Look at the increase in federal funding for "faith-based" activities.
Look at how religious people get positive media coverage (like the "Faith" pages in the SL Tribune and other pages, General Conference, etc.), while atheists and humanists rarely, if ever, get thoughtful and sympathetic treatment.
All of this in the face of the fact that the "Nones" are the fastest increasing belief group in the country.
Richard Dawkins asked a very similar question in "The God Delusion". Why is religion given some exalted "get of jail" free card and protected from outside inquiry. If you say - it's my religion - whatever it is, is now "protected" and can not be questioned.
Gawd is a particularly robust meme that should be actively fought by all rational people. Maybe someday the world will actually be free from religion and its horror and its bigotry and its fraud and its mysticism and its violence, etc. etc.
The intellectual, indivudualistic natures of the people that make up that large group make them inneffective at seizing and maintaining political power. Simpler people make better sheep, and are therefore able to present consistent messages to those in authority.
It doesn't help that there is a lack of leadership. Speaking as one who could easily be considered a "None," Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the other loud voices from the atheist camp tend sound too shrill to the majority of Americans, who, I argue, are moderates.
I believe we are very close to a time when the "Nones" find a few likeable spokespeople who are able to garner support for issues of equality without polarizing the way those men do.
Religious people have been predominant in the US for the its entire history. They made the rules which favor the religious. Some fairly recent court decisions reigned in inappropriate religious displays and the uproar from religious people has been considerable. They claim they are losing their rights, but these are "rights" which they never had and were only allowed because no one challenged them in the past.
I find it strange, too, since there are probably more non-religious people in America than religious. Not necessarily atheists, mind you, just people who are spiritual rather than associated with a particular religion.
And surprise! You are hearing this from a person who belongs to a religious faith (not LDS,though). It's just that, well, truth is truth.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2011 10:53AM by nwmcare.
Not always true. In public school, teachers can't pray or talk about God with their students. It is discouraged for a teacher to even say what denomination they may be for fear it may be considered a conversation of pursuation. However, students can swear - what is typically called "taking the Lord's name in vain".
And in answer to the question as to why the tax breaks - well the majority of organized religion is actually non profit and all money received is from donation and all money received goes to support a ministry. We all know the LDS does not fit this description and is why so many of us wonder why it can maintain its term of church
Concerning professions of faith by teachers: is discouragement some kind of limitation on rights? Can you point to any rule?
It seems to me that a rule that would prevent a teacher from "talking about God" would be equalizing: In the absence of such a rule, an atheist teacher could easily attack the beliefs of the students.
What is your point about children being "able" to say "the Lord's name in vain." Are you saying that this violates a religious person's rights in some way?
I am not convinced by the word "ministry." I have seen the books on dozens of churches, and am convinced that the VAST majority of the money goes to overhead and salaries. Most "ministry" has nothing to do with the public good.
This is a forum for all to voice an opinion and I voiced mine as I see it from circumstances where I live. So I again will say that simply, a teacher can not in our school system have a conversation about his/her own belief in God to a student or a room full of students on campus. But teachers, while not being able to name God in a positive light, must listen all day long to students naming God in a negative light. Just an observation of perhaps an isolated situation, where the situation differs from the original posts thoughts.
And as far as ministry - yes, the majority of our church budget goes to the pastor's salary and for the building upkeep. But this is ministry. I am sure I don't have to explain what a pastor does - teach, leads worship, visits shut-ins, patients in the hospital, counsels, etc. The building, at least our church building, is a place where ministry happens regulary. We have meals for the homeless, have afterschool programs for homeless children, serve as a stopping place for the youth of the Bike and Build program that bike across the nation building homes. We are in a resort area where parking is limited and costly. Our parking lot is available to area employees during the week. It is the building that allows us or any other church to have a place to serve. So yep, that budget goes to pay for building, but inside those walls, we are serving our community.
Public schools have no business endorsing religion. Praying or talking about gawd is not a teacher's right. Teachers are there to educate. Indoctrination is for church or religious schools.
Swearing is simply speech.
A person in authority, like a teacher, discussing personal beliefs, can be seen as endorsing religion or a belief in gawd.
A child swearing is not an endorsement against religion or gawd. Swearing is just a verbal expression - whether of anger, defiance or disrespect or whatever.
that profits aren't divided among owners. That's a definition that makese sense, but has lost its impact. In that limited sense, LDS is a non-profit (And, it's Non-Prophet!)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2011 12:08PM by guynoirprivateeye.
I have seen the books on a dozen other sects. I doesn't appear to me that TSCC behaves much differently than large Xian churches. As in those organizations, almost all the money in the TSCC goes into overhead and promotion. So, what is the difference?
Obviously many churches break this rule -- but that's the foundation of religious tax exemptions. It doesn't have anything to do with non-profit or charitable status. (Which is a shame because if it DID churches would probably be a lot more socially useful.)
What tax exemptions are you talking about? Churches generally get federal tax exemptions because they are 501(c)(3) nonprofits. ALL 501(c)(3)s have limits on their ability to participate in political activities. Atheists or any other group are every bit as able to form a 501(c)(3) as churches are.
donate to dozens and dozens of charitable organizations just like the religious folks donate to their churches/faith based organizations. They generally have the same kind of tax code that makes them beneficial as a tax deduction. In fact, the very rich generally need to donate money to reduce their tax burden. The non-believers just don't have to play the "spirituality card" and donate time also.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2011 11:22AM by SusieQ#1.
When you make the laws everyone has to play by your rules..seems like congress that's religious freedom seriously at times...but aren't concerned about the non religious people.
Organize, vote...and then watch the Evangelical right step in and on top of you...no one wants to offend them...
Because if you run for office as a non-believer you just touched a 'third rail' of politics. Non-believers are mistrusted and hated far more than gays are according to many polls (which implies that is a whole lot of hate going towards atheists).
If you cannot get elected, you lose in the society as a whole.
Idaho dreaming - Tax breaks? More like tax shelters, especially for these guys that run the mega churches and live high on the hog thanks to their sheep... err um congregation.
And Public School teachers not being able to "pray or talk about God with their students." Why would they? It's public school, not a church! Do we send kids to school to get preached at by teachers? You start allowing teachers to pray or talk about "god" pretty soon parents will be upset that they aren't praying "the right way" or "to the right god", so then the Public School is now forced to decide what those are, then we get major violations of the 1st Amendment. Well, praying in Public School would be that violation, but hopefully you get my point.
I remember watching a college student complain to Hillary Clinton about how their age group was being ignored by the politicians and the older people were getting all the attention. Hillary responded,"Because your age group does not vote. Politicians want to get reelected and so they are going to pay attention to who votes not who doesn't."
Religious people tend to be very politically active and organized. The get the attention of those running for office. It's really that simple. Religion is an issue if those who vote want it to be an issue.
Rubicon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I remember watching a college student complain to > Hillary Clinton about how their age group was > being ignored by the politicians and the older > people were getting all the attention. Hillary > responded,"Because your age group does not vote. > Politicians want to get reelected and so they are > going to pay attention to who votes not who > doesn't." > > Religious people tend to be very politically > active and organized. The get the attention of > those running for office. It's really that > simple. Religion is an issue if those who vote > want it to be an issue.
It is true. I live where many are "religious" and many of these people worship at the feet of not only church leaders, but Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
Even stranger are the exemptions that the religious gain in some states: faith 'healing' their children or skipping vaccination because of their sincerely held beliefs. As far as I'm concerned it amounts to sincere medical neglect.
Vaccination fear is not limited to the religious, unfortunately. In fact, many atheists who are "crunchy" abuse these religious exemptions to keep their kids unvaccinated. Just visit mothering.com and witness the crazy.
If a child's life is truly in danger, the government usually will step in. For instance, parents don't have the unfettered right to prevent their kids from receiving blood transfusions just because they are JWs. Courts can and do order such treatments over the parents' objections because they are in the best interests of the child.
L.Ron Hubbard was informed that his organization was going to be taxed, so he made his cult into a religion. They make a lot of money that way, and also blended some kind of "spiritual" concept into a weird sci-fi idea.
Please see South Park episode featuring Tom Cruise for informative programming here.
Rebekah nailed all of this. I'm just too tired to add to the illuminati explanation.
Atheists argue with each other just like religionists. Ask an Objectivist about Secular Humanism, or vice versa, and poo hits the fan. If Atheists can get it together it will be a good day.
A suggestions is to rent "The Four Horsemen Pt. 1" with Professor Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hicthins and Sam Harris. It is quite a "revelation".