Why condemn a whole people if only a few do wrong?

[halbhh]

Well, I guess I should take comfort in the fact that it's not just me you refuse to listen to; it's also your Supreme Court:

Parsonage Exclusion Found by Seventh Circuit to Be Constitutional

Thank you for the useful article -- which shows the opposite of what you suggest -- it may be helpful in some future moment to help refute false claims about special favoritism --

"Although the primary housing exclusion provided under Section 119(a)(2) only excludes in kind housing, the court noted that there are “myriad” provisions in the Code that provide in cash and in kind housing exemptions for various categories of employees[13] and that limiting the parsonage exclusion to in kind housing tended to discriminate against ministers of smaller or poorer denominations.[14]"

Just as we'd all like to see: equal treatment under the law. Both churches and secular organizations ultimately under the same standard of treatment.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

When it comes to proselytizing groups like the JWs, I think a special degree of blame is warranted that doesn't apply to a more "live and let live" adherent of a religion.

The people in any religion will cover a spectrum: the religion will motivate actions that are better or worse, depending on the person.

If all a person does is follow their beliefs according to their understanding and conscience, then they're only responsible for themselves.

OTOH, if someone is responsible for bringing new people into the religion, well, the proselytizer has no way to predict where on that spectrum the new convert will end up. They're doing something that could very well end up with someone at the "worse" end of the spectrum, so they have a share of the blame for that "worse" end of the spectrum, even if the proselytizer personally disagrees with that faction of their religion.

OTOH, if someone is responsible for bringing new people into the religion, well, the proselytizer has no way to predict where on that spectrum the new convert will end up. They're doing something that could very well end up with someone at the "worse" end of the spectrum, so they have a share of the blame for that "worse" end of the spectrum, even if the proselytizer personally disagrees with that faction of their religion.
Like Jesus and his disciples did?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OTOH, if someone is responsible for bringing new people into the religion, well, the proselytizer has no way to predict where on that spectrum the new convert will end up. They're doing something that could very well end up with someone at the "worse" end of the spectrum, so they have a share of the blame for that "worse" end of the spectrum, even if the proselytizer personally disagrees with that faction of their religion.
Like Jesus and his disciples did?

Depends.

Someone creating a brand new religion may not entirely know how that religion would be expressed, but if they had enough foresight to know what their new religion would be like, then yes: they would share in the responsibility for every aspect of that religion, including the negative ones.

(Of course, all this assumes that Jesus actually existed and that the Bible describes him accurately)