Atheism in the USVI

Hey Rotor,

Just have a moment this morning to let you know that I haven't forgotten about you.

Unfortunately I was tied up with work for most of yesterday, and I 've got training of the next two days as well, so my daytime internet time will be almost non-existent. I might have a few minutes this evening or certainly in a day or two.

In the meantime, keep reading those Egyptian myths, say a few pledges and just continue to have a good old time.

JG

Sorry guys been busy trying to get my affairs in order up here in DC before I leave. JG, some interesting history there...I am glad to meet someone that bases their religious choices on what they perceive to be historical fact and NOT mere superstition. When I get some time I will look into some of the history you are citing.

Now on to something that will hopefully make everyone chuckle since this came up in discussion. There are always 2 parents to a child and my wife has insisted that we have our new baby baptized so I'm headed up to visit the inlaws in NJ this weekend to do so. My wife is not really a person of faith, but there are certain familial traditions that are important to grandparent's etc. so "you got to do what you got to do." Of course I could probably use myself as an example of how tradition leads to twisting of historical fact..blah blah blah but instead I'll just snicker at my own hypocrisy 🙂

In terms of raising my child, I am glad that I was raised Catholic, if one is going to not believe in something as powerful as Christianity in our country he/she should at least be thoroughly exposed to it in order to make his/her's own decision. I plan to raise my child to think for himself and see where that leads. Many who think for themselves end up Atheist, some such as JG, still end up Religious, but at least they do so after examining the data and reaching their own conclusions. I will not be taking him to church necessarily but there will be plenty of opportunities for him to be exposed to religion living in the VI. And if the fear of god is the only way I can get him/her to behave then I'm not above using it until he reaches such an age that I can reason with him 🙂

Sean

Click on link - then click on player on far right of screen. Some good stuff. Listen to it.

http://www.last.fm/music/Morgan+Heritage/_/Questions

Sean,
I can understand the benefit to exposure to religion, I was raised baptist, but I bet that you won't be teaching your son that catholic religious beliefs are the absolute truth, it will probably be something more like - some people believe this, learn about this and other religions and make up your own mind what you think is true. That is a lot different than teaching a child that his parents religion is the absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will burn in hell for all eternity.

JG,
I can hardly wait to hear from you. Hurry back. And BTW, I usually read science and technical books, you are the one who is into mythology.

John

OK, so as not to suck any more oxygen out of the room than necessary, let's change the subject a little.

I have a question?

Why do churches get tax exemptions? It doesn't matter which imaginary being the church is dedicated to promoting, it gets a tax exemption. You can worship god or allah or vishnu or even xenu the space alien and you get a tax exemption. You pay no property taxes and you pay no income taxes on money from your members.

Now what do these churches do? You get together and talk about how great your particular imaginary being is and all of the great things that he/she/it has done for you. You talk about how evil everyone who doesn't believe is. Some sing songs some don't. Everyone feels good about themselves, Occasionally you go for a dip in the pool if your imaginary being likes that sort of thing. You have a good time then go home. No Taxes.

If on the other hand you like to spend your Sunday mornings on the golf course. There is no worshiping of imaginary beings, occasionally you swear at one. You walk around outdoors chasing your ball around the manicured grounds. You meet up with friends who like to chase little balls around and you talk about all sorts of things. Everyone feels good about themselves, unless you really had a bad round. Occasionally you go for a dip in the pool or to the bar for a drink. You have a good time and you go home. Do you pay taxes?
You bet. The golf club pays property taxes and taxes on money from its members.

One kind of social club pays taxes and the other does not. All depending on whether or not there is an imaginary being involved. And it doesn't even matter which imaginary being. WHY? Since property and income taxes are used to support the cost of government aren't citizens who don't believe in imaginary beings being forced to subsidize the cost of churches? Why are places which are used for the worship of imaginary beings exempt from taxes?

I think golfers should create the god of the dimpled ball and start worshiping him. Think of how much cheaper golf would be with no taxes. It worked for the scientologists. They created a new god in the 1950's and with the support of many famous hollywood people are one of the fastest growing religions.

Rotor, that's an excellent question.

Here's something else that annoys me, tangentially related. Ornate, grandiose, exorbitantly expensive church buildings. To better "walk the walk" it seems like the congregation should choose to spend their money on the needy or bringing their beliefs to those who haven't heard-- not on self-aggrandizing houses of worship.

Hey Rotor,
Science hasn't figured out how to tax Churches. Well Gee By Golly what hap-pend? Lets see if this statement of fact rings any bells.
Fact: In the USA Churches have never been taxable. To be taxable a Church would first need be under the jurisdiction, and therefore under the taxing authority of the Government. The First Amendment clearly places the Church outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of Religion, nor prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof". religion cannot be FREE if you have to pay the Government, through Taxation, to exercise it.

Maybe Science can draft a New Amendment, and call it the "Hate Religion Principal".

I do not know how to post a link

Look up tax exempt world .com You can see all the tax exempt org in stx or wherever.

Mostly churches. Some i thought were interesting. List of a few.

cnc property and insuranse corperation.
delta sigma theta sorority
free masons
art stage incorperated.
choice basketball association.

Pot stirring mode ON.

Hey Rotor,
"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of Religion, nor prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof cannot be FREE if you have to pay the Government, through Taxation, to exercise it.
Maybe Science can draft a New Amendment, and call it the "Hate Religion Principal".[/". religionquote]

This is one of the great misunderstandings IMO.

Respecting is a not a verb?
"Congress shall make NO LAW showing respect for an establishment of Religion
I.E. religion is to be treated no differently from any other activity.
If a bowling alley is to be taxed so should a church.
Why should I be forced to subsidize your churches tax break with my tax dollars?
If you can praise god thru singing and such why can't you praise god by bowling in her name?
Pot stirring mode OFF.

 

I've been told that King George Loved Bowling That's why the Framers left it out.

Many who had religion thrust on them as children are now rebelling.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/07/atheists-choose-de-baptism-to.php

It seems we have a case in this country of the majority forcing their beliefs on the rest of us. Doesn't the constitution protect us from that. Since the "In God We Trust" on our money and "Under God" in our pledge was only added in the 1950's it is apparent that it can't be legitimately claimed to be part of our heritage.

Since Xenu was invented by L. Ron Hubbard in the 1950's as well shouldn't we have some money which says "In Xenu We Trust"? Or maybe open it up to any imaginary figure.

I personally vote for Goofy dollars. Or maybe "One Nation, Under Goofy, Indivisible....".

Rotor,
If that's what you want (Goofy dollars, Or maybe "One Nation, Under Goofy, Indivisible...." you should petition Your Rep in Congress, oops, sorry you don't have one. OK , try this, go on Comedy Central or SNL cause your a funny guy.

Hi all!

Ive been following this thread with great interest. I agree with Richard, it has been one of the most thought provoking threads ive ever read. Then that led me to think about how some people in some countries around the world would get arrested, or worse for even discussing this subject. Which leads me to freedom. Without it, we would be silenced...forced or coersed to follow. Freedom in this great country of ours allows everyone to believe what they want. In my short 36 years on this earth ive learned that religion really helps alot of people, gives them their path, their strength and purpose. Ive also learned that religion has caused great harm. I watched as the 2nd tower came down.

People can believe in whatever they want, as long as they dont push it on another and we will all be fine 🙂

Thanks all for the great discussion!

Cory K.

Hey Rotor,
The First Amendment clearly places the Church outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of Religion, nor prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof". religion cannot be FREE if you have to pay the Government, through Taxation, to exercise it.

So if I murder in the name of God I can't be prosecuted invoking the first amendment? To suggest that the first amendment puts Religious institutions above the law is an interesting, often scary reading of the Constitution of the US. The court's have not agreed with this in numerous cases, for instance the Catholic church tried to protect it's pedophile priests from prosecution by invoking this same argument and failed: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-100545282.html

Sean

People can believe in whatever they want, as long as they dont push it on another and we will all be fine

A fundamental tenet of most belief systems is the conversion of non-believers. Judaism is one of the few faiths that historically didn't proselytize, though that has begun to change through the efforts of Lubavitch Jews, some of whom make their homes on STT. I also have a number of Amish friends, and though they're Christian they don't evangelize, because they are social separatists. But even when considered collectively, the numbers of people in groups like Lubavitch Jews and Amish are inconsequential. The vast majority of belief systems promote the conversion of non-believers, and Mormons even convert non-Mormons many years after the non-believers have died.. Faith is a personal matter, but religion requires a vital community in order to flourish. I often think the world would be a kinder place if it were as impolitic to reveal one's religion as it is to reveal one's salary, but because we don't adhere to a strict separation of church and state, religion and politics are deeply enmeshed, and the religion with which one aligns is a political matter. Therefore, expecting the religious to refrain from aggressively promoting their beliefs is unrealistic.

dntw8up, I'm scratching my head over this:

"...and Mormons even convert non-Mormons many years after the non-believers have died."

Huh?

"On any given day, in more than fifty Mormon temples around the world, thousands of faithful Mormons are baptized vicariously for the dead. Most non-Mormons are dimly aware that the Mormons are interested in genealogy, but they are not sure why. While there is nothing wrong with being interested in genealogy as a hobby, this is far from a hobby for Mormons.

They believe people who have died can be baptized by proxy, thus allowing them the opportunity to become Mormons after their death. The idea behind baptism for the dead is this: God wants each of us to be with him in glory. To effect this, he allows us to accept the Mormon gospel here on earth. If we do not, he sends us to a "spirit prison" until the Mormon gospel has been preached to us there and we convert.

Mormons believe that their church has missionaries in the "spirit world" who are busy spreading the Mormon gospel to dead people who have not yet received it. Should any of these dead people want to convert to Mormonism, they are required to abide by all its rules, one of which is water baptism. Hence the need for proxies to receive the corporeal waters of baptism.

You might be surprised to learn that the Mormon church has teams of men and women microfilming records of Catholic and Protestant parishes, cemetery records, birth and death certificates—virtually any sort of record pertaining to past generations. Temple Mormons hope, in time, to have all of the dead of previous generations baptized posthumously into the Mormon church."

That is FASCINATING! Thanks for the info. I've heard some really strange things about Mormon beliefs. One of these days I'll have to do some reading about this religion. From the tidbits I've picked up here and there it seems like it is really "out there".

Rotor,
If that's what you want (Goofy dollars, Or maybe "One Nation, Under Goofy, Indivisible...." you should petition Your Rep in Congress, oops, sorry you don't have one. OK , try this, go on Comedy Central or SNL cause your a funny guy.

Private joke or ? You are aware that Delegate Donna Christensen was given the ability to vote in Congress beginning this year. In fact why don't you write her and have her support HR2943?

Have a great day!

The idiosyncrasies of religions are indeed fascinating. When you geat around to reading about Mormonism you will find the faithful wear special under garments to protect themselves from temptation and evil, and I've often thought I'd be willing to pay for underwear with such magic powers if I could get local criminals to wear them.

I am fortunate to have friends who subscribe to a wide variety of diverse religions, and most of what they believe stretches my credulity, but I prefer spending time with people who do not share my perspectives, because for me the differences among people are what keep life interesting.

Hey Rotor,
The First Amendment clearly places the Church outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of Religion, nor prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof". religion cannot be FREE if you have to pay the Government, through Taxation, to exercise it.

So if I murder in the name of God I can't be prosecuted invoking the first amendment? To suggest that the first amendment puts Religious institutions above the law is an interesting, often scary reading of the Constitution of the US. The court's have not agreed with this in numerous cases, for instance the Catholic church tried to protect it's pedophile priests from prosecution by invoking this same argument and failed: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-100545282.html

Sean

stiphy.
Your hypothetical assumption that the First Amendment entertains murder only enforces your lack of comprehension on the subject to taxation. Please try to keep up. You're another one that is not good with smoke and mirrors.

Rotor,
If that's what you want (Goofy dollars, Or maybe "One Nation, Under Goofy, Indivisible...." you should petition Your Rep in Congress, oops, sorry you don't have one. OK , try this, go on Comedy Central or SNL cause your a funny guy.

Private joke or ? You are aware that Delegate Donna Christensen was given the ability to vote in Congress beginning this year. In fact why don't you write her and have her support HR2943?

Have a great day!

Linda From Michigan,
Maybe you can tell me or show me where it says Delegate Donna Christensen can vote on the floor of congress.

I'm not Linda, but this may be the action to which she is referring:

"On January 24, 2007, after Democrats took control of the House following the 2006 congressional elections, a rule change was again passed providing delegates and the resident commissioner with limited voting rights. The change allowed delegates and the resident commissioner (4 of 5 of whom were Democrats) to vote on the House floor in the "Committee of the Whole," whereby bills are debated and amendments are added. The rule, however, stipulated that if a delegate's vote was decisive, the committee would disband and a new vote would be taken without the non-voting members." These partial voting rights for the delegates from the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands were last in effect in 1993 and 1994 - the last time Democrats were in power - but rescinded when Republicans took over Congress in 1995.

Thanks Dntw8up! Was finding it.

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Non-voting_members_of_Congress
1993 (103rd Congress) rule changeIn 1993, a Democratic-led House changed the rules to allow delegates and the resident commissioner (all 5 of whom were Democrats) to vote on the House floor in the "Committee of the Whole," whereby bills are debated and amendments are added. The rule, however, stipulated that if a delegate's vote was decisive, the committee would disband and a new vote would be taken without the non-voting members. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the rules were reversed, and the non-voting members lost this right. [4]

2007 (110th Congress) rule changeIn 2007, Democrats again took control of Congress and reinstated the rule providing limited voting rights. The rule change was approved largely along party lines, 226-191.

House record vote:
Providing limited voting rights for delegates and the resident commissioner
January 24, 2007
Passed, 229-191, view details
Dem: 228-1 in favor, GOP: 1-190 opposed, Ind: 0-0

Cosponsors

Current practice not only grants delegates votes in the standing committees, but also in the powerful conference committees (see House Rule III, 3). Conference committees include representatives from both the House and Senate. These committees work to compromise and reconcile conflicts between House and Senate bills. Conferees often have great influence on the specifics of new federal laws.