Primal

Fighting opression with opression I see. ANy attempt to ban religion is liable to backfire and do more harm then good. I also think such an attempt violates secular values, like that of free conscience.

Sabine Grant

INTENSITY: you have an obsessive need to be right. That is another form of fanaticism.

I simply shared facts and realities from my culture so that one person would not use this forum to misguide other individuals into his subjective interpretation of a legislation. You wanted to add water to your well Intensity but you went to the wrong well.

At this point I have nothing more to add. Let your audience draw their own conclusion rather than manipulate their minds at all cost.

You all have une bonne journee.

Ted Hoffman

Sabine: you have an obsessive need to be right. That is another form of fanaticism.

Intensity: An obsession is an irrational, compulsive emotion. You have just insulted me. Why do you feel compelled to resort to ad hominems?

Sabine: I simply shared facts and realities from my culture so that one person would not use this forum to misguide other individuals into his subjective interpretation of a legislation

Intensity: You did not shared ANY facts. You shared your opinions and thoughts concerning what you think I assumes and what impressions I was giving. You did not address what I wrote. Just what you imagined I was thinking.

Sabine: You wanted to add water to your well Intensity but you went to the wrong well.

Intensity: So you say dear Sabine, so you say.

Sabine: You all have une bonne journee.

Intensity Merci cher Sabine. I will be travelling demain pour une vacance a la cote de Mombasa (there was a time I wanted to understand French forgive me if I have comitted a genocide of French syntax and grammar)

Sabine Grant

Cher Intensity... bonnes vacances a Mombassa. My father traveled to Kenya often but I did not. I miss l'Afrique though. Senegal was the best times of my childhood. A tres bientot.

Buffman

ohwilleke

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

Here's the first part of your query.

<a href="http://www.hightowertrail.com/Declaration.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hightowertrail.com/Declaration.htm</a>

(I have several other references obtained during my search to validate an alleged Lafayette quote.)

S.G. & Intensity

I find myself in somewhat of a quandry. I am just arrogant enough to believe that I can appreciate and understand each viewpoint. For someone who prides himself on seeking accurate facts, that has culminated in my becoming frustrated. Then I examine the legally considered comments of SLD and ohwilleke and become even more frustrated. In my very humble, and totally unqualified, opinion on this current dialogue, I think you are all speaking with accurate facts, as well as conditioned falsehooods, on your side.

In a rather strange sense, I feel as though I have been carried back in time and am listening to the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 Philadelphia. How can humans design a government that represents, and treats with fairness and justice, all the individual expressions of conscience in a country as diversified as this...and still govern effectively and efficiently?

Though the topic is France's Anti-cult Law, I believe that the real topic is "How do humans come to believe what/as they do?" Currently, I do not see that we have all the factually accurate answers to that question. We do have many more answers than we did in 1787. However, those answers still can not account for why approximately 80% of humanity seeks and finds meaning, purpose and solice in a faith belief in the supernatural. But the fact is that they do and some of us don't. So how do we design a government capable of functioning in such a "real" world environment? A-hah! We make government neutral in this area. We separate church(religious belief) from state(government pragmatism).

And now allow me to offer this discussion the Big Curve. What verifiable evidence exists that proves that humans have any "unalienable rights" beyond those we bestow on one another...or that we allow our governments to enact?

Alonzo Fyfe

If you browse the discussions in the Moral Foundations and Principles forum, you will find a number of different ideas on this question.

Including my own answer -- if you go as far back as last June, when I left those discussions and came to this forum.

Given the scope of the question, I think I would rather have those questions stay over there.

Buffman

You are correct. That is a far better forum for such a discussion. I worded my Big Curve question poorly. I wasn't really looking for folks to answer the question in this string. I was merely offering the thought as a means of exposing the complexity and danger of a government's decision to intrude upon the area of individual faith beliefs.

Sabine Grant

BUFFMAN: thanks for clarifying your post on the Big Curve. I thought I actualy answered your query in my previous posts.

I understood the measures taken by the French Government to protect citizens. In my sense, that is the only justification any government can present in somehow limiting the individual spiritual interaction between people.

Of course we still have to evaluate if the intent is sincere or only an excuse. Based on my experience of French culture, I evaluated it as sincere.

I am sure though that the French roman catholic Church is rubbing their hands.....plus in both Italy and France an evangelical can be labeled as a cult member very easily. My aunt who is a devout catholic has forsaken me as a family member because I am an evangelical christian. But that is the result of ignorance.

If you re-read the content of the Legislation posted I believe by Intensity, it specifies that religious groups cannot settle by schools , hospitals and senior communities. Is not that true that cults tend to go after those 3 particulary influencable groups ? some cults will use the orbituary page to detect a potential candidate to their endoctrination.

As a believer I want to see goodness and compassion dispensed to the needy because there is a need to fulfill not because of a personal religious agenda.

We both shared our experiences with senior citizens in another forum.... you know how vulnerable those folks are.

There is a great difference between a mission to endoctrinate (cults) and a mission to rescue from misery. Though too often the second is used as an introduction to the first.

In my sense and with my limited understanding, the Government has a duty to sincerely protect citizens from potential harm. If it means redefining the so called practice of spiritual interaction, then I support it.Granted it is presented with evidence that such groups can be harmful to a vulnerable individual.

I define harmful as anything that endangers their physical and psychological well being. Such as forbidding blood transfusion. Or imposing diets that can lead to malnutrition and result in health problems. Doctrines that lead an individual to break the laws of the land etc etc( I am sure there many more examples).One can argue to the extreme that religion in itself is harmful. And it unfortunatly can be as demonstrated thru history.

If the religion in question leads people to commit crimes against the rest of humanity, it is harmful. Most of the time though, the harmful part of that religion is commited by extremist and fanatic groups who obviously have neglicted to experience a loving god. If a religious person has a nurturing relationship with a loving god, his or her thoughts can only result in loving actions. I know it is rare but it does happen.

I define the Government as the designated leader of a land and its people. I hold it accountable to protect the people.If I had to give up some of my freedom of spiritual interaction with others for the best interest of all, I believe I would.

I do not consider that my personal freedom of religion is endangered even if thrown in a jail or if all chuches were to be shut down. I can have my own church in my head..... hehehehehe.

I hope Buffman that I have somehow responded to your question even as I admit some degree of naivete in my thinking.

Buffman

Sabine Grant

Did you read Alonzo Fyfe's post just above mine?

Though I appreciate the effort you put into your response, I agree with Alonzo. The subject is better addressed in a different forum.