If they meant it to mean any kind of moral leader, why didn't they drop the spiritual crap?
Why don't you ask: "why did they use the word 'spiritual'?" Why use this pejorative way of 'asking'?
But to answer the question: I don't know, you should ask the author. But still one can understand what the author meant. In your posting here] you reacted on something that the author just did not intend.
I can guess the answer a little: 'moral leader' does not work, as a priest or minister is not just a moral leader for his community. He is the organiser, leader in rituals, he is supposed to have knowledge of the belief practiced etc etc. 'Religious' leader would not fit, as atheism is not a religion, and then 'spiritual leader' comes to mind.
There are perfect ways to define 'spirituality' that do not conflict with a naturalistic world view, so I do think the choice of 'spiritual leader' is not too bad.
Only if you can define "spiritual leader" or "spirituality" in the first place, which you evidently cannot do. (Perhaps your demonstrated habit of cursory reading is the culprit). If something as practical as tax law needs interpretation, "spirituality" or "spiritual leader" needs defining. It's necessary to define terms in legal documents and lawyers usually go out of their way to define them so they won't be challenged. Or the terms should not be used. There are plenty of ways to describe who gets the tax relief without resorting to undefined terms. The tax code is confusing enough without the use of such wobbly terms.
While we'reon the subject, perhaps you can tell me how you know what the author intended or did not intend? A little spiritual abra cadabra, perhaps?
Lois
This is funny, a group that created a religion that made it spiritually wrong to pay taxes.
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiff,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant.
The theological hostility to paying taxes evident in the scriptures also supports the close attention of the IRS. Although CST is fully entitled under the Constitution to believe that paying taxes is spiritually wrong, it cannot then be surprised that its position invites scrutiny. [FN48]
FN48. Tax exemptions are a matter of legislative grace, and organizations seeking a tax exemption “are expected to follow the reasonable standards enacted by Congress and devote themselves exclusively to the pursuit of religious purposes.” Parker v. Commissioner, 365 F.2d 792, 795 (8th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1026, 87 S.Ct. 752, 17 L.Ed.2d 674 (1967).
While we'reon the subject, perhaps you can tell me how you know what the author intended or did not intend? A little spiritual abra cadabra, perhaps?
Textual interpretation. Just read the sentence in the context of the article.
Interpretation is the watchword. Your interpretation is no better than mine and nobody's interpretation is the standard.
Interpretation is the watchword. Your interpretation is no better than mine and nobody's interpretation is the standard.
Multiple choice question about the text "Feds say OK to atheists on religion tax break".
See the sentence:
The Internal Revenue Service does require, among other things, that a "minister" be seen as a spiritual leader and provide services for a religious organization.
What would the author mean with 'spiritual leader'?
a) An atheist leader who believes in spirits
b) An atheist guru
c) A leader who likes alcohol
d) A leader who has similar functions as a minister of a church.
What is your answer?
Are all answers equally valid answers on the question? Every interpretation is just as correct as the other?
Secularism is much better defined. It's a separation between government activities and anything for which there is no evidence. In fact it's a fundamental part of true democratic government, despite the fact that believers af many kinds want their own beliefs to be recognized as a central part of it.
So what? That's not a common definition of secularism but I get your point: secularism is about staying grounded in reality as we can observe or demonstrate it objectively to be. OK but what do we do about all those things we can't measure objectively, like love, inspiration and the sense of heightened vitality that is an element of spirituality? Just because these concepts are harder to pin down or measure doesn't mean that people, and societies, can afford to be without them. Some secularists argue that everything can be reduced to material terms but in point of fact, no one lives like that, or can live like that. Clarity is a very important value but it's not the only value; and sometimes we have no choice but to sacrifice a bit of clarity and precision for creativity.
Spirituality, no matter how defined, cannot be shown to exist outside human imagination.
Lois
Neither can ethics, morality or law. So what?
In this case we are talking about tax relief. If something as tenuous as spirituality can be used to determine who is eligible, why not ethics or morality? (I see law is a different category).
You wrote: OK but what do we do about all those things we can't measure objectively, like love, inspiration and the sense of heightened vitality that is an element of spirituality? Just because these concepts are harder to pin down or measure doesn't mean that people, and societies, can afford to be without them.
Lois: We are talking about tax law, not whether societies can afford to be without those concepts. Nobody is suggesting that tax law rest on love, inspiration or a heightened sense of vitality. To make spirituality a requirement for tax relief for moral leaders is as ridiculous as making love, inspiration or a sense of heightened vitality a requirement.
I thought your comments extended far beyond the tax laws, so apparently we are talking past each other.
Except for this: we both know that you would make the same points in any other context. If I am incorrect about that, I'll accept your correction. However, if I am correct, then how would you respond to my points?
mikeyohe - " I say the word atheist it is based upon the one’s meaning of god."
Almost nine years later…my personal understanding remains that There is Only God.
Reality-as-it-actually-is. (The infinitude of the undivided Whole; Potential, and its expression; Everything and Nothing.)
There is no inside or outside to Reality.
Using the term “God” is optional. Brahman/Atman or the Tao work nicely too. Without an intuition of enlightenment, it being best to just ignore the whole question. Otherwise there’s a cartoonish tendency to tilt at windmills.
michaelhstandart - “An atheist is one who lacks a belief in any god or gods.”
And yet, atheists generally have an idea about what “god or gods” are supposed to be. The question is, are those ideas understood to be abstractions? And, following on that, does the atheist, despite the absence of personal engagement with those abstractions, have any of their own that fit the same bill?
All ideas of “god or gods” are abstractions; Like fingers pointing at the Moon. To what degree do atheists and theists understand this?
Most that I know understand it just fine. When I say I don’t believe in gods, I mean whatever one you want to say does exist. I’ve heard of thousands of them. Do you have one that you think is real?
lausten - “Most that I know understand it just fine. When I say I don’t believe in gods, I mean whatever one you want to say does exist. I’ve heard of thousands of them. Do you have one that you think is real?”
But, my question was about understanding that the ideas about gods and God are abstractions. Not about belief or disbelief.
As for what is “real”…Reality is the only answer, and I have no problem calling it God.
Why call reality by a name that has nothing to do with reality? By your own words reality is not an abstraction, whereas God is. Moreover, the concept of God comes with a lot of baggage. Reality does not, reality is the expressed patterns formed by mathematical guiding principles .
write4u - “Why call reality by a name that has nothing to do with reality? By your own words reality is not an abstraction, whereas God is. Moreover, the concept of God comes with a lot of baggage. Reality does not, reality is the expressed patterns formed by mathematical guiding principles .”
As my comprehension of “Reality” is an evolving abstraction, the two terms get along fine.
It should be interesting to note that you have an opinion about what the term “God” means or is suitable for? (seems related to belief to me)
As for other people’s baggage, I’ve been noting for years how cartoonish that can get on both sides of the theist/atheist fence.
Reality being simultaneously the “expressed patterns of mathematical guiding principals”, and the undivided Entirety, and the infinitude of potential.
Not something to “believe in”, but to earnestly contemplate.
My answer stated that in the first sentence. Understanding that gods are an abstraction of human psychology, passed on by culture, enhanced by what Dawkins calls “memes”, was a major step in my move toward atheism.
A lot of people go to church and pick and choose what’s real and what’s an allegory. Origen stated that before the Catholic Church was formed. Paul says it in the Bible. So, that answers your “to what degree do atheists understand this”, although I can only speak for myself.
We get those ideas from the holy books. I learned what the Greeks thought about their gods in public school. Same thing.
Of course. There is a broad spectrum. There are people who label themselves “atheist” but believe in god of some kind. I can’t speak for everyone. There are the “god is love” folks, Gerry Garcia is god, god is a force in the universe, aliens, consciousness, whatever. This is why, if you want to discuss the topic, it’s best to simply ask the person you are engaging what they think. Always better than starting with “atheists generally have an idea…”
brmckay- “does the atheist, despite the absence personal engagement with those abstractions, have any of their own that fit the same bill?”
lausten - "Of course. There is a broad spectrum. There are people who label themselves ‘atheist’ but believe in god of some kind. I can’t speak for everyone. There are the "god is love’ folks, Gerry Garcia is god, god is a force in the universe, aliens, consciousness, whatever. This is why, if you want to discuss the topic, it’s best to simply ask the person you are engaging what they think. Always better than starting with ‘atheists generally have an idea…’ "
Are you saying that you didn’t understand my intention when you ignored it on the first pass? Cutting straight to the manifesto about not “believing in gods” no matter what?
And now (once again) telling me how I should articulate according to your format?
I tend to mix giving people advice on how to communicate while also answering their questions. Theism discussions are always charged with emotion, so that’s hard to avoid.
What I said the second time was, I did understand your intentions, and I answered it the first time. Maybe there was confusion on exactly what I responded to, so the second time I tried to cover more of what you said. But, maybe I just added to the confusion. So, I’ll leave the next move up to you.
This part, I don’t understand. Isn’t my saying that I understand gods are an abstraction a response to this? It’s kind of either or, right? Either belief is the issue, or understanding it’s abstraction.
Just because you assign a new definition to the term “God” does not mean you are correct. In fact you are just creating more baggage to the name God.
Keep it simple. God is commonly defined as a sentient motivated intelligent agency , who created humans in His image. That is pretty clear and accepted in mainstream religions.
So whatever concept of a creative force you are entertaining, please do not call it God.
write4u - "Just because you assign a new definition to the term ‘God’ does not mean you are correct. In fact you are just creating more baggage to the name God.
Keep it simple. God is commonly defined as a sentient motivated intelligent agency and human are designed in his image. That is pretty clear and accepted in mainstream religions.
So whatever concept of a creative force you are entertaining, please do not call it God."
LOL…you are the atheist right? Not a contemplative of fifty plus years, so who’s understanding should we go with here?..especially on a forum dedicated to critical thinking?
I might be mistaken, but wasn’t it you who introduced me to David Bohm back 2013? Entirety, Singularity, Reality-as-it-actually-is, The undivided Whole, The Tao, Brahman/Atman, Kaivalya, Śūnyatā, God,…any of it ring a bell?
[Actually I am going to bail, at least until the moderator fixes the screw up with my username. It is brmckay, and I was responding from my archive of old conversations. expecting a chance for some higher quality dialogue based the earlier experience.]
lausten - Either belief is the issue, or understanding it’s abstraction.
If you are a politician maybe.
We should just let it go. I was under the impression that this site was dedicated to critical thinking.
[Actually I am going to bail, at least until the moderator fixes the screw up with my username. It is brmckay, and I was responding from my archive of old conversations. expecting a chance for some higher quality dialogue based the earlier experience.]