Ok?
Well, let me know when you change our system of government?
Until then, Iām going to figure that churches have a protected place in society no matter how the militant atheists dislike that. 
Unlike you, I gather, I feel that there might be some value in this cultural tradition of spirituality and/or religion.
Firstly, you donāt know that Iām a militant atheist. Do you know my C/O or my confirmed kill count? Because I do, and that count is zero, and I donāt have a C/O. Calling me militant is simply an attempt to try and make me seem fanatical instead of strongly opinionated. Shame on you.
Iām willing to concede value in cultural traditions. Iām just not willing to go along with the government saying someoneās tradition of subjugating women, and controlling their sexuality, is more important than the womanās right to autonomy and healthcare, for instance.
Cultures can do their own religious practices and get as much value out of them as they want, as long as they donāt get in my way, and as long as they stay out of my government. They donāt need special protections when well over 70% of the population is doing a fine job enshrining their values on their own.
I didnāt actually say you were a militant atheist. Donāt be so defensive.
Straw man. No one here suggested these things either.
As far as I understood it, we were discussing their tax statusā¦ Seems like we were discussing different things.
You started out asking me what I think the legally allowed role of religion in current society is. Which is a very broad question. Although I gotta say I answered with what Iād like to see, rather than a description of caselaw and legislation pertinent to the answer. Perhaps Wikipedia would be a good starting point for that answer.
Well, unless Wikipedia is your answer (and I donāt think you wrote all of Wikipedia), it doesnāt really answer my question unless youāre talking about going there and then coming back with your answer. 
In any case, this isnāt a conversation thatās going to go anywhere.
I think spirituality is important enough that we ought to let people engage in it as long as it doesnāt harm others, including allowing them to wear religiously mandated clothing as long as it doesnāt interfere with the actual function of their jobs. Other folks disagree, often to the point of wanting all religious expression banned. There is lots of middle ground. The USA, at least, pretends it was founded on the principle of ālet people do what they want within reasonā even if that was only traditionally applied to Christian religious groups.
I donāt want religious expression banned at all! Itās fine, and I honestly donāt care about that.
What I care about is when religious people are granted special privileges by the government, then those same religious people whine when other people want to have those privileges as well. Thatās some bullshit. And as far as I can tell the only reasonable way to religious and secular people equally is to not treat one specially.
I agree it is bullshit but I donāt want to wind up like the French where they were forcing Islamic woman to unveil if they were to be allowed to attend schools when their families (and, I believe, often the women) didnāt want that. There was this perception that wearing a veil was an attack on secular society.
Iām happy if Sikhs get an exemption, for example, so they donāt have to cut their hair when in the military even though the military, as a rule, makes everyone get a high and tight or equivalent.
That said, there are fundamental rights for human beings, as least as enshrined in law, and I think that, for example, if your religion believes in female ācircumcision,ā too bad. That damages people in a very non-reversible and heinous way.
I donāt want that either.
That oneās actually a little tricky. My first impulse is to say āthereās no draft on, so any Sikh going into the military is making a choice between their religious tradition and working for the man.ā But thereās nuance to it as well. The government canāt be in the business of saying āyou canāt work for us because of your religionā, and perhaps a possibility of accommodation in that case for everyone is a better compromise.
Iām on board with that.
Sikhs are some of the best soldiers in history! Do we want to turn American Sikhs away from military service because of their religious mandates to have paraphernalia on their person and a funny lack of hair cutting? I say āNo way!ā
Next, weāll be telling Mormons to only wear military issue underwear.
Dealt with that in the Air Force, fer rills. A tag with a temple on it saved me from a harsh punishment one time.
I actually thought Mormon boys had an exemption from the Church for this instance and could not wear their LDS underwear while on duty.
They have Church-issued military brown garments with the usual symbols sewn in. I was accused of being non-standard, and I was, justifiably so.
(Temple garments are normally required to be white, for those not in the know.)
Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā ā¬ļøā¬ļøā¬ļø
Inappropriate application of formal debate fallacies to a legal argument, where authority and precedent are valid things to appeal to.So, the brown ones werenāt bulletproof?
I remember my Mormon aunt flatly telling me when I was six that temple garments were like armor, and could even protect you from a gunshot.
I nearly killed myself testing it out. Good thing she turned out to be faithless when she caught me with a pair and her husbandās revolver.
Garment legends abound in Mormon communities. I heard many of them too, including a member who was in a house fire, and was burned through his clothes but not through his underwear. Miraculous.
Iāll leave further exposition to the reader, there are plenty of online sources.
āIāve seen Mormon porn.ā
āPormon.ā
