How bad is religion !

[Chad]

Not talking the validity of taxation, that's squarely constitutional. I'm talking about who is subsidizing who. I subsidize the government, not the other way around. I subsidize the charities I give to, not the gov't.

Exactly. I'm paying taxes and subsidizing the government. The government is then letting religions skate on taxes. This means I'm subsidizing religions who are not paying taxes, as they get to use what the government provides for free. I don't think the government should be supporting any religion.

I agree with Dragline's initial comment. I can't argue against specific spending under the idea of "tax payer standing", but this is religion. There should be separation of church and state.

The whole reason for separation of church and state was to avoid a state-controlled/favored churches.

Any religious support to any religion is a state controlled/favored church if you aren't religious.

And in reality, that limit to government power was inherent to the governments formation and not a policy implemented in the post income tax era to encourage the spread of religion like it's a mortgage interest deduction.

Kind of, but it was probably just assumed when income taxes were initiated that everyone is religious, so give every religion a tax break and everyone wins. Well, no, not everyone. From a non-believer's viewpoint any support of religion is state supported religion.

It'll be very interesting what happens once corporations take over dominant services (e.g. corporate benefits > government benefits, private security services, gated corporate communities, etc.) ... Not quite there yet but certainly heading there. Will we have three different meta-organizations? If so .. what will their responsibilities be?

This is very interesting as it unfolds. Will we get the sci-fi corporate dystopias? Blade Runner? Water Thief? Or, will it be more positive like The Culture novels? Will they be more efficient or less efficient than government? Will they be less feeling or more feeling than religion? Great fodder for novelists.

[fiby41]

It'll be very interesting what happens once corporations take over dominant services (e.g. corporate benefits > government benefits, private security services, gated corporate communities, etc.) ... Not quite there yet but certainly heading there. Will we have three different meta-organizations? If so .. what will their responsibilities be?

Been there since the 1600s when the first joint stock corporation was formed... The Dutch East India Company. Also British East India Company is the keyword to search for if you want something more than a novel.

[jennypenny]

@Ego--I would've thought that Augustine was your kind of Saint since he was a big promoter of the mind/body connection and treating your body with respect.

Perhaps one of the most evil elements of religion is that it makes people reluctant to seek connections beyond those they've been taught to trust. It creates teams.

I won't argue that religion creates teams. Is it different than anything else though, like race, ethnicity, geography, nationality, political persuasion, paleo/vegan, spender/saver, etc.? We all self-identify with multiple teams. Is that inherently bad?

I'd argue that being a part of at least one 'team' is good for people. With so much talk of loneliness and unhappiness and the search for meaning, finding a group that provides a kind of structural happiness and meaning is a net positive for most people. How many people proclaim how happy they are about 'finding their tribe' when they join the forum? Belonging feels good.

Almost to a person, we refer to ourselves as EREs on the forum. We collectively eschew spendy, consumer-driven lifestyles and the people who live them. So should we be condemned, too, for forming our own 'team'? There are plenty of economists who would condemn our lifestyle as selfish and bad for the collective good. Are they right? Or are we free to judge our contribution differently and demand that our alternative view be respected? Neither opinion is based on magical thinking or anything 'irrational' so that shouldn't be a factor. Yet, we disagree about how our choices and lifestyles affect the common good.

If the argument is that religion makes for 'bad' teams while other ideologies make for good teams, then that goes back to the OP, so I have nothing to add to what I've already said.

If you are a Christian (as opposed to an atheist) who believes Augustin was correct, then you are left with...

Created by God in his own image.
Created sick and commanded to be well on pain of eternal torture
Created wicked and commanded to be good on pain of eternal torture.

Pretty dismal stuff.

This is no place to discuss theology, but that interpretation is pretty cynical. Christians believe we're sinners, not sick or wicked. I interpret that to mean simply we all make mistakes and should remember that before judging others (John 8:7 "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." or Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.").

As far as threats of Hell as a means of keeping people in line, I admit that some people and religions have used that exact method on occasion or even as a rule (I do it with my kids ). There is no standard Christian interpretation of Heaven and Hell, and it's hard to distill the various interpretations into a single paragraph. I know the Catholic church teaches that no one on earth is in a position to judge whether someone is going to Hell, and it's considered a form of blasphemy to say such a thing. The way I tend to explain it is we (Christians) believe that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. It's something most people hope is true, and for the religious, there's an eternal element where we trust that God will make it so even if it's no longer possible during our lifetimes. In that context, salvation gives people a chance to be forgiven for their mistakes and wipe the slate clean, so to speak, so that bad things don't happen to them.

It's funny how differently we (you and I) view the concepts of sin and Heaven and Hell. I take great comfort in the idea that we're all sinners and I'm not the only one screwing up all the time. And I've also thought to myself more than once during church services how incredibly tolerant and generous it is that every time we 'ask', we are unconditionally forgiven for our mistakes and afforded an opportunity to get right with God again (thereby avoiding Hell). If I raised my kids that way, they'd be spoiled brats.



To be clear, I'm not evangelizing. If you, or anyone, doesn't see any evidence for religious beliefs, I get that and respect it. I'm not a thumper. If, however, the issue is with what religious people believe, then I do post to explain when I think an interpretation/explanation is not necessarily true or, at least, not true of everyone.

[George the original one]

I'm paying taxes and subsidizing the government. The government is then letting religions skate on taxes. This means I'm subsidizing religions who are not paying taxes, as they get to use what the government provides for free. I don't think the government should be supporting any religion.

Technically, isn't it true that all non-profits skate on taxes and religions have managed to get themselves organized as non-profits? The employees are still required to pay taxes.

[IlliniDave]

@ Chad, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I might agree with you more if the gov't only gave exemptions to religious groups, but they don't.

There are those of us who look at it from the perspective that the government is prohibited from controlling churches, a form of which is taxation. I guess others see it as refraint from exerting control is favoritism. Basically a chicken and egg thing. Most of the hands-off approach to churches was hammered out a hundred years prior to the implementation of the 16th amendment. I don't think anyone assumed everyone was religious in the early 20th century when the income tax laws were written. But in democracies majorities tend to get their way. Maybe someday the supreme court will rule that someone getting to deduct what they put in the collection plate is interfering with an atheist's exercise of his ideology. There are places that have determined a Christmas tree visible through a window constitutes such interference.

I suppose we could revert to eliminating tax deductions or exemptions for anything, go to a flat income tax that starts on the first dollar of every person's income, so no one could claim the government was favoring anyone or anything over anyone or anything else. I wouldn't object to that myself. But churches should not be singled out for discrimination among non-profit/charitable/community service groups just because they are theists.

I'll never warm up to the idea that the government taking a hands off approach to what people do with their time or money constitutes government sponsorship/underwriting/subsidizing of whatever it is they decide to do. Sort of a free people who self govern versus a ruled people with limited freedom outlook I guess.

[Solvent]

Coming from Australia, as I believe steveo73 does, I think it's pretty easy to get down on religion, because charity groups and religious support services aren't as commonplace and obvious as, in my impression, they are in the US. That could be a mistaken impression I get, because I haven't spent a lot of time in the US, although its cultural exports do pervade the western world. Still, the US is a more religious country than the forsaken land down under, and it also has much higher poverty levels, so more people are in need of those services and I guess they're more visible. The flipside of that, though, is that in Aus there aren't quite as many wacky politicians trying to abrogate womens' rights to their bodily autonomy either.

My initial instinct, from my own background, is to think religion is not a net negative. I think I was on the other side several years ago, when I was younger and more foolhardy.

But - thinking harder, I have to say I just genuinely don't know enough to actually take a position. When I think harder, I think about places like Ireland where laws with roots in religion are still causing tremendous suffering. I think about the developing world, and the way the Catholic church has ruined millions of lives in Africa. I think of Islamic and Christian militias murdering each other in the CAR.
So based on personal experience, I wouldn't have said net negative, but then with a bit of reflection I guess I genuinely don't know.

I also think the trope of 'religion causing more wars than anything else' is overplayed. Although I'm not a historian, I think rights over land usage are probably the worst cause of that throughout history, although religion is often used as a cover.

[7Wannabe5]

Ego said: Most people are exceedingly good most of the time.

Almost 1% of the adult population of the United States is currently in prison or jail. I think about 3% of the average elementary school population ends up in the Principal's office on a daily basis. Unsupervised 2 year olds will with purposeful malice hit each other over the head with toys and bite. Human beings are born lovable, but not exceedingly good. The reason why I suggested "Don't shit where you eat." as a starting point for a universal human morality is that I was trying to think of a "should" on which even most 3 year olds would naturally reach consensus (as opposed to something like "You should share your toys.") Maybe there is a deeper truth in the maxim "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" than is generally assumed. Perhaps religion is just a natural extension of development of sanitary code.

[Ego]

I won't argue that religion creates teams. Is it different than anything else though, like race, ethnicity, geography, nationality, political persuasion, paleo/vegan, spender/saver, etc.? We all self-identify with multiple teams. Is that inherently bad?

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

I could quote similar passages for race, ethnicity, geography, nationality, eating habits and how people spend their money. It is different from ERE or the frisbee-golf club because of history and because of the on-the-ground reality in places like Uganda to this day, thanks in large part to American Christians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 93593.html

If, however, the issue is with what religious people believe, then I do post to explain when I think an interpretation/explanation is not necessarily true or, the feat least, not true of everyone.

I know you don't believe that nonsense. But many do. Enough, in fact, to have real influence. When you, a perfectly reasonable, respectable person stands up and says, "My family doesn't really believe that" or "We don't interpret it that way", you provide cover for those who do.

I don't really know if there is a good way around this problem. If someone used ERE to justify something horrible, (ie. produced perfect Polish pastries from minced multi-ethnic Michigonian moppets), I'd probably leave rather than argue about it.

[jacob]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... sm/416964/

[GandK]

When you, a perfectly reasonable, respectable person stands up and says, "My family doesn't really believe that" or "We don't interpret it that way", you provide cover for those who do.

"Provide cover" is a curious turn of phrase in this context. As if cover is somehow required for beliefs, as opposed to actions.

It's one thing to hold opinions that cannot be either defended or (IMO) respected. It's another thing entirely to commit crimes in the name of them, which seems to be the point of the OP. "Doing bad stuff."

[Many edits. I've been drinking Midori.]

[Ego]

"Provide cover" is a curious turn of phrase in this context. As if cover is somehow required for beliefs, as opposed to actions.

It's one thing to hold opinions that cannot be either defended or (IMO) respected. It's another thing entirely to commit crimes in the name of them, which seems to be the point of the OP. "Doing bad stuff."

Yeah, cover is required for action. I was thinkīng about how belief has been converted to action in Uganda.

[jennypenny]

If, however, the issue is with what religious people believe, then I do post to explain when I think an interpretation/explanation is not necessarily true or, the feat least, not true of everyone.

I know you don't believe that nonsense. But many do. Enough, in fact, to have real influence. When you, a perfectly reasonable, respectable person stands up and says, "My family doesn't really believe that" or "We don't interpret it that way", you provide cover for those who do.

I guess I see it more as trying to drown out the less reasonable, or, in a way, take back the church from those who use it as a shield. It's my faith, too. If you think you're offended when a Catholic does something horrible in the name of religion, imagine how I feel about it. I imagine there are many Muslims who feel that way right now.

I shouldn't say any more because I've been hitting the sacrificial wine tonight like GandK. It's upsetting to think that my faith somehow negates other positive contributions I make (or at least attempt to make) on the forum. I need a distraction from this thread. Maybe I'll go watch Life of Brian.

[Ego]

Negates? Absolutely not.

[Dragline]

If you think you're offended when a Catholic does something horrible in the name of religion, imagine how I feel about it. I imagine there are many Muslims who feel that way right now.

Indeed, they are very concerned: http://wjla.com/news/local/american-mus ... isis-in-dc

Not only because they are being misrepresented by acts of violence elsewhere, but because the public statements of many provide "cover" for vandalizing their property and otherwise treating them poorly.

[jacob]

Well, I've been drinking partially fermented orange wine tonight, so I figure I'm somewhat qualified to make a comment as well

@Ego - Consider that people master religion just like they master other things. Quoting and abiding Leviticus in a context-free sense i.e. thou shalt not eat lobster ... or burn honey ... or be gay (incidentally just a part of a long list of people you're not supposed to have sex with)... or even reap at the very edges of your field (damn efficiency driven capitalists!)... is clearly Dreyfus-1. It's the 100 tips and tricks to be religious for noobs. It's the kind of stuff that appeals to those who want to start a revolution because of red cups form Starbucks. However, insofar that anecdotal evidence counts the few religious people I know who're at levels 4 or 5; those seem to be the epitome of a Mensch. They really do what "Jesus would do" ... in real life. This behavior is above and beyond what one would see from a secular humanist. Of course, the debate would then be whether the actions of these few expert Mensches outweigh the actions of the multitude of L1 noobs.---Especially if they vote.

@Religious Others - However, it shouldn't be ignored that adopting a "moderate position" lends some legitimacy to the extreme position regardless of whether you approve or not. For example, the existence of MMM makes ERE more acceptable. Similarly, the existence of people with moderate faith makes it easier for fundamentalists to avoid being perceived as complete lunatics. This is like a ladder of Wheaton levels. It's possible that by cutting off some steps on the ladder we can avoid people climbing to destructive degrees of fundamentalism. But it seems to require disowning the moderate positions to do so as those are likely a gateway to the extreme steps (see link above).

@Secular Others - No high horse for you. There are plenty of 20th century examples of non-religious persecution and progroms. The intellectuals should pay particular attention to Pol Pot.

The Khmer Rouge also classified people by religious and ethnic background. They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs.[citation needed] They especially targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians, and Vietnamese. Some were put in the S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were summarily executed.

... sounds like 99% of the ERE population right there.

Not that Western civilization has been particularly "holy" in that regard judging by the actions between the 11th and the 21st century. It' just that most people reading this haven't been on the receiving end of it.

Actually what I'd like to know is ... suppose you're going to be persecuted, how do you decide when to move to avoid both type 1 (serious opportunity cost) and type 2 errors (usually death). I suppose most rational persons are more afraid of sharknados or spurious deadly selfie accidents simply due to numbers.

[7Wannabe5]

@Ego: Don't be silly. I love the moppets even more than I love me some babka The most "horrible" thing I am using ERE ( or closely related paradigms) to justify doing is bartering sexual favors with several men at the same time, including one who is married to a Catholic woman, and thereby possibly directly contributing to the downfall of a conventional religious institution. Since he is also head of an IT department, due to information I acquired through this forum regarding the exact salary such a position might provide, I was also forced to accede to the logic of his insistence on "covering all expenses when we are together, since he makes more money than me." One of my other lovers is going to sink posts and frame out the door to my greenhouse, and arrange for truckloads of wood chips to be delivered to my lots. Happy, happy, bad, bad me!! Thanks Jacob!!

[IlliniDave]

Well, I've been drinking partially fermented orange wine tonight, so I figure I'm somewhat qualified to make a comment as well

@Religious Others - However, it shouldn't be ignored that adopting a "moderate position" lends some legitimacy to the extreme position regardless of whether you approve or not. For example, the existence of MMM makes ERE more acceptable. Similarly, the existence of people with moderate faith makes it easier for fundamentalists to avoid being perceived as complete lunatics. This is like a ladder of Wheaton levels. It's possible that by cutting off some steps on the ladder we can avoid people climbing to destructive degrees of fundamentalism. But it seems to require disowning the moderate positions to do so as those are likely a gateway to the extreme steps (see link above).

This isn't addressed to me, I admit, but isn't this true across the board? That if we agree with any capitalistic principles, we're somewhat legitimizing the abusive greed that can fall under the larger umbrella? And if we believe an individual should submit in any way to the good of the whole or a national ideal we're somewhat legitimizing the extremes of communism and socialism (Soviet Union, China, Germany)? Further, does simply living in Chicago somewhat legitimize the gangs/drug wars and corrupt politics? Does living in Alabama somewhat legitimize racism and slavery? Does being a chemist somewhat legitimize suicide bombers? Does serving in the military somewhat legitimize war crimes?

From a social perspective life is a multidimensional continuum where none of us stand at the neutral point of every dimension. And just about every one of those dimensions can be taken to extremes and somehow or another be misused.

Moderation is key to nearly any successful human endeavor, so I would say the extension of the culpability of extremists to moderates is a little specious, especially if we try to pigeon hole it to just those areas we personally disagree with or don't participate in. And in doing so wouldn't we just legitimize the extreme view where we could say that by virtue of being human we are each individually granting legitimacy to all things humans do?

[thrifty++]

I so love Western society and all its amazing secular, religious, non religious, atheist, agnostic, whatever in the mix. There is so much going on. Its so multi faceted. Every religion, ethnicity, absence of religion, gender, race, sexuality, age, concept, idea. Its such a moving shifting feast of complexity. So many players in the mix. Look at what is happening. It is amazing. The universe is never ending and there is no limit to our development and potential. I really hate the idea of any mass homogenous narrow religious movement threatening all the goings on. There needs to be diversity and tolerance going forward. Nothing all the same. That is unwestern.

[Ego]

Happy, happy, bad, bad me!!

[Chad]

I shouldn't say any more because I've been hitting the sacrificial wine tonight like GandK. It's upsetting to think that my faith somehow negates other positive contributions I make (or at least attempt to make) on the forum. I need a distraction from this thread. Maybe I'll go watch Life of Brian.

I don't think it negates it at all. When I say people with beliefs have a higher hurdle to overcome to prove their thought process is valid, it doesn't mean this hurdle stays with that person after they prove it. This hurdle is only for strangers or those I haven't heard enough from to determine if they should be listened too or not.