In reply to Christians Leaving Public Schools:

As much as it would be nice to have a school system where you didn't have to put up with religion butting in and crapping up science, health education and discussions of social policy, I worry that in the long run, it'd worsen the schism between believer and unbeliever. The isolation they inflict on themselves would let them dehumanize us further. And separation would allow the extremists would to take moderates over to their side. And I think that would be bad in the long term for us. Like that annoying brother, I think they're part of this human family just as we are and separatism won't help.

The other thing to keep in mind is that for every obnoxious "Brother Jed", there are 10-20 or more moderate to liberal christians, who believe but are not actively proselytizing and pretty much are at school because they have to be. What passes for modern day christianity is more modern humanism with (carefully chosen) bits and pieces of biblical theology (the "socially acceptable" parts). This was at least my experience growing up around major metropolitan areas in Texas. I was that "Brother Jed" then and I stood out.

I'm disturbed by the military rhetoric and naming. "Call to Dunkirk"? To help them return again on D-day? What is D-day supposed to be? When their theocracy-wishes come to fruition? Or is this really just saber-rattling?

You know, you almost have to wonder. Are evangelicals starting to feel like they're losing the culture war? We'll eventually get educated and tolerant and civil and the so-called "issues" won't matter. They won't be able to use them to make us hate anymore. Nobody looks at Elvis Presley's music and thinks it's "of the devil" anymore. But people seriously did in the 60s. And nobody seriously thinks (or at least publicly admits thinking) that we should go back to Jim Crow. Could it be that we're becoming sufficiently tolerant as a society as to make the evangelicals nervous? That this is a last ditch effort for them to attempt to grab power, by arousing a sense of nostalgia and anxiety about "back sliding"?

In reply to Time To Start Taxing Churches?:

I can imagine that at one point in time, churches were more centered around charity - doing something useful for those less fortunate, opening hospitals, etc. There was some sort of social give-and-take that kind of justified government looking the other way.

Nowadays, churches are more proselytizing social clubs that manipulate politics and in many cases attempt to force the will of a small vocal number of people on a large number of people who don't care. Even if they self-identify as "christian". If it were any other kind of social club, would they expect a tax break - a government hand out and endorsement?

Because churches are not taxed, my property taxes are slightly higher. Why should I as an unbeliever be expected to pay for this social club which wants to tell me how to live and run my life? A social club that I'll never be a part of (and don't want to be)?

Just a thought ... so why not tax them AND ban them from politicking? I don't see this as an either or. Because of their large size and the (in many cases blind) devotion of attendees, they have a special place of power and trust. Pastors/preachers/priests can easily manipulate their flocks into voting their way and this has to be guarded against.

This question came up on Yahoo Answers! but was deleted. After I had written a response. So I post that here:



Summary:

Because I am not a sociopath or somebody with a pathological personality disorder, I don't actually need to believe in a magical sky god to keep me from wanting to hurt other people.

This is a reply to Really? It’s come down to dinosaurs? Get a real issue!:

I suppose that's why gravity is a theory too ... i.e. Newton's Theory of Gravitation. I dunno, it seems to work pretty well to me.

Perhaps you should try and understand what you're attacking of before you attack it.

John 8:32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

And this is an important issue. Science and technology are driving factors behind our great nation's growth. The ability to properly understand policy implications with regards to them strongly impacts the future of our nation. The lack of a basic understanding of high school biology does not add to my confidence behind the woman and I think it was fair for Matt Damon to bring this to light, so it could be discussed out in the open.

John 1:5 "And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

This is my reply to Billy Clubs, Firehoses, and Attack Dogs for the New Civil Rights Movement:


This brings up the obvious question of why not get Federal and State governments out of the marriage business altogether? Stop providing ANY benefit to married people. No exceptions, no special rights for heterosexual couples. If you want a marriage before god, well that's between you and your church and is no business of the any government. Do we really need government involvement in this aspect of our lives?  Ever heard of the principle render unto god that which is god's, unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?

People could record their unions with the county/parish clerks and that's it. If you want to define your how your stuff is inherited, record a will with the county. Ditto for parenting arrangements, power of attorney, etc. And of course, remove the married tax filing categories and social security benefits for spouses. Everybody can get a job, right? And everybody can get healthcare from that job, right? I suppose that's why there are 45 million uninsured Americans.

I think that you will find that most married heterosexual couples would balk at losing these benefits and would no surrender them merely to be fair to the homosexuals. Since the majority of married society is unlikely to shed their "marriage privileges" to be equal - this would cost them thousands of dollars extra per year and require them to get a job to have insurance. It seems the most reasonable thing we as a society can do is just to grant the right to marry to consenting adults.

You know, some of those "gay perverts" [sic] that many of you fundamentalist types bash actually have much more stable families than your own. Food for thought, self-examination.

Today we were driving around and I noticed the local police department in the turn lane of a larger highway standing around with their reflective vests. It took me a few moments to put everything together, but they were directing traffic for one of those new non-denominational yuppie-targeted christian churches.

Normally, I wouldn't care. People at large events request police support for directing traffic all the time. Police are paid by the collection of fines for traffic infractions and by taxation support. But churches don't pay taxes, even though they typically demand a tithe of 10%. That tithe is pocketed tax free. And the police department has to go out and direct traffic every Sunday, incurring the cost.

Couldn't the church in question spring for a traffic light? Are they really that cheap? Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?