Zuul laughs at your pedantry!! (Not really, its just Rick morranis)
5 Likes
[quote=āBoundegar, post:19, topic:70283ā]
wasnāt protecting the state from the corrupting influence of religion, but the opposite[/quote]
The opposite? Would that be
a) āprotecting the corrupting influence of religion from the stateā
or
b) āprotecting religion from the corrupting influence of the stateā
2 Likes
(Sigh)
6 Likes
@JonS, I think Popobawa may have taken over your account somehow.
10 Likes
Canāt it be both? 
5 Likes
I believe that would be āuoį“Ęį“lĒɹ Éo ĒÉuĒnlÉuį“ Ęuį“ŹdnɹɹoÉ ĒÉ„Ź ÉÆoÉ¹É ĒŹÉŹs ĒÉ„Ź Ęuį“ŹÉĒŹoɹd.ā
9 Likes
At least the eucharist would be tasty for once.
13 Likes
Itās pretty weird to watch from the US. We have a markedly better legal framework, in theory, but we are neck deep in assholes looking to change, or simply ignore(donāt get me started on the āceremonial deismā argumentā¦), that as aggressively as possible.
Then you look over the Atlantic and see various religions that appear anywhere from āanemicā to āvestigialā; but are loaded with legal perks, direct financial support, sometimes places in school curriculum or on ID cards. I canāt tell if Iām just underestimating the ferocity of your reactionary elements, if somebody dared to poke their perks, or if the apparent feebleness reduces the willingness of āmoderateā opinion to go for the throat and just cut off their special privileges.
5 Likes
I guess Iād be fine with two new Religions.
The Church of the Holy Refund, which this seems to be.
And the Church of the Little Charity Donation for the Poor, which puts the money into homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation etc.
11 Likes
Oh itās absolutely the latter. People are exceptionally complacent about religion here, one way or the other. If you are outspoken against it people will chide you and tell you to look at the āgood things it doesā, but nobody really cares what kind of Christian you are or if youāre an atheist (Muslims are starting to become a different matter, and Jews have their own special history here). YMMV depending on country/region; Iām reporting from Berlin with an outsiderās view.
Every time I find out about such stuff itās just a huge disconnect for me, since one of the things I remember best from history class is the āseparation of church and stateā as a major milestone toward the modern age. Anything that goes against that is just literally hard to believe for me and feels positively medieval. I actually used to think that this principle of separation is some kind of universal law across western nations, but have since been proven wrong (see above).
3 Likes
(the question was actually semi-serious, and I think whether you answer a) or b) indicates a lot regarding how you feel about religion 
My answer would be a) )
Howās that cognitive dissonance going for you 
Itās crazy, I tell you! 
1 Like
Church tax LoL!
I would definitely find an extra deduction that would recoup me that tax if I were subject to it.
But I canāt laugh long or hard about it. Here in Ontario we have 2 entirely separate publicly funded school systems, one is Catholic, the other isnāt.
Publicly funded religious schools. ah Canada, always puffing up about doing this or that better. I guess we keep these wildly inappropriate anachronistic institutions in place to emphasize the stuff bragged on?
2 Likes
Arenāt these the same schools that did suchā¦important workā¦processing the pesky heathen children of the pesky heathen natives up until embarrassingly recently?
4 Likes
Almost as silly as a TV tax.
1 Like
A lot of the early American colonists were quite keen on the idea of theocracy, so long as it was their brand of theocracy.
AFAIAA, the basis of the tradition of civic secularism and religious neutrality came from ye olde New Amsterdam (why theyād change it I canāt say, people just liked it better that wayā¦).
So, itās not a peculiarly American idea; it was inherited from the Dutch.
8 Likes
Ugh, this article was a nice slap in the face reminder that many western governments have a quite bit more liberal evolving to do themselves. Iām not saying the America Government isnāt in need of repair and adjustments either; however, the merit of separation of church and state should (by now) be accepted as an obvious positive.
If Iām wrong, how so? What is the positive you get for a government to take from your earnings to give to religious institutions, instead of just letting the individual choose for themselves how much to give to a religion of their choosing (or if to any at all)?
1 Like
If it evolved from an older system where money was given to the church, well, all societies have the cruft of older times to deal with. Itās just they way we do things here.
In a country were this has been done for hundreds of years, just cutting off the money might be seen as being Anti-Religious. A hostile act.
So, you bend the rules, rather than rip them up.
It may turn out in coming years that it no longer something people think important, and the Government will then quietly pocket the money for themselves.
4 Likes
Friend, until they pay the same tax the US aināt got no separation of church and state. Thatās straight up subsidy.
Oh sure, theyāre out there doing nice things so letās not tax em, except fuck that every time some joker gets on a pulpit to influence the vote. Charities can and do lose their tax-exemption for pulling that shit, at a far greater rate than churches.
Better to just do away with the exemptions altogether IMO. Closer to true separation to let the church-bully pulpits bully their parish, but pay for the privilege, and see how long their parishes support them.
12 Likes
