On 2/7/2013 8:23 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:



    2013/2/7 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multiplecit...@gmail.com
    <mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com>>



        On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
        <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:



            2013/2/6 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net 
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

                On 2/6/2013 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

                On 06 Feb 2013, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:

                On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


                On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:14:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

                    On Tue, Feb 5, 2013  PM, Craig Weinberg 
<whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

                        > Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.


                    A religion is just a cult with good PR.


                It's interesting. I would be curious to know whether every
                established religion intentionally sought legitimacy at some 
point,

                What would that mean? Legal? Where there is official government
                recognition of religion (and probably tax breaks) the answer 
would be
                that they sought the recognition.  And all that you can consider
                'established' have sought adherents.  But "legitimacy"??  I'm 
not sure
                how that world can be attached to "religion".

                In my country, that is the case. Religions have to be 
recognized by the
                government. If not they are classified as sect, and are 
forbidden (like
                scientology). It is awkward and arbitrary, but that's simply 
the case.

                I'm curious.  How do they get recognized?  Do they  have to 
apply,


            They have to apply. But contrary to what Bruno claims, sect are not 
illegal,
            some sects can and have been declared illegal (as any group can 
be). But for
            example, scientology is not illegal in Belgium (for now) but they 
are often
            brought to justice by ex-member (for good reason I think).



        Sorry to be frank, but if this is serious (I miss some joke), then it 
is naive:
        the mechanism that serves to monitor and "regulate" the founding of 
religions in
        Western Europe, is the same judicial tool to control and finally repress
        religious groups- by seemingly "integrating" them.

        The moment any of these groups moves to do things like:


    Well they have to conform to the laws (same as in the USA)... So no sects 
are not
    illegal in belgium, they can't be declared illegal as long as they conform 
to the
    laws like anywhere else on earth. And as I said, scientology *is not* 
illegal in
    belgium and it is *in practice* not in theory.

    No if you rant about the laws it's a totally different subject and you 
should not
    conflate the two.


Why? Because religious beliefs have nothing to do with judicial concepts?

Our judicial marriage model has nothing to do with the Christian conception of 
marriage?

There is no freedom of religion,

You seem to jump from there are some restrictions on practices that claimed to be religious, to there is NO freedom of religion. Is it your position that freedom of religion only exists when every practice called 'religion' by its adherents is permitted? I hope you don't have freedom of religion for Aztecs.

no freedom of thought, no legality of sects that stray from Western European Christian-Secular legal conceptions => this is "conflated" via history, so don't blame the messenger รก la "thou shalt not conflate"... also you take this conflation for granted in arbitrary manner suiting your argument, but not when I raise religious freedom issues + you legitimize via "because they conform to the laws like everywhere else on earth", which is not an argument.

Discriminatory laws have been passed before and continue to be passed.

The legality of sects you cite is peanuts given to caged animals, to be a bit 
hyperbolic :)

The freedom of religion you seek is like letting the lions run free in the zoo - to be a little hyperbolic.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to