The imposition of Religion

The imposition of Religion The imposition of religion by Punkerslut [Author's Note: Written on Monday, 8 November 2004, with the Salero of Doom (TM) - a salt shaker full of codeine, Valium, Klonopin, Xanax, and sugar. Completion of fact on Friday, 3-5 December 2004, while high and drunk.] Why should an atheist to pay higher taxes than a church that holds not pay taxes? This is a fair question. How can the apologists for the church exemption answer? - E. Haldeman-Julius, The Church is a burden, not an advantage in society that has historically been a valid argument that the churches have not contributed to society, but they had the habit of leaching out of it. For those who argue that morality has given us, whether it was the infamous traitor and the silence of the Jewish people during the Holocaust, or the brace, which provides for the buing of millions of human beings, the church has not done anything, but the sweetness that suck honest people have worked to create. The reflection of the creators of our nation gave us the freedom to have the support from these churches. Unfortunately, some of the publishers decided to form state constitutions authorizing one religion over another. We can not think that all human beings must follow the path of liberation at once. If it is true that the church can not receive money, is allowed exemption from payment of taxes - one could say exactly the same thing. If the collective functioning of society requires a lot of money money from taxes, exemption from one or two games only mean that others are forced to pay more are required to work harder to maintain the same level of luxury, while the parties are allowed to exempt more luxurious with the same amount of work, or the same amount of luxury with less work. This argument is not a matter of deception and Villány that the Church has given to mankind. It is not an attack on the ideals preachers who claim to be guardians of. It is not an attack on the principles that are part of Christian doctrine, or doctrine of any religion for that matter. The bitter irony of that religion is a source of spirituality, such as hatred and violence, thousands of books that have been sacrificed to the flames by the Church leaders, pastors have the mantle eyes their members in order to transform them into sheep - all that I have written elsewhere at length. This paper is not the past crimes of an evil regime. This is the current policy is that our civilization is past: that is, the tax exemption for churches and other religious organizations, which are currently permitted. The first point to consider is: what church proceeds will be used for. The church argues that the money supporting the church receives donations are used for charitable purposes, which the churches to improve their communities and help people improve their lives. I can not say that this is always bad, but any honest person can say that it is always true. Yes, the churches use their funds to create a community. In most cases, before you can use these activities, you must be a member of the faith, not using alcohol or drugs, and must be heterosexual. The House of the Scripture that says "love your enemy" is inhabited by a priest, a pastor, a preacher of which the words "Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Go. These drunk and please, if you are making your life easier or to discover the truth sublime and venerable Begone. The men who lust after men and women who pines after women, these satanic abominations, Go. " Churches are private organizations. If it is your desire to exclude the teaching of evolution in Sunday school, is allowed. If you also want to teach children that women are inferior to men, that the Bible is a good book and should be respected when he said: "Women are to remain silent", then it is taught. As a private organization, are allowed these freedoms and liberties. If a church so courageous and bold as to refuse the admission of blacks to their ceremonies, which are admitted to that law. The universities of our time, the so-called "educational institutions", have passed rules that blacks and whites reject courtship - a decision that was before three decades of reforms and the gradual humanization. Asked if you want to donate some of their surplus income to these universities, there would be no way to stop them. If you wanted to concentrate and centralize revenue for secular schools to preach against racism and support in the classroom, and give to those sites that promise to oppress the blacks, then that's your right as a private organization. The church has no end to the cruelty, and this is not an indictment of the church. It 'a fact that has been recognized year after year, person by person. However, it must be accepted and understood that when it comes to fund the church, we met some of the most ruthless and brutal acts of ARRIS our human frailty. Perhaps there is a church that denies the rights of blacks, even to enter or use their money charity. Churches were once the guardians of the divine institution of slavery. Today, they do nothing to stop the slave trade that continues to prosper, the poor one with the name of capitalism. Today, churches have done little or nothing to encourage the ideals of acceptance, tolerance, understanding, open-mindedness with the sole right to preach to these ideals is to deny the divinity of the Bible - to admit that the cruelty inherent in the pages came from the heart of man, not the mouth of God. " As history has shown us, the church can do anything. You can make love, but to deny homosexuals. We are able to provide the service, but deny African-Americans. Other religions that preach intolerance and bitteess, the construction of an aura of misunderstanding - the embers of violence, cruelty and brutality. So, I ask again the question: why churches are tax-free? Taxes of persons that is collected in order to ensure proper functioning of the company are used in a variety of ways: the construction of schools and teach children, to help manage social programs like food stamps and welfare and to provide aid to countries in poverty. When the church was eaings, it is possible to build schools, but it could be teaching children racism or bigotry, or sexism, or the idea that evolution is an evil, under the conspiracy, or a series of ridiculous and heart things. The church can be run for profit, only that it could refuse the delivery of homosexuals, members of certain races or religions, or people who dress differently. And the church could donate part of their income to charity, but would refuse to any hospital not-for-profit organization that performs abortions. Yes, we have seen churches do these things. There is no doubt these questions. There is conjecture on my theory. The church has been charged the company of men with bigotry and prejudice, are fighting among themselves, when you could lea new ways of love, affection, and happiness. When the churches are tax exempt, an apologist often say: 'It is because the money goes from the church to the same cause, as the tax to help the general order of society, charities, schools, etc.. "But to understand our current social situation, and the last millennium, it is not difficult to see how such a mistake is an excuse. Churches should be taxed so that their income can be widely used and not used to create racism and poverty. The same should apply to any religious organization. I'm not saying that churches can do incredible things you already do, at least legally. Ethics is another matter. I am only arguing that, as private organizations that can this activity, which should rightly be compelled to pay taxes. The churches have their own interests, as firms have an incentive to retain profits and reduce costs. Just as a company is obliged to pay taxes, so a church. The difference is negligible. Men and women who profess to believe in a god, a goddess, or a number of them exercise their rights as living creatures. I can not assert against a person the right to believe that, to share what they believe, to practice their religion or philosophy, in an attempt to satisfy the buing in his heart. While the actions of a person not to offend the sweetness of justice, the only argument you can offer would be a bug in the logic of what he believes. Again, I did not say a word about what is right to believe or practice. Ultimately, what is true or not is something real for each of us to decide. As a person who values Freethought and independence of spirit, I always find the fight against religion, not unlike any other revolutionary struggle against ignorance and superstition. Among the great contradictions of religion, there is the question about the thought of God. " When a religious follower tells his ideas of what believed God, and to hear a speech about what this religious follower Cree - is a person who believes in God and "know" what God thinks rarely disagree god. And what we have today, with millions of religions, each thinking that God thinks something different. At the time, what do you think God is just what their religion followers. After all, if God believes in something other than religious follower, why continue to believe that something false? Even with this logic, there are still a lot of religions out there. They have a right to exist and to preach, as I have my right to criticize and think. For Life, Punkerslut