I'm serious. If in a given situation a person is allowed to wear a cross for religious reasons, they should be allowed to wear it for non-religious reasons too. The same applies to any other religious apparel or ritual. The state should not be allowed to judge which reasons for wanting to do something are valid, and which are not. There can be no justification for making windows into men's hearts.
As for tax benefits, every dollar of tax exemption given to religious organisations is equivalent to a subsidy to that organisation, which must be paid for by the rest of the population. Some of whom are nonbelievers. A Christian should not be forced to pay for a mosque, nor a Muslim for a church. Nor an atheist for either.
(And because I'm sure you've all jumped to a certain conclusion... no, I'm not an atheist.)
0
Why does the state recognise *any* religion?
I'm serious. If in a given situation a person is allowed to wear a cross for religious reasons, they should be allowed to wear it for non-religious reasons too. The same applies to any other religious apparel or ritual. The state should not be allowed to judge which reasons for wanting to do something are valid, and which are not. There can be no justification for making windows into men's hearts.
As for tax benefits, every dollar of tax exemption given to religious organisations is equivalent to a subsidy to that organisation, which must be paid for by the rest of the population. Some of whom are nonbelievers. A Christian should not be forced to pay for a mosque, nor a Muslim for a church. Nor an atheist for either.
(And because I'm sure you've all jumped to a certain conclusion... no, I'm not an atheist.)