I would like to propose that we view religions in a manner that would make them a lesser source of irritation for us, freethinkers, agnostics and atheists. I consider religions as suppliers of services that their ignorant followers demand from them. However, since these services are not free, but very profitable, I would treat them as business services, that are subject to the laws of supply and demand, just like all other commercial services.That being said, a strategy to persuade the faithful to distance themselves from their churches would consist in convincing them that their money could be better used if instead of paying to hear empty words, they purchased interesting or useful objects. Those who come in contact with the North American consumer society are more exposed to losing their traditional beliefs.
When I was a field auditor for the former Canadian Department of Revenue - Taxation, I had to audit the books of a Jewish business owner. During a very friendly conversation with him, he deplored the fact that his children were distancing themselves from the Jewish faith and practices. This seemed to be a phenomenon that happened quite naturally. By the way, his books were well kept and I did not find any reason to increase his income tax assessment.
"I consider religions as suppliers of services that their ignorant followers demand from them. "
Like drug dealers then? and just as despicable, foisting their poisonous products on infants and children and extorting them for life.
And also parents who help the religious leaders to enslave the minds of their children!
Please be aware that religions are systems of thought. As such, they cannot supply services. Religious people may supply services, but that is an entirely separate issue.
Yes! This is semantically correct! Let us say that Churches, which are organizations, supply services.
@evhemere I can go with that.
@anglophone Thank you, anglophone!
Just one tiny thing. They are not a source of irritation for me! Just sayin’!
For me they are sources of irritation only when their supporters are in power and oblige other people to do or not to do things because “that is the will of God”.
There is a third use for money, which is to use it charitably for the benefit of others or everyone, a thing which the churches are very bad at, despite their claims to the opposite.
The churches at the top level exist primarily for the benefit of the top people. Take the Vatican as a good example. But at the local level, such as a catholic parish church, i have seen an active parishioner who received help from her parish priest, But this is perhaps the exception that confirms the rule.