Russian supreme court bans Jehovah's Witnesses
Discussion
We don't need to ban people / groups that say 'stupid' things.
We need to allow them to speak.
If the things they say are truly foolish, if they tell lies, they will soon enough expose themselves for what they are.
Perhaps the word 'ban' could be removed from the English language and replaced by a word of 18 syllables, and include letters from the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets, plus a few scientific or mathematical symbols.
Perhaps then, we would be less inclined to use it so frequently and so easily.
We need to allow them to speak.
If the things they say are truly foolish, if they tell lies, they will soon enough expose themselves for what they are.
Perhaps the word 'ban' could be removed from the English language and replaced by a word of 18 syllables, and include letters from the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets, plus a few scientific or mathematical symbols.
Perhaps then, we would be less inclined to use it so frequently and so easily.
Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Sunday 23 April 10:44
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I'm not aware of religions in Russia being protected by blasphemy laws, but if you know better, please do tell...
The logic behind tax exempt status is that it theoretically removes the right of the church to lobby voters to vote for a particular party.
Which would you prefer, a tiny amount of tax revenue, or freedom from their political lobbying?
I know which I prefer, even if it hasn't worked all that well in the not so distant past.
Pussy Riot got flung in clink for what amounted to a blasphemy charge; as the defacto state religion Russian Orthodox christianity gets a free ride. The major religions are represented directly in the HoL and I suspect they indulge in plenty of lobbying of a soft nature, certainly in recent years religious heidbummers like the Archbishop of Canterbury et al have been quite happy to make very political statements. As for the 'tiny' amount of tax revenue the established religions are extremely wealthy despite shrinking church attendances. A good look at the indoctrination of children is probably due too, in some circumstances it probably amounts to psychological abuse; if religions were prevented from proselytising to impressionable young minds the whole ghastly fiction might fade away and be consigned to history as it deserves to.The logic behind tax exempt status is that it theoretically removes the right of the church to lobby voters to vote for a particular party.
Which would you prefer, a tiny amount of tax revenue, or freedom from their political lobbying?
I know which I prefer, even if it hasn't worked all that well in the not so distant past.
hidetheelephants said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I'm not aware of religions in Russia being protected by blasphemy laws, but if you know better, please do tell...
The logic behind tax exempt status is that it theoretically removes the right of the church to lobby voters to vote for a particular party.
Which would you prefer, a tiny amount of tax revenue, or freedom from their political lobbying?
I know which I prefer, even if it hasn't worked all that well in the not so distant past.
Pussy Riot got flung in clink for what amounted to a blasphemy charge; as the defacto state religion Russian Orthodox christianity gets a free ride. The major religions are represented directly in the HoL and I suspect they indulge in plenty of lobbying of a soft nature, certainly in recent years religious heidbummers like the Archbishop of Canterbury et al have been quite happy to make very political statements. As for the 'tiny' amount of tax revenue the established religions are extremely wealthy despite shrinking church attendances. A good look at the indoctrination of children is probably due too, in some circumstances it probably amounts to psychological abuse; if religions were prevented from proselytising to impressionable young minds the whole ghastly fiction might fade away and be consigned to history as it deserves to.The logic behind tax exempt status is that it theoretically removes the right of the church to lobby voters to vote for a particular party.
Which would you prefer, a tiny amount of tax revenue, or freedom from their political lobbying?
I know which I prefer, even if it hasn't worked all that well in the not so distant past.
If someone were to enter a private business for a similar purpose, I would imagine similar laws would be used to prosecute them. I would not be at all surprised if to find that churches are protected from this sort of intrusion in the UK as well.
None of us can of course speak for the motivations of others.
Yes, the good old Archbishop should keep quiet on political matters, but perhaps less so on matters purely of conscience, but that may be a difficult thing to define, so better complete silence on political matters. I find that I rarely agree with him myself.
Regardless I am entirely in favour of the complete separation of church and state.
Taxes are generally levied on profits. I doubt that you'd find many churches in the west making actual profits amounting to much, though there may well be exceptions. There's hardly an Anglican church in the UK that isn't desperate for a new roof, or new plumbing, brick or stone work, repairs to graveyards.
As for council tax, they are unoccupied, thus dodging that, and vicarages do pay council tax as/when they are occupied.
I have no idea what churches may be guilty of "psychological abuse", but that's a pretty hefty charge, and you may well be able to provide examples. If it's true, then it should be looked into in the same way any other institution should be looked into if guilty of such things.
If there is a case for investigating establishments for their employees telling 'lies' then I would have a pretty good case against the majority of the educational institutions I attended. The times I was taught details as 'settled facts' that were anything but, would amount to nothing short of institutional fraud.
When my son was attending college I had to correct a number of falsehoods, and that was IT based.
The resurgence of religion in places like Russia and China should be a practical lesson in trying to repress religions. It never works, much like most other forms of repression that ultimately fail.
Whatever interpretation 'enlightened' people choose to give to that, it remains a fact. Adults choose religion too, as remarkable as that may seem to you and I.
Let us not forget that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Freedom is what this thread was about
Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Tuesday 25th April 18:06
Goaty Bill 2 said:
While I am quite familiar with Russia's historical abhorrent practice of using 'catch all' legal clauses (Section 58s being the 'classic' of the Soviet era ). I would agree that entering someone's private property and staging a performance might reasonably classed as 'hooliganism' (these things rarely translate well), regardless of the Orthodox clergy's opinion.
If someone were to enter a private business for a similar purpose, I would imagine similar laws would be used to prosecute them. I would not be at all surprised if to find that churches are protected from this sort of intrusion in the UK as well.
None of us can of course speak for the motivations of others.
Yes, the good old Archbishop should keep quiet on political matters, but perhaps less so on matters purely of conscience, but that may be a difficult thing to define, so better complete silence on political matters. I find that I rarely agree with him myself.
Regardless I am entirely in favour of the complete separation of church and state.
Taxes are generally levied on profits. I doubt that you'd find many churches in the west making actual profits amounting to much, though there may well be exceptions. There's hardly an Anglican church in the UK that isn't desperate for a new roof, or new plumbing, brick or stone work, repairs to graveyards.
As for council tax, they are unoccupied, thus dodging that, and vicarages do pay council tax as/when they are occupied.
I have no idea what churches may be guilty of "psychological abuse", but that's a pretty hefty charge, and you may well be able to provide examples. If it's true, then it should be looked into in the same way any other institution should be looked into if guilty of such things.
If there is a case for investigating establishments for their employees telling 'lies' then I would have a pretty good case against the majority of the educational institutions I attended. The times I was taught details as 'settled facts' that were anything but, would amount to nothing short of institutional fraud.
When my son was attending college I had to correct a number of falsehoods, and that was IT based.
The resurgence of religion in places like Russia and China should be a practical lesson in trying to repress religions. It never works, much like most other forms of repression that ultimately fail.
Whatever interpretation 'enlightened' people choose to give to that, it remains a fact. Adults choose religion too, as remarkable as that may seem to you and I.
Let us not forget that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Freedom is what this thread was about
Great post.If someone were to enter a private business for a similar purpose, I would imagine similar laws would be used to prosecute them. I would not be at all surprised if to find that churches are protected from this sort of intrusion in the UK as well.
None of us can of course speak for the motivations of others.
Yes, the good old Archbishop should keep quiet on political matters, but perhaps less so on matters purely of conscience, but that may be a difficult thing to define, so better complete silence on political matters. I find that I rarely agree with him myself.
Regardless I am entirely in favour of the complete separation of church and state.
Taxes are generally levied on profits. I doubt that you'd find many churches in the west making actual profits amounting to much, though there may well be exceptions. There's hardly an Anglican church in the UK that isn't desperate for a new roof, or new plumbing, brick or stone work, repairs to graveyards.
As for council tax, they are unoccupied, thus dodging that, and vicarages do pay council tax as/when they are occupied.
I have no idea what churches may be guilty of "psychological abuse", but that's a pretty hefty charge, and you may well be able to provide examples. If it's true, then it should be looked into in the same way any other institution should be looked into if guilty of such things.
If there is a case for investigating establishments for their employees telling 'lies' then I would have a pretty good case against the majority of the educational institutions I attended. The times I was taught details as 'settled facts' that were anything but, would amount to nothing short of institutional fraud.
When my son was attending college I had to correct a number of falsehoods, and that was IT based.
The resurgence of religion in places like Russia and China should be a practical lesson in trying to repress religions. It never works, much like most other forms of repression that ultimately fail.
Whatever interpretation 'enlightened' people choose to give to that, it remains a fact. Adults choose religion too, as remarkable as that may seem to you and I.
Let us not forget that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Freedom is what this thread was about
Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Tuesday 25th April 18:06
br d said:
Russell confidently predicted the end of world and everything in it with only he and his chosen people going to heaven, his followers duly waited for the fateful day only to be dissapointed.
Not one to be put off he predicted it again on 5 further occasions, it failed to materialise every time in case you're wondering.
We all make mistakes certainly but it strikes me this is about the biggest thing you could possibly be wrong about, and he managed to be wrong about it 6 times.
Only in religion could someone with so little credibility still be revered.
he would have made an excellent climate scientist.Not one to be put off he predicted it again on 5 further occasions, it failed to materialise every time in case you're wondering.
We all make mistakes certainly but it strikes me this is about the biggest thing you could possibly be wrong about, and he managed to be wrong about it 6 times.
Only in religion could someone with so little credibility still be revered.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I have no idea what churches may be guilty of "psychological abuse", but that's a pretty hefty charge, and you may well be able to provide examples. If it's true, then it should be looked into in the same way any other institution should be looked into if guilty of such things.
Let us not forget that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Freedom is what this thread was about
Teaching children that if they don't believe in God, they will burn in hell ...... for eternity Let us not forget that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Freedom is what this thread was about
Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Tuesday 25th April 18:06
Mr Tracy said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I have no idea what churches may be guilty of "psychological abuse", but that's a pretty hefty charge, and you may well be able to provide examples. If it's true, then it should be looked into in the same way any other institution should be looked into if guilty of such things.
Let us not forget that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Freedom is what this thread was about
Teaching children that if they don't believe in God, they will burn in hell ...... for eternity Let us not forget that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Freedom is what this thread was about
Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Tuesday 25th April 18:06
I was never once in my life told that by them or any other Anglican minister to the best of my recollections.
Trust me, I sat through a lot of sermons as a kid.
However, you really are not going to draw me into that argument.
I suggest you take a teacher of that belief to court.
You only have to prove two things;
- God doesn't exist and therefore neither does Hell
- it was actually psychologically damaging
Best of luck with it
There should be nothing to stop anyone believing in whatever they want. There should be nothing to stop anyone from practising any religious rights they think necessary as long as their habits do not affect anyone who objects to such things.
Before any organisation, religious or secular, is 'recognised' by the state, which includes tax concessions, being allowed seats in parliament by right, or any similar allowances, they must conform to certain accepted mores.
These include, not preaching against homosexuals. That includes the cop out of 'it's not them it what they do that's wrong', equality with women, not telling lies to children, not suggesting every other religion is evil. In other words they should be moral.
Before any organisation, religious or secular, is 'recognised' by the state, which includes tax concessions, being allowed seats in parliament by right, or any similar allowances, they must conform to certain accepted mores.
These include, not preaching against homosexuals. That includes the cop out of 'it's not them it what they do that's wrong', equality with women, not telling lies to children, not suggesting every other religion is evil. In other words they should be moral.
hidetheelephants said:
Derek Smith said:
not telling lies to children,
That rules out all of them.WRT blood transfusions, I've heard of premature new born Jehovah's Witness babies being given them without the knowledge of the parents (don't know how you manage this but comes from a reliable source).
Personally I find the door knocking unusual but have always been taught that being unusual is ok. They always seem like decent people and I expect they'd probably make good neighbours. I'd bet they're massively under-represented in crime stats.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff