atrahasis

SLD,
Are you tired of attacking your strawman now? Because I am interested in someone rationally addressing what I have written.

Toto

Is Insensity now revealed as Black Moses, or did one just forget to log off?

As far as SLD's position, it is very true that this law would never past muster in the US, and in fact the US government has some official position against it on the grounds of religious freedom (although I don't think the State Department is quite ready to classify France along with Iran on its little list of human rights offenders.)

But this law was aimed not only at Scientology, but also another cult that led mass suicide. Cults (and religion) are not as harmless as you seem to think.

SLD

I fail to see what strawman you are talking about? You are defending a law that clearly represses religious beliefs. Or perhaps I misunderstand your position and you aren't defending the law. But if you are then you should address how it is not a violation of human rights?

That a cult "might" at some point in time become mass suicidal a la Jim Jones is not reason enough to supress it - unless it is in imminent danger of carrying out that threat. You may not like what that cult stands for and its values, but I fail to see how suppressing its rights to proselytize is a "good" thing. What I always tell fundamentalists about freedom of religion and separation of church and state is to turn it around. If they want the state to support the church then it can (and indeed must) support my atheist church, or the Satanic church down the street. The same can be said of this law, it could be used to suppress atheists as well as religious cults one disagrees. It is far too vague a law to even know how it can be applied.

Do you have any legal training to discuss the impacts of this law?

SLD

Ted Hoffman

Toto Is Insensity now revealed as Black Moses, or did one just forget to log off?

Intensity My fault. I did not notice he was logged in. We work together and sometimes use the same computer and end up using wrong logins. At a time, Kirby accused me of using a sock puppet. <gets chilled at the horror of the memory of King arthur and the bloodbath that ensued his unmasking> It hasnt been such a big problem because we havent been particularly polemical or nasty (enough to use fake identities anyway).

Toto As far as SLD's position, it is very true that this law would never past muster in the US, and in fact the US government has some official position against it on the grounds of religious freedom (although I don't think the State Department is quite ready to classify France along with Iran on its little list of human rights offenders.)

Intensity The problem I had with SLD's position is that it did not address my arguments - he made it look like I was advocating for the annulment of religious freedom in the US (a fundy place), while I was addressing religious freedom in general. Why would a chap from the third world even dream of influencing the American constitution? I wouldn't dream of it.

SLD I fail to see what strawman you are talking about?

Intensity You made the following statements, which were an incorrect representation of what I had said earlier:
...This statute would never pass constitutional muster in the United States...[I never claimed it would]
...you get off saying that cults are designed to kill people...[I never claimed this either]
...cult has that as their creed to kill people...[This neither]

After misrepresenting my position and exposing your apalling ignorance of cult psychology and cult deaths/massacres <I noticed however that you mentioned Jim Jones later, though apologetically>, you proceeded to deliver a scathing, self-righteous tirade. So, I wanted to know when the spittle dries at the corners of your mouth, if you would be interested in rational debate.
I presume you are now, so we shall proceed. If you want examples of cults who have killed or planned to kill people, ask now and I will provide examples. You never heard of the sarin gas being released in subways, and in uganda where people were given cyanide killing almost a whole village? and in many other examples of doomsday cults? And even when a cult is not set up to kill people, they promote senselessness and a fundamentalist and apocalyptic way of looking at the world. ONLY religion can make one drive a plane into a building. It beats even drugs.

SLD You are defending a law that clearly represses religious beliefs

Intensity Yes I am. That is because human experience has proved that religious beliefs are as harmful as the delusions of a schizophrenic person or any other people suffering from mental illnesses. Religious beliefs are irrational and nonsensical. Unless you would like to prove otherwise. Religious rights legalize irrationality and senseless acts of murder, exploitation, mindless enslavement, self-immolation and depravity that are propagated in the name of service to inexistent deities.

SLD But if you are then you should address how it is not a violation of human rights?

Intensity Some human rights are clearly outdated and indefensible. There was a time when religion had a chocking grip on the minds of men. That time is gone and we have a better understanding of the world. We dont need religion to make us feel secure, to form a basis for morality and social norms. When we realize we dont need religion, we will also not need religious freedom. To entrench religious freedom in the laws of nations is to propagate an ancient practice fuelled by ignorance and fear. France has doen a good job of curtailing the spread of this cancer by illegalizing proselytizing and mind control - which are the main methods by which religion spreads and maintains its grip on the minds of men.

SLD That a cult "might" at some point in time become mass suicidal a la Jim Jones is not reason enough to supress it - unless it is in imminent danger of carrying out that threat

Intensity So we should not be bothered by bombs until they are about to explode? How many must die, and hiw many times before it will be right to suppress such cults? Please tell me. How will you know the danger is imminent? When the cyanide is in the mouth?

SLD You may not like what that cult stands for and its values, but I fail to see how suppressing its rights to proselytize is a "good" thing

Intensity Anything that suppresses the spread of a destructive force is, by definition, a good thing.

SLD What I always tell fundamentalists about freedom of religion and separation of church and state is to turn it around. If they want the state to support the church then it can (and indeed must) support my atheist church, or the Satanic church down the street.

Intensity Atheist church? Sheesh. Any FORM of religion is destructive and detrimental to the advancement of the human race. For the mere reason that religion does nor promote reason, but certain beliefs. The belief can be ANYTHING. And therein lies the destructive potential of religion.

SLD The same can be said of this law, it could be used to suppress atheists as well as religious cults one disagrees. It is far too vague a law to even know how it can be applied.

Intensity If atheism is proved to be destructive, it should be suppressed. Pure and simple. But that has not been done. UNTIL THEN atheism should not be suppressed in any way. Destructive activities and behaviour must be suppressed if we are to live in a free and peaceful society.
You are saying its too vague to even know how it can be applied? Read a littme more my friend. It is IN force as we speak. And not just on paper.

SLD Do you have any legal training to discuss the impacts of this law?

Intensity Do you? So now I need legal training in order to reason? I hope you are not readying yourself at clutching at ad-hominem straws because what you need to do is address my arguments. My training is of no relevance here. My arguments are.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Lets fill any present knowledge gaps.
EXAMPLES OF MURDER PERPETRATED BY CULTS AND RELIGION

Read <a href="http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/DeadlyApparition.html" target="_blank">here</a> about the educated ex-catholic man whose manipulative and devious mistress started having apparitions of virgin mary and excorcising cult members. They then proceeded to kill over 1000 people. What is it that rendered these 1000 and more people so easy to kill?
The writer says:
Of course the cult was based on the bible. It was called the cult of "THE RESTORATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" .

figures and manner of deaths?
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/03/24/uganda.cult.deaths.02/" target="_blank"> more from this CNN site </a>

There was also the "Heavens gate" cult that left 39 adults dead after taking a mixture of drugs and alcohol in San Diego california. Of course they were to find a new life in a spaceship that was behind the Halley Bopp comet and they had to leave their "containers" (ie bodies) behind.

MORE from <a href="http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970407d.htm" target="_blank">this VOA site </a>
Religion and Cults are designed to FLEECE PEOPLE and if possible, KILL them. This started straight from Peter and Paul in the bible. It is said about Lois Farakan, he of the Nation of Islam, who beleive in black Supremacy:
<a href="http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/n06.html" target="_blank"> Says this site </a>

As for scientology deaths, check <a href="http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/deaths/scientology-deaths.html" target="_blank">This site</a>


In its most harmless form, religion gives people a false sense of security and immortality and this of course swings to fear and guilt. Both of which are based on beliefs that are deceptive, irrational, anti-scientific and false, so from all fronts, RELIGION is bad and any good that might be gleaned from religion is far outweighed by the evil that has resulted of religion. And I havent mentioned Sept 11, and other massacres that have been possible due to religious indoctrination and conflicts.
That is why I support any law that suppresses religion.

Sushi X

As much as I'd like to say that France's idea is a good one, I can't bring myself to say it. I guess I think that even though my religion is different from someone else's doesn't mean that the other person is stupid or wrong. I think that it's perfectly alright to practice faith, just keep it out of my faith.

And the French wonder why everyone makes fun of them.

ohwilleke

This is not my source, but is the first link I found on the Internet and is in accord with what I heard when I was studying French from my French teacher and occassional newspaper articles that I have seen. It also reflects American sentiment towards such a law. I am also aware of similar laws from an Icelandic woman and in Germany.

<a href="http://cartalk.cars.com/Mail/Letters/01-31-97/10.html" target="_blank">http://cartalk.cars.com/Mail/Letters/01-31-97/10.html</a>

Agreed. Still working on a response to your other comments in this regard.

This link from the Christian Science Monitor (a generally balanced news source despite its Christian moniker and association with a weird cult) is an example of my sources on the state of libel laws in France and Europe generally.

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/14/p7s2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/14/p7s2.htm</a>

Simply put, it is virtually impossible to bring a libel suit against a public figure or media outlet in the United States, the country has a certain amount of pride over the protection we give to Nazis and racists who want to speak their minds, and we have constitutionally protected rights to burn our own flag.

This is a good example of the difference between such laws in the U.S. and in France. In the U.S. which focuses on the private-public distinction, the freedom of religion would be viewed as protecting the right of an Islamic female student to wear her vail in school. In France, as I understand it, in that case, there were concerns that permitting her to wear her veil in school was a violation of the seperation of church and state. (Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood that case).

Do you know of such a site, and more importantly, someplace that explains how the no doubt simple words have been applied in practice?

I'm actually referring to American laws that allow organizations to be classified as terrorist organizations (having their funds frozen and leaders subject to immigration restrictions) and criminal organizations (leadership in which is a crime called racketeering in the U.S. which has its source in the fight against organized crime in the U.S.). I'm suggesting that the French anti-cult law isn't so different from these American laws targeted at organizations.

I agree, but don't necessarily think it is a good reflection on France. One of my personal theories is that the broad rights given under the U.S. First Amendment to minority religious groups and minority speech, a long tradition as a country of immigrants without a decisively dominant culture, and the related long tradition of uninterrupted elections under a single regime with decentralized government partially explains the relative lack of terrorism in U.S. history.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

Sabine Grant

INTENSITY : I define as fanaticism any ideology which pertains to suppress er erradicate the right for any other ideology to exist. Fanaticism has been demonstrated throughout history. Whether it was religious fanaticism or political fanaticism. It led to murderous actions as the fanatic ideology tried to impose their thinking by force onto others. Even if you succeeded in erradicating the right for people to practice religion, you would not be able to prevent faith.People would still pray in their hearts and thoughts. They would still worship their god no matter what. You cannot tame the human spirit even in a jail.

Assuming that all religious individuals abide to all the fanatic ideology you have quoted is prejudicial on your part.

That you consider any religious idelogy as a great evil which does not contribute to the betterment of humanity is your right to do so.( though all your examples seem to point to religions branching from judeo christianism....am I to assume that your statement simply left out examples from all religions or are you passing the message that only judeo christianism is the great evil?) But the minute you advocate suppressing the right for any individual to think differently than you do, you have joined the ranks of dictators and oppressors of any kind.

You are giving the impression here that cults are prohibited in France. You are wrong. The LDS Church still has a very active community in Antibes which is only a few miles away from my hometown. Now unless my relatives and friends are victims of hallucinations, Mormons are still sighted in the streets of Cannes ridind their bicycle and wearing their traditional black pants, white shirts and tie.

The anti cult law you refer to applies to any cult which engages into any criminal activity and tax evasion as well as misuse of funds have been the main propeller for the legislation. That the Government had to justify the legislation by defining cults as a tool to manipulate people's minds is understandable. I cannot fathom the number of specifics of french law legislation violations they would have to put in print. If it is proven that any individual has been led to violate any french law under the manipulation of any religious group, the anti cult legislation comes in effect.

One key prase in the French constitution reads " La Liberte consiste a faire ce qui ne nuit pas a autrui ". We have defined freedom with a limitation when it comes to endangering others. the US does not present the same limitation when people are enabled to shoot one another in the streets under the pretext that they have the right to bear arms. When groups like Arian Nations can endoctrinate invididuals in anti semiticism and even display nazy symbols in their training camps. Where the Confederate Flag which evocates a time of intense oppression and now declared illegal activity over one particular ethnic group can fly freely in many southern locations.

I will reply to other comments addressed to me later..... time to go to work. You all have a good day

Sabine Grant

Just to clarify again, the intent of the French Government in passing an anti cult legislation is to prevent any criminal activity (defined by the French Penal code) that can be induced to cult members by mind manipulation and the victimisation of their members. Same process in the US with Gun Legislation to protect citizens. That does not mean that the Supreme Court is willing to alterate the US Constitution and forbid the right to bear arms.The intent was never to suppress or restrict the freedom of religion in France. That is a far cry from the claim made earlier that France is prohibiting cults and religion and that supporters of the suppression of the freedom of religion can now quote France as their champion.

These measures are set in place to protect french citizens not to erradicate religion and cults. I cannot think of any members of the present French administration from our President to our Garde Des Sceaux (Department of Justice)who has any belief similar to yours Intensity. I think maybe it would help you to pack a bag and live in France for at least 6 months, immersed in both the language and the culture, including the people... then maybe you can have some degree of authenticity with me. You would have added water to your ideological well if you presented China as a supporter of repressing any religion. But would you live in China?

OHWILEKE : thank you for your reply. I will tell you that french citizens are not required to have a catholic connotation in their first names. As a matter of fact in the last 20 years, anglo saxon names have become very popular such as Melissa, Amanda, Bruce,Audrey etc...arabs who are french citizens have arabic names such as Ali,Rashid,Yasmina,Raouf, Abdul etc. If you travel South you will find Provencal names such as Mireille, Marius, Marcel etc...in Bretagne,( Britany) celtic names are predominant such as Yannick, Cedric. Even the Pays Basque boasts spanish origine names.
Now... in the ex French colonies in Africa it was very common to find catholic names as many children were schooled in catholic missions or instructed by catholic teachers. Some even were named after French historical characters such as Vercingetorix or Roland or even Napoleon. Our cook in Madagascar was named Jean Baptiste since the island had a majority of catholics before its independence. I am not claiming that your teacher made it up but quite often I have had long debates with my daughter's french teachers in American schools who were projecting myths rather than the cultural reality of France. It even transpires in the american language.... French Fries.. when everyone un Europe will tell you that Belgium has the copyright for a real "frite" not France. French Dressing....I had never tasted that interesting creamy dressing until I ordered it in the US expecting to find a good old vinaigrette on my salad. French toast....though the origine may come from the French disliking to throw away bread and my grand mother would brush egg yolk on old bread and bake it in the oven ( so I will give that one the benefit of the doubt)
French kiss..ah ah ah! as if the rest of the world had not been tongue kissing for centuries!

I think what may have happened to your teacher is some confusion to the fact that we refer to "first name" when asked our identity as"nom de bapteme" and last name as "nom de famille". Baptism name comes from most french having their baby baptized by a catholic priest shortly after birth as a tradition rather than by religious conviction. We have a big celebration including a feast and presents offered to the baby. I can insure you that babies are baptized every day with names that have nothing to do with any catholic connotation. Or even Biblical names.French calendars do have a celebration for a "nom de bapteme" for each day of the year.. so all the Catherines are celebrated or all the Maries and those are definitly named after a catholic saint usualy someone who was cannonised at some point of time by the Vatican.

Now for the Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunatly I cannot give you a specific site but I suggest you go to Googles and search for French Constitution so you can be informed on the history of the document and its roots with La Declaration Des Droits Humains.I will let you draw your own conclusions as to whether or not the document which grants to any french citizen the defined freedom I mentionned earlier(which does not endanger others)deserves the title of a preserver of human rights.

Indeed France was divided on the case of the muslim female student.I personaly think that it was more an attack against arabs in general and the growing influence of islam than a matter of her violating the Separation of Church and State. For that matter teachers wear their little cross on a neckless and noone ever raised" hell" about it. I have no problem with anyone anywhere keeping their religious identity. I do not get offended by religious symbols. They are part of the individuality of a person.
Understand please that in general the French are quite anti arab...and the majority of arabs in France are muslims. That our government keeps a pro palestinian stand is mostly to not aggravate the potential for further islamic terrorism on the French ground... and ze oil...you bet! But Separation of Church and State is very applied in general especialy in schools. There is no religious instruction allowed in any schools. Even the private high school I attended never even dared to present any religious material.And the headmaster was a fervent catholic. But I never even saw the shadow of the Ten Commandments on any wall. We did not even have a Christmas tree! (even though it is a secular symbol).

To respond to the initial question of Intensity on " what do you think of the law", I have no problem with it since it is a preventive measure which is very well defined and very specific. It does not at all forbid cults. It regulates how they are to behave in the French Society. It does not restrict the freedom of any individual to believe. It will prevent tragedies.

Ted Hoffman

Sabine :. Even if you succeeded in erradicating the right for people to practice religion, you would not be able to prevent faith.People would still pray in their hearts and thoughts. They would still worship their god no matter what. You cannot tame the human spirit even in a jail.

Intensity : Its good enough to ban proselytizing. The fact that something cannot be banned does not justify its propagation. You cant stop people comitting suicide, that does not mean suicide should be encouraged.

Sabine : Assuming that all religious individuals abide to all the fanatic ideology you have quoted is prejudicial on your part.

Intensity : I did not assume anything. State what I said and address it as I said it. Don't make assumptions.

Sabine : That you consider any religious idelogy as a great evil which does not contribute to the betterment of humanity is your right to do so.

Intensity : Now Sabine, how is that helpful to this discussion?

Sabine : .( though all your examples seem to point to religions branching from judeo christianism....am I to assume that your statement simply left out examples from all religions or are you passing the message that only judeo christianism is the great evil?)

Intensity : It is greatest evil because its most pervasive. Islam follows it. All other sects are just offshoots from the great religions.

Sabine : But the minute you advocate suppressing the right for any individual to think differently than you do, you have joined the ranks of dictators and oppressors of any kind.

Intensity : The problem is that they are not thinking. They are beleiving and acting on those beliefs. And that is what religion teaches: to have faith in a deity - not the faculty of reason.

Sabine : You are giving the impression here that cults are prohibited in France. You are wrong.

Intensity : I have stated clearly what I meant. Why dont you address what I write instead of the impression I give and what I assume?
Sabine : The LDS Church still has a very active community in Antibes which is only a few miles away from my hometown. Now unless my relatives and friends are victims of hallucinations, Mormons are still sighted in the streets of Cannes ridind their bicycle and wearing their traditional black pants, white shirts and tie.

Intensity : Read again, please.

Sabine : Just to clarify again, the intent of the French Government in passing an anti cult legislation is ...

Intensity : Their intent is irrelevant. Lets stick to facts please. Lets look at what the law says, not what intentions are.

Sabine : These measures are set in place to protect french citizens not to erradicate religion and cults.

Intensity : Intent, intent...Oh God. You are using vague words (these measures) and telling us about intents. Please.

Sabine : I cannot think of any members of the present French administration from our President to our Garde Des Sceaux (Department of Justice)who has any belief similar to yours Intensity.

Intensity : If you cant think, thats proof that you cant think. Not proof of anything else. You have talked to all of them in private and known them intimately? If not, how do you expect anyone to rely on your failure to think? Jesus!

Sabine : I think maybe it would help you to pack a bag and live in France for at least 6 months, immersed in both the language and the culture, including the people... then maybe you can have some degree of authenticity with me.

Intensity : Okay, so France has people who think the same thoughts like Sabine.
What they think is irrelevant. What is of relevance is what the law says.

Sabine : You would have added water to your ideological well if you presented China as a supporter of repressing any religion. But would you live in China?

Intensity : Irrelevant.