Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5176
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:59 pm

GIA,

This sounds like the kind of thread Bob E. would put up. Are you the same?

PhilX

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:03 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:46 pm
GIA said:

"Not directly but they help them financially with tax exemptions that create a shortfall that the non-believers have to end up paying."

But the believers also pay so no need to single them out.
Also the poor don't pay taxes. I also don't see where the religions are getting funded by the US government as it's in accord with the principle of separation of religion from government. Not taxing doesn't mean the religions are getting paid or funded by the US government.

Are you looking for an amendment?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
I did not single out believers for anything nor did I mention those who do not pay taxes.

They may be getting some benefit for their extra tax burden imposed thanks to tax exemptions to religions but non-believers get absolutely nothing.

Separation of church and state has limits as can be seen with governments making Christian bakers bake wedding cakes for gays and other times like moving against the Branch Dravidians.

I do not see your constitution as being designed to allow fraudsters to lie on a constant basis so that they can fleece their followers.

Regards
DL

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:07 pm

Science Fan wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:57 pm
Greatest: There has always been a distinction between speech and action. Basically, freedom of speech protects the content of the speech. So, one cannot use a bullhorn at 2 a.m. to start preaching, that limitation on waking people up who are trying to sleep, however, has nothing to do with the content of the speech itself. The opening post in contrast asked about government regulating the content of speech based on religious fraud. That would involve a serious violation of the First Amendment protections we have in the USA.
Hate speech is illegal and to allow religions to preach hate against gays and women and creating homophobic and misogynous religions may have been ok when the constitution was written, but like the Bible and Qur'an, if not updated and modernized, just end in supporting immoral tenets.

The constitution, by todays standards, is poorly written.

Regards
DL

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:08 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:59 pm
GIA,

This sounds like the kind of thread Bob E. would put up. Are you the same?

PhilX
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5176
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:38 pm

Greatest I am wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:03 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:46 pm
GIA said:

"Not directly but they help them financially with tax exemptions that create a shortfall that the non-believers have to end up paying."

But the believers also pay so no need to single them out.
Also the poor don't pay taxes. I also don't see where the religions are getting funded by the US government as it's in accord with the principle of separation of religion from government. Not taxing doesn't mean the religions are getting paid or funded by the US government.

Are you looking for an amendment?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
I did not single out believers for anything nor did I mention those who do not pay taxes.

They may be getting some benefit for their extra tax burden imposed thanks to tax exemptions to religions but non-believers get absolutely nothing.

Separation of church and state has limits as can be seen with governments making Christian bakers bake wedding cakes for gays and other times like moving against the Branch Dravidians.

I do not see your constitution as being designed to allow fraudsters to lie on a constant basis so that they can fleece their followers.

Regards
DL
By mentioning non-believers, you're making a statement about believers through implication. The Constitution is designed to keep religion and government separate. With the Christian bakers, it wouldn't matter to the government what religion they are. The issue is they were discriminating against gays (note that the government didn't tell the bakers to stop being Christian) and you're bringing up irrelevant issues in going off on tangents.

Wikipedia said that the ATF was after the Branch Davidians for weapons violations (again no religious restrictions).

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5176
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:11 am

Greatest I am wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:08 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:59 pm
GIA,

This sounds like the kind of thread Bob E. would put up. Are you the same?

PhilX
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL
Which one are you?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:43 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:38 pm
Greatest I am wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:03 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:46 pm
GIA said:

"Not directly but they help them financially with tax exemptions that create a shortfall that the non-believers have to end up paying."

But the believers also pay so no need to single them out.
Also the poor don't pay taxes. I also don't see where the religions are getting funded by the US government as it's in accord with the principle of separation of religion from government. Not taxing doesn't mean the religions are getting paid or funded by the US government.

Are you looking for an amendment?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
I did not single out believers for anything nor did I mention those who do not pay taxes.

They may be getting some benefit for their extra tax burden imposed thanks to tax exemptions to religions but non-believers get absolutely nothing.

Separation of church and state has limits as can be seen with governments making Christian bakers bake wedding cakes for gays and other times like moving against the Branch Dravidians.

I do not see your constitution as being designed to allow fraudsters to lie on a constant basis so that they can fleece their followers.

Regards
DL
By mentioning non-believers, you're making a statement about believers through implication. The Constitution is designed to keep religion and government separate. With the Christian bakers, it wouldn't matter to the government what religion they are. The issue is they were discriminating against gays (note that the government didn't tell the bakers to stop being Christian) and you're bringing up irrelevant issues in going off on tangents.

Wikipedia said that the ATF was after the Branch Davidians for weapons violations (again no religious restrictions).

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
True on the bakers as the government is not ready to go after the homophobe creating religions for the hate crime that they spew.

As to the Branch Dividians, you are talking of a country where a man can have a huge collection of firearms so you are really reaching.

True that same logic on the law against that weirdo church, whose name I have forgotten, that were picketing the graveyard when soldiers were being honored and buried.

Religions answer to the law of the land should the law decide to enforce a law. Period.

Regards
DL

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5176
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:48 am

GIA wrote:

"As to the Branch Dividians, you are talking of a country where a man can have a huge collection of firearms so you are really reaching."

Reaching? How? You're the one who brought them up.
If they were collecting firearms, then why did ATF move against them? (Wikipedia didn't specify)

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

Science Fan
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Science Fan » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:07 am

Greatest: In the USA, thanks to our First Amendment, hate speech is not illegal. That's why many Americans really do get puzzled over court cases in other countries where a person gets prosecuted over speech that we in America can say without any legal prosecution. The Constitution was spot on in protecting speech --- even so-called hate speech. When speech like Holocaust-denial gets banned in Europe, what happens? Then you get a bunch of people supporting Holocaust denial because they think it must be true if the government is banning it, or people get excited about it because telling people something is off-limits is almost a sure recipe to get someone to start believing in Holocaust-denial. In the USA, on the other hand, Holocaust-denial is legal, and as a result, few people consider them to be any more than flat-Earthers.

You don't get people to stop believing in idiocy by banning speech. It has never worked.

Science Fan
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Science Fan » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:17 am

Greatest: If you look at the legal reasoning involved in cases regarding bakers and gay customers, freedom of speech is well protected. If a gay person comes into a bakery and wants to buy a cake that it already made, then a baker can't refuse to sell the cake because the customer is gay. This would also be true of a Jewish baker selling to a neo-Nazi. Why? Because simply selling cake that are part of the bakery's normal inventory does not mean in any way that the baker is supporting homosexuality or Nazism. On the other hand, if a gay person asks the baker to make a special cake where the cake would require the baker to write something in support of homosexuality, that the baker did not want to write, then the baker cannot be forced to do so.

Science Fan
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Science Fan » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:18 am

Greatest: If you look at the legal reasoning involved in cases regarding bakers and gay customers, freedom of speech is well protected. If a gay person comes into a bakery and wants to buy a cake that it already made, then a baker can't refuse to sell the cake because the customer is gay. This would also be true of a Jewish baker selling to a neo-Nazi. Why? Because simply selling cake that are part of the bakery's normal inventory does not mean in any way that the baker is supporting homosexuality or Nazism. On the other hand, if a gay person asks the baker to make a special cake where the cake would require the baker to write something in support of homosexuality, that the baker did not want to write, then the baker cannot be forced to do so.

Science Fan
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Science Fan » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:18 am

Greatest: If you look at the legal reasoning involved in cases regarding bakers and gay customers, freedom of speech is well protected. If a gay person comes into a bakery and wants to buy a cake that it already made, then a baker can't refuse to sell the cake because the customer is gay. This would also be true of a Jewish baker selling to a neo-Nazi. Why? Because simply selling cake that are part of the bakery's normal inventory does not mean in any way that the baker is supporting homosexuality or Nazism. On the other hand, if a gay person asks the baker to make a special cake where the cake would require the baker to write something in support of homosexuality, that the baker did not want to write, then the baker cannot be forced to do so.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am » Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:08 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:48 am
GIA wrote:

"As to the Branch Dividians, you are talking of a country where a man can have a huge collection of firearms so you are really reaching."

Reaching? How? You're the one who brought them up.
If they were collecting firearms, then why did ATF move against them? (Wikipedia didn't specify)

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
I do not know, but if it was for firearms, I think Wiki would have shown it. That is why I see it as a reach.

Regards
DL

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am » Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:17 pm

Science Fan wrote: โ†‘
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:07 am
Greatest: In the USA, thanks to our First Amendment, hate speech is not illegal. That's why many Americans really do get puzzled over court cases in other countries where a person gets prosecuted over speech that we in America can say without any legal prosecution. The Constitution was spot on in protecting speech --- even so-called hate speech. When speech like Holocaust-denial gets banned in Europe, what happens? Then you get a bunch of people supporting Holocaust denial because they think it must be true if the government is banning it, or people get excited about it because telling people something is off-limits is almost a sure recipe to get someone to start believing in Holocaust-denial. In the USA, on the other hand, Holocaust-denial is legal, and as a result, few people consider them to be any more than flat-Earthers.

You don't get people to stop believing in idiocy by banning speech. It has never worked.
Open hate is one issue and you are correct that we can talk hate. It is more the incitement to violence that is looked at when hate speech is in play.

I do not agree with your forbidden apple psychobabble.

Dynamite is banned and you do not se people covertly stocking it.

As to your poorly written constitution, do you put it above your moral sense?

If so, that speaks ill of your morals.

The issue is us sitting back and allowing open fraud and fraudsters taking advantage of our most vulnerable and gullible citizens.

What does the Golden Rule tell you you should do for those?

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am » Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:23 pm

Science Fan wrote: โ†‘
Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:17 am
Greatest: If you look at the legal reasoning involved in cases regarding bakers and gay customers, freedom of speech is well protected. If a gay person comes into a bakery and wants to buy a cake that it already made, then a baker can't refuse to sell the cake because the customer is gay. This would also be true of a Jewish baker selling to a neo-Nazi. Why? Because simply selling cake that are part of the bakery's normal inventory does not mean in any way that the baker is supporting homosexuality or Nazism. On the other hand, if a gay person asks the baker to make a special cake where the cake would require the baker to write something in support of homosexuality, that the baker did not want to write, then the baker cannot be forced to do so.
That does not sound right and I have no comment. Perhaps your law is as badly written as you say.

That maters not to the issue of a preacher preaching against a group in society without a just cause as they do when they preach homophobia and misogyny.

Regards
DL

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests