"Prosperity Gospel"

[Jack]

If you haven't heard, John Oliver (the comedian who hosts Last Week Tonight, which is sort of a spin-off of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) did an expose on televangelists (viewable here). The TL;DR is that any organization that declares itself a "church" doesn't have to pay taxes and has an essentially zero chance of being audited. This allows sociopathic televangelist hucksters to live tax-free (including their gigantic mansions, upon which they don't even have to pay property tax because they declare them as "parsonages") while they swindle gullible religious people out of their life savings by preaching something called the "prosperity gospel." The "prosperity gospel" basically boils down to "if you send me (the televangelist) lots of money, God will think you're wealthy and send you lots of money" which is obviously ridiculous, yet somehow persuasive to idiots....

I've also noticed that several people around here have expressed the desire to take the lessons they've learned and become pseudo-financial advisors, but don't know how to make it worth their time and/or avoid getting in trouble for lacking the right licenses and whatnot.

Finally, y'all know we like to joke around here about "Mustachianism" being a religion...

(You see where I'm going with this, right?)

What somebody could do is start a church of "evangelical Mustachianism," preach the real "prosperity gospel," and get the nice side-benefit of no longer having to pay property tax on their house.

Thoughts?

[DoubleDown]

The "prosperity gospel" basically boils down to "if you send me (the televangelist) lots of money, God will think you're wealthy and send you lots of money"

I don't know about the wisdom of establishing a church of evangelical Mustachianism and hoping to get tax breaks, but I think the prosperity gospel would usually be summarized more like, "If you send me (the televangelist) lots of money (as a steward for God), God will see and reward your faith and you will prosper." They will use various quotes or parables from the Bible such as planting seeds and reaping 1000-fold to substantiate this belief (or pitch, if you prefer). I'm a Christian, and I find the prosperity gospel to be dubious, and it certainly provides a convenient vehicle for hucksters to fleece naïve people. Most of those televangelists are likely big-time scammers.

I DO believe God likes expressions of faith and takes care of followers, but it's not a quid pro quo thing. The entire book of Job is a pretty good argument against the prosperity gospel. Don't know how televangelists would address that disconnect (God puts Job through a whole bunch of suffering, even though Job is a righteous man who obeys God). Job finally and figuratively says, "WTF? Why are you doing this to me? Haven't I been faithful and righteous?" The takeaway is that God does not promise riches and prosperity; we are to be faithful followers of God regardless and trust in His will, not our own.

[Chris22]

Eddie: If only I had that money Catherine and I gave to that TV preacher who was screwin' that hockey player.
Clark: What about the kids?
Eddie: His kids can fend for themselves.

[Digital Dogma]

I've seen the segment and it enrages me. I've discussed it with co-workers who have in turn shared with me that their impoverished elderly family members were susceptible to this sort of predatory "prosperity gospel" pandered by sociopaths.

[BTDretire]

I recall seeing a televangelists telling his faithful how one of them gifted him a Corvette.
But it was presented in such a way to encourage others to do the same.

[sol]

it certainly provides a convenient vehicle for hucksters to fleece naïve people. Most of those televangelists are likely big-time scammers.

Here's a new flash for you: they're all scammers.

Anybody who asks you for money for magical reasons is lying to you, because magic isn't real.  There is no good luck charm, no curse to be lifted, no vampire protectors or wolf bane, and there is certainly no invisible bearded white man in the sky who will send you dollars if you send your dollars to the charlatans on television.

Some churches will do great things with your money, if you choose to support them.  But you should give because you support the mission or the charity work, not because the voodoo lady says her zombie overlord will punish you if you don't. 

It's the 21st century, people.  We have robots driving around Mars.  It's time to let go of our ancient superstitions, to celebrate our myths as part of our cultural heritage but not literal truths any more than Zeus and Poseidon.  Why is that so hard?

[MrsPete]

Here's a new flash for you: they're all scammers.

Anybody who asks you for money for magical reasons is lying to you, because magic isn't real.  There is no good luck charm, no curse to be lifted, no vampire protectors or wolf bane, and there is certainly no invisible bearded white man in the sky who will send you dollars if you send your dollars to the charlatans on television.

Some churches will do great things with your money, if you choose to support them.  But you should give because you support the mission or the charity work, not because the voodoo lady says her zombie overlord will punish you if you don't. 

It's the 21st century, people.  We have robots driving around Mars.  It's time to let go of our ancient superstitions, to celebrate our myths as part of our cultural heritage but not literal truths any more than Zeus and Poseidon.  Why is that so hard?

You wouldn't ridicule someone for the color of his skin or his sexual orientation.  You wouldn't belittle a person for choosing to live in a different part of the country.  You wouldn't even make fun of someone for liking music or hobbies that you don't like.  You wouldn't insult the intelligence of someone who chose to join a club that isn't for you.

Why, then, do you feel free to blast someone else's religious beliefs?  It's crass and rude, and it has no place in a supposedly enlightened world.  It seems you adhere to the philosophy that people should be open minded -- unless you're talking about a conservative Christian point of view, and then it's fine to make fun of another person's most closely held values. 

[sol]

You wouldn't belittle a person for choosing to live in a different part of the country.  You wouldn't even make fun of someone for liking music or hobbies that you don't like. You wouldn't insult the intelligence of someone who chose to join a club that isn't for you.

To be fair, I might.  Particularly if those hobbies were harmful to people.  I'd probably make fun of you for joining the KKK, for example.  They were also big on magical thinking.

Why, then, do you feel free to blast someone else's religious beliefs? 

Generally speaking, I support religious adherence.  Just not the ridiculous parts like believing in ghosts or vampires.

And I blast voodoo practitioners the same way I blast market timers, climate change deniers, hollow-earth conspiracy theorists, and doctors who say smoking isn't bad for you.  If you preach nonsense that has been factually disproven, I don't see a problem with pointing that out.

We are each free to choose our own belief systems.  I prefer to base mine on things that I can verify are true and that are consistent with everything else I know about the world.  You can base yours on whatever you like, too.  You are also free to tell me I'm wrong and magic is real.  Isn't America great?

[ChrisLansing]

I must admit that I find it difficult to work up any sympathy for the people who are the "victims" of these preachers.    I put "victims" in quotes because they gave of their own free will, and they were not conned in the normal sense.   They weren't lied to because we are not dealing with verifiable testable logical theory, we are dealing with constitutionally protected religious beliefs.    So if an elderly lady wants to believe in prosperity gospel, and wants to send money to a millionaire preacher, there isn't much that can be done about it.   

Maybe it's better to say that the con is right out in the open for everyone to see.   If some people still can't see it, well, you can't protect everyone from everything.     

[sol]

Maybe it's better to say that the con is right out in the open for everyone to see.   If some people still can't see it, well, you can't protect everyone from everything.   

Muggings still happen in broad daylight, too, yet we've managed to make that illegal.  The victim still hands over their wallet freely, how is that any different?  Just because the victim was threatened with eternal damnation instead of a knife in the belly?

[ChrisLansing]

The mugging victim doesn't hand over his wallet freely, he hands it over under duress.   

Eternal damnation is a constitutionally protected religious belief.   I don't think we want the govt in the business of determining what religious beliefs are valid and which ones are not.   In other words, you and I are going to have to accept that people have a right to magical thinking.     Some people are going to help finance someone's Lear Jet.   

Would you really suggesting making the preaching of prosperity gospel illegal?   

[Lanthiriel]

It's the 21st century, people.  We have robots driving around Mars.  It's time to let go of our ancient superstitions, to celebrate our myths as part of our cultural heritage but not literal truths any more than Zeus and Poseidon.  Why is that so hard?

Amen ;)

[sol]

Would you really suggesting making the preaching of prosperity gospel illegal?

Preaching it?  No, of course not.  That one clearly falls under free speech, just like the Westboro Baptist Church does.

But I might be in favor of instituting a 90 day holding period for all donations to tax exempt institutions.  I think in most cases of elderly believers being swindled out of their life savings, there is an accountant or adult child supervising the finances who would have stepped in to protect that person's interests if there were a mechanism for doing so. 

I thought John Oliver's piece was right on the money in terms of tone.  The prosperity gospel preachers are vile.  They tarnish all religious institutions with their fraudulent claims, and it's only slightly more offensive than usual because the fraud is financial instead of just ideological.

[Annamal]

I must admit that I find it difficult to work up any sympathy for the people who are the "victims" of these preachers.    I put "victims" in quotes because they gave of their own free will, and they were not conned in the normal sense.   They weren't lied to because we are not dealing with verifiable testable logical theory, we are dealing with constitutionally protected religious beliefs.    So if an elderly lady wants to believe in prosperity gospel, and wants to send money to a millionaire preacher, there isn't much that can be done about it.   

Maybe it's better to say that the con is right out in the open for everyone to see.   If some people still can't see it, well, you can't protect everyone from everything.   

I believe there is a certain amount of research which suggests that people's ability to detect deception deteriorates as they age, I can't help but feel that these churches are fleecing people at their most vulnerable stages in life (i.e. when they're elderly or desperate).

John Oliver did a follow up last night (love the person who sent him 5 bucks with a note saying "here's your seed you rat faced b******d").

Praise be.

[forummm]

I thought John Oliver's piece was right on the money in terms of tone.  The prosperity gospel preachers are vile.  They tarnish all religious institutions with their fraudulent claims, and it's only slightly more offensive than usual because the fraud is financial instead of just ideological.

I like the piece but I thought he undersold the problem. He could have picked even better examples. I just randomly happened upon the 700 Club (a very notable program) awhile back and Pat Robertson (a very notable figure--and former Republican presidential candidate) is the host. They had well-produced testimonials from people who were having a really hard financial time and then they sent in their last bit of money and then the next week the job offer came through. They were down to the last $1000 on the credit card limit and they sent it in instead of buying groceries and then the next month they had a big sale and paid off all their debt. Etc. It was example after example of this multi-millionaire telling people who had no money to send him whatever they had. I think Robertson's "ministry" also bought him a plane that he uses to go check on his diamond mines in Africa. These aren't just fringe people. These are people who are pretty widely known.

[regulator]

Here's a new flash for you: they're all scammers.

Anybody who asks you for money for magical reasons is lying to you, because magic isn't real.  There is no good luck charm, no curse to be lifted, no vampire protectors or wolf bane, and there is certainly no invisible bearded white man in the sky who will send you dollars if you send your dollars to the charlatans on television.

Some churches will do great things with your money, if you choose to support them.  But you should give because you support the mission or the charity work, not because the voodoo lady says her zombie overlord will punish you if you don't. 

It's the 21st century, people.  We have robots driving around Mars.  It's time to let go of our ancient superstitions, to celebrate our myths as part of our cultural heritage but not literal truths any more than Zeus and Poseidon.  Why is that so hard?

You wouldn't ridicule someone for the color of his skin or his sexual orientation.  You wouldn't belittle a person for choosing to live in a different part of the country.  You wouldn't even make fun of someone for liking music or hobbies that you don't like.  You wouldn't insult the intelligence of someone who chose to join a club that isn't for you.

Why, then, do you feel free to blast someone else's religious beliefs?  It's crass and rude, and it has no place in a supposedly enlightened world.  It seems you adhere to the philosophy that people should be open minded -- unless you're talking about a conservative Christian point of view, and then it's fine to make fun of another person's most closely held values.

Yet oddly enough the moderators seem to tolerate/encourage this garbage.  Bigotry is everywhere, it seems.

[sol]

Yet oddly enough the moderators seem to tolerate/encourage this garbage.  Bigotry is everywhere, it seems.

Let's not be dishonest about it.  There is no bigotry here.  I encourage everyone to find their own path in life, and to let others do the same.  You seem to be the only one intolerant of dissenting opinions.

Some churches are great.  Others are scandalous.  You get to pick which kind you belong to, or you get to choose not to belong.  So do I.  Please respect that choice.

[MrsPete]

You wouldn't belittle a person for choosing to live in a different part of the country.  You wouldn't even make fun of someone for liking music or hobbies that you don't like. You wouldn't insult the intelligence of someone who chose to join a club that isn't for you.

To be fair, I might.  Particularly if those hobbies were harmful to people.  I'd probably make fun of you for joining the KKK, for example.  They were also big on magical thinking.

Why, then, do you feel free to blast someone else's religious beliefs? 

Generally speaking, I support religious adherence.  Just not the ridiculous parts like believing in ghosts or vampires.

And I blast voodoo practitioners the same way I blast market timers, climate change deniers, hollow-earth conspiracy theorists, and doctors who say smoking isn't bad for you.  If you preach nonsense that has been factually disproven, I don't see a problem with pointing that out.

We are each free to choose our own belief systems.  I prefer to base mine on things that I can verify are true and that are consistent with everything else I know about the world.  You can base yours on whatever you like, too.  You are also free to tell me I'm wrong and magic is real.  Isn't America great?

Reaching for an extreme example like the KKK doesn't particularly help your point.  They're a group founded on the very idea of harming other people, and decent folks are against their violence and bigotry. 

However, your point seems to be that you can insult people's beliefs, calling them "magic" ... just because it's perfectly legal to do so.  Why not think to yourself, "That person's dead wrong" and move right on with your life?  Why be a jerk? 

I like the piece but I thought he undersold the problem. He could have picked even better examples. I just randomly happened upon the 700 Club (a very notable program) awhile back and Pat Robertson (a very notable figure--and former Republican presidential candidate) is the host. They had well-produced testimonials from people who were having a really hard financial time and then they sent in their last bit of money and then the next week the job offer came through. They were down to the last $1000 on the credit card limit and they sent it in instead of buying groceries and then the next month they had a big sale and paid off all their debt. Etc. It was example after example of this multi-millionaire telling people who had no money to send him whatever they had. I think Robertson's "ministry" also bought him a plane that he uses to go check on his diamond mines in Africa. These aren't just fringe people. These are people who are pretty widely known.

Yes, certainly we can find plenty of examples of people who've done wrong in the name of religion!  I don't think anyone's defending their bad choices. 

[regulator]

Why be a jerk? 

Why indeed?  And why is this type of infraction against the forum prime directive tolerated?

[sol]

Why not think to yourself, "That person's dead wrong" and move right on with your life?  Why be a jerk? 

For the exact same reasons I don't give a free pass to the other groups I mentioned above like climate change deniers or doctors who promote smoking.  Why should one group of fraudulent hucksters get a free pass when others don't?  Does claiming a religious justification for lying to people make the fraud okay?  Wasn't this a thread about people using religion to commit fraud?

I'll say it again just so there is no confusion:  I wish more people were involved with churches.  Religion confers all kinds of great benefits on society, but none of them are related to the mumbo jumbo part, which we still seem to think is somehow integral to that whole "helping the poor" and "serving mankind" parts.

And despite my opinion on the mumbo jumbo, I still support your right to believe in it, and even preach it.  But every time a doctor stands up and says smoking isn't bad for you, some other doctor is probably going to stand up to offer a contrary opinion based on researched facts.  That's how free speech works.  He's not suppressing anyone's freedoms by pointing out facts that disprove your beliefs about smoking.  He's not being a jerk by offering people verifiable truth instead of deliberate lies. 

Why are people offended when I call religions magic?  Do they disagree that their faith is supernatural?  Are they uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance created when forced to confront the apparent discrepancy between their own supposed rationality and their strict adherence to wildly fantastical myths they learned as children?  Do they think that Zeus and Poseidon are silly magical myths but their own equivalent deity is not?

I don't mean to belittle people, just bad ideas.  People can always decide to discard bad ideas, so they are not bad people for being temporarily misled by authority figures who profit from that deception.  Unless you're one of those deliberately deceptive authority figures who con elderly people out of their life savings so you can buy another private jet, then you're probably just a bad person.

[WGH]

I thought John Oliver's piece was right on the money in terms of tone.  The prosperity gospel preachers are vile.  They tarnish all religious institutions with their fraudulent claims, and it's only slightly more offensive than usual because the fraud is financial instead of just ideological.

I like the piece but I thought he undersold the problem. He could have picked even better examples. I just randomly happened upon the 700 Club (a very notable program) awhile back and Pat Robertson (a very notable figure--and former Republican presidential candidate) is the host. They had well-produced testimonials from people who were having a really hard financial time and then they sent in their last bit of money and then the next week the job offer came through. They were down to the last $1000 on the credit card limit and they sent it in instead of buying groceries and then the next month they had a big sale and paid off all their debt. Etc. It was example after example of this multi-millionaire telling people who had no money to send him whatever they had. I think Robertson's "ministry" also bought him a plane that he uses to go check on his diamond mines in Africa. These aren't just fringe people. These are people who are pretty widely known.

I attended a Catholic church one Sunday morning and a married couple stood up and talked about how they were broke from medical bills and were down to their last dollar when lo and behold the hospital granted them charity care and essentially zeroed out their bill. The pastor/preacher/whatever went on and on about how this was evidence of the grace of God and how faith is rewarded. I just sat there and thought are we seriously teaching all of these people that when they have problems to pray that they just go away?!

Oh and this same church also reminded me that I would go to hell if I didn't tithe 10% of my pre tax income. Oh and that it's pre and not post tax was specifically mentioned at least twice. I heard this same crap in a Baptist church when I was a kid.

Utter lunacy and don't get me started on hypocrite John Hagee!

[FIRE me]

It's the 21st century, people.  We have robots driving around Mars.  It's time to let go of our ancient superstitions, to celebrate our myths as part of our cultural heritage but not literal truths any more than Zeus and Poseidon.  Why is that so hard?

Good luck with that.

I think Arthur C Clarke was right, when he said (speaking through a character in a fictional book) that for all of human mental achievement, there are still some fundamental mis-wirings in our brains. We (as a species) tend to believe in things like sympathetic magic, magical cures, and religion.

[Apocalyptica602]

Do they think that Zeus and Poseidon are silly magical myths but their own equivalent deity is not?

Ha! Love it. I've used this line a number of times in random debates across the internet and with friends. What makes your deity the 'correct' one? You may believe whatever you want but that doesn't mean I'm unequivocally wrong for believing in another one, or a lack of one.

Cue South Park reference where many people of various Christian sects were in hell and wondering why, and the 'Hell Official' was like "Sorry folks, turns out Mormonism was the correct answer."

(I'm an agnostic for the record -- I don't believe in absolutes nor expect we as a species are even capable of fully understanding the complexities of the universe let alone proving or disproving the existence of superior beings, I do think the concept of the Judeo-Christian 'God' is likely incorrect however.)

Anyway back on topic - Religion is what these scammers have to separate them from others. A 'Put-Me-On-TV' fraud, instead of a 'Throw-Me-In-Prison' fraud.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I like the piece but I thought he undersold the problem. He could have picked even better examples. I just randomly happened upon the 700 Club (a very notable program) awhile back and Pat Robertson (a very notable figure--and former Republican presidential candidate) is the host. They had well-produced testimonials from people who were having a really hard financial time and then they sent in their last bit of money and then the next week the job offer came through. They were down to the last $1000 on the credit card limit and they sent it in instead of buying groceries and then the next month they had a big sale and paid off all their debt. Etc. It was example after example of this multi-millionaire telling people who had no money to send him whatever they had. I think Robertson's "ministry" also bought him a plane that he uses to go check on his diamond mines in Africa. These aren't just fringe people. These are people who are pretty widely known.

It's not just Pat Robertson. I was listening to Mike Huckabee's radio program a couple years ago, and he told the story of a man who was down on his luck and came to him for advice while Huckabee was pastoring a church. Huckabee advised him to give 10% of whatever he had to the church, and lo and behold, the man started a business and eventually became fabulously wealthy. Years later, the same man approached Huckabee again, complaining that now that his income was so high, he felt like the 10% he donated was too much. He asked Huckabee if their was anything he could do to reduce it. Huckabee said that his response was something like, "Yes, I know exactly what you can do to reduce your tithe. Just stop donating to the church, and I'll start praying that God takes away everything he's given to you, so you won't have so much money to give anymore."

I just sat there and thought are we seriously teaching all of these people that when they have problems to pray that they just go away?!

It depends on the church. The good ones preach that if your problems don't go away, you're not faithful enough or praying hard enough. The bad ones teach that you're not giving them enough money.

I'll note that I am a churchgoer (for the sake of my wife), but not a believer in the Christian faith. I'm happy with our church. It tends to emphasize friendship, encouragement, community strength, love and help for the less fortunate, and other positive aspects of the Christian faith that are objectively good. They don't ask for money (but they do have a donation box and a community pantry that are open for donations), and they don't get caught up in stupid doctrinal arguments about how to get to heaven. I enjoy it and view it as a social and cultural activity, but it's sometimes a bit awkward knowing that everyone else around me has beliefs that I don't share.

[brooklynguy]

Muggings still happen in broad daylight, too, yet we've managed to make that illegal.  The victim still hands over their wallet freely, how is that any different?  Just because the victim was threatened with eternal damnation instead of a knife in the belly?

I think crimes of fraud make for a better analogy than robbery.  We have specific laws against, say, certain snake oil sales tactics, as but one example of the general unlawfulness of making intentional misrepresentations of material facts for the purpose (and having the effect) of inducing others to act to their detriment.  I'm not equipped or inclined to put together a full-blown legal analysis of the myriad issues involved (including the intersection with our constitutionally protected rights of free speech and free exercise of religion),* but it seems to me that under the right facts and circumstances there could be legal theories under which some of these hucksters could be (constitutionally) prosecuted.  Of course, it would probably depend in large part on the precise claims being made and whether those claims are demonstrably false.  Perhaps none of these scam artists are stupid enough to make promises having enough specificity and tangibility to fall on the wrong side of the fine line protecting their predatory behavior, but I don't think merely wrapping a claim in the language of religion automatically insulates it from criminal (or civil) liability.

*But perhaps another poster might be? (Cathy, if you're reading this, that's your cue.)

[sol]

I think crimes of fraud make for a better analogy than robbery.

Maybe, but it's a fine line between "give me all of your money or I'll stab you" and "give me all your money or burn in hell."

What if the mugger doesn't really have a knife?  Do you call it fraud rather than robbery just because the threat is an empty one? 

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I think crimes of fraud make for a better analogy than robbery.

Maybe, but it's a fine line between "give me all of your money or I'll stab you" and "give me all your money or burn in hell."

What if the mugger doesn't really have a knife?  Do you call it fraud rather than robbery just because the threat is an empty one? 

Let's not be hyperbolic. The threat is never phrased as "give me all your money or burn in hell." It's usually "Give me more money than you can afford to give, and God will reward your faith with more money." I think fraud is a far more apt comparison than robbery.

[brooklynguy]

However, your point seems to be that you can insult people's beliefs, calling them "magic" ... just because it's perfectly legal to do so.

It is no more insulting to call a belief in religion a belief in magic than it is to call a rose a flower.  Religious believers may not like the use of the word "magic" because, in our culture, it carries a connotation of falsity, but supernatural religion is, by definition, a subcategory of magic.  If you believe in supernatural religion, then you believe in a type of magic.  Recognizing the truth of that statement may create cognitive dissonance in the religious believer, but that truth is unassailable.  To take offense at the labeling of a type of magic as a type of magic reveals something about the offense-taker, not the other way around.

[sol]

Let's not be hyperbolic. The threat is never phrased as "give me all your money or burn in hell."

It seems only a matter of degree.  For a skilled con artist, deliberately conflating "God rewards the righteous who send me money" and "God punishes the non-believers who don't send me money" is a useful and effective tactic.  People are easy to manipulate, particularly if they've had a lifetime of weekly sermons filling in the backstory.  No explicit threats necessary.

Imagine a pitch that goes something like "God loves all his followers.  He wants you to succeed, and he will bring wonderful things into your life if you send me $100.  But don't listen to the naysayers, they are corrupted by the devil.  If you don't send me your $100, God's light will not shine on you because you have chosen the path of darkness and deceit.  Come to the light!  Accept Jesus into your heart so that he may reward you with the gift of his eternal blessings.  Send money now!"

People get the implied message; pay up or receive divine retribution. 

[regulator]

However, your point seems to be that you can insult people's beliefs, calling them "magic" ... just because it's perfectly legal to do so.

It is no more insulting to call a belief in religion a belief in magic than it is to call a rose a flower.  Religious believers may not like the use of the word "magic" because, in our culture, it carries a connotation of falsity, but supernatural religion is, by definition, a subcategory of magic.  If you believe in supernatural religion, then you believe in a type of magic.  Recognizing the truth of that statement may create cognitive dissonance in the religious believer, but that truth is unassailable.  To take offense at the labeling of a type of magic as a type of magic reveals something about the offense-taker, not the other way around.

So you would not take offense at a religious person characterizing atheists/agnostics as Godless, profane heathens that have no real grounding to their moral compass?  Like you say, let's call a rose a flower.

[sol]

So you would not take offense at a religious person characterizing atheists/agnostics as Godless, profane heathens that have no real grounding to their moral compass?  Like you say, let's call a rose a flower.

Godless heathens, yes.  Profane is a bit of a stretch, as lots of people who believe in God use profanity and lots of people who do not believe in God do not use profanity.

It's the last part where you really go off the rails: "no real grounding to their moral compass?"  What does belief in the supernatural have to do with morality?  Are you suggesting that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people?  Are you suggesting that morality is somehow derived from religion, or that religion is somehow derived from morality?  Because I would be comfortable arguing all of those points, one at a time, slowly, until you and everyone else here realizes how very painfully wrong they are.

But on the "godless heathen" label, yes I proudly accept it.  I also casually use "atheist" to refer to myself, to convey the idea that I believe in things that are true and the methods we use for determining what is true, rather than silly stories about miracles and talking animals.

Frankly I'm shocked more people don't accept it, because I find it slightly disturbing that anyone in a position of power, say a police chief or a  US President, can still stand up in public and say "I believe in ouija boards and seances and will let those beliefs guide me in doing my job" and everyone nods their heads approvingly like that's somehow okay.  Seriously?

Imagine the President of the United States standing in front of Congress at the State of the Union address and saying "The US debt has just crossed 20 trillion dollars.  Our nation goes deeper into debt by 500 billion dollars per year.  We're flat broke, but today I'm announcing a new government program to give an extra trillion dollars per year to my church, as a seed that I expect will bring tenfold prosperity back to America.  The Lord commands we make this sacrifice so that we can balance our budget." 

He'd be laughed off the stage.  The Prosperity Gospel should be laughed off too.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

However, your point seems to be that you can insult people's beliefs, calling them "magic" ... just because it's perfectly legal to do so.

It is no more insulting to call a belief in religion a belief in magic than it is to call a rose a flower.  Religious believers may not like the use of the word "magic" because, in our culture, it carries a connotation of falsity, but supernatural religion is, by definition, a subcategory of magic.  If you believe in supernatural religion, then you believe in a type of magic.  Recognizing the truth of that statement may create cognitive dissonance in the religious believer, but that truth is unassailable.  To take offense at the labeling of a type of magic as a type of magic reveals something about the offense-taker, not the other way around.

So you would not take offense at a religious person characterizing atheists/agnostics as Godless, profane heathens that have no real grounding to their moral compass?  Like you say, let's call a rose a flower.

• "godless": not recognizing or obeying God
• "profane": relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious; not respectful of orthodox religious practice
• "heathen": a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do

I certainly wouldn't argue with any of that.

• "no real grounding to their moral compass"

This is clearly an opinion, rather than a fact, and you are certainly entitled to it. However:

• "real": actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed

Based on this definition, atheists would have a much stronger argument to having a "real" grounding to their moral compass than the religious.

[Pigeon]

In my experience, religious people who get their knickers in a twist about atheists thinking everyone should naturally respect their particular set of supernatural beliefs generally themselves don't think all supernatural beliefs deserve the same respect. Heaven's Gate, Scientology, FLDS, etc.,  How do people believe that crap?

Respecting your right to believe magic isn't the same as believing your magic deserves respect.

[EricP]

It's the last part where you really go off the rails: "no real grounding to their moral compass?"  What does belief in the supernatural have to do with morality? Are you suggesting that morality is somehow derived from religion?

Religion gives an actual foundation to morality. That is, the divine is telling us how to act.  Obviously it is still up to humans to interpret it, but there is an actual grounding to it.

Secular systems of morality, while still have merit, have no actual grounding.  It's just a bunch of smart people arguing over which one of their systems is "better."  I, for one, can't really determine what's better deontology or utilitarianism and end up just needing to do secular morality cafeteria style.  Sure, lying is bad, but I'm going to lie to protect some Jews, but I really don't want to pull the lever and kill the one person even when I know that I'm going to save three.

So, while secular morality still has merit, I think the statement that it "has no grounding" is factually accurate.  Most "secular morality practitioners" (and by this I mean your average atheist) are going to just be moral relativists anyways, so I have no problem saying that they (moral relativists) have "no grounding."

[regulator]

In my experience, religious people who get their knickers in a twist about atheists thinking everyone should naturally respect their particular set of supernatural beliefs generally themselves don't think all supernatural beliefs deserve the same respect. Heaven's Gate, Scientology, FLDS, etc.,  How do people believe that crap?

Respecting your right to believe magic isn't the same as believing your magic deserves respect.

I could actually give a fuck what anyone believes or doesn't believe.  What I find amazing is that atheists/agnostics/heathens/whatever the hell they call themselves seem to go out of their way to attack religion/religious beliefs/religious people and it is widely tolerated on these boards.  You think Christians capping on atheists or Muslims would be similarly tolerated?  Of course not.  Yet wildly bigoted atheists like sol run around doing their thing with impunity.  Amazing.

[Petunia 100]

However, your point seems to be that you can insult people's beliefs, calling them "magic" ... just because it's perfectly legal to do so.

It is no more insulting to call a belief in religion a belief in magic than it is to call a rose a flower.  Religious believers may not like the use of the word "magic" because, in our culture, it carries a connotation of falsity, but supernatural religion is, by definition, a subcategory of magic.  If you believe in supernatural religion, then you believe in a type of magic.  Recognizing the truth of that statement may create cognitive dissonance in the religious believer, but that truth is unassailable.  To take offense at the labeling of a type of magic as a type of magic reveals something about the offense-taker, not the other way around.

So you would not take offense at a religious person characterizing atheists/agnostics as Godless, profane heathens that have no real grounding to their moral compass?  Like you say, let's call a rose a flower.

When you say this, you are also saying that you have morals only because you are also religious.  Is that really true?

I think that is a very sad statement.

[dsmexpat]

Here's a new flash for you: they're all scammers.

Anybody who asks you for money for magical reasons is lying to you, because magic isn't real.  There is no good luck charm, no curse to be lifted, no vampire protectors or wolf bane, and there is certainly no invisible bearded white man in the sky who will send you dollars if you send your dollars to the charlatans on television.

Some churches will do great things with your money, if you choose to support them.  But you should give because you support the mission or the charity work, not because the voodoo lady says her zombie overlord will punish you if you don't. 

It's the 21st century, people.  We have robots driving around Mars.  It's time to let go of our ancient superstitions, to celebrate our myths as part of our cultural heritage but not literal truths any more than Zeus and Poseidon.  Why is that so hard?

You wouldn't insult the intelligence of someone who chose to join a club that isn't for you.

There is an entire subforum on this site devoted to pretty much that. Whether it's timeshares, disney clubs, $500 month elite gyms or zombie Jews, participation in a voluntary club is fair game.

[dsmexpat]

In my experience, religious people who get their knickers in a twist about atheists thinking everyone should naturally respect their particular set of supernatural beliefs generally themselves don't think all supernatural beliefs deserve the same respect. Heaven's Gate, Scientology, FLDS, etc.,  How do people believe that crap?

Respecting your right to believe magic isn't the same as believing your magic deserves respect.

I could actually give a fuck what anyone believes or doesn't believe.  What I find amazing is that atheists/agnostics/heathens/whatever the hell they call themselves seem to go out of their way to attack religion/religious beliefs/religious people and it is widely tolerated on these boards.  You think Christians capping on atheists or Muslims would be similarly tolerated?  Of course not.  Yet wildly bigoted atheists like sol run around doing their thing with impunity.  Amazing.

sol suggested that we embrace religion as an important part of our cultural heritage while at the same time recognizing that its time had passed. That seemed really generous to me. Hardly the words of a bigot looking to damn the entire edifice.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

It's the last part where you really go off the rails: "no real grounding to their moral compass?"  What does belief in the supernatural have to do with morality? Are you suggesting that morality is somehow derived from religion?

Religion gives an actual foundation to morality. That is, the divine is telling us how to act.

If the supposed deity does not exist, then neither does the foundation.

[regulator]

In my experience, religious people who get their knickers in a twist about atheists thinking everyone should naturally respect their particular set of supernatural beliefs generally themselves don't think all supernatural beliefs deserve the same respect. Heaven's Gate, Scientology, FLDS, etc.,  How do people believe that crap?

Respecting your right to believe magic isn't the same as believing your magic deserves respect.

I could actually give a fuck what anyone believes or doesn't believe.  What I find amazing is that atheists/agnostics/heathens/whatever the hell they call themselves seem to go out of their way to attack religion/religious beliefs/religious people and it is widely tolerated on these boards.  You think Christians capping on atheists or Muslims would be similarly tolerated?  Of course not.  Yet wildly bigoted atheists like sol run around doing their thing with impunity.  Amazing.

sol suggested that we embrace religion as an important part of our cultural heritage while at the same time recognizing that its time had passed. That seemed really generous to me. Hardly the words of a bigot looking to damn the entire edifice.

sol has consistently attacked religion, religious beliefs and religious people for as long as I have been on this forum.  Pull the other one; its got bells on.

Since moderation here is so one-sided, all I can do is make additions to the ignore list.

[sol]

I have no problem saying that they (moral relativists) have "no grounding."

Everyone is a moral relativist.  Choosing Islamic morality over Christian morality is even less defensible than choosing deontology over utilitarianism.  Or vice versa.

And let's not forget that the "actual foundation to morality" that you cite openly condones slavery, stoning rape victims, and sex with minors.  The morality in our ancient texts is from an ancient time, written by men who lived in a very different world.  It is the last place I would look to for moral guidance.  Pork is evil!  Rape is totally fine!  Try to be nice to your slaves, unless they talk back to you!

But even those little quirks aren't the most distressing part, in my opinion.  Somewhere in the transition between spiritual movement and organized social structure, Christianity became a transactional enterprise.  Jesus' love is available to you if and only if you pay the right preacher man.  God in his grace forgives you for all of your sins, but only after demanding a blood sacrifice.  What kind of F'ed up medieval BS is that, where love and forgiveness are bought and sold?  I mean I get that the church is a business and it has to support itself somehow, but I struggle with this notion that everything about it has to be an exchange of real value for perceived mythical value, which seems very contradictory to message they're trying to spread.  Especially when they're targeting the poor and destitute, people they should be helping instead of exploiting, with messages like "send us your last dollar and Jesus will bless you."

Yet wildly bigoted atheists like sol run around doing their thing with impunity. 

As I've stated before, there is no bigotry here.  We are each free to choose our own belief systems, and I respect everyone's right to make that choice.  You are still the only person here asking for contrary opinions to be suppressed. 

[EricP]

It's the last part where you really go off the rails: "no real grounding to their moral compass?"  What does belief in the supernatural have to do with morality? Are you suggesting that morality is somehow derived from religion?

Religion gives an actual foundation to morality. That is, the divine is telling us how to act.

If the supposed deity does not exist, then neither does the foundation.

So even if that were accepted then all it does is show that both atheists and theists have no foundation to their morality.

[EricP]

@sol

Didn't expect an actual response from you and wasn't surprise that you just fought with a strawman that most major denominations abandoned shortly after Martin Luther posted his Theses.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

It's the last part where you really go off the rails: "no real grounding to their moral compass?"  What does belief in the supernatural have to do with morality? Are you suggesting that morality is somehow derived from religion?

Religion gives an actual foundation to morality. That is, the divine is telling us how to act.

If the supposed deity does not exist, then neither does the foundation.

So even if that were accepted then all it does is show that both atheists and theists have no foundation to their morality.

I won't argue with that. Using the term "foundation" to describe an abstract concept implies that it is immovable and unchanging, "set in stone" if you will. History has taught us that morality is fluid, subject to change dramatically over time.

[brooklynguy]

sol has consistently attacked religion, religious beliefs and religious people for as long as I have been on this forum.

Did sol give offense, or did you take offense?  Sol called religion magic, and people took umbrage.  Why?  Is there a way to distinguish supernatural religion from magic, other than the fact that many people believe it to be true?

A few months ago, my two year old son pointed to an obese man seated near us on the subway and said out loud "daddy, look how fat that man is."  When I apologized to the gentleman, he said something to the effect of "that's ok, no offense taken; I am fat."

[Jack]

It's the last part where you really go off the rails: "no real grounding to their moral compass?"  What does belief in the supernatural have to do with morality? Are you suggesting that morality is somehow derived from religion?

Religion gives an actual foundation to morality. That is, the divine is telling us how to act.  Obviously it is still up to humans to interpret it, but there is an actual grounding to it.

Secular systems of morality, while still have merit, have no actual grounding.  It's just a bunch of smart people arguing over which one of their systems is "better."  I, for one, can't really determine what's better deontology or utilitarianism and end up just needing to do secular morality cafeteria style.  Sure, lying is bad, but I'm going to lie to protect some Jews, but I really don't want to pull the lever and kill the one person even when I know that I'm going to save three.

So, while secular morality still has merit, I think the statement that it "has no grounding" is factually accurate.  Most "secular morality practitioners" (and by this I mean your average atheist) are going to just be moral relativists anyways, so I have no problem saying that they (moral relativists) have "no grounding."

In other words, "I have no 'grounding' to decide what is and isn't moral by myself, so I rely on some authority figure to explain it to me?"

Wow, that's really fucked up. Now I see why [Abrahamic, at least] religious folks are so worried about going to Hell! I mean, such an argument is great for reining in sociopaths, but if you aren't a sociopath it's hardly necessary.

FYI, the only "grounding" my morality needs is the Golden Rule, which is a logically obvious axiom and has no religious basis.

...

Anyway, all this "merits [or lack thereof] of religion" nonsense is beside the point: I created this thread to answer the question, "would the 'evangelical Mustachianism' thing be a good idea, and if not, why not?" Anybody have an opinion about that?

[EricP]

sol has consistently attacked religion, religious beliefs and religious people for as long as I have been on this forum.

Did sol give offense, or did you take offense?  Sol called religion magic, and people took umbrage.  Why?  Is there a way to distinguish supernatural religion from magic, other than the fact that many people believe it to be true?

A few months ago, my two year old son pointed to an obese man seated near us on the subway and said out loud "daddy, look how fat that man is."  When I apologized to the gentleman, he said something to the effect of "that's ok, no offense taken; I am fat."

I think you missed the "consistently."  IE: this is not the only time he has been inflammatory of religion and while this particular instance may not have been that offensive, it was just another in a long train of abuses (in the mind of that poster) that have repeatedly gone unmoderated.  I can not vouch for the factuality of this because I don't keep very good mental track of who says what, but when Sol is equating all Christians with the few who swindle people on television and condone rape and he doesn't realize (or at least purposefully ignores) that much of Deuteronomy is a health book it isn't hard to realize that he probably is inflammatory of religion all the time.

[EricP]

FYI, the only "grounding" my morality needs is the Golden Rule, which is a logically obvious axiom and has no religious basis.

So moral relativism through and through.

Edit:  To answer your question.  I doubt you would be able to get sanctioned as a church.  It's not simple by any means, even though the Church of Pot got approved rather quickly.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

FYI, the only "grounding" my morality needs is the Golden Rule, which is a logically obvious axiom and has no religious basis.

So moral relativism through and through.

Edit:  To answer your question.  I doubt you would be able to get sanctioned as a church.  It's not simple by any means, even though the Church of Pot got approved rather quickly.

Moral relativism is frequently lambasted by various sects of Christianity, which is ironic, since most churches use moral relativism to explain why dickish behavior is condoned in the Bible.

[EricP]

FYI, the only "grounding" my morality needs is the Golden Rule, which is a logically obvious axiom and has no religious basis.

So moral relativism through and through.

Edit:  To answer your question.  I doubt you would be able to get sanctioned as a church.  It's not simple by any means, even though the Church of Pot got approved rather quickly.

Moral relativism is frequently lambasted by various sects of Christianity, which is ironic, since most churches use moral relativism to explain why dickish behavior is condoned in the Bible.

I don't see the irony? Moral Reltivism is bad, some people in the bible practiced moral relativism from time to time (IE: Wives should be silent) and thus that isn't something one should follow.