Random memory: anon.penet.fi
Monday, 12 February 2007 10:48![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pneI remember I used the anonymising service at anon.penet.fi a bit, back while it still existed (which must have been before September 1996).
pnepneProfile
Philip Newton
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Active Entries
- 1: English needs a preposition “atto”
- 2: Random memory: memorising powers of two
- 3: Random memory: Self-guided tour
- 4: Is 17 the most random number between 1 and 20?
- 5: The things you learn: inhaled objects are more likely to land in your right lung
- 6: I can speak Esperanto; the test says so!
- 7: The things you learn: Canaanite shift
- 8: You know you’re getting better at a language when…
- 9: 3/14 1:59
Style Credit
- Style: Cinnamon Cream pne for Crossroads by branchandroot
- Resources: Vintage Christmas 6
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: Monday, 12 February 2007 16:24 (UTC)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."
no subject
Date: Monday, 12 February 2007 16:47 (UTC)I find it disturbing that you would be comfortable having a government define what does and does not constitute a "real religion".
no subject
Date: Monday, 12 February 2007 17:32 (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: Monday, 12 February 2007 18:52 (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: Monday, 12 February 2007 21:46 (UTC)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>
no subject
Date: Monday, 12 February 2007 21:59 (UTC)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.