lol... how are people like this allowed to roam the streets freely, as if they had a functioning brain? seriously...

Clearly he's trolling.

Here's a WebMD article somewhat supporting his claims. Yes, it's possible that religious beliefs lead to lifestyle choices that tend to keep people healthier: lower alcohol usage, less chance of being a smoker. In that regard it seems like this is a causation vs. correlation situation. Being "spiritual" isn't the reason for longer life or better health, but it's a reason for "clean living" which then has its own rewards.

How about instead of taxing atheists, we tax alcohol and tobacco? Oh wait, we already do that.>> ^EMPIRE:

lol... how are people like this allowed to roam the streets freely, as if they had a functioning brain? seriously...

i'm sure this wise man is referring to the pasta-farians.
yes, we should join.

oh yes, more like this. keep going. make it even more retarded and crazy. can't wait to get rid of these cynical fucks and get back to putting our prosperity above the republican sore-loser crybabyism. you lost the white house. you lost your court case. don't get over it. we'll get over you eventually.

Religious nutjob is out of his fucking mind.

My great-grandpa was an atheist. He was a WWII and Korean War veteran and farmer. He was out tending to his cattle at the young age of 102. He died just shy of his 106th birthday. He smoked, drank whiskey and wine, and ate like shit. He once told me that only fools believe that praying can solve anything real.

He would have definitely kicked this religious wackjob in the teeth.

Does it have to be a Christian church? Maybe atheists need to establish The Church of No God and attend regularly, possibly attending by way of webcast or Skype conference call.

What about churches such as those attended by members of the cult of Scientology? Does attending the church of a religion based upon a blatantly false premise exclude an individual from having to pay this proposed tax? Maybe this is an opportunity for religions to prove they are genuine, any religion that is unable to prove that it is based on genuine deities doesn't count and therefore its congregation must pay the tax.

There's potential in this idea if it gets thought out properly in such a way that causes problems for organised religion instead of benefits. Or maybe my mind is just too twisted and I should accept that it's a crazy idea that will never make it into any legislation

@Reefie of course it has to be a Christian church. That's the only kind of church that counts to these people. We certainly don't want to give Americans a tax break for going to a Muslim church, right?

Wow! The phrase "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind.

Wouldn't it make more sense to tax people who don't go to a gym?

Honestly, I think he's being facetious. He's a conservative radio host, so he must be against the affordable care act and the individual mandate specifically. I think he's saying "taxing people over being uninsured is as ridiculous as taxing them over not going to church, because church is good for you". It's a version of the supreme court's 'eat your broccoli mandate' slippery slope argument. Only, as KnivesOut said, designed to troll liberals.

@dag, here's your opportunity to declare videosift a religion!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I want a slice of the atheist crop applied to VideoSift. I've got a ripe crop of non-believers ready for milking.>> ^ChaosEngine:
@dag, here's your opportunity to declare videosift a religion!

I can live with this as long as i get to bring a white noise generator, some really loud speakers and use them any way i want without them being able to do something about it.

I was looking forward to finding out about 'Tax Athiests'. I am unsatisfied.

>> ^kymbos:

I was looking forward to finding out about 'Tax Athiests'. I am unsatisfied.


....Similarly, I expected to find out about tax-dodging atheists who use their disbelief in God to include ALL, God-like institutions.

@Quboid ~ Hell yeah!!?? Tax the unhealthy and those who have caused their health problems. Television, Monsanto, manufacturers of the shit, advertisers, etc. AND, a point of sale tax for any food that is not organic, kind, or kosher!!

Churches should have 10 per-cent of their tithes received as well, go straight into the healthcare system...which incidentally is cranking along in the black now that diabetes and heart disease are virtually non-existent AGAIN ~

>> ^kymbos:

I was looking forward to finding out about 'Tax Athiests'. I am unsatisfied.


Here ya go!

http://jonathanrobinson.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/jimmycarr.jpg

>> ^chingalera:

@Quboid ~ Hell yeah!!?? Tax the unhealthy and those who have caused their health problems. Television, Monsanto, manufacturers of the shit, advertisers, etc. AND, a point of sale tax for any food that is not organic, kind, or kosher!!
Churches should have 10 per-cent of their tithes received as well, go straight into the healthcare system...which incidentally is cranking along in the black now that diabetes and heart disease are virtually non-existent AGAIN ~


Hell yeah? This seems kind of fascist to me. Taxing foods based on their nutritional value wouldn't be a bad thing, if largely unenforceable. Actually we have a form of that in the UK, items that are considered necessities aren't charged VAT (sort of like sales tax) but luxuries are charged 20% VAT, with "normal" foods being necessities and fancier foods and eating out counting as luxuries. It's not particularly effective, but I'd guess it's doing some good.

I think you are right, he is trying to make a point, the problem is, this "absurd scenario" he's using to make a point is already the law of the land in the US.

When Private clubs called churches are excused from taxation, everybody has to pay the share these clubs use but don't pay for. When one attends church, they get their money back in lower membership fees, but those of us who don't belong to these clubs just pay for them without receiving any benefit.

neo-conservatism seems to now full depend on the ability to deny the fact that giving someone $100 and excusing their $100 debt are materially the same thing.

>> ^entr0py:

Honestly, I think he's being facetious. He's a conservative radio host, so he must be against the affordable care act and the individual mandate specifically. I think he's saying "taxing people over being uninsured is as ridiculous as taxing them over not going to church, because church is good for you". It's a version of the supreme court's 'eat your broccoli mandate' slippery slope argument. Only, as KnivesOut said, designed to troll liberals.

Having sex is good for you, barring STDs. So, tax churches to raise funds for clean prostitutes for all who wish to partake.

Sleeping is good for you, so we should put taxes on any company that insists on overtime that cuts into sleeping and regular meals...because eating regularly and on a schedule is healthier for your sleep cycle among other things.

Not stressing over bills is good for you, so tax the rich heavily to pay bills. That one would probably go over particularly well with the crowd he's preaching to.