Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 10-07-2002, 03:56 AM

I saw it in Turning Point yesterday. I was so happy about it. Religion and all cults should be banned. Mankind has lost enough in the name of religion.
What do you guys think about the law?

Daggah · 10-07-2002, 05:43 AM

I don't know about the law, but anyone who thinks all religions should be banned is a serious danger to the principles of freedom.

ohwilleke · 10-07-2002, 05:58 AM

I'm not ready to say that the American approach is perfect. Cult classification in France basically flows from a history of exploiting people. If you can have criminal organizations, and terrorist organizations, why not dangerous cults.

Of course, there are other parts of French intellectual and religious freedom laws that I don't like. Catholicism (as a history of government brutal repression of other beliefs), is so vested in the culture that French names are (or at least were until recently) required to have Catholic connotations. People who say unpleasant things about people in power are routinely sued for libel. And, while the European Convention on Human Rights does protect freedom of religion, like most European countries -- free exercise (if you're not an exploitive cult) rather than freedom from an established religion, is the rule.

Ted Hoffman · 10-07-2002, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
I don't know about the law, but anyone who thinks all religions should be banned is a serious danger to the principles of freedom.

Of course, of course. Whoever banned proselytizing is dangerous to the principles of freedom.

Toto · 10-07-2002, 07:08 AM

I didn't see Turning Point, but you might be interested in this long thread from a year ago on the difference between the French and American views of separation of church and state:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000223&p=" target="_blank">The French Model of Church-State Separation</a>

There are those who think that atheists owe our own freedom from religion to the same spirit that gives weird religious cults the right to their own strange practices.

Sabine Grant · 10-07-2002, 05:30 PM

Ohwilleke : I am from Cannes, French Riviera and I wonder where you gathered the information pertaining to how we acquire our first names. Catholicism is the predominant religion however islam rates second. Catholicism does not have the influence you seem to perceive. And no I am not a catholic. Our press is very free and I have never heard of a newspaper for example " Le Canard Enchaine " which is a political and caricatural paper, which was sued for libel. I am really surprised with your comments.
We have one of the most consistent separation of Church and State Legislation. A few years ago, the country divided over the issue of whether or not it was a violation of the separation Clause for an islamic female student to wear her veil in school.
Before you continue to retain a perception which I believe is misguided, I suggest you find a translation of the Declaration Des Droits de L'Homme ( Declaration of Human Rights ) a French document which has inspired our constitution. I am not sure to which terrorist groups you refer. Please share your source of information. My country has been suffering of terrorist attacks for far longer than the US has. As a result, the government has become very vigilant in counter terrorist measures. Not just extremist islamic groups but also autonomist groups from Corsica and The Pays Basque have been neutralized in the last 3 years.

Intensity.... there are no such law in France which prohibits religion. Some cults have been prohibited because they simply broke laws which legislate taxes etc....or their members have commited criminal offences. It was not because they are classified as cults.
The same process has taken place in Germany with the Church of Scientology.
French people are free to practice their religion as you do in the US. And I too feel that it is a very dangerous statement to promote the erradication of the freedom of religion. I qualify such a statement as fanaticism. Faith is a personal choice as well as the choice to not have any faith. It is NEVER to be suppressed.

6 millions of human beings were murdered not so long ago by a regime which believed that they had no right to exist because of both their faith and race.

As to the person who is so aggravated by the over zealous religious individual who comes to your door with his 10 pounds Bible, you have the freedom to not open your door or simply decline any conversation. Your laws in the Us do protect you from being forced into any religious activity. You can avoid what you consider to be polluting to your mind. Nothing justifies the idea of erradicating the freedom of religion.
You have more freedom in the US than in any country I have lived. From Africa to Europe. Your constitution gives you the opportunity to worship or not worship. To pray or not pray. To attend a church, a temple ,a synagog, or mosquee or not attend any.

Ted Hoffman · 10-08-2002, 12:54 AM

Thanks Toto for thaat very informative and balanced thread. I found it very insightful.
I have also read more on this French anti-cult law. And I regret that I am bringing this up so late in the day.
It is quite a mild law because it doesn't ban religion per se. Its basically against mental manipulation: it says that anyone found to cause another "a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from serious and repeated pressures or techniques designed to alter judgement faces five years imprisonment,". Of course it also illegalizes proselytizing.
Some have argued that it represents a return of the French Revolution, which is claimed to have aimed at eradicating religion and creating a purely secular society.

People have protested against similar laws arguing thet such a law infringes in human rights like freedom of worship. And theirs is a legitimate concern - so far.

But I have been thinking: do we really need freedom of worship? does freedom of worship help humanity? What would it take for us to decide its NOT a necessary human right?

Why did humans decide to include religious freedom as a fundamental human right? When did they enshrine this right as a fundamental one? against what background was this right created? were there competing religious movements? what was the level of advancement of science at the time? why is it important to allow humans to worship depending of the denomination of their choice? Does religious freedom help humanity in its march towards a disease-free, productive(to combat hunger) and peaceful society? Do religious groups help to unite or polarise humanity? Do we need religious freedom?

We live in a practical world and any educated religious person will admit that religion offers NO practical solutions to ANY problems that society comes accross. If there is ANY problem that religion solves, I would like to know about it. What then is religion? is it like a dancing chair that keeps us busy but takes us nowhere? What do we intend to accomplish by having religious freedom? uphold human dignity by protecting individual choice?

I really dont mind the therapeutic effect that the religious masses feel after crying their hearts out, flinging themselves at the ground (sometimes indecently) in the name of religious experience, helping those in distress in the name of pleasing some invisible father in heaven, the sense of belonging and acceptance religionists get, and the comfort people get from the beleif that they will be rewarded with life for being good, that this life is not all etc

But religion has done more harm than good. It has retarded scientific progress (stem cell research, teaching that death is inevitable etc), brought death (inquisitions, sept 11 etc), brought suffering (fasting, old people dying during stampedes in crowded places in the name of pilgrimages), it has made humans lend themselves to mind numbing exploitation (doomsday cults, offerings /tithing etc), it has broken families and societies (sex cults and closed-minded approach to conflicts IRA etc) and it is yet to bring mankind more suffering and bloodshed.

In retarding scientific progress, it promotes human suffering, cures for diseases take longer to find as people are sold unworkable religious solutions like celibacy in dealing with aids and death is sold as the inevitable. Religious groups have been known to actively combat science so as to maintain their stronghold on the minds of men, they get the best minds and educate them to PHd level (Behe, Dmebski etc) only to use them to combat science and scientific concepts (science is even referred to as scientism!). Blood donation is considered sinful by some religious groups, some people have ended up regarding themselves as Gods chosen and therefore more important than others resulting in conflicts and so on.

Do we really need a right to protect this animal called religion? For what?

Ted Hoffman · 10-08-2002, 03:32 AM

Sabine Intensity.... there are no such law in France which prohibits religion. Some cults have been prohibited because they simply broke laws which legislate taxes etc....or their members have commited criminal offences. It was not because they are classified as cults.

Intensity Did they commit the crimes because they were cults? If not, why create a law that directly acts on cults and cult-based activities as opposed to creating a law that addresses the specific crimes (if the crime was taxation as you claim, arent there tax laws?)
What has proselytizing got to do with paying taxes?
I think you have grossly misrepresented the anti-cult law here by diminishing its basis to tax evasion.

Sabine And I too feel that it is a very dangerous statement to promote the erradication of the freedom of religion. I qualify such a statement as fanaticism.

Intensity Is it also fanatical to ban euthanasia ? You have provided no basis to judge such statements as fanatical. And your qualification seems arbitrary and emotive. No sound method. Please explain your reasons for qualifying my statements as fanatical.

Sabine Faith is a personal choice as well as the choice to not have any faith. It is NEVER to be suppressed.

Intensity Suicide is also a personal and private choice one can choose to commit suicide or to stay alive. Should we therefore refrain from suppressing suicide?

Sabine As to the person who is so aggravated by the over zealous religious individual who comes to your door with his 10 pounds Bible, you have the freedom to not open your door or simply decline any conversation.

Intensity Well, the French govt went further than telling us to keep our doors locked as they are being thumped didn't it?.

Creating a disturbance, harassing people and being a nuisance should be criminalised if we desire a peaceful and free society. To atheists for example, they cause aggravation and annoyance. Spread of unwarranted fear (of hell, eternal punishment), falsehoods and con-blackmail (God loves you and wants you to give 10% of your earnings if you love him too) and baseless beleifs is something our children are to be actively protected from.

The thing is that they are intruding/ trespassing private property to promote their religious agendas.

Sabine ...Nothing justifies the idea of erradicating the freedom of religion.

Intensity Read my earlier post for some of the the pros and cons of religion. I am sure others can provide more trenchant examples of the evil that religion is.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Ted Hoffman · 10-08-2002, 05:35 AM

Before Sabine Grant misrepresents this any further, let me underline what the anti-cult law states:

<a href="http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html" target="_blank">this site</a> provides the background, dates and definitions of terms (like "cult" etc).
<a href="http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/wright.htm" target="_blank">this site </a> says:

Quote:

Article One provides for the dissolution of an organization if its activities 1)"have the goal or effect to create or to exploit the state of mental or physical dependence of people who are participating in its activities," and 2) infringe on "human rights and fundamental liberties," 3) in circumstances where the organization or its leaders (including de facto leaders) have been convicted on more than one occasion for certain offenses. The list of offenses is quite broad and does not require that the convictions involve acts committed on behalf of the organization. These include, but are not limited to, the following :

* Causing a traffic accident resulting in bodily injury

* Publishing an edited recording made with the spoken words or image of a person without his or her consent

* Violating data protection laws by failing to destroy address files on ex- parishioners when they leave a religious group

* Breaching a professional secret

* Recommending vitamins or other natural health measures which could be characterized as illegal practice of medicine

* Invasion of privacy by procuring, recording or disclosing, without the author's consent, confidential remarks or remarks made in private, or by procuring or, recording or disclosing the image of a person in a private place without his or consent

Article One also facilitates an expedited dissolution by requiring proceedings at a designated time and date in the court of first instance, imposing a fifteen-day limit for entering an appeal, and establishing procedures for an expedited appeal. Dissolution is imposed for a five year period. After a second instance, the sect may be legally banned.

Articles Two through Five create corporate criminal liability for organizations which meet conditions of dissolution contained in Article One (in instances where only individual liability previously existed). In effect, it provides a separate means, other than dissolution, for a court to prohibit sect activities.

Article Six prohibits any person from participating in the reconstitution of a dissolved organization. It imposes criminal penalties of up to three years imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 francs for the first offense, and up to five years imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 francs for a second offense.

....

Article Eight prohibits sects from opening missions or recruiting new converts near schools, as well as hospitals or retirement homes. It imposes criminal penalties of two years imprisonment and a fine of 200,000 francs. An organization deemed to be a "sectarian group," then, may be denied building permits or licenses by the cities in violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article Nine prohibits "promotion of propaganda intended for young people" by an organization covered by Article One.

Articles Ten and Eleven create a new crime of "mental manipulation" which is punishable by a fine of 500,000 francs and five years imprisonment. The crime of mental manipulation is predicated on "a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from heavy or repeated pressure on a vulnerable person, or use of techniques likely to alter his judgement, (or) to induce in him behavior prejudicial to his interests." The law defines as "vulnerable," minorities, the elderly, anyone suffering from a long-term or debilitating illness, or persons considered after medical examination to be "in a state of physical or psychological subjection." The basis for such a medical determination is not made clear in the new law.

Freedom demands responsibility. If religion and cults are designed to exploit people, kill them and brainwash them, such people have no right to demand freedom of religion anymore than a suicidal person can demand freedom of death.

SLD · 10-11-2002, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
Before Sabine Grant misrepresents this any further, let me underline what the anti-cult law states:

<a href="http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html" target="_blank">this site</a> provides the background, dates and definitions of terms (like "cult" etc).
<a href="http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/wright.htm" target="_blank">this site </a> says:

Freedom demands responsibility. If religion and cults are designed to exploit people, kill them and brainwash them, such people have no right to demand freedom of religion anymore than a suicidal person can demand freedom of death.

What in the world are you talking about? This statute would never pass constitutional muster in the United States. It is void for vagueness, and a clear violation of the rights of speech and religion. How could anyone on this board defend such a stupid and oppressive law. And where do you get off saying that cults are designed to kill people? What cult has that as their creed to kill people? I think scientologists are nuts and some seem to have engaged in criminal activity, but I don't think that they advocate murder as a matter of policy. Nor does any cult that I know of. Remember such a law could be used to suppress atheists as well as cults.

The responsibility that freedom demands is not to shut your trap when you have controversial beliefs but in fact to speak out. The responsibility that freedom demands is also that responsibility in serving in the defense of those freedoms when they are under attack.

10-07-2002, 03:56 AM	#1
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	France's Anti-cult Law I saw it in Turning Point yesterday. I was so happy about it. Religion and all cults should be banned. Mankind has lost enough in the name of religion. What do you guys think about the law?

10-08-2002, 03:32 AM	#8
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Sabine Intensity.... there are no such law in France which prohibits religion. Some cults have been prohibited because they simply broke laws which legislate taxes etc....or their members have commited criminal offences. It was not because they are classified as cults. Intensity Did they commit the crimes because they were cults? If not, why create a law that directly acts on cults and cult-based activities as opposed to creating a law that addresses the specific crimes (if the crime was taxation as you claim, arent there tax laws?) What has proselytizing got to do with paying taxes? I think you have grossly misrepresented the anti-cult law here by diminishing its basis to tax evasion. Sabine And I too feel that it is a very dangerous statement to promote the erradication of the freedom of religion. I qualify such a statement as fanaticism. Intensity Is it also fanatical to ban euthanasia ? You have provided no basis to judge such statements as fanatical. And your qualification seems arbitrary and emotive. No sound method. Please explain your reasons for qualifying my statements as fanatical. Sabine Faith is a personal choice as well as the choice to not have any faith. It is NEVER to be suppressed. Intensity Suicide is also a personal and private choice one can choose to commit suicide or to stay alive. Should we therefore refrain from suppressing suicide? Sabine As to the person who is so aggravated by the over zealous religious individual who comes to your door with his 10 pounds Bible, you have the freedom to not open your door or simply decline any conversation. Intensity Well, the French govt went further than telling us to keep our doors locked as they are being thumped didn't it?. Creating a disturbance, harassing people and being a nuisance should be criminalised if we desire a peaceful and free society. To atheists for example, they cause aggravation and annoyance. Spread of unwarranted fear (of hell, eternal punishment), falsehoods and con-blackmail (God loves you and wants you to give 10% of your earnings if you love him too) and baseless beleifs is something our children are to be actively protected from. The thing is that they are intruding/ trespassing private property to promote their religious agendas. Sabine ...Nothing justifies the idea of erradicating the freedom of religion. Intensity Read my earlier post for some of the the pros and cons of religion. I am sure others can provide more trenchant examples of the evil that religion is. [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2002, 05:43 AM	#2
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	I don't know about the law, but anyone who thinks all religions should be banned is a serious danger to the principles of freedom.

10-07-2002, 05:58 AM	#3
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	I'm not ready to say that the American approach is perfect. Cult classification in France basically flows from a history of exploiting people. If you can have criminal organizations, and terrorist organizations, why not dangerous cults. Of course, there are other parts of French intellectual and religious freedom laws that I don't like. Catholicism (as a history of government brutal repression of other beliefs), is so vested in the culture that French names are (or at least were until recently) required to have Catholic connotations. People who say unpleasant things about people in power are routinely sued for libel. And, while the European Convention on Human Rights does protect freedom of religion, like most European countries -- free exercise (if you're not an exploitive cult) rather than freedom from an established religion, is the rule.

10-07-2002, 07:08 AM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I didn't see Turning Point, but you might be interested in this long thread from a year ago on the difference between the French and American views of separation of church and state: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000223&p=" target="_blank">The French Model of Church-State Separation</a> There are those who think that atheists owe our own freedom from religion to the same spirit that gives weird religious cults the right to their own strange practices.

10-07-2002, 05:30 PM	#6
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Ohwilleke : I am from Cannes, French Riviera and I wonder where you gathered the information pertaining to how we acquire our first names. Catholicism is the predominant religion however islam rates second. Catholicism does not have the influence you seem to perceive. And no I am not a catholic. Our press is very free and I have never heard of a newspaper for example " Le Canard Enchaine " which is a political and caricatural paper, which was sued for libel. I am really surprised with your comments. We have one of the most consistent separation of Church and State Legislation. A few years ago, the country divided over the issue of whether or not it was a violation of the separation Clause for an islamic female student to wear her veil in school. Before you continue to retain a perception which I believe is misguided, I suggest you find a translation of the Declaration Des Droits de L'Homme ( Declaration of Human Rights ) a French document which has inspired our constitution. I am not sure to which terrorist groups you refer. Please share your source of information. My country has been suffering of terrorist attacks for far longer than the US has. As a result, the government has become very vigilant in counter terrorist measures. Not just extremist islamic groups but also autonomist groups from Corsica and The Pays Basque have been neutralized in the last 3 years. Intensity.... there are no such law in France which prohibits religion. Some cults have been prohibited because they simply broke laws which legislate taxes etc....or their members have commited criminal offences. It was not because they are classified as cults. The same process has taken place in Germany with the Church of Scientology. French people are free to practice their religion as you do in the US. And I too feel that it is a very dangerous statement to promote the erradication of the freedom of religion. I qualify such a statement as fanaticism. Faith is a personal choice as well as the choice to not have any faith. It is NEVER to be suppressed. 6 millions of human beings were murdered not so long ago by a regime which believed that they had no right to exist because of both their faith and race. As to the person who is so aggravated by the over zealous religious individual who comes to your door with his 10 pounds Bible, you have the freedom to not open your door or simply decline any conversation. Your laws in the Us do protect you from being forced into any religious activity. You can avoid what you consider to be polluting to your mind. Nothing justifies the idea of erradicating the freedom of religion. You have more freedom in the US than in any country I have lived. From Africa to Europe. Your constitution gives you the opportunity to worship or not worship. To pray or not pray. To attend a church, a temple ,a synagog, or mosquee or not attend any.

10-08-2002, 12:54 AM	#7
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Thanks Toto for thaat very informative and balanced thread. I found it very insightful. I have also read more on this French anti-cult law. And I regret that I am bringing this up so late in the day. It is quite a mild law because it doesn't ban religion per se. Its basically against mental manipulation: it says that anyone found to cause another "a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from serious and repeated pressures or techniques designed to alter judgement faces five years imprisonment,". Of course it also illegalizes proselytizing. Some have argued that it represents a return of the French Revolution, which is claimed to have aimed at eradicating religion and creating a purely secular society. People have protested against similar laws arguing thet such a law infringes in human rights like freedom of worship. And theirs is a legitimate concern - so far. But I have been thinking: do we really need freedom of worship? does freedom of worship help humanity? What would it take for us to decide its NOT a necessary human right? Why did humans decide to include religious freedom as a fundamental human right? When did they enshrine this right as a fundamental one? against what background was this right created? were there competing religious movements? what was the level of advancement of science at the time? why is it important to allow humans to worship depending of the denomination of their choice? Does religious freedom help humanity in its march towards a disease-free, productive(to combat hunger) and peaceful society? Do religious groups help to unite or polarise humanity? Do we need religious freedom? We live in a practical world and any educated religious person will admit that religion offers NO practical solutions to ANY problems that society comes accross. If there is ANY problem that religion solves, I would like to know about it. What then is religion? is it like a dancing chair that keeps us busy but takes us nowhere? What do we intend to accomplish by having religious freedom? uphold human dignity by protecting individual choice? I really dont mind the therapeutic effect that the religious masses feel after crying their hearts out, flinging themselves at the ground (sometimes indecently) in the name of religious experience, helping those in distress in the name of pleasing some invisible father in heaven, the sense of belonging and acceptance religionists get, and the comfort people get from the beleif that they will be rewarded with life for being good, that this life is not all etc But religion has done more harm than good. It has retarded scientific progress (stem cell research, teaching that death is inevitable etc), brought death (inquisitions, sept 11 etc), brought suffering (fasting, old people dying during stampedes in crowded places in the name of pilgrimages), it has made humans lend themselves to mind numbing exploitation (doomsday cults, offerings /tithing etc), it has broken families and societies (sex cults and closed-minded approach to conflicts IRA etc) and it is yet to bring mankind more suffering and bloodshed. In retarding scientific progress, it promotes human suffering, cures for diseases take longer to find as people are sold unworkable religious solutions like celibacy in dealing with aids and death is sold as the inevitable. Religious groups have been known to actively combat science so as to maintain their stronghold on the minds of men, they get the best minds and educate them to PHd level (Behe, Dmebski etc) only to use them to combat science and scientific concepts (science is even referred to as scientism!). Blood donation is considered sinful by some religious groups, some people have ended up regarding themselves as Gods chosen and therefore more important than others resulting in conflicts and so on. Do we really need a right to protect this animal called religion? For what?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.