Darth Vader Attacks Jedi!

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: krbe

And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from the Internal Revenue Service that all the businesses in the land should be taxed.

(And this taxing was first made when the British held possesions in the land.)

And all managers went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Hubbard also went up from Nebraska, out of the county of Tilden, into the District of Columbia, unto the city of the Internal Revenue Service, which is called Washington: (because he wanted to argue his case

To not be taxed as a business, an entity he believed was a religion.

quote>

don't you dare to make jokes on the back of my beloved Ferengi brothers!

lol

sounds pretty much like a Ferengi xmas story to me...

I'd rather follow the religion of the 12 colonies of men than some old men who think they are magicians

ohhh, and what about this religion here?

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek As far as I can tell, the difference between a "religion" and "cult" is duration of existence. 

"Cults" are new; "religions" have been around for a while.  

and most (if not all) religions started out as "cults" (at least in some people's eyes).quote>

All religion are cults per se; for example can all Christian groups be classified as a cult of Christ, since Christ is considered the core in Christianity, and that is what you're supposed to worship. Thoe word is used of all forms of worship, perhaps most notably in "personality cult", which the worship of Kim-Jong Il in North Korea would be described as.

But as Hym says, if you're going to apply a distinction, it would normally exclude most forms of mainstream religion. Left would be such groups where it's founders / members are given additional revelations which worship is based on (like the Book of Mormon in contrast to mainstream Protestantism / Catholisism /orthodoxy) or groups with exlusive membership (members of the groups are required to stick to the group, break off ties with persons on th eoutside or the outside completely). Therefor modern cults are often those who focuses on something different than the mainstream religion, for example Christian groups which place their emphasis on the the Virgin Mary (which indeed would be a different cult than most Christians because of their focus of worship [a cult of Mary as opposed to the usual cults of Christ]).

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: krbe

All religion are cults per se; for example can all Christian groups be classified as a cult of Christ, since Christ is considered the core in Christianity, and that is what you're supposed to worship. quote>

Exactly!

But as Hym says, if you're going to apply a distinction, it would normally exclude most forms of mainstream religion. quote>

The distinction usually boils down to what is mainstream and what is not.  But who gets to decide what is mainstream?  That can vary greatly depending on time and place.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not disagreeing with you; in practical terms, it comes down to public opinion.  I just don't like that distinction because it seems like a consensus is necessary to validate someone's beliefs as "real".   If a believer truly believes, why should it matter what other people think about that person's beliefs?

(yeah, I know:  just because I don't like it that doesn't change the fact that is how it is.)

As we are seeing in Texas, the law can matter.  Those folks in ElDorado really believe in what they are doing.   (Most of) the rest of us think that they are committing statutory rape.   In practical terms, freedom of religion ends where the law begins.

. . .groups with exlusive membership (members of the groups are required to stick to the group, break off ties with persons on th eoutside or the outside completely). quote>

That is a distinction that makes some sense to me.   Cults live in isolation; religions do not.

Thing is, by that definition, the Amish are a cult and Scientologists are not and most people would rather think of it the other way around.

Originally posted by: GMT

ohhh, and what about this religion here?

quote>

A very interesting "religion".   Maybe we should start an email campaign for people to put FSM on the census forms next time the government asks.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

That is a distinction that makes some sense to me.   Cults live in isolation; religions do not.

Thing is, by that definition, the Amish are a cult and Scientologists are not and most people would rather think of it the other way around. quote>

That's a common distinction, but one has to consider wether physical isolation is the only criteria for isolation. Scientologists, the Witnesses of Jehova, etc. are also isolating themselves psychologically, by requiring that their members spend a lot of time inside or with the group, by making sure that the members know what the current policy is, etc., etc. This might be easier to accept if you accept the notion of personality cults, where e.g. the worship of Mao didn't happen in isloation, but rather that his followers spent a lot of time worshipping him and his endeavours, and also learning how to think right.

But it's right that it all comes down to your personal opinion; though you might utilise some objective definitions on how to classify groups.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: krbe

That's a common distinction, but one has to consider wether physical isolation is the only criteria for isolation. Scientologists, the Witnesses of Jehova, etc. are also isolating themselves psychologically, by requiring that their members spend a lot of time inside or with the group, by making sure that the members know what the current policy is, etc., etc. This might be easier to accept if you accept the notion of personality cults, where e.g. the worship of Mao didn't happen in isloation, but rather that his followers spent a lot of time worshipping him and his endeavours, and also learning how to think right. quote>

You're right; the isolation doesn't have to be physical.  or least least not permanently physical.  Moonies were often isolated for an initial period and then let loose to go earn money and most people consider Moonies to be a cult,  (But somehow it doesn't bother people that they own a mainstream Washington DC newspaper.  Link.  if you don't like that link, google "unification church"  "Washington times" and pick another one.)

But it's right that it all comes down to your personal opinion; though you might utilise some objective definitions on how to classify groups.quote>

I'm all for objective definitions.    It just bothers me that personal opinion comes into this distinction at all.  But there really is no good way around it.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek I'm all for objective definitions. It just bothers me that personal opinion comes into this distinction at all.  But there really is no good way around it.quote>

Well, that's the problem. You really can't come up with a good objective definition for religion since religion is, by nature, entirely subjective.

Which is why, if you ask me, the best solution is simply to not have the government try and define the term to make any distinction between what is or isn't a religion. Because there is no right answer there, only a million wrong ones. No matter how you try and define it, someone is going to vehemently disagree with you.

Really, the only question to ask is this: does the religious organization require some sort of "payment" from its members (whether it be monetary, material, or service), or are such contributions entirely voluntary? If it's voluntary, you've got a non-profit organization. If it's required, you have a business and they ought to be paying taxes just like any other business.

For instance, Scientology is  without question a business since there are "secrets" of it that you are not privy to unless you "donate" at least a certain sum of money. That's how they spin it, but it really looks to me like they're selling those secrets as a product.

On the other hand, Christian churches may pass around a collection basket, have aid requests, and whatnot,  but ultimately if you got to church every Sunday and never give them a penny they won't tell you to leave nor will they deny you any service that they would provide to someone who did donate. They are non-profit organizations.

As for making accommodations to people's religious beliefs in public facilities and in rules, the answer is simple: accommodate no one, but try and design things so as to not be unnecessarily restrictive. For instance, at the high school I went to, you weren't allowed to have anything on your head- hat, hood, headband, whatever. Exceptions were made for religious reasons, however. You were allowed to wear a yarmulke, or a hajab.

Now, while it bothers me that such exceptions were made (everyone needs to be held to the same standards, no one deserves special treatment for any reason, be it religion, race, gender, or whatever), my solution to the problem then that people's religious rights would be denied if they weren't would simply be to permit anyone to wear headgear. Then those people still could practice their religion, but accommodations would not be necessary for them to do so. It's fair to everyone.

You can't start making accomodations for people based on religion because then anyone can say "ooh, my religion says I can't follow that rule! Accommodate me or you're denying me my rights!" and there is no practical way to decide who's religion is legitimate cause for accommodation and who's is not.

I mean, come on, are we going to accommodate people who follow the ancient Mayan religion and believe in human sacrifice by allowing them to commit murder? Of course not.

That's why this line is worth repeating:

Freedom of religion ends where the law begins.quote>

Always true. No exceptions. The key is not making the law begin too soon....

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Well, that's the problem. You really can't come up with a good objective definition for religion since religion is, by nature, entirely subjective. quote>

I agree; that is the problem.

Which is why, if you ask me, the best solution is simply to not have the government try and define the term to make any distinction between what is or isn't a religion. Because there is no right answer there, only a million wrong ones. No matter how you try and define it, someone is going to vehemently disagree with you.

Really, the only question to ask is this: does the religious organization require some sort of "payment" from its members (whether it be monetary, material, or service), or are such contributions entirely voluntary? If it's voluntary, you've got a non-profit organization. If it's required, you have a business and they ought to be paying taxes just like any other business. quote>

I like that.   It's the most logical distinction I've heard of.   It won't fly politically since many mainstream religions consider tithing to be required and many have mandatory membership dues.   A House of Worship (of whatever flavor) is like a business the same way a family is:  there are bills to pay.  Mortgage / rent, electricity, water, and so forth.

As for making accommodations to people's religious beliefs in public facilities and in rules, the answer is simple: accommodate no one, but try and design things so as to not be unnecessarily restrictive. quote>

I like that too.  Not as easy as it sounds but still a good goal.

For instance, at the high school I went to, you weren't allowed to have anything on your head- hat, hood, headband, whatever. Exceptions were made for religious reasons, however. You were allowed to wear a yarmulke, or a hajab.

Now, while it bothers me that such exceptions were made (everyone needs to be held to the same standards, no one deserves special treatment for any reason, be it religion, race, gender, or whatever), my solution to the problem then that people's religious rights would be denied if they weren't would simply be to permit anyone to wear headgear. Then those people still could practice their religion, but accommodations would not be necessary for them to do so. It's fair to everyone. quote>

Except to the student who can't see the board because he is sitting behind someone with a huge freaking hat on. 

But that could be dealt with by having some rule saying no one can have headgear that extends more than x inches from their head.   (This was an issue back in the 60s and 70s since some students had hair that other students felt was blocking the view of the board.)

You can't start making accomodations for people based on religion because then anyone can say "ooh, my religion says I can't follow that rule! Accommodate me or you're denying me my rights!" and there is no practical way to decide who's religion is legitimate cause for accommodation and who's is not. quote>

All it takes is some kid claiming his religion requires rollerblading between classes.

I mean, come on, are we going to accommodate people who follow the ancient Mayan religion and believe in human sacrifice by allowing them to commit murder? Of course not.

That's why this line is worth repeating:

Freedom of religion ends where the law begins.quote>

Always true. No exceptions. The key is not making the law begin too soon....quote>

[belfastuniguy 18]

@Skigeek

Edit: and since when is Computer Science not a "real" university degree? or am I misunderstanding you there?quote>

I believe saltandsauce was displaying a view that some people and less than intelligent tabloids in the UK have that some degrees taught at university are what are termed 'Mickey-Mouse Degrees'.

Meaning they are useless, waste of time, resources, worthless or irrelevant. Things would include Media Studies, Performance studies, communication studies and things like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_degrees

[Haljackey 17,398]

Man I would have never expected such a discussion would develop from this article.

Here is a funny clip about Star Wars and Family Guy just to cool things down a bit:

">

Link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71Z_V_pksk&feature=related

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: haljackey Man I would have never expected such a discussion would develop from this article.

Here is a funny clip about Star Wars and Family Guy just to cool things down a bit:

">

Link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71Z_V_pksk&feature=related

quote>