Regulate the Content of Religion?

by schnell 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  schnell

  My mom texted me to come back and said, "they will close religion!" Here is my response:

  No, they're not closing religion. The USA has a high proportion of creationists who don't want evolution taught in schools and the Republican party is dominant.

  There is a case to be made that tax free religious corporations need to be taxed and that many of them are fleecing their flock, but that's not the same thing.

  There are some atheist groups who would prefer that religion be closed, but they are a minority and face a steep hill, including amending the Constitution.

  The rise of Islam might seem like an impetus for limiting religious freedom, but this hardly necessitates closing all religion.

  So basically, it's not in the cards.
  

  She didn't argue that point any further, but it got me thinking.

  Can a government regulate the content of an organized religion to stop both hate and swindling, and in the USA in particular, does this conflict with the religious freedom provided in the First Amendment?

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  
• 

  Simon

  Can a government regulate the content of an organized religion to stop both hate and swindling, and in the USA in particular, does this conflict with the religious freedom provided in the First Amendment?

  The current situation where religions mandate certain beliefs and behaviour from their followers but then claim they have nothing to do with it when pressed is, with the rise of Islamism, untenable.

  I think it's reasonable to make religions stand up and have an official list of rules and beliefs and unless and until they do, screw any religious people claiming their "religion" is being attacked. How can it be attacked if what it actually is hasn't been defined?

  Every religion should have an official set of beliefs and rules and that will also protect it's members from being abused for breaking rules that the religion keeps secret.

  Of course they could still go the secrecy route ... but in that case they lose any and all tax privileges.

  If some local group is found to be promoting terrorism for example, then they cannot claim to be the peaceful religion and so are not protected - bulldoze the place down. No attack on religion there, they weren't one according to their official beliefs and doctrines.
• 

  Vidiot

  Simon - "...but in that case they lose any and all tax privileges."

  And for anyone who insists that western governments would never dare do anything like that...

  ...in the US, the IRS revokes the tax-exemption of approximately 100 different professed "charities" per year - including churches.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  but in that case they lose any and all tax privileges.

  I could easily see the decision made that religion no longer deserves it's special classification as a "tax exempt" organization unless it proves such by it's charitable work as is required by all other charities.

  The court case that resulted in JW's Donations only for literature was the result of California determining that it was not a violation of "Separation of Church and State" to have churches pay Sales Tax on the sale of literature and other [crap] CDs, videos, etc.

  Why would it be any different to determine that Churches should also pay Real Estate Property Taxes? They get the benefit of the police, fire dept, roads, etc. WHY SHOULD THEY NOT PAY? I could see amendments to State Constitutions allowing this to happen in the future. Every city, county, and state is financially broke and needs new revenue. Personally, I would support it!! (It would of course have to start in those "blue" states that don't have all the religious fundys voting.) . . . . Doc
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  The key to regulating "Organized Religion", is taxation. There's no reason to even try and dictate beliefs, it's not even possible. The governments just need to require 100% financial transparency from ALL charitable organizations, and those who claim to perform charitable works.

  Its not unfair, or discriminatory to demand transparency, surprise inspections, or standards of conduct from organizations that reap benefits from having a charitable status.

  If the governments demanded taxes from religions, we would quickly see the true colors of a so-called Xian organizations.

  DD
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  'Can a government regulate the content of an organised religion to stop both hate and swindling' - this is what governments must do.
  

  Unfortunately, the political will is lacking at present.

  Hopefully, our politicians will wise up and grow a pair soon ...
  
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  You may never be able to regulate the content of religion but you should be able to regulate the context of it. The issue of taxation is very valid and I am all for the removal of such allowance. However, it is only a means of diminishing their power, not eliminating their ability to inflict influence that harms people.

  The constitution broadly states that no law should be made against a particular religious belief or that limits religious freedom but it defines religious freedom to include a lack of belief. If no law should be made against religion, what can be said about laws that limit your lack of belief?

  For example, when we make laws against abortion, we are favoring a particular belief. If someone was to establish a religion that granted the individual's choice to terminate a pregnancy under religious belief, would this be in conflict? Would the law be favoring one belief over another? Lets take this in theory, because we all know that preservation of life, is at the center of this particular example.

  With that in mind, I see that we can not create law that regulates religious beliefs but we can create laws that create a context where the individual's right to choose is limited to certain principle. Just like we understand that abortion is/could be considered a crime and in the process favor a particular belief (the favoritism towards that beliefs is taking a secondary role in my analogy), then therefore we can allow, for example, JWs to exercise their freedom of religion but such should not extend to the point where exercising such freedom entails terminating someone's life, including your own. (like in the case of blood)
• 

  Simon

  If someone was to establish a religion that granted the individual's choice to terminate a pregnancy under religious belief, would this be in conflict?

  Ultimately, yes. Religion has to operate within the secular law of the land and ideally, doesn't dictate what those laws are.

  Otherwise, what's to stop someone claiming that murder and rape is part of their culture and religion? Imagine a land ruled by such tyrants ... it would be biblical. Thank god there are no religious-ruled regimes that openly advocate abuses and instead there are only good and honourable "peaceful" religions who's followers obviously ooze their faith's qualities.

  End sarcasm.
  
  
• 

  Vidiot

  Gosh, Simon, don't hold back.

  Tell us how you really feel.

  :smirk:
• 

  Vidiot

  LoveUniHateExams - "Hopefully, our politicians will wise up and grow a pair soon..."

  ...he said, without a trace of irony. :smirk: