As a Christian, I applaud Sen Grassley! This investigation is long over due.
I have no problem with what they preach. I have no problem with the way they live…..however, I do believe they should be paying taxes on thier incomes.
Peace!

If fools want to pay every last dollar to support the lifestyle of these thieves, well, there is no law against being stupid (as in asleep in front of the TV).
But these TVangelists ought to be paying taxes on all the other enterprises they are involved in. Of course, that goes for any Church organization of any size. I am probably in the minority of my colleagues when I state that I think churches ought to pay their share of the property tax, too. The only exemptions would be when the building is used as a community resource – elections, classrooms for public school, public library, or such. Otherwise, we use the infrstructure as much as anyone else so we ought to support it. We try to compensate for not paying taxes by making appropriate contributions to local, secular charities.

It’s not clear to me why *any* church should receive a government subsidy in the form of tax exempt status. I pay PLENTY of tax myself, and receive no benefits or services from any church. Why shouldn’t they be paying their fair share?

those who criticize seldom if ever are willing to step up to teach, preach or evangelize, probably don’t even know what the bible says except what they heard and out of the sheer ignorance of it all, never took time to realize today it takes money to operate any organization or, institution you don’t suppose those twelve men were poor broken vagabonds with nothing better to do, huh?

Keep investigating those ministries….as they have tons of money to spend on their clothes, cars, houses etc. And just because some poor fools send them money to “keep preaching the word”, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t pay taxes on their “businesses”. That,to me, is what those large supposedly Christian ministries are…more business than religion. Definiately should be paying for the luxury they are living in .

I agree with jesterfyl that you pays your money and takes your chances, but as a taxpayer I do want them and everyone else to observe the letter of the tax laws.
I’m glad it’s a Republican who’s leading this charge; they’d try to roast a Democrat alive. Kudos to Senator Grassley.
And in case there are people just unaware of how high a lot of these tv preachers live, this could be instructive.

The warning bells should be sounding throughout American Christendom… but not for the reasons Grassley and those cheering him on think.
There is an increasing tolerance for anti-Christian bigotry in America today, and much of that is built upon negative stereotypes of “fundies”, evangelicals, and TV Preachers. On the one hand Christians are being driven from all public recognition by a surging secularism fueled by the entertainment and news media resentful of the association between evangelicals and conservative politics; and on the other hand, fed by a radical left academia seeking – with a fundamentalist zeal the envy of any pulpit-pounding preacher – to convert every Christian child that walks into their classroom.
The critics of Christianity rail about “separation of church and State”, demanding all confessing Christians keep their big, fat noses out of the public square and out of government. But in the same breath, they applaud the intrusion of government into the business of the church. The reason churches (not pastors’ personal incomes) are exempt from paying taxes is to protect religion from the intrusion of government. Churches and religious organizations are not allowed to take public positions endorsing one political candidate over another (something that is ignored by the left whenever one of their own is invited to speak from an urban pulpit), but individual pastors are allowed to participate in politics as private citizens. The complaints about pastors in politics are clearly political… no one complains about the involvement in politics of the REV. Jesse Jackson or the REV. Al Sharpton and no one demands an investigation into their personal finances. Why? Could it be that their positions on homosexuality, abortion, global warming and other liberal causes are politcally correct?
Warning bells ought to be sounded. The big guns are zeroing in on influential fundamentalist Christian ministries in America. And this investigation is nothing less than neo-McCarthyism; only instead of intimidating “commies” it is clearly intended to intimidate “fundies”… and for the politically correct, anti-Christian elements in America today, it is cause for celebration. But for Christians, it ought to be cause for alarm, for the “barbarians are at the gate” and they are out to destroy our most basic right of freedom of Religion.
If today they target those you do not like, and you remain silent. But what if tomorrow they may come after those you do like? What will be your response then?

It is quite a true fact that some tele-evangelists are being ‘over-the-limit’ emthusiastic when it comes to money. I am not blaming their work but the purpose of their lavish lifestyles. Ofcourse, they can live comfortably and have a right to earn a lot of money as evangelism is not an easy job and all of them are immensely successful and it’s not so easy to handle a large ministry and church as theirs. But everything is above the limit, too much lavishness when they themselves know the conditions of many people wround the world , even their fellow preachers. I mean, look at Billy Graham. He is one of the most influential, successful and amazing evangelist for decades. Yet, he leads a modest lifestyle. Why cant they follow his example? The problem is the ‘unecessary extra-money’ that these tele-evangelists are earning. That extra-money could be used for extra-services for many poor and unsaved people in this world through evangelistic meetings, charity, expansion and so on. Why cant they understand this? why dont they take into account this major skepticism that many people have around their life-styles? In fact, their lifestyle is one of main causes for unbelievers becoming reluctant to hear the true gospel and be saved!

Gregory C Kelly-
You may be correct. However, I personally seldom if ever base my actions on what others do and/or do not do.
I pray everywhere I go throughout my day. I pray at my kids public school, I pray at Target, at Town Hall, at Starbucks, etc. Very few people around me probably know what I am doing….however, I do not believe that God needs everyone to know I am praying in order to hear my prayers.
When the Spirit moves me, I share my faith in our Lord with whomever I am speaking with. At other times, the Spirit moves me to share principles of Christianity (as well as other faiths) to people who would miss the point if our Lord were mentioned.
I still question the tax exempt status of the Preachers (and others) listed above.
Peace!

Frederick Osborn-
Quite a rant you got going above. Sorry, but I do not agree.
First, for the last few years I have listened to Bill O’Reily and other rant about the attack on Christmas. I am not seeing this attack…nor do I as a Christian feel attacked.
Through much of December, I personally say Happy Holidays….so as to be inclusive of all people. During Chanukah…I wish people Happy Chanukah….Dec 23-25 I wish everyone (regardless of their faith) a Merry Christmans….Dec 26-Jan 1 I wish people Happy Kwanzaa(regardless of the ethnicity/racial background).
Second, my children are being raised to understand and practice Christian principles. They are also being raised to understand that some people think and believe differently than we do….and, that is alright. No teacher is going to convert my children. If a teacher is able to convert kids…then, the parents have not done a very good job in teaching their children. Do you really think Christianity is so weak that children will convert simply by being exposed to other beliefs?
Third, many of the so called religious leaders…from the Pope to Dr. Dobson…to Rev Pat Robertson often do not seem to be demonstrating the teachings of Christ. It is not my place to judge these people….it is my place to choose whether to emulate them….or, to follow the principles of Christ. I choose the latter.
Fourth, is Christianity really improved or strengthened by clerks in stores mindlessly saying: “Merry Christmas” rather than: “Happy Holiday”?
Fifth, asking some Christians not to beat others over the head with their Bibles….is not prejudice, discrimination, nor bigotry against Christians. The great commission is to spread the teachings….not, to beat people up in the name of Christ. I would suggest to you that the latter is actually taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Peace!

Frederick,
Those “negative stereotypes of “fundies”, evangelicals, and TV Preachers” are EARNED. They deserve the negative branding for what they have done to the Gospel.

Come on,what about the other pastors,T.D.Jakes,or Jesse Duplantis, I feel like Joyce Meyers, is wonderful,she spreads the Gospel,they go to places to help the needy across the world,and here at home. come on, there are certain big money people that gets away with not paying that much taxes,that is why they are so rich. I am seeing a sad situation, this country forefathers instilled God in this country, they believed in the Bible, and founded this country on the Bibles truths,now the counrty is undoing the sprituial vines that our forefathers beloved and cherish.The church and state is split,that is what in this country is saying,so why are you picking on these people? Maybe,you want the churches surpressed.These people come from years of hurt work,they didn’t have overnight success. I think,just because they might have money,you, or the government isn’t getting their money,so why not knock them down.Please be sure the government of this fine country get all that is due them.

WHY NOT TAX CHURCHES?
I believe that taxing churches is a bad idea. If churches are taxed like businesses and individuals, then churches will fundamentally change their relationship to the government of our country. As taxpayers, churches, especially those with hefty annual tax bills, would expect the same kind of bang for their tax buck as other tax-paying businesses and individuals. Mega-churches would soon expect mega-influence over decisions by government, funding earmarks, influence over legislation and would soon establish lobbyists in every state house and capitol in the country.
You think corporate influence is rampant right now, wait till you get churches paying taxes. Small churches would have little or no influence because they have less economic impact and fewer resources to lobby.
Taxing churches will take the lid off separation of church and state. Once you tax a church, you no longer have any justification for denying that tax-payer equal access under the law and I guarantee the mega-churches and ministries will jump into the political lake with their flippers on!!!
While they do weigh in now on moral issues and civil rights and humanitarian issues now, do we really want churches suddenly becoming equally active on tax issues, military spending, infrastructure and social services? Do we really want to fundamentally change the relationship between churches and the US Government – make them just so many more corporations lined up at Congresses door demanding that, as tax-payers, we give them something for their money. What exactly will that be?
I for one, don’t want to find out. Theocracies are pretty nasty governments and we don’t want to wind up one of those by any means.
I say, leave ‘em tax exempt and focused on disaster relief, building mission churches in South America and Africa and running inner city youth programs. Lets not make them bottom-line focused profit-making corporations by making them have to worry about their taxes.
Jerk up the naughty men (and women) who run all these ‘speak-easy’ churches by the scruff of their necks if need be, but don’t throw out the baby with the bath.
And with that unpardonable barrage of cliche’s I leave you.
Just one man’s opinion….
Tom King

I agree taxing churches themselves is a bad idea. For one thing some places we’d find popular churches being taxed little and unpopular churches being taxed a lot, perhaps out of existence.
As for Fred Osborn’s rant above, he ignores so many facts, one being that most teachers in the US and most college professors are Christians. Fred seems to be one of those Christians who feels better if he can imagine he’s under assault despite the fact he’s in the largest religion in the country.
But all too many fundamentalists and evangelicals have earned the negative stereotype they have among some of us. They suppress, or allow people speaking in their name to suppress teaching real science and real sex education, their idea of morality is to be “right” on banning abortions and suppressing homosexuals, ignoring issues like global warming, living wages, medical care for everyone, phony reasons for invasions and on and on.
And Fred seems to worry that someone will see whether some of these churches have been obeying the tax codes. Apparently Fred would like them to be beyond the law. Very bad idea.

“Follow the money”
What is true for discovering crooks is true for discovering why someone takes on a righteous cause. First, I applaud and cheer for Rep. Grassley. He is thinking clearly and and asking the hard questions some folks would like silenced. But, I do wonder why these particular abusers of the common weal. I wonder is someone or a few folks in his constituency reported being abused or taken by these characters. If so that would help identify why. It may also help expand the investigation.
As to churches and taxes. I believe that simply because an orgamization pays a higher tax bill they do not necessarily exercise greater influence over a municipality or state. The way influence is doled out is through lobbying and poltical action organizations (Any one care for a “pork barrel lap dance”?). So the mega-churches may have to pay more for the use of roads, police & fire protection, and all the other services. Compensation for community use would be equitable and easily managed. A theocracy comes when religious leaders exert undue influence – often outside the tax structure or usual community means. That is, unless a church is the largest land holder and employer in a town (see Ave Maria, Florida, for an example).
We should be very wary of groups that resist oversight and yet continue to expect support (direct or indirect, by payment or being excused from such).

maddy evans:
“….this country forefathers instilled God in this country,they believed in the Bible truths and founded the country on the Bible truths etc.”
Disagree with you, as the forefathers wanted separation of church and state….and didn’t use the Bible to found this country. Where is God mentioned in the papers that are the basis of our government?
“The church and state is split, that is what in this country is saying, so why are you picking on these people?”
Fortunately the church and state are split, as they should be, but Grassley isn’t picking on these people, he is investigating the luxury they are living in and NOT paying taxes on. Did they work hard to get to their luxury positions…sure, but how much of that DONATED money could be helping less fortunate people, instead of buying the “minister and his wife” big cars, fancy clothes and really large houses. I, for one, have never been impressed with their huge lifestyles. It wouldn’t make me more religious, if indeed I was anyhow.

No where does it say that it is a bad thing to be rich. I believe these people are doing hard work for the gosple and God has rewarded them for it.
It has to be a two way street if you take God out of the state then you have to leave the state out of the church.
I saw ,writen above, that it doesn’t make a difference if you say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” I have to disagree. I believe in the power of the word. And the state has taken the liberty to take (God, Jesus,Christ) out of everything. We need his name said over and over again. Praise his name and screem it from the mountain tops. I am very sad to see that those who want to say any of those words are being stifled everyday in all ways.

“We need his name said over and over again.”
Why?
“And the state has taken the liberty to take (God, Jesus,Christ) out of everything.”
Do you actually know what “everything” means? I think if you listen to the radio or walk down the street you’ll see “God” or “Jesus” or “Christ” often. If you don’t you are in an unusual area.
Could you show us how anyone is being stifled? Even those mentioned aren’t being kept off the air, their tax paying behavior is being questioned, that’s all. Is it that you want them to be stifled so you’ll have something to complain about or is it that you don’t know what “stifled” means?

Tawny:
It doesn’t make any difference if you say “Merry Christmas” or Happy Holidays”. Do you also say “Happy Hanukkah” to those who celebrate? Our govenment shouldn’t use her/his name over and over again. Our government isn’t a church or temple, or mosque etc. it is separate from the religions of this country…as it should be. If you want multiple uses of a deity’s name, go to your place of worship…which is what those buildings are for. Or go to a country that tells you what to believe and makes life miserable for you if you don’t. (Iran, Iraq etc).
God has rewarded those people for doing hard work? More like the people who send the money have rewarded those people…and those poeple have been living mighty well off those “offerings”. They should be taxed like anyone else on the personal over usage of the “offerings”. I always thought that offerings were for the church to use to help people in need, and to keep the physical buildings in shape, to pay a reasonable salary to the minister,….not to pay for elaborate houses, cars and clothes to those ministers.
Apparently Grassley thinks that a few of those “rewarded ministries” are a bit too well rewarded…and that all the monies aren’t elegible to be tax exempt.

Maddy Evans: “….this country forefathers instilled God in this country,they believed in the Bible truths and founded the country on the Bible truths etc.”
Pagan Sister: “Disagree with you, as the forefathers wanted separation of church and state….and didn’t use the Bible to found this country. Where is God mentioned in the papers that are the basis of our government?”
Depends on what we are willing to accept as being “the papers that are the basis of our government.”
The Constitution of the United States, which is essentially the rules and the objective methodology of our system of government, contains no explicit mention of God.
Other documents (papers) illustrate the reasoning, the mindset, the motivations, the passions and the state of heart of the settlers and colonists, and their purposes for the establishment of our present government. I believe that the Constitution must be taken in historical context to be accurately understood and interpreted. Much like the Bible. Otherwise, it is just as easy to proof-text from the Constitution as it is to proof-text from the Bible, and both methods invite error.
The Mayflower Compact, according to many, established the basis for self-government and the rule of law in the New World. It begins, “In the name of God Amen.” It includes such passages as, “Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony….do by these present solemnly and mutually in the presence of God….”
The Declaration of Independence refers to right to dissolve political bonds and to assume, among the powers of the earth, “…separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them..,” and that “…they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,..” It ends by appealing to “…the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…” and “…for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”
Thomas Jefferson authored “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia.” It’s guarantee of religious liberty was a precursor of the First Amendment to the Constitution. (“The American Reader, Harper Collins, edited by Diane Ravitch)
This bill states “…that Almighty God hath decreed the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion…that the impious presumption of legislature and ruler, civil as well as ecclesiastical…have assumed dominion over the faith of others…[and] hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time…”
It further states, “We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall he be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened [sic] in his body or goods, or otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or beliefs; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
The concern at the time was avoiding the establishment of a church-state, or official religion, allowing freedom of religious opinion, and assuring that religious affiliation did not restrain the civil rights of the citizens. The Mayflower Compact assumed the religion to be Christian, the Jefferson Bill mentions “…the holy author of our religion” and decries “false religions.” I’ll leave it to the readers to decide for themselves whether the Christian religion was the one “holy authored” and whether or not other religions were the “false religions.”
These are just a few statements to be found in some of the documents that some would say are expressions of the motivations, purposes and intentions that underpin the Constitution, and therefor underpin the Nation.
I’m sure that there were plenty of non-Christians, atheists, agnostics, spirualists and spiritists of many stripes around the colonies during the same time period. It doesn’t appear that there is a record of many of them making sure that the nation was based on their various personal philosophies, however, and much evidence exists that the many of the founders drew on their own God- and Christ-oriented viewpoints along the way to establish our Nation’s founding principles and laws.
Regarding some televangelists, and others, the Bible gives a principle that those who work for the gospel can receive support. I don’t see much evidence that the great evangelists and apostles of the Bible became rich while there was need among their churches. They were admonished not to just tell them “go and be filled” (or, do as I say and get rich) but all Christians, including them, were to share what they physically possessed with those who had need, even to their own hurt. There is no excuse for living high off of those who are living “low”. There is a work to be done, and some of it can be supported by providing financial assistance. The purpose of offerings is not to funnel wealth into the hands of the preacher. A minister should cringe at the thought of misspending the widow’s mite.

JonBoy you spent a lot of electrons trying unsuccessfully to get around the fact “God” is not mentioned in the Constitution. Sure some of the framers, maybe most of them believed in one kind of god or another but they wisely left it out of the foundation document of our country. We have been a successful democracy for a long time on that basis.
Let’s keep a high fence of separation so the government can treat all citizens the same and so religions can go about their business and people will not be helped or hindered by government based on their beliefs. It works. It ain’t broke. Don’t “fix” it.

nnmns says: “JonBoy you spent a lot of electrons trying unsuccessfully to get around the fact “God” is not mentioned in the Constitution. Sure some of the framers, maybe most of them believed in one kind of god or another but they wisely left it out of the foundation document of our country. We have been a successful democracy for a long time on that basis.
“Let’s keep a high fence of separation so the government can treat all citizens the same and so religions can go about their business and people will not be helped or hindered by government based on their beliefs. It works. It ain’t broke. Don’t “fix” it.”
Actually, I did that the Constitution contains no explicit mention of God. I made no attempt to show that the Constitution mentioned God. I was successful, I believe, in stating outright that it did not, rather than unsuccessful, as you claim, in trying to “get around” the fact. Apparently, I didn’t spend enough electrons or you just skimmed over it.
As for your second paragraph, I quoted founding documents stating the same thing.
Another point that you missed, or didn’t think worthy of comment: the judiciary and the legislature are continually squabbling over the “intent” of any given part of the Constitution. They, not I, are forever working on “fixing” it and re-interpreting it and/or its intent, forever debating what those founding fathers “had in mind” when they drafted it. It is those people who are in a position to “break” it, not I.
With this in mind, please re-read my electron-rich post, where you will find that I am opining that if and whenever this happens, which is often, one would be wise to consider the background and context of the document itself before jumping from one creative conclusion to another about what was “meant” or intended by the those who drafted and signed it and the states that ratified and accepted it.
That’s pretty much what I said the first time around, albeit with ample citations to validate my point, making the post rather too “electron enhanced” for some. Oh, well…

JB, sorry if I misinterpreted your intent. We don’t get a lot of neutral posts here and I presumed you were trying to post-build a Christian foundation under the Constitution so as to be able to say “Look, there’s a Christian foundation under it!” But picking and choosing quotations from here and there would not accomplish that so I’m glad if that was not your intent.

Well!
We’ve gotten rather far afield from the topic of the story, it seems to me. I’m afraid I’m going to follow suit, although I don’t like to.
One thing is, yes, the very early White settlers of this continent, for the most part, came here for religious reasons: Roanoke, Plymouth, and most other early groups traveled across the sea to escape the tyranny of the Church of England, the mother of my church and the Mother of all State Churches (to borrow a phrase from Saddam). It would make perfect sense, then, that those groups should do as they had done, ‘write God into’ their charters or other founding documents.
But the founding documents of the United States are a different matter. The majority of the Revolutionaries and Framers were nominally – but only nominally – Christians, but they retained from their more-religious forebears a desire to prevent the potential dangers inherent in a State Church with which their forebears were so painfully familiar. Hence, regardless of the (really, quite mild) god-talk verbiage in the Declaration and Constitution, the Separation Clause, which forbids both State support of or opposition to, any “religion”.
Taxation of a religion was viewed (correctly, in my opinion) as being a mild-but-real form of opposition. So – what is a religion? Very wisely, legislatures and other taxing bodies have taken a liberal definition: roughly, ‘it’s a church if it says it’s a church.’ Partly as a result, all sorts of religion expression has flowered in this country, including a number of sects which – forgive me! – are simply crackpots. I guess its a matter of the wheat and the tares (if I may use that image in this context).
(This has come up in the discussion, although it has nothing to do with Grassley’s investigation: The flip side of that is that these churches are required to refrain, not from political activity, but from partisan political activity. And it is the churches which are required to refrain: lay or ordained ministers are not expected so to refrain – only to refrain from partisan activity qua ministers, not qua citizens.)
Now, it is ‘churches’ which are are exempt from taxation; lay or ordained ministers qua individuals are not exempt and never have been.
BUT: everyone, private persons and corporate entities (including religious groups), are expected to be honest. One would hope that churches and ministers would be, just as a matter of course! Sadly, and obviously, this is the case only for 99.9% of ministers, not all.
It is dishonest for a person who derives her or his personal income from a corporate entity to claim that it is corporate, not personal income. It follows, then, that it is dishonest for a lay or ordained minister, who derives her or his personal income from a religious (tax-exempt) corporate entity, to claim that is it corporate (tax-exempt) income.
That is what Grassley is investigating. And good for him! If we ministers can’t – or won’t – hold ourselves accountable to the minimal standards of plain honesty, then somebody should.
One other thing: a couple of comments have referred to Frederick Osborn’s post as a “rant.” That is a remarkably unfair characterization. He described facts and expressed opinions about them in a clear, measured, objective, and fair manner; the post was lengthy, but it was not rambling and it stayed on-point and on-topic.
It was not a rant; it was an essay, and a good one at that. I disagree with much that he said, but everything was well-reasoned and well-said.

We sure do like our mythology. Most of the colonists were NOT here for religious reasons. Even the largest percentage of passengers on the Mayflower’s manifest were NOT Puritans. They came here to make money, to get rich, to establish new homes and communities based on economy, not theology. Sure, there were a few who also wanted to purify thier faith and establish Paradise or Utopias. But they were in the minority.
Also, it is not criminal or even wrong to be rich. What these yahoos are accused of is deception, evasion of responsibility, and basic greediness. However, there are even greater fools willing to live in poverty so these yutzes can drive Rolls Royces and sport Rollexes. There is nothing illegal, but it sure is idiotic. The points of law for which the TVangelists are being held accountable are not infringing on their right to fleece the poor and unsophisticated. They are simply expected to obey the same laws everyone else, including other clergy, have to obey.

Tawny:
God has rewarded the ministries for all their hard work? That would be the folks who sent the “donations” that rewarded the ministries and their “pastors”. The misuse of that money for large houses, expensive cars, and fancy clothes is what is being investigated….and they should pay taxes on the excess. There is only so much needed to maintain a building, a home, and food and clothes. Being rich isn’t the problem…it is the excess, unnecessary 2 or 3 million dollar house, the 100,000 dollar car, the 700 dollar suit etc. that causes need for investigation.
It is part of the freedom of this country for you to say the “word” over and over again. The state doesn’t need to. Just don’t push the “word” on me, or anyone else who doesn’t want to listen.

jest -
I guess I need to take issue with “mythology.” It is certainly true that the majority of white colonists in North America came here for reasons of personal gain, or adventure, or other “nonreligious” reasons, but I do assert that those who established the outposts (Plymouth, etc) which others brought into the discussion and which I mentioned, did come for religious (as well as other) reasons.
Your statement, which describes what is common knowledge as “mythology,” that they were founded primarily for nonreligious reasons or by nonreligious persons, needs some backup. Please cite an authoritative historian or two to support your claim.
Yes, I know it’s absolutely off-point on this thread.

DeaconScott
I suggest Nathan Philbrick’s book “Mayflower”. Also check out the many websites for the historic areas e so often point to as the new Edens for European settlers. For the most part Saint Augustine, Jamestown, Plimoth, New Amsterdam, were established for commercial purposes. The religious contingents were a minority, though at times a significant minority. In the “Pilgrims” case, they provided a buffer and became mediators and leaders. But they were not the majority. In many ways they had to learn hard and fast, after being taken advantage by some unscrupulous entrepreneurs in England. The Puritans that eventually did settle Salem, though bound by a common religion were still business folk and adventurers.
Mythology is easy to teach and hard to unlearn. It does not make the contributions of our forebearers less significant. It simply reorients our thinking and understanding of what happened and why. I grew up in New England and as far as we were taught the Pilgrims were the first Europeans settles in the whol New World. Wow, was that wrong. They were trying to get to an already established colony of Dutch at the mouth of the Hudson River. And that concept ignores the presence of the French and Spanish at Saint Augustine, as well as that other English colony at Jamestown. The romance of mythology makes it easy for children to learn. But sometimes even romance has to be set aside.

jest -
Thanks! I can’t promise that I’ll get to that anytime soon, but I appreciate the response to the call for backup.
BTW – my mother’s family came over on the Mayflower. My father’s family came over about a hundred years later, in chains. I suppose I should be glad I’m not Australian!