Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

Ignoring your condescending reply, I didn't say YOUR religion specifically believes that other's religion is wrong (You DO know that they vary widely, yes?). So while my statement may be incorrect for your particular case in your immediate environment, I think it's pretty short-sighted to think that isn't the case on a scale that's worldwide.

First, I see your allusions to atheism. And while I agree with your position above if, in fact, you were defending atheism. However, my statement takes the idea of atheism to the very meaning of the word (that god/religion doesn't exist). In other words, I don't consider atheism to be a religion. We agree on that point and you need not read further. (As an aside: If you weren't describing atheism above, then I think the irony that your religion and atheism shares common characteristics is interesting.)

If, however, you still disagree with the point that "The ENTIRE longevity and history of religion is propped up by its ability to influence others"; then let me slightly qualify my statement for clarity's sake. _Traditional_ religion has relied on influence to propagate itself through generations. Whether that's parent's influence over their children or the physical community's influence over its members, influence is the primary means of maintaining the ideological consensus of religion.

You have such a better understanding about religion than I. If not by influence, then please offer a counter-example that has allowed traditional religion to permeate our history for centuries.

Free speech is not the same as enjoying non-profit status. Google cutting off the latter means that they no longer actively sponsor the speech of religious groups, but those groups still are able to speak the same as anyone else. By ceasing to preferentially treat religious organizations, Google has effectively taken a stance for free speech, not against it.

>The Salvation Army is anti-gay

The Salvation Army I'm sure considered themselves to be extremely for people who express themselves as "gay": this is what they say on the point.

http://www.salvationarmy.org/ind%5Cwww_ind.nsf/vw-sublinks/8...

It's a moral judgement. Arguing that opposing the Salvation Army's position is somehow neutral would be wrong.

Considering that, I can't see how they're position impacts on me at the point of need if I get warmth, compassion, food and clothing regardless of who I am.

I suspect replying to you is a waste of time. That said, on the off-chance that you actually will think about what I'm saying, here goes:

* The organized religious group I'm a member of, through ceremony, gives certain major life events and certain times of the week more importance and significance than they would otherwise have. I'm not sure you'd understand the word 'sacred' - so let me describe it as a peaceful, calm feeling, where your mind is clear and the concerns of everyday life are simply not present. These ceremonies require an organization.

* The organized religious group I'm a member of helps and supports each other. In an atomizing society where we often don't know our neighbors, I belong to a community that is there for me when I'm in need. Obviously this requires some organization.

* The organized religious group I'm a member of emphasizes scholarship and pushes me to learn new things. We think deeply about the meaning of texts; we study languages. Because we do this in an organized fashion, we push and support each other, and we get new insights that we wouldn't get as individuals. Obviously, we can't do this without an organization.

* The organized religious group that I'm a member of pushes me to be a better, more moral person. We frequently discuss and debate values and morality, and challenge ourselves to do better. Without others in the community acting as role-models, I doubt I would be the person I am - still highly-flawed, but better than I would be.

* The organized religious group I'm a part of conveys a culture that I very much want my (not-yet-existing) children and future descendants to have. We value scholarship and learning and entrepreneurship, and we've done very well over the centuries despite persecution. The reason for this success isn't 100% genetic - and the one common cultural constant, no matter where you are in the world, is our religion. By immersing myself and my family in my religion, I hope to inculcate in my family and descendants a culture that demonstrably works well.

That's just a handful, but you get the idea. If you were to chat with my rabbi, you might get a slightly different set - I'm going to ask him about this the next time I see him. But I guarantee 'influence' wouldn't come up - that's not at all why we have our shul.

As an atheist who is mildly antireligious: that was a good article. The author has a position, but he dismisses crazy arguments in favor of it, and the arguments that he constructs are targetted towards the people most likely to disagree with him. He doesn't come across as self entitled. He doesn't make generalisations about atheists.

I haven't fully thought about his arguments; perhaps they don't really hold water. So I guess on some level I'm talking about form rather than content.