Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

There are also non-atheists who want the same thing. I'd even wager there are more Muslims and Hebrews who wish ill of the Catholic church than atheists. I think even modern history has shown religious zeal, when improperly motivated, can have tragic consequences. The famous quote is: "Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it."

 

That depends on how you view charity. And there are some situations that are just a crisis so aid is a reasonable response.

Also a number of Catholic institutions are involved in education, which arguably is teaching skills and encouraging self-sufficiency. And these are actually schools with responsible curriculums rather than simple indoctrination factories. Also some of the charity projects I think are self-sustaining. I have trouble remembering what exactly they were off the top of my head but I think some where.

The problem with that is that actions at the time aren't often repeated today so there is then a faulty view of behavior patterns.

Also some of the atheists may honestly be studying history but others (especially some of those who are outspoken) seem to be trying to score propaganda points and my references to selective history touch on that.

True, it just doesn't seem that is always the goal.

I'm not sure of if you have a mirroring political system but think of local, state, and federal government here in the USA. There is some communication/interaction between them but it would not necessarily be fair to blame problems caused by one level on another. If there are problems caused by officials in more then one level that is fair game, just don't be so quick to assume so. An attempt to punish one level for something another did is unproductive and damages an innocent party.

Also you note that some of the problems I pointed to aren't under the direct power of any level of the Church and are much more directly related to government practices. Each may influence the other to a degree but there is probably a strong functional separation of government and Church actions in many areas (you talked about some of the social issues the Church likely has influenced the government on but those are far from the only laws/activities a government creates/does).

That is a good quote, but there is also a difference between selective history (for propaganda) and learning history.

It is a possibility and I would disagree with them with some of the same reasons I don't think all of Islam should be done away with because some members go on a Jihad. Just as extreme as that are people who say all religion (including church groups that have never been involved in violence/Inquistions/Jihads) should be done away with-but that goes back to my point about propaganda.

And like I said before, I'm glad that most Christians, Muslims, and Atheists aren't involved in violence. Thus I don't advocate any one group should be abolished as that is punishing the innocent for the actions of others.

 

Oh, certainly, but Coin was specifically talking about atheists, so I responded in kind.

Actually, that's an excellent example. Just because one state allows gay marriages doesn't mean they all do, or that they all condone them, or that the Federal Government supports them. Anyone who criticizes the one state should stop there. Likewise, corruption at a city level is not a reflection of the state or federal system.

 

You're reacting to statements made by a few atheists, which are very likely emotional outbursts. In reaction to observing all the injustices any institution is supposedly responsible for, an opponent of such an institution will at times feel a deep contempt and loathing for it. This will lead to statements such as 'religion should be eradicated' or 'down with America'. These are just outbursts, they don't necessarily mean people would normally desire this, let alone be willing to participate in an institution's downfall. I readily admit to similar outbursts, and I bet I could find guttural reactions from you guys if I were to scour your old posts (which I won't).
in a way, pplr's perception of atheists being an organisation equal to any theist institution, is a step on that path. Us vs. them is a very old dichotomy, based on instinctive emotions. Emotional outbursts are to be expected. So... lighten up. We don't see eye to eye, but atheism isn't out to get you. But if you're hoping for an apology, don't hold your breath!

 

Unfortunately, Coin, there are a number of atheist organizations in the US that are out to get religion. They've tried to ban religious programming from radio or from TV, to remove churches' tax-exempt status, to prevent religious student-groups from meeting on school grounds. Now I'll admit that isn't all atheists, nor are those organizations the Official Representation of All Atheism, any more than my church is the Official Representation of All Theism, but some of them are quite large and well-funded.

Also, such 'outbursts' as 'religion should be eradicated' are often the precursors to emotionally charged discussions, not the results of. Now, I can't say that they aren't just emotional outlets of those atheists due to other stressors, but it does cast doubt on your characterization of them as "very likely emotional outbursts".

Lastly, I think emotional outbursts are something we should seek to contain and prevent, rather than accept as natural. I'm not saying we should squash our emotions into tight little festering balls of hate in our inner core, but neither should we let them explode at their whim.

 

Can you defend why these should be acceptable?

I personally see no problem with programming -- that's simply supply and demand.

Religious groups should be meeting in a church, not on public school grounds -- a private school can do what they wish, but public schools are paid for by the tax payers and there is no reason to have the tax payers cover such an activity. There are far too many religious groups, there has to be line drawn somewhere and the most sensible is that no religious groups use public facilities (unless they rent them). To allow one group means that all must be allowed or you are showing bias -- hence, I would even argue against renting the space (someone, somewhere will sue based on financial discrimination...).

Tax exempt status should be looked at (I'm not saying it should go away but examined more closely and further defined) -- especially with the huge deficit we are building in the US. There are many aspects of religious finances that are more closely related to a corporation than a charitable organization, perhaps some aspects should be taxed.

 

I think tax exempt status for *bling* preachers or other for profit enterprises, like for instance Scientology, is indeed a topic that ought to be looked at more closely. Think of the personification of accountability among the prosperity gospelists himself, Mr. 'my books belong to god' Kenneth Copeland.

​

 

T2 handled those points better than I could. Some of the theist activities can be subject to complaint and criticism. From my perspective it's quite reasonable to voice objections, but I understand that you'll hear nothing of it.

Ah, but you are exascerbating the problem by being so anal-retentive about these outbursts. Instead of letting the culprits of outbursts regain their reason, sanity and composure, you choose to follow up the unreasonable statements with complaints of your own. Where these people might otherwise have realized their error themselves, you insist on stripping them of their dignity. This will only lead to antagonism and further escalation. In short, you're being confrontational, but it would suit you better to just let it slide. After an obviously unreasonable statement, a response of silence is best. That's how I see it anyway.

 

It's also freedom of speech. It was actually attacked on a Seperation of Church and State grounds (the FCC being a federal body and liscencing these groups), but that would seem to require evidence of preference, instead of 'anyone can use it'.

School grounds are used for after-school activities by student body organisations. It's the same thing as the FCC issue. If the school is showing bias, that's an issue, but if people who have a legitimate right to use it want to use it for a purpose that happens to be religious in this instance, it shouldn't be a problem.

That's where regulations over what counts as a student body organization come in. Two students isn't a student body organization, but 60 of them are.

You'll have to defend that more heavily. 99% of churches I'm familiar with meet the definition of a not-for-profit entity, which is tax-exempt under a seperate regulation. Now, should the special religious tax-exempt regulation be removed, maybe, but almost all churches would still be tax-exempt. These groups actually wanted to institute taxes specifically on religious organizations.

I agree that a church that becomes a for-profit entity should be seriously looked at, though.

I have no problem with you saying you don't like what they do. I have a problem with people trying to pass laws banning it, or trying to get the courts to ban it, when it's a constitutional right, however. If you want to organize a mass-boycott of christian radio, that's fine with me, but trying to say that religious groups should be banned from all federally regulated everythings is ridiculous.

That's because I generally take people's comments on these boards literally. The internet is notorious for loosing nonverbal contexts, like emotion, sarcasm, jokes, etc. Since it's more dangerous for me to assume they're all emotional outbursts, I instead assume they're all literal unless they're really ridiculous.

Also, I never said I was immune to emotional outbursts, though I hope I've learned to control myself better over the past few years. I find them as unhealthy and undesirable in myself as I do in anyone else.

 

As the person on the receiving end of those "outbursts" I would like to point out that an outburst is pretty much a single event. What I was seeing is a pattern of disrespect. Patterns generally aren't outbursts.

Though I thank you for noting how emotional rather than rational things got.

Actually one of the ironies here is how often "death to America" rallies were staged events in Iran. But that goes back to the issue of patterns being developed (actively by various figures).

I think it would be reasonable for most people who have been told what I was to not lighten up.

"Us vs. them is a very old dichotomy, based on instinctive emotions." (just had to repeat that)

"Us vs them" has been involved in some terrible stuff (genocide included). Those you promote it within society should be noted for the tensions they encourage. And even if there is a proper roll for an "Us vs them" within society it should be done with some level of honesty and respect-both seemed lacking in some of what I was talking about.

 

Well, will you look at that ... NOG you just opened up a lawsuit.

As far as churches paying taxes... I don't understand why a parrish, who pays their minister, and provides him a place to live (the home is based on employment) shouldn't have to pay real estate taxes on the home for the minister. I don't understand how a church can contract to build a multi-million dollar complex and not pay sales tax on the purchase of materials. For that matter I don't understand why a religious organization does not have to pay taxes on money it makes through investments. I personally think churches should also pay a scaled form of real estate taxes (not to exceed a percentage of income).

 

T2, does PETA pay taxes for any of those? How about the SPCA? If regular tax-exempt entities pay taxes on them, then I agree that churches should, too. If they don't, then neither should churches.

 

Here's an issue I see with the rules/regulations for Tax-exempt, non-profit Orgs. A local group here in town has a kitchen in it's establishment. It was originally having pasta dinners for $5.00. This was once a month occurence. Now they are up to 3 days a week, sometimes 4 days. If they're not paying taxes, they sure are stealing money out of the local merchant's pockets, as the locals can't compete with those prices, as they have to pay taxes. Somehow, that just feels wrong...

 

Blades, is the local organization looking to turn a profit? Also, what kind of setting and quality do they have? If I'm eating a cheap pasta dinner in a Gym, I'd rather pay a few more bucks and get a Wendy's meal. The only reason I'd go for the pasta is if it's a fundraser for something I want to support.

 

It's a Non-Profit social club, with Catholic ties. A very nice and large dining area, which is supposed to be used for rent for wedding parties, etc... and with 2 huge bars inside. My father in law is a member, so I frequently go there for some conversation and proper "watering". But when you see them putting out nice dinners/breakfasts, at a cheaper price than a restaurant can, several times a week, it's gets a little fishy. Somewhere, somebody is lining their pockets. These groups definitely should be taxed if they continue to do so. Hopefully, somebody will call the State and ask this to be looked into.

 

Blades,

I fail to see the logic in this reasoning. If they are selling meals at a lower price than any restaurant can, why should we assume that they are making money hand over fist? Perhaps the reason they can offer lower prices is A) They aren't being taxed and B) They aren't turning a profit. How can we conclude if they are offering meals at a lower price than anyone else that it naturally means they are making a lot of money? To me, the opposite is true: they only charge $5 because they are only interested in breaking even.

 

I doubt this. Not everything a non-profit does is meant to break even. They almost certainly "profit" from the activity, but those monies would then be used to fund other charitable activities. I doubt the church just uses the income for petty cash.

 

OK, but the point is I doubt they are making a killing selling $5 pasta dinners.

 

Aldeth - Are you an active member in any Men's club, that's Non-Profit? They do NOT run the dinner events to break even. Some might be for a specific fund-raiser or charity event, but most aren't. Most clubs have a high turnover rate of officers, as they are constantly being accused of stealing or profiting from the club. Maybe not up to the 70' or 80's, but since the 90's these orgs have changed and not for the better.

 

Well, depending on how those 'Catholic ties' work, this may be a little different. The Catholic Church doesn't like being stolen from, after all.