It is now time for Delaware Dem to make rash generalizations about a particular group or organization….
And here we go, to steal and reformulate a quote from Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country:
Christianity has roughly 50 years of life left to it.
That is, if evangelical Christians and right wing Catholics don’t change their stances and ways pretty soon. Rachel Held Evans explains why:
When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too involved in politics.”)
You would think, if a religion’s hierarchy and its followers are doing their job correctly, that the most common words first thought of when talking about Christianity would be “Jesus Christ, forgiveness, love, compassion.” And I bet you the Catholic “Raping Children and Covering Up” scandal is not far from people’s minds as well. Indeed, it may explain why people are leaving the religion in droves.
The once near-universal brand of American Christianity is being associated with an ever-shrinking size of the American public. Like Burger King and Axe Body Spray, you may wake up one day and find that the overwhelming majority of the public has simply tuned out everything you have to say. Now, it’s always possible that the leaders of the major American churches may want it this way. But for those who don’t, the window of opportunity where people might be willing to consider a more relevant form of modern Christianity is closing.
In general sense, Christianity has pretty much lost three whole generations over the last few years. If Christianity wants to survive, perhaps Christianity should focus on, you know, the teachings of Jesus Christ, rather than hatred.
Christianity is certainly adaptable enough to continue on. There will always be a segment of the population that finds personal comfort in the liturgy or the buildings, or the cultural connection with their ancestors.
What we probably will not have is the church as a relevant cultural institution. Which, ironically, is what Jesus had in mind. Christianity, from what I’ve read, is intended to be personal.
I think if you are speaking of American (and even Western European) Chistianity you may be right.
However, it seems that the demographic strength (such as it is) in Christianity today (especially Catholicism) is in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia, which are even more socially conservative than our homegrown brand.
@Steve, yes, I am talking about the American brand. And I think Jason’s is right that it will now longer survive as a cultural institution, but it will survive in other forms.
I don’t know DD–they may be leaving organized religions in droves, but you sure can see a bunch of mega churches,and non-denominational/ sectarian mini-units rising up. Every Sunday around here you see little yard signs go out about what some ” New Life, New Way, All In, God’s Hope, Shepherds’ Rest, Covenant Camp, Restored Faith, Living Waters” meeting place has been established there for a Sunday meeting. Even our local firehall’s neon sign changes it’s message of “check your smoke alarm batteries” to announce the Sunday gathering of the church organized that is meeting there for their Sunday service.
Don’t know if it’s a run from Christianity so much–as it is a redefining of man messing up Christianity. But people do like a compass in their life, and others to share that like-mindedness, with socialization.
With all due respect, I think that is wishful thinking. Non-denominational and evangelical Christian churches are growing rapidly. Christianity is not at all at risk of disappearing. In fact, it seems that Christianity becomes more popular when the message is more intolerant. Mainstream denominations are the ones at risk.
A study I read, admittedly a few years ago, indicated that Buddhism had the fastest rate of growth in the USA (although still not many adherents relatively speaking). My suspicions is that those who who call themselves agnostics and/or atheists in the USA will grow significantly in the USA in the years to come even though they are currently the most reviled by the USA populace now (even more so than Muslims).
Agnostics/atheists seem to be somewhat emboldened lately. I wouldn’t be surprised to see our first openly atheist member of congress elected in the next ten years and the first atheist President, since Jefferson, in the next 50 years.
Religion provides people with strong moral convictions.
But, if society has other means of inculcating strong moral convictions in people, then religion is unnecessary.
Strong families (of whatever composition).
Strong communities.
Society does not need stone tablets or other revelation to teach people that murder, rape, and other mala in se crimes are wrong. Families and communities can teach people.
And Jefferson was not an atheist. He was a deist. He believed, like many founders, that reason and observation of the universe reveals that G-d exists, although he rejected an immaterial creator.
Einstein believed in Spinoza’s G-d.
It used to be believed that progress would move us beyond a need for religion, but that did not happen, and many were surprised by the strong turn to religion that began in the ’70s. It is my belief that people turn to religion partly because of the the lack of meaning generated by our postmodern capitalist society. That is why religion is growing, not shrinking.
Davy: Nothing but a bunch of unsupported allegations there.
If you can’t type out “God,” I suspect you’re part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Religious folks can be just as much part of the solution as part of the problem. There is a lot of good, progressive stuff in Judaism, so I would not agree that being an observant Jew makes you part of the problem by definition. In fact, I actually think that scorning people’s religious beliefs is part of the Left’s problem.
I’m Jewish. And, I have a problem with illiberal liberals and progressives. They’re no better than illiberal conservatives.
Here’s Wikipedia on Jefferson & religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion.
It supports my statement that Jefferson was a deist. He distrusted revelation, and he put faith in science (reason and observation) to reveal G-d. His political opponents attacked Jefferson with the term “atheist.”
Do you have a problem with science? Or just a problem with G-d?
Here’s Einstein’s quote on G-d:
“Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt.”
or
“I believe in Spinoza’s God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
Spinoza was either a panentheist (pantheist + deist) or pantheist.
I think most people on this board agree that religion is unnecessary. I think most people on this board agree that family and community is important. And, I think most people on this board agree that the composition of families is irrelevant to their strength. And, I don’t need evidence for an opinion on religion, family, and community. Now, if I present my opinion as fact, then I’ll provide evidence.
Presenting Komen as money hungry is presenting a fact. You need evidence. Or, at least, that is what I learned in law school. Expressing an opinion on religion, family, and community is expressing an opinion. No evidence necessary.
Stop being a troll, Geezer.
Get on my level: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erhfjpL5Sng.
Davy, for what it’s worth, I did not think you were saying anything that is not commonly argued. And we are all stating our opinions. Not sure why you need documentation to back up your post.
@D “Religion provides people with strong moral convictions.”
That’s simply not true.
Modern religion is, for the most part, wholly void of true morals. You don’t get a moral foundation from a silly list. You don’t get a moral foundation by believing in a creator, even one imputed with decent morals. In fact, what religion provides is an excuse to be amoral. Just think of all of the evil things done in the name of God.
Simply put, the least moral people are the most religious.
What??? The point of religion is to provide a moral system, which does not deny the existence of hypocrites and sinners.
@Liberal Elite: You’re confusing moral convictions with the right moral convictions. You can have moral convictions without them being subjectively moral to another person. Moral convictions can be subject to reasonable disagreements.
Though, if you have a moral conviction, you have a moral duty (of varying degree) to push that conviction. Hence, the Democrats fight for universal health care and against discrimination, and the Republicans fight for small government and against abortion.
@Valentine: They are asking for evidence because, earlier, I wanted evidence that Komen serves no purpose or is otherwise wasteful. When no evidence was provided, and after I was attacked, I levied the accusation that some people’s opinions of Komen are a product of the politics of Komen’s leaders.
Ah! I figured there was a back story.
Vulcan Proverb: “Challenge your preconceptions or they will challenge you.”
Strange New World, Enterprise
That a reversed engineered view of the point of religion.
@D “he put faith in science (reason and observation) to reveal G-d.”
The scientific method suggests that there is no god. Too many people equate the lack of proof that there is no god as somehow supporting the hypothesis that god(s) exists. Saying that you’re using science and reason to reveal the true God, is an inside joke.
@Einstein “Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott”
Yea. And he also thought that quantum mechanics was wrong.
There are two main aspects to Judaism, tribalism and supernatural beliefs. I think that Einstein wanted to give up one without giving up the other. When doing that, you get quotes like the one above.
Actually, let’s just call Einstein a god. None have been better. None.
And tradition, universalism, and ethics
@Liberal Elite: You misunderstand deism. The beauty and order of the universe and the elegance of our explanations of its laws prove that G-d exists. Only an intelligent creator could create a universe that obeyed such elegant laws. Or so deists believe.
Einstein rejected quantum mechanics BECAUSE it interfered with the beauty, order, and elegance. Chaos reigns on the quantum level.
I view quantum mechanics as the source of free will. Otherwise, the laws of the universe imply hard determinism.
I believe in god, and his name is Joe Pecsi. Joe bless you.
@D “Only an intelligent creator could create a universe that obeyed such elegant laws.”
But that’s an hypothesis that can, in principle, be tested. In the 57 years since Einstein’s death, much of what led to such an assertion (from a scientific perspective) has been set asunder.
I don’t think we can totally reconcile science and religion, despite what early generations believed. The interesting thing is that religious belief continues despite such contradictions, lack of proof, and the emergence of modernity and post-modernity. It is not on the way out, even if it seems, to some, like it should be.
Davy: What you misunderstand is my desire to have a conversation here. The point I alluded to was brought up during the discussions about Komen a couple of months back. I didn’t take notes on where I saw that; it might well have been a comment on the anti-Komen board. I was expressing the opinion that your statistics are bullshit, because they are without context. That’s all. This isn’t a court of law, and as I said, I don’t give a flying fuck whether you accept my answer or not.
Komen does not provide a unique service to society. Every dollar donated to Komen is a dollar not donated somewhere else — which is part of the reason why charity and taxes aren’t the same thing.
I have no interest in entering a debate with you about the relative worth of taxes and charity, or the differences between them. I have no interest in entering a debate with you about the source of human “morality.” I certainly have no interest in bantering about various irrational belief systems and your belief in any, all or none of them.
I believe you are well aware of the arguments on the opposite sides of your opinions, and you just want to debate for either the fun or competition of it. Surely you realize that Komen provides no service that isn’t provided by many other charities, and that in fact they do a below-average job of performing that service.
In short, just because you want to debate, and then demand research from those you disagree with doesn’t mean I or anyone else has to march to your beat.
Many of us are here to hear from people in Delaware politics who provide unique knowledge or perspective on same. That’s clearly not you. Others are here to converse with trolls. I’ll leave you to them.
@V “I don’t think we can totally reconcile science and religion”
Religion as supernatural beliefs:
No reconciliation is possible. Science will continue to chip away at religious dogma as it has for centuries.
Religion as tribalism:
Humans are tribal by their very nature. In modern society, this propensity for tribalism is most often expressed in religious ways. Organized religion has simply exploited this human trait/need and has preyed (not prayed) on the populous for centuries.
Religion isn’t going away any more than prostitution is not going away. It fulfills a base human desire.
@LE Interesting points. I actually agree with your point about humans being fundamentally tribal. I just disagree that religion is always a negative way of mobilizing tribalism or that it is primarily about predation and manipulation.
Deism: A belief in the supernatural justified mainly by a refusal to consider the details implied by the belief.
It’s a beautiful piece of circular logic: How do you know God exists? Because he made the universe and everything in it. How do you know it was God? Because only God could make the universe.
@Geezer: It’s not a court of law. But facts always demand proof. And, I did not demand that you prove your assertion beyond a reasonable doubt. I asked for ANY evidence.
It is not my beat–it’s the beat of rational discourse. You’re entitled to your beliefs, but they’re meaningless without a foundation.
And, Komen is unique in our society. It’s far (far far far) larger than any other charity that focuses on breast cancer. It’s so large compared to its competitors because of Komen’s anti-competitive practices. That complaint is true. Just look at Komen’s “for the cure” lawsuits.
And if you think I’m a troll, then you’re kidding yourself. I post here to discuss ideas. You post here to reaffirm your opinions. And, despite your vitriol, I am as plugged into Delaware politics as most on this site.
@Geezer: Very nuanced analysis. Except deists infer G-d’s existence from the order, beauty, and elegance of the universe. The assumption is that order, beauty, and elegance cannot arise from nothing – an intelligence is necessary.
At a minimum, order cannot arise from a closed system. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, if I remember correctly. So what introduced order? What caused the big bang?
G-d?
Membranes colliding with one another?
Your guess is as good as mine.
People too often confuse religion with revelation. Religion can exist without an invisible, all-powerful person and revelations from that person.
But isn’t that where the moral system comes from — Revelation?
Dear Davy, your remarks are anti-illliberal and I am offended. Sure wish you’d come out so I can knock the illjudgement out of you, and perhaps the intelligence you lack can be concussed.
I’m not being factitious by admitting I’m offended. I’m just not smart enough to deal with it aside from kicking your fucking ass from here to oblivion. Me illliberal. Give this puke my email so I can smoke him.
Yes, Eastern religions illustrate that no deity is necessary.
The problem with your formulation about said deity is that you describe as “order” that which exists, and I therefore infer “disorder” is ongoing entropic fate of the universe. You might as well argue about why time only runs one way, as far as we know.
Any evidence of what? That the statistics you quoted are bullshit? Look up the rules for non-profits calling fund-raising mailings “educational.” I’m not going to research for you whether Komen took advantage of those rules. I’m saying that relying on out-of-context and/or misleading statistics that might be factual without being “true” in the sense of enhancing our understanding doesn’t add much to the discussion.
Further, your comparison of Komen with Planned Parenthood is flawed as well. Democratic politicians are not trying to defund Komen, even though I would guess they would have reason to — for example, I’m sure a right-wing organization would refuse to use fetal stem-cell research in its search “for a cure” TM.
I post here to reaffirm my opinions? Really? Not very observant, are you? I post here mainly to voice disagreement with opinions I think are bullshit. That’s the only reason I even noticed you — you said something or other I thought was pure bullshit. I think it might have been the facile claim that giving to charity — even to one’s church, which might often have goals at odds with the government’s — should be equal to paying taxes for programs that have been put into place by our representative government.
As I said, I’m pretty sure you understand the difference. If you were really here to “discuss ideas,” I shouldn’t have to run down the list of obvious differences.
If you know so much about Delaware politics, why don’t you have anything to say about it?
@D “At a minimum, order cannot arise from a closed system. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, if I remember correctly. So what introduced order?”
Sorry. That doesn’t apply to an expanding nor contracting universe. There’s nothing to suggest that our universe is closed or that its density is fixed. Also, don’t confuse global order with local order. The hydrophobic effect appears to increase order, yet it’s entropy driven.
@D “Your guess is as good as mine.”
No. My guess is far better than yours. I can even invoke Occam’s razor…
What caused the big bang?
“In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. ”
I’ve read the layman-oriented explanations for vacuum fluctuations, particles coming in and out of existence and then some of them sticking around due to asymmetries, which is really cool but doesn’t explain the origins of matter – why there is something instead of nothing. All the theories presuppose some pre-existing energy and physics, so the onion isn’t peeled yet.
Well, I practice my religion because of the benefits it gives me personally, in terms of enriching my life, and also because it provides a moral foundation in a post-foundational world. So to me the issue being debated is beside the point — which is not to say that you shouldn’t be debating it or that it is not an interesting topic. I just don’t think religiosity hinges on answering the questions raised.
Morality/Ethics is necessary for a functioning society, but is not remotely dependent on religion. In the earliest days of mankind people formed tribes/groups whose very survival depended on golden rules. Religion came later.
I don’t understand this thread. Too high-falutin’ for me. Can we please get back to bashing Chip Flowers and KWS?
Chip flowers and Kws are fictional constructs which help the weak minded make sense out of the chaotic and apparently random, unjust world.
For Sussex residents: The world rides on the back of a giant horseshoe crab, which always existed.
“why there is something instead of nothing.”
When I was at a particle physics research facility in California, I was in charge of a project to build a machine that would generate B mesons. It’s purpose was to study the origin of matter. Specifically, if the big bang happened there would have been relatively equal parts of matter and anti matter generated as a result. And if we and our universe are all matter, what happened to all the anti matter?
Did’nt find the answer to that question, but then we didn’t expect to really discover it. But it was fun generating anti matter and you know, California is still there!
Any no one knows, yet but I think it’s turtles
@Joe Cass: Lol. I don’t feed real trolls.
@Geezer: I never described a deity as order. I observed that something caused the initial state of the universe (the big bang). I suggested that a deity or a collision of two membranes could have been the something.
Next, you assume that Komen’s statistics are misleading or somehow wrong. But, you have provided no evidence that Komen’s statistics are misleading or wrong. I provided you with the web address of a website that is critical of Komen. I asked you to find evidence supporting your assumption. You refused. After that, I provided you with a list of well-documented grievances against Komen. Instead, you harped on Komen’s allegedly faulty statistics and refused to provide evidence.
Right now, in light of your 4th paragraph, I think that you dislike Komen simply because it tried to withdraw support for Planned Parenthood. That is your prerogative.
Also, (in my opinion) charity is a substitute for taxes (with the exception of taxes aimed at collective action problems). But, I don’t think that we’ll reach any agreement on that statement. If you want to call my opinion bullshit, whatever. It makes you seem infantile.
I’ve lived in Delaware for 20 years. I have known many local scholars and politicians during that time. And, I have tremendous respect for most of them. Thus far, I have responded to three posts, and none have touched on areas of local concern. When necessary, I will provide insight on issues of local concern.
@Liberal Elite: The question of whether a system is closed or open is different from the question of whether the universe is closed or open. The universe can be open (or flat) and still be a closed system. Can entropy “leave” our universe? Can something “pull” entropy from our universe?
Next, the hydrophobic force results from a system’s tendency to increase its entropy. And it does create order.
But, I’m suggesting something different. How did our universe ever exist in a state of non-maximum entropy? And, what caused the big bang? Why does our universe obey precise laws (order)? Deists see beauty in this order and infer the existence of an intelligent creator. An intelligent creator caused the big bang and imposed the laws.
Finally, the principle of Occam’s Razor urges a person to choose the hypothesis founded on the fewest assumptions among competing hypotheses. It is a heuristic, not an immutable law.
Right now, we lack the tools to model either the very beginning of the universe or before the big bang (if that even makes sense). [Side note: In 1920s and 30s, many cosmologists rejected the existence of a big bang precisely because a big bang imported religious ideas into science and physics.] So any guess is a good guess.
@Dave: I like you. You don’t take things so seriously. And, most likely, your name is David.
I still think Joe Pesci is god. After all, he gets things done.
There’s so much good stuff in this thread!
Geezer is a crotchety prick who suffers no fools. I like that.
Davy is so full of himself that he doesn’t realize he comes across as a fool. You can’t type the word “God”, but you can copy & paste the German word “Gott”? That “reasoning” would make the Pharisees blush!
Joe Cass seems to relish playing the role of the thug. “I don’t really understand what you’re saying, but I disagree anyway, so I’ll beat you up.” Fan-fucking tastic!
LE & puck scored some good points too.
Thanks to all for entertaining me tonight!
@Davy “The question of whether a system is closed or open is different…”
Yes. the word “closed” has multiple meanings, but that doesn’t change the 2nd law. It just means you need to use the correct definition when discussion (I was).
Your discussion about the 2nd law is wholly misplaced. The density of the universe can apparently change (and is changing). The big bang was not an explosion of an a finite object. It was the expansion from a density singularity.
There’s been much written on symmetry breaking, but I wasn’t aware that this was an argument for the existence of God.
@D “An intelligent creator caused the big bang and imposed the laws.”
LOL. …silly assertion. If there was a creator, it was more likely a graduate student fooling around in the lab after hours… I’d really like to read his thesis!
@D “… before the big bang (if that even makes sense).”
Uhhh. No. That makes as much sense as talking about something that is North of the North Pole.
Well, it so happens “before the big bang” doesn’t make sense because time just is the interval between two events. Since such intervals commenced at the big bang, it makes no sense to talk about a “before” for the singularity that resulted in the big bang and commenced time. Like Laplace said, “God, we have no need of that hypothesis.”
Also, the notion that subatomic indeterminancy can account for free will is ludicrous and commits.the fallacy of composition (among other problems).
@V “I just disagree that religion is always a negative way of mobilizing tribalism or that it is primarily about predation and manipulation.”
I’ve been thinking about this with respect to sports. Professional sports teams compete with religion to meet tribal “needs”. It’s so true that men who are really into sports have little need for religion. Women who eschew sports often dive deeply into religion. Simply put, sports and religion are competing for the same neurons in your brain.
It’s amusing when you think about it. Absent the tribal qualities, why would anyone in their right mind pay money to watch grown men run around in gym shorts??
Are sports and religion evil? Not a priori. Only when they do evil things or promote an evil agenda. Sports are generally more benign since all they really want is to take your money. But it really does seem that it is primarily about predation and manipulation.
There is a big difference between sports and religion. Sports are not given to dogmatic prescriptions about personal behavior. I am unaware, for example, of the position of tennis on adultery.
@LE: Hmmm. I am religious and definitely not into sports. My spouse is the opposite. So there you have it, proof based on an n of 2. 😛
Davy: I have no interest in researching the Komen matter. I am pointing out that your statistics are irrelevant, because neither you nor anyone else can claim to know they’re accurate. I pointed out a rather broad loophole in how those statistics are compiled. You have offered nothing to support those statistics.
As I said earlier, you don’t call the tune, and you don’t get to set the rules, either. My time is not at your disposal.
Now let’s look at more of your — infantilism warning — bullshit:
“I never described a deity as order.”
You wrote, of deism, “The beauty and order of the universe and the elegance of our explanations of its laws prove that G-d exists.” What’s that fourth word again? In another comment, “The assumption is that order, beauty, and elegance cannot arise from nothing – an intelligence is necessary.” There’s that word again. Am I reading this wrong?
“Right now, in light of your 4th paragraph, I think that you dislike Komen simply because it tried to withdraw support for Planned Parenthood.”
And you would be wrong. I dislike it because it pimps out pink ribbons and fails to devote much of its haul to its stated purpose. Read the damn link yourself. We devoted quite a bit of discussion to this a couple of months back; I’m not going to look it all up again because you’re a lawyer with a gnat up your ass.
“Also, (in my opinion) charity is a substitute for taxes (with the exception of taxes aimed at collective action problems).”
This is the opinion that I consider bullshit, and especially so in light of your profession. We have tax laws that put charity in perspective: you get to write it off on the top line, not the bottom line. Do you have a problem with that arrangement? You have offered no reasoning to support your opinion that this law should be changed.
“Thus far, I have responded to three posts, and none have touched on areas of local concern. When necessary, I will provide insight on issues of local concern.”
So, if I have this correct, you’re visiting this liberal political web site so you can indulge your theories about particle physics — but you’re not a troll.
I hope your arguments at work are better than the ones you’re using here.
Here’s a Komen breakdown. Much of what Komen does is promote Komen.
Thank you, Pandora. I know we all read a lot of that sort of thing during the controversy.
No problem, Geezer.
@Darren, I mean Roland: I feel no need to alter the quotations of others. I have quoted the word with the “o” whenever it appears in a quote. Whether in English or German. I won’t respond to your personal attack.
@Liberal Elite: I never asserted that an intelligent creator created the universe. That quote is from a paragraph explaining the beliefs of deists. Deists believe “an intelligent creator caused the big bang and imposed the laws.” Right before that I wrote, “Deists see beauty in this order and infer the existence of an intelligent creator.”
A change of density is consistent with the second law. The second law merely requires the density of the universe to become uniform. An increase of volume in the universe is consistent with the second law.
@Liberal Elite & Dana: I noted that “before the universe” made no sense in most models of the universe.
@Dana: The fallacy of composition is inapplicable. If all the bricks in the wall are red. Then the wall is red. An argument inferring qualities from the part to the whole CAN commit the fallacy of composition. Not MUST. Statistically (according to the probability distribution modeling the location of the particles that compose me), all particles that compose me can appear elsewhere. Am I here or elsewhere? Now, in general, this does not happen, as I am adequately determined. But, it can happen.
@Geezer: I said that, in deism, order (among other things) implies a deity exists. Order as in the laws of nature. So you are reading it wrong.
You don’t understand what “above the line” and “below the line” mean. The line is line 37. A deduction for a charitable donation is a “below the line” deduction. It’s an itemized deduction, included in line 40) that adjusts your adjusted gross income to your taxable income. You might be referring to a tax credit (non-refundable or refundable), which reduces taxes owed dollar-for-dollar.
I agree that charity is no substitute for tax revenue that the government spends solving collective action problems. And the policy evinced by the tax code is irrelevant to my ideas or preferences. I would allow a tax credit for charitable contributions up to some maximum percent of income, so that the government would have tax revenue to solve collective action problems. Beyond these thoughts, I have no interest in arguing tax vs. charity. I said we’d never agree, and I’ll stick with that.
I only argued that religion was unnecessary in modern society and that religion was once a source of moral convictions. You responded with this gem:
“Davy: Nothing but a bunch of unsupported allegations there.
If you can’t type out “God,” I suspect you’re part of the problem rather than part of the solution.”
So I was attacked for saying religion was unnecessary. Later, I was attacked for pointing out that Jefferson was a deist, and his political opponents attacked him with the term “atheist.” After that, I was attacked for explaining deism. Then, I was attacked for explaining that Einstein rejected quantum mechanics because it conflicted with his worldview.
So how am I the troll? Thus far, I have stated one personal belief: religion is superfluous in today’s society, and both family and community serves the role of inculcating values.
@Pandora: Thank you, Pandora.
@Pandora & Geezer: The article raises the question of whether Komen is educating people or promoting Komen. The article does not answer the question. But the last paragraph describes a better objection to Komen: It’s anti-competitive conduct.
“These are not unfair questions to ask given Komen’s near-monopoly of the breast cancer advocacy stage, a status that has been controversially maintained by a rather aggressive legal policy against other charities who want to use the phrase “for the cure” in their materials. (According their tax filings for 2009, Komen spent about $375,000 on external legal services in addition to rewarding their then general counsel, Jonathan Blum, with a total compensation package of just under $218,000.)”
I raised this objection before. Geezer ignored it. Komen’s anti-competitive conduct is better documented than the awareness vs. promotion issue. That’s why the article merely raises the question of whether Komen educates people or promotes itself and does not answer the question or provide data.
It’s funny – I gave Geezer 4 reasons why Komen is not the greatest charity. Yet, Geezer clung to the most nebulous, least documented reason.
Davy: Check the archives. I, as well as many others, hashed this over months ago. I am under no obligation to do it again just because you request it. I don’t care what you think; I just prefer you go away and leave us to discuss politics.
“That’s why the article merely raises the question of whether Komen educates people or promotes itself and does not answer the question or provide data.”
The actual reason is doesn’t “provide data” is that it’s impossible to quantify. Again, the statistic you quoted has no meaning, since the terms being discussed are not defined. What part of this don’t you get?
“I gave Geezer 4 reasons why Komen is not the greatest charity. Yet, Geezer clung to the most nebulous, least documented reason.”
I’m not clinging to anything. I’m trying to get through your thick, law-school-trained head that your statistic is bullshit. Pandora’s excerpt — which I don’t feel like looking up to satisfy a shitheaded troll — doesn’t quite illustrate the problem, which is that “awareness” is a nebulous term that can be satisfied by including a mammogram reminder with a fund-raising letter, meaning that a lot of that “awareness” is better described as “advertising.” I am not aware of statistics related to this; it’s simply a fact, which you could verify yourself if you were actually interested in the truth instead of trolling. By the way, I agree with all the other reasons. This isn’t about Komen. It’s about bullshit, and you as a purveyor of it.
“So I was attacked for saying religion was unnecessary.”
No, you were attacked for being an asshole. I believe it was the other thread on which you first appeared to drag the conversation off-topic. Now you’re here to “discuss ideas,” though why you’d do that on a small, state-politics-specific blog rather than the millions out there devoted to religious and quantum physics I don’t understand.
@Geezer: The post was not on Delaware politics. It was about Romney’s psyche. I used the statistics to rebut the argument that Romney is a sociopath. You called my statistics “bullshit,” asserting that they are misleading. I asked for proof. None was provided.
I did not drag this post off-topic. I said religion is unnecessary. YOU attacked me because I wrote “G-d.” YOU said I was part of the problem.
Someone said Jefferson was an atheist. I explained that Jefferson was a deist, not an atheist. Then, I explained deism. Eventually, the discussion of physics sprung forth from my explanation of deism. Some posters THINK that I am deist. So they attacked deism. I merely defended a belief system.
“A deduction for a charitable donation is a “below the line” deduction. It’s an itemized deduction, included in line 40) that adjusts your adjusted gross income to your taxable income.”
Sorry, I don’t know the proper terminology. My point was that you don’t get to write off the donations as if they were taxes paid; you only get to take it off the top line, that is, your unadjusted gross income. The net effect, as I’m sure you’re aware, is that one dollar in charity reduces your taxable income by one dollar, saving the taxpayer whatever his marginal rate is. So to round it off for those who work for paychecks, tax savings come to a little under 30% of the amount donated.
You, on the other hand, were arguing — or so I thought — that a dollar in charity donation EQUALS a dollar paid in taxes. That’s what I was calling bullshit.
“I agree that charity is no substitute for tax revenue that the government spends solving collective action problems.”
We could have avoided quite a lot of arguing if you had said this in the first place.
“And the policy evinced by the tax code is irrelevant to my ideas or preferences.”
No, it isn’t. This is a political blog. If you think charitable write-offs should be more generous, I’d expect you to make that case.
“I would allow a tax credit for charitable contributions up to some maximum percent of income, so that the government would have tax revenue to solve collective action problems.”
So you ARE arguing that charitable contributions should be equal to taxes?
“Beyond these thoughts, I have no interest in arguing tax vs. charity.”
Yeah, see, that’s what this blog is for, nemski’s numbskull posting notwithstanding — arguing public policy. But you have no interest in that. Ergo, you are a troll.
“I said we’d never agree, and I’ll stick with that.”
OK. When I need some bored lawyer who wants to muse about the origins of the universe, I’ll give you a call.
Meanwhile, I’ll believe you know something about politics the moment you demonstrate such knowledge. Until then, I smell more bullshit.
@Davy ” An argument inferring qualities from the part to the whole CAN commit the fallacy of composition. Not MUST.” True enough. But when indeterminacy about the trajectory and location of subatomic particles is applied to questions of choice and will, the fallacy of composition is committed. It’s committed for the same reasons that we don’t allow the indeterminacy of subatomic particles inhibit our deterministic assumptions when we do many things on a macroscopic level: like build bridges or send astronauts to circle the moon. Indeterminacy is just irrelevant macroscopically. Choice occurs on a macroscopic level and doesn’t possess the degree of randomness that occurs with subatomic particles even on the assumption that the will is free.
“You called my statistics “bullshit,” asserting that they are misleading. I asked for proof. None was provided.”
Again, what part of the situation don’t you understand? The statistics are meaningless because no terms are provided — just category headings. It’s a tautology — it’s “education” because the organization claims it’s “education.” Please signify if you comprehend this.
“I used the statistics to rebut the argument that Romney is a sociopath.”
You might as well use the fact that ice cream doesn’t have bones to “prove” how many pancakes fit on the roof of a doghouse.
Your claim boils down to, “He can’t be a sociopath because he donates to charity,” charity being another word that stands here undefined. Giving millions to a church that operates a large secular business arm is a dubious definition of charity.
You can bleat for “facts” and “proof” all you want, but you haven’t provided any yourself. You trotted out one dubious statistic, which you insist on calling a “fact,” despite its questionable provenance.
Again, what are you here for? My assumption is always that a previously unknown poster who appears and drags the conversation further from politics — you might have noticed somewhere that Romney is running for something — is here for a reason. What’s yours? And please don’t trot out the “interesting conversation” bullshit again. I don’t think you’re fooling anybody.
I am sensing that we won’t achieve consensus in this thread. 😛
@Geezer: In a sense, charity is defined by federal law – Section 501(c)(3). To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3). Exempt purposes are:
religious,
charitable,
scientific,
testing for public safety,
literary, or
educational purposes, or
to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
Yes I realize that the definition defines exempt organizations, not charity. But, the “charitable” donation deduction applies to funds given to exempt organizations. The Mormon Church is obviously an exempt organization.
The Mormon Church is far more than a business. The Church does have large holdings. But, you’re focusing on the Church’s holdings to the exclusion of its good works.
The Church actually operates a private welfare system!!!
The Church also employs an independent auditor [Deloitte] to check that the Church’s funds (and its profits from for-profit ventures) are spent on programs within the Church’s mission. [Note: I am not a Mormon.]
Honestly, I applaud your skepticism. But, you don’t seem to appreciate mine.
And, I am here for interesting discussions. I don’t care if you believe me.
Davy, I honestly have no idea what your point is on… well… anything. You really are all over the place. Sorry.
@Pandora: Geezer injected a discussion from another thread into this thread.
I’m sorry but I have to interject.
A morman bishop or whatever D&D level sorcerer you want to call it, giving money to his own is NOT charity. Mormans spend money on other Mormans, or spend money trying to convert (read: bribe) poor, ignorant folk. It’s akin to a mob associate paying tribute to a capo and calling it a charitable donation. Both cases, it’s self-serving, which, of course, is the antithesis of charity.