Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

DaveC426913 said:
No.
1] If he were loitering, he could be charged with loitering. But stopping to pray in a public place does not, itself, constitute loitering.
2] The same exaggeration can apply to anyone else, say an atheist, who stops to check his phone.
Click to expand...

Okay, so it's a like a quick prayer and then move on? That wouldn't be loitering, but if the person was going to be there some time, maybe it could be considered loitering. I would have to ask why the person can't pray at home?
 
Bowser said:
I'm not certain what you mean by subsidize. Your taxes don't build the churches. Most religious organizations are supported by their congregation. I think it is consider a charitable organization in the broadest sense, though some do appear to be milking the system, I do agree.
Click to expand...

If churches don't pay property taxes, municipalities won't receive as much income, so they will get what they need from me.
 
Goldtop said:
Okay, so it's a like a quick prayer and then move on? That wouldn't be loitering, but if the person was going to be there some time, maybe it could be considered loitering. I would have to ask why the person can't pray at home?
Click to expand...
That would be protected by freedom of speech. It's tax exempt status of churches that is a problem as well of religion in public places (prayer in public schools, prayer in Congress, swearing on the Bible in court, etc. that is a problem.).
 
DaveC426913 said:
I assume you mean 'sponsored by the establishment'.
It is as much a Christian's or Muslim's public space as it is yours. If an individual wishes to stop and pray in a public space, of course it's his right.
Click to expand...
Sure - but even then, there comes a point when he's disturbing the peace. No preaching, except in designated areas.
And that's entirely different from creches and 10-commandment plaques on the courthouse lawn. The courthouse, administrative buildings and police stations are official places that are intended to carry on the functions of government. Their partiality to one religion is a tacit government endorsement, which is a step toward official enforcement of the tenets of one faith over all the others.
And that's not an accident on the part of officials who insist of putting Christian symbols in those prominent places.
 
Goldtop said:
If churches don't pay property taxes, municipalities won't receive as much income, so they will get what they need from me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a point of view. I doubt your local government calculates its income in such a manner that it is figuring lost income due to church property values.
 
Seattle said:
That would be protected by freedom of speech. It's tax exempt status of churches that is a problem as well of religion in public places (prayer in public schools, prayer in Congress, swearing on the Bible in court, etc. that is a problem.).
Click to expand...

I suppose praying in public might be considered free speech, but again, I ask why not do it at home? Isn't the concept of believing in God a personal thing? Why bring it into the public, then?
 
Jeeves said:
Its mandate does not extend to tending your spiritual needs or catering to your superstitions, or interceding with your god, any more than it should organize your love-life or your weight-loss regimen.
Click to expand...

And I don't believe having a giant menorah on the White House lawn is necessarily crossing the line between simple recognition and collusion with the synagogue.

Jeeves said:
But they do build the street and the sidewalk in front of it; often the parking lot, as well. Churches don't pay taxes, so all their infrastructure - sewer, water main, snow clearance, street-lights - have to be covered by other people's taxes.
Click to expand...

There is a reason...

"Unfortunately, this indirect violation of the separation of church and state may be necessary in order to avoid a very direct violation of the free exercise of religion. The taxation of church property would put churches more directly at the mercy of the government because the power to tax is, in the long run, the power to control or even destroy.

By removing church property from the power of the state to tax, church property is also removed from the power of the state to directly interfere with. Thus, a hostile government would find it more difficult to interfere with an unpopular or minority religious group.

Small local communities sometimes have bad track records with showing tolerance towards new and unusual religious groups; giving them more power over such groups would not be a good idea."

ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com/tax-exemptions-available-to-churches-249590
Click to expand...
 
Bowser said:
And I don't believe having a giant menorah on the White House lawn is necessarily crossing the line between simple recognition and collusion with the synagogue.
Click to expand...
In Israel, no. Anywhere else, yes.
There is a reason..."The taxation of church property would put churches more directly at the mercy of the government because the power to tax is, in the long run, the power to control or even destroy."
Click to expand...
That goes for every citizen and every business. And yet they are taxed, and yet they are not destroyed.
Thus, a hostile government would find it more difficult to interfere with an unpopular or minority religious group.
Click to expand...
And yet the various state and municipal governments have been able to find other ways to make life difficult for denominations they don't like. The current federal government can do it with immigration la... er... presidential.. er.. royal edict.
The tax exemption was a concession, an appeasement to the Anglicans that had to be extended to all the other Christian churches, and then to the less popular ones, and then to all the new ones that were invented as a tax dodge. And the longer it goes on, the wronger (and more profitable) it grows.
 
Last edited:
Jeeves said:
That goes for every citizen and every business. And yet they are taxed, and yet they are not destroyed.
Click to expand...
Yet as a smoker, I can tell you that taxation does affect your choices. At the very least it can punish you for making your own choice.

Jeeves said:
And yet the various state and municipal governments have been able to find other ways to make life difficult for denominations they don't like.
Click to expand...
That's true, and it's a shame. I think zoning laws might be the most popular way of thwarting a religious group.

Jeeves said:
That goes for every citizen and every business. And yet they are taxed, and yet they are not destroyed.
Click to expand...
The government doesn't punish people and businesses with taxes?

Jeeves said:
The tax exemption was a concession, an appeasement to the Anglicans...
Click to expand...
I will give that some research and get back to you.

...that had to be extended to all the other Christian churches, and then to the less popular ones, and then to all the new ones that were invented as a tax dodge. And the longer it goes on, the wronger (and more profitable) it grows.
Click to expand...
It extends to all religions, not just churches. You tell me, would it be better to have the government's finger on religion, or off religion. I think taxation is a very effective tool in subverting anything in society. The less government involvement, the better.
 
My free speech is thwarted in my own house since I have to pay property taxes in order to remain there.

Is my ability to believe in non-sense even more important than free speech.
 
Bowser said:
Would raising your taxes keep you from talking? Maybe if you were part of a political group that wasn't popular with local or federal officials...

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/why-is-any-political-group-exempt-from-taxes/
Click to expand...
If they were raised so much that I couldn't afford to stay in my house. Obviously, I could still be a homeless person and say whatever I wanted to. People can pray whenever they want to as well regardless of how much their church was taxed.

They should be taxed just like everyone else.
 
Seattle said:
People can pray whenever they want to as well regardless of how much their church was taxed.

They should be taxed just like everyone else.
Click to expand...
But could they function the same as an organization had their property been seized by way of taxation?
 
gmilam said:
A person cannot freely practice their religion unless they are free from everyone else's religion. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
I agree and believe that the "Establishment Clause" addresses this, but in practice seems to favor Religious rights vs Secular rights.
 
Bowser said:
If the government doesn't represent the people, what use is it?
Click to expand...
It supposed to represent the secular aspects of society ie not to dabble in the hocus pocus magic of religion

Unfortunately to many politicians are only to happy to parade their hocus pocus credentials to garner votes from those who share the politicians particular religious fantasy and by extension want the said politician to be involved in secular laws to mirror the religious beliefs

:)
 
Bowser said:
But could they function the same as an organization had their property been seized by way of taxation?
Click to expand...
They can pay their taxes just like anybody else. The organization shouldn't really have special protections. The organization isn't the religion.
 
Last edited:
Goldtop said:
Okay, so it's a like a quick prayer and then move on?
Click to expand...

You can't prey while walking?
I understand there are now some places where you can't text while walking, with particular attention to crossing the road

Next case me Lord prey while crossing the road when the walking legs had turned red

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Unfortunately to many politicians are only to happy to parade their hocus pocus credentials to garner votes from those who share the politicians particular religious fantasy and by extension want the said politician to be involved in secular laws to mirror the religious beliefs
Click to expand...
Yes, such credentials can be misused. But even a Democrat will vote for a candidate who parrots their values.
 
Bowser said:
Yes, such credentials can be misused. But even a Democrat will vote for a candidate who parrots their values.
Click to expand...
Of course the credentials ARE misused

The disease affects all flavours of politics and leaves a bitter taste (hypocrisy has a very bitter taste)

While trying, in Australian politics here, to give some politicians the benefit of doubt, that they are acting in the interest of voters, it is becoming a acting part for me to do so

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top