pne: A picture of a plush toy, halfway between a duck and a platypus, with a green body and a yellow bill and feet. (Default)
Philip Newton ([personal profile] pne) wrote2007-02-12 10:48 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
  • Current Mood: random

Random memory: anon.penet.fi

I remember I used the anonymising service at anon.penet.fi a bit, back while it still existed (which must have been before September 1996).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] arthur-sc-king.livejournal.com 2007-02-12 04:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Sigh. Yup, good old anon.penet.fi.

Belonging to the "cult" that we do %-) I try to be tolerant of other religions, even if I think they're looney tunes. But I have no respect for the Elrons at all. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I'm glad Germany at least had the cojones to say "No, you're not a real religion, so piss off."

[identity profile] noidd.livejournal.com 2007-02-12 04:47 pm (UTC)(link)

I find it disturbing that you would be comfortable having a government define what does and does not constitute a "real religion".

[identity profile] arthur-sc-king.livejournal.com 2007-02-12 05:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, all governments make such definitions, if only for things like tax-exempt status and so on.

And really, as weird as us Mormons are, the $cientologists make us look flat freakin' Presbyterian.... Gotta draw the line somewhere, and it's good to see some places drawing the line to exclude those guys.

[identity profile] noidd.livejournal.com 2007-02-12 06:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Gotta draw the line somewhere,

That's where I disagree with you. If you allow government to define what is and is not religion even for something as seemingly benign as for "tax-exempt status" you have state sanction of certain religions and not others.

Which, in my view is wrong.

[identity profile] arthur-sc-king.livejournal.com 2007-02-12 09:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, the government's the one what collects the taxes, so it only makes sense that they would set the rules as to who they will and won't collect taxes from.

Then of course, there are rules like "who can solemnise marriages" and so on that governments also set.

So unless your country chooses not to give any church any special treatment at all — make them pay taxes like everyone else, only allow marriages to be solemnised by civil servants, etc. — then there will be rules. Rules draw lines. <shrug>

[identity profile] noidd.livejournal.com 2007-02-12 09:59 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, the government's the one what collects the taxes, so it only makes sense that they would set the rules as to who they will and won't collect taxes from.

When you word it like that it sounds like a really bad idea. Sounds like you're giving a lot of power to one entity which is always bad.

Then of course, there are rules like "who can solemnise marriages" and so on that governments also set.

Which in my view is also wrong. Marriage as a religous institution is none of the Governments business. Marriage as a legal contract should be the domain of only the individuals concerned, a witness and the courts.

I am vehemently against "Marriage Licenses" which "grant the right"[0] of marriage to someone. How dare the government choose who I may and may not enter that legal or religious contract with.

So unless your country chooses not to give any church any special treatment at all — make them pay taxes like everyone else, only allow marriages to be solemnized by civil servants, etc.

Well, that would be my choice. Separation[1] of the a church and state is a good thing imho.

Red

[0] In my view Rights are inherent, Privileges are granted. Therefor I find the idea that a government can "grant a right" as being an overreach of government.
[1] Separation does not mean annihilation.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only