You have yet to really respond to my objections, other than to essentially claim “well, I’m talking about something else from historical times…even though I’m using modern examples of people tithing to the church.”
-
You claim “religion has always been a royal pain in the backside of the State”. Do you deny that this is by and large because the underlying nature of religion is the same as the State in that it is inclined to the play the same role the State does of dictating your life, and the government hates competition. (As most proponants of monopoly do.)?
-
You claim that “Wars are not caused by religion”. Do you deny that throughout history religion is often the mcguffin in the war narrative. People are motivated to go to war, feel justified in conducting war, and are willing to do things they would never do otherwise without the belief of God on their side…due to religious beliefs, more than any other source?
-
You allege that religion is just as monopolistic as Walmart. Do you deny there is a difference between inherent dictates that control one’s life that make up religion, and the profit-driven monopolistic tendencies of a company?
-
You ask “so long as they don’t use force or fraud (or government, which is the same) to bring about a monopoly, how do their ambitions harm anyone else?”…seemingly as if to imply religious ambitions haven’t / don’t lead individuals to harm others. Do you really believe that to be the case?
-
You talk of “role of religion in free society”, as if “religion” is a necessary condition for such a society…do you believe that is the case? (Unless of course you wish to stick with your definition of “religion” as “people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight”. In that case, I’m not sure there will be much more to talk about, as when a couple of kids asking their grandfather how to construct a good slingshot becomes a perfect example of “religion”, I’m afraid I don’t really have much more interest in persuing the line of conversation.
-
You seem to be implying that just because religion is often a “royal pain in the backside of the State”, it automatically means religion is anti-Statism or pro-liberty.
-
You allege that people tithe to their church becase of a “low-tech, anarchistic Intellectual Property protections”… like a “stone-age DRM”, which requires them to pay so that they might hear “the secret of the serpent”. Do you deny that many if not most people tithe to their chruch regardless of how they feel about the sermon, and in fact many times fall asleep during it, and in fact would rather not be there at all?