Intergalactic Summit

A bit inaccurate. Freedom of Religion here means that you can practice what ever religion you like (or not) and you won't be penalized or discriminated for it. Religious institutions are not taxed because taxes can restrict the freedom of religion. If a religious group does not collect donations or collect them in large amounts, they may be forced to shut down. A non profit organization such as a Church has plenty of expenses, they don't need to add a tax onto it. Religious groups can challenge the government, but so can any other individual or organization. If a Church wants a booster banned because it's against their religion then they are allowed to lobby for that change just like any other person in the Federation. Their votes and opinions don't count any more than anyone elses. Finally, those protective laws are meant to preserve the freedom of religion in the Federation. They aren't passed in anyone's favor.



We have Freedom of Press here in the Federation because unlike the State or the Empire, we acknowledge that not everyone thinks the same, and acting like they do can only end badly. Yes, the media can publish seditious documents, and they do. However, the media can also publish pro government documents, and they do.

Secondly, our free press means that you can go to multiple news sources for information rather than just one government controlled source. You can compare and contrast the facts and the opinions from a wide variety of sources and draw conclusions for yourself rather than be force fed whatever the government declares to be the conclusion. Bad news is more popular simply because we Gallenteans acknowledge that not only is the cluster a dark and dangerous place, but that we are in a position to do something about it. We don't sit idly by while the world crumbles, we try to make change. And never forget, a free press means that the media becomes a business. Whatever sells makes the headlines because that's how a business works.

And again, with a free press, it's up to the individual to decide what they consider important or frivolous. There's a news outlet for everything. While I may think that sports news is utterly stupid and that economic news is much more important, another person, say a laborer who has no intention of investing in a large business would find sports news more entertaining and easier to relate to.

These Freedoms are not the government baby sitting us like you think they are. If anything it's the exact opposite. We have to decide for ourselves what our religious beliefs are, the government isn't going to do that for us. We have to investigate which news sources are the most accurate ourselves, the government isn't going to do that for us. What the government is going to do is make sure those freedoms to act and chose for ourselves like independent human beings is protected.

Oh, I never said you dismissed them. I simply think you underestimate human nature. Believe me when I say that I am one of those who stepped out from beneath the gazebo of the Empire into the sunlight of the extended universe. I know what it means to be truly apart from your people.

With that said, I think it becomes easy to say that people should rebel against their elders since we, of course, want them to rebel in our distinctly cosmopolitan, if not peaceful, way. I suppose it is difficult for us to say that not following in the footsteps of their fathers is obviously inferior to what we would prescribe the cluster. I suppose we have never known pure peace. Who knows if it is truly a good thing or not.

Regardless, I simply caution that we should understand that the rebellion of teenage years does end with children being markedly similar to their parents for a reason. 90% of what we are taught by our families is completely applicable and practical, we just bring along a further 10% that makes up "culture", I suppose.

It is completely reasonable that people continue in the more violent and ignorant ways that they do. Likely not desireable, but certainly understandable. For sure, I would rather the four empires we have than some of the more radically violent factions living on the fringes of our societies.

Every time I think there can be nothing worse than the current quagmire, there are always the Blood Raiders to set forward as a bad example.



To be fair, that would mean any human interaction is technically equivalent to warfare. Semantics aside, there is a difference between verbal and physical war. Verbal warfare is simply discourse and conversation, which generally leaves its combatants unscathed physically and tends to break down only the boundaries of the mind. Violence is a method of last resort and always should be. Not only does the enemy die and is therefore no longer present to have his mind changed, but allies die and decreases the volume of the message regardless.

I would greatly hesitate to say that discourse and physical violence are interchangeable. I highly doubt that was your intent, but I think there is enough difference between preaching and killing that it does a disservice to mankind if we compare them as similar means. Great rhetorical skill and great martial skill should probably not share common ground. One should not argue solely to win a confrontation. If one does, he ceases to listen. When one does not listen, one ceases to learn.

More pointedly, I have endured enough of our military's condescending glances when I describe my mission that I am fairly sure no one in the Amarr Empire sees me as similar to a soldier. I am still trying to decide whether that is good or bad.

I suppose it might be true that Amarrian philosophy is quite a bit more stoic and righteous than its contemporaries. I would hesitate to say it is more combative or argumentative than others. They simply replace God and duty with their own code words and carry on similarly. All four empires, no matter what they value, seem to produce equally offend-able people.

In short, it is because it is my view that liberalism as a political ideology promotes what are in my view two particular economic extremes: either the instability of laissez-faire capitalism or on the other hand the vagaries of government interventionism and the welfare state. One due to the emphasis of individualism in liberalism and the other due to the moralizing metaphysics of seeking to control the, "evils" of capitalism in liberalism.

Since I do not believe laissez-faire individualism or government interventionism in the economy can be integrated with my own thoughts on Caldari corporatism due to liberalism and corporatism having completely different ontological cores of thought on the basis of moral, political, economic and cultural existence then it will be, as I said, inimical with my own thoughts on the conduct of business.

However, since I do not believe anyone would seriously want to have a debate at length here on the IGS regarding Gallentean Liberalism, Caldari Corporatism, or their philosophical ontology, then I think will leave it at that. Insufficient as I feel it to be. Instead I think I will go do something else far more productive, like enjoying a bottle of vodka. Because if one must lose clone braincells then it can at least be savoured through inebriation as opposed to having to suffer it in sobriety through reading the opinions of the vast majority of IGS proles.

In what way does paying into the public fund for the greater good restrict religious freedom?

Maybe I'm just being Caldari about this, but if a religious group is going to founder through not being able to afford their taxes, then they deserve to. If your product's not selling, you shouldn't be given a special dispensation just because it's a certain type of product.

And it is in no way discriminatory for wealthy organizations to pay more in tax than a less wealthy one.



How does not paying tax stop that from happening?

By taking money out of the loop. A religious organization tends normally to be a discreet collective of people that tend to their business.. on the outside.

The last place were authorities look for this kind of thing are precisely non-profit oriented organizations, off course the door swings both ways either you sanction them to pay and they still can become money from shady businesses, or they are tax free.. still becoming the said funds.

You could introduce a law however , stating that every Church or Religious Organization that receives funds from a given entity be obligated to have the donor , and its funds to be checked by the proper authorities.

- Funds provenience and ammount
- Donor Identification and corporative ties.

In this way you could introduce a small fee, based on a percentage, lets call it a security tax, the State gets its due and the safeguard of the individuals is preserved.




The bottom line is, Religion, Banking and Politics shouldn't be mixed togehter, the results are more then not catastrophic.

Whether or not religious - or other wordview propagating - institutions should be taxed is a question that can only be answered relative to the social system one is finding them in and the role they play in it.

You all miss a fine point: You, the immortals, can't change the game; you can't impede the scale or extent of little uniform games endorsed by the Assembly provided within these wars and you can't make a difference in the slightest in terms of any of these societies and the figures behind them. You can trust in the CSM to make their appeals to the CONCORD Assembly but we all know how often these matters get considered.

These days, people care more about their own power and means of destruction over the matters in the world of the lesser (non-capsuleer) society. Until that changes, wake up, remember you're ALL not able to make a difference. You can choose to profit or squabble within the system, or simply leave that to someone else to do.

Nothing changes, even if all of us were to retract from these conflicts and the bickering, no matter who it is you're fighting for.

At least in some light to each of us, our intentions are noble.

( double post please delete )

I'm unsure what point you are seeking to make. Are you making some kind of negative moral judgement on having access to offshore bank accounts in the State in order to evade taxes? Perhaps. Personally, I believe any form of contrived altruism is a scam to either delude oneself or to delude others. Irrespective of whether it comes in the form of religion, faith, charity, or just a good old fashioned NGO seeking to, oh I don't know, save all the orphaned kittens in the cluster who lost their owners due to capsuleer violence.

However, if I was a creditor or banker then my job is to extend credit and provide financial services. Not to pass personal or moral judgements upon my clients. If a religious group uses services rendered to facilitate their control of other people's wallets and governments not my own, that is quite frankly, not my business.