Editor;
I found the letter from Michael Nightingale interesting (taxing the Church PM 28.12). I was pleased that he thought my ideas on the subject of church taxation correct and timely, but I also noted that he was reluctant to offer full support. He thought “the majority of people still support religion, and trying to change the status quo is hardly a vote catcher.” He also thinks that I am “before my time” meaning, I suppose, that if I persisted with my taxation ideas I would be burned at the stake. Surely, such a thing as that wouldn’t take place here in the 21st century. Today, due to the financial mess the U.S. is in, the people should welcome any reasonable ideas that might solve a sixteen trillion dollar debt.
The Congress in the U.S. is even now arguing over taxing and revenue. It should stop bickering and look at something new for a change. It should resurrect and study the phrase “separation of church and state.” If it did I think it would think more about relieving the middle class of a tax burden and place it on the church.
We have the vague phase “separation of church and state” because the government in its wisdom did not want America to become a theocratic democracy with a medieval morality. Medieval morality is what the U.S. had for more than a century. I’m also sure that when Congress served up separation it was also thinking about churches becoming rich and powerful and influential. That’s exactly what most churches have become today. Church and state must be defined better to come of what congress and the people should be thinking. That is absolutely necessary. That’s let religion (there is no doubt that it is necessary) should go back to worship and solace and prayer. There should be no large church enterprises. There should be no rapacious plutocrats in the pulpit. Churches should be taxed.
Ray Standiford
