When I was just a little tyke, I was very troubled at the idea that religions and churches could have tax exempt status. I imagined that someone in Washington must have the job of deciding which religions were correct enough -- or at least, not wrong enough -- to deserve treatment as "real" religions and which ones were left out. And you know, more than thirty years later, that still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
At the time, the problem seemed all the more immediate because in our small town, the block we lived on had no less than three freaking enormous churches on it...and my family belonged to none of them. For what it's worth, I'll add that of all the faiths represented in town, only the Catholic priests could not have been any nicer to us -- the only Jewish family in town -- and to this day I still object vocally to any anti-Catholic bigotry because of their kindness and respect. But I digress.
As an atheist/agnostic/apatheist, I've had a longtime fantasy that we need a real "church" of nonbelievers, if only to balance the playing field in terms of legal rights, real estate taxes, and other assets. The "conscientious objector" is probably the most discriminated-against subgroup in America and it's just not right that we have to pay extra for the privilege.
Acceptance as a "religion" by the general public seems to call for certain trappings and material holdings such as church buildings, symbols, and other aspects of modern PR. It's really little different than creating a "brand identity" for a product: "I use Protestantism because it gets my soul whiter!" My fantasy "atheist church" could have Christopher Reeve as a "saint" and the books of Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell as "holy texts." We could have weekly "services" with discussions of Darwinism. And we'd encourage schisms so that people would leave and form their own reactionary splinter groups, thereby spreading the tax-exempt wealth ever further.
If you don't like this idea...what would you do instead? What would your "church" of disbelief be like?
At the time, the problem seemed all the more immediate because in our small town, the block we lived on had no less than three freaking enormous churches on it...and my family belonged to none of them. For what it's worth, I'll add that of all the faiths represented in town, only the Catholic priests could not have been any nicer to us -- the only Jewish family in town -- and to this day I still object vocally to any anti-Catholic bigotry because of their kindness and respect. But I digress.
As an atheist/agnostic/apatheist, I've had a longtime fantasy that we need a real "church" of nonbelievers, if only to balance the playing field in terms of legal rights, real estate taxes, and other assets. The "conscientious objector" is probably the most discriminated-against subgroup in America and it's just not right that we have to pay extra for the privilege.
Acceptance as a "religion" by the general public seems to call for certain trappings and material holdings such as church buildings, symbols, and other aspects of modern PR. It's really little different than creating a "brand identity" for a product: "I use Protestantism because it gets my soul whiter!" My fantasy "atheist church" could have Christopher Reeve as a "saint" and the books of Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell as "holy texts." We could have weekly "services" with discussions of Darwinism. And we'd encourage schisms so that people would leave and form their own reactionary splinter groups, thereby spreading the tax-exempt wealth ever further.
If you don't like this idea...what would you do instead? What would your "church" of disbelief be like?
-
Re: my church
Fri, December 10, 2004 - 4:10 PMdo absolutely nothing
nothing can be done
got that?
-
Re: my church
Fri, December 10, 2004 - 4:51 PMWow. That smarts. Good Idea. Bad venue.
But doesn't a church require a subject of worship (not a non-subject of worship)? We could worship the dollar...or maybe ourselves? Every week a new preacher would stand up and say, "I am the one true God!"
-
Re: my church
Fri, December 10, 2004 - 7:03 PMI think it's a good idea. The trick is to make the meme sticky enough so that it is infectious, but not so sticky as to become a cult unto itself like, um, Scientology (which is blatently fabricated but way out of control). I guess you could imagine it as a pathogen that doesn't have any payload except to make the host resistent to all other pathogens.
Bokononism anybody? :) -
-
Re: my church
Fri, December 10, 2004 - 11:26 PM>>Bokononism anybody? :)<<
Nice, Nice, Very nice! -
-
Re: my church
Wed, December 15, 2004 - 12:44 AMNot as nice Bonoboism...the religion for sex crazed monkeys! I'm there! Er, I wish I was there? -
-
Re: my church
Wed, December 15, 2004 - 1:21 AMTimbo I am just not sure what to make of that statement... -
-
Re: my church
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 2:35 AMHey S, I forgot to type "as" before "Bonoboism". Sorry for any confusion. Does that clarify things a tinsy?
-
-
Re: my church
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 1:00 AMI'm with you regarding the Human Bonobo religion.
The only other thing I believe this religion needs to worship is the separation of church and state so that the state (and nation) doesn't separate me from my money as I am a high priestess.
Would you like to get acquainted? Disagree with my opinions? Let's make jungle love and resolve our differences.
-
-
-
-
Re: my church
Sat, January 15, 2005 - 6:29 PMYou are correct about this.
Yet, as an apatheist, I have to say: It sounds like a lot of work.
I just don't care that much.
They have their tax-exempt status, and I don't pay tithes. OK for me.
-
Re: my church
Fri, January 21, 2005 - 9:48 AMI will go, under one condition. Instead of me filling your pockets every Sunday you pay me! -
-
-
Re: my church
Fri, January 21, 2005 - 5:54 PMShh, don't ruin my get rich scheme! -
-
-
Re: my church
Sat, January 22, 2005 - 5:43 AMThat's better.
P.S. I accept donations too!
-
-
-
Re: my church
Tue, February 1, 2005 - 11:57 AMThe point here is a good one. Most people who call themselves atheists, agnostics, whatever, recoil in horror when a suggestion is made to organize and establish a dogma. The problem is that a) most human beings just believe what they're told, and b) religious people are very well-organized. Regardless of our distaste for politics and dogma, if you paid attention to the last American election, they're succeeding in forcing their agenda on the rest of us. So even if we don't have a "church", it's still a good idea to get involved. To some degree these organizations already exist.
Check out your local Brights group (the-brights.net) or your local American Atheists group (atheists.org). One thing that churches give people is a social outlet and a feeling of belonging, and these organizations can actually be a lot of fun. Even if you just get on a mailing list to stay aware of what's going on politically in your area, that's important.
I can hear the outraged cries (or the apathetic head-scratching), "What?! Apatheists *joining* something?" Most active atheists would agree that in an ideal world, we would be apatheists, because you wouldn't even HAVE to discuss a goofy question like "Is there or is there not a human-seeming supreme being overseeing the universe?" Unfortunately the real world forces us to be vocal to make sure freedom of religion (or non-religion) is preserved, and it's under assault.
When I hear even Democrats like Liebermann openly saying "Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion," I get worried.
Mike -
-
-
Re: my church
Fri, May 6, 2005 - 1:10 PMwe could also add a athiest/agnostic charter school to the venue, alot of these churches I've seen have a school attached... there actually could be some demand for this in the charter school market.
-