Why so secretive?
But “better understanding” other beliefs doesn’t equal “learning from” other beliefs-it is more akin to "learning about other beliefs. When you say that you have learned from other beliefs but refuse to say what they provided that your own religion didn’t provide, it gives no incentive to others to do the same.
He did a hell of a lot of smiiting for those who don’t believe in him. There is no hell? Tell that to those mega churches and the millions of other good Christians
I am a person of logic and religion asks us to suspend all logical thinking …because we need a father figure . to me it is just santa for adults . If you’re good, you get rewarded and if you’re bad you get no toys . If it soothes you, wonderful.
But if God has a plan then that plan includes you and your family. I don’t understand why you feel responsible, though. If god has a plan it is not your fault, and if there is no plan you can’t be responsible for things you couldn’t possibly affect.
If we want to feel guilty (and I’m Jewish, so I’m good at this) we can worry about stuff we do have some possible control over, even if our genes and upbringing make it almost impossible to do all the things we know we should do.
I agree we are all pretty much the same. Now, if we can just protect ourselves from those who think they are better because they were born to money,. or got lucky, or claim a direct channel to the divine.
Pretty much, yeah. What harm does it do me if somebody thinks God loves him? When I get stressed out, I eat sugary snack foods. That’s also illogical, but at least it doesn’t harm anyone else.
Religion is a vaguely helpful servant, but a really shitty master.
When the world learns how subtle the enemy of all that is righteous really is
it will send a shock wave to there core.
Here is a sample of what Christianity has in store for their learning when the vial is lifted from their eyes.
http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/book3TheGreatDesception/Chapter1.htm
Look at history for the answer to that.
Someone who thinks he has the creator of the universe in his corner tends to be ruthless, amoral and selfish; they do as they please to whomever they please with complete self righteousness. Because since God loves them, everything they do is by definition right; they are just doing their god’s will, which is “by definition” the right thing to do even if it means burning the occasional city.
No, I can’t go with that. Yes, certainly, there have been some really bad religious people. But not all of them. So long as religion remains calm and peaceful, then, no, I don’t see it doing any harm.
Or, perhaps, yes, it does a bit of harm… But so does golfing, fishing, riding motorcycles, going to see movies, publishing comic books, and so on. All of these have a minor social cost. But…geez! Such a damn small one!
I read Superman comic books, without believing them. Nice Mr. Jaspers, across the street, reads “God” comic books, and believes them. I leave him alone, he leaves me alone.
The Nazis also had marching bands, and you wouldn’t want to ban those, would you?
Religion is “calm and peaceful” when it’s weak and generally on the verge of dying out. When religion is strong it is aggressive and tyrannical.
Religion on the other hand has an enormous social cost. Smoking would be a better analogy to religion than any of those activities.
Well, even if I agreed… I favor the right of people to smoke. Yes, it has severe social costs (I’ve lost family members to smoking-related diseases.) But that’s the problem with freedom: people will do dumb things with it.
But should that freedom include the right to force other people to smoke? To set aside special publicly paid for areas to smoke in?
Sure, he’s the ‘Harold’ mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer. Doesn’t everybody know that?
No, and yes.
I obviously don’t want publicly funded churches…but little non-denominational “chapels” don’t bother me a lot.
Where do you draw the line? What do you call it if smoking organizations don’t have to pay any taxes? What do you when smokers start trying to get legislation passed that school children must be taught that smoking doesn’t cause cancer?
Religious organizations and their tax-free status is a special case, deriving from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I don’t much like it, but I see the reasoning. It helps prevent the kind of stuff that led to the English Civil War. The same special exception doesn’t apply to smokers.
Special religious-favoring legislation governing public-school curriculum is not acceptable. Creationist laws have been struck down over and over again.
So: yeah, give them their little bubble of tax freedom…and, no, they may not teach their dogmas in public schools.
Status quo. Where’s the beef?
Do you feel that it is vital and necessary to close the tax-free exception? A constitutional amendment would be required, and isn’t likely to pass.
How exactly does the first amendment allow religions to be tax exempt?
The original point that started this was about religion posing a minor acceptable cost to society. I don’t think it is. While creationist laws get struck down on a regular basis, the still have to be fought on a regular basis because they get proposed on a regular basis. Religious organizations own quite a lot of tax free property, and are pretty tight lipped when it comes to finding out exactly how much. Religion is on our money, in our courtrooms, and in the voices of a large chunk of the people in charge of the country. This is not a little thing.
All of the things I mentioned look silly when applied to smoking, but when applied to religion a lot of people just nod.
I believe all qualified charities and/or non-profits are tax exempt. Religious organizations are just a subset of that, not a special case.
Religious organizations are automatically tax exempt and do not have to file for it, nor do they need to fill out the tax form non-profits do which allows the IRS to examine their financial records to see if they are actually staying non-profit.