I'm going to get letters on that.

Indeed he will.

Not from me, but what he's saying is a bit heartless (while also humorous). Childless people still pay the taxes that go to education...

Reminded me of Bill O'Reilly's crack about San Francisco & their stance on military recruitment. The difference? Maher was trying to be amusing.

"Childless people still pay the taxes that go to education..."

Just a comment on the statement above - I think there is a misunderstanding about the purpose of public education in the US. I often hear people make such statements but I think they are missing a fundamental point - public education is not at all intended only for parents. The entire society benefits from having children educated and in fact, I would argue that those without children are actually free-riding on those who do. People who choose not to have children get the benefits of the existence of the next generation without spending years and enormous amounts of money raising the children who make up that generation. If you don't see my point, ask yourself who your doctor will be when you are 65? Someone else's child. Where would you be without that person? When you are at retirement age, there will be no doctors, police, firefighters, etc, if there aren't parents sacrificing years of earning power and freedom to raise those future workers. In fact, my child goes to private school, but I still am happy to have my tax money go to public schools, and would happily pay more tax if it went to schools - I would much rather my tax money go to public schools than to invasions of other countries!

Kabohami, you didn't need to direct that at me. I'm a college professor.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek, pointing out the giant, gaping hole in Maher's joking logic.

The point Bill Maher is making that we are being forced to pay taxes to support religion. The analogy between supporting religion and schools is not a good one because one is secular and the other is not.

I enjoy Maher but this joke was simply not funny and rather idiotic.

So Distaste why should I have to pay taxes to protect your Church from fire. Isn't that asking me to financially support religion.

The analogy between supporting religion and schools is not a good one because one is secular and the other is not.

I guess it all depends on the state where one lives, n'est-ce pas? ;)

My understanding is that Churches usually provide some sort of free service like drug rehab or something. And that's the kind of thing that warrants the tax-exempt status.

However, didn't God want the church to burn down? I agree that the firefighters should stay out of this.

Of all the idiotic things we pay taxes to support, you'd be better off focusing your ire toward something other than burning churches.

Now, I've got to get back to work, there are millions on welfare depending on me.

Why do some organizations have tax-exempt status? The theory is that these organizations provide some service that benefits society. Giving these organizations a tax advantage is supposed to promote these services and thus benefit society at large. I realize that this crowd is unlikely to appreciate the work the churches do, but there it is.

Just as the law implies that "The entire society benefits from having children educated[...]" so it also implies that Norm is really better off surrounded on all sides by churches, and, as such, the firepeople should hurry and put out all those mysterious fires at the churches near Norm's house :)

lololol... This reminds me of Stephen Colbert's message re the Danish cartoons: Joking!

Joking about the fires anyway. But about churches having tax exempt status..hmmm.. this is an issue that I have never considered before. I know nothing about this, so could someone help me out here. Do churches earn revenue or something? If this revenue is not for profit, then would they qualify for tax exempt status just as any not-for-profit organization would? Just asking, I don't know much about this and have never given it much thought.

Why should we send the fire department to protect any non-profit organization? Let us extend this to police departments and ask why the ATF or local law enforcement should investigate church burnings? They are not paying for the services that they are benefiting from. In fact, let's see who these leaches are. According to the IRS 501c organizations are: "The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

Why would we ever want to extend the benefits of fire protection to assholes like these?

If your hostility to religion extends to such irrational and short sighted depths then one has to ask what you won't condone when it comes to the destruction of religion?

Jo Ann, "Do churches earn revenue or something?" Well yeah. You know that plate they pass 'round for the po' and hungry? But those rules are complicated and honestly it's small potatoes compared to their not having to pay property tax. That big, pretty church on the corner is exempt from paying property tax, unlike your big, pretty house.

There are rules that churches are supposed to follow to protect their tax exempt status, regarding commerce and political activity. Churches can and have lost their status for misbehavior.

"one has to ask what you won't condone when it comes to the destruction of religion?"

What an incredibly stupid statement. I've written extensively on the religion, but nowhere have I suggested anything that would justify your mean-spirited attack. Am I hostile to religion? I am, but to imply because I think churches should pay taxes that I would condone anything is over the top. I found your personal attack extremely distasteful. Had the attack been against anyone else here you would no longer be welcome to post comments here.

To the point, I don't think that being a church alone is reason enough to grant tax free status. I would include others who now enjoy that status as well. I simply don't think promoting religion should qualify. It arguably causes more damage than it does good, and the special status tends to erode state church seperation.

The logical fallacy you commit in your rant is one of division, namely assuming what is true of some whole, non-profits, is therefore true of each of the parts of the whole.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether religions should be included.

"So Distaste why should I have to pay taxes to protect your Church from fire. Isn't that asking me to financially support religion." Norm, If it was mean spirited I appologize because your statement was bereft of reason and compassion. If you feel my response was ad hominem then that is simply because it struck to the core of what makes Maher's statement so foolish. His statement and those supporting him have not raised the question of whether churches should enjoy non-profit status but rather if they are deserving of society's protections. You are so preoccupied with the harm of religion that you are willing to ignore the larger ethical and practical implications of your stance. What you perceive as a logical fallacy is simply laughable. I merely took the basic premise and continued it to it's logical conclusion. Those who don't pay taxes should not receive governmental services. If your ethical premise can't be universalized than that is your logical fallacy, not mine. Additionally, you conveniently ignore any of the benefits extended by churches to non-members or even non-citizens. Churches do not simply exist to proselytize and your self imposed ignorance regarding the good works of religious organizations does not strengthen your argument. Get out and look around. ELCA Disaster Relief Lutheran World Relief

As a citizen and a tax payer, I have a right to influence what my taxes pay for. I have a right to participate in the political process. With their tax-exempt status, churches are prohibited (in theory anyway) from such participation. If you want to tax churches, do you also want to grant them official, binding representation? A chamber of commerce for churches, perhaps, or maybe a county office that promotes the area's churches in the same way they they promote the local hotels and restaurants? If the church becomes part of the local economy than it makes sense to promote it, for the good of the community.

If churches become big sources of revenue for towns, would you like to see your town promising tax breaks and utility favors in order to lure the revenue-producing mega-church to your block like it was a Walmart super-center?

One great central truth arching through history is that money is linked to power. By providing services to the churches, the churches are beholden to the government. If the churches instead provide income to the government, then the government becomes beholden to the churches. And that is not a place where I'd like to be.

"have not raised the question of whether churches should enjoy non-profit status" That is exactly the question Bill Maher raised, that you didn't like the way he raised it is beside the point. The premise was not that those who don't pay taxes should not receive services. It was that not all those that don't pay taxes should receive those services from the government. I don't mind the support for the charitable contributions, but not for the religious indoctrination. If someone suggested a way to benefit the one without the other I would have no problem. What struck at the core was not your idea of why you thought Bill Maher was foolish, but the implication that I would go condone far more than a change in tax exempt status for religion. You just can't help yourself can you you follow that with &quot my self-imposed ignorance regarding the good works of religious organizations" Certainly you don't believe that I'm unaware that religions do some good works. I didn't ignore them; the argument was that in light of other factors it was not enough. Be careful the number of straw men you've created are creating a fire hazard.

"If the churches instead provide income to the government, then the government becomes beholden to the churches." Only to the extent of providing the services that the taxes support.

"You just can't help yourself can you you follow that with " my self-imposed ignorance regarding the good works of religious organizations". I can't help myself because it's such a blatant blindspot in your reasoning and your generalizations that churches exist to indoctrinate and proselytize. Amazingly you say that I construct straw men yet you are unwilling to address the broader ethical ramifications of Maher's 'joke'.

"If churches don't have to pay taxes they also can't call the fire department if they catch fire. Sorry Reverend that's one of the services that goes along with paying in. I'll use the fire department. I pay for it. You can pray for rain"

Let's turn this around.

"If nonmembers don't go to a church then they should not be eligible for the food pantry, medical assistance, drug/alcohol counseling, day care and shelter services, soup kitchens or any other humanitarian services"

Amazingly, you don't pay a penny for any of these services Norm, nor do most of the people that receive help from their local church but these services are provided regardless of affiliation, belief, or legal status, to millions of people around the world. I am supposing that if you were hungry, homeless and in need of help you would excuse yourself from eligibilty in order to avoid hypocrisy.

I acknowlege that religions provide charity something you could easily have assumed without my confirmation and still you persist in your claim that I have a blindspot when it comes to recognizing such aid. Your lets turn this around argument is absurd because it rests on the false assumption that religious charity is the only charity. The claim that those services are open to all without also being subjected to prosyletizing is also demonstrably false.

I've been reading this debate between Norm and "Distaste For Dissent".

My 2 cents: The Maher clip is a JOKE! Ha, ha, funny. You are supposed to have a laugh. People (like "Distaste For Dissent") who actually take these ironic comments literally must have absolutely no sense of humor, and I think that's a shame. We have a lot of messed up stuff going on in this world, a lot of stuff for the average human to process daily, and if we didn't have guys like Stewart and Maher and Colbert and Letterman to poke fun at it, I'd go insane. Laugh, dammit!

But besides all that, I think the debate here between you two is missing the REAL point. Bill Maher has claimed to be a libertarian in the past. Libertarians (on the whole) are against taxation of ANY kind. It is seen as theft by the government. If we all could actually CHOOSE where our tax dollars go, do you think the Department of Defense would receive trillions? I DON'T THINK SO. So I think that even more than just saying "churches should pay taxes if they want their fires put out", Maher is actually hinting at the fact that, YES, we pay all pay taxes. Some pay more than others. Some escape it, due to the tax code. And that sucks.

Bottom line? I think there should be NO taxes. Or extremely minimal taxes. Our founding fathers thought so too. The ONLY government organizations that I would willingly support are my local fire and police force. But even with them, they follow federal and local laws which are too restrictive, therefore making me want to put my money elsewhere... Private schools, whatever. Okay, I've run out of steam. I hope you get what I'm saying.

It's supposed to be ironic. Funny ha-ha.

Demonstrably false? Are you using the logical fallacy you accused me of? "assuming what is true of some whole, non-profits, is therefore true of each of the parts of the whole." Are you therefore claiming that proselytizing is a part of all churched based humanitarian efforts? Seems a bit of a reach for someone I can safely assume has never participated in a churched based charity or relief effort. I don't discount that some denominations (especially non-affiliated evangelicals) may be very overt in their faith but Norm, you make no distinction between church based charities and "faith based" charities (there's your strawman). If Bush has so skewed your perception of religiosity in America and the efforts of mainline protestantism and catholics then there is no ridding you of your bias and all attempts at reason are futile.

Operative word, it's supposed to be funny. In context of the rash of church arsons in Alabama it is decidely not funny. Like I said, I enjoy Maher. He is a very witty and humorous guy but he knows he was pushing the good taste envelope with this joke.

Ok, I'll take out the "supposed" and just say: It is ironic. It is funny. I laughed. And when he said, "I'm going to get letters on that", I laughed some more. 'Cause it's true. And it's funny. Pushing the envelope is good.

You want political correctness because of the rash of church arson? You won't get it from Maher. Nothing is sacred.

I thank HBO for putting Bill Maher back in front of the camera where he belongs. The mainstream media is already so boring and politically correct that I'm afraid that sooner or later every channel will be like Fox News. Who in the American mainstream media stood up for the European publishers of the cartoons? Nobody.

No comments about unfair taxation?

"I can safely assume has never participated in a churched based charity or relief effort."

That would be another false assumption, but then there is nothing new in that is there?

Distaste, I am guessing here that you are one of those who believe that the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, should never have posted those cartoons.

Jo Ann, It is a fine line between being deliberately provacative and deliberately insulting. Maher was riding that line as well as the Danish newspapers. In terms of the cartoons, I think that some of them may have been in bad taste and examples of even worse artistic talent but the reaction from certain Muslim communities has been reprehensible and frankly stupid. It should be kept in mind that the reactions and protests have to some extent been contrived by the governments and imams in order to strengthen domestic support and to drive a wedge between Western governments. Muslim world needs to come to grips with the reality that Western values preempt the sanctity of the prophets image or any image. I fully support Maher's right to speak but that doesn't preclude me from saying "this joke was simply not funny and rather idiotic." I enjoy South Park and I don't take offense merely because they depict Jesus on a cable access show. Does that mean they've never offended me? Of course not. Satire holds special reverance in our society and rightfully so. I have no problem with taboo subjects being lampooned. I simply find no humor in Maher's joke considering 10 churches have been victims of arson recently and that the historical practice of burning or bombing black churches taints the South. If he intended to raise the issue of tax exempt status for churches then he could have used a more appropriate and less offensive example. If anything, he undermined what might otherwise be a reasonable point. Free speech does not free one from criticism.

DfD, You expressed yourself clearly here and I understand what you are saying. Sometimes in these blogs, we misconstrue the meaning of what someone else is trying to say. I appreciate that you took the time to so carefully word your response and be clear as to the point that you are making. I don't think that anyone would disagree with you when you put it this way. Some of your former comments, however, amounted to personal attacks. I do admire your persistance, though, in making your point. I have learned a lot about how to communicate by reading and participating in these debates. Peace

I agree with Jo Ann. Your last entry was certainly more carefully and effectively worded than any of the above. "Free speech does not free one from criticism" is a great statement, and that's the concept that makes free speech in the West so POWERFUL! Lively, open debate. We couldn't do what we are doing now if we lived in China.

However, I disagree with your point that there was no humor in Maher's joke "considering 10 churches have been victims of arson recently". He used that example because of these incidents. He wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't in the news right now. It's very current.

But anyway, point taken. I wonder how many millions of different opinions we would have from people around the world on what is "deliberately provacative and deliberately insulting". For some, I'm sure, there is no difference. Hence the thoughtless violence.

To Distaste For Dissent:

==========QUOTE============

Everyone in your description of those eligible for tax exempt status is someone who tangibly contributes to society, except religion. It would appear they are tax exempt simply because they are religious organizations. They dont have to do anything beyond "advancing religion" to be eligable for tax-exempt status.

It is not unreasonable for some to believe that not only is religion is not helping society, but is actually counter-productive. I don't think it is unfathomable that one would object to their ability to recieve our government's services without paying for them.