"The way I see it: freedom of the indiviual trumps the freedom of a tax evadeing corporation that calls itself a religion for tax purposes to lower operation cost and increase profitiblity.
If a religion is insighting hatred for others, it should be held to a high standard of truth,, if it uses lies and deception it should be made liable, freedom of religion should never be used as an excuse to say what ever you want and not be held liable for any slanderous lies and the damages these cause."
It seems to me that you are lumping together two important issues that deserve separate treatment. One is tax exempt status. That's a totally different issue, and I believe that some change in this area might be good, although that's up for debate. My personal take is that there should at least be some ability to impose property tax on religious property, for all religions. Otherwise, in effect the rest of us are subsidizing the churches, synogogues, etc. They get the same police and fire protection, garbage removal, and so on from local government, but don't pay any of the price.
The other is banning speech, and I will reiterate that I strongly believe this is an extremely dangerous game you want to play. Equating print with freedom of thought and expression is not a 21st century idea. The framers of the U.S. constitution knew they were both important expressions of thought and protected both speech and the press by the first amendment. I do not think you want the government reading everything that is printed by anyone to decide if it were "true" or not. Could any religion thus be banned, if they can't prove that "God" is real and true, as they might print in their literature? Could parents be prosecuted for telling their children there is a tooth fairy? After all, that isn't true, and arguably could cause damage when the kid finds out it's not. Besides, most of what I think you are upset about in the WTS literature is more of selective reporting and spinning the facts the way they want, leaving out the ones that don't make them look good. Of all people, I don't think politicians have room to go after that kind of practice.
Now, when you talk about "Slanderous Lies", these are in fact punishable under the present laws, at least in the U.S. In other words, if they print in the Watchtower that John Doe is a drunk who beats his wife, and none of this is true, John Doe can sue the Watchtower for libel and recover money, regardless of the freedom of religion mantle. If you are talking about lies as to doctrine... well that's why it's religious doctrine. It can't be proven, any more than the doctrine of any system of beliefs that tries to explain the supernatural. Put your hatred for the harm the WTS has caused to you aside for a moment, and ask whether you REALLY want government agents deciding if religious doctrine is "true" or not.
