Can we consider this? I mean, there is so much space currently devoted to the teaching of repetitive messages spouted by church leaders…theyve run out of ideas, and I think they’ve had enough time.
I figure we just put the bible in a library where all the other books are, and then change the church buildings into science centers where kids and adults alike can go learn about anthropology, geology, medical science, history (actual history not the made up stuff), technology, have internet access, and have lectures and forums on actual knowledge rather than the utter nonsense they teach, print, and do television broadcasts on now.
A move like this would be real vindication for the likes of Gallileo…
My friend likes to call the religions “Death Cults” because they all teach that you’re better off dead. Let them go to church for eternity in heaven, and we can focus on improving the overall intelligence of our population now here on earth.
Thoughts?
“Its the judean peoples front suicide squad! ARRRGHHHH (stabbing selves) …that’ll fix em…”
= = = =
[ Moderator Note: Please read posts #9, #11, and #12 before posting a knee-jerk response to this thread that began inGD.
Is it only churches whose property rights you want to violate? Assuming you live in the US, how would you get around the unpleasantness of the 1st amendment (emphasis added):
Seriously, if you’re going to propose a debate, you need to figure out how we actually get from A to B.
In the 1970s, I fought to get the “Communist Manifesto” in the school library. I won. I couldn’t accept that one of the most influential books human history was unavailable to read. I donated a copy. I’d have fought as much to demand the Bible be available. Any library without both books is totally inadequate.
Thanks to my time at Straight Dope with people like you, I do know that. Since the earliest days, both secularists and people of faith have had their share of embarassing spokesmen. Rest assured that I recognize this newest one as one such for your side. Any moment now, I suspect he’ll be calling Ayn Rand a libertarian.
My post was a bit tongue in cheek, and was certainly meant to be read well within the context of a world where the loudest voice is currently and overwhelmingly religious.
On a serious note, I would never support the take over of places of worship thereby violating the freedom of religion (and freedom to not be religious) both you Americans and us Canadians treasure deeply, and I sincerley apologize if I offended.
Perhaps a better start to the thread (and more along the lines of what I intended) would be something like continued support and kudos for places like the Discovery center, museums, and places where knowledge is presented unfiltered and unbiased to all regardless of age, race, or financial ability. I just spent some time in Houston where the museums were absolutely incredible and enlightening.
Well, my church already has some great University libraries, like those at Fordham, Georgetown, Notre Dame…whoops, guess they don’t count!
And while I don’t want to invoke Godwin’s Law here, I wouldn’t want to be the cop(? who exactly would be in charge of evacuating the religious buildings?) who has to go in and tear out the pews in the synagogues, and put the Torahs in the trash (I would assume all Bibles, baptismal records, and books of study from St, Augustine to the Koran would be tossed). Might make people feel…odd to see people doing it again.
And you’d also be melting down Buddhas for their gold, yelling ‘timber’! at totem poles, using Moslem prayer rugs as doormats, knocking over Stonehenge so those silly pagans don’t waste their time there every solstice, and telling the Dalai Lama to get a real job, right? Religion is religion.
You need to formulate a debate question if you want this thread to stay in Great Debates, mrrealtime. If you just want to say “hooray for discovery centers”, I will move this to MPSIMS.
Gaudere…please move this to MPSIMS…I did learn a lot from the discussion, and feel that I need to re-evaluate my communication methods, be less harsh, less judgemental, and more tolerant of my religious neighbours.
I bet you cry “First Amendment” when religious groups try to run over other peoples’ rights to free speech, free association, and free practice, don’t you?
Because that would make you a hypocrite.
As a non-Christian (maybe even anti-Church) bleeding-heart liberal, you can bet I would fight this effort with all my might, because they have as much of a right to their beliefs as we do. You’re a Phelps and a half by saying otherwise.
Perhaps you should take your jokes to a less serious forum and save your Dope account for the serious debates. Apology accepted.
Congratulations! You’ve now struck one more blow against ignorance.
Let’s not be quite so hard on Mrrealtime. I think he (she?) was just presenting a concrete example of what the world might look like were John Lennon’s sentiments in his song Imagine to come to pass. (And, tolerant as they are of people to believe what they want to, I think many secularists would agree that such a world would, all in all, be better than the one we now inhabit.) And you’re not going to blast John Lennon, are you? (Okay, maybe you are.)
So, John Mace, defender of the First Amendment, how do you feel about churches getting tax breaks for their properies and holdings? Non-churches pay for their property. How does that square with the law respecting an establishment of religion. Don’t you think that that automatic tax-free status might help?
You tax-the-churches types really get my shorts in a wad. Would you suggest taxing the Red Cross? How about the United Way? Does it ever cross your mind that churches are non-profit charitable organizations?? I’m not talking about the great, big, corporate TV-type churches (there are exceptions), but if you tax the great big ones, you have to tax the little ones, too, and you would crush the charitable work that they perform. Taxing them with the idea that the money would filter through government and then out to folks that need it isn’t practical, either. First, there would be a lot of waste through the bureaucracy, and additionally, it would force the churches to support by proxy groups to which they might be diametrically opposed; I don’t think a great many Catholics would appreciate their churches supporting art that depicted crucifixes suspended in urine. Additionally, charitable work from churches typically is put to use in local communities where it does a lot of good. Needy families can get food and clothes, and sometimes job assistance, in a much more direct application of the funds than they would get through taxes gleaned from citizens of the government. Yes, the church “preaches” a message, but that’s typically reserved for Sunday services. I’m unaware of a great many local churches that would turn away people in need simply because they didn’t attend service at that church the previous Sunday. Typically, the recipients of the charity aren’t pressured at all, and it’s an “honor” system; if you go into a church and ask for help, you’ll typically get it, without being asked if you have genuine need. Try getting that kind of help from the feds - you’ll spend half a day filling out forms to hopefully be approved and get some kind of help in six weeks…
churches should be taxed if they support an agenda other than an altruistic one. If they truly could just feed the poor and help out society without taking advantage of people in an unfortunate state by pushing their agenda on them while they are vulnerable, then no, they shouldnt be taxed. Anything that is paid for by the people should be accountable to the people, and people generally support the separation of church and state, so churches wanting to benefit from the support of the people shouldnt push religiously biased messages to those whom they are supporting. Big or small.
Basically what Im talking about is the soup kitchens that force the less fortunate to sit through a sermon before feeding them. That is absolutely despicable.