|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 18:27:26 GMT
Ha, anybody who confuses intellect with sprituality clearly needs to take refuge on another continent!  The completely insane people who created all of these bizarre religions were extremely intelligent. Look how they get you to defend them. |
|
|
|
Post by traveler63 on Jul 6, 2009 19:15:05 GMT
Ok. I have been watching this post and am going to put my two cents in.
lagatta you mentioned our own genocides in North America. Certainly we did and the majority were Native Americans. I believe there wer over 6 million when the Colonists arrived. They were systematically killed, lost from diseases that they had never been exposed to. Then they were inundated by various religious, primarily Catholic, called savages and forced into lifestyles that ultimately finished most of them off. It is only in the last few decades that the different tribes have started to regain their sense of history and heritage.
The United States has taken in immigrants of all countries, religions , social -economic , etc. I would not consider them misfits. Yes, we have our cults, but who decides what is a cult?? Religion in this country is complicated and yes, we do have our share of people that are outside organized religion, but isn't it all a matter of interpretation as to who are "mainstream" and who are "cult".
I still and will continue to firmly believe that this country was founded to be "free from organized religion, i. e. government imposed" religion. "You" are free to believe what you wish, "You" do not have the freedom to force me to believe how you do."
I also believe that if your relgious beliefs are becoming political then
tax exemptions should not be allowed. Matters of God should be separate from matters political.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 19:31:41 GMT
Absolutely. I think that if some of those things (Scientology, to name just one) lost their tax free status, it would make a big difference. (But I wouldn't just let them shift to 'non profit organization' status when that is clearly not true either.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jul 6, 2009 20:01:20 GMT
traveller, precisely about genocides of Indigenous peoples, though I believe I said "the Americas", not "North America". At supper welcoming back Argentine friend, she was recounting the bounty on first the ears, then the heads, of "Indios". And alas, there were genocidal massacres of Mayan villagers in Guatemala, Central America, during the civil war.
And closer by, in North America, there was the dreadful massacre of 45 Tztotzil Mayans at Acteal, Chiapas. Of course the issues in the government/Zapatista conflict are more complex, but this was a massacre at a prayer meeting of indigenous townspeople from the pacifist Las Abejas (Bees) group, who supported Zapatista aims but renounced violence.
Not to mention the self-destruction so many Indigenous peoples the world over fall into.
|
|
|
|
Post by traveler63 on Jul 6, 2009 21:21:46 GMT
Self indulgence and destruction at least in the US was the introduction of alcohol which was used to control the native people. It is still today one of the major impediments for the different indigenous people here. Along with the U. S. government still trying to control the reservations. This problem is still major all over the world. I just read an article about the native people in Australia and their horrible alcohol problem. Kirk is part Native American and has studied the issue. Mostly it is like there is no off switch and the ultimate scenario is the "drunk Indian passed out on the sidewalk scenario. We here in Arizona have many reservations and although headway is being made, they all battle this on a day to day basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 6, 2009 23:24:45 GMT
I believe tax exemptions for religions are a transgression of the separation of church and state.
As far as confusing intellect with spirituality, I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you are harping on something that happened centuries ago.
I am not defending religion nor its adherents. I do feel that any government which wishes all of its citizens to partake of constitutionally mandated freedoms is forced to tread carefully so as to not transgress the rights of one group in an attempt to safeguard the rights of another group. Laws grow out of precedents and responsible judges try not to create court-mandated precedents that could segue into the laws of the land.
Many of the laws now in effect were created at a time when fathers had absolute control over their offspring (& the mothers of those children). By the same token, the noble ideal of granting freedom of religion was put into law at a time when there was no such thing as a blood transfusion, or a Jehovah's Witness, for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2009 20:59:56 GMT
In any case, religions are not tax exempt in France, so that eliminates a major reason for "creating" a religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Jul 9, 2009 8:15:26 GMT
They are in Germany if they get 'recognised'.
The problem with Scientology is the amount of bad publicity they bring on countries that decide to prosecute them (for money laundering and lots of other things K2 has already mentioned). They have so much money they buy full page ads in the NYT and accuse (in this case) the Germans of returning to Nazi methods to take away their tax exempt status. And the funny thing is, they get a lot of very public figures to sign.
|
|
|
|
Post by hal2000 on Jul 23, 2009 8:26:47 GMT
I was reading that the Cathars disappeared partly because they found sex so dirty that they could barely reproduce they were so mortified.
|
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Jul 23, 2009 11:45:18 GMT
I thought it was because they started feeling hot?
|
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jul 23, 2009 12:13:25 GMT
I don't know where you read that about the Cathars, hal2000. Most of the people who followed the Cathar religion lived normal lives -- they worked, married and had children. There was a group called "les parfaits" in French who were indeed celibate, but that is similar to priests in Roman Catholicism.
And the Cathars certainly reproduced because the numbers were seen as a threat to the domination of the R Catholic church, hence the Pope's call for a crusade against them. However, crusades often being about more than religion, the king of France and various nobles joined in the Albigensian Crusade. Any thing they conquered, they could keep for themselves. Since the Cathars were protected by the Counts of Toulouse, Carcassonne, Béziers and other southern areas, the King of France (based around Paris) wanted to get his hands on their property to extend his own power.
|
|
|
|
Post by hal2000 on Jul 23, 2009 12:52:57 GMT
Wikipedia talks about it -- Sexual intercourse and reproduction propagated the slavery of spirit to flesh, hence procreation was considered undesirable. Informal relationships were considered preferable to marriage among Cathar credentes. Perfecti were supposed to have observed complete celibacy, and eventual separation from a partner would be necessary for those who would become Perfecti. For the credentes however, sexual activity was not prohibited, but procreation was strongly discouraged, resulting in the charge by their opponents of sexual perversion. The common English insult "bugger" is derived from "Bulgar", the notion that Cathars followed the "Bulgarian heresy" whose teaching entailed perverse sexual activities which skirted procreation.
Killing was abhorrent to the Cathars; so too the copulation that produced enslavement in matter. Consequently, abstention from all animal food (sometimes exempting fish) was enjoined of the Perfecti. (The Perfecti apparently avoided eating anything considered to be a by-product of sexual reproduction- (they didn't eat eggs or dairy products.) War and capital punishment were also condemned, an abnormality in the medieval age. As a consequence of their rejection of oaths, Cathars also rejected marriage vows. |
|
|
|
Post by traveler63 on Jul 23, 2009 13:06:49 GMT
Hal2000 and anyone else: With all due respect, I don't take much from Wikipedia since anyone can edit the information. I would direct you to this site: www.cathar.info/The whole subject of cathar is up for debate and while I am no expert on the subject, it does seem that most religions seem to hold other religions or practices that are not in line with theirs as heresy. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2009 17:50:47 GMT
I can't imagine why anybody would debate the Cathars anymore. It's like debating the Neanderthals.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 27, 2009 18:28:20 GMT
Coming soon, to a thread near you:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
|
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Jul 29, 2009 10:07:17 GMT
I can't imagine why anybody would debate the Cathars anymore. It's like debating the Neanderthals. People who've tried everything else? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2009 20:35:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 2, 2009 22:16:54 GMT
Anyway, polygamy is not condoned by the official Mormon church, and is against the law in the US. It is simply impossible to police everyone who practices it, just as it's impossible to totally prevent all other forms of law-breaking. Actually, the original Mormons DID practice polygamy, but as a condition of Utah being granted statehood, the official church reversed itself on polygamy, making the practice not condoned. |
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Aug 2, 2009 22:20:08 GMT
I believe tax exemptions for religions are a transgression of the separation of church and state. But one way for a church to LOSE its tax-exempt status is to use the pulpit to advocate for certain candidates/issues in elections. Not sure how the Mormon church gets around this, having largely financed the anti-gay marriage initiative in California... |
|
|
|
Post by tigronette on Aug 14, 2009 7:25:51 GMT
President Sarkozy (I still can't bring myself to type that without cringing) has been pushed into a corner on scientology issues as he had a personal visit from Tom Cruise in the run-up to the French elections of 2007 and his numerous aides have come out with some very ambiguous things on scientology in general. One of the advantages of having a president who is solely preoccupied with what the nation thinks of him - as expressed by opinion polls - is that they sometimes pass quite daring laws to keep in line with public opinion (if this law ever gets voted that is, you have to keep that sort of thing in check nowadays)
|
|
