Introduction

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

is at stake. Religion is significant because it is a central component of many people's

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.

Taxation can be considered as a social responsibility in societies with high tax

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

taxpayer to be audited continuously (Tosuner et al., 2007:1).

Religion provides a certain level of enforcement to act in the lines of accepted

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

associated with uncertainty (Heiner, 1983). Religiosity settles habits of thoughts

common to all individuals. As a consequence, transaction and enforcement costs

decrease. Twenty-five centuries ago, Confucius emphasized the importance of ritual in

creating harmonious, predictable human behavior.

Criticism of Religious Values

The mere criticism of certain beliefs (without threats or intimidation) is protected

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

prohibited, as the principle of non-discrimination requires that such restrictions be

applied consistently.

Critique, also known as criticism, is an expression of doubt, disapproval, or

rejection of someone or something. As a result, we could say that religious criticism or

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

criticism could be belief in God or God's omnipotence, karma, reincarnation, or an

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,

we should reject them all.

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

dramatically, influencing how religious criticism is conceptualized.

Criticism of religion involves criticism of the validity, concept, or ideas of religion.

Historical records of criticism of religion go back to at least 5th century BCE in ancient
Greece, in Athens specifically, with Diagoras "the Atheist" of Melos. In ancient Rome,
an early known example is Lucretius' De rerum natura from the 1st century BCE. Every
exclusive religion on Earth (as well as every exclusive world view) that promotes
exclusive truth-claims necessarily denigrates the truth-claims of other religions. Thus,
some criticisms of religion become criticisms of one or more aspects of a specific
religious tradition. Critics of religion in general may portray religion as one or more of:
outdated, harmful to the individual, harmful to society, an impediment to the progress of
science, a source of immoral acts or customs, a political tool for social control.

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.

Since religion is so largely concerned with values, it necessarily follows that it

contains a large amount of contingency; for values are empirical in their origin. To be
sure, there is almost unanimous recognition of a certain group of values that are very
closely related to the preservation of biological integrity. These values represent man's
dependence on his physical environment. As the main conditions of life are everywhere
the same, we find in our own devotions petitions that have made their appeal to
mankind through all ages. On the other hand, there are values that are highly
contingent. These occur in connection with the ethical life and vary with economic,
political, and intellectual conditions. The ethical values that we discover in the
experience of successive heroes of our religious history differ vastly from one another.
Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Amos, Deutero-Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, Paul, Benedict,
Luther, Fichte, to come no nearer the present day, may each be said to stand for a
significant change in the valuation of conduct. Among them is a wide variation in regard
to what is to be called good. Some of the values held to directly contradict and annul
others. But all are parts of the same developing tradition, all are referred to God for his
sanction, and each, in its time and place, expressed the current need.