On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/7/2013 8:23 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 2013/2/7 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/2/6 meekerdb <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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. > > Yes, that is what I am after Brent. You want me to take this seriously? Ok: "you got me". Should I step outside put my hands on the car now, or what? Damn it! I was so close to world domination, and then Brent stepped in... DAMN YOU BRENT :) > > 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. > > I just don't like to confuse necessary and possible in absolute reductive sense, particularly when considering danger in a broad sense, which you do in every line here. I am not being hyperbolic this time. PGC ---- 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
