The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But it is still an area where church-state separation faulters.
France does not have freedom of conscience to the extent that the US does
Could you explain? "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
About "many other religions" that you claim are banned in France, could you elaborate? "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
For example, the "Church" of Scientology has been "persecuted" in France by being billed for taxes, as it made considerable profits, which is incompatible with its status as a registered non-profit association.
I believe it currently operates in France as a company (SARL).
I'm not clear on how this relates to freedom of conscience. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
eurogreen:
However, it is not recognised by the Ministry of the Interior as a religion, so it does not benefit from various special privileges granted to religions with respect to other forms of organisation.
My whole point in any case is that attributing special importance to platonic ideals of secularity, separation of church and state, or freedom of conscience, or whether some state or other is a theocracy, is not only fraught with problems when one tries to make the terms precise in relationship with real-life examples, but is also not very instructive in the end. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
A lot good it will do us over here, when the costs of the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, which caused enormous deficits, will have to be paid for by the middle class. If the right wing Republicans get their way and estend them, of course, the middle class will have to pay even more.
Migeru:
My whole point in any case is that attributing special importance to platonic ideals of secularity, separation of church and state, or freedom of conscience, or whether some state or other is a theocracy, is not only fraught with problems when one tries to make the terms precise in relationship with real-life examples, but is also not very instructive in the end.
On this we certainly agree. And it's the most important point. "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
I would disagree. In a theocracy, the concepts of law and religion are one and the same.
Thats an extremely narrow view of what a theocracy, Iran by your description does not qualify as a Theocracy (In fact no government in the world qualifies by this standard)
In modern Western societies (although the Ancient Greeks also based their socio-political order on this principle) the law is built more on the system of philosophical thought.
Well your knowledge of Greek government is sadly lacking too (In fact a majority of ancient Greek city states would qualify more as Theocracies than Iran would) The idea that Modern western government is based on systems of philosophical thought is stretching things extremely. Influenced by yes, but ascribing a secular basis is an amazing reach that should be beyond any honest consideration
The latter can change basd on social priorities at a given time. The former is immutable.
Well that statement avoids any knowledge of history The world changes, so even the most severe Theocracy is going to be faced with changing situations, making Immutability an impossibility. Theocracies also have a history of changing as social priorities change, for example, the marriage of priests in the Vatican has at times been allowed and not allowed, and has changed in accordance with social changes inside the church
So Basically on the three major points inside your statement, youre wrong on all of them, badly Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Regardless... as the issues exposed in this sub-thread merited a more detailed analysis, I took the liberty to publish a diary entitled "On Religion and the Law" which might be insightful to you. In that diary, you and Colman will have ample room (if you so choose) to explain why what I said constitutes the funniest, most utterly ridiculous set of errors you've seen in a long time. Then again, if you opt to respectfully walk away from that discussion, I will certainly understand.
Recognised religions have stronger protections under US law due to the 1st Amendment than other nonprofits.
So who recognises religions? Well, that's where it gets funny. I suppose the IRS does. Or the courts, if the religion in question disagrees with the IRS ruling...
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Ad absurdam : can I register my business as a religion? Please?
I agree with your (apparent) point that eliminating all recognition of religion by the state is the only option entirely consistent with secularity. The only real problem with this is how to handle the Catholic real estate.
However, I dispute your larger point that the debate is not very instructive. A real-life example : I take strong issue to the fact that I can not marry a citizen of (for example) Israel or Morocco without converting to the religion into which my potential bride was born (and perhaps not even then). This is an intolerable infringement of human rights, and a consequence of those governments delegating the institution of marriage to religious authorities. I'm sure you'll agree that the citizens of both countries would be objectively better off if this delegation ceased, i.e. if marriage were secularized. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Some documents written by Hubbard himself suggest he regarded Scientology as a business, not a religion. In one letter dated April 10, 1953, he says that calling Scientology a religion solves "a problem of practical business [...] A religion charter could be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick."[111] In a 1962 policy letter, he said that Scientology "is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."[111] However, in his work, Hubbard emphasizes the importance of spirit and mind over the physical body. He says, "... The body can be best studied in such books as Gray's Anatomy and other anatomical texts. This is the province of the medical doctor and, usually, the old-time psychiatrist or psychologist who were involved in the main in body worship."[112]
Scientology is banned.
Scientology isn't a religion. It's a Ponzi scam with an expanded vocabulary and a vicious authoritarian streak.
Of course, the same could be said of some parts of the Roman Catholic Church, but Scientology is generally considered to go farther in the mind-rape department (and is a lot more consistent about it).
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 28 1 comment
by IdiotSavant - Feb 28
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 23 14 comments
by Oui - Feb 22 19 comments
by Oui - Feb 25
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 20 16 comments
by gmoke - Feb 14 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 19 14 comments
by Oui - Mar 1
by gmoke - Mar 1
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 281 comment
by Oui - Feb 2823 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2314 comments
by Oui - Feb 2219 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2016 comments
by Oui - Feb 2021 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1914 comments
by Oui - Feb 197 comments
by Oui - Feb 18
by Oui - Feb 1782 comments
by Oui - Feb 168 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1523 comments
by gmoke - Feb 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1413 comments
by Oui - Feb 145 comments
by Oui - Feb 1245 comments