top of page

Keep Religion Out?

Updated: 23 hours ago

Drawn on April 26, 2025 | Published from Miami

Keep Religion Out?
Keep Religion Out?

Taboo topics draw us in, not only because they are forbidden, but because sometimes, while people may agree on a position, the arguments used to support the conclusion can feel wildly at odds — even counterintuitive — to others on the same side. Sometimes, it’s fun to play in the mud.


Religion’s role in politics is one such tar pit. In this ooze, a counter-cultural argument sloshes through America’s dichotomous church–state separation; the ever-dramatic stage for Christians to perform their tired-out, fearmongering, Fox News tragedies. The USA is a country drowning in so much faith that “acts of God'' unfailingly features as the closing liability for virtually any contract.


Whether or not the Establishment Clause or Declaration of Independence truly divide church from state is up for lawyers to decipher. But, despite catching glimpses of “In God We Trust” mottos in just about everything red-white-and-blue, the way the US currently operates — at least up until recently — emphasizes that there is such a separation.


In America, religious institutions bring home so much bacon — with upwards of 1.2 trillion US dollars [1] in socio-economic impact — that the papal entourage back at the Vatican looks anorexic by comparison. This is especially true for prosperity gospel televangelists: Jet-set tycoons who rake in undisclosed fortunes from their impressionable sheep without a shred of taxation-turbulence shaking their flight — a fair deal, apparently. Moi


After all, these deacons are US citizens who run organizations that could be described as major legacy corporations with offshore levels of cash. Regardless of any ideological wall between church and state, one would think it’d make sense for them to hand a slice of that tithing back to society. Surely, with the kind of money pouring into their coffers, they can certainly afford to pitch into the nation’s piggy bank with enough left over for that Learjet 75 Liberty — suede-lining trim options included.


The argument goes something like this: if churches are allowed to instigate secular democracy with socially repressive ideas then the least we can do is charge them for it — naturally.


Fascinatingly, by a quirk of church - state separation, religious bodies offer no more than solicitation and prayer to pay their dues.


Though the question of taxation is frequently raised by critics of the church, one could argue that imposing the concept on any religion is flawed and could do far more damage than the current exemption setup. You see, Religion is already very loud in American politics. Their powerful lobbyists have very clear-cut agendas designed to attack the laic structure. As things stand, however, these crusaders cannot be formally represented in the government. Thankfully, pursuits like their abstinence-based 'good works' — meant to debilitate society — are still not unanimously endorsed by the democracy they seek to destroy. Yet change is on the horizon: recently manifest in socially subversive Executive Orders and deliberately laxed federal oversight of conservative-state bills [2] [more here].


So suppose we did tax the churches.


First. They would have an officially unrestricted say in every arena of law-making. Federal and foreign policy could conceivably be filtered through scripture. For instance, the effect of their unhinged battle on children’s education would be disastrous. Starting with folksy wall-mounted prayers, the great flood of religious precepts would inundate public schools [3]: Biology would teach Creation, chemistry would teach alchemy, and physics would teach astrology. The long-term repercussions of such a state-subsidized mass retardation would be severe.


Second. Would fishing from the donation basket not render the government complicit in the misery that religious institutions inflict on their throngs? In democracies, taxation traditionally serves as a marker of legitimacy for businesses. While the degree of sacred wickedness varies from faith to faith, were that standard ever applied to churches, the United States would earn the 'brand of accomplice' to Religion’s exploitative teachings and practices. Granted, legal-loot collected from weapon manufacturers could also be considered wrong by that measure, but, as bizarre as it sounds, tanks are ballistic tools, not an ideology. Critically, one's projectiles will rust faster than the other's dogma.


“[...] Technology isn't intrinsically good or evil; it's how it's used. Like the death ray.” [4]

— Professor Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama, August 5th, 3010 A.D.



Generally, organized religions, on the other hand, are splintered communities for whom the principles of democracy are antithetical to their faith. Indeed, deep down, the Christian Right finds more common ground with fascism than liberalism, bordering on the synonymous. So mull over how immoral it would be to include these outfits of mystics in the decision-making process once their tax exemptions are lifted.


Although challenging, the ideal solution would be to restrict, to a halt, the lobbying from religious groups in government and apply more oversight. Lobbying, after all, is the clearest path through which churches inject political pressure into state affairs — and the more brazen this influence becomes, the more legitimate the opportunity to confront them through the law.


In many cases, the human-rights-abusing, soul-collecting, pyramid-scheme business models of superstar faith-healers ruin lives. Be it through child molestations or peddling miracle water, once these deplorable vampires inevitably break the social contract — particularly under the spotlight of their own self-publicized influence — the backlash writes itself. With enough resistance, courts could finally get a clear shot at rectifying the threat from Religion.


However, unless the objective were to bleed ‘em so dry of cash that they would wither into oblivion — something highly improbable to say the least — we should absolutely not tax organized Religion. Guns and drugs can be regulated, but the same cannot be said for mythology. Let the indoctrinated give money to these professional liars if they want. As long as there is no official conduit for churches to affect laws, democracy for everyone is protected. Making churches pay would irreversibly harm the secular system.


Money may equal power, but this is a case where the pragmatic move to diminish theirs is a bad idea. The dangerous climax of Religion bureaucratically intermingling with the government is Sharia.


A Hell on Earth materialized, where life under heal of something akin to Iran’s clerical oligarchy, ruled by a Supreme Leader with divine immunity, bankrolls proxy militias, executes dissidents [5], stones women for adultery [6], and stages public hangings from construction cranes in city squares [7]. Any expression deviating from state-sanctioned Shi’a doctrine — including satire like this — would be criminal, with offenders condemned to lashes and stonings [8].


This model is already beginning to break through in America in the form of “Anti-Christian behavior taskforces” by non-other than the Attorney General of the United States [8] — inching ever closer to the likes of a religious police. So, consider the disastrous effect of adding kindle to the fire by fiscally tying their divine mission to US politics. The buffer is fragile but present; no need to weaken it with taxation that would only serve to almost guarantee state-sponsored autodafé.


The binding prerogative to voice an opinion, whether church attendee or heathen, is the right to vote: one person, one voice. Ideally, that’s the secret trick to a working republic. Dirty money is excellent at blemishing the blueprint. We shouldn’t taint the design by making misinformed decisions based on the weight of a wallet. Especially one that comes with as many numinous strings attached as the church.


So ask yourself: if the devil is always in the details, why would we ever hand him the deed to democracy?



[1] World Economic Forum. 2021. Religion may be bigger business than we thought. Here's why. [online] Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/religion-bigger-business-than-we-thought/ [Accessed 8 August 2021].


[2] Full analysis of the Alabama ruling on IVF:


[3] Lobbying religion in schools:


[4] Futurama, Season 6, episode 8; “The Darn Katz”, first aired August 5th, 2010.


[5] Associated Press (2023) Iran sentences US-Iranian Jamshid Sharmahd to death for ‘terrorism’. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/iran-execution-jamshid-sharmahd-93555d24a162515f554ade4aac3c64f4 (Accessed: 18 April 2025).


[6] Iranian adultery:


[7] Associated Press (2023) Iran executes man convicted of killing security forces during protests. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/iran-crime-government-and-politics-da53071412f8c3da9cd51945b7870780?utm (Accessed: 18 April 2025).


[8] Hudud: Rules for harsh punishment such as lashes and stoning.


[9] Anti-Christian Policy Task Force: PBS NewsHour (2025) ‘WATCH: Bondi launches taskforce on “anti-Christian policies” in government and regulations’, PBS NewsHour, 22 April. Available at: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-bondi-launches-taskforce-on-anti-christian-policies-in-government-and-regulations (Accessed: 24 April 2025).

 

All audio is AI generated.

bottom of page