Austria passes new law legitimizing Islam

[Thanas]

]Personally I am thinking that I might object to the entire concept of making all clergy be state employees.

"Separation of church and state" is a fairly common constitutional idea.

This is in fact american myopia at work here. The only country in Europe which has a strict separation of church and state is France. And even there the separation is not complete - for example, in Elsass-Lothringen the state and church are intertwined and in certain french departments the education rests wholly in the hands of the church. (Scandinavia has different degrees of separation as well but I don't know if it is complete or if the state still pays for the church by taking care of buildings or so). In England, church officials of the state church even sit in the House of Lords. Even in your immediate neighbours the separation is not complete. In Canada, the state still pays for religious schools and in Mexico the Catholic church has a lot of power and wealth.

I think you are confusing separation of church and state with religious freedom. The two are not the same and one can have one with the other or without it.

Now, in Austria and Germany the state having control of the church is the end of a lot of religious tensions and conflicts that started with the free investiture in the 11th century. It then further happened as a result of the treaty of Augsburg and the double treaty of Münster-Osnabrück, which ended the wars of religion in Central Europe. So there is nearly a thousand years of evolution of the principle of church control by the state, which is totally separate and different from the American evolution of the separation of church and state.

Now, the concept of priests being state officials is based on one reason and one reason only: You want your priests to be loyal to the state and not preach murder from the pulpit. At the same time, you want to give them the financial means to resist commands from other nations, like for example the imman getting orders from Saudi Arabia to preach Wahhabism. Maybe it is not a concern in the USA, but it definitely is in Europe, with muslims being in some cases up to 8% or more of the general population. We need to integrate them. Giving the priests of their faith the same status as the indigenous priests is a good and necessary first start.

If state control of which imams it will or will not pay is being used to close down religious communities in areas where it is 'inefficient' to fund a mosque, then that presents serious problems for people who intend to practice the Muslim religion.

Ehhh....no. What is happening is that these areas will not be given a complete position for an Imman. What will happen is that there most likely will be a rotating imman who visits the districts, as it is the case with christians all over Europe. The only way to change this is by privileging Islam more than Christianity. Would you agree to that?

But why make this a requirement? If European Muslims want to attend services in a liturgical language they cannot follow, and get it translated later or not at all, why would that not be their choice?

They can do so. The law does not criminalise anybody who wants to have special services or who downloads Arabic chants from the internet and plays them. But they cannot use state resources to do so or expect state priests to do so. What is forbidden however is to form a radicalised community. Same with any other faith.

My choice to practice a religion should not be defined by the state's decision to practice budget cuts.

I think I might reasonably object to some of the ways that Austria treats and restricts all its religions, especially the part where they can close down a religious institution if they decide not to pay its clergy.

See, these are the hair-on-fire posts. I suggest you first google how the church and priests are being paid in Austria before making an assumption about "budget cuts" and the like. Because anybody even remotely familiar with the German and Austrian system will just start laughing when seeing such sentences.

[Flagg]

Exactly. In fact this thread should be retitled because frankly, it's based on ignorance and I think I'd be pretty pissed off to see that title only to read an article that is downright reason to praise Austria, rather than condemn it if I were a citizen of that horrible country.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ehhh....no. What is happening is that these areas will not be given a complete position for an Imman. What will happen is that there most likely will be a rotating imman who visits the districts, as it is the case with christians all over Europe.

This also happens in the US, anyway, even with the separation of church and state. I am having a hard time finding concrete numbers, but at least within Catholicism up to 20% of parishes lack a dedicated priest. And, in fact, some Protestant denominations have rotating pastors and such anyway.

See, these are the hair-on-fire posts. I suggest you first google how the church and priests are being paid in Austria before making an assumption about "budget cuts" and the like. Because anybody even remotely familiar with the German and Austrian system will just start laughing when seeing such sentences.

To be fair, I am having a really hard time finding this information on Google. Trying a number of generic search terms like "austria priest", "austria priest payment", and "austria religion" don't turn up much useful information with respect to this debate. While I am able to find plenty of sites that talk about the legal basis for freedom of religion in Austria (e.g. this one), I can't easily find anything specifically about the payment system.

[Thanas]

To be fair, I am having a really hard time finding this information on Google. Trying a number of generic search terms like "austria priest", "austria priest payment", and "austria religion" don't turn up much useful information with respect to this debate. While I am able to find plenty of sites that talk about the legal basis for freedom of religion in Austria (e.g. this one), I can't easily find anything specifically about the payment system.

Well, the way it works is that a percentage of the income of the faithful (I believe somewhere between 1-2% in Austria) is taxed by the Church per law. This tax is enforced by the state who deducts it directly and hands it over to the church. This money pays for most of Church operations and is not state money. So there is no way for "budget cuts" to impact that.

Then the state also pays a certain percentage of general tax money towards the salaries of the Priests and bishops etc as well as provide things like logistical support and in some cases maintenance of historic church buildings etc. So what you get from that are separate avenues of funding, of which several cannot be just cut in budget cuts. In fact, due to national and supernational agreements with the various Churches and the Vatican (of which some have the force of constitutional and/or international law) the salaries are pretty much set and any reduction of maintenance would at the very least get a stern letter from the UNESCO as well as a lot of negative PR (and would impact the tourist economy pretty heavily as well). So no go there either.

So any budget cuts would definitely not be enacted on the church, nor could the state just axe the promised positions unilaterally. This is also why posts like "this will allow them to control the church and starve it via economic submission" are so hilarious. If the state wants to close down a church they already have plenty of means to do so, they don't need to a) first give it official recognition b) enact a CUNNING PLAN to take control of churches via the backdoor of budget control (over which the state has very little anyway as the churches are self-governing). And that is even besides the fact that the state just cutting off the churches would most likely be a violation of the freedom of religion, which is a constitutional right. Any such action would get the state laughed out of the constitutional court so fast that it wouldn't even be considered in the first place by any sane politician who is not on some mix of holy wine and crack.

So that is why posts like the ones I cited are pretty much "heads-on--fire".

[LaCroix]

Thanas is correct on all points. (I sadly had too much to do to respond to this thread properly.)

The mere idea that this means we could financially strangle immans or close their mosques is so ridiculous that it leaves an Austrian speechless. In fact, it's just become a LOT harder to do that by raising them to official state religion status (next to all christian and jewish denominations), which means we will enforce their tithes for them from everyone declaring himself to be muslim in census.

I also second the motion to change the title in something actually fitting, for I feel pretty much kicked in the balls when we are increasing the status for Islam, and are getting slandered six or seven ways to sunday it for it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thanks for the explanation, Thanas. That makes a lot of sense.

[Thanas]

Thanks for the explanation, Thanas. That makes a lot of sense.

No problem. And thanks for asking about stuff first instead of assuming things like some other posters in this thread.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If previous treatment is any indication, what matters is that the church does not preach against the state in an undemocratic manner. The other parts of the doctrine are left to the theologians. So no preaching murdering all christians or jews.

Ok. That makes sense. Basically the doctrines themselves are not subject to state scrutiny until someone starts ranting and raving about killing jews etc. Gotcha.

I see no reason to assume that this is a ban against theological texts being read in their original languages. However, the other parts of the sermon should be conducted in German for the simple reason that most European muslims no longer speak or even understand arabic.

Alright. That seems perfectly reasonable. A bit odd to have a requirement in place, but from the perspective of the austrian state it makes a lot of sense. Integration can only happen if turkish or bosnian immigrants speak german, and the best way to do that is immersion. Plus it keeps language barriers from being used to prevent...well... checking up on Imams to make sure they have not gone batshit.

BTW, guess who already preaches in German? Radical groupings on the internet who want to get new followers - and who are easily misled because the Saudi-sponsored Imman from the local mosque does not preach in German either. Guess who was the first muslim group in Germany/Austria to hand out the Koran in a German translation? The radical salafists.

Of course it was....

[Thanas]

Ok. That makes sense. Basically the doctrines themselves are not subject to state scrutiny until someone starts ranting and raving about killing jews etc. Gotcha.

Yeah, priests get away with a lot of stuff, even extremely conservative stuff. The state will step in only if it can be proven that it incites violence, which IMO is a very high threshold to clear. In Germany we got the same thing and a priest who has undeniable links to extremists has not been thrown out yet. For the benefit of the other users on this board (not you Aly) let me just say that the state will not have controllers sitting sermons taking notes. Most priests only come into contact with state authorities two times:
1. When they finish their university education and take exams
2. When they have to interact with state authorities for things like getting a permit to hold a church festival on public space
Most times the state will only get involved when members of the congregation submit evidence and ask for an enquiry because their priest started spelling BS or touched their kids.

Alright. That seems perfectly reasonable. A bit odd to have a requirement in place, but from the perspective of the austrian state it makes a lot of sense. Integration can only happen if turkish or bosnian immigrants speak german, and the best way to do that is immersion. Plus it keeps language barriers from being used to prevent...well... checking up on Imams to make sure they have not gone batshit.

Yeah and there is also the fact that most muslims in Europe don't speak or read Arabic, so what we have here is the perfect situation of where a priest can tell anything to the masses and they have to believe it because there is no way to doublecheck or read other passages. Which leads to a lot of idiots taking passages out of context.

This is a direct parallel to the catholic church until Vatican II, where priests had the monopoly of defining the faith. Especially Christians should understand the requirement here, they just have to look at the long history of abuses perpetuated by states or churches with the argument "the bible says it is ok".

[Mange]

(Scandinavia has different degrees of separation as well but I don't know if it is complete or if the state still pays for the church by taking care of buildings or so).

You know that there's more than one country in Scandinavia. Seriously, the Church of Sweden was separated from the state in the year 2000 (it's the only Nordic country to have done so). There are still a few vestiges left though: It's still the political parties that are seated in the parish assemblies as well as in the General Synod. The head of state (the king or queen) is required by the Swedish order of succession (which is part of the constitution) to be "of the pure Lutheran faith".

Other vestiges are being phased out: Population statistics on perishes are to be replaced by population statistics on civil registration districts (which are based on the perishes as of 1999/2000) on January 1st, 2016.

[Broomstick]

Frankly, given some of the nutball and even downright toxic cults that have sprung up in the US I think a little more oversight and control of religion in the US might be a good idea. Sure, separate church and state, but not so much religions are a law unto themselves and anything may be excused by claiming "god said so".

[The Romulan Republic]

The thing is, those nutballs have enough power in the US that given the state control over religion might very well end up giving them a means to impose their crazy views on everyone, at least in insofar as the Republicans manage to win the current election.

[Thanas]

(Scandinavia has different degrees of separation as well but I don't know if it is complete or if the state still pays for the church by taking care of buildings or so).

You know that there's more than one country in Scandinavia.

Not for long after the sekret German-Swedish Alliance to take over Europe is revealed. All hail the union of Queen Merkel and King Gustaf. It will cause a never before seen increase in bleach sales.

Seriously though, thanks for the info on sweden and her religious ways.

[Simon_Jester]

]Personally I am thinking that I might object to the entire concept of making all clergy be state employees.

"Separation of church and state" is a fairly common constitutional idea.

This is in fact american myopia at work here. The only country in Europe which has a strict separation of church and state is France. And even there the separation is not complete - for example, in Elsass-Lothringen the state and church are intertwined and in certain french departments the education rests wholly in the hands of the church. (Scandinavia has different degrees of separation as well but I don't know if it is complete or if the state still pays for the church by taking care of buildings or so). In England, church officials of the state church even sit in the House of Lords. Even in your immediate neighbours the separation is not complete. In Canada, the state still pays for religious schools and in Mexico the Catholic church has a lot of power and wealth.

It's a matter of degree. Please understand that when I say "separation of church and state" I do not mean "only theabsolute separation of church and state." I also refer to partial separation of church and state.

And in addition, I'm referring to the idea that the church and the state should not be 'too unified.' For an example of a country where the church and the state are too unified, see Iran- that's not a place we want to go as a civilization. Nor would we want to go to the extreme where religious institutions become a state-owned cult and disagreement with the state becomes blasphemy as well as treason.

Both of those are extreme limiting cases. Austria is obviously not a country with a church-owned state or a state-owned church. I list them to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Now, my basic argument is that some separation of church and state is desirable. It need not be absolute, but there should be some. And that having the clergy be state employees is not enough separation.

I will detail why I believe this further down.

I think you are confusing separation of church and state with religious freedom. The two are not the same and one can have one with the other or without it.

Now, in Austria and Germany the state having control of the church is the end of a lot of religious tensions and conflicts that started with the free investiture in the 11th century. It then further happened as a result of the treaty of Augsburg and the double treaty of Münster-Osnabrück, which ended the wars of religion in Central Europe. So there is nearly a thousand years of evolution of the principle of church control by the state, which is totally separate and different from the American evolution of the separation of church and state.

If separation of church and state does not exist, religious freedom is an endangered species. Cuius regio, eius religio did not usher in a golden age of religious tolerance, even though it did make things better than the wars of religion that had preceded the Peace of Augsburg.

I would argue that the slow evolutionary process that led to the current state of religious freedom in Germany and Austria may have actually embedded flaws in the process. I could draw an analogy to, say, more or less any major institution of the US government. Many of those institutions are now 230-240 years old, and have never been structurally reformed since the 18th century, and the faults that result from that considerable age are... conspicuous faults.

Likewise, if the basic paradigms of religious freedom in central Europe haven't been seriously re-examined since the 16th century (Augsburg) or 17th century (Westphalia), one would expect that there would be some significant defects in the system.

Saying "our customs have evolved over time" does not negate "I think there is a flaw in your customs."

Let me point out the main difficulties I see with the Austro-German system as you have described it.

1) While it does not guarantee state abuse of its power to influence religious institutions, it makes such abuse easier to accomplish. At the moment the state has little incentive to do that. A few decades from now, that might change.

2) Having all clergy on the state payroll may ensure that they do not preach sedition or urge their followers to commit felonies... but it also discourages them from speaking out on perceived social injustices at all. The power to sign a man's paycheck can very easily be used to silence him, even when no abuse of power is intended.

3) This institution creates a major obstacle to any new religions that begin to spread in the nation. Essentially, the one or few 'established' faiths of the nation get a major advantage over any new arrivals, because there are official legal advantages to being one of the established faiths. This is over and above any unofficial advantage the established religions enjoy because they have a larger number of supporters in the general public.

Now, the concept of priests being state officials is based on one reason and one reason only: You want your priests to be loyal to the state and not preach murder from the pulpit. At the same time, you want to give them the financial means to resist commands from other nations, like for example the imman getting orders from Saudi Arabia to preach Wahhabism. Maybe it is not a concern in the USA, but it definitely is in Europe, with muslims being in some cases up to 8% or more of the general population. We need to integrate them. Giving the priests of their faith the same status as the indigenous priests is a good and necessary first start.

Now, in the US system, preaching murder is covered separately; churches can lose their tax-exempt status for engaging directly in politics, though that law is sometimes not enforced properly. Inciting people to commit crimes is illegal whether you do it in a religious institution or not.

The US system is obviously not the only system that would work... but it does work. While the US has innumerable political problems, including religious fundamentalist voters, it does not actually have major ongoing problems with religious leaders stirring up waves of terrorism. Despite having a fair number of religious extremists, mostly evangelical Protestants.

So in this case, the Austro-German system isn't the only one that works, either.

If state control of which imams it will or will not pay is being used to close down religious communities in areas where it is 'inefficient' to fund a mosque, then that presents serious problems for people who intend to practice the Muslim religion.

Ehhh....no. What is happening is that these areas will not be given a complete position for an Imman. What will happen is that there most likely will be a rotating imman who visits the districts, as it is the case with christians all over Europe. The only way to change this is by privileging Islam more than Christianity. Would you agree to that?

My position is simply that there is no reason to make it a state decision whether to have or not have imams in a given area. If the imam's followers are willing to support them, let them do so; otherwise, there is no need for the state to become involved.

But why make this a requirement? If European Muslims want to attend services in a liturgical language they cannot follow, and get it translated later or not at all, why would that not be their choice?

They can do so. The law does not criminalise anybody who wants to have special services or who downloads Arabic chants from the internet and plays them. But they cannot use state resources to do so or expect state priests to do so. What is forbidden however is to form a radicalised community. Same with any other faith.

So what are the advantages of being a state-approved religious organization, then? And are those advantages to be denied to any sect, or branch of a sect, that chooses not to have its liturgy in German?

My choice to practice a religion should not be defined by the state's decision to practice budget cuts.

I think I might reasonably object to some of the ways that Austria treats and restricts all its religions, especially the part where they can close down a religious institution if they decide not to pay its clergy.

See, these are the hair-on-fire posts. I suggest you first google how the church and priests are being paid in Austria before making an assumption about "budget cuts" and the like. Because anybody even remotely familiar with the German and Austrian system will just start laughing when seeing such sentences.

The first of my allegedly 'hair-on-fire' posts is simply an attempt to sum up and reply to what you yourself said- that the state has the right to decide not to pay clergy to operate in a given area.

The second is a simple statement of opinion- that I disagree with the way Austria does things. It is possible to have reasoned disagreements with the constitutional arrangements of a democratic country. You know this perfectly well and engage in such disagreements regularly; I ask that you extend me the same privilege.

---

Well, the way it works is that a percentage of the income of the faithful (I believe somewhere between 1-2% in Austria) is taxed by the Church per law. This tax is enforced by the state who deducts it directly and hands it over to the church. This money pays for most of Church operations and is not state money. So there is no way for "budget cuts" to impact that...

Then the state also pays a certain percentage of general tax money towards the salaries of the Priests and bishops etc...

This is the key issue. If the salaries of the clergy come out of general tax money, that gives them leverage over the clergy.

Which is exactly the point, by your own words.

I would argue that this is not a good arrangement in a pluralistic society.

...as well as provide things like logistical support and in some cases maintenance of historic church buildings etc. So what you get from that are separate avenues of funding, of which several cannot be just cut in budget cuts. In fact, due to national and supernational agreements with the various Churches and the Vatican (of which some have the force of constitutional and/or international law) the salaries are pretty much set and any reduction of maintenance would at the very least get a stern letter from the UNESCO as well as a lot of negative PR (and would impact the tourist economy pretty heavily as well). So no go there either.

The Roman Catholic Church has the resources to get such an agreement. The Islamic sects, which are as a rule less centralized, may not be able to do that. This places them at a disadvantage and makes them more vulnerable to the issue I've pointed out, of the state using its control over whether clergy get paid to manipulate the sect they belong to.

So any budget cuts would definitely not be enacted on the church, nor could the state just axe the promised positions unilaterally. This is also why posts like "this will allow them to control the church and starve it via economic submission" are so hilarious. If the state wants to close down a church they already have plenty of means to do so, they don't need to a) first give it official recognition b) enact a CUNNING PLAN to take control of churches via the backdoor of budget control (over which the state has very little anyway as the churches are self-governing). And that is even besides the fact that the state just cutting off the churches would most likely be a violation of the freedom of religion, which is a constitutional right. Any such action would get the state laughed out of the constitutional court so fast that it wouldn't even be considered in the first place by any sane politician who is not on some mix of holy wine and crack.

So that is why posts like the ones I cited are pretty much "heads-on--fire".

If the state's power to fund or not fund the salaries of clergy does not give them power to influence those clergy... why does the state bother to do so?

Are you saying the Austrian government enacted this policy even though there was no advantage for them? That would be the actions of a fool. And you yourself said that the point of having the state pay the clergy is so that the state can restrain them.

[Thanas]

I think most of the post above comes from a deep ignorance and lack of knowledge about the Austrian system. What have you read on it? Because I wager that this article is the first you have come into contact with it and that you view this still through the lens of how things are in the USA and use that as the basis for your comparison.

If separation of church and state does not exist, religious freedom is an endangered species.

This is false. See for example Britain.

Likewise, if the basic paradigms of religious freedom in central Europe haven't been seriously re-examined since the 16th century (Augsburg) or 17th century (Westphalia), one would expect that there would be some significant defects in the system.

They have been, the formation of the new constitutions since 1945 took them into extent, there is also plenty of debate about it in judicial circles.

1) While it does not guarantee state abuse of its power to influence religious institutions, it makes such abuse easier to accomplish.

No, it doesn't. See below for why.

2) Having all clergy on the state payroll may ensure that they do not preach sedition or urge their followers to commit felonies... but it also discourages them from speaking out on perceived social injustices at all. The power to sign a man's paycheck can very easily be used to silence him, even when no abuse of power is intended.

No it does not, for the state has no power to touch the salaries. It can touch the salaries even less than it can touch market economy salaries.

3) This institution creates a major obstacle to any new religions that begin to spread in the nation. Essentially, the one or few 'established' faiths of the nation get a major advantage over any new arrivals, because there are official legal advantages to being one of the established faiths. This is over and above any unofficial advantage the established religions enjoy because they have a larger number of supporters in the general public.

This is true but please note that Austria has always made the attempt to make faiths feel welcome. Heck, their treatment of the muslims in Bosnia for example was very fair on religious grounds, fairer than any other nation treated the religion of people they captured or controlled. (With the possible exception of the americans in their actions outside the USA). So I don't see that much of a concern and it is not as if the state moves to suppress other religions. There is no inquisition. And like this law shows, if there are enough adherents to a faith, Austria will move to it.

Now, in the US system, preaching murder is covered separately; churches can lose their tax-exempt status for engaging directly in politics, though that law is sometimes not enforced properly. Inciting people to commit crimes is illegal whether you do it in a religious institution or not.

As it is in Europe no matter the state. But in Europe being a priest of the supported Churches means one has to pass state examinations, that is where the control part comes in. (And before you go on about a faceless commission checking the qualities of priests, please don't. You just would look hilarious.)

The US system is obviously not the only system that would work... but it does work. While the US has innumerable political problems, including religious fundamentalist voters, it does not actually have major ongoing problems with religious leaders stirring up waves of terrorism. Despite having a fair number of religious extremists, mostly evangelical Protestants.

It doesn't? Waco, YFZ, Jonestown (not in the US but still perpetrated by US citizens) and the radical far right all look to be far more radical and far more dangerous than anything produced under this Austrian system.

So in this case, the Austro-German system isn't the only one that works, either.

On the basis of the above I would argue that it does work much better at preventing dangerous sects or cults though.

My position is simply that there is no reason to make it a state decision whether to have or not have imams in a given area. If the imam's followers are willing to support them, let them do so; otherwise, there is no need for the state to become involved.

Nobody is stopping them from paying for their own religious leaders to come and preach - like say, in a hall that they rent and transform into a temple. All this does is say who can claim state funds for support.

So what are the advantages of being a state-approved religious organization, then?

My first post in this thread has them.

And are those advantages to be denied to any sect, or branch of a sect, that chooses not to have its liturgy in German?

Yes.

The first of my allegedly 'hair-on-fire' posts is simply an attempt to sum up and reply to what you yourself said- that the state has the right to decide not to pay clergy to operate in a given area.

No, that is a misunderstanding on your part. Immans have a right to be paid. If they meet the provisions of the law, it is automatic with the state not being allowed to say no. If they don't meet the provisions, then they don't qualify in the first place. The state cannot just pick and chose who to pay and who not to pay.

This is the key issue. If the salaries of the clergy come out of general tax money, that gives them leverage over the clergy.

No, because as I wrote later (which you missed or ignored) the state cannot just declare not to pay them. The salaries are fixed and cannot be changed. Not even by general budget cuts. Once you get the license and fulfil the requirements of the law (also fixed) to get a post, you will then draw a salary. Your license can only be revoked by:
- the church
- you being convicted of a serious crime

The Roman Catholic Church has the resources to get such an agreement. The Islamic sects, which are as a rule less centralized, may not be able to do that.

The law takes the two most prominent of such organizations and gives them equal status to the RCC. Which again, was pointed out several times in this thread.

If the state's power to fund or not fund the salaries of clergy does not give them power to influence those clergy... why does the state bother to do so?

Because priests are seeing having a net positive role in the communities and us being godless Eurocommies mean we actually pay people to do good in the communities. Oh and we want our priests to be able to resist commands from wealthy donors.

Are you saying the Austrian government enacted this policy even though there was no advantage for them?

There are several advantages pointed out to you several times in this thread. Yet you don't even post them. Why is that?
Integration.
Mutual respect.
Independence from fundamentalist organizations.
Making muslims feel welcome.
Etc. pp.

I really don't see how you can deny these obvious advantages.

Besides, if there were no advantages at all (but there are) then shouldn't Austria be praised for doing a good thing anyways?

[TheHammer]

Frankly, given some of the nutball and even downright toxic cults that have sprung up in the US I think a little more oversight and control of religion in the US might be a good idea. Sure, separate church and state, but not so much religions are a law unto themselves and anything may be excused by claiming "god said so".

Such a thing is the antithesis of freedom of religion and thus NOT a good idea. As to your second point, with separation of church and state religions are NOT law unto themselves because they can't create laws.

Check the temperature in hell because I actually agree with Simon. Having state sanctioned religions is not conducive to freedom of religion. You create a tier of legitimized and thus favored religions and then put restrictions on how those religions are to be adhered to. Sure the system might "work", but you only get pseudo-freedom of religion.

[Thanas]

Check the temperature in hell because I actually agree with Simon. Having state sanctioned religions is not conducive to freedom of religion. You create a tier of legitimized and thus favored religions and then put restrictions on how those religions are to be adhered to. Sure the system might "work", but you only get pseudo-freedom of religion.

Said restrictions are the same any citizen has to work with every day. Priests are bound by the same laws and regulations as anybody else. How is that a bad thing?

[Broomstick]

The US system is obviously not the only system that would work... but it does work. While the US has innumerable political problems, including religious fundamentalist voters, it does not actually have major ongoing problems with religious leaders stirring up waves of terrorism. Despite having a fair number of religious extremists, mostly evangelical Protestants.

It doesn't? Waco, YFZ, Jonestown (not in the US but still perpetrated by US citizens) and the radical far right all look to be far more radical and far more dangerous than anything produced under this Austrian system.

Good examples. I'll add that a lot of the more anti-government types are strongly religious. There are cults with systematized child abuse and exploitation of women like FLDS. The American Nazi Party and the Christian Identity Movement are so strongly linked they could be considered conjoined twins.

So in this case, the Austro-German system isn't the only one that works, either.

On the basis of the above I would argue that it does work much better at preventing dangerous sects or cults though.

I'm going to have to side with Thanas on this one.

My position is simply that there is no reason to make it a state decision whether to have or not have imams in a given area. If the imam's followers are willing to support them, let them do so; otherwise, there is no need for the state to become involved.

Nobody is stopping them from paying for their own religious leaders to come and preach - like say, in a hall that they rent and transform into a temple. All this does is say who can claim state funds for support.

This is analogous to to "minority religions" in the US. Anyone can open a store front and call it a church, but getting tax-empt status, marriage officiation privileges for the clergy, and some other perks requires quite a bit more than simply "I declare myself a minister". Sometimes a surprising amount of work based on my experience in NeoPaganism in the 1980's-90's

If an American doesn't think the state and church are linked in the US, or that the state and church don't interfere with each other, you aren't paying attention. Laws that prohibit selling alcohol (or other things) on Sundays are a direct influence of the church(es) on the legal system. The state deciding who does and doesn't have tax exempt status. And so forth. Those raised Christian or still Christian are particularly blind to this linkage in the US but those of us outside the "Christian norm" do see it, and often feel it.

Frankly, given some of the nutball and even downright toxic cults that have sprung up in the US I think a little more oversight and control of religion in the US might be a good idea. Sure, separate church and state, but not so much religions are a law unto themselves and anything may be excused by claiming "god said so".

Such a thing is the antithesis of freedom of religion and thus NOT a good idea. As to your second point, with separation of church and state religions are NOT law unto themselves because they can't create laws.

Check the temperature in hell because I actually agree with Simon. Having state sanctioned religions is not conducive to freedom of religion. You create a tier of legitimized and thus favored religions and then put restrictions on how those religions are to be adhered to. Sure the system might "work", but you only get pseudo-freedom of religion.

Right - because suppression of non-Christian religions has never happened in the US.... oh wait...

Seriously, you wouldn't want a little more oversight of the FLDS? Some mechanism where they can't just waive their placard saying "FIRST AMENDMENT" and get away with old men raping young girls and calling it "marriage"?

You think the US doesn't already sanction some religions over others? What do you call tax exempt status? Why was there such a decades-long struggle to get the military to recognize chaplains beyond just Christians and Jews? How about "blue laws" imposing the restrictions of one religion (such as no alcohol sales on Sunday, or just no alcohol period) over the rights of others to NOT live under such restrictions? What about letting Jehovah's Witnesses' deny their children blood transfusions even when that means certain death, who else gets a free pass on murder?

The US certainly does favor some religions over others, and those favored religions to wield power to affect laws and other secular parts of life. Then the US turns around and declares it has some sort of "pure" separation of the two institutions. No, it doesn't. That might be the theory but the practice doesn't reflect it at all well.

[TheHammer]

Check the temperature in hell because I actually agree with Simon. Having state sanctioned religions is not conducive to freedom of religion. You create a tier of legitimized and thus favored religions and then put restrictions on how those religions are to be adhered to. Sure the system might "work", but you only get pseudo-freedom of religion.

Said restrictions are the same any citizen has to work with every day. Priests are bound by the same laws and regulations as anybody else. How is that a bad thing?

Were they not bound to the law before? To be clear, I would agree that this is not an "attack on Islam". But I would still take exception with the concept behind the idea of state sanctioned religions in the first place. When you have a state sanctioned religion you are creating requirements as to how that religion is to be practiced. Lets look at some of those requirements you highlighted earlier:

Basically, it gives Islam the same rights as the christian churches and sets out what is to be considered canon (Koran and Hadithe).
It also demands services to be held in German, like the christian churches. The names of muslim communities are now protected (like christian churches) and if anybody slanders them, the offenders can be punished by law.
Muslim communities now have the right by law to be heard in legal matters or laws.
Muslim priests - like christians - now have the status of priests. This means, Immans will be paid by the state. They can now work as chaplains in the military, schools, hospitals etc. It is in this context that the prohibition of outside funding should be seen. Because they are now state employees one is not allowed to fund them.
Traditional muslim heritages and values are now protected by law.

In my mind, true religious freedom would mean that while there are laws that everyone must adhere to. You shouldn't need to legitimize a religion in order to afford it protections because with properly formed laws, it would already be protected. The system in Austria would seem to create a situation where you have some religions snuggled in the warm bosom of the state, while others are left out in the cold. It creates tiers of "favored", and by consequence "unfavored" religions.

Having a state sanctioned and protected canon and tradition for a religion cannot help but impinge upon religious freedoms and evolution. I'm not saying it's necessarily "good" or "bad" as whole since the argument could be made that religion as a whole does more harm than good, but its certainly not going to be in favor of freedom of religion.

[Broomstick]

In my mind, true religious freedom would mean that while there are laws that everyone must adhere to. You shouldn't need to legitimize a religion in order to afford it protections because with properly formed laws, it would already be protected.

Then I would argue the US should abolish the tax-exempt status of all religions as it confers and unfair advantage for those religions able to secure that privilege.

[Thanas]

Were they not bound to the law before?

My apologies, this is most likely very confusing...yes....and no. Yes, as in the case that criminal law applied all the time. No, as in the case of Austria having only regulation from the year 1912 on what is to be considered legitimate islamic religion. And said law was modelled after the annexation of Bosnia so you can see how it might be a bit outdated (even if advanced for its time). So while there were laws they were in need of modification.

The real situation was before that there was no agreement at all (not even among muslims) on what constituted a valid priest. So you had all these guys flying in from Saudi Arabia on the Saudi-Arabian dime proclaiming to be priests - and there was no way to really check their credentials. (I posted a rant from one of those guys a few weeks ago). So even if it was not directly afoul of criminal law, you had priests who were not supervised, not checked up on and having no way to act against the state as heads of religion. In short, there was no security for either side, neither the state nor the religious. This definitely was a flaw that needed correcting.

Now, here is what is hoped to be happening now: The largest groups of muslims will sit together and hammer out a program with the state on how they want to organize. At the same time, the state will employ theologians (most likely with the approval of the muslim organizations) to teach other muslims the right way to preach about their religion. It is hoped that having independent experts who can dedicate their life to their scripture without external interference will eventually lead to immans who know what they are doing and who can claim to have been properly instructed and taught.

Because right now - who is the head of the muslim sects in the west? Nobody really knows. Everybody knows about the status of al-sistani in Iraq. Nobody knows who the most influential muslim spiritual leader in Europe is right now.

Of course, conservative elements railing against women etc. will most likely not disappear (see Catholic Church). But it is hoped that there will be a dialogue, that there will be students taught about their religion in schools (and not in radical circles) and that there will be legitimate, integrated partners for the state to open up a dialogue with regarding the issues muslims face in Austrian society.

To be clear, I would agree that this is not an "attack on Islam". But I would still take exception with the concept behind the idea of state sanctioned religions in the first place. When you have a state sanctioned religion you are creating requirements as to how that religion is to be practiced. Lets look at some of those requirements you highlighted earlier:
*snip quote of Thanas*
In my mind, true religious freedom would mean that while there are laws that everyone must adhere to. You shouldn't need to legitimize a religion in order to afford it protections because with properly formed laws, it would already be protected. The system in Austria would seem to create a situation where you have some religions snuggled in the warm bosom of the state, while others are left out in the cold. It creates tiers of "favored", and by consequence "unfavored" religions.

Yes, I agree that there is definitely such a tier system. It was considered to be a worthy tradeoff to benefit the vast majority of the faiths. But this is much less of a difference than implied - for example, over here in Germany we have the same system. We also have a lot of christian sects like Jehovah's witnesses who still manage just fine to have their voices heard whenever a law impacts them. A competitive advantage to become legitimized is there however. I am not sure how to resolve this without also resolving the deep and beneficial relationship the state has with the churches and I am not sure how to do so in a way that would benefit the majority of society from severing those traditions.

I mean, take religious buildings. Cologne cathedral is a symbol of Catholicism. At the same time it is a symbol for Cologne, secularized and non-secularized. At the same time it is a symbol for Europe etc. So how do we seperate that? Kick out the Catholic church? No go due to freedom of religion and property rights. Have other faiths celebrate there? Great, make them celebrate under the cross. I don't really see a way to change that without negatively impacting a lot of people.

Having a state sanctioned and protected canon and tradition for a religion cannot help but impinge upon religious freedoms and evolution. I'm not saying it's necessarily "good" or "bad" as whole since the argument could be made that religion as a whole does more harm than good, but its certainly not going to be in favor of freedom of religion.

You would be correct if there would be a punishment for failing to adhere to the religion or evolve it. But there is none except that meted out by the Church itself. The Government does not have the power to defrock priests. In fact, in Germany several priests who got defrocked for being too liberal by the Vatican still draw Government salaries. So I would argue that this may actually in fact enhance religious freedom.

[TheHammer]

Frankly, given some of the nutball and even downright toxic cults that have sprung up in the US I think a little more oversight and control of religion in the US might be a good idea. Sure, separate church and state, but not so much religions are a law unto themselves and anything may be excused by claiming "god said so".

Such a thing is the antithesis of freedom of religion and thus NOT a good idea. As to your second point, with separation of church and state religions are NOT law unto themselves because they can't create laws.

Check the temperature in hell because I actually agree with Simon. Having state sanctioned religions is not conducive to freedom of religion. You create a tier of legitimized and thus favored religions and then put restrictions on how those religions are to be adhered to. Sure the system might "work", but you only get pseudo-freedom of religion.

Right - because suppression of non-Christian religions has never happened in the US.... oh wait...

Which has fuck-all to do with the concept of "freedom of religion" and how instituting "oversight and control" would be the antithesis of that concept..

Seriously, you wouldn't want a little more oversight of the FLDS? Some mechanism where they can't just waive their placard saying "FIRST AMENDMENT" and get away with old men raping young girls and calling it "marriage"?

Except they don't get away with it, at least not when the facts can be proven in court. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from adhearing to all laws. It means that the laws you adhere to, in theory at least, aren't strictly based on any particular religious beliefs.

And yes i realize that's a struggle and doesn't always work out as the theory would proscribe.

You think the US doesn't already sanction some religions over others? What do you call tax exempt status? Why was there such a decades-long struggle to get the military to recognize chaplains beyond just Christians and Jews? How about "blue laws" imposing the restrictions of one religion (such as no alcohol sales on Sunday, or just no alcohol period) over the rights of others to NOT live under such restrictions? What about letting Jehovah's Witnesses' deny their children blood transfusions even when that means certain death, who else gets a free pass on murder?

Am I arguing that the US has a perfect track record or is a perfect entity? No, I'm not. But there have been many times where a law based primarily on religious grounds was struck down precisely because of the concept of separation of church and state.

The US certainly does favor some religions over others, and those favored religions to wield power to affect laws and other secular parts of life. Then the US turns around and declares it has some sort of "pure" separation of the two institutions. No, it doesn't. That might be the theory but the practice doesn't reflect it at all well.

The government itself doesn't favor certain religions. Some religions hold "more power" in practice because of the size and wealth of their congregations. Thomas Jefferson declared the first amendment to be a wall between the church and state, and the church has been trying to worm its way back in ever since. However I don't think the solution is to create "oversight and control of religion" as you stated earlier. Rather its vigilance to ensure that the church does not exert undue influence in getting laws passed based purely on "God said so" reasoning. Not that such laws will never sneak their way in, but hopefully they won't stick around when they do.

Then I would argue the US should abolish the tax-exempt status of all religions as it confers and unfair advantage for those religions able to secure that privilege.

Except that it doesn't restrict this status to specific "state sanctioned" religions. It merely must be "religious" which is about as generic as it can get.

http://www.cbfnc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fil ... &tabid=122

If you want to argue that ANY religious organization be tax exempt fine, but it's not as though there is some major barrier to achieving that status if you are truly a religious organization.

[TheHammer]

Were they not bound to the law before?

My apologies, this is most likely very confusing...yes....and no. Yes, as in the case that criminal law applied all the time. No, as in the case of Austria having only regulation from the year 1912 on what is to be considered legitimate islamic religion. And said law was modelled after the annexation of Bosnia so you can see how it might be a bit outdated (even if advanced for its time). So while there were laws they were in need of modification.

The real situation was before that there was no agreement at all (not even among muslims) on what constituted a valid priest. So you had all these guys flying in from Saudi Arabia on the Saudi-Arabian dime proclaiming to be priests - and there was no way to really check their credentials. (I posted a rant from one of those guys a few weeks ago). So even if it was not directly afoul of criminal law, you had priests who were not supervised, not checked up on and having no way to act against the state as heads of religion. In short, there was no security for either side, neither the state nor the religious. This definitely was a flaw that needed correcting.

Now, here is what is hoped to be happening now: The largest groups of muslims will sit together and hammer out a program with the state on how they want to organize. At the same time, the state will employ theologians (most likely with the approval of the muslim organizations) to teach other muslims the right way to preach about their religion. It is hoped that having independent experts who can dedicate their life to their scripture without external interference will eventually lead to immans who know what they are doing and who can claim to have been properly instructed and taught.

Because right now - who is the head of the muslim sects in the west? Nobody really knows. Everybody knows about the status of al-sistani in Iraq. Nobody knows who the most influential muslim spiritual leader in Europe is right now.

Of course, conservative elements railing against women etc. will most likely not disappear (see Catholic Church). But it is hoped that there will be a dialogue, that there will be students taught about their religion in schools (and not in radical circles) and that there will be legitimate, integrated partners for the state to open up a dialogue with regarding the issues muslims face in Austrian society.

To be clear, I would agree that this is not an "attack on Islam". But I would still take exception with the concept behind the idea of state sanctioned religions in the first place. When you have a state sanctioned religion you are creating requirements as to how that religion is to be practiced. Lets look at some of those requirements you highlighted earlier:
*snip quote of Thanas*
In my mind, true religious freedom would mean that while there are laws that everyone must adhere to. You shouldn't need to legitimize a religion in order to afford it protections because with properly formed laws, it would already be protected. The system in Austria would seem to create a situation where you have some religions snuggled in the warm bosom of the state, while others are left out in the cold. It creates tiers of "favored", and by consequence "unfavored" religions.

Yes, I agree that there is definitely such a tier system. It was considered to be a worthy tradeoff to benefit the vast majority of the faiths. But this is much less of a difference than implied - for example, over here in Germany we have the same system. We also have a lot of christian sects like Jehovah's witnesses who still manage just fine to have their voices heard whenever a law impacts them. A competitive advantage to become legitimized is there however. I am not sure how to resolve this without also resolving the deep and beneficial relationship the state has with the churches and I am not sure how to do so in a way that would benefit the majority of society from severing those traditions.

I mean, take religious buildings. Cologne cathedral is a symbol of Catholicism. At the same time it is a symbol for Cologne, secularized and non-secularized. At the same time it is a symbol for Europe etc. So how do we seperate that? Kick out the Catholic church? No go due to freedom of religion and property rights. Have other faiths celebrate there? Great, make them celebrate under the cross. I don't really see a way to change that without negatively impacting a lot of people.

I still find the idea of the state recognizing a "legitimate priest" vs an "illegitimate" one to be somewhat counter to the idea of freedom of religion. But I can certainly see there could be benefits from such control to the state, and possibly to society as a whole.

You would be correct if there would be a punishment for failing to adhere to the religion or evolve it. But there is none except that meted out by the Church itself. The Government does not have the power to defrock priests. In fact, in Germany several priests who got defrocked for being too liberal by the Vatican still draw Government salaries. So I would argue that this may actually in fact enhance religious freedom.

But wouldn't teaching outside the "legal cannon" as established by the state result in loss of government funding? Or is it "once you're in you're in" and as long as you don't do anything blatantly illegal they can't stop funding you? What if an Imam/priest suddenly converted to an unsanctioned religion and acted a religious leader for that organization?

While it's not a "punishment" in terms of you won't go to jail, it still creates a "haves and have nots" amongst religious groups. If anyone could apply for and receive payment as a religious leader (perhaps make the pay scale dependent upon the number of persons in a priests "flock") then it becomes a more equitable solution. But such a system might simply be unrealistic.

[Broomstick]

Right - because suppression of non-Christian religions has never happened in the US.... oh wait...

Which has fuck-all to do with the concept of "freedom of religion" and how instituting "oversight and control" would be the antithesis of that concept..

Incorrect. While many Christians seem to understand "freedom of religion" to mean "choose from a selection of Christian/Abrahamic sects" freedom of religion really means the freedom to choose ANY religion without discrimination or NO religion whatsoever. Allowing one group to suppress another is anti-religious freedom. The US is not to pass a law hindering religious expression just as it is not to establish a church. Passing laws to enshrine one religion's sabbath or customs over that of others is anti-religious freedom. I could go on and on. It's not just a matter of the state not having an established church, it's also a matter of the state protecting the minorities from the majority

Seriously, you wouldn't want a little more oversight of the FLDS? Some mechanism where they can't just waive their placard saying "FIRST AMENDMENT" and get away with old men raping young girls and calling it "marriage"?

Except they don't get away with it, at least not when the facts can be proven in court. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from adhearing to all laws. It means that the laws you adhere to, in theory at least, aren't strictly based on any particular religious beliefs.

Waving the "religious freedom" flag let them get away with a lot of shit for a long, long time.

The US certainly does favor some religions over others, and those favored religions to wield power to affect laws and other secular parts of life. Then the US turns around and declares it has some sort of "pure" separation of the two institutions. No, it doesn't. That might be the theory but the practice doesn't reflect it at all well.

The government itself doesn't favor certain religions. Some religions hold "more power" in practice because of the size and wealth of their congregations. Thomas Jefferson declared the first amendment to be a wall between the church and state, and the church has been trying to worm its way back in ever since. However I don't think the solution is to create "oversight and control of religion" as you stated earlier. Rather its vigilance to ensure that the church does not exert undue influence in getting laws passed based purely on "God said so" reasoning. Not that such laws will never sneak their way in, but hopefully they won't stick around when they do.

Then I would argue the US should abolish the tax-exempt status of all religions as it confers and unfair advantage for those religions able to secure that privilege.

Except that it doesn't restrict this status to specific "state sanctioned" religions. It merely must be "religious" which is about as generic as it can get.

http://www.cbfnc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fil ... &tabid=122

If you want to argue that ANY religious organization be tax exempt fine, but it's not as though there is some major barrier to achieving that status if you are truly a religious organization.

Bullshit

I have helped two "churches" (NeoPagan groups) and one cultural organization obtain the 501(c)(3) status with the IRS. This is not really a simple or straightforward process.

Now, your linked article states you don't need a 501(c)(3) letter to have that status as a religious organization but good fucking luck with putting that into practice. If you're ever challenged in court you'll essentially have to do the same legwork as for getting that 501(c)(3) but in a much shorter time frame. People making donations to your group will either have to forgo tax exemption or be ready/able to prove you're actually a "religious organization" if they're ever audited. Every business you do business with will continue to charge your sales tax if you don't have that 501(c)(3) letter (again, based on 30+ years of doing business in the US plus aforementioned experience with tax-exempt organizations). That means your landlord if you rent, local governments if you own/have a mortgage, utility companies, and so on and so forth.

The Federal IRS doesn't require that 501(c)(3) but just about everyone else does! It's a de facto government recognition of a religion.

It's like that damned social security number - strictly speaking you don't need to have one, but your life will be a fuckton more complicated without one. Good fucking luck holding a job, getting a bank account, or even getting a government ID without one. The only group I know regularly doing without it are the Amish, and that's only because they were able to finance some big ass court battles. (The Amish have landed in front of the US Supreme Court probably more than any other religious sect in the US because they are stubborn and, because of their no-frills lifestyle, they have a surprising amount of money accumulated in their communities to pay for lawyers)

The US government is already in the business of recognizing "legitimate" religions, it's about time this was an admitted fact instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.

I'm also willing to argue that the tax-exemption of religions in the US amounts to a backdoor subsidy of religion because not having to pay taxes does confer a financial advantage on religions. In the US, this is done by tax exemption. In Europe it's done by taxation/tithes on believers and sending the funds to the churches. Both are means to subsidize religion, it's just two different roads to the same destination.

[TheHammer]

Right - because suppression of non-Christian religions has never happened in the US.... oh wait...

Which has fuck-all to do with the concept of "freedom of religion" and how instituting "oversight and control" would be the antithesis of that concept..

Incorrect. While many Christians seem to understand "freedom of religion" to mean "choose from a selection of Christian/Abrahamic sects" freedom of religion really means the freedom to choose ANY religion without discrimination or NO religion whatsoever. Allowing one group to suppress another is anti-religious freedom. The US is not to pass a law hindering religious expression just as it is not to establish a church. Passing laws to enshrine one religion's sabbath or customs over that of others is anti-religious freedom. I could go on and on. It's not just a matter of the state not having an established church, it's also a matter of the state protecting the minorities from the majority

Not sure what point you're trying to make here vis-a-vis what I just said... "oversight and control" of religious groups as you endorsed earlier would be the sort of law "hindering religious expression" that you appear concerned about.

Except they don't get away with it, at least not when the facts can be proven in court. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from adhearing to all laws. It means that the laws you adhere to, in theory at least, aren't strictly based on any particular religious beliefs.

Waving the "religious freedom" flag let them get away with a lot of shit for a long, long time.

The religious freedom flag should let you get away with a "lot of shit" so long as it doesn't violate existing law. However, having child brides is a case where waving the "religious freedom" flag absolutely did not let them get away with anything. To the extent they got away with that was due solely to the difficulty in getting people to testify, but that wasn't due to any sort of religious freedom protection.

I have helped two "churches" (NeoPagan groups) and one cultural organization obtain the 501(c)(3) status with the IRS. This is not really a simple or straightforward process.

Now, your linked article states you don't need a 501(c)(3) letter to have that status as a religious organization but good fucking luck with putting that into practice. If you're ever challenged in court you'll essentially have to do the same legwork as for getting that 501(c)(3) but in a much shorter time frame. People making donations to your group will either have to forgo tax exemption or be ready/able to prove you're actually a "religious organization" if they're ever audited. Every business you do business with will continue to charge your sales tax if you don't have that 501(c)(3) letter (again, based on 30+ years of doing business in the US plus aforementioned experience with tax-exempt organizations). That means your landlord if you rent, local governments if you own/have a mortgage, utility companies, and so on and so forth.

The Federal IRS doesn't require that 501(c)(3) but just about everyone else does! It's a de facto government recognition of a religion.

Difficulties aside, you WERE able to get tax exempt status for your Neo-Pagan churches were you not? It's the fucking IRS, nothing is easy with those guys is it? Point is there isn't anything, aside from the same process everyone else has to go through, preventing a "church" from getting that status.

It's like that damned social security number - strictly speaking you don't need to have one, but your life will be a fuckton more complicated without one. Good fucking luck holding a job, getting a bank account, or even getting a government ID without one. The only group I know regularly doing without it are the Amish, and that's only because they were able to finance some big ass court battles. (The Amish have landed in front of the US Supreme Court probably more than any other religious sect in the US because they are stubborn and, because of their no-frills lifestyle, they have a surprising amount of money accumulated in their communities to pay for lawyers)

I think you're getting off topic here...

The US government is already in the business of recognizing "legitimate" religions, it's about time this was an admitted fact instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.

I'm also willing to argue that the tax-exemption of religions in the US amounts to a backdoor subsidy of religion because not having to pay taxes does confer a financial advantage on religions. In the US, this is done by tax exemption. In Europe it's done by taxation/tithes on believers and sending the funds to the churches. Both are means to subsidize religion, it's just two different roads to the same destination.

Tax exempt status isn't restricted to any state sanctioned religions. If you and I wanted to form a church we could do so and get tax exempt status for business related to that church.