1 of 2
1
Secular humanism and the law
Posted: 22 August 2011 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-07-26

If ,contrary to common sense, a secular -humanist group were to register as a religion, would they be allowed the legal perks that other religions are allowed. ie. no property taxes , subsidies for educational instruction etcetera?
    I have no legal background but feel we non-religionists are being discriminated against at all levels , municipal, provincial and federal.
Anyone have any thought as to how one might proceed to test this?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2011 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1401
Joined  2010-04-22

Probably. Scientology did it.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2011 08:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-07-26

Thanks—-details would be nice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2011 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Anyone have any thought as to how one might proceed to test this?

Register your group as a religion and see what happens.

If it takes the registrar and the judge several hours to stop laughing, you can take that to mean it didn’t fly!

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2011 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2011-03-07

I hope it works out for you.

However I think the real step that needs to be taken is to remove all the tax perks religions get. I fail to see how these business should be treated any differently then other business.

If you wanted to take it a step further they should be shutdown and arrested for fraud. However this will never happen in my lifetime.

PS: you should claim to worship a flying spagetti monster. This will probably help your chance smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2011 09:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18

Atheism could present a good case for being registered as a religion. It would have no problem presenting itself as a religion complete with a belief system, rituals, patron saints and prophets, a creed, meeting places, and proselytizing methods.  Bring on the Bingo games.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2011 01:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2011-01-10
SmallFries - 09 September 2011 07:28 AM

I hope it works out for you.

However I think the real step that needs to be taken is to remove all the tax perks religions get. I fail to see how these business should be treated any differently then other business.

If you wanted to take it a step further they should be shutdown and arrested for fraud. However this will never happen in my lifetime.

PS: you should claim to worship a flying spagetti monster. This will probably help your chance smile

Yes, yes, yes, and YES! They need to eliminate the perk packages immediately - it seems to be widely abused and milked for every last cent. There’s also no way to see how many of the church leaders are using the tax relief for things beyond what’s intended, such as personal property, vacation property,etc - because their financial records are a no fly zone.

They have probably been abusing the tax perks since the beginning, and are all laughing at how long they have been able to keep the facade going. I am waiting for the day that the world leaders join together to overthrow Vatican law and all their sovereign state policies protecting them from being Audited and investigated. I bet they have a stockpile of cash, unbalanced ledgers, and rooms full of dirty secrets locked away under the city somewhere. They receive tax breaks…..........but are the only organization immune to financial auditing? After all the scandals and cover-ups in the media these past few years, I have a hard time imagining that the dishonesty and secrecy hasn’t extended in to their financial activity. Someone has funded all those international flights to keep moving the pedophile priests all over the globe - can you categorize that as a business expense if it is also an action taken to obstruct justice?

 Signature 

“Gods don’t kill people. People with Gods kill people.”

– David Viaene

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2011 05:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
missmac - 01 October 2011 01:26 AM
SmallFries - 09 September 2011 07:28 AM

I hope it works out for you.

However I think the real step that needs to be taken is to remove all the tax perks religions get. I fail to see how these business should be treated any differently then other business.

If you wanted to take it a step further they should be shutdown and arrested for fraud. However this will never happen in my lifetime.

PS: you should claim to worship a flying spagetti monster. This will probably help your chance smile

Yes, yes, yes, and YES! They need to eliminate the perk packages immediately - it seems to be widely abused and milked for every last cent. There’s also no way to see how many of the church leaders are using the tax relief for things beyond what’s intended, such as personal property, vacation property,etc - because their financial records are a no fly zone.

They have probably been abusing the tax perks since the beginning, and are all laughing at how long they have been able to keep the facade going. I am waiting for the day that the world leaders join together to overthrow Vatican law and all their sovereign state policies protecting them from being Audited and investigated. I bet they have a stockpile of cash, unbalanced ledgers, and rooms full of dirty secrets locked away under the city somewhere. They receive tax breaks…..........but are the only organization immune to financial auditing? After all the scandals and cover-ups in the media these past few years, I have a hard time imagining that the dishonesty and secrecy hasn’t extended in to their financial activity. Someone has funded all those international flights to keep moving the pedophile priests all over the globe - can you categorize that as a business expense if it is also an action taken to obstruct justice?

The issue of church taxation is a red herring. Despite the “loss” of tax revenue from churches, that “loss” is more than made for by the increased generosity of those who attend churches. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that those who attended a church donated significantly more money, volunteered significantly more of their time to an organization (which has a monetary value), and helped strangers or those they didn’t know but who needed help more times than those who were unaffiliated (also a monetary value). 

Not only does the generosity of churchgoers offset the so-called loss of tax revenue from churches, that generosity also acts as an effective advertisement for religion. If Atheists want to compete with religion they should get out there and start volunteering their time.

Oh, yes, it does not do your case any good to talk about “probably” this or “I bet” that. The use of “probably” and the like is only a cover for bias and belies the Atheist claim of adhering to logic and reason.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2011 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

The issue of church taxation is a red herring. Despite the “loss” of tax revenue from churches, that “loss” is more than made for by the increased generosity of those who attend churches.

And these same people, if they’re being generous because the mean to be generous and volunteer more time and money would be doing the same thing if churches, synagoges, temples, mosques and assorted other places of worship didn’t exist.

Genuinely altruistic people just do business that way, and without being motivated by some imaginary guy or gal in the sky looking over their shoulders.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2011 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 01 October 2011 09:17 AM

The issue of church taxation is a red herring. Despite the “loss” of tax revenue from churches, that “loss” is more than made for by the increased generosity of those who attend churches.

And these same people, if they’re being generous because the mean to be generous and volunteer more time and money would be doing the same thing if churches, synagoges, temples, mosques and assorted other places of worship didn’t exist.

Genuinely altruistic people just do business that way, and without being motivated by some imaginary guy or gal in the sky looking over their shoulders.


You, of course, miss the point. “Genuinely altruistic people” do not “do business that way” as the poll so amply demonstrated. The poll showed that if they were not churchgoers they are less apt to be as generous than churchgoing people. Churchgoing people are more generous with time and money BECAUSE they attend church and are imbued by the lessons learned there. Those who do not go to church are less generous because they are unaware of those lessons, they have not overcome their ego sufficiently, and have not formed the appropriate mental state to be genuinely generous.

Your comments are wishful thinking, not in line with the poll. Also, they are not on topic regarding taxation.

Oh, yes, no major religion claims God to be an individuated entity. You might want to get your facts straight.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2011 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

You, of course, miss the point. “Genuinely altruistic people” do not “do business that way” as the poll so amply demonstrated.

No I didn’t and yes they do. Take note of the word “GENUINELY” with which I started the sentence. In terms of altruism, the Real McCoy just does it, without fanfare, and without expectation of recognition or reward, and without being motivated by the threat of some imaginary divine boogtman/men/girl/girls getting honked off if they don’t cough up the cash or volunteer their time.

Anything less then that isn’t real altruism.

And POLLS don’t demonstrate anything other then what people believe. Which beliefs may or may not have anything whatever to do with reality.

Those who do not go to church are less generous because they are unaware of
those lessons, they have not overcome their ego sufficiently, and have not
formed the appropriate mental state to be genuinely generous.

Bullpucky. As swamped as we are with any number of purported Judeao/Christian/Islamic “values” (To say nothing of the values offered up by any number of rival sects, cults, faiths, religions, and creeds), people are extremely aware of those lessons. Such lessons are so ingrained in our culture that people become aware of them even if the shamans don’t get the credit for preaching them.

Your comments are wishful thinking, not in line with the poll. Also, they
are not on topic regarding taxation.

Niether is yours.

Oh, yes, no major religion claims God to be an individuated entity. You
might want to get your facts straight.

Get YOUR facts straight bub. The Abrahamic pantheon at least is strictly monotheistic. (Although the deity also appears to have multiple personalities vis a vis the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spook.

You might also want to avoid resorting to the strawman because I made no specific mention or claim on the nature of the deity or what the religions of the world claim about him/her/them.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2011 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 02 October 2011 11:45 AM

You, of course, miss the point. “Genuinely altruistic people” do not “do business that way” as the poll so amply demonstrated.

No I didn’t and yes they do. Take note of the word “GENUINELY” with which I started the sentence. In terms of altruism, the Real McCoy just does it, without fanfare, and without expectation of recognition or reward, and without being motivated by the threat of some imaginary divine boogtman/men/girl/girls getting honked off if they don’t cough up the cash or volunteer their time.

Anything less then that isn’t real altruism.

Once again, as the poll clearly pointed out, those who are not churchgoers do not give (however you want to frame it) as much as churchgoers do. 

And POLLS don’t demonstrate anything other then what people believe. Which beliefs may or may not have anything whatever to do with reality.

 

Actually, and contrary to your opinion,  this poll MEASURED what people actually did.

Those who do not go to church are less generous because they are unaware of
those lessons, they have not overcome their ego sufficiently, and have not
formed the appropriate mental state to be genuinely generous.

Bullpucky. As swamped as we are with any number of purported Judeao/Christian/Islamic “values” (To say nothing of the values offered up by any number of rival sects, cults, faiths, religions, and creeds), people are extremely aware of those lessons. Such lessons are so ingrained in our culture that people become aware of them even if the shamans don’t get the credit for preaching them.

You are going incoherent here. But the fact remains that even if lessons are ingrained in the culture, the poll demonstrates that those who are churchgoers are more generous of themselves and their money than non-churchgoers, who, according to your theory has the same exposure to religious teaching. Those non-churchgoers,  may know about the religious teachings but, again, as the poll demonstrates, they do nothing with the teachings.

Your comments are wishful thinking, not in line with the poll. Also, they
are not on topic regarding taxation.

Niether is yours.

Oh, yes, no major religion claims God to be an individuated entity. You
might want to get your facts straight.

Get YOUR facts straight bub. The Abrahamic pantheon at least is strictly monotheistic. (Although the deity also appears to have multiple personalities vis a vis the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spook.

That is, monotheistic as in One without another. If there is no “other” then God cannot be individuated. Once again,  the first step is “get your facts straight”.  The second step is “understand those facts”.

You might also want to avoid resorting to the strawman because I made no specific mention or claim on the nature of the deity or what the religions of the world claim about him/her/them.

 

Do you know what a strawman error is? You referred to “some imaginary guy or gal in the sky”.  Which is itself a strawman error.  Now you seem to be backing off from that. At least have the courage to own what you write.

By the way, instead of relying on emotionalisms such as “bullpucky” and “bub”, could you try to carry on a civilized discourse without disrespectful labeling?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2011 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Once again, as the poll clearly pointed out, those who are not churchgoers do not give (however you want to frame it) as much as churchgoers do.

No.

Polls demonstrate the body of opinion and views held by a cross section of those who are polled.

Period.

Now, if one had cited peer reviewed scientific studies, that would have been a lot more useful. It wouldn’t have been any justification whatsoever of the belief system itself, but it would be a more useful and accurate indication of reality.

You are going incoherent here.

Would you make up your mind please? With “Those who do not go to church are less generous because they are unaware of
those lessons, they have not overcome their ego sufficiently, and have not
formed the appropriate mental state to be genuinely generous.”

But with “Those non-churchgoers,  may know about the religious teachings but, again, as the poll demonstrates, they do nothing with the teachings.” you’re insinuating that they are aware of these “teachings”

Which is it?

That is, monotheistic as in One without another. If there is no “other” then God cannot be individuated.

Sure it can be. The adhearants to the Abrahamic pantheon do it as a matter of routine.

Do you know what a strawman error is? You referred to “some imaginary guy or gal in the sky”.  Which is itself a strawman error.

That’s not a strawman. That’s calling a religion with a deity what it is.

By the way, instead of relying on emotionalisms such as “bullpucky” and “bub”, could you try to carry on a civilized discourse without disrespectful labeling?

Respect of the kind worth having is offered where it is earned!

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2011 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 11 October 2011 09:29 AM

Once again, as the poll clearly pointed out, those who are not churchgoers do not give (however you want to frame it) as much as churchgoers do.

No. Polls demonstrate the body of opinion and views held by a cross section of those who are polled.

Period.[

You keep parroting the same stuff but fail to recognize that it has no application to the poll in question that MEASURED its results.

Now, if one had cited peer reviewed scientific studies, that would have been a lot more useful. It wouldn’t have been any justification whatsoever of the belief system itself, but it would be a more useful and accurate indication of reality.

I love it when some mentions “peer review studies”. My favourite example of peer review studies revolves around the topic of Levy flights. The peer review process is actually the process of groupthink, whereby those of a certain opinion or mind set tend to publish or list articles that ape that opinion or mindset. It is knee-jerk science, a combination of wishful thinking, laziness, and the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecudiam or appeal to authority.

The lack of substance behind the peer-review phenomenon may best be illustrated by looking at the 1990’s issue of Levy Flights. In 1996, a British Antarctic Survey “proved” that albatrosses follow flight patterns called Levy flights, named after a French mathematician. This information was duly published in a peer reviewed journal.  Then came a season of silliness as other researchers sought to show a whole host of fauna also followed these supposed Levy Flight patterns. There were findings of Levy flights in bees, reindeer, grey seals, spider monkeys and microscopic zooplankton. One study even found evidence of Levy flights in the movements of Peruvian fishing boats going after anchovies off the coast of South America.  Another even suggested in 1999 that Levy statistics applied to Jackson Pollack paintings. All of these findings were submitted to and published in peer reviewed journals. People were claiming an evolutionary advantage to having Levy statistics.

And all of them were wrong.

In October 2007,Dr Andrew Edwards , a research scientist currently with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, showed that the original Levy flight study was flawed in two respects. First, there was an error in raw data collection from tracking devices attached to the birds. The birds were mistakenly thought to be in the air when they were, for much of the time, soaking up the sun while sitting on rocks. The more important error, however, was in methodology, a statistical method of calculation, which was wrong and is what started the chain-reaction of mistakes. It is Dr. Edwards who suggested that the two reasons for the errors in the original Levy Flight report was laziness and wishful thinking. If laziness and wishful thinking are the reasons numerous researchers made their silly claims of Levy flights, those same reasons could be attributed to the so-called experts who constituted the peer review panels of the various journals to accept the spurious studies.

With the Levy flight bubble we have an excellent example of people essentially wasting their lives and careers due to laziness and wishful thinking, and possibly the publish-or-perish atmosphere in academia, all under the aegis of peer review.

While one cannot question the validity of all articles in peer reviewed publications based on their passing a peer review process, one can say that being included in a peer review publication is certainly not evidence of validity.

You are going incoherent here.

Would you make up your mind please? With “Those who do not go to church are less generous because they are unaware of
those lessons, they have not overcome their ego sufficiently, and have not
formed the appropriate mental state to be genuinely generous.”

But with “Those non-churchgoers,  may know about the religious teachings but, again, as the poll demonstrates, they do nothing with the teachings.” you’re insinuating that they are aware of these “teachings”

Which is it?

The two are not incompatible, as a more careful reading would have revealed to you. The two quotes are the same: The non-churchgoers have to fulfill three conditions. Having a superficial awareness of some church teachings does not mean the non-churchgoers understand them. Plus they still have to overcome their egos and form an appropriate state of consciousness to be genuinely generous.

That is, monotheistic as in One without another. If there is no “other” then God cannot be individuated.

Sure it can be. The adhearants to the Abrahamic pantheon do it as a matter of routine.

Your understanding the adherents of Abramhamic religions is seriously flawed. None of the three religions say “God” is individuated.

Do you know what a strawman error is? You referred to “some imaginary guy or gal in the sky”.  Which is itself a strawman error.

That’s not a strawman. That’s calling a religion with a deity what it is.

You have attempted to shift the topic under discussion. In doing so, you commit a strawman error.

By the way, instead of relying on emotionalisms such as “bullpucky” and “bub”, could you try to carry on a civilized discourse without disrespectful labeling?Respect of the kind worth having is offered where it is earned!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2011 08:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

You keep parroting the same stuff but fail to recognize that it has no application to the poll in question that MEASURED its results.

And yet, when I say it, you keep failing to refute it.

Polls are not refutations. They may be a valid and accurate reflection of what a given body of people believe but just because they believe it does not make it fact!!!

Do we get it now???

No?

Why am I not surprised

I love it when some mentions “peer review studies”.

I just love it when people with an agenda try and dismiss valid scientific methodology since it tends to show that they have no valid science to back up the claims they’re making.

Congratulations…Bub…you just lost this arguement.

I’m done with you.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2011 05:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 11 October 2011 08:29 PM

You keep parroting the same stuff but fail to recognize that it has no application to the poll in question that MEASURED its results.

And yet, when I say it, you keep failing to refute it.

Polls are not refutations. They may be a valid and accurate reflection of what a given body of people believe but just because they believe it does not make it fact!!!

Do we get it now???

No?

Why am I not surprised

I love it when some mentions “peer review studies”.

I just love it when people with an agenda try and dismiss valid scientific methodology since it tends to show that they have no valid science to back up the claims they’re making.

Congratulations…Bub…you just lost this arguement.

I’m done with you.

You failed AGAIN to improve on your mistakes. Your “debating” tactic seems to be to keep repeating your bias on the assumption that the more times you repeat your nonsense the more likely it is that someone will believe it. That is a logical error appropriately known as argumentum ad nauseum.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ 2011 elections      Director Comment ››