5 ms·

"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Taxation, and subsequent compliance costs, serve as restrictions on such exercise.

hutzlibu 3y ago
So does the prohibition of ritual murder. (Some of the more extreme Asatru for example do feel limited.) When there are rules for everzone and only some organisations are excempt on religious grounds - then those religious organisation have an advantage over every not privileged organisation, making them effectivly state supported. Which I think should be indeed forbidden. So the state can and should continue to support all kinds of social organisations. But on an equal and fair base.
- wanttocomment 3y ago
  Yes, the founding fathers had in mind a plurality of European religion, not every possible belief around the world from Africa to the Amazon. The idea you could create one government that could accommodate all those is the ridiculous contradiction. They would laugh at the suggestion there should be some equality of human sacrifice and communion.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    It's cool. They were sloppy in their wording and their philosophy. We have almost 250 years of lived experience now, we can revisit the notion and not let it be a golden cow. It's going to be hard to wade through the myths and hagiographies, but we'll come out a better society on the other end.
    - wanttocomment 3y ago
      Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government? I agree with you that it's not a golden cow, but I typically have to question posts like this one to get that admission. Claiming authority from the constitution when you don't believe in it is a cheap rhetorical technique to appear interested in historical America when you aren't. The main conclusion I would draw is that we have no obligation of "fairness or equality" towards every religion. Our system was built to accomodate certain kinds and those that aren't in direct conflict, it seems a pretty good compromise that's hard to work around.
      - tomrod 3y ago
        > Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government? I think it's possible to establish reasonable accommodation, not full accommodation, which I think your second bullet agrees with. The bigger issue is the rank corruption done in the name of religion or other "freedoms" that abuse communities and society at large.
        wanttocomment 3y ago
        Sounds like we are in agreement, but I would include other non profits in that same abuse.
        tomrod 3y ago
        Certainly not improbable.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Maybe (I don't know enough about your founding fathers), but humanist thinkers in europe at that time certainly had the stance of total separation from church and state. Not accommodate to any of them. Keep religion as private buisness. Not interfering with them unless total necessary. Otherwise same rules for everyone, then you can have all the weirdest religions. (oh and there is connection of communion and human sacrifice. In the catholic church you are eating the body of Christ. Of course metaphorical, but I think in dogma it says it actually transforms into christs body. But that's besides the point. The point is, religios freedom should not override basic laws. And if they do, but only for some religions, then they come close to being state religions)
    - wanttocomment 3y ago
      Those thinkers I've read (Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Descartes, Leibniz) also have nothing in mind that resembles a melting pot for the world's cultures and religions. One again the historical context is being tired of endless wars between protestants and Catholics and often being a member of a tiny minority of aetheists and deists. The brand of humanism you are associating with is a much later development.
drewcoo 3y ago
> Taxation, and subsequent compliance costs, serve as restrictions on such exercise. My personal taxes more directly deprive me of life, liberty, or property, as protected by the 14th amendment. Even without money, people can worship (which is what I assume "free exercise [of religion]" means). Trying to interpret the words ourselves is not useful. Throngs of lawyers and judges determine what the words actually mean, what's enforceable.
- solatic 3y ago
  > Even without money, people can worship (which is what I assume "free exercise [of religion]" means). Not necessarily. Jewish prayer requires a quorum of ten, and requires communal institutions for ritual baths. A law such as "any property whose primary purpose is for religious observance shall be subject to an additional $x million/period 'religious property' tax" would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment.
cma 3y ago
You could argue letting them hold untaxed private land in perpetuity backed by government trespassing enforcement restricts other religions and atheists and establishes them, so some taxes seem to be OK or else maybe something like allow no state enforcement of their property rights, just a free for all. Most people and courts accept that some taxation and services and property rights are fine for religions under the establishment clause.

hutzlibu 3y ago

So does the prohibition of ritual murder. (Some of the more extreme Asatru for example do feel limited.) When there are rules for everzone and only some organisations are excempt on religious grounds - then those religious organisation have an advantage over every not privileged organisation, making them effectivly state supported. Which I think should be indeed forbidden. So the state can and should continue to support all kinds of social organisations. But on an equal and fair base.

wanttocomment 3y ago
Yes, the founding fathers had in mind a plurality of European religion, not every possible belief around the world from Africa to the Amazon. The idea you could create one government that could accommodate all those is the ridiculous contradiction. They would laugh at the suggestion there should be some equality of human sacrifice and communion.
- tomrod 3y ago
  It's cool. They were sloppy in their wording and their philosophy. We have almost 250 years of lived experience now, we can revisit the notion and not let it be a golden cow. It's going to be hard to wade through the myths and hagiographies, but we'll come out a better society on the other end.
  - wanttocomment 3y ago
    Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government? I agree with you that it's not a golden cow, but I typically have to question posts like this one to get that admission. Claiming authority from the constitution when you don't believe in it is a cheap rhetorical technique to appear interested in historical America when you aren't. The main conclusion I would draw is that we have no obligation of "fairness or equality" towards every religion. Our system was built to accomodate certain kinds and those that aren't in direct conflict, it seems a pretty good compromise that's hard to work around.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      > Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government? I think it's possible to establish reasonable accommodation, not full accommodation, which I think your second bullet agrees with. The bigger issue is the rank corruption done in the name of religion or other "freedoms" that abuse communities and society at large.
      - wanttocomment 3y ago
        Sounds like we are in agreement, but I would include other non profits in that same abuse.
        tomrod 3y ago
        Certainly not improbable.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Maybe (I don't know enough about your founding fathers), but humanist thinkers in europe at that time certainly had the stance of total separation from church and state. Not accommodate to any of them. Keep religion as private buisness. Not interfering with them unless total necessary. Otherwise same rules for everyone, then you can have all the weirdest religions. (oh and there is connection of communion and human sacrifice. In the catholic church you are eating the body of Christ. Of course metaphorical, but I think in dogma it says it actually transforms into christs body. But that's besides the point. The point is, religios freedom should not override basic laws. And if they do, but only for some religions, then they come close to being state religions)
  - wanttocomment 3y ago
    Those thinkers I've read (Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Descartes, Leibniz) also have nothing in mind that resembles a melting pot for the world's cultures and religions. One again the historical context is being tired of endless wars between protestants and Catholics and often being a member of a tiny minority of aetheists and deists. The brand of humanism you are associating with is a much later development.

drewcoo 3y ago

> Taxation, and subsequent compliance costs, serve as restrictions on such exercise. My personal taxes more directly deprive me of life, liberty, or property, as protected by the 14th amendment. Even without money, people can worship (which is what I assume "free exercise [of religion]" means). Trying to interpret the words ourselves is not useful. Throngs of lawyers and judges determine what the words actually mean, what's enforceable.

solatic 3y ago
> Even without money, people can worship (which is what I assume "free exercise [of religion]" means). Not necessarily. Jewish prayer requires a quorum of ten, and requires communal institutions for ritual baths. A law such as "any property whose primary purpose is for religious observance shall be subject to an additional $x million/period 'religious property' tax" would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment.

cma 3y ago

You could argue letting them hold untaxed private land in perpetuity backed by government trespassing enforcement restricts other religions and atheists and establishes them, so some taxes seem to be OK or else maybe something like allow no state enforcement of their property rights, just a free for all. Most people and courts accept that some taxation and services and property rights are fine for religions under the establishment clause.