10 Most/Least Religious States in the United States

[dianaiad]

But liberal thinking is not a product of 'correctness', it's a product of critical analysis of facts. Academics will support any position -- left or right -- that is congruent with the facts. If academe is one-sided, it's not because of any right-wing conspiracy.

Academe should -- and usually does -- welcome challenge. Alternative viewpoints = progress. But alternatives will be challenged, and tested. If they don't fit the facts they'll quite rightly be dismissed.

You honestly do not see the problem here, do you? As it happens, 'liberal thinking' is not the product of critical analysis of facts. It's the product of indoctrination, without allowing anybody to actually examine the facts. Unless, of course, you are of the Marxist theorys of society, which ended up in so many deaths and utterly ruined economies. The idea is discussion and examination of the facts, not to have one side decide that their reasoning is the only one that counts....and so no others need be looked at. Reminds me of the old astronomers who saw truth, wrote about it, and ended up either publishing it posthumously so they wouldn't get in trouble, or who spent years under house arrest because their opinions differed from that of the church.

Sir..or Maam...it doesn't matter what you think or I think. if we don't allow all points of view to be discussed, NO point of view is valid, whether you personallly like it or not. I, personally, disagree with extreme liberal thinking. I have a problem with Biden saying that if you don't vote Democrat, "you ain't black" whatever your skin color. "Black" isn't a political idiology, no matter what the Democrats want everybody to think. I disagree with the extreme right wing. But I don't assign everybody to the KKK (which, amof, was a Democrat thing) who thinks that OAC is out of her mind. I especially don't think that all things left or right are the 'way to go' no matter what.

I think we need to talk about things. examine them....and NOT throw everybody out who happens to disagree with one, and that's what happens today in academia. how do you KNOW that everything supports extreme left wing policies...if you are not allowed to even look at or listen to the right wing stuff? Here's a hint: you can't. Sorry, but you can't. you MUST listen to, and examine, all the data before you make a decision, and you want to throw out a good half of of it before you've made a decision, because the half you like tickles your ears and the other half annoys you. So...off with their heads, we don't need to listen to anybody but who we want to listen to.

And that, m'friend, is always a path to disaster. Freedom of speech was not made a part of the constitution to protect those with whom we agree. It was put there to make sure that those with whom we disagree also have a voice.

 

[dianaiad]

Then make them prove it. From what I've seen, many of them spend tons more on gaudy churches and comfortable offices. It shouldn't be an issue then if religion loses it's non profit status (because it is severely abused) and has to demonstrate that the money is factually going to charity, and not being kept in their own community beyond what is necessary.

make them prove what? I've seen plenty of non-religious non-profits which get nice buildings and large salaries...and the non-believers don't have any problems. What WE do is differentiate between infrastructure and straight charity. We know which goes where, and if some of our buildings are nice, none of them reach the level of medieval cathedrals complete with Michelangelo level art work. In all cases, we can replace our nicest things at a local furniture store. I don't see how anybody could object to not paying mortgages, or to having tuitions less than a tenth of what other top tier universities have, because of what we contribute. Sounds like proper non-profit contributions to me. You just don't like that "God" appears anywhere.

No. No religion has to prove anything, except for the contributor's due diligence; just how much money reaches the 'end user," and how much stays with salaries....and does the contributor know what he's contributing to? That's it. It's none of your business, and none of mine. I know where my money goes, and you don't get to tell me that it doesn't count because there is a God involved, any more than I get to tell you that where you put your money doesn't count as charity because there isn't a God involved, and you just contributed money to conserve a painting that some Saudi prince paid several million dollars for so that he could put it in a vault.

You get to choose where your money goes. You do not get to disparage someone else's choice because they think there's a God involved.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's none of your business,

As non-profit entities, it is our business to ensure they arent abusing thwir status worse than they do. (Legally, non-profits are required to disclose their budget to the public). If they want to claim reason to not contribute to "public social funds," they need to demonstrate they just aren't trying to shirk their tax burden.

count because there is a God involved

Im not so petty I have to put god on a pedestal and pretend that makes a real measurementof morality and that it makes all good.
It's doesn't count as charity because you are giving to your own. Thats a self-serving interest, not charitable giving.

 

[dianaiad]

As non-profit entities, it is our business to ensure they arent abusing thwir status worse than they do. (Legally, non-profits are required to disclose their budget to the public). If they want to claim reason to not contribute to "public social funds," they need to demonstrate they just aren't trying to shirk their tax burden.

Im not so petty I have to put god on a pedestal and pretend that makes a real measurementof morality and that it makes all good.
It's doesn't count as charity because you are giving to your own. Thats a self-serving interest, not charitable giving.

Right. Even though the 'giving to your own' means that a good proportion of that money goes to the homeless shelter that the congregation you attend supports?

How about when your money all goes to buying a ticket to a convention for the president of your local stamp club that you have supported for years?

Does your money have to go to some animal rescue group on another continent in order to 'count,' for you? Or does the stamp club count because it has no religious component....just overhead?

The homeless shelter doesn't count because there's a God involved, and some of your money will go to pay the pastor's salary...who, by the way, is the one who organizes and oversees the homeless shelter?


I'm sorry. But I don't see the difference between supporting 'the kitten lady' who rescues and finds homes for other wise doomed kittens....I mean, really. Most of the funds she gets go to pay her rent and buy gas for her car, as well as for cages, medications, amd vet bills. Should I get all unhappy because of this? So we have a pastor who, if he wasn't supported by contributions by 'thier own," wouldn't have the time to deal with a homeless shelter. Now he does, because people support him and his efforts.

You tell me what the difference is, except the word 'god?" Nobody is asking the 'kitten lady' to prove anything. You are only demanding that religious folk do.

And that is unfair.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Right. Even though the 'giving to your own' means that a good proportion of that money goes to the homeless shelter that the congregation you attend supports?

The should be able to prove this. Claims are but empty words without evidence.

How about when your money all goes to buying a ticket to a convention for the president of your local stamp club that you have supported for years?

That would be supporting my own interests, not charity.

Does your money have to go to some animal rescue group on another continent in order to 'count,' for you?

I am seeing none of that money come back.

The homeless shelter doesn't count because there's a God involved

Inserting a god means nothing. It changes nothing. Unless this god commands tithing. Then its an obligation, not charity.

 

[dianaiad]

The should be able to prove this. Claims are but empty words without evidence.

That would be supporting my own interests, not charity.

I am seeing none of that money come back.

Inserting a god means nothing. It changes nothing. Unless this god commands tithing. Then its an obligation, not charity.

Y'know, most people would consider the actual running of a homeless shelter as proof that it was being run. Weird, that.

BTW, MOST people 'support their own interests' because those are the ones they know most about and understand the best. It is still considered 'non-profit- and 'charity" even so. I have never heard that in order to be charity, funds must be given to someone or something nobody knows about. In fact, I thought the idea was that one should know as much as one can about where one puts one's money. Odd of me, that, I suppose.

My problem here is only this: that you are requiring MORE from theists than you are of non-theists in terms of charity. That's not fair. You would be understandably irate if I insisted that a non-believing charity prove more about their expenses and income than a theist one....as if the AA were automatically suspect because they support something that the local Baptists also support.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

BTW, MOST people 'support their own interests' because those are the ones they know most about and understand the best.

Yup. Which means its a self serving donation, not charity.

that you are requiring MORE from theists than you are of non-theists in terms of charity.

Only in your mind. Only according to you. Giving knowing you wont see it back is charity. Involving a god is utterly irrelevant in defining charity.