Mark isn’t just saying he’s not an atheist any more. He’s avowing allegiance to a specific religion in a cultural and familial context.
What does that say about his statement, over and above him purely just not being an atheist any more?
Is that cultural background such an embedded part of the assumption of non-athiesm that you have to instantly fall into a religious category in order for your announcement to be taken seriously in a cultural context?
What is the significance of choosing a specific religion? Merely a return to his roots, his tradition?
Surely someone I’m this thread has asked this already but well… tldr;
So, exactly why should anyone care what the leader of the evil and sinister FacePlace thinks about religion one way or another? Especially when his comment was stated in this offhand manner. (To be fair it would have been equally weird if he felt the need to call a press conference about it.)
your point?Churches are charities, charities are churches. You may have to look past the first definition, but like most things it really just depends on how you (qua thinking thing) look at it, of course. I of course meant no offense.
For tax purposes, they automatically are legally charities, regardless of whether they do actual charitable work. I don’t think churches should get automatic charity status, rather they should be held to the exact same standards as secular non-profits, subject to reporting standards, and actual charitable purposes, such as education or feeding people, or whatnot.
When did atheism ever have social cohesive value? For the majority of history, including the 20th and 21st centuries, it’s mostly been a great tradeoff: awareness of reality in exchange for alienation from one’s social/tribal group.
Which one would that be? The Judaism of his ancestors, the Buddhism of his wife or the Christianity of the Christmas he’s celebrating in his post? This seems to be the only indication of religiosity since he prayed for world peace and the health of the world and his family at a Buddhist shrine, and here he only denies being an atheist and says religion is important. You couldn’t really get more vague.
It is a little frightening to me that if I want actual news coverage for my country, and even my particular city, I’m more likely to find it in The Guardian than any U.S.-based publication.
But, although he’s not a religious leader, in that he’s ordained clergy, let’s not forget that many protestant sects put much more emphasis on lay interpretation of scripture and much more social power in the hands of those who wield real world power. His actions elevate him in the eyes of the evangelical community. The relationship between political and religious leaders has changed pretty dramatically since the rise of the new right.
Maybe, maybe not. Pretty much everything right wing governments have done in recent years on a state level have been aimed at getting the fight back into the courts so that a case that can overturn RvW. Look at the list Trump has for replacing our current crop of justices. Many of them are pretty committed to overturning it at the first chance they have. And given that many women in America now have restricted access to abortions or reproductive health care now anyway, it’s quite nearly moot. It’s the same effect.
I do believe those that say they were committed to making America into a country where we can not get abortions, no matter the circumstances. I believe them because they are already making it so.
