Secularists--Would You Eliminate All Religion, If You Could?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can teachers in public school teach about or even mention God?

Depends how they do it. They can talk about God or have a "World Religions" class, but when they start favouring one religion or engaging in proselytization, then it crossees the line.

Again, the freedom of expression thing. Where does that come from?

It's the same thing as freedom of speech. It just recognizes that the term "speech" also covers non-verbal communication. In the US, it comes from the First Amendment. Historically, you can see a timeline of the history of free speech here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm just saying it goes both ways.

So... because you disapprove of certain magazines, movies, and television shows, we should be okay with government subsidizing and officially endorsing religion?

 

[Starfish]

So... because you disapprove of certain magazines, movies, and television shows, we should be okay with government subsidizing and officially endorsing religion?

I don't see how the government endorses religion, other than a few holidays. It does allow church buildings to be property tax free. Isn't this offset by the charitable work done by churches? If there were no more organized religions, and the charity that they do, then there would be a much bigger load on government welfare and the taxpayers.

I think the big-name evangelists, the ones on TV and others, give the rest of us a bad name. Most of us are quietly living our lives and raising our families, not bothering anyone, yet performing a great deal of service and sacrifice for the less-fortunate. Christians and other religion-followers, do donate a lot more to the poor than others, statistically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see how the government endorses religion, other than a few holidays. It does allow church buildings to be property tax free. Isn't this offset by the charitable work done by churches? If there were no more organized religions, and the charity that they do, then there would be a much bigger load on government welfare and the taxpayers.

There's more to government subsidy of religion than just preferential tax treatment of churches... but frankly, there's no particular reason why the two sides of churches couldn't be split up: let the First Baptist Church of Wherever split itself into two, financially: a "First Baptist Church" that does the religious side of things like mission funding, maintenance of the church itself, and paying clergy, while operating as either a normal business or a non-profit (but not charitable) organization as appropriate, and at the same time spin off the charitable activities into some sort of "First Baptist Foundation", which has to meet all the normal requirements of any secular charity.

That way, everyone wins: the church's charitable activities still get the recognition and benefits they deserve, while people whose beliefs don't agree with the church don't have to subsidize the worship, preaching and recruitment/evangelization side of things.

In any case, the United States especially directly funds religion through things like the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Canada and the UK directly fund things like religious schools. There are plenty of ways in which religion is subsidized.

 

[Starfish]

There's more to government subsidy of religion than just preferential tax treatment of churches... but frankly, there's no particular reason why the two sides of churches couldn't be split up: let the First Baptist Church of Wherever split itself into two, financially: a "First Baptist Church" that does the religious side of things like mission funding, maintenance of the church itself, and paying clergy, while operating as either a normal business or a non-profit (but not charitable) organization as appropriate, and at the same time spin off the charitable activities into some sort of "First Baptist Foundation", which has to meet all the normal requirements of any secular charity.

That way, everyone wins: the church's charitable activities still get the recognition and benefits they deserve, while people whose beliefs don't agree with the church don't have to subsidize the worship, preaching and recruitment/evangelization side of things.

In any case, the United States especially directly funds religion through things like the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Canada and the UK directly fund things like religious schools. There are plenty of ways in which religion is subsidized.

Maybe that's because of the load that organized religion takes off of government.

My religion does separate the funds donated so that if you want to donate towards local charity--100% of it goes towards that. Or if you want to donote into an education fund -- 100% goes there. No administrative fees whatsoever. (The administrative fees come out of the tithing funds which are kept separate.) There's also a humanitarian fund--again 100% goes into the cause. These funds help people world-wide through disaster relief, medical aid and training, education and even down to paying someone's light bill. Every penny donated goes to the ones in need.

 

[Autodidact]

The malls around here just get the Victoria Secret and Abercrombie & Finch pictures and models. How lucky are we!
No, I don't like that billboard either. Those are the extremists that give us all a bad name. (My state doesn't allow billboards, thank goodness.)

And you think you're offended by other people's expressions! How do you think it is for me, a lesbian atheist? There's a Jesus billboard every time I turn around. I don't like it, but I sure don't want to prohibit it, do you?

Can teachers in public school teach about or even mention God?

They can teach about and mention religion, but they cannot teach any religion. They cannot say that God exists, or doesn't exist. They cannot ask for or lead prayers. What would you want them to say about God? Wouldn't you rather teach your children about religion yourself, rather than trust a Hindu chemistry teacher to do it?

Again, the freedom of expression thing. Where does that come from?

Who knows? Seems like a natural figure of speech to me.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm just saying it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't see how the government endorses religion, other than a few holidays. It does allow church buildings to be property tax free. Isn't this offset by the charitable work done by churches? If there were no more organized religions, and the charity that they do, then there would be a much bigger load on government welfare and the taxpayers.

I think the big-name evangelists, the ones on TV and others, give the rest of us a bad name. Most of us are quietly living our lives and raising our families, not bothering anyone, yet performing a great deal of service and sacrifice for the less-fortunate. Christians and other religion-followers, do donate a lot more to the poor than others, statistically.

I'm starting to repeat myself. It doesn't endorse religion, because the Constitution prohibits it from doing so. There is a large, well-funded, well-organized movement to eliminate this separation. Do you get it?

I believe you're mistaken about the charitable contribution thing. I'd have to Google it.

 

[Starfish]

I'm starting to repeat myself. It doesn't endorse religion, because the Constitution prohibits it from doing so. There is a large, well-funded, well-organized movement to eliminate this separation. Do you get it?

I believe you're mistaken about the charitable contribution thing. I'd have to Google it.

Sorry for the repetition. I'm answering posts from several people.
I'm not involved with any movement to eliminate the separation, because I believe in the Bill of Rights. Yet I feel I sometimes get lumped in with religion extremists. So just as all secularists are not atheists, all religions do not subscribe to this movement.

I don't think I'm mistaken, because I've heard it many times and have read it online. (Bill O'Reilly has stated it several times, and in spite of his arrogant manner, he is a stickler about his facts.) But go ahead and google it. I haven't checked it in a while.

 

[Starfish]

Depends how they do it. They can talk about God or have a "World Religions" class, but when they start favouring one religion or engaging in proselytization, then it crossees the line.


It's the same thing as freedom of speech. It just recognizes that the term "speech" also covers non-verbal communication. In the US, it comes from the First Amendment. Historically, you can see a timeline of the history of free speech here.

But it isn't the same thing as freedom of speech, which is in the Constitution. Speech is speech--verbal, written. We see "expression" crossing over into forms of art, dress, pornography, and just about anything.
I admit it bothers me to hear "freedom of expression" quoted as if it comes from the Constitution. Often it's just an excuse to be lewd.

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry for the repetition. I'm answering posts from several people.
I'm not involved with any movement to eliminate the separation, because I believe in the Bill of Rights. Yet I feel I sometimes get lumped in with religion extremists. So just as all secularists are not atheists, all religions do not subscribe to this movement.

Of course not, the secular movement is very important to most Christians. You equated secular to atheist in this thread, we explained to you that secular includes Christian. Who's doing the lumping here?

I don't think I'm mistaken, because I've heard it many times and have read it online. (Bill O'Reilly has stated it several times, and in spite of his arrogant manner, he is a stickler about his facts.) But go ahead and google it. I haven't checked it in a while.

Are you joking? Bill O'Reilly is a complete liar. I think (again, haven't taken time to Google) that Christians give more when including tithing, but not when not. Remember, our two biggest charitable donors, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are both atheists.

 

[Starfish]

Of course not, the secular movement is very important to most Christians. You equated secular to atheist in this thread, we explained to you that secular includes Christian. Who's doing the lumping here?


Are you joking? Bill O'Reilly is a complete liar. I think (again, haven't taken time to Google) that Christians give more when including tithing, but not when not. Remember, our two biggest charitable donors, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are both atheists.

Point taken.

As I said, O'Reilly is arrogant and has his opinions. But I don't think he's a liar. He has too many critics who would love to discredit him, so I'm sure he has to be careful when he states facts. Anyway, look it up.

Besides, my point was that organized religion does a huge amount of good in our society. If that was suddenly gone, our society would suffer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe that's because of the load that organized religion takes off of government.

My religion does separate the funds donated so that if you want to donate towards local charity--100% of it goes towards that. Or if you want to donote into an education fund -- 100% goes there. No administrative fees whatsoever. (The administrative fees come out of the tithing funds which are kept separate.) There's also a humanitarian fund--again 100% goes into the cause. These funds help people world-wide through disaster relief, medical aid and training, education and even down to paying someone's light bill. Every penny donated goes to the ones in need.

That sounds like the exception, not the majority.

The tithing that you pay to cover the church's administration is tax-deductible, though, isn't it?

But it isn't the same thing as freedom of speech, which is in the Constitution. Speech is speech--verbal, written. We see "expression" crossing over into forms of art, dress, pornography, and just about anything.

Why do you consider that "speech" (which, when taken literally and narrowly, includes only oral communication) includes written communication, but not other visual media like art and dress?

I admit it bothers me to hear "freedom of expression" quoted as if it comes from the Constitution. Often it's just an excuse to be lewd.

Even if freedom of expression isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it is a concept that some people value quite highly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Besides, my point was that organized religion does a huge amount of good in our society. If that was suddenly gone, our society would suffer.

And my point is that I should not have to subsidize the religious practices of others unless I choose to do so, just as you should not have to subsidize the practices of Fellowship Church, for example, unless you choose to do so. Right now, because contributions to that church are tax deductible, you do.

 

[Nanda]

As I said, O'Reilly is arrogant and has his opinions. But I don't think he's a liar. He has too many critics who would love to discredit him, so I'm sure he has to be careful when he states facts. Anyway, look it up.

If you ever want to kill a few hours, type "Bill O'Reilly Lies" into the search engine of your choice. Here's one I was already aware of, from Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them:

Bill tooted his own horn in multiple interviews about his old show, Inside Edition winning two Peabody Awards, but it turned out that it hadn't; It had won one Polk award, and more than a year after he had left the show.

That's a classic. But a quick search brought up all sorts of new material. Like this one:

In a segment with Kirsten Powers and Michelle Malkin on The O'Reilly Factor last night 8/13/07, the trio discussed Democratic presidential hopefuls' appearances at a debate focused solely on GLBT issues. O'Reilly said that according to some poll, "Pew Research or something like that," "Most Americans won't vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay-rights group."



Well, how does one confuse the single-syllabic "Pew" with "Quinnipiac"? Mayhaps one doesn't want viewers to find the poll too easily, for they would find the big BOR misrepresented the findings:

"In Ohio, 10 percent say the endorsement of a gay rights group would make them more likely to support a candidate while 34 percent say less likely and 54 percent say it would make no difference. In Pennsylvania, 11 percent say it would make them more likely, with 28 percent saying less likely and 59 percent saying it would make no difference. Among Florida voters, 10 percent say more likely, while 28 percent are less likely and 60 percent say it would make no difference. "​

Powers said she found that very difficult to believe (O'Reilly's spin of them, that is) and he went so far as to restate it incorrectly again: "If a gay rights organization endorses you, would that make you more or less likely to vote... and most Americans said less likely."​

Full article here: News Hounds: O'Reilly lies about gay rights endorsement hurting candidates​

Of course, there's a lot more, not to mention several videos on Youtube, but I don't want to be too obnoxious.​

 

[Smoke]

So... because you disapprove of certain magazines, movies, and television shows, we should be okay with government subsidizing and officially endorsing religion?

That's what it always comes down to. Christians moan about having other people's views forced on them, and when you ask them to explain exactly how they're being imposed on, it always turns out that the thing that really ticks them off is not being allowed to force their views on everybody else.

 

[DOUAPUNCTE]

I think that religion is a way to sea ourselves in a different posture, like don't do something bad because you won't reach heaven or something. I think that eliminating all religions or any is simply cruel because there are people who put their last hope in religion and often is their only help in difficult situations. Although I'm not religious ,I see others feeling joy when practicing a religion of any sort.

 

[Autodidact]

As I said, O'Reilly is arrogant and has his opinions. But I don't think he's a liar.

Bill O'Reilly is a liar. In 2004, Media matters anointed him the Misinformer of the yearfor gems like saying that President Bush had not opposed the appointment of the 9/11 Commission (he did) and inventing an entirely fictitious Magazine, the "Paris Business Review" as a source for his lie about the effectiveness of boycotting France. The classic is his lie about himself, that he won a Peabody award, which is a flat out lie. Here, watch a video of Bill O'Reilly lying here.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I'm having trouble finding data. This site leads to a link that doesn't work, that apparently says that aside from giving to their Church, religious people donate at a rate of about 71%, and non-religious about 61%, so there seems to be a slightly higher rate for religionists than non.

 

[Yerda]

I wouldn't, no.