The Hypocrisy of Atheism

Ok,it’s a pretty well-known fact churches don’t pay taxes. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate if that’s right or wrong. However,I noticed something on YouTube that I found quite………hypocritical.

In searching through YouTube I happened to come upon this individual that was picketing for churches to be taxed. I noticed he was in an atheist group that does some charity work for homeless (which is great and I think it’s serving his community well). While I was watching his video presentation I was taken back to an interview I came across with Madelyn Murray O’Hare where she proclaims an atheist victory by obtaining tax-free status for the American atheists of which she was founder and its president from 1963 to 1986. (yes,i removed the capital A in “atheist” on purpose–that’s another blog for another time).

In 1960, Murray filed a lawsuit against the Baltimore City Public School System, in which she asserted that it was unconstitutional for her son William to be required to participate in Bible readings at Baltimore public schools.Prayer in schools other than Bible-readings had already been ended in 1962 by the Court’s ruling in Engel v. Vitale, but O’Hare declared herself to have been the leader of the movement to remove prayer from public schools. Why am I not surprised that she was dishonest about this.

Another dishonest tactic that grinds me to the core is that Humanists suckle at the teat of “religion” when there is a government benefit for them to take advantage of like say… exempt status.

Here is the rule: When Secular Humanists want the benefits of religion, Secular Humanism is a religion. When Secular Humanists are challenged for propagating their religion in public schools, it is not a religion.

When Christians attempt to get the religion of Secular Humanism out of the government schools, based on the same emotional frame of mind which atheists had when they went to court against God in schools, then pro-secularist courts speak out of the other side of their faces and say that Secular Humanism is NOT a religion “for establishment clause purposes.” This is slimy deceitful legalism at its worst.

Secular Humanist teachers and school administrators (who are protected by the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment as members of tax-exempt religious organizations and religious conscientious objectors) are free to propagate their views in schools, but Christians are not. If Christians propagate their views, it is an “establishment clause” violation, but NOT if Secular Humanists propagate their views.

Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes,” and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes.”



  1. The difference is Churches can get tax-exempt status without disclosing their income. Any other organization has to do so. So, either the churches need to be taxed, or reveal what money they get and how they use it to see if they actually deserve being tax exempt.

    1. I have no problem with churches being help responsible for their income. The point being why is Secular Humanism a religion “for free exercise clause purposes,” and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s