Comments on: Religious hacking: Christians on atheists

By: Jason Wells

Jason Wells — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:55:23 +0000

Churches do give evidence of their non-profit status on a regular basis. They are 501(c)3 organizations like many secular non-profits.

As a priest in an Episcopal Church, here is a sketch of the process we follow. We regularly publish financial statements, showing revenues and expenses. At the beginning of every year, we vote on a budget that becomes a public document. We have annual financial reviews from an outside source. On a regular basis, every few years, we have full audits from a CPA.

Procedures similar to this are carried out in all Episcopal Churches and most mainline Protestant denominations. There is ample, public evidence for keeping their non-profit status.

Hope this helps! Please keep the discussion on the topic of the post.

By grace,
Jason

By: Be realistic

Be realistic — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:55:50 +0000

Did you know that there are thousands of social clubs in the United States? And that these tiny little social clubs, are required to pay taxes, if they charge for membership, or even only ask for donations?
Religions should be removed from tax free exemptions, they are nothing more than social clubs. If they wish to be considered non-profits that is fine, but they should have to prove it like any other businesses in the United States. If they make money, they should pay a tax to the USA, period. No special treatment for religions, as opposed to other businesses.

Remember that folks when you think that people without religious creeds are somehow lacking, or you feel sorry for them, etc… Atheists don’t get a free ride from the government.

By: Video game for secret, time-travelling atheists « [lab]oratory

Video game for secret, time-travelling atheists « [lab]oratory — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:44:50 +0000

[...] from the religious toward the non-religious, and keeping the conversation rhetorically entrenched (1, 2). A cursory glance at the comments on WSLS (I don’t recommend it) has opposing sides [...]

By: Entrenched Conversations: Christian sexuality « [lab]oratory

Entrenched Conversations: Christian sexuality « [lab]oratory — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:25:26 +0000

[...] and devolves into rhetoric and the abuse of Godwin’s Law very fast. (See also: my piece on Christians attacking a MySpace group for Atheists and any other entrenched conversation such as Democrats vs. Republicans, Pro-choice vs. pro-life or [...]

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:02:49 +0000

If this was a christian group that was deleted there would probably be mass press reports; but because it’s just atheists, there is almost complete silence. There are christian groups out there that try to track down anything they find offensive and try and get it banned, whether it’s on myspace, youtube, etc. There are Jewish groups that do the same; there was a news report recently, for instance, that documented Jewish individuals who were hired by various groups, such as the Anti-Defmation League, whose only purpose is to review sites like youtube and myspace and contact the administrator whenever something these people find anti-semitic. This is not some tit-for-tat battle; this is a concentrated attack on atheists. The article above suggests that the atheist group in question was bashing christians because it had pictures mocking christian icons; yet not one of them was denying christians’ right to worship, no mass emails were sent to myspace demanding christian groups be deleted. That same courtesy does not extend to atheists, apparently.

By: Drew

Drew — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:26:04 +0000

At least some think so! So much of the atheist dialogue seems to smack more of positivists versus religious belief between 1860 and around 1930 when religion ceased to be the primary formative agent in higher education.

My question tends to be: how did you come to your sense of values? If not a petri dish or some other controlled physical experiment, by what means do you legitimate what you value? We would all do well to re-read Popper, Kuhn and Polanyi against some of the stuff that Dawkins is arguing. But I think it’s all to sell books and just be competitive with Christian literature. It’s all rhetorical stuff that really does nothing much at all to advance knowledge.

By: Jason Wells

Jason Wells — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:00:52 +0000

Thanks Drew! I think you’re right on: it further establishes entrenchment rather than furthering actual dialogue. So much of the popular writing on this subject was cutting edge around 1860. It’s too bad that both science and theology have advanced and gone post-modern since then.

By: Tit-For-Tat = Dogmatic Entrenchment | Notes From Off-Center

Tit-For-Tat = Dogmatic Entrenchment | Notes From Off-Center — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:55:40 +0000

[...] Wells @ [lab]oratory posts an interesting commentary on a current melee-a-brewing between atheists and Christians over [...]

By: Drew

Drew — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:36:58 +0000

Looks like tit-for-tat, juvenile whining, and further examples of why the entire idea that atheism today will one day resolve the “god thing”, or that religions will simply cancel each other out and do away with God are frankly stupid assertions since the result is more intolerance and more hostility. The new atheist movement will only result in clearer dogmatic entrenchment for many Christians and that they do not see this is absurd.

But perhaps that is the goal right? The more they can create this entrenchment, the more it appears to legitimate their claims. This only leads to more books sold, more speaking engagements, and more toxic “memes” to regulate the system itself. it is, in a real since, something that regulates the consumption of reality and so, reconstitutes it.