About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

How to do away with religion, really

A few days ago I went to a NYC Atheists meeting featuring the prominent philosopher of science Philip Kitcher. The topic was the recent spate of “new atheism” books by Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins, and the effect – if any – that they may have on the perennial debate between religious and secular people.

Kitcher suggested that frontal attacks are simply not going to do much for atheism. I do find Harris, Dennett and Dawkins to make good points in an refreshingly uncompromising and often funny (if sometimes philosophically naive, in the case of Dawkins) manner, and I therefore recommend their books to people who aren't afraid of a bit of blunt talk about religion. But I also think Kitcher is fundamentally right about the ineffectiveness of this approach, which could, in fact, even generate a backlash, if the several nasty reviews these books have gotten even in progressive media outlets is any indication.

During the Q&A, Kitcher and I got to think about what might, then, change the currently perilous trajectory of the United States toward a theocracy (only partially slowed down by the recent Republican debacle in the 2006 elections), not to mention ameliorate the sorry state of most of the non-Western world when it comes to religion. Kitcher's first suggestion was that we need a coherent and positive humanist alternative. Yes, we do, but I doubt that even that will change things much. Moreover, there are several countries (mostly in Western Europe, but also Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and – most significantly – Japan) where religion doesn't play anywhere near the role it plays in the US, and yet there is no unified nationwide secular humanist movement to counter it.

What could be the cause, then? Kitcher pointed out that all of those secular countries have two things in common: the kind of social networks that are largely absent from American society, and the sort of government-sponsored safety net that makes people feel like they aren't constantly one short step from total ruin, should they lose their job or health insurance. Not coincidentally, these two things are precisely what churches worldwide strive to provide, and it works.

Think of why, for example, one of George W.'s first actions once in office was to start funding “faith-based” initiatives, in flagrant violation of the separation between Church and State. Think also of why a nasty group like Hezbollah is so popular in Lebanon: because they help people who are in the most need, despite their violent and uncompromisingly ideological bent. Think of why the Catholic Church has always sent missionaries to “help” the poor worldwide (yes, they do help, but my point is that this is a strategy for conversion as much as a genuine will to do good).

So, if we want to counter religion's hegemony worldwide, let's not waste any time trying to get scattered (and usually fiercely independent) secular humanist and atheist groups to rally together and propose an “alternative.” Religion's best death – as shown by modern highly secular Christmas – is by thousands of small cuts that make it progressively irrelevant and a far less attractive choice than a secular life. What we need to do, therefore, is oppose public funding of “faith based” initiatives, start taxing churches for what their properties are fully worth to the public coffers, support community groups at the local level, and work toward a more progressive society where health care, pensions, jobs and housing are the kind of priorities we want our governments to focus on. Religion worldwide will then progressively be reduced to the status of the Church of England: a quaint, mostly harmless institution whose main functions are entirely ceremonial and largely unattended. What a wonderful world would that be!

59 comments:

  1. I take some issue, though haven't thought about it much, with the idea of taking away tax exemption from churches. I agree in the case of churches that are clearly scams (e.g. scientology), but having been to church most of my youth, I did truly get the impression they were trying to help in the way many non-profits do. I agree that they may be an inefficient means of aid, but last time I checked, people have the right to donate to inefficient NGO's without government intervention.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris,

    yes, but NGOs have to pay taxes on their properties, which churches don't, at a huge loss for the rest of us regular taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree in the case of churches that are clearly scams...

    Please identify one church that is clearly NOT a scam, and justify that opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I couldn't agree more when it comes to dealing with Christianity in the United States. However, we currently face a much greater danger from Muslims in the Middle East, Indonesia, etc. Islam poses an immediate threat to the civilized world, and I think that it needs an immediate and aggressive response.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "What we need to do,....work toward a more progressive society where health care, pensions, jobs and housing are the kind of priorities we want our governments to focus on."

    I'm completely agree, take a look to the "New Labor Question" in this article: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1003amin.htm
    However, we need to think in the situations that make to secular persons to think in that way, if we want speed up the reduction and reaches of “faith based” initiatives.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replying to Michael Fiedler on the dangers of Islam,
    What kind of "immediate and agressive response" do you have in mind? Similar to the recent response of our would be theocrat president? Problem with that kind of solution, is that it is just poking a stick in a hornet's nest, but with millions and millions of hornets.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Kitcher's first suggestion was that we need a coherent and positive humanist alternative. Yes, we do, but I doubt that even that's going to change much."

    Well, for a long time there has been a coherent and positive humanist alternative. But people aren't looking for coherence, but incoherence. So maybe we need a positive and incoherent humanist alternative?
    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  8. yes, but NGOs have to pay taxes on their properties, which churches don't, at a huge loss for the rest of us regular taxpayers.

    How do you have seperation of church and state, then tax church? Thats the idea behind the tax exempt status for churches is to keep the two seperate.

    You say this tax exempt is a huge loss for you regular tax payers (as opposed to us irrational taxpayers), but use it as a reason to abolish religion. How are you gonna benifit from the tax after religion is abolished.

    How is taxing churches for the purpose of "doing away with religion" insuring religious freedom? Or are you against that? Perhaps you are all for religous freedom, so long as they are the minority or choose to be athiest?

    should they lose their job or health insurance. Not coincidentally, these two things are precisely what churches worldwide strive to provide, and it works.
    Perhaps taxing churches to do away with them would help, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jim,

    for once, your comment is extremely confused, and your logic begins to resemble Cal's... :)

    Taxing churches has nothing to do with the separation of powers, it's a simple matter of fairness to all. Individuals, corporations and even NGO's are taxed (in terms of property), but that doesn't mean the government is running them.

    Indeed, the argument is precisely the opposite: not taxing churches means that the government (i.e., all of us) is actually spending public money to help churches. That, my friend, is a breach of the separation clause!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well done. This is the key point of the piece for me "...and work toward a more progressive society where health care, pensions, jobs and housing are the kind of priorities we want our governments to focus on." Societies like the scandinavian countries have higher standards of living and more secular societies precisely because of this. They have strong social safety nets that include pensions, health care and regulated captilism. They have mixed social economies where both business and government play a role in the economy of the nation. Because of this they have the most successful and peaceful nations in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  11. for once, your comment is extremely confused, and your logic begins to resemble Cal's...

    Haha! I thought exactly the same as I was reading his post. Like "weird, Jim is usually clear and coherent (even if we don't agree), maybe he's sleepy... Or did Cal steal his name!??" Just kidding. Sorta.

    Seriously now, I myself believe education ultimately takes care this problem. The big drawback with relying on education is that it takes SO long to give results, and maybe we can't afford the

    I mostly agree with the original post and the two sides of being "aggressive" against religion, and I have mixed feelings about it all. But during a meeting of our local discussion group here in Richmond (the Richmond Reason and Naturalism Association) one of the members said, quite reasonably I believe (and I suspect I told this story on this blog before), that the women didn't advance by being nice, the blacks didn't advance by being nice, the gays didn't advance by being nice... So you get the point, I guess.

    Maybe the noise and some feather ruffling is beneficial to make things more visible, to get people to discuss and actively think about them, to get the moderate majority out there to stand up and show that we can coexist pacifically (at least most of the time).

    Maybe such polarization helps bringing people out of the closet, let's say, and might lead to a sort of a cascade, even if modest. I mean, once you learn that that coworker or neighbor friend of yours who's so nice and all that is actually an atheist, or that your favorite TV anchor/commentator is an atheist, or that there are some nice folks sitting in your church who actually are atheists (many are playing organ, some are even in the pulpit), then it gets much harder to be an extreme maniqueist like it's so commonly seen when people talk about such subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...we can't afford the TIME. Guess I'm hungry.

    Hey, icaro, just a curiosity: are you Brazilian? (I am) Or Portuguese, maybe? From the way you write. :-)

    Cheers
    J

    ReplyDelete
  13. J

    Just curious. What does maniqueist mean? I tried googling it, all the references have a Brazilian or Portuguese connection, but I still can't figure out what it means.

    ReplyDelete
  14. J

    Never mind. I think I got it. Same as Manichean?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sheldon wrote:

    "What kind of "immediate and agressive response" do you have in mind? Similar to the recent response of our would be theocrat president?"

    The problem with the Iraq war is that even when we stabilize the country (if we do), the Iraqi voters will reject democracy and vote to implement Islamic law (we've already started to see this). That's part of their religion, and it's what they want. So in effect we are replacing secular fascism with Islamic fascism. I don't know which is worse, but it's a bad situation in either case. It will definitely be worse for women under sharia, Islamic law (under Saddam they were allowed to go to school, but under sharia they may not, etc.). I think that the full-scale invasion was a mistake, but I still think the military force is necessary in many circumstances (air strikes and special forces).

    In addition, the entire world needs to set aside their political correctness, stop making excuses for these people (i.e., the attacks on the US, UK, and Spain were our own fault, and other such b.s.), and speak out against them at every opportunity. When they were threatening to kill artists for drawing cartoons, every newspaper in the free world should have reprinted them as a sign of solidarity. When a fatwah is issued against an author, we should defend them and rush out to buy his or her books (which will at least help to defray the author's security expenses). Islam gets a pass because it is a religion, but their religion is closely tied with their politics (actually, they are so intimate as to be nearly indistinguishable). They are fascists, and we should resist them like we would any other kind of fascism.

    Whether we aggressively resist them or not, we will see violence for decades. This problem will not go away, and we need to fight against them in every possible way (including sanctions, military force, writing, cartoons--whatever it takes). I have no idea if anything would be effective against this enemy, but we must try.

    By the way, I think we should give the Kurds their own country in the northern part of Iraq. They are the largest group of people in the world without their own country, and the good news is that they "wear their Islam lightly," as they put it. We should encourage moderate Islam wherever we can find it.

    "Problem with that kind of solution, is that it is just poking a stick in a hornet's nest, but with millions and millions of hornets."

    Again, I don't think that the invasion of Iraq was the right move, but I don't think this is a good argument against it. What you seem to be saying here is that we shouldn't resist them lest we get them all worked up and create more enemies. Is that accurate? If so, I shrink from an argument that is essentially rooted in fear. Should we give them a pass so as not to offend them or piss them off? That kind of goes against my nature, I'm afraid. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted you on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Simply because this new wave of publicized atheism has generated backlash doesn't mean this is the wrong way to go about making atheism acceptable to people. The civil rights movement started a hell of a lot of backlash before racial tolerance became an accepted norm in our society. The same sort of pattern can be seen with homosexuality. Even though there is still backlash, the gay rights movement has moved light years ahead of where it was twenty years ago--hell, even seven years ago!

    Backlash is a good thing. When the theists can afford to ignore the freethinkers, as they have for most of history, then we might have a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Max, you've written before that you find Dawkins's arguments philosophically naive, but would you mind spelling out exactly what you find naive about them, and about Dawkins's position, please? I for one would like to know.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can't speak for Max, but I've blogged on some of the problems I've seen in Dawkins' work. My own take might be philosophically naive, though.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I apoligize if my reply was not coherent. My point is that you want to tax church with the purpose of "doing away with religion". The title of your post was not "Why NOG's but not Churches". Your reason for wanting to tax church is not about fairness, but about making a more secular state, as you stated yourself. If your plan for secularism involves making laws that hurt churches, it is greatly flawed, and will only unite theist out of fear that government is going against the first amendment.

    I am not sure I follow your logic. How are you paying for other peoples churches? The logic must be along the lines of: if churches paid taxes then your tax burden would be less?

    I accept your freedom of religion, and your choice to be athiest (believe it or not I am glad you have that freedom). You should accept your fellow Americans religous choice. Having a government involved with doing away with religion would be just as bad as any theocracy, perhaps worse.
    This idea that America is heading for a theocracy is nothing more than leftist propaganda. America is more secular than its ever been. The idea that people sit and think of ways to get others to stop believing in God should hit a sore spot with everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Having a government involved with doing away with religion would be just as bad as any theocracy, perhaps worse."

    I don't think anyone here is saying that the government should do away with religion (i.e., we wouldn't support legislation that outlaws religion). We're simply discussing what concerned citizens should do to eliminate religion. A very important first step is to regain separation of church and state and stop religion's influence on our government and in our schools.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Your reason for wanting to tax church is not about fairness, but about making a more secular state, as you stated yourself."

    The point of a secular state is to not give religion special treatment, which is what tax breaks for churches are. Also, since the tax breaks for a church are conditional upon it not saying or doing certain things, so in essence, these tax breaks are a form of government meddling, though an arguably mild one. If anything, such tax breaks go against the spirit of the First Amendment, if not its letter.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Michael: We're simply discussing what concerned citizens should do to eliminate religion. A very important first step is to regain separation of church and state and stop religion's influence on our government and in our schools."

    The founding fathers (of the USA) intent was exactly the opposite of this. It was crafted to keep government out of religion not the other way around. (for instance, the gov mandates that every congregation should sing three songs and read four verses during a church service, or something silly like that).

    The matter of influence is a highly critical thing, no doubt about it. But why we would intentionally rule out the need for any sort of moral authority is beyond me. Moral authority itself does not cause the wars or interpersonal issues between people. The desire to get away from it, and not wishing to "love others" is what causes wars.

    And just for your informations sake, Scandinavian socialist countries appear to have a peaceful and decent existence(in spite of a certain amount of agnosticism now) because much of their cultural life was shaped and governed by Lutheran theology for quite a few generations.

    residual effect, I guess. That is by no means the natural result of a religion-less society.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  23. M: "for once, your comment is extremely confused, and your logic begins to resemble Cal's... :)"

    OR you just so strongly disagree with most anything I have to say, it always going to sound backwards to you.

    I think it matters hugely to you how certain ideas are perceived, while the perception factor doesn't hardly matter to me at all. And yeah, that might sound a bit backwards right up until the "accepted wisdom" on a particular matter changes. (again)

    I think a lot of people really want to stand up to "conventional wisdom" sometimes but they fear too much.

    I do not.

    Unlike some, I don't fear being called anti-intellectual, anti-logical or unreasoned. I may make occasion errors in judgement along the way, but I do know who I am.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't think anyone here is saying that the government should do away with religion (i.e., we wouldn't support legislation that outlaws religion). We're simply discussing what concerned citizens should do to eliminate religion.

    You are however saying that you concerned citizens would like to see churches taxed for the purpose of eliminating religion. Your just splitting hairs. A concerned citizen should be worried about any group that claims it wants to eliminate religion. People came to this country for many reasons, one of them being they could worship how, where and when they wanted, without any body (be it government or private) telling them thay can or can't.

    The point of a secular state is to not give religion special treatment, which is what tax breaks for churches are.

    You say this as if a church is a corporation. It is not a tax break. It is tax exempt, because it is not a buisiness. The purpose of a church is to allow people to worship. It just so happens that Churches also fund many social programs to help the needy. All the things you guys say our government needs to do to more of, churches already do. So let me get this strait, We tax the churches, so hopefully they will be eliminated (or much smaller). Now all the charity work they do is gone, as well as any tax income that was origionally collected. And this will help America how? Oh yeah, everyone will think like you do.
    Although America is largly theistic. It differs from most theistic countries in one way. It is diversly theistic. We have every kind of religion you can imagine, and a church (or temple, or whatever) for each one. This is what really makes us free. Yes there are many important aspecs of freedom. To me the most important is your freedom to believe and worship as you please. Become a Buddhist (or athiest) in Iran and see how long your head stays on your shoulders. This is why fear of a American theocracy is just leftist propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cal wrote: "The founding fathers (of the USA) intent was exactly the opposite of this. It was crafted to keep government out of religion not the other way around."

    Thomas Jefferson fiercely fought to keep the word "God" out of the constitution. He did this intentionally and there was a heated debate over the issue. I'm glad he succeeded. There truly is supposed to be a wall between the two.

    I've never understood why Christians are so determined to hold hands with the government. Your own god (that would be Jesus) commands you not to do this. Separation of church and state is to the benefit of both, and it still baffles me that Christians don't see the inherent danger in their dealings with Caesar. Sure, Christians are benefiting at the moment, but at any time this could change. What if we elect a Mormon president, and suddenly only Mormon churches get special treatment (or Catholic, or Baptist, or any other brand of Christianity). I bet you'd support separation of church and state then.

    Does Jesus really want you to be buddies with the government and get preferential treatment, or are you commanded to be apart from this world?

    Jim wrote: "A concerned citizen should be worried about any group that claims it wants to eliminate religion."

    I hope you understand how hypocritical this is. Your religion has sought to convert the entire world (even with violence in many cases) for the last two thousand years, and now that another group wants people to think in a different way, we're the ones that are scary and dangerous. Give me a break. You have the freedom to try to convert me, and I also have the freedom to try and convince you to discard your beliefs. You may be offended that we want to rid our land of religion, but we are offended that you want to spread your religion to every part of the world.

    We're all for the freedom of religion & freedom of speech, but we're also for equal treatment under the law.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Michael: "Thomas Jefferson fiercely fought to keep the word "God" out of the constitution. He did this intentionally and there was a heated debate over the issue. I'm glad he succeeded. There truly is supposed to supposed to be a wall between the two."

    This would represent a more or less Greek style of governing. Not perfect, but okay for what we've been dealt up to this point in time. And no matter how one may choose to view the way the constitution was handled, I have never seen anything which suggested that Jefferson did not want God both in his public and personal life. And even at that, if some odd statement like this really is found, he is not the final arbitrator of what truth is anyway.

    In a Hebrew mindset, otoh, "thinking and doing" are all part of the same package. To separate the thinking part of us from the doing part of our lives would be rather schizophrenic. Church and state separation, similarly, is schizophrenic.

    And since the thinking and doing parts of self are so inextricably linked, governing self and governing any other part in life should net just about the same outcome. Unless, that is, someone or some other governing body has a particular interest in mass chaos, total confusion in our general population. And I do know of a few governments who wish that on us.

    Governments seldom are righteous, but ideally they should be. How on earth could one intend to make a governing body righteous without "right thinking" persons being able to be inside of it?

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  27. As Massimo suggested in a former thread...

    "So, consider the following thought experiment:"

    It will completely be your choice to be able to live in a country under the rule of a mafioso type dictator or a in different country under a Christian leader. Your choice entirely.

    The first governing body allows a certain number of freedoms, that is, the use of booze and sex totally are at your own descretion. Etc.

    After all, he lives pretty much this way himself, who is he to tell you what morality should consist of?

    Now, at times, under the first gov. citizens are beat up or killed for random reasons. But hey, everyone makes an okay living, and all and all it is not too bad.

    Should citizens tolerate the wrongful beatings and killings just as long as the climate is not totally out of hand an people generally feel that they get what they need to live their lives?


    Second world leader. He of course, expects somewhat more out of people individually and morally. In his own heart and mind he even expects this of himself tho it is hard to always make the right decision in the face of so many to make.

    If someone is put to death, it is entirely based on the fact that they carried out some totally unethical act towards another human being to deserve this. It is a society much more based on accounting (and accountability) type ideals.

    Why would you choose to live under the particular world leader who (at least) wants to be good and do good? Or not?

    Why would you live under the world leader has no intention of doing good and does not care if you do either?

    serious question.
    cal

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I have never seen anything which suggested that Jefferson did not want God both in his public and personal life."

    Jefferson was a deist. Once you learn what that word means, you'll see how ridiculous your statement is.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "You say this as if a church is a corporation. It is not a tax break. It is tax exempt, because it is not a buisiness."

    NGOs aren't necessarily businesses, either, and as pointed out above, they get taxed.

    "So let me get this strait, We tax the churches, so hopefully they will be eliminated (or much smaller)"

    Not necessarily. The point is not to tax them into nonexistence, but rather to treat them as any other NGO. It is unlikely that being taxed like any other organization would cause a church to fall apart, unless it was in financial trouble to begin with.

    The idea is to make it so that churches are not treated as special.

    ReplyDelete
  30. michael:
    "Jefferson was a deist. Once you learn what that word means, you'll see how ridiculous your statement is."

    I don't think you'll find actual quotes by Jefferson where he says that he is (was) a deist. You may, however, find quotes where he says he is a materialist.

    Some have inferred, by certain things he said, that he thought a particular way about divine revelation and that could qualify him for such a label, but I do not believe that he claimed that himself.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cal, you seem to be consistently implying that without church authority, moral values rapidly decline.

    Am I correct in guessing your opinion here?

    If I am correct in my assesment, could you please explain to me why I should pay any attention to someone who's only reason for not being generally horrible is through fear of after-death consequences?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cal,

    Here are some Jefferson quotes that will give you a good idea of what he believed: http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

    I don't really care much about labels, I care about what he thought. Clearly he was no kind of Christian.

    I think that if you do the research you'll be surprised by what many of the founding fathers believed and didn't believe. Don't believe everything you hear in church.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Michael,
    I pretty much agree with everything you wrote about seperation of church and state.
    When talking about concerned citizens being worried about groups eliminating religion, it was due to the fact you would be willing to utilize government to do it.

    J.J.,
    There is a big difference between NGOs and churches. An NGO can be for profit. It can be sponsored by a coorporation. They can have agendas that relate just to money. They can be "For Profit". I don't think it is fair to put a church in the same classification.

    As I said before, Massimo put this idea in his post, not because he is worried about fairness. He knows that most church money (after expenses) goes to helping people. He wants them taxed to make it more difficult for them to survive. As part of his plan to "do away with religion, really".

    ReplyDelete
  34. Wow, I should have predicted that a post with this title would draw a lot of comments!

    As for the request to elaborate on my problems with Dawkins' philosophy, I will, soon. I'm working on a talk to be presented at the next American Atheists convention in Seattle (April 7), provisionally entitled "Is Dawkins Deluded?" :) in which I'll argue that, no, he isn't, but that his thinking about philosophy is muddled.

    I will post the entire talk on Rationaly Speaking (the web site), once completed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "He knows that most church money (after expenses) goes to helping people."

    When I was in Bible college I learned about church budgets. I was also a temporary pastor (I was still in Bible college and serving as the pastor until they could hire a new one) at a couple of churches for about two years, and got to sit in on some board meetings when the budget was hammered out. In my experience most of the money goes toward paying staff and the mortgage/maintenance of the building. Very little went to missions (which very much concerned me as an aspiring missionary), and even less went to the poor. If you're giving money to the church, you're just paying salaries and their mortgage.

    I'd have a lot more respect toward Christian churches if they acted more like a charitable organization and less like a lazy brother-in-law that likes to mooch off people.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "I don't really care much about labels, I care about what he thought. Clearly he was no kind of Christian."

    Obviously what people think throughout the course of their life tends to evolve to a certain degree. And on occasion, with some folks, it hardly changes at all.

    T. Jefferson may have had his doubts and moments of questioning what he knew and why he knew it, but all in all even if he did have his doubts he did believe that morality mattered. And if morality matters, it matters for a reason.

    I know and you probably do to, that even intelligent people make mistakes. Likely all the founders of the new world made mistakes. But what does it really change even if Jefferson was not the most convinced and sincere of christians?

    I think that the link that I sent you was from a reasonably objective source. the guy (who's site and definitions came from) he was a deist and a unitarian himself.
    "http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm"

    Do you honestly think that the author in this link is thoroughly objective?

    I see what kind of thinking that he is layering over what Jefferson actually said, & I can't say I think his assessments are necessarily 100% free of bias.
    can you?

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cal,

    Just ignore the commentary and read Jefferson's quotes on religion. Bias doesn't come into play when you read what Jefferson actually wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Cal, what's morality got to do with religion?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'd have a lot more respect toward Christian churches if they acted more like a charitable organization and less like a lazy brother-in-law that likes to mooch off people.

    You say that as if a church is an actual person. It is a place to worhip formost. The poeple that worship there agree to chip in to pay the mortgage and staff to keep it running. What do you expect, the pastor to run another buisness on the side and pay for everything himself? I think it is actually the complete opposite of a lazy brother in law, since it is completely funded by the people that use it. And after the bills are paid, money does go to helping society. Doesn't sound much like the lazy brother in law to me. You should know first hand how hard many church memebers work tward helping others, unless perhaps your church didn't. I have seen first hand my wifes church do a great deal.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Still waiting for your answer to Kimpatsu's question, cal...

    Vladimer

    ReplyDelete
  41. Good to see you're back to normal, Jim.

    You say this as if a church is a corporation. It is not a tax break. It is tax exempt, because it is not a buisiness.

    I don't think I agree. Churches have a lot of profit. Maybe not all of them, but many do. It is a business, and it works more or less by market rules. Or why do you think there are so many brands (as I call it) of them? Each one competing for your attendance/money. Each one promising to deliver a product you want. If you're not satisfied, you change your brand.

    How do all these churches get TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, etc.? The founders of an evangelical church from Brazil were arrested at the airport in Miami recently. They were carrying a lot of money, which the millions of people in their congregation "donates". They have a 1 million dollar house in Miami, big farms, fake churches for money laundering, etc. And they're not even the big fish in the business, really. Now the "churches" are starting to put representatives in congress too.

    No profit? Yeah, right. I make no profit either, can I be tax exempt too? By the way, did you guys know there is NO law in the US saying you have to pay income tax? You do it voluntarily. Or so I understand it. (see the movie "America from freedom to fascism", available on Google video or YouTube or something like that). That's weird.

    J

    ReplyDelete
  42. Suffenus,

    Maniqueist, as far as I understand the term (if it really exists in English...), is a person who simplistically divides the world in two -- either good or evil, black or white, capitalism or communism, reason or emotion, nothing in between.

    It used to be some religion started in the 3rd century, led by a guy called Manes or Mani, which combined several other religions of the time. It existed in western Europe until the 10th century, and lasted in China until the 14th century. St. Augustine is supposed to have being maniqueist for many years before converting to christianity.

    We usually think of the US as a very maniqueist country, by the way. Two parties. Always in search of its evil (from American perspective) counterpart. Always "us" vs "them". I know it's not really a fair perception, but it exists.

    J

    PS. I just decided to dig for it in Wikipedia and here it is. You figured it out correctly, and the correct word in English is manichaean. Although I guess not many people use it... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  43. FYI, I use the word "manichean". But then, I'm a smartarse...

    ReplyDelete
  44. J

    Thanks for the confirmation

    Kimpatsu

    Are you a smartarse, or are you just from the dark syde?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous said...

    Still waiting for your answer to Kimpatsu's question, cal..."

    Vlad,
    I'd be happy to. Sometimes I do actually think things through a bit before I answer back.

    Do you think it was a straightforward question? I tend to think that by the time someone asks a question of this nature, there is a whole lot more being said behind the question than an average person could hope to give adequate response to.

    but that doesn't mean I wouldn't try.
    cal

    ReplyDelete
  46. "You should know first hand how hard many church memebers work tward helping others, unless perhaps your church didn't."

    No, I don't know that at all. I do know that missionaries are underfunded, as are rescue missions. For those of you that don't know, rescue missions are those things that have to be started when churches don't want to get their hands dirty by helping the poor themselves.

    I helped start a rescue mission once, and they were always needing money. In this particular case, this was the first rescue mission in the city. There were dozens of churches in that city, and if each one contributed a small part of their budget each month, money wouldn't be an issue. But it was, and the mission was always begging for funds just to keep its doors open. The church I went to had a $10,000 budget for lawn care, but no money for the poor.

    I'm sure some churches do help people, and obviously I've seen that from time to time. But the reality is that most don't do much at all.

    ReplyDelete
  47. cal, I do think that Kimpatsu's question was straight-forward and is pertinent to the discussion. The question seems to be whether morality springs from and is dependent on religion or whether religion (in the Western world) is simply a stick-and-carrot means of enforcing morality through a concept of heaven and hell.

    Vladimer

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm sure some churches do help people, and obviously I've seen that from time to time. But the reality is that most don't do much at all.

    My wifes church (Catholic),
    runs a soup kitchen,
    a Catholic charities clothing store (sells used clothes very cheap and uses 100% of the proceeds to buy food for the needy,
    and is run with 100% volunteers), runs a serve program (where if you volunteer 2 hours a month you can buy resteraunt quality food very cheap),
    runs a program where they will pay your oil or utility bill if your in a pinch (you must submit the bill and they pay it directly, we have actually had to use this program ourselves one time),
    Mothers morning out program (where a mother brings here kids for free babysitting and she takes a free parenting class.
    They have AA and NA pregrams in the parish center,
    The have a Christmas present program for the needy,
    They constantly take up seperate collections for local and global issues. (just recently for a family that lost their house in a fire in Plymouth),
    There are countless other programs I can't even think of. So what you call the lazy brother in law, I just do not agree with that. Obviously different churches help in different degrees, I am sorry your experience has been different then mine. Reguarless, they do not consume anyones money that does not want to give, unlike the lazy brother in law. If you want to see churches do more then why do you want to see them taxed? Perhaps your faith in the govenment to help all the people that churches help is very high. Mine isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  49. And are these good works done free of proselytization?

    Vladimer

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jim,

    Ah, Catholic. That's a different story all together. I love how the Catholic church works directly with the poor (serve soup and provide places to sleep in an actual church). Catholics do more than protestant churches for sure. I have fond memories of volunteering at Catholic soup kitchens every week, and I think they do great work with no strings attached (unlike protestant rescue missions that require their guests to attend chapel).

    Please forgive the generalization in my last post, as I had protestant churches in mind (that's usually who I'm debating with). Catholics have the size and organization to finance these kinds of projects, while smaller denominations and independent churches cannot. Since they are so fragmented, they are just struggling to survive. The result is that you have thousands of churches that are just paying the bills, and can't do much to help the poor. It's such a waste of money in my opinion.

    The point is that if these churches had to pay taxes, many of them would have to close their doors, and that's good news in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "The question seems to be whether morality springs from and is dependent on religion or whether religion (in the Western world) is simply a stick-and-carrot means of enforcing morality through a concept of heaven and hell."


    vladimer,

    Even if it were to a certain degree, pain is still the first line of defense (mentally, emotionally, physically) that literally protects us from losing something that may be terribly valuable to us. Therefore, people who are not mature or sophisticated spiritually certainly will respond accordingly to the idea (of either immediate gratification)vs. immediate reprisals for making the "incorrect" choice. That process starts long before people experience heaven or hell.

    If a person happens to resent the way the world (and biology) works, do we seek to change the world or the person?

    On the other hand, those who have a greater maturity and understanding about life respond differently. I have seen that people who have walked with God for a long time probably do little or nothing out of fear of reprisals.

    The mechanism is one that is intended to keep us safe, not in perpetual fear.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  52. Kimpatsu said...

    Cal, what's morality got to do with religion? "

    Your use of the word "religion" is too ambiguous. I know, and you do to, that "religion" can also mean sacrificing virgins into volcanoes or something wacky like that.

    Do you mean, instead, like a "saving" faith in the one God of the Old and New Testaments? One that is thought by some to change the hearts, minds and priorities of people who choose it? Point being, people should not stay the same. They eventually trade their "natural" inclination to do whatever strikes their mind as correct for the moment, toward goals that have less to do with self and more to do with helping others fulfill God's will for their life.

    Moral, I suppose, because it is intended to take one's eyes off of oneself and replace it with better judgments regarding the worth of other people.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  53. cal, but what about the essence of my question which, in a nutshell, is whether morality is solely the product of religion or can it also exist in a secular world completely free from religious influence?

    Vladimer

    ReplyDelete
  54. cal, I'm afraid that I still haven't made myself clear in my previous posts so just one more question and then I promise that I'll let it lay. Can a person who is a self-avowed atheist such as Massimo Pigliucci also be a moral person? I'm not talking about Massimo specifically, he just seemed like a good example.

    Vladimer

    ReplyDelete
  55. Vladimer,

    I think I know what you're getting at, but I'll make an effort to be honest with you anyway.

    Sure, I know of someone. My aunt's step-dad was an atheist and a communist etc., and she said he was always very good to her and her mom. She also thought he was moral generally speaking.

    But I still think morality does originate from an ethical minded "religion"/belief. We forget that people may also acquire and use ideas from the culture that they grow up around or admire. I think ethics, each single one of them , has an ultimate origin. in otherwords, the first time an idea about a particular ethic was expressed, written or carried out. So no, it does just pop up in a vacuum (secularly speaking) with no concept in mind of what it means to be moral. Or why being moral matters.

    I thought your question had more to do with that you thought it was wrong to have to place rewards in front of people to get them to be good.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  56. Michael,
    I am glad you had good experiences with donating your time. Ones time is precious and the greatest gift to give sometimes.

    The point is that if these churches had to pay taxes, many of them would have to close their doors, and that's good news in my opinion.

    I really have no issue with athiest wanting to spread their ideology, its no different than the religious doing it. The difference here is, I don't want to see athiest have the power to use law to extreminate religion (because thats exactly what this is, no matter how you suger coat it), any more than you want to see I.D. taught in schools. Lets have our debates and leave it at that. If athiesm is truth then you don't need the governments help in spreading it.

    For the record, I only believe I.D. deserves mention in schools, since there really isn't much to teach, and I do believe evolution should be taught far more completely than it currently is, and should be taught as a theory. The reason I say theory is not just to leave room for I.D, but it is ever changing, and to say evolution is fact (like so many do) is to leave it stand where it be, without modification.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Two months late - (I'm new to this blog)- I'd like to take you back to the original question - ie., how to eliminate religion? I think the whole tax/finance thread is a bit of a side issue. If you tax churches fairly they will just grin and bear it. If you trebled their taxes, they would claim they were persecuted and probably thrive even more. You seem to be overlooking the fact that Religion is a Belief. It is passed on from parents/teachers to children. The way to eliminate religion is to expose children to rational thought that is skeptical about invisible beings - FROM AS YOUNG AN AGE AS POSSIBLE. We have to produce websites (such as godisimaginary.com), books, posters, clubs and societies, that promote and diffuse a clearly rational viewpoint. Taxing churches has no effect on a person who has been taught from birth that Bronze/Iron Age texts contain the ultimate truth about Life. Taxes are irrelevant to that viewpoint. Dawkins may be clumsy occasionally, even arrogant, but he is making waves and he is making kids look for information. Information will be the death of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  58. As a coda to my previous comment - I believe it is no coincidence that the current furious debate in the West about Religion has surfaced only 15 years or so after the dawn of the Age of Information. As long as the Internet survives, Religion will slowly wane.
    My current pastime? I am compiling a list of the most awful parts of the Bible and sending it, with a few comments of my own, to every journalist I can find an address for. How many "average Joes" know that the Bible contains verses like Ezekiel 5:10, where the Christian god supposedly says: "I will make you eat your own children."
    Spread information, spread rational thought.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I have to start be asking sorry for my bad English.

    I believe that non-profiting organizations shouldn't be taxed and I believe that most churches aren't profiting, unfortunately there are many fake churches that are used for clearing money and other illicit deals. I'm not from US and I don't know much of your laws about that subject.

    I believe in religion as part of the culture of witch country, as sow, removing it wouldn't bring any real profit to that country. There is an obvious problem with some Islamic countries, but I don't blame the religion it self, in my point of view the real problem it's the way it's interpreted by the people.

    I have faith in God, witch I call "Deus" because I'm Portuguese, don't ask why I have faith because I couldn't give a rational answer. I'm manly Catholic but I respect other religions except thous that incite violence or illicit deals.

    In conclusion I think that churches don't have to pay taxes and that our freedom ends when the freedom of the others start.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.