They do ban religious expression with irreligious fervency.
Can a Religion Be Banned?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
They do ban religious expression with irreligious fervency.
That's the opposite direction of implication. The fervency is hard to spot, in these legal proceedings. And there is nothing in the OP about banning religious expression, anyway.SAM said:
If Scientology officialdom and infrastructure were religious, it would apparently not be in trouble - and it can still express away, as far as I can tell.
Well, maybe not then.
But the issue with Scientology seems to be another matter entirely. We seem to have a racket disguising itself as a religion, and the question is whether we can distinguish them legally - or rather, whether the French can. "Expression" doesn't seem to be on the table.
btw: Belgium is considering the same question, in its courts.
hence its not so much a religious issue but one of institutional organization.
IOW its not (as the OP suggests) "these guys are worshipping Xenu and bringing in the $" but rather "these guys are bringing in the $"
Hardly something new
IOW the poll q should be more like "Should it be legal to socially/economically regulate a religion"
and the resounding answer (at least in this day and age of $$$!) should be "why hasn't it always?"
Last edited:
The actual practitioners are not given an option as to whether they wish to contribute to their pet cause.
Too true.
Then again..... there is Rationality...
hmmmm
Some atheists may be such due to rationality, some may be due to something else. Just as theists are rational about some things, atheists are irrational about some things. A 100% rational thinker is even rarer than an atheist.
All atheism is is the lack of theism. There's no belief to it. There's no practice. There's no religion.
That's your delusion.
That's your delusion.
Of course not. Religious tolerance and freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right. Restriction on one liberty is a restriction on all liberties.
Now, forbidding certain practices that actively harm others without their consent, that's very different; that's a matter of one's rights not conflicting with those of another.
i dont think it is fair how scientologists get treated.
it is hard to start a new religion these days and that sentiment is somewhat warranted. we are very weary of the egotistical leader and tend to wuestion their mentality and motivations. like if i told people some god was beaming stuff into my head then i would be viewed as insane and tbh i cant say that would be normal.
it is hard to start a new religion these days and that sentiment is somewhat warranted. we are very weary of the egotistical leader and tend to wuestion their mentality and motivations. like if i told people some god was beaming stuff into my head then i would be viewed as insane and tbh i cant say that would be normal.
it is really based on past experience though. i suppose they view scientoly as grifters but i dont know if it is true and to me it seems relatively mild religion. after jonestown and that other cult who killed themselves to follow a space ship i think there is good reason to keep an eye on new religions or offshoots that pop up.
scientolgy seems different and more new age and not particularly brainwashiing type. but personally none really interest me so i cant say one way or another.
howver, i did vote yes because as in the examples i listed of course it should be legal to ban religions but i am not saying that is the case here.
scientolgy seems different and more new age and not particularly brainwashiing type. but personally none really interest me so i cant say one way or another.
howver, i did vote yes because as in the examples i listed of course it should be legal to ban religions but i am not saying that is the case here.
No. It is not.
Most religions are not tolerant. Their Holy Babbles teach them to be intolerant.
It's not the least bit fair considering how other religions are treated.
Tom Cruise was asked to explain & justify things which Christians are not. The news media loves to attack the nonmainstream but hasn't the integrity to hold all to the same requirements & responsibilities.
If other religions get a pass on the kinds of things Scientology is up to, too bad - that is no reason to abet such behavior in Scientology's case.
The French court thinks otherwise. They, and many others (Belgium, et al) think Scientology is not a religion at all, but a racket.John said:
They could be right.
Outside of Reverend Moon's outfit, I can't think of directly comparable setups - the Mormon Church having aged and adjusted.
But the interesting feature to me is the legal distinction the French are making. Where exactly is the dividing line between a religion and a racket?
Statements like the following are silly.
A law banning religion does not seem like a good idea, even if it were enforcable. I would certainly be in favor of a law putting strict limits on churches & TV avangelistis collecting money. In particular, it might be well to ban donations via credit cards & donations from people with limited incomes.
I would like to see an enforcable law against the teaching of religion to children less than about 12-13 years old. I do not think it would be enforcable. It would be the end of many religions.
I suspect that those who make such claims have an agenda which they are unwilling to openly describe.
A law banning religion does not seem like a good idea, even if it were enforcable. I would certainly be in favor of a law putting strict limits on churches & TV avangelistis collecting money. In particular, it might be well to ban donations via credit cards & donations from people with limited incomes.
I would like to see an enforcable law against the teaching of religion to children less than about 12-13 years old. I do not think it would be enforcable. It would be the end of many religions.
Can anything be successfully banned, regardless of right & wrong, which most people seem irristibly compelled to do?
I'm not sure you can restrict poorer people's use of their money much as I sympathize with the intent. But otherwise I support your proposal, except I would include politicians and political parties - talk about religions - in the category 'churches and evangelists'. I see lies and irrationality endemic in these kinds of religions.
As long as neoconservatism is included as a religion. And maybe consumerism. I may come back with more ideologies.