dagblog - Comments for "Changing Tides: the Rise of Irreligion"

The sliding scale would be a

moat — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:26:56 +0000

In reply to Ah but reality bites: do we

The sliding scale would be a matter of tax relief. If we were to modify the exemption status of religions from anything goes to whoa-there-fella, it could only be done the way other non-profits show gains versus losses. The activity would still be private. The difference would be how the monies are treated as Capital returns of investment.

Ah but reality bites: do we

artappraiser — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 23:55:29 +0000

In reply to So, a sliding scale, with St.

Ah but reality bites: do we have evidence that congress and/or government bureaucrats do a better job of funds distribution? The question actually goes bigger picture on taxes than what we are talking about here, as the current Congress just took away some incentive for donations to charity on the donor side! Higher standard deduction per year means less incentive to donate. I noted with interest this piece in the NYTimes money section advising the more charitably minded with higher incomes how to "bunch" donations into biannual gifts so they could still get a deduction under the new law. I recall ye olde timey thousand-points-of-light noblesse obligey thing did sell well in the late 80's and early 90's.

So, a sliding scale, with St.

moat — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 23:40:09 +0000

In reply to Yes, that satisfies me - I

So, a sliding scale, with St. Francis of Assisi on one end and prosperity Christians on the other. No need for a litmus test of good intentions. The distance between input and output is sufficient information.

Yes, that satisfies me - I

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 19:55:38 +0000

In reply to I would guess if a church

Yes, that satisfies me - I don't see a need for deductions for mass wafers or a bigger pulpit, but services to the poor in praise of Christ or Allah or Krishna seems unarguably good. (with limits on forceful proselytizing to the desperate).

Pigs at the trough always

ocean-kat — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 19:46:00 +0000

In reply to I proudly play the race card

Pigs at the trough always want the gravy train to continue. It's human nature, doesn't matter what color the human is. Implying AA or I are racist or that it's about white liberals criticizing black churches when my criticism points at more white people than people of color just shows how intellectually derelict your defense of the religious tax scam is.

Well I always seem to get

HSG — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 18:12:40 +0000

In reply to What, exactly, is a true

Well I always seem to get into trouble when providing definitions but for me a Christian "true believer" literally believes that Jesus is the son of God. A Jewish "true believer" literally believes God handed tablets to Moses. A Muslim "true believer" believes that Allah literally spoke to mankind through Muhammad.

That one can't answer that is

artappraiser — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 18:06:23 +0000

In reply to What, exactly, is a true

That one can't answer that is the reason for freedom of religion in this country.

I doubt that anyone who thinks it might be smart to stop giving tax deductibility to religious institutions is for outlawing religions in this country.

Apples and oranges.

The movement against Scientology in Germany is interesting in this regard. Especially as they had an "apples and oranges" problem with Nazism, where it was almost like a religion in some regards, they are wary of cultish religions. This is also why we don't outlaw things like white supremacist movements in this country, we outlaw illegal acts, not thoughts or beliefs or organizations.

Tax deductibility is showing preference, in effect, the public at large is actually deciding to give these organizations tax money! That there should be some rules for joining that club is not in conflict with freedom of religion.

What, exactly, is a true

rmrd0000 — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 17:41:36 +0000

In reply to Good discussion. I accept the

What, exactly, is a true believer?

Edit to add:

The reason I ask is because there are debates that include whether a person could reject most of the Bible and still be considered a Christian if they followed the words of Jesus.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/can-you-renounce-part-of-the-bible-and-still-be-a-christian

The Bible includes a book called Philemon. The story is about Paul encountering an escaped slave. Paul writes to the slave-owner telling the man that slavery (of a Christian) is wrong. Paul sends the slave back to hopefully be freed by the slave-owner. Many Africans held in slavery in the United States and being introduced to slavery thought the story was a lie made up by white men and refused to accept the book as truth.

Christians do cherry-pick. Murdering a disobedient child, for example, is rejected. Even true believers would reject that punishment.

I would guess if a church

artappraiser — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 17:35:09 +0000

In reply to No, he "plays his race card"

I would guess if a church wanted its social activities exempt, it should have those expenses clearly identifiable and separate from other activities.

On that point, I have always wondered if tax and financial purpose are the reason for Catholic Charities, separate from the Catholic Church. From looking at the Wikipedia entry, while it predates the income tax, from the Wikipedia entry it looks like maybe reorganization during the Reagan years for those reasons:

Catholic Charities is a network of charities with headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. In 2005 Forbes Magazine ranked it as the fifth largest charity in the United States in terms of total revenue.[3] The organization serves millions of people a year, regardless of their religious, social, or economic backgrounds

Catholic Charities USA is a member of Caritas International, an international federation of Catholic social service organizations.[4] Catholic Charities USA is the national office of more than 160 local Catholic Charities agencies nationwide.

Founded in 1910 as the National Conference of Catholic Charities, the organization changed its name in 1986 to Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) [....]

Whatever the case, I know it is highly respected as a charity for how they use the money and the works they do. Many non-Catholics use it for charitable donations, it is popular as a charity with non-Catholics. For example the New York Times with their "Neediest Cases" campaign during the holidays, they work a lot with them.

I get this sense non-Catholics feel that they can trust it because it is not secular like the United Way or Red Cross, because there is the extra added factor of Christian belief in compassion for the poor and those with the least power. So that is an argument against removing the faith thing totally from tax deductibility. At the same time, with Catholic Charities, it appears that they have made it an entity separate from the church so that others feel that they are not endorsing the Catholic church as a whole when they support it? A win for both sides to separate the charity work from the other parts of the church itself?

Good discussion. I accept the

HSG — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 14:35:30 +0000

In reply to Changing Tides: the Rise of Irreligion

Good discussion. I accept the Guardian's numbers of course but I'm not convinced they bespeak a true movement away from superstition or as the Guardian calls it "determined credulity" and towards an evidence-based secular mindset. Those who aren't members of any particular church may consult astrologers, make decisions based on biorhythms, or have had close encounters with aliens. Others may attend non-denominational religious services or become involved in right-wing hate cults. An all-encompassing faith in the magic of an unregulated marketplace to distribute goods and services could be considered a cult-like belief.

RMRD's lament that black churches, like many faith-based organizations, do much good work strikes me as pertinent. I know Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims who are members of churches, synagogues, and mosques because of the charitable works that they do. These individuals may doubt the sacred texts that form the underpinnings of the religion into which they were born or which they joined. But they want to feel part of a community - particularly one that provides direct assistance to others. To the extent that these folks are the ones leaving religious institutions, their reduced size doesn't doesn't reflect a reduced number of true believers.