The Church of Atheism, part 2
(It’ll help if you’ve read Kurafire’s original post
and
my reply
and then
his reply. The latter post is quoted, in part, below:)
I knew there was some component I had wrong in my supposition. I wonder though: do the clergy pay for the food they eat at church? I’m genuinely asking because I simply don’t know, but I need to know for my essay.
Clergy don’t eat at church (well, unless there’s a potluck).
Catholic churches often have a “rectory” where the priest lives, which is attached or close to the church building.
Some Protestant pastors live in a “parsonage” (house owned by the church) but they provide their own meals, etc.
Tax exemption is more for the organization than the individual. For example, the church office needs a new computer, its purchase price would not be taxed. However, if the pastor needs to rent a car or a hotel room while at a conference, they pay all the taxes on that as well. (I’m not sure about property taxes for property owned by the church, but pastors who own their own homes pay property taxes on them.)
I never intended to lob all religious people in with the TV evangelists or other extremists. I was merely listing them as an example of people even on the “highly advocative and vocal side” who actually care more about money.
I’m well aware that those people are, in fact, a minority — but do keep in mind that they still reach audiences of many millions of viewers.
Good points.
These are great things to read; if you have other examples feel free to email some to me, I’m hoping to pick a few truly wonderful ones to include in my essay as examples of good, positive things the churches of the world do.
One of the best examples would be the Interfaith Hospitality Network {which has, unfortunately, changed its name to “Family Promise” which leaves an icky taste in my mouth because a) it’s meaningless and b) we’re all aware of how the term “family” can be used and misused. I’ll refer to it as “IHN” because that’s how I knew it and their mission hasn’t changed.}
IHN helps people (generally women with children, but I don’t think that’s a requirement) who are temporarily homeless not become permanently homeless. They do this by housing folks who would be homeless in churches. Rooms that would normally be used as Sunday School classrooms or meeting rooms are transformed into makeshift bedrooms. Each church hosts for 1 or 2 weeks at a time, each family in their own room, and provides meals for them.
The IHN Coordinator (generally someone with a degree and/or experience in social work) helps the adults try to find work and housing, as well as address the situations that led for them becoming homeless in the first place (generally bad financial decision making).
Children are expected to go to school, and the IHN Coordinator will get them enrolled if they are not already (very often they are not because the family “couldn’t afford” to send them to school, so IHN helps get them the supplies/clothes that they need.)
Typically, IHN guests stay in the “system” for 8-10 weeks, but it’s a safety net that catches people who would otherwise fall through the cracks, and helps them get back to living independently.
Two more local ones: several area churches get together at our local Episcopalian church on the last Sunday of the month and serve what is referred to as “Loaves and Fishes” lunch. It’s a free meal (and each person can take either 4-6 “to go” meals) meant to help people who would otherwise not have enough food to last until the end of the month. We have a lot of folks on welfare, and even the ones who make the best and most efficient use of their welfare checks often find things are “tight” at the end of the month. All of the food is donated, and all of the people who prepare and serve it are volunteers.
(There’s a side issue here about how much more expensive it is to buy decent food versus crap junk food, but that’s off the track for our discussion.)
Secondly, the local Lutheran church has a clothing giveaway several times a year where people bring in clothes that would otherwise sit in closets (or get thrown out!). They are sorted and checked (make sure they are clean, etc) and then given away. Again, this is a church so small that they have trouble paying their pastor’s salary, but they help thousands of people every year.
(Lutheran Social Services is getting ready to start a “mobile food pantry” in our area sometime in the next month.)
I do want to say one thing, though: all those things can be (and are) coordinated by any group of people coming together to just do good things, religious or not. There is nothing that keeps a bunch of atheists or agnostics from getting together and help others like that, and in fact I’ve seen that happen plenty of times (and participated/helped on occasion).
Absolutely true. There’s nothing that prevents anyone from doing things like these. I don’t believe that atheism/agnosticism equals immorality/amorality.
However, in my experience (having lived in MA, PA, OH, FL, and NJ) all of the groups that I’ve known about and worked with have had a religious component to their origin. The “Loaves and Fishes” comes from the Biblical story where thousands were fed from 5 loaves and 2 fish.
Traditionally the story has been interpreted as a miracle, “Hey, look at the magic trick Jesus pulled with the food!” but more recently it’s been argued (fairly convincingly, IMO) that what probably happened was that the people who were gathered saw one boy share what he had (what amounted to giving away his lunch, 5 loaves {which were probably more like ‘muffins’ than what we think of as ‘loaves’} and 2 fish) and others who had food but didn’t want to share it for fear that they wouldn’t have enough for themselves were moved to share what they had. None of them had a lot, but when they put it all together, they had more than enough.
(Aside: Somewhere, someone is screaming “SOCIALISM!” to which I respond, yeah, read Acts 2:44-45 about the earliest Christian community (so early that the word “Christian” hadn’t been invented yet). This is how they lived: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” Sounds like the early church was all about redistribution of wealth and wealth-sharing.)
Had the “Interfaith Hospitality Network” wanted to change their name to make it more inclusive of people without religious beliefs, I would have been fine with that. “Family Promise” sounds like one of those PACs where a bunch of divorced white men try to keep gay people from getting married. Or maybe I’m just cynical.
I’m not aware of any non-religious group that has done these things for a long term, usually for no money. That’s not to say that they couldn’t, I’m just not aware of any that do.
Painting all religious people with the same brush is a lazy argument and a stereotype. I’m guessing you’re against stereotypes, so let’s not make an exception that stereotypes are bad “except for those awful religious people”.
Again, I never intended to group all religious people together. Also, I never used the words “awful religious people” and I didn’t think you were attempting to make that look like a quote, but it does have the potential to be interpreted that way.
Eek, yeah, that was sloppy punctuation on my part.
3) I would be in total favor of the Mormon church’s tax exempt status being challenged after the lobbying work they did against Prop 8 in California. (For that matter I would be in favor of removing tax exempt status from churches which refuse to ordain women and/or gay/lesbian people.) Once your “church” has started pouring that much money to influence elections, you’re essentially a lobbying firm, not a church.
I think that opens up a can of worms as to where to draw the line. Separation of church and state should not be a large, fuzzy gray area—it should be very simple, strict and across the board.
Yeah, I’m torn about this. Religious organizations ought to have the same freedom of speech that others have, meaning that they ought to be able to speak for/against certain issues.
4) I think the USA ought to do what Europe has done for ages, which is to separate the religious and civil aspects of marriage.
Even in Europe it’s not quite as nice as you make it out to be. In some countries, gays can get married and have the same rights as heterosexual married people (unlike the gay marriage in the few US states that allow it). But in many countries still, those (civil) rights are not truly equal.
Sloppy writing on my part. What I would like to see is a model of separating civil/religious ceremonies like European countries (and perhaps elsewhere) have had for all heterosexual marriages retooled to open the civil benefits of “marriage” to all couples over the age of consent.
I’m aware that this isn’t yet how it works, but it is how things will work when I am appointed Supreme Chancellor. Alternatively, I think it would be a good way for the US Government to work towards.
The Same-sex Marriages wikipedia page has the breakdown on it all, and it’s not quite as across-the-board as “Europe” at all. Only five countries fully acknowledge & support it, though many (but still not all) do have a “Civil union” that covers most (and sometimes all) of the same perks as what used to be “Married”.
Quoted so people can have the link to that resource, and so I can say? “FIVE?” and woefully shake my head.
Still: it would be fantastic if the USA as a whole would go the direction of most of these European countries. It definitely would be a massive win for equality.
More importantly, it would get religion out of what amounts to a civil practice, which, quite frankly, I’m not sure it ever had any business being involved with in the first place.
(I don’t think anyone can make a coherent anti-gay marriage argument without a religious component, which means that it ought to be allowed in a country which is supposed to separate matters of church and state.)
And there you have the crux of the issue at hand and the reason why I’m increasingly vocal about all this: “supposed to” is not the same as “is”.
I heard Craig Barnes at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary give a great talk about issues of Church and State. I’m going to mangle this quote, but the gist of it is this:
By not establishing any state religion, the founding fathers did not intend for their to be no influence of religion on politics, only to prevent religion from taking over politics.
The whole issue is fairly nuanced. It would be a mistake to say that the USA has ever been a “Christian nation” or that our founding fathers were pinnacles of examples of Christian life and faith, but it would also be a mistake to say that the founding fathers envisioned or desired a country where religious beliefs had no impact either.
Ours is also supposed to be a representative democracy, and the last numbers I saw reported something like 75-85% of Americans “believe in God” (although what they means obviously varies a great deal). My belief in God leads me to want to see those whom society wants to ignore not ignored and those who are powerless given a voice. I’m 10,000,000,000 times more concerned about making the minimum wage a living wage than denying health insurance, etc to a couple because their genitalia happens to match. Why? Because we have seen that a “free market economy” will fuck the employee at every turn if there aren’t protections in place to prevent businesses from doing so, and I’ve seen absolutely zero examples of gay marriage harming anyone or anything.
(For that matter, I still want to know how we have untold billions/trillions of dollars of bail out banks but “can’t afford” to provide national healthcare.)
FWIW
It’s worth a lot. It really is, and I thank you for putting all of that down for me to take into consideration. Definitely keep pointing out any flaws I make in my rhetoric and claims, because I’m just as fallible as any man can be.
You’re welcome. Thanks for engaging in conversation. The Internet can be a difficult place for people with non-asshole-ish religions beliefs and practices, because we get lumped in with the Religious Right Talking Heads. It’s always nice when folks are willing to listen to what I firmly believe is the silent majority (I wish the “Religious Left” was better organized and vocal to offset the extremists on the right).