Criticism of Religious Values
Criticism of Religious Values
Criticism of Religious Values
In today's world, issues such as taxes, faith, and religion have become
contentious as people make their own decisions regardless of what they believe in. The
concept of tax ethics focuses on the extent to which individuals perceive or are aware of
a tax situation in a way that is consistent with tax laws. Although a high level of tax
consciousness is a cognitive infrastructure that can lead to correct tax ethics behaviors,
consciousness alone is not sufficient to act, and it can be influenced by social, financial,
psychological, and cultural factors. Furthermore, these factors are not caused solely by
the individual, but may also include administrative factors such as whether the state
maintains a fair tax order, practices regarding tax amnesties, penalty deterrence, and
the effectiveness of tax audits. Conflicts over tax policies are one of the people's
concerns, with some tax payers concluding that there are anomalies in the tax system,
corruption, and that taxes are unfair. There are also disagreements about faith and
religion.
The idea of “religion” and the discipline of “ethics” are products of Western
thought. What sense, then, does it make to speak of “religious ethics” and how does
that field of inquiry relate to the actual religions? As a discipline of thought, religious
ethics must develop a form of reflection subtle enough to explore the religions
themselves. In this light, the idea of religious ethics has a specific history. Religion is
frequently a source of contention. It can be difficult or even sinful when eternal salvation
identities; any threat to one's beliefs is a threat to one's very being. There are some
aspects of religion that make it a potential source of conflict. Every religion has its own
set of accepted dogma, or articles of faith, that followers must accept without question.
This can result in rigidity and intolerance in the face of opposing beliefs.
morale and tax awareness, and as a result, efforts to reduce the tax base may not be in
question (Yoruldu, 2020:77). Empirical studies show that the expected success from
taxation depends on increasing the number of ethical individuals in terms of tax. The
rise of tax Ethics in a society also contributes significantly to the reduction of transaction
and information costs in taxation. The fact that moral values are important in every field
must also be taken into account in terms of taxation. Because it is not possible for every
rules and acts as a “supernatural police” (Anderson and Tollison, 1992). Similar to
habits, religiosity has the function to economize and simplify our actions.3 It makes our
social life more predictable and provides a sense of security to counteract the anxiety
by free expression. The right to criticize is guaranteed under the Covenant, regardless
of whether the target of criticism is a religion, ideology, prophet, or political leader. If this
were not the case, all forms of political and religious speech would have to be
applied consistently.
criticism of religion is the activity that people engage in when they question, challenge,
or reject religious beliefs, values, practices, or institutions. For example, the object of
afterlife, or value judgments such as abortion being morally wrong, or that only humans
have intrinsic value among living things on Earth, God being worthy of worship, or the
prohibition of blasphemy.
Furthermore, critics have the ability to criticize religion because they criticize all
religions. They could argue that because there is no evidence to support any religion,
Religion criticism has most likely existed for as long as religion has been an
important part of human culture. Thus, the phenomenon is not novel in and of itself, but
it is novel in some parts of the world. In these places, the societal context has changed
Over the last three centuries, we have seen the emergence of states that self-
describe as “secular states”. The idea is that a state should not take a stand on religious
issues. For example, a state should not favor or disfavor, say, Christianity over Islam or
vice versa. People, not states, believe in God or go to churches or mosques.
Understandably, this way of talking about the state as secular is widespread because, in
the original case, the views between which the state should be neutral were all religious.
Due to these changes, religious criticism has also taken a new form in a
contemporary liberal democratic society. As a result, we can, in public life, see a move
away from mere criticism from within religion or criticism between religions to secular
criticism. Instead, religion is criticized from without by people who do not self-identify as
religious. Hence, the people who deliver much of the criticism of religion have changed,
and so have the grounds for criticism and the aim of the criticism.
Some aspects of religion are criticized because they harm society as a whole.
According to Steven Weinberg, "it takes religion to make good people do evil."
Religiously inspired or justified violence, resistance to social change, attacks on
science, repression of women, and homophobia are all mentioned by Bertrand Russell
and Richard Dawkins.
Some studies show some positive links in the relationship between religiosity and
moral behavior and altruism. Some studies have shown similar correlations between
religiosity and giving.
Some argue that religious violence confuses religious moral rules and behavior
with non-religious factors. This includes the claim that events like terrorist bombings are
more politically motivated than religious. Mark Juergensmeyer argues that religion "does
not ordinarily lead to violence. That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set
of circumstances—political, social, and ideological—when religion becomes fused with
violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political
change". and that it is unreasonable to attempt to differentiate "religious violence" and
"secular violence" as separate categories. While others assert religion is not inherently
violent and while the two are compatible they are not essential and that religious
violence can be compared with non-religious violence.