In fact that happens. Taxes are designed to allow people to reduce their income by the amount they donate to religious organizations which means those of us without fantasy alignments pay higher taxes than someone of the same income who follows a fantasy. I know it can and probably is argued that a non believer can achieve the same reduction by donating to established charities. The thing that is not mentioned, however, is that non religious charities have to report to the IRS what they receive in donations and how they dispense those funds. Churches do not have to follow this regulation and we don’t know how much money religious organizations squirrel away but a study by the PEW research organization has said that over 50% of all churches and synagogues have people involved in the control of church money are stealing from the churches and synagogues. That does no one any good.

For example, it is my opinion that there is likely life on other planets. But I know I have no way of measuring, testing, or demonstrating that, so I keep an open mind. Adherence to a religion *requires* a belief that everyone else is wrong (and I agree with you on Unitarians so far as I understand their views). Put another way, I’ve never (ever) heard of a muslim saying “well I believe in Allah, but for all I know the jews are right.” Or a catholic saying, “well I think the blessed virgin Mary is the end-all, be-all of existence, but that Zoroastrianism sure has something going for it.”

And as for your analogy, someone defending his position on sports, politics, or syrup could point to evidence and make a logical case based on demonstration. For sports, they could point to win/loss statistics. For politics, they could point to effectiveness in getting laws passed. And for syrup, they could research the popularity of all sorts of recipes. (By the way, I’m by no means suggesting the tests I propose are exhaustive or even particularly good – I’m saying that an argument can be made – *based on evidence*).

But when it comes to religion, it fails any demonstration. Every. Time. So if someone wants to tell me “you should be a fan of XXX sports team because they’ve had the winningest record in history,” that’s a world apart from saying “you should believe in my god even though I have no falsifiable, testable, or repeatable way of demonstrating that my god exists.”

And I’m glad we agree that it’s beyond the pale to then say, “my god says you’re a sinner and you should pay higher taxes than everyone else.” But that, frankly, is cold comfort.

Pretty much anyone I’ve ever met (perhaps excluding Unitarians) who ever had an opinion on religion, politics, sports, or the best syrup for pancakes thinks that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

By definition. That’s what having an opinion means.

But you are right that problems start when it becomes “I’m right, you’re wrong, and I’m going to outlaw being wrong.”

As long as theists leave that belief at home, I have no problem with them. But as soon as they try to legislate that kind of supremacism, then we have a problem.

When christians say recognizing someone’s same sex marriage violates their freedom of religion they are assuming their freedom of religion should be absolute and priortized above every LGBT persons freedom. In a twisted way they can argue religious freedom demands they be allowed to kill gays or refuse to serve them in their restaurant but that doesn’t fly in a society where people’s freedoms are balanced and equal. A christians freedom to kill or discriminate against gays infringes on the gays freedom to live and have the same rights as other. Freedoms sometimes conflict and that means sometimes people have to compromise and can’t have things always go their way as their right to swing their fist ends when it meets a gay person’s nose.