Mathew Staver: Free Lunch Crybaby

I don't want no commies in my car... No Christians either!

I don't want no commies in my car... No Christians either!

Blue Ollie writes about how the Palinite Front is reacting to the fact that gays and lesbians are being granted first-class citizen status in many states.

The moronic right wing is feeling that it’s liberties are being infringed upon. Funny, but the right wing seems to equate “liberty” with “we want to be able to control YOUR personal life”. (source)

Ollie directs us down a link trail that leads us to this article in The Baptist Press: ‘Gay marriage’ colliding with parental rights, religious liberty around the country.

My thought, just upon reading the headline, is that this proves how abjectly weak their ‘religion’ truly must be. If two guys getting married and fucking each other up the ass on their wedding night ‘collides’ with the ‘liberty’ of anyone whose prostate gland isn’t directly involved, then the ‘collision’ ‘victim’ has some deep psychological problems. The author trots out the usual asshats, including asshat extraordinaire, Matthew Staver — who unwittingly tells us what this is really all about.

Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a religious liberty legal organization, told BP. “Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values…. People really need to wake up, because this, I think, is the greatest threat to our liberty that we face today — bar none.” (source)

Wow… his ‘religious’ beliefs are so strong, yet a couple of people loving each other is in direct confrontation with his supposed ‘religion.’ Oh wait, we were going to find out from Matty boy what this was really about. Lets let him continue talking out his sphincter.

“That’s the agenda. It’s always been the agenda,” Staver said. “There is no question that if same-sex marriage becomes legal, that churches eventually will have their tax-exempt status threatened — no question whatsoever. If churches today discriminate against race, they would not be able to have tax-exempt status today. If churches discriminate on the basis of same-sex marriage — if it became legal — then same-sex marriage becomes the equivalent of race, and churches would not be able to have tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.”(source) (emphasis added)

In other words, he’s worried that the public will no longer have to subsidize superstition-based businesses. Same old shit with the christianists. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with their magic space ghost. It is all about money and power. Isn’t it awfully funny that the same people who will rail the loudest against socialism are its prime beneficiaries?

I don’t see why churches (or anyone else) should be forced to be non-discriminatory. If you want to run a religion based on racism, sexism, or homophobia, then so be it. If you want to run a religion based on equality, so be it. But it does piss me off that my property tax bill is higher every time I see a sign pounded into the ground announcing the future home of some ‘church.’

I challenge the ‘religious’ who feel so ‘persecuted’ by worrying about losing their tax-exempt status to solve the problem once and for all. Simply tell the government that they don’t WANT tax-exempt status. Then Staver’s bullshit ‘religion’ can discriminate against anyone they want, they can tell people how to vote (as if they don’t already), and when the tax bill comes due, ask the congregation to dip into its wallets. Let the marketplace decide whether a petty little cult can continue to survive. Surely even the most destitute members of the poorest congregation have a few bucks to keep a roof over the pastor’s head.

And if the congregation can’t, or won’t, tithe enough to keep the property tax bill paid? Then auction the place off as if it were any other piece of property. If the members of the church can’t muster up the favor of the Almighty, or put on a benefit concert, or whatever the rest of us have to do in order to pay our taxes, then why the hell should I have to subsidize it?

If the ‘religious’ will agree that my favorite sports bar should receive tax exempt status, then I’ll agree that their little house of lies should have the same. Until then, they should stop being a bunch crybabies whenever they are afraid that that the free ride might be over. It ought to be over, and if they think the free ride comes with too dear of a price tag, then they should reject the subsidy. Then I don’t have to pay higher taxes and they don’t have to treat fellow citizens with any degree of decency.

11 Responses to Mathew Staver: Free Lunch Crybaby

  1. Tom Lang says:

    I have to comment here and say that this post is one of the most honest and real on this subject that I have ever read (or written for that matter). Excellent work!

  2. hawkhead says:

    What kind of self-important douches actually publish the “-30-” at the end of a story?

    (Sorry, a completely unrelated complaint. But I guess it shows the general quality of the Baptist Press…)

  3. Ken says:

    As a Presbyterian deacon, my viewpoint is rather different on the value of religion. But I can’t disagree that the whole gay-marriage-threatens-religious-freedom thing is bogus.

    The hard-line religious right would have you believe that the next step after legal gay marriage is gays suing — and winning — to force churches to marry them. If this were true, wouldn’t we have seen it already with other controversial issues? Wouldn’t we have seen biracial couples suing to be married by churches that frowned upon such unions? Or people who wouldn’t accept the dogma of a church suing to be married within that church? Where are those cases, if that is such a risk?

  4. I can accept that my perspective on the value of religion is open to debate. And, I’ll admit that people like Staver cause the special hatred-of-religion endorphins to flow at a far greater rate than they do when I hear a “real Christian” speak.

    And while you are correct, I think there was an issue in Massachusetts where a Catholic adoption agency was forced to either treat gay and lesbian couples the same as mixed gender couples or close its doors — so it closed its doors. There was also a story of some flower shop that refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding and they got fined $5,000 or so. I don’t have details on that.

    So, in all fairness to the hard-liners, there are anecdotes that support their view, but the plural of anecdote is not “data.”

  5. Ken says:

    But those cases don’t support the hard-liners.

    The hard-liners claim that they will be subject to lawsuits if they don;t open sacraments — core religious stuff — to gays. The cases you mention involve religious people operating businesses — operations of general accommodation — and being sued or fined when they refused to sell/lease/service gay people. In other words, their situation is no different than someone who refuses to serve black people at their restaurant because they think black people are the sons of Ham or something.

    As far as I know, there have not been any cases where churches have been sanctioned for, for instance, not letting a gay person take communion.

  6. Correct, and I can’t imagine a future in which the government would (or could) ever tell a church to whom, and under what conditions, it could administer its sacraments. It would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.

    And twits like Staver know that, but bank on the fact that most of the ass-hats who send him donations are too stupid to know that.

  7. Tom Lang says:

    I might be able to shed some light on this subject at least from an insider’s view of what went down during the Same Sex Marriage fight in Massachusetts. After the Goodridge Decision there was a ballot initiative to reverse it and not allow same sex marriage. The Catholic Church (ie the Catholic Citizenship) was part of the coalition sponsoring the ballot initiative. Alot of us including the electorate at large began to question the Church’s role in participating in this. At that time and I remember it clearly, the subject of Catholic Charities was a buzz at our State House. For decades Catholic Charities was involved in adoption–it was essentially an early “faith based initiative” which took about 40% of its funding from the State (ie taxpayer money). This whole discussion was going on during the gay marriage debate and there was much talk about problems with CC not wanting involvement with gay adoptions. Catholic Charities knew it would be sued over this and ended its adoption arm entirely. It is just my thought but I really think that this was mixed with the false claims that churches would be sued to marry gays etc. The whole argument of Staver is full of misinformation and spin.

  8. Marty says:

    Brilliant! I hadn’t considered the financial benefits to the church, but it’s obvious after thinking about it. Constantine started the immoral tax-exemption and that’s been a big part of the strength and corruption of religions since the 4th century. Good job.

  9. Duncan Loire says:

    (NB – Constantine did not start tax exemption. Priests under the pharaohs in Egypt were exempt from taxation)

    “If churches today discriminate against race, they would not be able to have tax-exempt status today.”

    and we almost universally agree that discriminating against race would be a bad thing. Organizations doing such bad things don’t deserve to be funded by the citizenry.

    “If churches discriminate on the basis of same-sex marriage — if it became legal — then same-sex marriage becomes the equivalent of race”

    Yes, exactly. Well, more like sexual orientation becomes equivalent. But the point is, sensible people see discrimination against homosexuals as a bad thing not deserving to be funded by the citizenry.

    Getting rid of past bigotry has been a societal good (even if churches had to change). Getting rid of more should also be a good.

  10. Eric Harz says:

    When a church is a proper church, it is meeting needs that save you taxes. It turns men from their inclination to crime toward God who alone can change hearts, and do so better than any penal institution. It will care for the needy, soup kitchens and food distribution. It will help solve the homeless problem as we are doing with Family Promise, teaching and supporting all them way to getting them into housing. And even in helth, the people we have seen healed without a health care plan, keeps rising. The Lord answers prayer far better than the government can, and does so without taxes or burocrats.

%d bloggers like this: