According to another page, spotify pays $0.0007 per stream. I'm not sure if that's okay or too low a price.
You have got a zero too many there, it is actually $0.007 per stream. As you note, it is difficult to get a handle on what is good enough, partly because all we usually hear is what artists get without any note on how much the label gets.
When the police refuse to do their job, my life is already at risk.
That depends on why the police does not follow up on these thefts. I would expect that the police prioritize which crimes they spend their resources on. So they may ignore pickpockets (and the like) to focus on armed robbery and other violent crime? It could be interesting to find out more about that, though. Especially given that all the evidence is basically served to them on a silver plate, not to mention that following a stolen phone around could give them a wealth of information on the people that do the fencing and reselling.
Having a state religion is not necessarily as bad as it sounds. In Denmark (where I live) the state religion is Lutheran Christianity, run by the People's Church. And the name is intended to be taken literally: At the local level, the Church is controlled by the Congregation Council, whose members are elected by the members of the congregation. Among other things, they hire the local priest(s). Priests (and other religious officials) are not allowed to use the Church floor (or in any other official capacity) to do political propaganda, whether it is against abortion or for a certain politician. The People's Church is also open to a wide array of ideas among its members - it is acceptable to believe in reincarnation, that the bible is just a book of wisdom. A priest even managed to get away with publicly stating that he did not believe in a creating god.
In Denmark, the effect of having a People's Church is that the Church plays no political role. Even though I am an Atheist, and ideologically opposed to the idea of having a state religion, I cannot help realizing that this particular instance helps secularization rather than impede it. I am also not a member.
Yes, he put the tree right there in front of them, then forbade them to eat from it. And it was intentional. He told them what he wanted them not to do, and then gave them free will, and the choice whether or not to obey. That is a pattern throughout the entire Bible. Rather than calling God an "asshole" for giving people the ability to decide what to do for themselves, why not consider the idea that God values peoples' ability to think for themselves more than he values their unconditional obedience?
If God valued their free will not to obey, why did God punish Adam and Eve?
Imagine you created the universe and everything in it. How interesting or rewarding would it be, day to day, if you had created people without the ability to do anything besides what you told them to do?
So, you are basically arguing that human history is a giant reality show for the Abrahamic God to enjoy?
Especially since, being omniscient, he must have known that they will break his law. Being omniscient, he must have known that they will not heed his law. So he punished them for doing what he knew they would do, which he himself could easily have avoided.
You are missing something: If God is all knowing and all powerful, it follows that God intentionally created Adam and Eve so that they would break the divine commandment. In effect, Adam and Eve may not have followed the word of the law, but they did follow the intention of God. Given how meticulously theologists have been studying and considering the Bible, I would be surprised if someone had not already followed this line of thought and come up with some conclusions.
As I remember it, there are two creation myths in the Bible, and the myth of Adam and Eve is believed to be the older of the two. There is the possibility that the myth of Adam and Eve predates the Jewish switch from many gods to just one (who may not have started out as being almighty), so it is likely that the story was written to be taken at face value.