CORPORATE MEDIA: Thom Hartmann / Why is Fox so-called News Supporting the Christian Taliban?
Reply
Category Archives: Religion
ATHEIST COMEDY: The Great Flood
Research Report: How Secular Humanists (and Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the United States
[…]
Nowhere did we find prior research summarizing and detailing religious finances and tax policy, so we decided to investigate it ourselves. This article is the result. It took some digging, but we think we now have a moderately clear understanding of the tax laws regarding religions in the United States. What we found suggests that religious institutions, if they were required to pay taxes the same as for-profit corporations do, would not have nearly as much money or influence as they enjoy in America today. In this article we estimate how much local, state, and federal governments subsidize religions.
[…]
. . . [R]eligions spend a relatively small portion of their revenue on “physical charity”, and while they spend a larger portion of their revenue addressing “spiritual concerns”, most of that qualifies as labor, not charity. What little would qualify as “spiritual charity” would not be replaced by government if discontinued. In short, religions are, by and large, not engaged in charitable work.
[…]
. . . [T]he subsidies to religions in the United States today may not be encouraging the growth of religions, but they may be keeping alive on the equivalent of subsidized life-support many religions that should be dead.
If these subsidies were removed—though we have no basis for believing that they will be anytime soon—we wonder what the damage to religion would be. There is evidence that donations to religions are tied to taxes; as the tax benefit of donating goes up, so do donations and vice versa. In other words, it seems likely that the removal of these subsidies would result in a substantial decrease in the supply of religion in the United States. To what extent it would affect demand for religion is uncertain.
[…]
. . . [I]t seems likely that subsidies are propping up religion in the United States, though to what extent is not clear. Certainly many religions that are near failing would have done so already if not for the subsidies they receive from the government. Another practical result of these subsidies is that religions are more affluent and more influential than they would otherwise be, because they have the resources to fund efforts to change legislation, create widely consumed media, and influence public policy.
[…]
. . . These subsidies should be phased out. But since that is unlikely to happen, we’d accept the following alternative: . . . direct cash transfers to us from the government for trying to convert people to our worldviews while claiming to provide social services[.]
Alan Dershowitz vs. Religion
Why Does [Bigot] Tony Perkins Even Bother Going on TV…? (VIDEOS)
Repost from: Friendly Atheist
Tony Perkins, the head Christian at the Family Research Council, made news this week when he appeared on Piers Morgan‘s show and said this incredibly stupid thing:
Morgan: You have five kids, right?
Perkins: Yes, I do.
Morgan: What would you do if one of them came home and said, dad, I’m gay?
Perkins: Well, we would have a conversation about it. I doubt that would happen with my children, as we are teaching them the right ways that they are to interact as human beings.
In other words, his kids wouldn’t turn out gay because he raised them “right.”
Chris Matthews invited Perkins on Hardball to elaborate on the comment… and, for some reason, Perkins accepted. Barney Frank was there, too, and both he and Matthews went off on Perkins for 15 glorious minutes:
Read more, and watch Barney Frank school Tony Perkins video here . . .
[…]
To add insult to injury, Lawrence O’Donnell took Perkins to task for suggesting there has only been one definition of marriage throughout mankind’s 5,000-year history (wait, what?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQWxWk1wTAs&feature=player_embedded
Aphorism: On Spontaneous Human Combustion
By Madison S. Hughes (05.09.2012)
I cannot say that spontaneous human combustion is my forte; however, judging from the bits and pieces of information concerning such that have entered my realm of thought, I must say that I am not convinced by any evidence that proponents have put forth to support such claims.
Certainly, a “loving” God would not allow such, but somehow I doubt One that engages in world genocide would take issue with a burning here and there. As a matter of fact, His followers have historically proven rather fond to burnings. I wonder if those that spontaneously combust are also of the more intellectual among us.
[Fifteen] Major Differences Between Occupy Wall Street And The Tea Party Protests
Article by Matthew Desmond
I read an article recently, which compared the origins of the Occupy Wall Street movement to the origins of the Tea Party movement. As someone who has paid attention to both movements, I believe nothing could be further from the truth. Below are just 15 differences between the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the Tea Party movement.
1. Occupy Wall Street is a grassroots movement, funded by people around the world, without corporate sponsorship.
The Tea Party is an AstroTurf movement, receiving most of its funding from corporate sponsorship, and Fox News and its supporters.2. Occupy Wall Street wants less corporate influence over our Government.
The Tea Party wants less Governmental influence over corporations.3. Occupy Wall Street didn’t receive mainstream media coverage until several weeks after it began.
The Tea Party held rallies across the country sponsored by Fox News, and even small rallies with minimal turnout received attention from other media outlets.4. Occupy Wall Street protesters are unarmed.
The Tea Party protesters openly carried a large variety of guns, including assault rifles.5. Over 1,000 Occupy Wall Street Protesters have been arrested.
Zero Tea Party Protesters have been arrested.
FFRF’s ‘Quit the Catholic Church’ ad in today’s Washington Post
Click on image to enlarge.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s full-page ad, “It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church,” runs in today’s Washington Post (A-5 Main), urging liberal and nominal Roman Catholics to “quit” their church over its war against contraception.
The provocative ad asks: “Will it be reproductive freedom, or back to the Dark Ages? Do you choose women and their rights, or Bishops and their wrongs?”
The ad is similar to the full-page ad that appeared in The New York Times in March, which is still creating shockwaves among conservative religionists. The Washington Post, unlike the Times, accepted FFRF’s punchy headline, “It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church.”
Additionally, FFRF has placed the full-page ad with a splash of color on the back of the Washington Express, handed out for free to Metro riders and D.C. residents. Express distributors will be wearing the ad on their vests.
“It’s a disgrace that U.S. health care reform is being held hostage to your church’s irrational opposition to medically prescribed contraception,” the ad states. “No political candidate should have to genuflect before the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”
National Day of Reason / National Day Of Prayer
Sean Faircloth on National Day of Reason
Christopher Hitchens on National Day Of Prayer Being Unconstitutional (04.16.2010)
Conversion on Mount Improbable: How Evolution Challenges Christian Dogma
During most of my years as a liberal Protestant minister, I never saw a contradiction between my Christian faith and the fact of evolution. Like many progressive Christians, I did not understand evolution as a challenge to the doctrine of divine creation ex nihilo; evolution was merely the mechanism that God used for creating life on our planet.
[…]
My indifference towards evolution changed dramatically when I ran across Richard Dawkins’ analogy of natural selection as “climbing Mount Improbable.” In that memorable and vivid metaphor, Dawkins illustrates the truly incremental and gradual nature of the evolutionary process. Opponents of evolution have contended that, while change within species can occur, the leap from one species to a new species is just too improbably great to have happened by purely natural processes. Outside assistance must have been involved. Dawkins addresses that claim by acknowledging that, yes, the leap from one species to the next seems improbably difficult—like scaling the cliff of a mountain to reach the peak. However, if one approaches the peak not from the formidable cliff but instead moves slowly along the slope on the other side of the mountain, reaching the peak of “Mount Improbable” becomes quite possible, although it might take a very long time.
[…]
Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example. If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homo sapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race. The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.
Always Question Authority 