For another thing: what do you say to people whose religion actually requires them to violate the law? Say NAMBLA was a religion rather than a non-religious organization; should they be able to claim pedophilia laws violate their first amendment right to freedom of religion? By Singer's logic, it seems like they would be able to; after all, those laws force them to violate their group's precepts.
Yay. Yet another reason for removing special protections from religious organizations.
Religious organizations need to follow the law. Period. End of discussion. They should also not be automatically tax-exempt nor exempt from the regulations that govern the financial disclosures of other nonprofit organizations.
Edited to add 'automatically' - of course, if they meet the standards for other kinds of tex-exempt nonprofit organizations, they should be allowed the same exemptions.
no subject
Yay. Yet another reason for removing special protections from religious organizations.
Religious organizations need to follow the law. Period. End of discussion. They should also not be automatically tax-exempt nor exempt from the regulations that govern the financial disclosures of other nonprofit organizations.
Edited to add 'automatically' - of course, if they meet the standards for other kinds of tex-exempt nonprofit organizations, they should be allowed the same exemptions.