Except by stating this, you're proving exactly why it is necessary for a government to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion.
In the real world, yes, government needs to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion. However, this is only the case because the government has, as one old document puts it, "laws respecting an establishment of religion". If there were no legislation granting religious organizations special privileges or freedoms or whatever, there would be no such necessity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Except by stating this, you're proving exactly why it is necessary for a government to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion.
In the real world, yes, government needs to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion. However, this is only the case because the government has, as one old document puts it, "laws respecting an establishment of religion". If there were no legislation granting religious organizations special privileges or freedoms or whatever, there would be no such necessity.
Except, the government does not have "laws respecting the establishment of religion." The government has laws that favor religion in general over non-religoin, I'll grant you that. And that may be problematic, but it does not strictly speaking violate the constitution, because the government has not established a religion.
The prohibition in the consitution is there to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. Not to prevent the government from favoring religion over non-religion.
(Please do not take this as me arguing against separation of church and state, or anything along those lines. This is purely an argument with regards to the establishment clause. It also does not reflect the way I think it *should* be, so much as the way I think it *is*.)
A religion is a not-for-profit group of individuals sharing beliefs and practices. The government doesn't need to determine anything beyond that.
In that case, sure, but then a Buffy fan club qualifies as a religion.
Which beliefs do a Buffy fan club share? At first I kind of agreed with this statement, but as I've thought about it I've become more convinced there is a distinction between opinions (Buffy was a great show) and beliefs (Vampires and the supernatrual as depicted in the Buffyverse are real).
A buffy fanclub would be rife with opinions, not so much with beliefs.
Except by stating this, you're proving exactly why it is necessary for a government to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion.
What did I prove? What does a government care if a Buffy fanclub is a religion? Since it's not supposed to be making laws with respect to religion, it shouldn't matter what is a religion.
A buffy fanclub would be rife with opinions, not so much with beliefs.
A lot of churches operate that way. Their theology is based on what the believer feels is the way things are and is wholly based on subjective opinion from my what I can see.
]A lot of churches operate that way. Their theology is based on what the believer feels is the way things are and is wholly based on subjective opinion from my what I can see.
Yes and no. The difference being, the church believer actually thinks "the world operates in this manner" -- they have a factual belief.
The buffy fanclub member, on the other hand does not have a factual belief, they have an opinion (Buffyverse is the most interesting urban fantasy universe of modern times).
There's no doubt that opinoin can lead into a belief, or form the root of the belief, but there is still a distinction between an opinion and a belief.
Except by stating this, you're proving exactly why it is necessary for a government to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion.
In the real world, yes, government needs to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion. However, this is only the case because the government has, as one old document puts it, "laws respecting an establishment of religion". If there were no legislation granting religious organizations special privileges or freedoms or whatever, there would be no such necessity.
True.
Although technically they still would need to make laws with regards to religion, right? Because even a state that makes no mention of any religion whatsoever in its law code and has a totally ambivalent stance on the subject would still have to deal with the fact that, in America for example, the vast majority of people belong to a religion, usually Christianity. This, in turn, would result in a lot of people doing certain things in certain patterns, which would influence the law code, being by its very nature a thing that regulates what people do.
Example: Can I label my product Kosher or not? Even if Kosher is not in the law books, one would hope false advertising would be, which would result in overlap.
Except by stating this, you're proving exactly why it is necessary for a government to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion.
What did I prove? What does a government care if a Buffy fanclub is a religion? Since it's not supposed to be making laws with respect to religion, it shouldn't matter what is a religion.
It IS supposed to be making laws with respect to religion. That's the whole point of freedom of religion. What constitutes a religion matters. Your position is every bit as nonsensical as saying that "it shouldn't matter what is speech" or "it shouldn't matter what is assembly" or "it shouldn't matter what is a firearm."
Example: Can I label my product Kosher or not? Even if Kosher is not in the law books, one would hope false advertising would be, which would result in overlap
Sort of. But they don't need to treat it any differently than they'd treat the label of "vegetarian" or "fat-free". What's relevant is that the packaging is making factual claims about the product, not that the significance of those claims is religious.
It IS supposed to be making laws with respect to religion. That's the whole point of freedom of religion. What constitutes a religion matters. Your position is every bit as nonsensical as saying that "it shouldn't matter what is speech" or "it shouldn't matter what is assembly" or "it shouldn't matter what is a firearm."
Government doesn't need to decide what religion is because freedom of religion falls under broader freedom of conscience and freedom of assembly. They can't ban Mormonism, but they can't ban a Buffy fan club either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It IS supposed to be making laws with respect to religion. That's the whole point of freedom of religion. What constitutes a religion matters. Your position is every bit as nonsensical as saying that "it shouldn't matter what is speech" or "it shouldn't matter what is assembly" or "it shouldn't matter what is a firearm."
Basically what Blinking Spirit said. Doing otherwise invites the notion that irreligion isn't offered the same protection, or that otherwise non protected speech can be protected if you make it your religion.
Government doesn't need to decide what religion is because freedom of religion falls under broader freedom of conscience and freedom of assembly. They can't ban Mormonism, but they can't ban a Buffy fan club either.
Wait, in this case, are we talking about government in the abstract sense of the word, or government as in the US government?
Scientology is the perfect example of religion. Its how you can find people that will give it such seriousness and devotion when it is such an obvious sham. We see that now because its so obvious and we haven't been desensitized to it. But really why is it any more abusurd than christianity? or Islam? or Hinduism? Or mormonism?
If you want a church to be taxed then you should be for the taxation of all non profit organisations which is ridiculous. Churches are not tax exempt because they are religious institutions but rather because they are business entities without a profit motive. If you start a charity to ensure the poor get regular meals you get the same tax benefit that a church gets. You cannot tax a business on its profit when by the definition of a NPO they do not make any. To be honest the American Atheists is a non profit organization that gets the same benefits for exactly the same reason a church gets it.
If you want a church to be taxed then you should be for the taxation of all non profit organisations which is ridiculous. Churches are not tax exempt because they are religious institutions but rather because they are business entities without a profit motive. If you start a charity to ensure the poor get regular meals you get the same tax benefit that a church gets. You cannot tax a business on its profit when by the definition of a NPO they do not make any. To be honest the American Atheists is a non profit organization that gets the same benefits for exactly the same reason a church gets it.
No, "religious and apostolic organizations" get a special exemption in the U.S. tax code, "even if such associations or corporations engage in business for the common benefit of the members". I have no objections to religious organizations being held to the same rules as nonprofits, but they aren't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Christians were also considered a criminal organisation when the Romans still roamed around.
The difference is, early Christianity wasn't a criminal organization - it wasn't even an organization in any robust sense. Christians were just small groups of people hanging out in abandoned basements, with limited contact with other congregations. They didn't and couldn't conspire to defame, extort, blackmail, intimidate, and burgle. But Scientology commits these acts regularly and institutionally.
The supernatural claims being made are utterly beside the point. People can believe whatever damn crazy thing they want. That's not the problem. The problem is when people start committing real, tangible crimes.
So drop the "there's no difference" line. All that is is a renunciation of critical thinking: "let's not bother to examine the details of the situation, just wave our hands and say they're all the same".
Christians were also considered a criminal organisation when the Romans still roamed around. Once a religion is widespread enough, the brainwashing starts and generations upon generations of children will be spoonfed with their local religion and will consider its teachings the absolute Truth, regardless of evidence indicating otherwise. It's how religion works.
The only reason why the Christians were considered a criminal orgainization was because the Roman Emperors needed a handy scapegoat to blame for all the things that were going wrong in the Empire, starting with the Great Fire or Rome. So any comparisons between Early Christianity and Early Scientology are complete hogwash.
Largely because as has been mentioned Scientology certainly appears to be committing illegal acts and the only 'crime' early Christians committed was admitting their faith.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I may even be logical that Christianity initially spread under the lower class of population, which housed a relatively higher amount of criminals than the upper class. It would be logical for people to generalize Christians and compare them with criminals just like western society tends to look at minorities today. Maybe in the far future the criminal acts of Scientology will not be criminal anymore.
You... You know absolutely nothing about early Christian history do you?
I can compare Christianity with Scientology all I want btw. The moment Christianity started gaining power, they committed all the acts Scientology is doing now: Extortion, blackmail, defame, brainwashing etc.
Examples?
One of each, if you please. Do note, however, that you stated that it began doing these things the moment it gained power. Which would be during the roman empire, after the emperor's had converted. Also note that the actions must be done under the auspices of Christianity, not merely by Christians.
As far as my personal opinion goes, Scientology commits criminal acts and hopefully will get the banhammer soon until their leaders start practicing their 'religion' in a more accepted way.
We will all be grateful then that you do not possess the mythical banhammer. What makes you think you get to decide what a "acceptable way to practice religion" is anyway?
I can compare Christianity with Scientology all I want btw. The moment Christianity started gaining power, they committed all the acts Scientology is doing now: Extortion, blackmail, defame, brainwashing etc.
I can also easily compare your arguments to something a person with the personality of a child would say... all I want.
Scientology is the perfect example of religion. Its how you can find people that will give it such seriousness and devotion when it is such an obvious sham. We see that now because its so obvious and we haven't been desensitized to it. But really why is it any more abusurd than christianity? or Islam? or Hinduism? Or mormonism?
From what I've heard, not many of the members of Scientology take it seriously. It's more a career center for the entertainment industry.
A buddy of mine moved out to CA to be a writer, and ended up joining up with the Church, cause he heard you could get work that way. He did the whole "e-reader" thing and attended a couple seminars, and met other writers there, who introduced him to show runners and producers, which got his scripts in from of peoples eyes, and led him to steady work.
He told me that's why you see so many younger singers/actors/writers getting into it, because it's basically a career network. According to him there are some high profile people who really do buy into it (although more as a self help thing), but most of the people who join are there to make contacts for thier career. That, and the tax fraud. Instead of using 1.4 million of taxable income to buy a house million dollar house, a celeb will donate 1.1 million to the church, the church will pocket a 100 grand, buy them the million dollar house, and the celeb gets a 1.1 million dollar tax write off. It's like some f'ed up version of selling Script for rich people.
He eventually moved out of CA to Colorado (to be a ranch hand, of all things), and never indicated he had any trouble leaving the "Church"
As far as my personal opinion goes, Scientology commits criminal acts and hopefully will get the banhammer soon until their leaders start practicing their 'religion' in a more accepted way.
We will all be grateful then that you do not possess the mythical banhammer. What makes you think you get to decide what a "acceptable way to practice religion" is anyway?
If this is how you act towards your fellow humans, you have crossed a line. Your religion is no longer acceptable. If it were just some outliers, sure, you could make an argument that it's just some whackjobs, such as in the Islam and Christianity. However, this approach to others (and in cases like Lisa McPerson: their own) is pervasive throughout this cult. Joining this bunch makes you a worse person, and I would think less of the USA is they'd give these guys a special tax-exempt status.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
In the real world, yes, government needs to determine what is or is not a legitimate religion. However, this is only the case because the government has, as one old document puts it, "laws respecting an establishment of religion". If there were no legislation granting religious organizations special privileges or freedoms or whatever, there would be no such necessity.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Except, the government does not have "laws respecting the establishment of religion." The government has laws that favor religion in general over non-religoin, I'll grant you that. And that may be problematic, but it does not strictly speaking violate the constitution, because the government has not established a religion.
The prohibition in the consitution is there to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. Not to prevent the government from favoring religion over non-religion.
(Please do not take this as me arguing against separation of church and state, or anything along those lines. This is purely an argument with regards to the establishment clause. It also does not reflect the way I think it *should* be, so much as the way I think it *is*.)
Which beliefs do a Buffy fan club share? At first I kind of agreed with this statement, but as I've thought about it I've become more convinced there is a distinction between opinions (Buffy was a great show) and beliefs (Vampires and the supernatrual as depicted in the Buffyverse are real).
A buffy fanclub would be rife with opinions, not so much with beliefs.
Yes and no. The difference being, the church believer actually thinks "the world operates in this manner" -- they have a factual belief.
The buffy fanclub member, on the other hand does not have a factual belief, they have an opinion (Buffyverse is the most interesting urban fantasy universe of modern times).
There's no doubt that opinoin can lead into a belief, or form the root of the belief, but there is still a distinction between an opinion and a belief.
True.
Although technically they still would need to make laws with regards to religion, right? Because even a state that makes no mention of any religion whatsoever in its law code and has a totally ambivalent stance on the subject would still have to deal with the fact that, in America for example, the vast majority of people belong to a religion, usually Christianity. This, in turn, would result in a lot of people doing certain things in certain patterns, which would influence the law code, being by its very nature a thing that regulates what people do.
Example: Can I label my product Kosher or not? Even if Kosher is not in the law books, one would hope false advertising would be, which would result in overlap.
It IS supposed to be making laws with respect to religion. That's the whole point of freedom of religion. What constitutes a religion matters. Your position is every bit as nonsensical as saying that "it shouldn't matter what is speech" or "it shouldn't matter what is assembly" or "it shouldn't matter what is a firearm."
Government doesn't need to decide what religion is because freedom of religion falls under broader freedom of conscience and freedom of assembly. They can't ban Mormonism, but they can't ban a Buffy fan club either.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wait, in this case, are we talking about government in the abstract sense of the word, or government as in the US government?
How?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Except that would be where the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part comes in.
Not to mention isn't it odd to be in favor of separating the church and the state and then call for its taxation, which would mean that the government would in fact have greater involvement into the affairs of religious organizations?
No, "religious and apostolic organizations" get a special exemption in the U.S. tax code, "even if such associations or corporations engage in business for the common benefit of the members". I have no objections to religious organizations being held to the same rules as nonprofits, but they aren't.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Charges include extortion and fraud.
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
The supernatural claims being made are utterly beside the point. People can believe whatever damn crazy thing they want. That's not the problem. The problem is when people start committing real, tangible crimes.
So drop the "there's no difference" line. All that is is a renunciation of critical thinking: "let's not bother to examine the details of the situation, just wave our hands and say they're all the same".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The only reason why the Christians were considered a criminal orgainization was because the Roman Emperors needed a handy scapegoat to blame for all the things that were going wrong in the Empire, starting with the Great Fire or Rome. So any comparisons between Early Christianity and Early Scientology are complete hogwash.
Largely because as has been mentioned Scientology certainly appears to be committing illegal acts and the only 'crime' early Christians committed was admitting their faith.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Recognize ALL the religions!
Oh? And which acts would those be?
You... You know absolutely nothing about early Christian history do you?
Examples?
One of each, if you please. Do note, however, that you stated that it began doing these things the moment it gained power. Which would be during the roman empire, after the emperor's had converted. Also note that the actions must be done under the auspices of Christianity, not merely by Christians.
We will all be grateful then that you do not possess the mythical banhammer. What makes you think you get to decide what a "acceptable way to practice religion" is anyway?
I can also easily compare your arguments to something a person with the personality of a child would say... all I want.
From what I've heard, not many of the members of Scientology take it seriously. It's more a career center for the entertainment industry.
A buddy of mine moved out to CA to be a writer, and ended up joining up with the Church, cause he heard you could get work that way. He did the whole "e-reader" thing and attended a couple seminars, and met other writers there, who introduced him to show runners and producers, which got his scripts in from of peoples eyes, and led him to steady work.
He told me that's why you see so many younger singers/actors/writers getting into it, because it's basically a career network. According to him there are some high profile people who really do buy into it (although more as a self help thing), but most of the people who join are there to make contacts for thier career. That, and the tax fraud. Instead of using 1.4 million of taxable income to buy a house million dollar house, a celeb will donate 1.1 million to the church, the church will pocket a 100 grand, buy them the million dollar house, and the celeb gets a 1.1 million dollar tax write off. It's like some f'ed up version of selling Script for rich people.
He eventually moved out of CA to Colorado (to be a ranch hand, of all things), and never indicated he had any trouble leaving the "Church"
If this is how you act towards your fellow humans, you have crossed a line. Your religion is no longer acceptable. If it were just some outliers, sure, you could make an argument that it's just some whackjobs, such as in the Islam and Christianity. However, this approach to others (and in cases like Lisa McPerson: their own) is pervasive throughout this cult. Joining this bunch makes you a worse person, and I would think less of the USA is they'd give these guys a special tax-exempt status.
And I speak as a former Scientologist.