Under One God...but who's God?

[evmori 11]

Yep pack, based on what I read on the FACTS site, a mockery. And a poor one at that. Wonder how many members or Grand Lubitz's there are?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

"Hunt, would you exclude Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow for being an atheist, even though he's founded a religion? Would you exclude an atheist Buddhist?"

 

If I had the obligation to enforce the current membership requirement, yes, I would exclude both of them. I don't think membership in an organized religion is necessarily relevant to whether a person believes in a spiritual reality or not. I would also exclude a Methodist who was an atheist, for that matter. Also, I think that words have meanings, and as a result Newdow has not founded a "religion" at all. It is a philosophy, certainly, but it simply does not meet a basic definition of what a religion is. He can call it what he likes, of course, but a duck is a duck even if you call it a camel.

[Trevorum 24]

Ed, a religion is just a cult with more members. (Or, put the other way around, a cult is a religion that just hasn't picked up steam yet.)

 

As Merlyn points out (and he is correct on this point), some widely respected religions were started by total crackpots. In fact, anthropologists have observed that in many, many societies worldwide, religious prophets are indistinguishable from the mentally disturbed.

 

food for thought...

[evmori 11]

Actually, Trevorum, a cult & a religion can be the same size.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, state comptrollers of Texas have tried to deny tax exemptions to the Ethical Culture society for not having a supreme being, and even tried to deny tax-exempt status to a Unitarian church, even though a few US presidents were Unitarians.

 

They lost. The US government can't require religions to have supreme being(s).

 

The North Texas Church of Freethought is, officially, a religion in Texas.

http://www.churchoffreethought.org

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

"A cult is a religion with no political power" - Tom Wolfe

[adc294 10]

I think I have found the answers I am looking for. See y'all on the trail!

[Trevorum 24]

Yes, lawyers, tax accountants, and governments are known to be wise in the the interpretation of these issues ...

 

Regardless of what they rule, anthropologists generally see all religions as being a cultural system with three key and interlocking components: 1) a set of rituals or symbolic behaviors; 2) a set of ethics or behavioral rules; and 3) a set of beliefs that includes supernatural beings or supernatural forces. (The supernatural beings do not have to be "gods" - lesser beings such as ghosts, genies, leprechauns, tooth fairies, and angels all qualify.) But if it doesn't include supernaturalism, it ain't a religion (at least to anthopologists).

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

"Sorry, you'll have to include some unbelievable crap to be a real religion" - why should anthropologists be the ones to decide? Maybe they should be called "anthroapologists"...

[Hunt 11]

"The US government can't require religions to have supreme being(s)."

 

Well, maybe, but that's not what you asked me. You asked me about BSA's rule, which I interpret to require belief in some spiritual reality beyond the observable natural world. Without that, a belief system is a philosophy, not a religion. Besides, I thought you were insinuating that BSA was being inconsistent by not excluding atheist Buddhists, and I told you that if I had to enforce the rule, I would exclude them. Don't you like my answer?

 

"Sorry, you'll have to include some unbelievable crap to be a real religion"

 

Aside from your insulting tone, you've basically got it right, although I would say that you have to include some unprovable beliefs in the supernatural to be a real religion. That's an essential element of what a religion is, as opposed to a philosophy. This is why Newdow's Church, no matter how much crap it may contain, simply isn't a religion.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Legally, Hunt, religions do NOT have to have supernatural crap, though most do. You can disagree, and (unless you're a Texas comptroller who manages to throw away public money defending an unconstitutional position) you can use your incorrect definition if you like.

 

Of course, if the BSA starts to kick out Buddhists next, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

[Trevorum 24]

"Why should anthropologists be the ones to decide?"

 

They sure argue a lot, but I've never heard of anthropologists "deciding" anything. If you want a good explanatory framework about human culture though, they're the ones to ask. Lawyers on the other hand, just love to decide things.

 

[Hunt 11]

I'm intrigued by the idea of what the "correct" definition of religion is. In general, dictionary definitions support my (and BSA's) understanding of what a relgion is--it involves belief in unseen, divine powers or forces. This is what the WORD "religion" means. Of course, courts have had to struggle with the legal meaning of "religion" when it is used in the Constitution and in laws, and they have come to a variety of decisions based on the context (see http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm for an interesting article about this). In some cases, courts have held that the protections given to religion should be extended to other beliefs that occupy the same position in a person's life that a more traditional religion would, and in others they have made a distinction between relgion and philophy (for example, the religion clauses of the Constitution have been interpreted to only apply to actual religious beliefs). But of course, all of this is really irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because as a private entity, BSA has the right to define "religion" as it chooses (actually, the term it's defining is "duty to God" anyway). It's fair to ask whether BSA is consistent in the application of its definition, of course, and the question of whether religion so broadly defined is really a core of the program (see the other thread on that issue), but what Texas comptrollers do or do not do is not really helpful to the discussion.

If you "wouldn't be surprised" if BSA started to kick Buddhists out, you are startlingly ignorant of BSA. BSA goes to great lengths to avoid kicking anybody out, and usually only does so if the person decides to make an issue. Certainly, BSA would not kick out any Buddhists who professed even the most vague and nebulous belief in any kind of spiritual reality.

[2Eagle 10]

adc294,

I am a Christian and I will try to answer some of the questions you posed at the beginning of this thread. The quaetions didn't seem to be answered an the topic drifted. I make no assumptions about your personal beliefs.

Will billions and billions suffer for wrong choice...yes...though it is not God's desire for any to suffer. He has told us the way and sent his son to show the way and left evidence in every natural thing we see. So in His mind there will be no excuses accepted at the end.

Will many be surprised...yes.

has God been dictated to us...yes...it's called the Bible...everything you need to know is there.

Will people who don't believe in the God of the Bible enjoy his blessings...simply put, no.

Although you didn't mention this somone did...The God of Judaism and Christianity are the same...the difference is the believe in the Christ, the Messiah. Allah of the Muslims is not the same.

Can I respect someone else's "choice"...yes...God gave us "choice" in our make up...He asks that His creations make the right one...and I'll pray that everone does.

[Trevorum 24]

2Eagle, I believe that the overwhelming majority of theological scholars worldwide will disagree with you and say that the Jewish god (YHWH or Adonai), the Christian god (Jehovah) and the Islamic god (Allah) are all the same diety. All three faiths accept the Old Testament as divine - which is why followers are collectively referred to as "people of the book". Some sects and denominations with each faith do not want to recognize the historical and theological linkages, but that doesn't change the fact.