to instill ethical considerations in the minds of believers.

Because monotheism posits a supreme creator being separate from a fallen creation, Yahweh-based literature informs ethical structures breeding droves of devout followers that believe Yahweh chooses, is pleased by, or prefers them above others -- using different language to convey this state of elevated grace. Meanwhile, ethical structures that nourish a larger sense of human identity, less divisiveness, and more global kinship are possible and have already been formulated by thinkers unburdened by the restrictions of Yahweh-based literature and its like.

Since purely ethical considerations can arrive at a standard for the highest good without considering the existence of Yahweh or a highest god, and precisely disregarding the authority of Yahweh-based literature can assist in arriving at sophisticated and expansive ethical considerations, organized religions only ultimately concern themselves with the sworn belief in the existence of Yahweh when they entertain considerations other than ethical ones.

Hence, the belief in Yahweh is not ultimately concerned with science or ethics. Actually, the belief in Yahweh persists despite the unscientific and unethical behavior it fosters.

Now, call me cynical, but I suspect that the spreading of the belief in Yahweh, just to highlight one example, persists because it makes someone money and gives someone power. It has nothing to do with knowing or believing in the truth, though that is exactly what believers are told it is about, and, as shown, has nothing to do with ethics. It is, as Upton Sinclair put it, graft.

The government and the people wanted ethical citizens out of the tax exemption deal, not fanatic truth seekers that, in claiming to possess the truth, fell into more unethical behavior than did their disbelieving counterparts.

If organized religions persist in promoting beliefs that have neither science nor ethics on their side, they are not entitled to freedom from taxation. Moreover, faith-based initiatives amount to the public paying for the spread of unscientific and unethical beliefs.

Like the rest of the for-profit businesses in our nation, religions should be taxed. If this means they go out of business, then far be it from government to prop up something the public no longer wants, especially when it is no longer reasonably done in the spirit of science or ethics.

Posted by Kevin at July 28, 2008 06:56 AM