|
|
| Who fishes IRL? |
| has in the past, but doesn't anymore |
|
33% |
[ 2 ] |
| has, and still does |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| just started |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| never has, and isn't about to start anytime soon |
|
33% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:59 pm
Well, what do you guys think about it? For example, the rights of a religion that is nationally recognized, such as Judaism Vs the rights of a religion that is not nationally recognized, such as something like gothic satanism (by the way, this only exists in hollywood movies)?
What happens to those who get hurt while practicing a religion that is not recognized by the state, and who is at fault?
Should religions need to be recognized by the state?
Note: my usage of the word state in some questions, means the same thing as nation.
Edit: yes, I know, the pole has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread, I was just wondering.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:49 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the American Constitution call for the separation of church and state? If so, doesn't that mean that the government should not decide what is considered a "valid" religion? This assumption aside, having a comittee (non-governmental) decide what is rational when considering the calidity of a religion with perspective to its rights would be a good idea, I find. Rational might mean that a religion can worship reasonable dieties (or themselves, as in Satanism as far as I understand it). Unreasonable is that one cannot diefy a toaster for popping 3 seconds before it's due.
I dunno, it's 1:49 in the morning, I'm tired, and that's my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:10 pm
Son of Axeman Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the American Constitution call for the separation of church and state? If so, doesn't that mean that the government should not decide what is considered a "valid" religion? This assumption aside, having a comittee (non-governmental) decide what is rational when considering the calidity of a religion with perspective to its rights would be a good idea, I find. Rational might mean that a religion can worship reasonable dieties (or themselves, as in Satanism as far as I understand it). Unreasonable is that one cannot diefy a toaster for popping 3 seconds before it's due.I dunno, it's 1:49 in the morning, I'm tired, and that's my two cents. The constitution provides nothing about religion, however, the Amendments to the Constitution do (sorry for the pickyness in titles, but it is best to be correct). Now, I think the federal government is what determines what a religion is that is recognized by the state. However, they do not, nor are they allowed to, make their decisions based on what is being worshipped, they make their decisions based on the practices of that religion, and how it interferes with others rights, or even how it harms its own member's. In other words, the government makes their decisions based on the safety of the practitioners, of those around them, and of the rights of the other citizens who do not practice that religion. Now, notice, that just because a religion isn't nationaly recognized, doesn't mean that you can't follow it, it simply means that there are some benefits that are not gained by that religion, such as tax exemption status (this will bring up even more questions). So, let us take a religion called religion x into consideration; this religion states that everyone who is apart of this religion, should murder those who are not apart of this religion. Should this religion be recognized as a religion by the state? In other words, when the person who follows religion x murders another person, and is tried, can they use the fact that they follow religion x as a viable plea that would exempt them from any repurcusions they would have to pay if they commited the crime and didn't follow religion x? Now, on the issue of benefits, in this case, we will use tax exemption and political advising during election time (or any other time). Should a group, or even a religion, get tax exemption status, if they are going to promote one candidate over the other openly to the public? For example, let's take religion x, and a party called the Party Y. If during a religious meeting, a member of religion x who has clergy type status, promotes Party Y, and repeats this at recurring meetings, should this religion get tax exemption status?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:51 am
Tax exemption: As a general rule, no religion should be given tax exemption. This promotes religious leaders to manipulate the followers of their religion, simply to reach tax exemption status. I am strongly agains all forms of unecissary manipulation, and this REALLY ticks me off.
Murder case: Yeah, now, at midday, I come to my senses. I shouldn't have said based on dieties. However, I believe that, if it calls for the protection of the people around the practitionner, the state should be able to recognise some religions and some not. Somebody cannot murder someone and use religion as an excuse. There should never be any special interest groups that support the accused.
Constitution: I apoligize for getting that wrong. I'm not American, so I wouldn't know squat about the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:47 pm
please tell me if this is wrong
to me youre saying that a goverment will not recognize a religion if it threatens there grip on power and it does not cuase harm to its practitioners or people around it
in the case of the both my religion would never be excepted becuase we we are loyal to only our Empress and the clan leaders
and secondly, a part of my religion has gods in charge of death, etc some even make sacrifices sporadically
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
