The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Legitimacy of Religions
DarkPrimus
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A recent news story caught my attention. Basically, a high school kid is told that he must cut his hair to follow school dress code, and he informs the school that that goes against his religion, which is Rastafarianism. The superintendent then tells the kids' lawyer that his religion "is illegitimate".
Now, I suppose even some of us would say that Rastafarianism isn't a real religion, and that brings me to the real point that this article has made me ponder: When exactly does a religion become a religion? When does it gain legitimacy? It's more complicated than simple numbers -t here are many cults that can be considered religions - after all, Christianity started out as a small cult. And you can't really argue that certain beliefs are "too far out there" to be considered legitimate - most all religions have a myriad of irrational beliefs and unprovable claims stated as the absolute truth. So how do we define a "legitimate religion"?
Now, I suppose even some of us would say that Rastafarianism isn't a real religion, and that brings me to the real point that this article has made me ponder: When exactly does a religion become a religion? When does it gain legitimacy? It's more complicated than simple numbers -t here are many cults that can be considered religions - after all, Christianity started out as a small cult. And you can't really argue that certain beliefs are "too far out there" to be considered legitimate - most all religions have a myriad of irrational beliefs and unprovable claims stated as the absolute truth. So how do we define a "legitimate religion"?
DarkPrimus on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
There is no line, and the more you press people on this, the more likely they are to start turning red, spurting steam from their ears, and saying, "Rastas just aren't as true as Christians, goddamnit!"
MWO: Adamski
New and Poor? You idiot, take your crackpot beliefs back to the sewers.
There are registration forms for religions? Lemme at em, I wanna make a few new ones.
All religions are illegitimate. Doesn't matter if god exists or not. Even if some kind of god exists somewhere, the stories that our religions tell are nothing but bullshit.
What do we mean by 'legitimate' anyway? The most easy answer would be 'a species that achieves the goal of its genus.' So what's the accepted goal of religions?
I've read that prisons do have to hire Satanist priests for their inmates because they demand it. All two of them.
You have to "register" religions for protection? And who exactly registers a religion?
Atheists and non-believers are protected under religious persecution laws, but there's not figurehead for non-believers like there is for the Catholic Church.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's not that crackpot.
Despite the mono, poly, and pantheistic beliefs that proliferate through out the world, most agree on the existence of a 'devil'.
I mean, depending on how far you are going to stretch the evil demon archetype, maybe this gets... slightly... defensible... but really, all you're talking about is a portfolio then, and not the existence of a 'devil' character.
Maya? That's Hindi.
Simply Illusion.
So in our hugely over crowded prisons we have two satanists? The same prisons overflowing with christian convicts? Two?
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here.
I believe in cereal, and I don't have enough numbers to back me up, therefore I don't have a religion.
Tumblr
God is to Devil as Reality is to Illusion.
Therefore, all religions can be equally valid, yet equally wrong.
When it gains tax-except status.
Our laws should not even recognize the concept of "religion," as separate from any other sort of ideology. As far as the law is concerned, there should be two types of such ideologies: those that violate our legal code, and those that don't. Those that do (for example, most religions and political beliefs) will be tolerated fully. Those that don't (for example, religions where young girls are forced to marry older men against their will and religions that command their followers to attack non-believers or subvert the law) will not be tolerated.
When I become emperor I'm changing it so that's how our country works. Who's with me?
I'm pretty sure that's how it works now. I don't know of any religions in the U.S. that openly and blatently break the law and are allowed to get away with it simply because they are a religion. Some of them may do some crappy things, yes, but I'm pretty sure the government still goes after them if any actual crimes are commited.
Oculus: TheBigDookie | XBL: Dook | NNID: BigDookie
It's mostly a way to buy them off and theoretically exempt them from interefering with the political system. Religions which are caught crossing the line with respect to meddling in political campaigns are liable to have their tax-exempt status pulled. It happens every once in a while, but not nearly as much as it fucking should lately.
Dear Emperor Norton,
About three hundred years ago, there were folks from all over Europe who wandered away from their homelands because state law dictated what religion was "right, just and moral" and what religion was "anti-establishment." They colonized all sorts of places along the Atlantic coast of the Americas, and one of the few things they actually agreed upon was that government wouldn't dictate religious doctrine.
Does that mean that sometimes we have to deal with silliness that makes the rest of the newly born country look at some folk like they're immoral reprobates from an inbred and backwater place? Yeah, actually, it does. Fortunately, there are still mechanisms available that will allow us to prosecute people who defy the law of the state or federal government. Vile subersive people like gays who want to be married in church just like straight people, religions where young girls are forced to marry older men, other groups of people don't believe in the strict transmutation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and are allowed to congregate and live in relative peace, and the twenty minutes of fun we could have with puns about "snake handlers."
So I'll hang out with the Quakers and Shakers and Unitarian Universalists, and say "Thank you, your Majesty, but no." If it could be done without alienating any of our unalienable rights, it might be a different story.
Cordially,
Solandra
Either Rastafarianism hasn't qualified for tax exempt status (which I believe mainly depends on the number of members), or he doesn't think anyone is going to sue him for discrimination over it (probably the later).
American public schools hold a special status where students are forced to attend, and are subjected to arbitrary rules that would be unconstitutional in any other government facility. At my high school, an assistant-principal saw me and a friend reading a table top game book and told us that we couldn't have it out... at lunch... two tables down from kids reading the bible. She also said black fingernail polish wasn't allowed, because she saw some goth kids wearing it and she didn't like goth kids. An administrator says it one day, and it's a punishable offense the next.
lol
Because there's nothing dangerous about that line of thought.
We can't have seperation of church and state unless we have a definition for "church" and "state".
Think about what that sentence means.
You can't seperate X and Y if Y is not defined. Unless Y is everything which is not X.
And I'm pretty sure "church" and "state" do not work that way.
Also you should keep in mind that that phrase isn't actually part of any amendment or law.
So that's a problem? I mean, we don't have any of those things.
Of?
I don't understand the question.
I think reality itself is an example of a situation in which the state needs a definition of church to ensure a seperation between church and state.
I'm reminded of some Dilbert cartoon from days of yore, where the pointy-haired boss comes down and says that there's a new set of guidelines for employee conduct (or something like that). When Dilbert asks what they are, PHB sez that they're classified. Dilbert asks how he's supposed to know what to do. PHB says he'll just yell at Dilbert if he does anything out of line.
That's true.
And that's pretty much the problem.