A slippery slope indeed! Thanks for this rundown on the situation developing in Texas but I think it fair to say that this is a project not of Texas, its government of its people but rather that of the Texas Republican Party. Having done about as much damage to abortion rights, tran-persons and drag performers as they can do they must move on to the next threat to demagogue. The spectacle is nauseating and concerning. I do believe however that ultimately the courts, the rule of law and the Constitution will prevail. The overt persecution of other powerless religious minorities doesn't have the same cultural power that the persecution of Islam has. It used to be Catholics, then Mormons, then Blacks, then Jews, and now Muslims.
In Pinellas County, Florida, we are having a struggle with the emerging dominance of the Church of Scientology in our community and still respecting its status as a religion. I personally tend to think of it as a 21st Century parallel to the 19th and 20th Century ethnic neighborhoods of other urban areas.
I had always assumed that the Becket Fund was solely concerned about Christian rights and I am pleased to see that was not the case. Thanks for enlightening me on that.
I think you make a good point. Refraining from naming the entity pushing this project out of concern about appearing partisan and alienating winnable people leads to a counter danger: Speaking too generally and blaming everyone!
Setting aside the rank ignorance and race-baiting at the root of these Republican tropes, I wonder how many of them have considered the history and diversity of Christian beliefs and actions. Was it or was it not the bias of Christians that led to pogroms and severe restrictions on the Jews of Europe? Did or did not Christian kings eager for glory and plunder invade the Middle East on numerous occasions, occupy Jerusalem and ship silks, spices and other exotic riches back home, on the thinnest of extra-textual religious beliefs that the Holy Land somehow was theirs by right? Did they or did they not burn and hang thousands of women for being witches? Did or did they not burn a similar or larger number of people of both genders for failing to be or become Roman Catholics? Does Evangelical belief forbid women the freedom to choose when and if to bear a child? And obey her husband as if he were an infallible demi-god? The hypocrisy is so profound as to beggar belief.
Your observation that Texas is targeting Islam as the latest chapter in a long‑standing pattern—from Catholics to Jews—captures the chilling incremental erosion of constitutional safeguards. This mirrors how transparent https://glynncountypropertyappraiser.org can expose systemic biases when they’re publicly scrutinized. The courts have repeatedly acted as a bulwark, and I share your confidence that the rule of law will ultimately rebuff such demagogic overreach. Maintaining vigilant public discourse remains our strongest defense against these encroachments.
More and more I’m coming to the conclusion that maybe religion shouldn’t be respected and should be treated as dangerous by default until proven otherwise. I also dislike that religious organizations are given 501c3 status which in effect is a state subsidy of religion.
I'm curious what experiences have led you to see religion as inherently dangerous, rather than as something that, like most powerful human institutions, can be used for tremendous good or tremendous harm. Religious communities also feed, house, educate, heal, and sustain millions of people, often reaching places government does not.
I'd also hesitate to call 501(c)(3) status a state subsidy of religion. Religious organizations are tax-exempt as part of the much broader category of nonprofit charitable and educational organizations. The alternative, singling out religious organizations for taxation while exempting comparable secular nonprofits, would itself raise serious concerns about government discrimination against religion.
Some, perhaps many, churches do not do much in terms of charitable giving to help poor or suffering people. They believe their mission is to evangelize. I don’t see why they should get a tax break to evangelize. Perhaps property taxes could be treated differently than revenue. 🤷🏻♀️
Some churches collect money from parishioners for the building fund and then run a school to indoctrinate the children, using curriculum that denies science and history.
Mega churches and televangelists could be scrutinized for wealth accumulation.
Yes, religious centers still provide valuable social connections, a sense of community, moral guidance, and sometimes “good works.”
We also have a heck of a lot of buildings on land owned by churches with declining attendance, surrounded by people who can’t afford homes.
Never thought of 501C organizations that way. In that case tax exempt status for religions makes sense. I'm not seeing much good religion is doing for us. When it comes up to the impact it has on our politics I just think it gets respect it hasn't earned. If I was in a Muslim country and having to deal with that I would feel the same way.
I also think the 501(c)(3) exemptions are intended to protect organizations from being targeted by the government through the tax code and as a backdoor to punishing them for their legal activities and speech rights. It seems when there is a call for taking away their status it usually is because someone doesn't like something they have done it said!
I forget who said it, "You should respect another man's religion, but only in the same sense, and to the same degree, that you respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart."
Clever. :) But respecting a belief and respecting someone's right to hold and practice that belief are two distinct things. You can extend a kind of superficial courtesy to someone's beliefs, but when it comes to their *rights* - well, that doesn't depend on anyone else finding the belief compelling, or even taking it seriously. It depends on a different kind of respect altogether, the kind owed to persons and their liberty.
Rather than trying to decide whether a religion is a religion, it seems much more relevant and difficult to decide, as with using peyote, whether or not a certain behaviour is religious. A few examples that have become relevant in the UK in recent years: Somalis say that FGM (female genital mutilation) is religious. Pakistanis say that restricting their daughters' marriage to a first cousin is religious. Afghans say that wearing a burkha is religious. Who gets to decide whether these behaviours are religious or merely cultural?
That’s an important question! In U.S. constitutional law, courts generally try very hard not to decide whether a practice is theologically correct or whether it is “really” required by a particular religion (after all, judges aren’t theologians). The relevant question is usually whether the individual sincerely understands the practice as religious.
But calling something “religious” does not mean it is therefore legally permitted. A practice can be sincerely religious and still be subject to laws protecting others from harm. So, for example, a court need not declare FGM “cultural rather than religious” in order for the government to prohibit it. That distinction allows courts to respect religious self-definition without giving every practice described as religious an automatic exemption from generally applicable law.
I’m sure you’ve given this much more thought than I have, but this seems to take us full circle to the state deciding which religious practices are allowed.
The state does in fact have authority to decide which religious practices are allowed. The process for adjudicating that often requires the government to clear a very high bar—it must show that it has the most important of interests justifying the restrictions on religious exercise and that it cannot fulfill its objectives without restricting that practice. Restrictions on a religious practice simply because it’s strange or the government doesn’t like it don’t clear that high bar.
Add to your list. Is male genital mutilation (circumcision) religious or cultural.
The various forms of female dress, hijab, burqa, niqab, etc are definitely cultural though inspired by different interpretations of the religion. So why should the government try and decide what women should wear in the first place?
First cousin marriage is not and never has been illegal in the UK. Many in the British aristocracy and even the royal family have married first cousins. Aristocrats married first cousins for the same cultural reasons that Pakistanis have: the preservation of family property and wealth.
So is the drive to outlaw first cousin marriage motivated by some really legitimate social concern or is it driven with nothing but animus toward the Pakistani community?
The reason first cousin marriage has become an issue now is that the number of inherited *genetic problems is double that of the general population. It would not surprise me if the government bans it.
* I am sure you know that all that cousin marriage in European royal families resulted in widespread haemophilia.
Today we have genetic counseling available that can do a good job of predicting risks. Yes double the general population where there is a 2% to 3% chance of having a child with a serious genetic condition or birth defect. For first cousins, that risk doubles to roughly 4% to 6%. Suboptimal but nothing near a crisis requiring government intervention.
[Sarcasm Alert] But the UK will imprison comedians who think hateful thoughts so I guess the world's preeminent nanny state might decide to save more people from making choices for themselves and ban it. [End Sarcasm Alert]
The first person to tell me that "Islam is not a religion" was a devout Muslim. He said that it was a "total life system" to govern all of society including politics and economics.
Christians also commonly describe Christianity as more than a “religion”—as a relationship or a way of life that governs every aspect of life. That’s a theological claim about the comprehensiveness of faith. It’s very different from the government using that comprehensiveness to argue that a faith is legally not a religion at all. Christianity’s reach into politics and public life has never made it constitutionally less religious.
The analysis that Texas’s move to deny Islam mirrors past assaults on Catholics, Mormons, Blacks and Jews sharply illustrates how constitutional safeguards are being eroded. In that context, the transparency of https://covingtoncountypropertyappraiser.org shows how open data can reveal systemic bias before it hardens into law. Your faith in an independent judiciary aligns with the grassroots push I’ve observed in Pinellas County, where locals are already defending religious liberty against comparable overreach. This pattern warns that redefining religion endangers the entire democratic framework.
Muslim brotherhood is a terrorist organisations designated as such by 10+ countries. Why are you trying to club other genuine issues with that of muslim brotherhood
A slippery slope indeed! Thanks for this rundown on the situation developing in Texas but I think it fair to say that this is a project not of Texas, its government of its people but rather that of the Texas Republican Party. Having done about as much damage to abortion rights, tran-persons and drag performers as they can do they must move on to the next threat to demagogue. The spectacle is nauseating and concerning. I do believe however that ultimately the courts, the rule of law and the Constitution will prevail. The overt persecution of other powerless religious minorities doesn't have the same cultural power that the persecution of Islam has. It used to be Catholics, then Mormons, then Blacks, then Jews, and now Muslims.
In Pinellas County, Florida, we are having a struggle with the emerging dominance of the Church of Scientology in our community and still respecting its status as a religion. I personally tend to think of it as a 21st Century parallel to the 19th and 20th Century ethnic neighborhoods of other urban areas.
I had always assumed that the Becket Fund was solely concerned about Christian rights and I am pleased to see that was not the case. Thanks for enlightening me on that.
I think you make a good point. Refraining from naming the entity pushing this project out of concern about appearing partisan and alienating winnable people leads to a counter danger: Speaking too generally and blaming everyone!
Setting aside the rank ignorance and race-baiting at the root of these Republican tropes, I wonder how many of them have considered the history and diversity of Christian beliefs and actions. Was it or was it not the bias of Christians that led to pogroms and severe restrictions on the Jews of Europe? Did or did not Christian kings eager for glory and plunder invade the Middle East on numerous occasions, occupy Jerusalem and ship silks, spices and other exotic riches back home, on the thinnest of extra-textual religious beliefs that the Holy Land somehow was theirs by right? Did they or did they not burn and hang thousands of women for being witches? Did or did they not burn a similar or larger number of people of both genders for failing to be or become Roman Catholics? Does Evangelical belief forbid women the freedom to choose when and if to bear a child? And obey her husband as if he were an infallible demi-god? The hypocrisy is so profound as to beggar belief.
Your observation that Texas is targeting Islam as the latest chapter in a long‑standing pattern—from Catholics to Jews—captures the chilling incremental erosion of constitutional safeguards. This mirrors how transparent https://glynncountypropertyappraiser.org can expose systemic biases when they’re publicly scrutinized. The courts have repeatedly acted as a bulwark, and I share your confidence that the rule of law will ultimately rebuff such demagogic overreach. Maintaining vigilant public discourse remains our strongest defense against these encroachments.
More and more I’m coming to the conclusion that maybe religion shouldn’t be respected and should be treated as dangerous by default until proven otherwise. I also dislike that religious organizations are given 501c3 status which in effect is a state subsidy of religion.
I'm curious what experiences have led you to see religion as inherently dangerous, rather than as something that, like most powerful human institutions, can be used for tremendous good or tremendous harm. Religious communities also feed, house, educate, heal, and sustain millions of people, often reaching places government does not.
I'd also hesitate to call 501(c)(3) status a state subsidy of religion. Religious organizations are tax-exempt as part of the much broader category of nonprofit charitable and educational organizations. The alternative, singling out religious organizations for taxation while exempting comparable secular nonprofits, would itself raise serious concerns about government discrimination against religion.
Some, perhaps many, churches do not do much in terms of charitable giving to help poor or suffering people. They believe their mission is to evangelize. I don’t see why they should get a tax break to evangelize. Perhaps property taxes could be treated differently than revenue. 🤷🏻♀️
Some churches collect money from parishioners for the building fund and then run a school to indoctrinate the children, using curriculum that denies science and history.
Mega churches and televangelists could be scrutinized for wealth accumulation.
Yes, religious centers still provide valuable social connections, a sense of community, moral guidance, and sometimes “good works.”
We also have a heck of a lot of buildings on land owned by churches with declining attendance, surrounded by people who can’t afford homes.
Never thought of 501C organizations that way. In that case tax exempt status for religions makes sense. I'm not seeing much good religion is doing for us. When it comes up to the impact it has on our politics I just think it gets respect it hasn't earned. If I was in a Muslim country and having to deal with that I would feel the same way.
I also think the 501(c)(3) exemptions are intended to protect organizations from being targeted by the government through the tax code and as a backdoor to punishing them for their legal activities and speech rights. It seems when there is a call for taking away their status it usually is because someone doesn't like something they have done it said!
I forget who said it, "You should respect another man's religion, but only in the same sense, and to the same degree, that you respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart."
Clever. :) But respecting a belief and respecting someone's right to hold and practice that belief are two distinct things. You can extend a kind of superficial courtesy to someone's beliefs, but when it comes to their *rights* - well, that doesn't depend on anyone else finding the belief compelling, or even taking it seriously. It depends on a different kind of respect altogether, the kind owed to persons and their liberty.
Rather than trying to decide whether a religion is a religion, it seems much more relevant and difficult to decide, as with using peyote, whether or not a certain behaviour is religious. A few examples that have become relevant in the UK in recent years: Somalis say that FGM (female genital mutilation) is religious. Pakistanis say that restricting their daughters' marriage to a first cousin is religious. Afghans say that wearing a burkha is religious. Who gets to decide whether these behaviours are religious or merely cultural?
That’s an important question! In U.S. constitutional law, courts generally try very hard not to decide whether a practice is theologically correct or whether it is “really” required by a particular religion (after all, judges aren’t theologians). The relevant question is usually whether the individual sincerely understands the practice as religious.
But calling something “religious” does not mean it is therefore legally permitted. A practice can be sincerely religious and still be subject to laws protecting others from harm. So, for example, a court need not declare FGM “cultural rather than religious” in order for the government to prohibit it. That distinction allows courts to respect religious self-definition without giving every practice described as religious an automatic exemption from generally applicable law.
Excellent nuanced response.
I’m sure you’ve given this much more thought than I have, but this seems to take us full circle to the state deciding which religious practices are allowed.
The state does in fact have authority to decide which religious practices are allowed. The process for adjudicating that often requires the government to clear a very high bar—it must show that it has the most important of interests justifying the restrictions on religious exercise and that it cannot fulfill its objectives without restricting that practice. Restrictions on a religious practice simply because it’s strange or the government doesn’t like it don’t clear that high bar.
True, and this is a good thing.
Add to your list. Is male genital mutilation (circumcision) religious or cultural.
The various forms of female dress, hijab, burqa, niqab, etc are definitely cultural though inspired by different interpretations of the religion. So why should the government try and decide what women should wear in the first place?
First cousin marriage is not and never has been illegal in the UK. Many in the British aristocracy and even the royal family have married first cousins. Aristocrats married first cousins for the same cultural reasons that Pakistanis have: the preservation of family property and wealth.
So is the drive to outlaw first cousin marriage motivated by some really legitimate social concern or is it driven with nothing but animus toward the Pakistani community?
The reason first cousin marriage has become an issue now is that the number of inherited *genetic problems is double that of the general population. It would not surprise me if the government bans it.
* I am sure you know that all that cousin marriage in European royal families resulted in widespread haemophilia.
Today we have genetic counseling available that can do a good job of predicting risks. Yes double the general population where there is a 2% to 3% chance of having a child with a serious genetic condition or birth defect. For first cousins, that risk doubles to roughly 4% to 6%. Suboptimal but nothing near a crisis requiring government intervention.
[Sarcasm Alert] But the UK will imprison comedians who think hateful thoughts so I guess the world's preeminent nanny state might decide to save more people from making choices for themselves and ban it. [End Sarcasm Alert]
The first person to tell me that "Islam is not a religion" was a devout Muslim. He said that it was a "total life system" to govern all of society including politics and economics.
Christians also commonly describe Christianity as more than a “religion”—as a relationship or a way of life that governs every aspect of life. That’s a theological claim about the comprehensiveness of faith. It’s very different from the government using that comprehensiveness to argue that a faith is legally not a religion at all. Christianity’s reach into politics and public life has never made it constitutionally less religious.
The analysis that Texas’s move to deny Islam mirrors past assaults on Catholics, Mormons, Blacks and Jews sharply illustrates how constitutional safeguards are being eroded. In that context, the transparency of https://covingtoncountypropertyappraiser.org shows how open data can reveal systemic bias before it hardens into law. Your faith in an independent judiciary aligns with the grassroots push I’ve observed in Pinellas County, where locals are already defending religious liberty against comparable overreach. This pattern warns that redefining religion endangers the entire democratic framework.
Muslim brotherhood is a terrorist organisations designated as such by 10+ countries. Why are you trying to club other genuine issues with that of muslim brotherhood