4 ms·

While I personally agree that religion overall has a major negative impact on society, and has throughout history, I still don't think they should be made illeg

While I personally agree that religion overall has a major negative impact on society, and has throughout history, I still don't think they should be made illegal or regulated. People can believe what they want to believe, and trying to control thoughts and ideologies is absolutely not something I would ever support. It would set an incredibly dangerous precedent

mattigames 7y ago
They should at least pay taxes just like anybody else, but most countries don't even have that.
- authoritarian 7y ago
  Yes, I agree that religions should have to pay taxes. When I said regulate, I meant regulating peoples right to practice
  - skissane 7y ago
    Tax laws vary from country to country and even within countries, but it is possible to exempt religious groups from taxation without giving them special treatment, simply by applying the principle that non-profit groups aren't taxed. So, the local church doesn't pay taxes, but the neighbourhood sports club doesn't pay taxes either, since both are non-profit entities.
    - mattigames 7y ago
      Yeah no, after the billions the catholic church has nobody can claim with a straight-face they are a non-profit.
      - skissane 7y ago
        What about your local synagogue or mosque, how many billions do they have? What about some small non-denominational Christian church, how much have they got? Even with the Catholic Church, sure the Vatican has billions in the bank, the parish around the corner definitely doesn't.
        TomMarius 7y ago
        Last time I went around the local church, they still had a lot of gold on the building
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Yeah no, after the billions the catholic church has nobody can claim with a straight-face they are a non-profit. "Non-profit" doesn't mean "doesn't have significant assets", it means "doesn't have shareholders or similar stakeholders with a claim on assets". (It is about not returning a profit to someone else, not about not making profits.)
        mattigames 7y ago
        But they do spend the money on vacations and houses and such, why does that not count as return of profit?
        skissane 7y ago
        Reasonable salaries, benefits and expenses to employees are not classified as a profit distribution. Providing residential accomodation to employees is a fringe benefit. Even providing employees with vacations is a fringe benefit, not a profit distribution. My brother-in-law works in the construction supply industry. He isn't an owner or stockholder of his employer, he is just one of many non-managerial employees. His employer owns a holiday home and allows the employees to use it for vacation. (They have to apply in advance, and there is some system worked out on how to share it out – I think there is a waiting list, and also more senior people may get some priority.) When he takes his family on vacation to that holiday home, it is not a "return of profit", it is an employee benefit.
        mattigames 7y ago
        When the company buys the house you live in is that an employee benefit? Really, is just playing fool pretending getting everything in your life paid is "just a benefit" and not a profit, that getting everything in your life sorted out is exactly what profiteers do with profit anyways.
        skissane 7y ago
        An organisation providing its employees with residential accomodation is not unheard of, and not at all specific to religion. It is common for governments to provide housing to senior officials (head of state or government, senior ministers, etc) and ambassadors. That doesn't make those governments for-profit, and the President/Prime Minister/Ambassador/etc is not a stockholder/owner of the government receiving a profit distribution from it. Historically, even relatively junior employees were often provided with accomodation. One of my favourite examples is a couple of unusual residences in Sydney, Australia, which are houses built into sewer vents [1], [2]. The government-owned water utility built these residences for the sewer workers who maintained the vents to live in (along with their families). That didn't make these sewer workers somehow recipients of a "profit distribution", nor did it make the government-owned water utility a "for-profit". (The houses still exist, but are now sold or rented-out to non-employees, since providing employees with residential accomodation is far less common than it used to be–and the sewer vents are still in use to ventilate the main sewers that run beneath them.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corunna_Road_Sewer_Vent_and_Cottage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corunna_Road_Sewer_Vent_and_Co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Street_Sewer_Vent_and_Cottages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Street_Sewer_Vent_and_...

mattigames 7y ago

They should at least pay taxes just like anybody else, but most countries don't even have that.

authoritarian 7y ago
Yes, I agree that religions should have to pay taxes. When I said regulate, I meant regulating peoples right to practice
- skissane 7y ago
  Tax laws vary from country to country and even within countries, but it is possible to exempt religious groups from taxation without giving them special treatment, simply by applying the principle that non-profit groups aren't taxed. So, the local church doesn't pay taxes, but the neighbourhood sports club doesn't pay taxes either, since both are non-profit entities.
  - mattigames 7y ago
    Yeah no, after the billions the catholic church has nobody can claim with a straight-face they are a non-profit.
    - skissane 7y ago
      What about your local synagogue or mosque, how many billions do they have? What about some small non-denominational Christian church, how much have they got? Even with the Catholic Church, sure the Vatican has billions in the bank, the parish around the corner definitely doesn't.
      - TomMarius 7y ago
        Last time I went around the local church, they still had a lot of gold on the building
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Yeah no, after the billions the catholic church has nobody can claim with a straight-face they are a non-profit. "Non-profit" doesn't mean "doesn't have significant assets", it means "doesn't have shareholders or similar stakeholders with a claim on assets". (It is about not returning a profit to someone else, not about not making profits.)
      - mattigames 7y ago
        But they do spend the money on vacations and houses and such, why does that not count as return of profit?
        skissane 7y ago
        Reasonable salaries, benefits and expenses to employees are not classified as a profit distribution. Providing residential accomodation to employees is a fringe benefit. Even providing employees with vacations is a fringe benefit, not a profit distribution. My brother-in-law works in the construction supply industry. He isn't an owner or stockholder of his employer, he is just one of many non-managerial employees. His employer owns a holiday home and allows the employees to use it for vacation. (They have to apply in advance, and there is some system worked out on how to share it out – I think there is a waiting list, and also more senior people may get some priority.) When he takes his family on vacation to that holiday home, it is not a "return of profit", it is an employee benefit.
        mattigames 7y ago
        When the company buys the house you live in is that an employee benefit? Really, is just playing fool pretending getting everything in your life paid is "just a benefit" and not a profit, that getting everything in your life sorted out is exactly what profiteers do with profit anyways.
        skissane 7y ago
        An organisation providing its employees with residential accomodation is not unheard of, and not at all specific to religion. It is common for governments to provide housing to senior officials (head of state or government, senior ministers, etc) and ambassadors. That doesn't make those governments for-profit, and the President/Prime Minister/Ambassador/etc is not a stockholder/owner of the government receiving a profit distribution from it. Historically, even relatively junior employees were often provided with accomodation. One of my favourite examples is a couple of unusual residences in Sydney, Australia, which are houses built into sewer vents [1], [2]. The government-owned water utility built these residences for the sewer workers who maintained the vents to live in (along with their families). That didn't make these sewer workers somehow recipients of a "profit distribution", nor did it make the government-owned water utility a "for-profit". (The houses still exist, but are now sold or rented-out to non-employees, since providing employees with residential accomodation is far less common than it used to be–and the sewer vents are still in use to ventilate the main sewers that run beneath them.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corunna_Road_Sewer_Vent_and_Cottage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corunna_Road_Sewer_Vent_and_Co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Street_Sewer_Vent_and_Cottages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Street_Sewer_Vent_and_...