On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  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>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  2013/2/7 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multiplecit...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  2013/2/6 meekerdb <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.
>
>
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 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.
>
>
>

-- 
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