Daily Archives: March 1, 2004

Religious Taxes OK According to You

In a long comment to my Answering a Fifth Comment Regarding the Pledge entry, MoodVertigo said, “It doesn’t say that states cannot establish a religion or observe religious holidays in their own constitutions. It doesn’t say that cities, counties, or school districts cannot show respect for the Bible or Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). The First Amendment doesn’t imply in even the vaguest way that it is unconstitutional for a city to erect a manger scene in the town square at Christmas or for a school teacher to offer up a prayer to God at a graduation ceremony or before daily classes begin. You cannot get that out of the First Amendment, even if you stretch. The First Amendment only limits Congress; no one else.”

Ah, so it doesn’t limit states or cities. Hm… I want to propose a bill taxing all Christians. We’ll call it the “Jesus Tax.” Only, it’ll only be a state bill. I live in California. So, let’s say California collects the money and uses it to fund anything the state legislature thinks Jesus would really, really like. No, better yet, let’s introduce a “Jew Tax,” also known as the “Didn’t Accept Jesus as the Savior Tax.” We’ll tax Jews for not accepting Christ as the Savior and restitution for letting Jesus die. Then, we’ll introduce the “Muslim Tax” to make a relief fund for September 11th victims (because after all, Islam was the root cause of September 11th) and oppressed women in countries with Islam. Only the money can be used to fund suicide bombers if the state legislature finds it okay. Next we’ll introduce an “Evil Atheist Tax” because, face it, evil costs money. Evil is the reason why we have to have prisons. Thus, it is only fair that atheists should pay for prisons. To live such a licentious life without morals is a privilege, not a right, and also demands a special payment.

Under your reasoning, none of this would be unconstitutional. Thank you very much. I’m sure this is exactly what was intended by the first amendment.

Furthermore, your reasoning is outdated. How outdated? About 140 years outdated. More on this, tomorrow.