Secular Café: Will the internet kill religion?

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

Will the internet kill religion? May 26th 2012, 19:43 I doubt it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...gLnU_blog.html Quote: Last year, Christian apologist Josh McDowell made a remarkable claim about the Internet, stating that "the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism... the Internet has leveled the playing field [giving equal access to skeptics]." He said that like it was a bad thing. ... ...Church used to be a one-way street. The pastor fed you information and that was that. The Internet upended that model and gave people the opportunity to talk back. Now, they can weigh their own arguments on matters of faith with that of people who disagree. Many Christians won't go actively searching for dissenting views, of course, but what about doubters? What about young Christians who aren't sure they accept what the church teaches them? They'll be able to come to their own conclusions and they won't necessarily be the same ones their parents and pastors want them to adopt. This is why atheists love the Internet. We can tell Christians the emperor's not wearing any clothes. We can question the dogma they've simply accepted all their lives. We can expose religious frauds. We can explain the many unfortunate consequences of unquestioned belief. The Internet is blind faith's worst nightmare. The genie's not going back in the bottle. Religious leaders should be very afraid.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Is It Time To Start Taxing Churches?

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

Is It Time To Start Taxing Churches? May 26th 2012, 13:22 http://www.care2.com/causes/is-it-ti...-churches.html I think they should be taxed out of existence... :evil: Quote: As institutions of faith, churches are not forced to pay taxes like the citizens and (usually) corporations in the rest of the United States. The original argument was that, like charity, church profits and donations go to doing public good — feeding the poor, caring for the sick and other projects that help to build a better, stronger community, and that those advantages outweigh the tax revenue lost. Churches have grown to take greater advantage of this exemption. The surge in "televangelism" allowed many corrupt pastors to house themselves and keep themselves in luxury without paying taxes by declaring them allowable living expenses. Megachurches began popping up, buying cheap land to build on and using subsidies and avoiding paying property taxes while still taking full advantage of the services other residents pay out for. Some have businesses on site — coffee shops, book stores, all tax exempt by funneling their "profits" back into the church. Others have taken their earnings both from their businesses and donations and used them to evangelize and increase their missions, supporting the church and recruiting new members. All of this is legal. And despite the growing stretch of the definitions of non-profit, of charity, and living expenses, most Americans would agree that all of this should be allowed. But the only firewall that was set up is now breaking down. Churches weren't supposed to get involved in political issues. No endorsing, no campaigning. It's a rule that many religious organizations have been tiptoeing to the line on for years. "Family values" religious organizations have sanctioned off 501c4s to allow them the ability to advocate for candidates and issues, with donations kept separately from their main group and taxed accordingly. Pastors and priests have allowed candidates to come in and give testimony during services while winking that they aren't endorsing a politician or party. And a growing number have actively endorsed despite the law against it, daring the government to come down on them. Within the last few years, the "evangelical vote" has been a major driving force behind elections, and the United States Council of Catholic Bishops has actively become a political force, sending missives to their priests telling them to preach to the congregation about the evils of the Affordable Care Act, or convincing the Komen Race for the Cure Foundation to drop Planned Parenthood as a group they donate to — a move that would free up more funding to go to Catholic charities and hospitals to provide mammograms. Apparently, even this hasn't been brazen enough. So now, one church is collecting donations explicitly to oppose a gay marriage ballot initiative in Maine. The Associated Press reports, "Scores of Maine churches will pass the collection plate a second time at Sunday services on Father's Day to kick off a fundraising campaign for the lead opposition group to November's ballot question asking voters to legalize same-sex marriages. Between 150 and 200 churches are expected to raise money for the Protect Marriage Maine political action committee, said Carroll Conley Jr., executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine evangelical organization and a member of the PAC. Conley is also trying to drum up support for the Maine campaign from religious leaders from around the country." Again, totally legal, as long as they don't advocate for a specific candidate. The churches are following the letter of the law, but not the intent. Religious institutions now get all of the benefits of tax exempt status, but have become one of the most politically active groups in the nation. Should churches continue to keep their tax exempt status while become key players in elections? Let us know what you think in the comments.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: RCC Is Willing To Let Poor People Starve In Protest Of Contraception Mandate

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

RCC Is Willing To Let Poor People Starve In Protest Of Contraception Mandate May 26th 2012, 12:00 http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/23/cardinal/ The RCC never seems to run out of ways to disgust....Dolan is a verminous scumbag.... Quote: Cardinal Timothy Dolan has made it very clear that he doesn't like President Obama's contraception mandate. And apparently, he and the Catholic Church are prepared to let poor people starve to death if President Obama doesn't give in to their demands. In an appearance on Martin Bashir on MSNBC on Tuesday, Dolan said that the Church would abandon Jesus' effort to help the sick and feed the poor in protest of the contraception mandate that only applies to insurance companies and not the Church itself. "If these mandates kick in, we're going to find ourselves faced with a terribly difficult decision as to whether or not we can continue to operate," Dolan said. "As part of our religion — it's part of our faith that we feed the hungry, that we educate the kids, that we take care of the sick. We'd have to give it up, because we're unable to fit the description and the definition of a church given by — guess who — the federal government." Bashir then pointed out that the Catholic Church had taken a staggering $2.9 billion from the federal government to pay for the charitable efforts the Church provides. "They don't seem to bristle at the hand of government when it comes to money, do they," Bashir commented. But it was David Corn of Mother Jones who had the best observation about Dolan's threat. "It strikes me as just not very Christian, if I can say so, to get out there and say, 'We will not be providing services if you force us to do these things — or if there's a mandate," Corn stated. "Would Jesus take his fish and a loaf and go home?"

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Vatican Chief Exorcist claims girl missing since 1983 was kidnapped for Vatican sex parties

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

Vatican Chief Exorcist claims girl missing since 1983 was kidnapped for Vatican sex parties May 25th 2012, 23:33 http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012...+News+Daily%29 Lots of unanswered questions, but the bones of someone else were found. It seems to me that the RCC is the most depraved, foul organisation ever.... Quote: Gabriel Amorth, the Vatican's chief exorcist–who famously claimed some months ago that Satan was at work in the Vatican–has now claimed that a girl missing since 1983 was kidnapped for "Vatican sex parties" and wound up in a dead mobster's tomb. Quote: The Catholic Church's leading exorcist priest has sensationally claimed a missing schoolgirl thought to be buried in a murdered gangster's tomb was kidnapped for Vatican sex parties. Father Gabriel Amorth, 85, who has carried out 70,000 exorcisms, spoke out as investigators continued to examine mobster Enrico De Pedis's tomb in their hunt for Emanuela Orlandi. Last week police and forensic experts broke into the grave after an anonymous phone call to a TV show said the truth about Emanuela's 1983 disappearance would be 'found there'. And although bones not belonging to the mobster were recovered they have not yet been positively identified as hers. However Father Amorth, in an interview with La Stampa newspaper, said: 'This was a crime with a sexual motive.'It has already previously been stated by deceased monsignor Simeone Duca, an archivist at the Vatican, who was asked to recruit girls for parties with the help of the Vatican gendarmes. 'I believe Emanuela ended up in this circle. I have never believed in the international theory overseas kidnappers. I have motives to believe that this was just a case of sexual exploitation. 'It led to the murder and then the hiding of her body. Also involved are diplomatic staff from a foreign embassy to the Holy See.' Questions: If Amorth had information about a rape and murder, why did he wait thirty years to share it? Did he recently get information? If so, why not come forward openly instead of calling a TV show? After all, he's giving interviews now. Is Amorth just a nut? How long before Amorth finds himself missing? Finally, if Amorth is proven correct, what will the Catholic church do about the matter? The usual, nothing?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: U.S. States That Prohibit Godless Americans From Holding Public Office

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

U.S. States That Prohibit Godless Americans From Holding Public Office May 25th 2012, 20:19 http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/...ohibit-godless And some deny that xian privilege exists...... Quote: By Matthew Bulger With election season upon us, and a near constant stream of public jabs and rebuttals between incumbents and their challengers, we should focus on something besides the Americans that are running for office. Instead, let's turn our attention to a rather peculiar set of state laws relating to elections and nonreligious Americans. It's well known that there aren't many open atheists in Congress or in state government, and that atheists aren't held in high esteem by potential voters. Some question our dedication to what they view as a "Christian nation" while others feel that they can't relate to a candidate who doesn't share the same faith as they do. Whatever the reason, public distrust isn't the only means by which atheists are discouraged for running from office. In fact, running for a spot in state legislatures as an atheist is outright illegal in some states. Obviously, these laws are trumped by the "No Religious Test Clause" of the United States Constitution, which is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina's constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected. This provision of the state constitution is similar to provisions in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The provisions follow: Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court. Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution. Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state. North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8 The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. So, what do you think of these laws? Are they an affront to the secular nature of our local, state, and federal governments, or are they just antiquated but harmless relics from the past? Should there be an active effort to remove these anti-atheist provisions from the respective state constitutions, or should the nonreligious movement just let federal law trump these discriminatory provisions as conflicts arise? I think that the legislatures of these states have a duty to eventually get around to removing these provisions and any other elements of their state constitutions that institutionalize discrimination. Now might not be the time due to the large number of pressing issues that plague this nation, but the change ought to eventually be made. Atheists, or any other religious minority for that matter, shouldn't have to go to court after winning an election just so that federal law is upheld and discrimination is rejected. Matthew Bulger is the legislative and program assistant for the American Humanist Association.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

Should man rule over women for women's own good? May 24th 2012, 22:21 Should man rule over women for women's own good? Scriptures, and other myth's, say that God determined that men should rule over women. This gives form, --- in a demographic sense, ---- to our common and society, and says that our demographic pyramid should have a hierarchical shape and or form. This initiates tension and has God demonizing woman, as well as any notion of female equality with man. His motive must be for the good of women. Somehow! After all, sanctity of the family is one of the main points of morality. God was arguably right for his time. Think in the barbaric way. Below the belt. Thank God that time is almost past. Women in our modern world do not need man's dubious ape like help. I hope you agree. Be honest now with yourself be you male or female. Men have dominated women long enough I think. To give them equality would be justice. What do you think? What would real men do? What would real women demand? Do men and women have what it takes to be free? Justice under law should be gender and age neutral, with limits, but with a good spirit of assuring equality. We do not administer that justice. We only give it lip service. Men are not walking their talk. Neither are women. In Gods timocracy, a place of government in which love of honor is the ruling principle. All honors go to the Queen and her children. A king's first responsibility is to insure the veneration of his queen. Honor demands it. He accepts this burden and pleasure wisely. The Queen, as the Beta archetype is the life of the kingdom. The archetypal king's duty is to raise woman's position. That means that all men have the same duty. That of not denying women equality and elevating her. Men. Be good kings. You are making good just men look bad. Step up. God wills it. Women. Be good queens and demand what is yours. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wf...layer_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iMBUoxLOmA Regards DL

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: The Archbishop of York again

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

The Archbishop of York again May 23rd 2012, 09:35 This man is beginning to get my goat! I don't actually disagree with most of what he says here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/92...n-Sentamu.html But this bit is disingenuous, to say the least. Quote: For too long, he argues, discussion about end-of-life matters have been dominated by debates about euthanasia and the numbers of people travelling to the Dignitas assisted suicide centre in Switzerland. "There is a danger, when someone articulates alternatives to 'assisted dying', that we can be seen as somehow uncaring or out of touch with the suffering of families," he says. No, you pratt, it's not that anyone objects to alternatives, but we do think you're bloody arrogant and uncaring when you vote in the House of Lords against legalisation of assisted dying! I think the fact that he keeps cropping up in the news like this is part of his undeclared but extended campaign to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions