Proposal: Start Something April 2, 2008
Posted by Martin in : Relevant Reading, Religion/Atheism , 3commentsComrade Gab Madrid and I have a proposal. We ought to start something.
This is an Imperial Repost from the Empire-operated Spoliarium.
I’ve recently found out that they have come up with an official symbol/logo for atheism and freethought. If the xtians have a cross, we have this.
That’s from http://www.atheist-symbol.info and according to that,
Atheists Alliance International is an umbrella
organization for a large number of atheist,
humanist, freethought groups around the world.
At their 2007 conference, attendees were asked
to vote for their favorite atheist symbol from
among 6 choices which had been determined
by a committee.The winner is the symbol above.
This symbol is not the symbol of AAI or of any of
its member organizations. It is meant to be a
generic symbol of freethought for the world.
I’ve thought of a way spread this symbol and the idea entailed with it by creating stickers mostly with atheist URLs attached so that awareness about atheism is spread more widely somehow.
For hi-res and individual images, please click here. http://lagim214.multiply.com/photos/album/142
Please pass this article on, and maybe we could start something.
Indeed, I am passing this article on in the hopes of starting something.
Divine Mercy Sunday March 31, 2008
Posted by Martin in : Religion/Atheism , 2commentsI’ve received an unusually large number of junk mail over the past few days. Perhaps it is God’s will that believers send out large amounts of propaganda in the hope that the poor bastards from that other religion will buy it. But whatever.
Upon inspection, however, I found that all of the junk contained the same message concerning this Divine Mercy Sunday.
Apparently, all other days aren’t as merciful.
Divine Mercy Sunday
Hello all do you know that this Sunday after Easter is Divine Mercy
What this means is that whoever goes to confession and receives
communion on that day will have complete forgiveness of sin and
punishment; as if you’ve been baptized again!
Technically you may go to confession in some earlier time like
tommorow,as long as you know that you’ve not committed mortal
sin after. Anyway this is a great way to totally renew our
relationship with God and make it better than before. And all we have
to do is sincerely confess our sins, take communion, and if possible,
venerate the Divine Mercy image that Sunday. AND of course we should
also do acts of mercy.
So please spread the word about this wonderful Feast. For more
information you may want to see:
http://www.divinemercysunday.com/mercy_sunday.htm
Thank You and God bless!
Dear God.
And then Sunday came to pass. I thought this little affair was over, but no. Everyone deserves a second chance.
Hey Good news! If you weren’t able to fulfill the requirement for
Divine Mercy Sunday, you can still gain a plenary indulgence if you do
practically the same thing. That is, if in about twenty days after the
feast, you go to confession sincerely, take Communion, pray for the
Pope’s intentions and pray the Our Father and the Apostle’s Creed
adding any devout prayer of your own to Jesus the Divine Mercy in any
place where the Blessed Sacrament is (ie. the church or adoration
room). As with all plenary indulgences, you should do this act
contritely with a spirit detached with any affection for sin, even
venial ones. But don’t worry it’s not as hard as it sounds =).
Anyway, for more information you can check:
http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/indulgence.htm
Ugh. I strongly detest bullshit spam messages. Especially those of the religious nature. What, do they think that five hundred repetitions of the same argument will make it more truthful than one repetition of the said argument?
Keep your beliefs to yourself, please.
Imperial Position on Religious Tax Exemption March 11, 2008
Posted by Martin in : Essays, Propositions, Relevant Reading, Religion/Atheism , 5commentsHeil.
Yes, it’s this topic once more for my En 101 research paper. Excellent.
Professor said it was a strawman for ignoring some sort of all-powerful reason for exemption. Yes, I’m somehow ignoring some sort of evidence, just like the one about free will. Yes, yes, I’m the closed-minded and biased one. Dear god.
In any case, it’s posted here both for reference and great justice.
An Argumentative Research Paper Concerning Religious Tax Exemption
Religious institutions have almost always maintained an impression of power, intellectualism, impenetrability, and in fairly recent times, moral superiority to the layman; thus, their undeniably instrumental role in the creation of the present legal system will have certainly pointed at least some benefit to the said institutions, and exemption from taxation by the state is by far one of the most glancing of them.
Most people regard religious institutions’ exemption from taxation as a non-issue, but it is likely that the only reason for this is that they are by default part of a religious sect, thus seeing exemption to be a status quo of sorts, rather than seeing it as a deviation from the norm despite recent attempts at the secularization of law. Christianity in general teaches that while it is somehow independent from the state, it is an altogether necessary and guiding force that is ultimately bound with the state, while Islam generally teaches that it is the state; apparently, indoctrination has molded our state of affairs in such a manner that has left the argument concerning the church and state’s mutual dependence on and helpfulness to each other largely undisputed, making for an arguably undesirable apathy of most to the issue of religious tax exemption (Gunn).
“Church property in the United States is said to be worth about four billion dollars” (McCabe), and it is safe to say that although the net worth of untaxed religious property in the Philippines may not be as high as that, it may still well be as surprising, considering how most of it is usually regarded as wholly ascetic and charitable. These properties, which amount to untold sums, are exempted from real estate or property tax which, given the sheer number of such constructs in the country, would otherwise be a major source of income for the government.
But what exactly is tax exemption, and how does the state go about in managing affairs that concern this benefit? Tax exemptions, generally defined, are breaks from certain taxes by the government usually due to some sort of service rendered by the target institution. Tax exemptions are not rights, insofar as rights are constitutionally protected (Cline); rather, exemptions can be made and rescinded by lawmakers within constitutional bounds, the most notable of which is Article III, section 5 of the Philippine Constitution, which includes the establishment clause, stated as “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” (De Leon 87) one of the foundations from which tax laws can operate. Also, exemptions are to be made available for all, groups, secular and religious alike, provided that they fulfill the prerequisites for exemption; that is, tax breaks must not discriminate between religious and secular institutions. In totality, one must render a service that the state should be rendering, provided that the state presently does not render it or is doing so in an inefficient or insufficient manner (Francisco).
With religious institutions given an altogether large privilege by the state, one then ought to investigate the reasons given for such a status. Most people would simply argue offhand that they are public institutions, and that because of this, they are de facto exempted from taxation. However, those who argue in such a manner fail to take into account what a public institution really is; its definition will be dealt with later on. Another common argument brought forth in defense of exemption is religious institutions’ being charitable, thus meriting total exemption from property tax. This defense simply begs the question that religious institutions as well as their structures primarily exist for charity, and the Manila City Council attests to this with the statement that “religious institutions derive their income from contributions and the same are being spent for charities benefiting the sick, prisoners, orphans, poor, and underprivileged” (Viaje). This assumption, however, is seen to be largely false when brought under scrutiny. Others invoke the constitution, citing Article II, section 6 of the Philippine Constitution, which states that “the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable,” (De Leon 51) and though the argument is prima facie an effective rhetorical one, it is quite lacking in substance. Other parts of the constitution can be cited by supporters of exemption, with the free exercise clause being one of the more familiar arguments, since it accuses taxation of inhibiting one’s free exercise, and their conclusion is that taxation is unconstitutional in this context. The last and arguably weakest argument in favor of exemption is that of tradition, since it only appeals to some sort of debt that is itself difficult to justify. Despite its weakness, however, Speaker De Venecia still used it in an official announcement regarding the maintenance of church exemption, stating that “We will respect the current tax status that they (religious sector) have been enjoying for (the past) 100 years. We are not about to disturb this” (“No new taxes planned on churches – gov’t.”). Thus, however weak it may be, it nonetheless holds rhetorical power.
With the arguments for exemption given their dues, one should then wonder why religious institutions should be taxed. Since modern-day morality is an uneven mix of religious dogma and utilitarianism, utilitarian reasons would be a prudent start, and there are handfuls to be given in favor of taxation.
Exemption is, in the most important respects, a government subsidy (Francisco), which is to say that it is a form of monetary support given by the government. Tax exemption is however distinct from direct government subsidization, and it is at most an indirect form thereof, seeing as how no real transfer of funds is involved. There is thus some confusion as to the status of tax exemption in the
The definitional reasons which are claimed to exempt religious institutions from taxation by default are in fact faulty, and may in fact be turned against exemption. As stated earlier, there are those who claim de facto exemption based on the labeling of churches as public institutions. Though quite appealing an argument it may be, it is quite plausible that those who forward this argument do not use the term truthfully, since an institution is defined as “an established society or corporation; esp : a public one” (“Institution” 467), with they key word here being public, meaning owned and controlled by the state. Therefore, if this definition is to be followed, religious institutions are certainly not eligible for exemption based on this defense. One may contend that although it is not under state control, it still works towards the good of society, but that is an irrelevant point. The argument of de facto taxation from being a public institution, then, fails.
The most appealing position of respite can then be found in religious institutions’ charitable activities which thus hopefully merit exemption from taxation. It must be made clear here that the exemption of any religious institution’s charitable activities from taxation is not the issue; rather, it is the whole and total exemption of the institution, which includes those parts which do not contribute to charity. A charitable institution is usually defined to be an entity that exists primarily for the sake of charity, and granted, there are religious entities that fit into the definition. There are many, however, that do not. The foremost goal of a church, that is, any body of religious believers, is to win converts to their respective religion or religious sect; one ought to be disillusioned of his religion as being the one true sect, or the only one that is charitable in its activities. This then disqualifies religious institutions as a whole as being primarily charitable. Churches in general, “in order to avoid possibly excessive entanglements between church and state, do not have to submit financial disclosure statements” (Cline), thus lending religious institutions some very large leeway in the way they can consume their funds, leaving some concerned people wondering just how charitable churches are when a grand cathedral is built, or when operations concerning their primary goal of evangelization are intensified.
Neither can the useful nature of some religious institutions alone can justify the massive tax break granted to them. Aside from the fact that a relatively small number of churches directly minister to the poor, the churches that do mostly do not do so with the intention of pure altruism; rather, they bundle it with their uncalled-for evangelization efforts, which cater to their desire to win converts (Birkhead). The argument can also be demonstrably insufficient through the use of a reduction-ad-absurdum. “‘But granting that the church is a useful institution, if you were to exempt that which is useful,’ to quote the wisdom of Ingersoll, ‘You would exempt every trade and every profession.’ Or, to use the words of James F. Morton, Jr., in [sic] his recent book ‘Exempting the Churches,’ ‘Our great philanthropists, scientists, inventors, and educators are not exempt from taxation on the ground of the great good they are doing’” (Birkhead), prompting the need for a more substantial justification for religious institutions.
Some claim that the church is fulfilling state duties, taking advantage of the known fact that if an organization renders a service that the state ought to be rendering, or is already doing so in an insufficient manner, then the said organization deserves exemption from taxes, or perhaps favor from the government (Francisco). The line of argument concerning this premise relies on the assumption that the state ought to be doing what Church is – that is, promoting spiritual welfare. In the Philippine Constitution, however, there is no mention of such a duty with the exception of Article II, Section 13, which includes the following clause: “The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being” (Bernas 20). The constitutional duties of the state, then, with regards to religion, are the promotion and protection of the spiritual and moral well-being of the youth. The state already provides optional religious education in the public school system, and this is sufficient in its promotion of what is claimed to be spiritual and moral well-being, since doing more than this, such as directly sponsoring or funding a religious institution, would be unconstitutional in the light of the non-establishment clause. With regards to the protection of the said qualities, the state adequately provides tolerance and equal recognition to most, if not all religions, only keeping them in line and in check and neither favoring or opposing them, thus leaving them relatively free to do what they wish. The state is doing what it ought to do, and so the question remains as to why religious institutions should have the favor of de facto exemption over other equally or perhaps more helpful organizations that pay taxes.
Others, however, cite the Philippine Constitution’s separation clause as a defense, and they then leave it at that. But the soundness of this argument can be cast into quite serious doubt when the separation of Church and State only denotes the theoretical mutual lack of interference in the other’s affairs (Bernas 107). A more relevant section of the constitution cited by supporters of exemption would be the aforementioned Article III, section 5, which states that “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (De Leon 87). The first clause of this section merely states that the state, with regards to religion, can neither be for nor against it; it is to be merely neutral. Exemption of religious institutions, then, is a direct violation of this clause, since state subsidization of such institutions in the form of tax exemption is tantamount to support, or in relevant terms, respect to establishments of religion. Lobbyists would then tend to argue that taxation is a move that is against religion, hence violating the abovementioned clause. What they fail to realize here is that taxation is in fact a status quo, one that is applied to the vast majority of society. If the state, then, is to give tax breaks to religious institutions for the mere fact that they are religious, then this is, in all meanings of the word, giving respect to an establishment of religion, breaking the supposedly inviolable separation of Church and State.
The free exercise clause is also prone to use by those who lobby for exemption, as they tend to say that taxation would in some degree inhibit their free exercise of their respective religions. In the same manner that our current Value Added Tax does not infringe on one’s rights to the basic necessities in life, among other rights, neither does taxation infringe on one’s free exercise of religion. To admit this argument as sound would be to admit that a religion which mandates daily human sacrifices would be tolerated on the grounds that prosecution due to murder and violations of human rights would inhibit the free exercise of its adherents, which is patently absurd; the right to believe what one wishes to is absolute, but when that belief is channeled into action, then it falls under the rule of law (Bernas 110).
As stated earlier, appeals to tradition and supposed debts are used by those who favor exemption, and since it apparently holds rhetorical power, they ought to be examined. The appeal to tradition ought to not even be present in the discussion, for it is a blatant logical fallacy that proves nothing. The appeals to supposed debts, however, have more credit and require more serious consideration.
When one calls upon the overall service that religious institutions, the Church, in particular, have done in the past, then one must consider the totality of history, not bits and pieces of it. It regrettable, then, that many of those who endorse this argument think rather selectively with regards to the helpfulness of the church to general society. Granted, in modern times, the enthusiasm of the church in its methods has mellowed out, but many, including our current president, seem to be ignoring the past faults of religious institutions in favor of their recent efforts at atonement, spawning the idea of a debt that the state must repay in the form of exemption. The Church, as our president claims, is “the guardian of the spiritual welfare of the Filipinos and should be placed beyond the pale of monetary matters” (Malanes), which is an interestingly rhetorical argument for exemption.
It is however noticeable that this supposed debt of the state, unquantifiable as it is, simply boils down to a rehashed version of a more familiar argument – since the Church, among others, has contributed at least some useful public service in their existence, they then merit tax exemption. This debt, therefore, is nothing more than a restatement of an already tackled argument, which was settled by reductio-ad-absurdum earlier.
In effect, there is only one reason as to why the de facto exemption of religious institutions still prevails in our country, and it is not found in any of the earlier reasons given. Rather, it is found in a surprisingly simple statement found in Article VI, section 28(3) of the Philippine Constitution, which states that “Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation” (Bernas 315). The question as to exactly why constructs of religion should be exempted is still painfully unanswered.
What is to follow from this reasoning, then, seeing as how the reasons given for the de facto exemption and indeed, the inclusion of such religious institutions in Article VI, section 28(3) are unsound and at best, weak? This certainly does not imply that the state ought to tax religious institutions merely for the reason that they are religious; religion, ideally, should not hold any special place in the eyes of the law – it is a private institution independent from the state, and that is that. They then should undergo the same treatment as private institutions, and this includes the uniform application of tax laws to the said institutions. Ultimately, the state has the highest obligation to amend its policies regarding de facto exemption on the mere account of an organization’s being religious to be at least equal with those of secular organizations for the sake of fairness, equality, and the overall benefit of all citizens, theistic and nontheistic alike.
Works Cited
Malanes, Maurice. “Debate on whether to tax Philippine churches heats up.” 17 Sept. 2004. Ecumenical News International. 01 Oct. 2007. <http://www.eni.ch/articles/display.shtml?04-0617>
“No new taxes planned on churches – gov’t.” Date Unavailable. Manila Bulletin. 01 Oct. 2007. <http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2005/04/18/MAIN2005041832971.html>
Viaje, Reden. “No to tax on churches and religious groups.” Date Unavailable. Manila Bulletin. 01 Oct. 2007. <http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/09/09/MTNN2004090918086.html>
Gunn, John. “A Bit of Church History.” Date Unavailable. The Internet Infidels, Inc. 01 Oct. 2007. <http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_gunn/church_history.html>
Birkhead, Rev. L. M. “A
<http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/rev_l_m_birkhead/church_taxation.html>
McCabe, Joseph. “Why I Believe in Fair Taxation of Church Property.” 1930. Internet Infidels, Inc. 01 Oct. 2007. <Infidels.org http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/taxation_of_church.html>
Cline,
Bernas, Joaquin G. The 1987 Philippine Constitution – A Reviewer-Primer. Fourth Edition.
De Leon, Hector S. Textbook on the Philippine Constitution.
Francisco S.J., Manoling. Personal Interview. 12 Dec. 2007.
“Institution.” Webster’s School Dictionary. 1980.
The Ivory Tower February 27, 2008
Posted by Martin in : General Rants, Philosophy, Weird Crap , 8commentsSomething amusing happened today.
As Kaks and I were working our way through our afternoon Literature 14/101/whatever class, our professor asked a classmate of ours – who, for the purposes of privacy, we will call ‘Vanessa’ – to deliver a rather short speech concerning her research paper on malls in the Philippines.
As she was delivering her oration, it occurred to me that the Triumvirate rarely, if ever, tackles topics concerning culture, art, and general social living, which of course encompasses “Vanessa”’s aforementioned research paper. Not that this is not the first time I took notice of it, but this is the first time that I actually ‘talked’ to someone about it. Unfortunately, the said someone did not know of the concept beforehand. The following index card shall show how I enlightened the said someone.
Subtitle: We will ponder on the nature and existence of god. Your malls are not relevant.
Of course, if you want a more concise definition, you can always check for it here.
They say that being called an inhabitant of the Ivory Tower is an insult, to which I respond by saying: “If you say so, commoner.” XD Shit. XD
And ‘Vanessa’, if you ever read this, no offense, lol.
That’s about it. XD
Valentine’s: Imperial Position February 17, 2008
Posted by Martin in : General Rants, Philosophy , add a commentAn interesting trend has been found:
Those who have no interest in Valentine’s day or those who do but perhaps lack the capacity or the necessary prerequisites to express the said interest readiliy diss Valentine’s day as an arbitrary human construct, a socially-driven mandate that ultimately has no objective meaning.
Sure, no quarrel there. It is arbitrary. It is meaningless.
Just like any other fucking day.
But I wonder, then, if such people just hate celebrating arbitrary days, why do they still celebrate other holidays, e.g. Christmas, Lent, New Year, Chinese New Year, Thanksgiving, fucking EDSA? If the reason for dissing Valentine’s is indeed rooted in the arbitrary nature of it, then if one is to be intellectually honest, one should equally diss other such holidays which people quite enthusiastically celebrate.
Just be honest with your reasons for dissing Valentine’s. Jeez. It’s psuedointellectualism at its crappiest.
