At what cost? Setting that legal president would allow for us to change our, “Poorly written Constitution”, not to mention to take away or even alter the first amendment would be insane.
It would not cost. It would pay. Fraudulent religions are a drain on resources.
Places of worship receive tax exemptions because they do not get a say in the political process.
Relating to all of this though, should people not have the right to believe in what they want without the government intervening?
Well it would have to be violence. If the religious organisation is taking away property from these groups, killing them, vandalising property, capturing, enslaving etc. then yes. If the organisation is simply saying that they dislike these groups, no thats not aggression.
No. I wouldn’t say it’s ‘good’ but I do think that physical removal from Private Property because of a feature is helpful to maintaining a higher cost of property. I don’t think that’s not a just cause.
Tax exceptions at about 85 billion a year as well as the waste of buildings that sit empty most of the time.
Not to mention air fare to protect pedophiles.
Also not to mention how religions have retarded our evolution to a more moral species.
Why when our right to believe as we wish is already under control of the law makers?
We do not stone gays and fornicators the way the religious would have us do.
We are a controlled and manipulated society so to create exemption for this control would be giving religions a special place in society. No thanks.
We tried that and Inquisitions and jihads are the results.
Removal of private property is not something I advocated for.
And yes, to denigrate or discriminate against people without a just cause the way religions do is quite immoral and no intelligent society should have to tolerate unjustifiable hate.
You seem to have quite the pessimistic view on society.
I am actually optimistic and see a better future than our present.
What I put was realism and I guess you understood what I put as you did not argue against it, although you do not sound like you like our reality.
I would conclude then that you are the pessimist.
I wouldn’t regulate fraudulent religions in the way you suggested, since it could be considered establishment of a state religion. However, I would be fine with getting rid of the tax exemption of religions and force religious groups/figures (such as televangelists) to fully publicize their earnings and financial records.
To enforce fraud laws is hardly creating a state religion.
It is showing that the state will not allow the flagrant fraud that religions do with lies designed to have the suckers part with their cash.
Your focus and mine are not in sync.
I’m fine with people donating to churches. The receiving individual/organization, however, should have to publically disclose where those funds are going and pay taxes on them should their purpose not be deemed as actually charitable. If they refuse or lie then that’s fraud.
You recognize that lies in accounting are fraud yet ignore the fraud involved in getting those funds into the books in the first place.
You do not mind people paying to be lied to.
Apply the Golden Rule and tell us what you would like done for you if you were paying to be lied to by professional con men.
Its not that I don’t mind, because I do. But there’s a difference between a donation and a transaction. If the person is donating to a religious organization they support that’s one thing. But if someone is “donating” in the hope of getting something tangible in return and they don’t then that is fraud. To a certain extent though you have to allow people to make their own decisions. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If the government declares a religion itself as fraud that flies in the face of the establishment clause.
If your constitution allows for outright fraud in any area then it should be scrapped for a better written document.
We are talking freedom from religions here and not freedom of religion.
We are secular countries and secular law rules religions. Religions do not rule secular law.
I do not exempt religions from the law and hold them to the same standards as any individual and other con men.
Why would you want to give religions a higher level of lying standards than the rest of us?
Secular means indifferent to religion. You’re talking state atheism
Not quite the way it is defined by the dictionary, but no argument.
Statism, which is not the same as state atheism, is a lot more moral than the theistic laws. Statism, I agree, is indifferent to religions, as it should be.
Statism is tyrannical regardless of religion. Statism means that the state controls and micromanages every aspect of a person’s life. If you introduce a religious element it doesn’t really get much better