My point is, the government does not decide what is a "religion" and what is not.

The flying spaghetti monster is probably a legitimate non-profit organization and religion and the government doesn't care as long as they file properly and do a certain amount of charity work.

willing2


I am also an ordained minister. But to have a nonprofit organization and "church" I would have to file it as a non-profit corporation and I would have to keep good books and contribute to charity etc. etc.

I did not do that because I believe that churches should pay taxes like everyone else.

But I am an ordained minister, and the High Priestess of the FIRST Universal Life Church of Brutal Truth and Honesty.

(formerly the Universal Life Church of hot-tubing and movie watching.)

I never said it does. I asked u if something was a recognized religion and you tried to say there was no such thing as a government recognized religion. but there is.

So what? The government does not have to recognize something as a religion for it to be a religion.

So why would anyone care what the government recognizes?

I disagree..

The social darwinists that led the eugenics/sterilization/abortion mill practices of the early 20th century were not divided by location they were united by common cause.

Rid their world of the undesirables. Their desire was not bound by race, but by class.

They were the elite of the western world. They weren't farmers.

If you think these people no longer exist then you better open your eyes.

They care whether or not they have tax exempt status. Also asking questions doesn't change the fact that you were wrong. XP

sadly that doesn't exist any longer!
Some Idiot ate it!

another question is,why should Religious Organizations be Tax-exempt,heck,some rake in inordinate amounts of Money?

Most likely it's probably because only the left wing socialists and communists favour taking the tax-exempt status away from Churches denying the people the right to donate their money to them to use in the many charities run by churches all over the world. Socialists and communists do not run charitable organizations along with a few of the more extreme political parties and if they do, any 'charity'/ monetary aid certainly would be directed their own organizations and most certainly be tax-exempt if they assumed power to run a country. Needless to say, however, that many would become their own 'charities' and funnel whatever funds they can steal or claim into those charities; all part of the usual policies to bankrupt a country. "Donating" to these so-called charities, though, seem to be used by both the 'right' and 'left' as SOP. Actually both seem to complain about the churches of all faiths/ creeds and their charities and especially their tax-exempt status, so in the end, only the confiscation of their moneys to enrich themselves seems to matter, whereas, if the ordinary citizens objected to giving to churches, they would not, but of course, no one cares what the people want or don't want; it is always what the criminals of the anti church political parties want. If they want extra cash, they can send their workers out to collect empty bottles on the streets. No one yet has managed a state policy against people making donations to their churches or charities...is this what is being promoted by objecting to the tax exempt status and how the churches dispense charity...Seems it is.

You misunderstand what I was trying to point out.

Anyone can have a tax exempt status if they do the paperwork right. (Also, a religion does not have to be tax exempt to be a religion.)

So the government's alleged "list" of "recognized religions" is more concerned about the tax status of a corporation than it is about it being an "official religion.

You say they have a list of "official religions." I say that list, if it exist, is nothing more than non-profit corporation paperwork, and has little to do with anything being an "official religion."

But if you know so much about this alleged "list" then I don't know why you are asking questions about it. You already feel you know the answer anyway.

But my point is that a religion does not have to be on some "recognized government list" to be a legitimate religion.

So there was really no point to your question.

If you are pursuing it just to be able to say that I was "wrong" about there not being a "list of official recognized religions" then fine. You are just making it personal and wanting to be "right."

It would not surprise me at all that the government has such a list. However, I'm not impresses one way or another with their list.