Does it matter what religious beliefs other people have?

[LoveFoolMe]

I was a bit shocked to discover how many people in the USA doubt evolution. Do you think it matters what other people believe? Why (or why not)?

If you need the background, this was the data I was amazed at:-
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Lovefoolme, I would say I think they are a cultural problem.

It did make me think about the witch trials and the McCarthy trials though and I wonder if we could ever link those all together.

It maybe a random thought train I have had, open to opinions on that.

I think this recent news story about a man accused of blasphemy is very relevant to this thread. He's now living in Finland due to the death threats.

m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears?cat=world&type=article

the government once decided to take away the charitable status of all churches

that was silly of them. They should have still allowed churches to claim charity tax relief on those parts of their activities which were actually charitable rather than self-serving (there's a Buddist lot near us who do exactly that even though they are entitled to claim for everything they do - they appear to work to a higher ethical standard). The response of those churches 'They decided that if they were no longer charities they didn't need to do charitable work any more.' is really astounding...they are surely suppose to do charitable works because Jesus explicitly said to clothe the naked, feed the hungry etc. Don't think he mentioned anything about doing it for tax breaks -rather, 'pay unto caesar'.

I am religious but don't care what other people believe...as Thomas Jefferson said "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

I believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. DH and I may send DS to a Catholic school, but we will pay through the nose for it. I don't see anything wrong with that. Taxpayers should not pay for religious schools IMO.

Building a building to allow people to come and worship could be viewed as charity, as could donations to the poor.

The latter, yes, absolutely - the former is debatable on several levels, starting with why people need a fancy building to worship in - don't think the gospels mandate it, rather the contrary. If it was my call, I'd give tax relief on multi-use halls if they were benefitting the wider community (which many church halls do) but not the actual church bit if it was separate.

Also, when a church builds a building, the building is built with the money of the members who attend

Many of ours were built when the chuch pretty much taxed everyone, it wasn't voluntary donation. Any social club building is paid for by its members, without expecting automatic charitable status. I know you may not see it as a 'social club' but that's pretty much how it seems to outsiders who are having to subsidize through taxes.

I think in the UK the charitable status of churches has been raised recently in relation to the Plymouth Bretheren who are best known as isolationists!

If the tax law were up to you grimma, would you tax the church's income, but still allow people who donate to churches to keep a tax deduction for the donation? Or, would you take away the deduction for donors, but leave the money the church receives untaxed?

I don't understand the distinction...are you in the US, maybe its different? Here if you 'gift aid' a donation the organisation gets the tax that would have been paid by the donor given to them, the donor doesn't get a tax deduction as such.

Also, just to stir the pot, DH is literally a genius and is not convinced of evolution. :o Doesn't bother me.

I think a comparision of tax laws relating to charitable donations in two different countries is going too far OT even for my penchant for wandering

I think that by and large it's decently likely to be true, but that it still doesn't tell the whole story. I think a little skepticism is always healthy

The thing about science is that it doesn't claim to be the whole truth - yet. Skepticism is indeed always healthy. That's the thing about science - you keep whittling away, asking the difficult questions. It does claim to be the best methodology for getting at the truth about the physical world.

..and this brings us back to the OP - does it matter what people believe?

Yes - people who don't understand science well enough to get that evolution (with or without God's blessing) is how all the species on earth arose, are also unlikely to understand all sorts of other science which affect the world. Climate change, assessing medical risks, etc.

US church's tax exemption is dependent on what they use their buildings for. As I understand it you cannot run profitable enterprises from the church buildings (other than the church itself) and you can't use it for political purposes.

There are a number of US churches that have been reported to the IRS for violating those rules by preaching from the pulpit that a vote for Obama is a literal vote for the anti-Christ.

What does 'higher truth' even mean night? Is there a lower truth? Skepticism isn't having a closed mind, it's not accepting things without good evidence. That's just being rational.

Grimma, a bit upthread you said that churches should only be able to claim charity tax relief on aspects of what they do that are genuinely charitable an not 'self-serving.' Sounds fair in theory...but in reality, how do you decide which is which? Some examples:

A church has a pastoral visiting group. They go and see elderly members of the congregation, some of whom have Alzheimer's. They may well encourage them to go to the doctor, or even take them to appointments, or take them shopping. Their visits make it possible for elderly people to live in their homes for longer, and to avoid nursing homes. Is this charitable or self-serving?

A vicar has taken a funeral, and makes repeated visits to the widow of the deceased. Neither the deceased nor the widow go to church, but the visits give the widow the opportunity to talk and to work through her grief. Is this charitable or self-serving?

The church runs a community cafe, into which the local police officer pops every now and then to talk to people and help with any problems. It's a mixture of church and non-church people who go, and not a week goes by without someone being helped in some way or other. Charitable or self-serving?

The church runs a Bible study group. In the course of this group's study, people open up and share all sorts of problems and pains, and find peace and healing. Charitable or self-serving?

Someone with untreated mental health problems goes along to this group, and is persuaded lovingly to seek help, and is supported by the group for years, and in turn becomes very supportive of others.

Do you see the problem? These things happen in churches all the time. IMO whether something is 'charitable' or 'self-serving' depends primarily on the attitude of the person involved. But most of the time, the things that churches do can't be neatly categorised into one or the other. Ideally, everything a church does should be charitable as charity just means love. How do we assess that for tax purposes?

Most churches run on a shoestring (in the C of E anyway), so to limit what they do by taxing them more heavily would reduce what can be offered to the community (e.g. the midweek communion service has to stop because the church can't afford to heat and light the church any more. The needs that were met there have to be met elsewhere, nearly always at a greater expense to the taxpayer, e.g. counselling). So keeping churches doing what they can do to meet the needs of others is good for everyone, whether you're a churchgoer or not.

I didn't say there was an easy dividing line...the same sorts of arguments may be applied to other 'charities' eg private schools. Some organisations seem to be able to manage to make the distinction themselves.

Also, just to stir the pot, DH is literally a genius and is not convinced of evolution.

What does yr DH think is the best explanation CheerfulYank?