# Freedom of Religion



## Big Nasty (Apr 22, 2017)

Is freedom of religion essential to our society?

Or is freedom of expression and freedom of association sufficient enough?

What would we gain as a society if we abolished freedom of religion? Would it make us more efficient in combating terrorism?


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 22, 2017)

Which society do you mean?  I'm going to talk about the United States under the Constitution.

Freedom of religion is two things.  Freedom of religious belief (or lack of belief), and religious expression.

Freedom of belief is absolute.  The government has no business punishing for belief under any circumstances whatsoever.

Freedom of religious expression is itself comprised of the freedom to express beliefs verbally, protected at least to the degree of political speech and other protected speech, and freedom of expression through practice, including among other things ceremonial and other religiously motivated real world behavior.  Those are not protected to any greater degree than behavior impelled by any other motive.

If religious behavior, whether ceremonial or not, violates an otherwise valid laws that applies to everyone else, i.e. a "neutral law of general applicability," then it is just as prohibited regardless of its religious motivation.  This rule is stated in the Supreme Court case _Employment Division v. Smith_ and is the currently applicable rule for such situations.

It means, in short, that your religious belief doesn't trump your obligation to obey the law.  Sounds pretty liberal and secular, right?

It was written by a celebrated Supreme Court Justice.

That Justice?

Antonin Scalia.


----------



## MMMMMM (Apr 22, 2017)

Societies seem to keep trucking on when they ban freedom of religion, so I suppose we don't _need_ it.

But it's a lot like freedom of speech, you can have huge conseqences for restricting even a little bit.  And the societies that only allow one or no religions always elevate a caste of people who decide what is true or not.  It never ends well.

That said I'm fully supportive of banning cults, scientology being the worst example.  It was designed specifically to funnel money away from the vulnerable, while entrenching itself into positions of secular power.  It's a religion in name only, countries that allow it are objectively worse off.


----------



## Picklepower (Apr 22, 2017)

Yeah but if cults can be banned then where would the government draw the line, could they ban Jehovah's witnesses? I think persecution would only fuel a groups fervor.


----------



## Big Nasty (Apr 22, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> If religious behavior, whether ceremonial or not, violates an otherwise valid laws that applies to everyone else, i.e. a "neutral law of general applicability," then it is just as prohibited regardless of its religious motivation.


But, the creation of laws with the explicit purpose of banning specific religious practices is unconstitutional, right?


----------



## MMMMMM (Apr 22, 2017)

Picklepower said:


> could they ban Jehovah's witnesses


I'd prefer if they did, to be honest.  It's a for-profit scam.  If we can ban pyramid schemes, we can ban Joho's.  And millions of people around the world will rejoice at having to never politely accept one of those shitty watchtower magazines again.


----------



## Steamboat_Bill (Apr 22, 2017)

MMMMMM said:


> I'd prefer if they did, to be honest.  It's a for-profit scam.  If we can ban pyramid schemes, we can ban Joho's.  And millions of people around the world will rejoice at having to never politely accept one of those shitty watchtower magazines again.



The problem is that it's always a slippery slope with these kind of things. If we ban the Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology, a lot of people won't be sad to see them go, but whatever law they use to take them down may be used by the government to ban anything it doesn't like. Then, what next? Mormonism? Islam? Christianity, even?

If you want freedom you have to protect people you otherwise would never protect.



Big Nasty said:


> But, the creation of laws with the explicit purpose of banning specific religious practices is unconstitutional, right?



Yes, but why do you think people who practice human sacrifice will most likely get arrested for it?


----------



## Sperglord Dante (Apr 22, 2017)

JW are a cult, but they're not a scam. Or if they are they're a terribly inefficient one. Unlike most cults they don't charge for membership and all the shit they publish is free. Your run-of-the-mill mainstream Christian megachurch is much more of a scam than them.


----------



## MMMMMM (Apr 22, 2017)

Steamboat_Bill said:


> but whatever law they use to take them down may be used by the government to ban anything it doesn't like. Then, what next? Mormonism? Islam? Christianity, even?



Yeah it'd get messy, but by refusing to restrict the freedom of people in this manner, you're letting other people restrict their freedom instead.  People born into cults aren't really 'free' as we understand the concept.  Mormons in particular are well-known for this.  I figure there has to be some happy medium, where proof of intent to harm is presented before a cult can be banned.



Sperglord Dante said:


> Unlike most cults they don't charge for membership and all the shit they publish is free.


I fucked up, it's not JW's that practice tithing.  Although their leaders are doing pretty damn well for themselves...


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 22, 2017)

Big Nasty said:


> But, the creation of laws with the explicit purpose of banning specific religious practices is unconstitutional, right?



Yes.  _Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah,_ 508 U.S. 520 (1993).  In this effectively unanimous Supreme Court decision, the Court struck down a local ordinance against killing animals not intended for eating, presumably for humanitarian or public health reasons.  In fact, it was intended to prohibit Santeria practitioners from practicing their faith.  The supposedly neutral purpose was a transparent sham.



MMMMMM said:


> That said I'm fully supportive of banning cults, scientology being the worst example.  It was designed specifically to funnel money away from the vulnerable, while entrenching itself into positions of secular power.  It's a religion in name only, countries that allow it are objectively worse off.



I wouldn't ban Scientology as an organization or a belief system, but both the members and the organization should be prosecuted for the crimes they commit routinely.  The effect would be the same.  People are afraid of this cult, though, because of its litigious and terrorist practices, and the political will does not exist to prosecute it.


----------



## Big Nasty (Apr 23, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Freedom of religion is two things. Freedom of religious belief (or lack of belief), and religious expression.


Well, a lot of people I come into contact with think that religious freedom should only consist of Freedom of belief, and that the government should be allowed to outlaw religious practices that are "deviant and inconveniencing to the general public".

To connect with your example above, I think that the majority of Americans regard animal sacrifice as something deviant.


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 23, 2017)

Big Nasty said:


> To connect with your example above, I think that the majority of Americans regard animal sacrifice as something deviant.



It's generally legal to kill animals for food, because they're varmints, because you no longer have an economic use for them, or any reason other than when it is motivated by pure cruelty.  To discriminate specifically against an otherwise legal action because it's religious in nature is definitively religious discrimination.

The majority opinion is more or less irrelevant.


----------



## Jason Genova (Apr 23, 2017)

If people weren't allowed to practice their religion they would either mass migrate to some place where they could or rise up and fight the government. There's no good incentive to not have religious freedom. At best people would leave, at worst get angry with their nation's betrayal.


----------



## tarni (Apr 28, 2017)

MMMMMM said:


> Societies seem to keep trucking on when they ban freedom of religion, so I suppose we don't _need_ it.
> 
> But it's a lot like freedom of speech, you can have huge conseqences for restricting even a little bit.  And the societies that only allow one or no religions always elevate a caste of people who decide what is true or not.  It never ends well.
> 
> That said I'm fully supportive of banning cults, scientology being the worst example.  It was designed specifically to funnel money away from the vulnerable, while entrenching itself into positions of secular power.  It's a religion in name only, countries that allow it are objectively worse off.



IMO removing the tax-exemptions for churches would go a long way towards curbing some excesses of megachurches or the likes of Scientology.


----------



## Shroom King (Apr 28, 2017)

Someone famous (I forgot who, maybe George Carlin?) said that not only do we need freedom of religion but also freedom _from_ religion.


----------



## jukaboksi (Apr 28, 2017)

Bill hicks on religion:


----------



## The Great Chandler (Apr 30, 2017)

Shroom King said:


> Someone famous (I forgot who, maybe George Carlin?) said that not only do we need freedom of religion but also freedom _from_ religion.


That's very fedora though.


----------



## ICametoLurk (May 3, 2017)

I should have the right to perform Human Sacrifices openly as my ancestors did before the Romans ruined things, could use Death Row Inmates as it was done to remove the scum from society.

That would remove the cost from the taxpayers and might help to lower the crime rate if when you murder someone you get slowly roasted alive.


----------



## Big Nasty (Jun 1, 2017)

Hey, are US churches and congregations eligible to receive federal or state funding?


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 1, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> I'm all for freedom of following the Catholic Church and freedom of following Satan. Those are the only two options, after all.
> 
> Anything outside of the Catholic Church is false.


So you oppose free expression then? How do you propose to force nonbelievers to change?

EDIT: maybe I misinterpreted at first, it sounds like you're just saying you believe anyone who doesn't follow your religion is following satan. Well, the beauty of our system is that you cannot be punished by society for believing that even if none of us agree with you. 

I believe very strongly that thoughtcrime should not be prosecutable, and as several have said the entire purpose of codifying free belief and expression is to protect people from restriction just because they're unpopular.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 1, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> You are making a few assumptions. The beauty of God is that He has given us free will to either follow Him or reject Him.


That's all _your_ assumption though. You can't demonstrate god to others in any convincing way.


----------



## Sperglord Dante (Jun 1, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> You are making a few assumptions. The beauty of God is that He has given us free will to either follow Him or reject Him.
> 
> His Perfect Justice dictates that those who reject Him end up in Hell, suffering for eternity outside of the Church Triumphant—the Church consisting of those who have achieved the beatific vision. That is our reality.
> 
> If someone wants to reject reality, then by proxy, they reject God. Contemplation of Hell and the concept of eternity should be at the forefront of the minds of all non-believers.


there's no god but allah, and muhammad is his prophet


----------



## Lokamayadon (Jun 2, 2017)

The Great Chandler said:


> That's very fedora though.


No, it isn't.
The right to not have a religion (including refusing to adhere to a religion practices and beliefs) is not fedora in the slightest and is just the counterpart of having the right to have a religion, adhere to a religion beliefs and practices.


----------



## The Great Chandler (Jun 2, 2017)

Lokamayadon said:


> No, it isn't.
> The right to not have a religion (including refusing to adhere to a religion practices and beliefs) is not fedora in the slightest and is just the counterpart of having the right to have a religion, adhere to a religion beliefs and practices.


I should've read it through; I totally agree. Its definitely a right to worship and not worship. It also makes forth working democracies since each person brings a share of unique ideas and beliefs among them.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 2, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> If there is nothing after bodily death, then existence does not matter.


That's your opinion.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 2, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> It is a metaphysical certitude, not an opinion. If there is nothing after death, then a person of good-will merits nothing. You're testing God with that mindset, and I'm almost certain you're in danger of spiritual death.


But what you are "certain" of doesn't mean anything because I have no reason to believe your faith gives you any kind of authority to speak on the subject. I could take one look at you and tell you I'm "certain" you will develop cancer, but I'm not a doctor so why would you listen?

And if being a person of good-will is worthless unless you receive infinite reward for it in the afterlife, doesn't that just mean you are selfish and unconcerned with the welfare of anything that doesn't benefit you? I don't know your specific faith but if you're Christian I presume your church considers excessive pride/arrogance to be a terrible sin. Isn't it the height of arrogance for you to reject any world that isn't perfectly tailored to reward you for all eternity? Isn't it arrogant to look at everything in the material world around you and just declare "not good enough, I deserve way better"? Is it so offensive to you the idea that the universe was not made to glorify your existence?


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 2, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> First, you are assuming that I will be received into Heaven. To assume God's judgment or mercy is a sin. I do not assume I will be received into Heaven in regards to the actions that I take to get there. I run under the assumption that I deserve to be damned for being a sinner, and that it is only by God's infinite mercy and justice that I may have a chance at receiving the gift of eternal salvation in Him.


See, I regard this as a pedantic difference. You don't have to use the word "deserve" but you are basically saying you don't see value in a world where you won't receive God's favor. If you're fully confident that God will grant that to his followers, then you are acting as if it is the lynchpin to your worldview, not an unexpected bonus.



1864897514651 said:


> I am saying that their righteous and just actions would merit nothing, as almost all humans of that world would function on the basis of deceit and wickedness to maintain their bodily life. This is what was essentially seen in humanity before the Passion of our Lord, but some humans still chose to operate on good-will, regardless.


Wait, about that last line. Some people still behaved morally despite living prior to Jesus's sacrifice? I agree on that, but assuming your worldview, why would people do so? And if they did, why was the passion needed at all? The world has been full of bad people forever, it still is now regardless of Jesus.

It makes sense to me in _my_ worldview, because I contest the idea that people can't act morally without God. _I_ do. (No need to point out that I don't do it perfectly or that you wouldn't agree with all of my moral beliefs. That's part of my point.)



1864897514651 said:


> This is a mystery, but it's not a mystery that warrants accusations of pride or arrogance.


The arrogance I speak of - and I consider it endemic to all abrahamic faiths, this isn't just about you - is the confident faith in a God who will take care of everything in the end. I say when the idea of a world you have to find your own answers in and even then things often aren't fair is so offensive that you reject it for a nice-sounding religion just because it sounds easier, I call that arrogance.


----------



## cuddle striker (Jun 2, 2017)

Picklepower said:


> Yeah but if cults can be banned then where would the government draw the line, could they ban Jehovah's witnesses? I think persecution would only fuel a groups fervor.



tax every church.
if a church keeps anyone in a place against their will (that question to be asked alone and with the caveat of protection) charge them with kidnapping.
if minors are involved in church activities, don't permit them to be 'secret'
hold churches to standards of common laws; prosecute when they are broken.
offer immunity and assistance to people leaving a cult who will testify to its wrongdoings.


that first bullet point alone would knot up Scientology in a ball of salty rage. the last would kill it. none of this is persecution.

I joined the satanic temple to get involved in their religious right to abortion actions. I'm not religious and I don't really like joining things, but that seemed like a worthy cause to work on.

freedom of religion means all religious though, including atheism and agnostics. you have to let people alone. public funds should never be used for private beliefs. anything you let a Christian do you're going to end up letting a Muslim do. or a satanist. mosques don't pay taxes either.


hey also, if there's nothing after this? if death is the end? then this is ALL that matters, and it matters a fucking lot.


Big Nasty said:


> Hey, are US churches and congregations eligible to receive federal or state funding?



their tax exempt status is one. the ability to take up public land with monuments or displays is another. (ten commandments at a courthouse? oh no) some also run fronts in the form of "charities" that get some public funds, then their private donations end up in the church as they have another income source. St Vinny's I think does this in some states.


----------



## Picklepower (Jun 2, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> It is the lynchpin to my worldview. I do not presume my particular judgment, but I do hope that I am able to rest eternally in God if it is His Will. This is because God is perfect. He is perfect Good, Love, Justice, and all virtues known and unknown. God is ineffable, unlike man, and it is only in Him that I will know pure, eternal joy. This world is under the throes of Satan, as Jesus Christ and the prophets have made known to us, and so it goes without saying that this world is dangerous. I put my faith in God because to put it in man or this world is irrational. The eternal fate of your soul depends on how you serve your life to God, and it's ridiculous to say that faith in God is easy. When you call Catholicism easy, you discredit all of the martyrs and saints that have suffered horrible deaths for God and His Word. It's simple for you to say that it's an easy, arrogant religion when you do not realize the particular bodily sufferings of its faithful. The faithful martyrs and saints of Christ and His Church only fortify my knowledge of the evils of this world; that my soul will only be able to rest in God.
> 
> And the reasoning for God's Divine Authorship of the Holy Bible is so that man could have a specific, perfect Law by which to operate under. The Passion of Christ was required so that mankind wouldn't pervert itself under the nihilism of resting in Sheol, regardless of a man's virtuous decisions in earthly life. However, humanity has managed to pervert itself anyways.




Assuming your not a troll for a second, can you at least see why someone who is on the outside would not respond to your message in the way you would hope? try this mental exercise, pretend your a non beleiver and read your own posts, if you had no past convictions, would these words be convincing? 

Also I'm curious, how did you find this forum?


----------



## cuddle striker (Jun 2, 2017)

Picklepower said:


> Assuming your not a troll for a second, can you at least see why someone who is on the outside would not respond to your message in the way you would hope? try this mental exercise, pretend your a non beleiver and read your own posts, if you had no past convictions, would these words be convincing?
> 
> Also I'm curious, how did you find this forum?


the most convincing thing I've read regarding christian beliefs was someone who was talking about Jesus living with hookers, giving out free healing to lepers, and flipping tables at a bank. they also said he told people to pay their taxes and be nice to each other. very Mr Rogers.

I don't believe in anything really, so I didn't join up, but it sure sounded better than that post.

edit: also a Quaker dude I knew who talked about the underground railroad being a Christian response to slavery, and about nonviolence and how to reconcile that with paying taxes.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 2, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> I put my faith in God because to put it in man or this world is irrational.


Well I can agree that whatever God may exist is totally ineffable and unknowable. But although humans are imperfect, putting your trust in a human leader who 1) has a known track record and 2) can actually be held accountable for bad leadership is a lot more rational than following a leader you literally will never see or hear with any reliable sense and whose "track record" is only found in a book of fantastic tales and is not independently verifiable through any means.



1864897514651 said:


> it's ridiculous to say that faith in God is easy. When you call Catholicism easy, you discredit all of the martyrs and saints that have suffered horrible deaths for God and His Word. It's simple for you to say that it's an easy, arrogant religion when you do not realize the particular bodily sufferings of its faithful.


False equivocation. The fact that many people have suffered and died horribly for their faith does not imply that _you _or any other average christian in a first world nation has personally suffered for it. It's the easiest thing in the world to call yourself a christian in the United States today, the state won't jail you, your neighbors won't beat you, your business partners won't drive you into destitution and starvation. I know I don't know where you live or your life experience, but every other firm believer I've ever had this discussion with came from a perfectly easy family life and never knew any kind of persecution.

But the "ease" I am calling out is the ease of not having to think or risk being wrong. It is indeed very easy to save yourself any turmoil or heartache in this life when you just decide to believe that the next life will grant you perfect joy for all eternity, based really only on a strong desire for that to be true. I could also decide that there is a god who will grant me perfect joy for eternity, and it turns out that I just have to keep living the way I'm already living. Boom, now I don't have to work on trying to fix this world's problems because I gave myself an excuse to feel good.

I am a person who knows I am mature and reasonable for understanding that there is no effortless solution coming to rescue me from life's hardships, and I feel proud and accomplished when I find ways to overcome them. Life is a constant series of struggles and resisting those struggles is the only way our spirits become pure and strong. To someone like me, throwing your hands up in despair at the mere suggestion that daddy isn't coming back to soothe your fears and make all the bullies go away is downright childish and delusional.



1864897514651 said:


> And the reasoning for God's Divine Authorship of the Holy Bible is so that man could have a specific, perfect Law by which to operate under. The Passion of Christ was required so that mankind wouldn't pervert itself under the nihilism of resting in Sheol, regardless of a man's virtuous decisions in earthly life. However, humanity has managed to pervert itself anyways.


I never understood why God would "need" to take specific steps to accomplish anything. Why need Jesus to function as a bridge between humans and heaven? Why not just build that link into us from the start, or snap his fingers later and make it so? If humanity managed to "pervert" itself anyways, it doesn't sound like it was the best course of action to begin with. For that matter, why cry for the pain and suffering of Jesus's "sacrifice" when it was all God's intention to begin with? Why do any christians want to heap scorn on Judas or the Jews or the Romans or whoever when they were just serving God's design? Either we have free will or we don't, God's capabilities are so far above humanity's that humans cannot be said to be capable of an informed choice with regard to serving God. If he has ultimate power then he is not excused from ultimate responsibility.



Picklepower said:


> Also I'm curious, how did you find this forum?


I'm glad he did, it's nice to have these kinds of discussions sometimes and remind ourselves that they don't always have to take place with the goal of convincing the other guy.


----------



## feedtheoctopus (Jun 2, 2017)

I don't think the state has a right to tell me I can't believe absolute bullshit if I want to. 

The great squid is lord and my daily sacrifice is none of their concern


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Jun 2, 2017)

Freedom of religion is a more important right than almost anything, since it has historically been the underpinning of almost all human identity and the identity of all civilizations. Freedom of religion was America's greatest accomplishment only after "innocent until proven guilty" which remains the Constitutions greatest achievement in my opinion. That said, I am fine basically with where things are in the states.

Basically: freedom of religion should not be abrogated anywhere unless it harms others, no churches or religious organizations should pay taxes (which is an insane concept in any case, since it further links the organizations to the state and makes religion a tool of the government*, which in turn leads to tyranny) and this includes all Muslims, Christians, pagans, joke religions, etc. All individuals who commit crimes should be prosecuted for them religious status be damned. No Catholic priest, imam, Scientologist, etc. should be above the law in any way and those organizations should be prevented from protecting them. Drag them out in the streets with police if you have to. I'll turn over child molesters in my own religion and so should everyone else. I have no compunctions about this.

Atheists and agnostics should also not be penalized for their lack of belief. Organizations dedicated to promoting atheism or secularism as a worldview for educational purposes (as their main goal, not as a minor point of doctrine or charter) should also not be taxed because freedom of religion also applies to them.

*it does this by granting the government an even greater power over church finances, allows it to punish and reward different systems, encourages them to tow the government line, etc. None of this is unpreventable individually, but no matter what you do IT WILL HAPPEN from time to time, but by simply avoiding taxing them you avoid all of this. There are no drawbacks to letting private religious organizations go untaxed. The choice is clear.

** also taxing people for for religious assembly is by definition violation of freedom of religion since it favors wealthier, more common belief systems like my own against minority ones in the states like Wiccans or Muslims.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 3, 2017)

Gym Leader Elesa said:


> it does this by granting the government an even greater power over church finances, allows it to punish and reward different systems, encourages them to tow the government line, etc. None of this is unpreventable individually, but no matter what you do IT WILL HAPPEN from time to time, but by simply avoiding taxing them you avoid all of this. There are no drawbacks to letting private religious organizations go untaxed. The choice is clear.


This is a fair point, but can't you pose the same argument that any other kind of business or organization will similarly be pressured into toeing lines?


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Jun 3, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> This is a fair point, but can't you pose the same argument that any other kind of business or organization will similarly be pressured into toeing lines?



Aye, in a sense, but the difference lies in the purpose of a church or similar organization as opposed to a business. A business' primary motive is profit, and any influence it exerts on society is in the form of goods or services, and it almost certainly has no spiritual line (although it might.) In this case, though, as long as it is a business those concerns are by nature _secondary _as I mentioned in the case of most secular organizations, and with commercial exchange as its "prime mover" it opens itself up to normal taxation and regulation. Chick-Fil-A might not like gays, but it _wants_ to make money most of all. But why, and where do we draw that line. is a more complex question.

For me, churches, outreach groups, etc. of a spiritual nature that are non-profit or not-for-profit with all donations given voluntarily exist to tell you what the "truth" is (or some truth, or lack thereof.) Their whole purpose to begin with is to sway public opinion in favor of a belief system. The Catholic Church for example wants you, your family, your people, your dog, everyone in the world, the aliens (yes really) to be Catholic. Money is used to that end, generally speaking (unless the organization is corrupt, and many are, but that's a slightly different topic.) Involving its finances and affairs in the government is making a statement about that purpose. The government that taxes the Church (or any religious organization) by nature considers itself _above it _rather than _separate _and this is not how we understand these systems in the United States. The government that taxes the Church does in some way assault the Catholic faith by telling believers "yes you might be Catholic, but you are American first, and religion is not equal to civic duty."

This is very bad, because it compromises the divide we have here that allows most of us to exist in peace with one another. And this is as true of Muslims, Mormons, and Creideamh Si followers as it is of myself. No special treatment for religions, I get it, but most faithful will not abide a government that thinks it has the right to dictate a house of faith. Most faithful here, actually love America so much precisely because it doesn't tax or regulate their faith. That's what all of those refugees from the Middle East like Assyrian Christians are excited about.

tl;dr I'm completely retarded and don't understand how the world works but the best I can do is say that businesses and religions are divided up by the types of organizations they are and what they are seeking to accomplish.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 3, 2017)

Gym Leader Elesa said:


> For me, churches, outreach groups, etc. of a spiritual nature that are non-profit or not-for-profit with all donations given voluntarily exist to tell you what the "truth" is (or some truth, or lack thereof.) Their whole purpose to begin with is to sway public opinion in favor of a belief system.


I see what you're saying about businesses/corporations not being in the "truth" business like churches or spiritual organizations are, but I think the line is a bit more blurry. There is a healthy history of large corporations trying to sway public zeitgeist and belief structures to suit their own bottom line, sometimes succeeding wildly. I'm not about to start claiming that taxation is theft but if the concern is that certain groups will be encouraged or suppressed depending on how much they play crony to the whims of whatever political bent is in power, I think the cat's been out of that bag for a long time.


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Jun 3, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> I see what you're saying about businesses/corporations not being in the "truth" business like churches or spiritual organizations are, but I think the line is a bit more blurry. There is a healthy history of large corporations trying to sway public zeitgeist and belief structures to suit their own bottom line, sometimes succeeding wildly. I'm not about to start claiming that taxation is theft but if the concern is that certain groups will be encouraged or suppressed depending on how much they play crony to the whims of whatever political bent is in power, I think the cat's been out of that bag for a long time.



I agree with you, fundamentally, but I am trying to stem the expansion of that trend which has plagued this country for a long time. I think the built-in protections the constitution has are an excellent places to start forming political battle lines.


----------



## Pikimon (Jun 3, 2017)

You know, I used to be for the taxation of churches, but after being acquainted with how much most pastors make I'm actually a bit more understanding why they don't pay taxes. However I do think that the "megachurch" televanglist pastors should absolutely be taxed when theyre running around in private jets they pushed their parishioners into tithing for.



Spoiler: Interesting Account of a Pastor's Income



https://np.reddit.com/r/atheism/com..._income_of_a_pastor_of_a_mega_church/dgy96dp/

Hi! I'm a pastor (not of a mega-church though). I keep feeling like I should make a video or something about clergy housing and taxes specifically for r/Atheism, because there's a lot of misinformation about this that circulates on this sub. This is going to be a long post.

Glossary of church terms: Manse=A house owned by the church. Parsonage=A manse.

So, let's talk about what pastor's finances actually look like.

First, not all pastors have a church owned house. It's actually fairly rare now a days. Clergy are given either a church-owned house for their family's use (if denominationally applicable) or an allowance that can be used to offset housing. How the allowance works is simple. If you are paid $45,000/yr, you can designate a certain percentage of that for rent and utilities, say, $15,000. That portion of your income is exempt from the 2.5% Federal tax ONLY, so $375 in taxes in this example. You still have to pay local income taxes on that amount, and all pastors are responsible for both halves of SECA regardless of whether they founded their ministry or are just filling in a spot in a church that is centuries old, just like if they owned a small business. That means their full income, so $45,000 in this example, is liable to the 15.3% SECA and Medicare tax, for a total of $6,685.00 in this example. They pay all other taxes as normal if they rent or buy their house. It is true that you can opt out of Social Security all together, but you need to extensively document a moral objection to the system that comports with your religion. Many denominations have warned pastors that they will explicitly tell the IRS that the church's creeds have no moral objection to the system if you try to apply, and stating explicitly that no kind of financial consideration counts as a moral objection.

If you start up your own church or cult, you have just two years from your ordination date to opt out, before the door closes forever. If you do, good luck surviving past age 65--health care that does not rely on medicare as a foundation, merely supplementing it, is basically non existent for people in that age bracket.

But what if, as you say, the church owns your house? Well, _this is where the fun begins._

You might think paying no rent and living in somebody else's house is amazing. But you'd be wrong. I live in a manse, and I would give my left foot to be able to rent an apartment instead, even at northern NJ's usurious rates.

First, your church is obligated to produce rental listings for similarly sized properties in the same town and calculate a hypothetical rent rate for your manse accordingly. That means that if your church bought a big house in a previously rural area in the NYC suburbs for $8,000 in 1941, which is now worth $600,000, your hypothetical rent will be something like $25,000/yr.

But you don't care, because it's all free to you, right?

No. That amount is added to your SECA and medicare taxes every year. So even though you don't own the house and build no equity, you're obligated to pay $4600 in taxes just to live in the house, on top of any local income based taxes, which will count the $25,000 rent as earned income. This is not a strictly religious arrangement-university faculty who have on-campus housing provided by the college are under the exact same tax scheme for housing.

You might think that this is a great deal, since you could never rent a house for $5,000/yr. There are conditions where you'd be absolutely might be right, but those conditions are not as frequently met as you'd imagine.

What typically makes this not a good deal is twofold: First, because your house is provided, the church need only provide a very small sum of actual cash for you and your family to live on. If you think about it, rent and utilities or mortgage and utilities are a huge portion of your personal expenses each year. So this might mean that while the average salary for pastors at small churches is $45,000, that salary is really $20,000/yr plus a free $25,000 house in an area where the median household income is $100,000. Places in the midwest literally provide a cash salary of less than $13,000 plus a house sometimes. A house in which you have no equity and which you can't modify or fix without sinking money into an asset you don't own, and without committee approval.

You might still think this is a great deal. Read on.

Because your house has been owned by the church since 1941, it has never had to undergo the inspections that a house typically experiences each time it's sold to ensure that it's safe and up to code. Without those inspections, and with the supervision of a "land lord" that is actually a rotating and usually elderly group of church lay people who do not live in the house and often have no contracting, electrician, or architectural experience, many church manses languish horribly. I actually know a clergy family where one of the members got terribly ill from mold growing in their house. Then you're left in the uncomfortable situation of suing your (very-shallow-pocketed) employer, who is also a group of your good friends, or suffering alone. Remember that your land-lord is also your boss, and can usually vote on your salary, fire you, or ignore you if you have a complaint. Yes, this is the nightmare scenario, but it's not unheard of. The more typical situation is you end up paying SECA equivalent to a recently re-done house with modern HVAC and a fresh layout when you have wood panels, green carpets, asbestos tile floors, and you can't use your garage because the roof is sagging in a worrying fashion.

Now, the car thing. I have never, not in all my life, encountered a pastor who was given a car by the church or allowed to use a church-owned car except a van for a few hours a week to pick up the elderly and disabled for service. I've heard stories. I know it can happen. But I've never seen it happen, and I know a _lot_ of pastors. If you are given a car, that use also counts as "salary" for tax purposes. So does child care if your church has a daycare. So does education if your church has a school. We do get compensated at the IRS mileage rate for driving in the course of work duties (to the homeless shelter, to the hospital, etc.) but SO SHOULD YOU. If your employer is making you drive for work and not compensating you at the IRS rate, they're robbing you.

At the end of the day, I'm not complaining. I love my job, and the church person who looks after my house is directly involved in that field in his professional life. But I'm consistently surprised that more atheists don't reach the logical conclusion-if founding a church was truly a way to live mostly tax free, why would morally dissipated capitalists who care about nothing but personal profit, like the Koch Brothers, not start churches?

The above is why.

So, bracketing all that off, there are still a very small but very visible group of pastors who make absolute bank off being a pastor (I'm deliberately excluding those in the clergy who had or have other careers that are very profitable. I know one pastor who was an NFL starter, another who was a surgeon. I'm talking about pastors who made their money from a congregation). As crazy as this sounds, these pastors bug other pastors more than they bug atheists, because we see it as an inversion of the principles of our entire religion.

What can you do to stop them?

The first and most obvious thing is for church attendees to demand accountability from your clergy. A healthy church will have clear division of powers between those who count the money, those who bank the money, those who can write the checks, and those who cash the checks. I talked earlier about how the pastor's living arrangements are sometimes favorable? That usually happens when one person is allowed to control everything and shield themselves from accountability.

Every member of my church sees what I get paid, every year. Every member of the church votes on it, every year. I do not have the power to write checks or pay credit card bills. I do not count our money or keep track of the investments. We are independently audited every year. These are all things that should be non-negotiables for a church. If you or your relative are in a church without these things, demand them or leave. As we've learned from recent politics, the only reason to shield your finances from scrutiny is embarrassment or impropriety.

Second, actually read the bible. Jesus was a homeless (Matthew 8:20) ascetic (Luke 18:22) who died horribly because of his faith. Faith in God will not and should not guarantee health, wealth, or safety in this life. If your pastor tells you otherwise, they're lying. The so-called prosperity gospel is actually a syncretistic religion, an amalgam of America's self-help and entrepreneurial culture and Christian forms and vocabulary.

Keep putting pressure on these churches in the public sphere. It's not wrong for a church to be big, and a big congregation needs a big building. Big organizations can tackle humanitarian projects that small organizations can't. But that doesn't excuse individuals taking and spending lavishly. When you see a pastor with a helicopter, unless it's transporting dying refugees or something, call them out.

Finally, insist that the IRS actually enforce the laws we already have. Benny Hinn was just audited. What took them so long? The sad truth of our tax code is that we don't really need much new legislation, we just need consistent and swift enforcement of the laws already on the books. Christians and atheists should be enthusiastically working together for this. When a corrupt person is brought to justice, everyone wins.

Anyway, that's my second sermon of the day. I hope this was helpful.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 3, 2017)

Gym Leader Elesa said:


> The Catholic Church for example wants you, your family, your people, your dog, everyone in the world, the aliens (yes really) to be Catholic.



Ever read A Case of Conscience by James Blish?

It's literally about a Jesuit in space.


----------



## DuskEngine (Jun 3, 2017)

If you tax religious institutions without removing their restrictions on political speech, that's not cool tbh. Vice versa either.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 3, 2017)

DuskEngine said:


> If you tax religious institutions without removing their restrictions on political speech, that's not cool tbh. Vice versa either.



Agreed.  That's literally the political bargain religions got in return for not using their tax-exempt voices for political reasons.  If they want to do politics, they can pay their taxes like the rest of us!  

Otherwise, they're basically getting free roads, military defense, all the rest of that infrastructure, that they don't have to pay for, and then they get a super-amplified political voice, free of taxation, unlike everyone else.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 3, 2017)

@Pikimon that pastor's explanation is very informative.



Gym Leader Elesa said:


> I think the built-in protections the constitution has are an excellent places to start forming political battle lines.


I can get behind you on this.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 5, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> Incarceration, violence, and monetary loss are all very real and very common consequences of this Faith.


This is true in some parts of the world, but if you live anywhere in western culture then no, no it's not. In the US and Mexico and Europe and Japan and Australia you really don't suffer one serious consequence of calling yourself catholic. There are parts of the world where atheism is punished too, but where I live I experience no threat of serious harm for calling myself one, and I won't grandstand about my bravery by saying otherwise.

Every minority gets persecuted sometimes in the history of the world. There have been many points where your Catholics were the ones doing the persecuting. I would be careful about assuming the whole world full of apostates hates you because they're jealous of your faith. Most reasonable people just don't think your faith makes you important enough to persecute in the first place.


----------



## cuddle striker (Jun 5, 2017)

replace every mention of Christianity in this thread with "Islam" and every Bible quotation with a Koran quote and think about what you're defending.

the religions, at base, are the same damn thing. just with different "messiahs".

what logic we apply to the treatment of one, we're going to be stuck with for the other.



Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

ETA


Pikimon said:


> You know, I used to be for the taxation of churches, but after being acquainted with how much most pastors make I'm actually a bit more understanding why they don't pay taxes. However I do think that the "megachurch" televanglist pastors should absolutely be taxed when theyre running around in private jets they pushed their parishioners into tithing for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you realize that lower income means you pay less tax, yes? a broke church isn't gonna pay what megachurches end up paying.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 5, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> It has everything to do with jealousy.


When I tell you that I don't believe your faith leads anyone on the right path, I am being completely honest about my beliefs. So if you deny that then you are just calling me a liar based on nothing.



1864897514651 said:


> There is no purity of faith, hope, charity, or any heavenly virtue found in their actions, and narcissists will manipulate others into believing that they are of good virtue. And they succeed if they are intelligent because they enjoy deception and manipulation.


I pity you the arrogance that blinds you to seeing any good in your fellow man. Do you have friends or loved ones? People in your life that you are happy or proud to associate with? If humans are so irredeemably despicable to you, then how could you? And if your friends share your beliefs, how can you feel good being around them when you know they look at you with contempt and disgust just because you were born?



1864897514651 said:


> I'll tell you right now, Western society wants to destroy the Church. We do not believe in contraception, aberrosexuality, divorce, obscenity, or other sins that the United States government so gravely wants to protect.


As a member of western society I can field this one: we want your church to _leave us alone_. You materially benefit greatly from living in a powerful and prosperous nation that works hard to guarantee a certain quality of life for its citizens. Die-hard libertarians don't want to pay taxes either, but if you use roads and buy food that's safely healthy and rely on police protection/emergency services, well guess what, you owe something back to the society that provides that. I don't know if you're with me here in the US, but if you are this is a nation of 330 million people and every one of them is religiously opposed to _something_ - many of them contradictory to some other citizen's beliefs - they don't all get what they want 100% of the time. People like me don't want to deny you your religion, but we don't want you using your faith to write shitty laws that we have to live by either. Extremist Muslims claim the west must be annihilated so that they can be free to beat women and own slaves, ask yourself how you'd respond if they tried to guilt your government about not allowing sharia.



1864897514651 said:


> Jealousy of faith is not something that is understood by the person experiencing the jealousy; yet, the jealous person will still feel hatred, rage, self-pity, and fear towards the faithful person that reveals the Truth to them.


More unbridled arrogance that is (apparently) not understood by the faithful christian who believes he knows what's in our hearts and minds better than we ourselves do. Dude, SJWs also don't take their opponents words at face value either because they think they're smarter than everyone else, and I don't think you'd like being compared to them.



1864897514651 said:


> The rage is because they cannot understand how someone loves them so much as to tell them the Truth. The self-pity is because they cannot even understand themselves. And the fear is because they are constantly afraid of someone discovering who they are.


I see all of these emotions completely controlling you. You are terrified of the secular government who won't let you pretend you aren't a participant in society. You are angry that unbelievers don't hate themselves. And you are terribly burdened by self-pity if you consider yourself "persecuted" as a christian in a western society that does not jail or torture you, does not separate you from your loved ones, does not kick you out of your home or seal the doors on your place of worship.



1864897514651 said:


> Catholicism is a 'threat' to the oligarchs


Related to what I already said about live-and-let-live. I wouldn't describe Catholicism as a "threat" to my way of life, but only because it generally plays by society's rules and stays out of my way. I do feel threatened by wahabist islam and the middle east because they've spent 50 years going off the rails and turning to violent terrorism. But I will be honest and say if all catholic felt as put-upon as you I would consider the faith more of an extremist threat because I wouldn't like your beliefs to be backed up by big numbers. So long as you practice "everyone has a choice" _as well as_ preach it I'm fine, but American history is rife with christians trying to take away peoples' freedoms through dirty means both legal and cultural so yeah, we are indeed watching you, buddy.

None of this is to suggest I'm mad or offended by anything you say; obviously I strongly disagree but I value using firm language to make my point as you clearly also do. The one exception is that I am bothered when you take this woe-is-me attitude of persecution. Come on dude, living in a 1st world nation where you are free to worship and express yourself however you please but you *gasp* have to pay _taxes, oh my goodness someone call an adult to rescue you._ You sound like a college kid in his parent's suburban mansion bitching about your gender studies teacher micro-aggressing you. I'd go ask Jesus when he's up on the cross with nails through his hands how he feels about your sense of victimhood, he might suggest you try to see something positive in the shitty world around you more often.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 5, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> Peace keepers are funded by state and city taxes. Note that I said federal taxes; words have meaning.


Fair point, though I'd argue the federal government provides valuable services too.



1864897514651 said:


> Regardless, a lot of what you have said relies upon one question: Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?


No, I do not. I understand it's not a terribly pleasant thought, but I see little reason to believe your consciousness or essence persists beyond death.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 5, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> Understanding the eternal nature of the human soul and its justified fate in either domain is imperative for understanding the points I make. We will always disagree so long as you do not believe in the judgment of the soul.


Had I not made it clear that I didn't believe in your version of judgment from the beginning?


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Jun 6, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> It is not a 'version'. It is reality.



Prove it, faggot.


----------



## cuddle striker (Jun 6, 2017)

if you don't approve of the West, get the fuck off of our internet and start using cuneiform and birds again.

You're striking the keys of the devil's machine, after all.

and if you think the next world is better, please do go ahead, nobody is stopping you from attending.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 6, 2017)

1864897514651 said:


> It is not a 'version'. It is reality.


No, my belief is reality. Yours is false.

See, I can say words, too. Words cost nothing.


----------



## Big Nasty (Dec 25, 2017)

There was this town over in the next county where they tried to implement regulations that forbade municipal employees to wear headgear other than for health and safety reasons. The implicit intent behind this regulation was to discourage muslim women from seeking public employment.  I don't think  anything came of it though.


----------



## HG 400 (Dec 25, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> How do you propose to force nonbelievers to change?



With fire and sword.


----------



## Big Nasty (Mar 14, 2018)

Sweden's largest party, the Social Democratic Labour party, is considering banning religious and otherwise faith-based schools. Opinion polling suggests that about 75% of the electorate support such a ban.


----------



## Caesare (Mar 14, 2018)

Big Nasty said:


> Sweden's largest party, the Social Democratic Labour party, is considering banning religious and otherwise faith-based schools. Opinion polling suggests that about 75% of the electorate support such a ban.



They're preparing for the eventual caliphate.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Mar 15, 2018)

1864897514651 said:


> The Holy Bible is not fantasy, and it is not easy to be Catholic



I'm not going to argue if the bible is correct but a simple question-what are you doing on a site devoted mocking the unstable and retarded if you believe in perfect good?


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Mar 15, 2018)

ICametoLurk said:


> I should have the right to perform Human Sacrifices openly as my ancestors did before the Romans ruined things, could use Death Row Inmates as it was done to remove the scum from society.
> 
> That would remove the cost from the taxpayers and might help to lower the crime rate if when you murder someone you get slowly roasted alive.


I agree with this unironically. It's hypocritical to have the death penalty but not allow human sacrifice. I admire the US for protecting minority religions rights to animal sacrifice. I don't know how it works here in Canada but I assume you would get in trouble for animal cruelty, which is religious discrimination in my view. Allowing industrial animal farms but banning people from sacrificing animals for their religion is privileging monotheism and it's belief in human dominion.


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Mar 15, 2018)

1864897514651 said:


> As far as I am aware, you can get an abortion in Canada.


Sure but access is not perfect and I wasn't talking about abortion. An abortion is not a religious experience, it's a medical one. It's also pre-born and I have never read any sources saying aborted fetuses were used as sacrifice. The life within them, human or animal, is what is sacred and that energy is offered to the Gods. Abortion was common among ancient polytheistic peoples though. I am cool with it. Despite your Christian hyperbole there is little similarity between ritual sacrifice and abortion.


----------



## Big Nasty (May 30, 2018)

A guy I used to work with did say something like this:

"Muslims who observe Ramadan in Western countries and show up to work without eating or drinking are disrespecting their employers. When they do like that, they show that they hold religious dogma in higher regard than their work, and then you are not a good employee. If was an employer and had workers show up hungry or thirsty like that, I would have fired them at once."


----------



## Bassomatic (May 30, 2018)

Big Nasty said:


> A guy I used to work with did say something like this:
> 
> "Muslims who observe Ramadan in Western countries and show up to work without eating or drinking are disrespecting their employers. When they do like that, they show that they hold religious dogma in higher regard than their work, and then you are not a good employee. If was an employer and had workers show up hungry or thirsty like that, I would have fired them at once."


And if it doesn't effect their job?

Notice he just states "if I employed people" yet doesn't seem to do such himself. I'm sure he also never showed up to work hung over or stayed up too late one night.

Muslims aren't the only people who fast, but the fact he chose to target them kinda points out, he's too pussy to say he has a problem with Islam.


----------



## AnOminous (May 30, 2018)

Bassomatic said:


> Muslims aren't the only people who fast, but the fact he chose to target them kinda points out, he's too pussy to say he has a problem with Islam.



Well, I have a problem with at least radical Islam, but fasting isn't it.  Also they still eat after sunset and before sunrise.  I'm sure some of them get up early on work days and have an early breakfast.  It's not like they're coming in starving for days.

I can see an issue with the five times prayer daily if it's interfering with a job that requires uninterrupted attention, but otherwise, no.

It's sort of like if a Jew plays baseball they're going to have to play on Sabbath sometimes.  Although Sandy Koufax notoriously refused to play the World Series on Yom Kippur, he came back and the Dodgers won and all was forgiven.


----------



## UptownRuckus (Jun 1, 2018)

Personally I feel like people should be able to express how they live their lives AS long as they don't impede on other people's freedoms.


----------



## Bassomatic (Jun 1, 2018)

UptownRuckus said:


> Personally I feel like people should be able to express how they live their lives AS long as they don't impede on other people's freedoms.


There inlys a major problem with Islam and it's more radical sects, it's a theocracy, based system. Meaning they thing the spiritual leaders should set rules and law.

There's a big difference from acceptance, tolerance and being forced to cater too. If you have an office job and choose to pray 5 times a day, or not work on the Sabbath, find a job that will do it, don't come into my office tell me hi I'm new and pork is Haram so no one can have pepperoni pizza. The problem is the later is treated as a step on civil rights, when it's just uppity scum using a crutch to bully people into a theocratical life.

If a Vegan got a job at a steak house and chimped out about it they would be laughed out of the job. But if they pull the religious card then they wind up drawing a law suit for the same stupid. Both parties didn't have to take that line of work.


----------



## Big Nasty (Jun 1, 2018)

Bassomatic said:


> There inlys a major problem with Islam and it's more radical sects, it's a theocracy, based system. Meaning they thing the spiritual leaders should set rules and law.


That is somewhat of a misconception. In Islam, spiritual leaders do not set any law and rules. The laws and rules are already set by Allah and are eternal, man has no right to set any laws and rules. The purpose of spiritual leaders are for them to guide people on how to obey the laws, on what is allowed and what is forbidden.

Worldly leaders, on the other hand, have the purpose of enforcing the divine laws. Thus, rulers and commanders, provided they are rightfully-guided, are able to wield an almost divine authority.


----------



## UptownRuckus (Jun 1, 2018)

Bassomatic said:


> There inlys a major problem with Islam and it's more radical sects, it's a theocracy, based system. Meaning they thing the spiritual leaders should set rules and law.
> 
> There's a big difference from acceptance, tolerance and being forced to cater too. If you have an office job and choose to pray 5 times a day, or not work on the Sabbath, find a job that will do it, don't come into my office tell me hi I'm new and pork is Haram so no one can have pepperoni pizza. The problem is the later is treated as a step on civil rights, when it's just uppity scum using a crutch to bully people into a theocratical life.
> 
> If a Vegan got a job at a steak house and chimped out about it they would be laughed out of the job. But if they pull the religious card then they wind up drawing a law suit for the same stupid. Both parties didn't have to take that line of work.



Agreed with the second half here. 
Why can't we all just be weird to ourselves and not force others to enjoy our weirdness?


----------



## Slap47 (Jun 1, 2018)

We could probably get rid of it and be just fine with freedom of speech and freedom of association. 

However, the principles behind the idea are the same as freedom of speech. Do whatever the hell you want, as long as you aren't directly hurting anybody else. 

Get rid of free speech and maintain freedom of religion and you get the UK and Canada. Muslims saying whatever the hell they want and everybody else chaffing under oppression.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Jun 2, 2018)

UptownRuckus said:


> Agreed with the second half here.
> Why can't we all just be weird to ourselves and not force others to enjoy our weirdness?


Because that's not how religion works unfortunately. Especially in the bigger ones like Christianity (and all of its subsets) and Islam.

I personally feel like that you should believe in what you want to believe (as long as it's not for malicious intent like ISIS, Scientology and other terrorist groups). Just don't shove your beliefs into other people's faces, or judge them solely on their beliefs. Christian, Muslim, Jewish? I don't particularly care, just as long as you don't shove it in my face or turn out to be an asshole, your beliefs are the least of my concern.


----------



## UptownRuckus (Jun 2, 2018)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> Because that's not how religion works unfortunately. Especially in the bigger ones like Christianity (and all of its subsets) and Islam.
> 
> I personally feel like that you should believe in what you want to believe (as long as it's not for malicious intent like ISIS, Scientology and other terrorist groups). Just don't shove your beliefs into other people's faces, or judge them solely on their beliefs. Christian, Muslim, Jewish? I don't particularly care, just as long as you don't shove it in my face or turn out to be an asshole, your beliefs are the least of my concern.



That's kinda tough...Because a lot of religions believe that part of living your life includes sharing what makes you so happy. 

Fine line right?


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 2, 2018)

UptownRuckus said:


> That's kinda tough...Because a lot of religions believe that part of living your life includes sharing what makes you so happy.
> 
> Fine line right?



Suppose what makes me happy is raping people?  

It's infringing on my freedom to prohibit me from sharing my happiness!


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Jun 2, 2018)

Mudslimes and Christards are supposed to proselytize. Their religion demands it of them. Only their way is The Way. You need a secular society that is willing to put them in their place and unwilling to compromise personal freedoms under the guise of religious rights (eating pork, abortion, birth control, gay marriage etc.) Here in Canada we have public K-12 school gymnasiums being used as mosques, because Muslim students and/or their parents believe them to be entitled, which is part of their religious belief that Allah's followers will inherit the earth.

They can believe it all they want but we shouldn't waste our space, tax money and time to give them special privileges and treatment. They will always want more. If they want a prayer room it better be interfaith and not interrupting the gym, or other places considered essential to education. Muslims believe their prayers are rendered useless praying with infidels so that is why they are requesting their own prayer places but never calling for somewhere for every religion to pray.


Spoiler: Comparison of monotheist beliefs to traditional religion






> VI.
> *In Monotheism, proselytes, or converted followers, are always searched for to gain rewards from their god and increase their power.
> *In Polytheism, people belong to native cultures with distinct customs and distinct ancestries, which are respected and maintained. However, one may be initiated into a new neighboring cult, to worship a foreign God, by means of a fee, or through marriage within a foreign culture. Ethnic Gods constantly worshiped by foreigners is discouraged and suspected.
> II.
> ...


https://traditionalpolytheist.com/2017/06/27/ten-differences-between-polytheism-and-monotheism/
http://archive.md/5ZKdD


----------

