by nicolaou 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
To those of you that have read The End of Faith by Sam Harris, what do make of his call for a world government, and "the diversity of our religious beliefs constitut[ing] a primary obstacle [to such]."?
Though he does not favor a coercive eradication of Islam, the desire is that Muslims "outgrow" their religion. Just as all enlightened humanity must "outgrow" belief rooted in oppressive traditions.
Secular not-for-profit organizations are not taxed, so this particular, identifiable element of a religious body should not be unfairly taxed.
Sorry HS but I cannot agree! Secular non-profit organizations like Amensty International and the Red Cross cannot possibly be equated with Scientologists, Mormons or even the Anglican Church.
Benefit and harm are the keys. What benefits does a particular religion provide? What harm does it bring? The issues may not be black & white, churches organise food drives and look after elderly parishoners which is to be commended (though of course Social Services should provide). Standards need to be in place to determine if any organization merits charitable status. If a religious body can only point to it's good works in the community as a reason then it should not be given the benefits that come along with being a registered charity unless they restrict themselves to just those charitable acts!
Proselytism must not be allowed to benefit from charitable status earned elsewhere.
Nicolau,
Sorry HS but I cannot agree! Secular non-profit organizations like Amensty International and the Red Cross cannot possibly be equated with Scientologists, Mormons or even the Anglican Church.
Benefit and harm are the keys. What benefits does a particular religion provide? What harm does it bring? The issues may not be black & white, churches organise food drives and look after elderly parishoners which is to be commended (though of course Social Services should provide). Standards need to be in place to determine if any organization merits charitable status. If a religious body can only point to it's good works in the community as a reason then it should not be given the benefits that come along with being a registered charity unless they restrict themselves to just those charitable acts!
Proselytism must not be allowed to benefit from charitable status earned elsewhere.
You missed an important and crucial part of my post :
Yes, that religions be taxed, at least the non-charitable part of their operations, is implicit in the demands that they be treated like every other organized body. Secular not-for-profit organizations are not taxed, so this particular, identifiable element of a religious body should not be unfairly taxed.
How could you argue that a secular 'soup kitchen' operate tax free, but a Salvation Army 'soup kitchen' to be taxed?
HS
Hmmm, seems like we're on pretty much the same page HS. All I'm arguing for is equivalency, I wouldn't in fact "argue that a secular 'soup kitchen' operate tax free, but a Salvation Army 'soup kitchen' be taxed". As I stated, it is the religious, evangelical works that should not be deemed as charitable and should certainly not be given tax breaks and advantages unavailable to secular enterprise.
Nic'
nicolau,
Hmmm, seems like we're on pretty much the same page HS. All I'm arguing for is equivalency, I wouldn't in fact "argue that a secular 'soup kitchen' operate tax free, but a Salvation Army 'soup kitchen' be taxed". As I stated, it is the religious, evangelical works that should not be deemed as charitable and should certainly not be given tax breaks and advantages unavailable to secular enterprise.
Yes, we are on the same page, I think you misunderstood/misread my post.
Cheers - HS
I am going to go a hair off the topic, but
We hear all this talk of the militant Islamists being such a minority, and I am not going to question that assertion. However, consider this. If only one percent of all Muslims worldwide can be said to be Islamists, then we are talking about around a Million of such fanatics worldwide! That is a very tiny minority, but it is not an insignificant number. The potential damge those folks could do worldwide if they were all as well organized and focused on a goal like Bin Laden wants them to be is positively scary.
Think of the example of the Witnesses. They have never been more than about one-half of one percent of the global population. Yet their influence on worldwide governmental policies, good and bad, are all out of proportion with their numbers because they've been so well organized towards their goal of enriching the WTBTS's coffers since Rutherford's time. That example should make us aware of the danger we would be in if Bin laden, or someone like him were to succeed at setting themselves up as the leader of that tiny minority and turning them into a disciplined guerrilla army as he tried to do.
Although I used the example of only one percent, I think that in view of the number of groups around the world like the Muslim insurgency groups in the Philippines, Thailand, Kenya, Liberia, and other lands and the more open groups and/or regimes like those in Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Somalia, etc., suggests that the percentage is more than many folks are willing to admit.
So far we've been lucky as nationalist feelings have kept many of those groups from forming a focused "international conspiracy" as some alarmists would have us believe. But Osama Bin Laden And Ayman Al Zawahiri did try to change that and we need to be on guard that they, or nobody else, succeeds.
Forscher
You raise some good points Forscher, who knows how a disparate group coalesce and organise? It could happen. And consider this. At some point in the future radicalised and extremist Christians will start down the same track of terror and attack. How long before 'sacred sites' like Mecca, the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Ka'ba are bombed or mortared by a fundamentalist Christian?
Better to be godless.
Better to be godless.
Yes nicolaou. Being firmly rooted in reality is what the indoctrinated need to aspire to. It can be done. It's happening.
Some are waking up.
Whilst the arguments about global warming and the evidence that may support it will rage for some time, I think one could reach an easier consensus on the evidence supporting 'global atheisming' and 'global secularising'.
Plot the trend. Consider the factors causing this trend; outside of cult-like thinking and totalitarian religious regimes, it can only become more pronounced.
Look also at how secularism is also increasing outside of those same areas.
The percentage of population who are in cult-like thinking and totalitarian religious regimes is quite small.
In the rest of the world, secularisation and increasing atheism are givens.
Of course cult-like thinking and totalitarian religious regimes will resist this, are resisting this. Be it through driving explosive-filled Jeeps into airports or by seeking to impose their own faith-based beliefs on others.
It will pass. We don't burn witches much anymore, we are getting better, "the slow curve of humanity IS towards justice". And the slow extinction of religion is not the end of spirituality or good.
I think licencing religions is a great idea, but a bit like teaching your cat to use the a toilet. Okay, it's possible, but...
I think a much better idea is to make sure education is such that the harmful effects of religious belief are moderated, helping the move towards secularism.
done4good
In the USA, it is still easier to really become succussful, (in the monetary sense), if one takes the initiative.
Actually, in Europe, a greater percentage of people own 20% of the wealth. So one could say in Europe it is easier to become wealthy, as more people do, and in the US it is easier to become extremely rich, as there are fewer sharing the 20% of wealth.
Now, which society do you want to live in?
metatron
Doing something that leads to societal benefits is still a good idea even if some people impose their agenda upon it. If welfare states tend to better distribution of wealth (fact), reduction of intrasocietal tensions and a correspondingly more peaceful society (fact) and a reduction of poverty and harm caused by poverty (fact), why stop it because some idiots think they deserve it? There's lots of white 'Christian' welfare scroungers (those who could work but don't) who think they deserve it. Why stop because some of them are Muslim?
the slow extinction of religion is not the end of spirituality or good
Amen brother. Perhaps eventually 'religion' may come to mean somthing else. I could define myself as religious in an Einsteinian sense or in the way that Carl Sagan would share his religious zeal for the cosmos but I'd hesitate to do that now for fear of being misunderstood.
Perhaps we could appropriate the word 'religion' as homosexuals took over the word 'gay'?
Nic'
