7 Comments

Excellent! This movement to promote white supremacy, ignorance, nd bigotry under the guise of Christianity is exposed in this piece.

Expand full comment

Excellent article. I concur with most of it. I’m also frustrated that many evangelical churches use their pulpits to actively, and unabashedly campaign for conservative republicans. Seems to me this practice is in direct violation of the US Constitution. In terms of the Jesus ads, perhaps I’m naive but the foot washing / anti-hate ad seemed constructive. Definitely appreciate the anti-Semitism spots even if I disagree with the funder’s politics. 🤷‍♀️

Expand full comment

Thanks, Lisa. It's long past time we started taxing churches, my view. I think we give them a base revenue figure that is tax free but beyond that, when they start raising millions and getting involved in political influence, the taxman should cometh for his tithe, too.

Expand full comment

Jim. I think it should depend on how their funds are used. I’d tax political campaigning at a punitive rate. Theoretically houses of worship that violate the separation of church & state risk loosing their 501c3 tax exempt status. I’d be hard pressed to site an example of the enforcement of this constitutional clause Regardless, weather situations like Beryl remind me of the faith based community’s important role in coordinating emergency rescues, response & recovery. Many churches, mosques, synagogues and temples also provide basic needs to vulnerable, indigent populations.

Expand full comment

Faith-based groups have long played an important role in communities dealing with strife. However, that does not obfuscate violation of tax laws when they become politically involved. My other fear is when I hear people like former President George W. and his father claiming we can rely on faith-based groups to handle most social services, a notion of complete nonsense.

Expand full comment

I loved this piece, but I do have one bone to pick. The article at your link to "there is no archaeological evidence" quotes University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman stating that "The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place.” This is not correct. Thousands of ossuaries from tombs of Jesus' time (around a thousand with names inscribed on them) have been found in Jerusalem, including the bone box of Simon of Cyrene and his son Alexander (Simon helped Jesus carry his cross and became a follower of Jesus), and that of Joseph, son of Caiaphas (a priest involved in the arrest of Jesus). Ossuaries were used from about 30 BC to AD 70, which certainly qualifies as Jesus's time. Many are aware of a tomb that included ossuaries of "Jesus, son of Joseph," and "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." (Long story with twists and turns, but current scientific evidence supports this.) I am not a Christian (I am an atheist) and don't have to defend that faith, but Dr. Ehrman's claim is wrong. There are archaeological records from that time, hard evidence that is available to be interpreted. I know that many Christians reject out of hand possible evidence of Jesus's bone box being found because they think that's impossible because Jesus's body came back to life and went up into the sky, but even if they think it's another Jesus with a father Joseph and a brother James, the boxes of Simon of Cyrene and Joseph son of Caiaphas still count as archaeological records pertaining to the stories we have of Jesus. And in Jerusalem,, archaeologist have found much evidence of things from that time, not necessarily pertaining to Jesus, but still, part of the archaeological record of that time and place, and of the people of that time and place. Again, loved this piece, but I take issue with the statement that there's no archaeological evidence that Jesus existed. And taken together with all evidence (not just archaeological), in my view there's a decent case for the historical Jesus.

Expand full comment

Hi Kathy - thanks for reading and replying. I think there might be a misunderstanding. In this case, archaeological evidence would seem to mean anything physical that proved Jesus existed. There are certainly archaeological artifacts and physical ruins etc that existed at the time Jesus is believed to have lived, and that are mentioned in religious texts, but the fact that they exist does not prove Jesus existed. There have been many attempts to prove the existence of the historical Jesus, and those have ranged from the Shroud of Turin to claims that pieces of the cross prove he lived, but none of those things can be shown to have a direct connection. I read only historian who said that if every researcher who claims to have a piece of the cross were to toss them into a pile there would be enough wood to build a coliseum. I am not religious, but am also not an atheist. My position is I don't know, and neither does anyone else. All they have is faith. But no one has yet delivered scientific proof that Jesus existed, and no less a Biblical scholar than Elaine Pagels, a PhD of Princeton, author of multiple books on Christ and the Bible, has said we don't even know who wrote the gospels. I could go on but you get my point.

Expand full comment