Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

France had the right idea when they declared Scientology a cult.

Do cults get different legal treatment than any other religion? I can only imagine they do. As creepy and bad as scientology is, the government having the authority to declare one religion legitimate and another illegitimate is far, far worse and scarier.

Here
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1901373,00.html

Wasn't because they were a cult, but because they were a dangerous cult whose intent is to exploit its followers.

Still, governments shouldn't have the right to declare one religion a religion and therefore OK, and another a cult and therefore not OK. If the organization is corrupt, you punish the organization, but separately from what religion they are affiliated with. Otherwise you're eroding an essential part of the protection of individual liberty.

The government should determine what sort of organization an organization is, for tax purposes, but thiis need not bring religion into play directly. You can just determine if an organization is non-profit/charitable as opposed to a for-profit business or whatever.

[Luke_Prowler]

It all makes sense now...

[Vester]

Well, France is incredibly secular.

They just don't like religion over there.

But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.

Definitely. They don't like religion. I don't like the KKK, but if I try to legislate against them because I don't like their opinions, I'm worse than they are.

This is what G-Flex was talking about though. With the KKK, for example, their opinions and their activities are inextricable from each other. Racism that profound goes hand in hand with violence against other races. When opinions lead directly to violence, shouldn't something be done about the holders of those opinions?

[Jackrabbit]

Despite only reading the first post, I have this to add.

xenu.net

Aw yeah. That shit be real.

[G-Flex]

Well, France is incredibly secular.

They just don't like religion over there.

But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.

Definitely. They don't like religion. I don't like the KKK, but if I try to legislate against them because I don't like their opinions, I'm worse than they are.

This is what G-Flex was talking about though. With the KKK, for example, their opinions and their activities are inextricable from each other. Racism that profound goes hand in hand with violence against other races. When opinions lead directly to violence, shouldn't something be done about the holders of those opinions?

Not really. A lot of people believe in a lot of crazy things. It doesn't mean they're going to act upon them so harshly.

I subscribe to essentially the status quo regarding that in the US: It's legal to gather and talk and say things, even hurtful things, as long as you aren't actually inciting violence. The minute you incite people to violence, you get busted.

[Vester]

Despite only reading the first post, I have this to add.

xenu.net

Aw yeah. That shit be real.

The "scientology illustrated" section is hilarious.

Well, France is incredibly secular.

They just don't like religion over there.

But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.

Definitely. They don't like religion. I don't like the KKK, but if I try to legislate against them because I don't like their opinions, I'm worse than they are.

This is what G-Flex was talking about though. With the KKK, for example, their opinions and their activities are inextricable from each other. Racism that profound goes hand in hand with violence against other races. When opinions lead directly to violence, shouldn't something be done about the holders of those opinions?

Not really. A lot of people believe in a lot of crazy things. It doesn't mean they're going to act upon them so harshly.

I subscribe to essentially the status quo regarding that in the US: It's legal to gather and talk and say things, even hurtful things, as long as you aren't actually inciting violence. The minute you incite people to violence, you get busted.

But sometimes people take too neutral a stand regarding this. There are hints of aggression and anger that go unnoticed or if noticed, aren't acted on.

Granted it's literally impossible (also unethical) to go around and police every single conversation that happens. Peacekeeping has to be reactionary. I've never seen an attempt at "preemptive peacekeeping".

[Jude]

Well, France is incredibly secular.

They just don't like religion over there.

But I get your point. Individual liberty is at risk any time the government steps in to regulate something it should rightly be separate from.

Definitely. They don't like religion. I don't like the KKK, but if I try to legislate against them because I don't like their opinions, I'm worse than they are.

This is what G-Flex was talking about though. With the KKK, for example, their opinions and their activities are inextricable from each other. Racism that profound goes hand in hand with violence against other races. When opinions lead directly to violence, shouldn't something be done about the holders of those opinions?

Only if they commit violence. You can't sanction opinions in a free society. Nothing is more important than government staying out of people's right to expression.

I've never seen an attempt at "preemptive peacekeeping".

Every form of oppression can be  rationalized as "preemptive peacekeeping.

also, [refrains from remark about Bush administration]

[Vester]

I've never seen an attempt at "preemptive peacekeeping".

Every form of oppression can be  rationalized as "preemptive peacekeeping.

also, [refrains from remark about Bush administration]
[/quote]

I will admit, I was baiting that one.

My country had martial law declared waaaaaaay back, about thirty years ago. The dictator (Ferdinand Marcos, you may remember him) rationalized it as, exactly, preemptive peacekeeping. I've never seen anyone say that and mean it, though.

Probably because it can't happen if we mean to stay ethical.

[JoshuaFH]

I'm not quite sure where you live Vester, but wouldn't such harsh measures be rationally considered "preemptive peacekeeping" if terrible violence could break out at any moment?

/devil's advocate

[Vester]

I'm not quite sure where you live Vester, but wouldn't such harsh measures be rationally considered "preemptive peacekeeping" if terrible violence could break out at any moment?

/devil's advocate

The Philippines. Well, my fault for not explaining. 

The final reason he declared martial law is because his Secretary of Defense was ambushed by "rebels" who sprayed his car with bullets.

Said Secretary of Defense admitted (long after the dictator was deposed) that it was staged.

[SniHjen]

"preemptive peacekeeping" happens often here in Denmark.

Usaly, when a big (well, big for Denmark) football match is up, things tendt to desolve into chaos, so they police go in, arrest 100-200 persons, then let 95% go after an hour or so.

the rest will be the ones in court within 24Hours, charged with "inciting violence".

[Leafsnail]

Only if they commit violence. You can't sanction opinions in a free society. Nothing is more important than government staying out of people's right to expression.

There is something more important - protecting other people from the maniacs who hold these views.  It's never a big step from raw hatred to racist violence.

[CJ1145]

I want to bring into the light the fact that one of the Operation's targets was the Nation Association and World Federation for Mental Health. Think about that a moment.

[Jackrabbit]

I want to bring into the light the fact that one of the Operation's targets was the Nation Association and World Federation for Mental Health. Think about that a moment.

I can't, I'm too busy raging.

[Zangi]

Ah...  gov't protecting people from themselves(GPPFT) vs letting people do stupid shit(LPDSS)

A debate of the ages.

You know seat belt laws?  Thats an example of GPPFT.
Driving with a cell phone? GPPFT
Current debate somewhere in the US, no clue where, but its there...  GPPFT

Savvy?

Freedom of religion, I have my opinions of religion.  But... if a gov't can't label religious groups cults... then WTF?  We should allow idiots to join unsavory religious groups so that they can become end up becoming fanatics who would do what the 'priest' says?  Yea...  I rather have myself GPPFT here.  I don't want any more crazy then normal religious nuts in my cereal thank you. 
Especially a whole pack of em working together to either convert me or send me to hell early.

You have this one 'religious group' down in Arizona or somewhere near there where some self-appointed priest guy gets to marry and boink lil girls under 12.  He actually has free reign to all the women in his 'religious group'.  Its a secluded lil 'religious group' too.
And do you know why he does it?  Because his diety/god/whatever the hell these people worship... voice is channeled through the priest guy.  So whatever he says?  It goes or you are gonna burn in hell.
That my friend is what you call a cult.

Now, lets look at Scientology.  These bastards have people who are more then willing to commit all sorts of crimes to further the agenda of the Scientology 'priests'.  Else, they'll probably burn in hell.
We know that these people try to seclude themselves from non-believers too.


So yea, lets look at the connections:
Seclusion of members from non-believers?  Check
Voice of 'Diety' through the priests?  Check
Unsavory stuff like burning in hell when you don't listen to the priests? Check
Unsavory stuff like burning in hell when you don't believe? Check  (But this applies to many legit religions, so whatever...)
People stupid enough to follow the priest blindly or out of fear? Check


And here is something we have that Scientology and Islam have in common:

People stupid enough to break laws, kidnap, and commit traitorous acts in the name of their 'Diety'? Check


Disclaimer: I pulled a lot of this out of my arse.  Have fun. 

PS: France is right, you are wrong for disagreeing.  (My opinion)