This comment was made in another post regarding Creationism and Evolution being taught in public schools:
I responded that if Creationism is going to be allowed in public schools, then churches should be taxed. It doesn’t seem fair to me that churches can indoctrinate people with Creationist beliefs, and then these same people get all huffy and demand that Creationism be taught in public schools. Now, if I have to pay taxes for Creationism to be taught in public schools alongside Evolution, then churches should have to pay part of my tax burden. Religion should not be able to indoctrinate people with Creationist beliefs for free and then unleash them on public schools.
In fact, not only should religion be taxed, all churches should be required to teach Evolution fairly and accurately. Why should they get to teach Creationism for free, help it spread to public schools and then get to sit back and reap the benefits of having their religious beliefs spread without having to lay out some cash? That’s a load of crap. If they’re going to force religion into public schools, then they need pay taxes and be just as fair and balanced as they expect public schools to be…
I think the discussion of taxing religion is somewhat more specific than the issue of Creationism in schools. I wanted to see people’s ideas on this in particular.
OK, I’ll try not to turn into a “gimmick” (?). I promise I won’t start any new posts about Creationism.
I really did like the specific issue of taxing religion for teaching Creationism, though. Sure it’s about the same thing, but the topic is more focused.
I think taxing religious organizations is a great idea. For too long religious organizations have benefitted of U.S. law that protects their existence. If they are going to be protected by the law, they should pay for judicial system that protects them. However, onme should be prepared to allow prayer in school, creationism, intelligent design, and all those other things that religious organizations will argue that they pay their for…
The individuals in religion already pay taxes, and they want to be represented in their schools, as the parents have the primary office of teaching their children, to which the schools’ authority is only secondary.
Religions must remain tax-free so as to prevent incursions of the state onto the rights of religion. Taxing something, in our country, usually means you’re paying for using a privilege. But religion is not a privilege, but a duty; and the state does nothing to support it (although it rightfully could as the state uses religion, and not the other way around, – society benefits from religion to provide for moral education for the citizenry at large.)
I don’t agree with you at all. Any person can attend church at no cost to them (aside from donations). They can learn about Creationism until their heart’s content. People who attend Church do indeed pay taxes, but so do people who don’t attend church. Now, if people who attend church get to learn about Creationism at church, why should they also be represented in public schools? They are represented all over the place. If you walk down the road from a public school in any direction you will almost always bump into a church. If church goers aren’t content with having their beliefs taught all over the place and still want to force their beliefs on others through public schools, that’s just too bad. It’s absurd that religious people are complaining about having to pay taxes for public school over the Evolution issue. I guess the fact that their children are learning how to read, write, and do mathematics isn’t worth the cost. It’s all about being huffy because they don’t get their beliefs taught everywhere. Very petty.
I find it amusing (or frightening) that you don’t want the state involved in religion, but it’s OK for religion to be in public schools. That explains a lot about your biased attitude.
I believe in the value of separation between church and state. Just on that basis alone, the church IMO cannot be taxed. It cannot be considered a part of the state for tax purposes.
However people that belong to a church also belong to society and get taxed in theory for what furthers the public good. Education is a public good. But this is where the problem begins. What should be included in public education? Can it be considered in the public good if its curriculum denies the essential questions of life such as “Who am I” and “What is the meaning and purpose of my life?” when they are natural for the subject matter.
The question of evolution is such a case. The question of who I am and of the meaning and purpose of life cannot be distinct from evolution by default since we are a part of it. But on the other hand the simple answer that God is working the strings is also insufficient for science.
Intelligent design though serves to point out the areas in which ID is verifiable. In the context of evolution, denying what is obvious in ID cannot be considered as education with the public good in mind. To the contrary it is a form of mind control damaging to a free society not to acknowledge and respect the possibility of ID by giving the impression that it is by definition wrong.
In no way is ID unscientific because much of the design is mathematical. The question then becomes if such mathematical relationships are chance occurrences or a product of Intelligent design. Both are a hypothesis worthy of consideration.
To not allow ID into the classroom is just another example of the closed political mind that somehow has come into power in education at the expense of the creative and objective minded. That people should have to pay for such denial and backward thinking in the form of taxes and at the expense of their children is just ludicrous. But if you look at what these people spend their money on for their collective “entertainment,” and the small-mindedness it is designed to cater to, such lunacy cannot be considered surprising.
How lame do we have to become before minds can open to the value of common sense?
A question: Do you see the state as being the same thing as society? Do we say schools teach students what the state wants them to know? It seems to me the answer is “no”. If that is right, then there is no comparison between religion’s relation to the state and religion’s relation to society.
For the students not from religious families, one might think of religious beliefs as education about society. But what is more important than teaching a religious belief is teaching the counter-evidence given against Darwinistic evolution. Because that’s how empirical science works: explaining the data.
As for my “bias”, I’m pretty much a theistic ID evolutionist.
I think a lot of the people who are singing the praises of having new ideas (ID, religion) presented in public schools may have their hearts in the right place, but I’m not sure how realistic they are being. I don’t think ID in schools is really about fairness or science. I think it’s about pushing Christianity further into our public and private lives. Just hearing about the commotion in Kansas is enough to make one wonder.
Since Bush has been in office, I think a lot of these IDers and religious groups are scrambling to get their piece of the pie while the getting’s good. I simply do not trust the motives behind having Creationism taught in public schools.
Can you honestly say that there are no ulterior motives? Do you care?
Maybe I don’t focus so much on “ulterior motives.” I see the problem being that (1) ID is not empirical science – it’s philosophy, which may have no place in the current school curriculum. Another problem (2) is with Christians who take the Bible literally when it can’t be. (Have they not read the Church Fathers?) …And taking religious writings as if they were physical science. Another problem (3) is that Darwinism is materialistic…which is all ID people want to argue against. Science once was about seeing God’s power in nature, before science was re-fashioned in the modern age to exclude anything unseen which might be defined by philosophy.
So, I guess I see ulterior motives all over the place.
Most Americans are not interested in science and will likely not question anything that they are taught about Evolution or ID. They may slant toward one or the other, but most will not care enough to fight for a reasonable approach to the issue. The fast-talking ID people who seem to have more religious zeal than concern about the facts will be able take advantage of those without sufficient theological or scientific insight. People who lean toward ID will be easily swayed, while those that lean toward Evolution might not even care enough to say anything. As for the real scientists, people will probably not pay that much attention to them simply because many people don’t have the patience to hear scientific explanations.
There is no doubt that most Americans want to hear what is easy to understand and sounds good to them personally. They do not want to be bothered with facts and critical thinking. These are the people that IDers will take advantage of. I fear that not enough people will question anything until it’s too late.
I don’t really have an attitude about ID. I do have one about some of the people endorsing it. I don’t believe that scientific inquiry is their primary goal.
Well, philosophic inquiry might be; or even “fides quaerens intellectum” (faith seeking reason).
Here’s a non-scientific way of thinking (going somewhat off-topic) that this topic has brought to mind: What does materialistic evolution say about the meaning of life. Is our purpose only to procreate and compete on the material plane? “Social Darwinism” seems to me not to be as great a look at life than if you see a creative God in the picture. Then there are all kinds of spiritual goods (not just sublimations of material goods) to value and attain. Proponents of intelligent design, then, may be working towards a higher kind of society and view of man and life’s meaning than the Darwinist theory proposes. Is that worth fighting for in pen and word?
You are saying that unless there is God, all life comes down to is popping out kids and “competing on the material plane.” Do you believe that we are incapable of appreciating the joys of life on our own? I think many people would disagree with that. Provide me with some evidence that non-Religious people are incapable of experiencing meaning in their lives.
Also, are you implying that ID should be accepted whether it is true or not, simply because it provides meaning? I take serious issue with that.
And finally, you are not addressing my real question! The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. Whether or not there is some sort of noble goal being pursued by IDers, I do not believe that you are looking at this situation realistically. You said earlier that you don’t focus on ulterior motives. Maybe you should. I think you are looking only at what you want the result to be rather than all the potential dangers when human nature and religious belief are combined.
I’m saying that IS the meaning in their lives. Do you know of any atheist philosophers who believe in spiritual goods? Perhaps I’m prejudiced by considering Freud.
Perhaps we can take it as a rhetorical argument. But if you want to be honest with yourself over higher goods, I think you have to accept a spiritual world.
Religious belief is only accentuated (IMO) when human nature in considered – it’s called Christian Humanism.