According to O’Reilly, the American government can promote Christianity because Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.
Is he making this up wholesale? Or is there actually a group of people who legitimately believe this? And if so, how can they possibly justify this claim?
Christ-mass and Christ-ianity are religious. There’s no other possible interpretation.
This is a very risky strategery. If christianity is not a religion, the government could, at least in theory, promote it without running afoul of the Establishent Clause in Amendment I. On the other hand, tax laws would have to be revised to include philosophical institutions and prime philosophers so that what used to be churches can retain their tax exemption.
Dang it all, can I watch this somewhere other than Youtube? Can somebody go put it on Youku for me or something?
Ah, now I see. “Christianity” is not a religion, it is a philosophy, espoused by Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, etc, etc. Hence, christian principles, being fundamentally philosophically, can be promoted by the state while staying within the first amendment, as long as the “philosophical” principles are not unique to any particular religious sect. Specific Presbyterian teachings are religious, so those are out of bounds, but the underlying christian “philosophy” is safe.
[/BS]
Tax away!
Or suppress it, because if it isn’t a religion it isn’t protected under religious freedom. And while that isn’t likely to happen to Christianity due to its political power, if this idea was to be accepted (not that I think it will) then the principle could certainly be applied to other religions that don’t have that protection.
I’m not sure how The Revealed Word of God can be considered a philosophy. I coulda swore philosophies were questionable and malleable, kinda like science is. Science, now there is a philosophy!
Anyway, ISTM the answers to the Ultimate Questions are neither religion nor philosophy, but I really don’t feel like talking about that right now.
Well, I suppose it could qualify as a philosophy if it was treated as such, instead of as “the revealed word of God”. I mean, if it’s treated as a philosophy and not as “revealed truth” then it really doesn’t matter if it comes from God or a human. Just as relativity would still be a scientific theory even if it had been revealed by God instead of Einstein, as long as God showed his math and it was treated like any other theory and questioned, tested etc.
Christianity is not “the revealed word of god”, that is that bible-thing. Christianity is the set of rites and practices as interpreted from that book. As such, one could argue that its tenets are subject to debate and revision, since they are only based on the book.
Surely you are aware that forty-two is all you ever need to know about that.
It’s not uncommon for Evangelical Christians to argue that everything else is a religion, and that Christianity is a ‘way of life’ or some such. Of course, it’s an exceptionalist argument, but it’s part of the whole “We’re right and everyone else is wrong” thing that is pretty much a necessary outcome of the tenet about Jesus being the only way to salvation.
Fact is, you can google the phrase [blank] “is not a religion, it is a way of life” and find that claim made for pretty much every damn religion. You can find that from Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and whatnot. The only religion I’ve never seen making that claim is Catholicism, perhaps because religion is a Latin word and they feel wedded to it somehow. But practically everybody uses this jive to fervently promote their own exceptionalism.
If only Mister Rogers was still around, he could lead all these religions, excuse me, I mean “not-religions,” in a chorus of “Everybody’s Special.” 
O’Reilly is a bloviating idiot with no intellectual curiosity at all, and it’s not at all surprising that he’d say something so patently ridiculous (though it appears that his “sparring partner” in the video was quite surprised by the idiocy).
If he wants to run with that, he’s going to have to throw out any pretense of Originalism or Textualism as judicial interpretive philosophies, because there’s absolutely no question that the First Amendment was intended by the people who enacted it to be about Christianity.
According to Webster:All that centers about man’s belief in or a relationship to a superior being (or beings) etc. so in an English speaking country it would qualify as a religon.
Would they? I thought the tax exemptions were based, fundamentally, on their being incorporated as not-for-profits.
While true, there is at least somewhat of a leg to stand on when making that argument about Buddhism for two reasons.
Well I’ll be a glass half full guy and say that if we are annoying O’Reilly and getting on TV then we must be doing something right.
This is just plain poor logic. I think most, if not all, religions fall under the category of philosophy. The difference is that they’re based on scripture or teachings from a prophet and will almost always address certain areas (why we’re here, what happens when we die, moral behavior, etc) rather than some less specific assertion, observation, or opinion that may or may not address anything. So, sure, I think it’s fair to say Christianity is a philosophy, but so is Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, whatever. The bad logic here is in saying because it’s one thing, it’s not also another. It’s sort of like saying my dog isn’t a canine because he’s a mammal.
Ultimately, this is just a self-serving assertion because he wants the government to promote Christian ideology. I’ve also heard plenty of other bizarre explanations for why Christianity isn’t a religion too. For instance, I remember being told that it was actually a relationship rather than a religion, because religion doesn’t address the personal aspect of God and you just have to follow a bunch of rules to win his favor, but even as a by-the-book Episcopalian at the time, I thought that was dumb, since there’s plenty of rules we were supposed to follow. They just wanted to draw some separation between Christianity and other religions.
The thing is, as mentioned upthread, this can just as easily backfire and ultimately probably would. Sure, Christianity wouldn’t go anywhere now, but what happens if it starts to lose favor? What happens if some important change occurs and it gets squashed? Like, say, Christ comes back, but now the government is controlled by satan (we’re in the thousand years of darkness now, right? ;)) and has the power to oppress the people who want to follow him?
So, yeah, not only is it just plain bad logic, but it’s self-serving purpose would end up causing as much or more harm than good.
Go for it, Bill. If it isn’t a religion, then it can be suppressed.