Religion? No thanks.

[Nalaar]

But belonging to political movements or parties isn't illegal — unless they're proscribed. So to, religiously following a football team or believing in homeopathy isn't likely to be an infringement of the law. It's all a matter of how legal and judicial minds present the cases and charges...

but there is a problem here, because religion extends through these definitions. 

To give 4 examples based around homeopathy. 
Alan says 'I believe in homeopathy, because water has memory'
Bob says 'I believe in homeopathy, because gaia gave water memory'
Carl says 'I don't believe in homeopathy, because water spirits don't have memory'
Dan says 'I don't believe in homeopathy, because yahwehs description of the world via "physics" doesn't account for water having memory'

You could argue yourself blue over which of Alan, Bob, Carl, and Dan are religious or not. 

[patman post]

Not so.
An atheist who had a pursuit, interest and great devotion to crystal healing could be said to be religious under the definitions provided.

But belonging to political movements or parties isn't illegal — unless they're proscribed. So to, religiously following a football team or believing in homeopathy isn't likely to be an infringement of the law. It's all a matter of how legal and judicial minds present the cases and charges...

[Nalaar]

Then there'd be no case to answer — unless they were fitted-up, of course...

Not so. 
An atheist who had a pursuit, interest and great devotion to crystal healing could be said to be religious under the definitions provided. 

[johnofgwent]

Teaching people about religions even-handedly is fine. But schools that adhere to one particular faith are the real problem, Schools should also be entirely free of religious ceremony. Those who want that can go to their churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques.

It is when teaching about religions crosses the line into indoctrination that is the problem.

As for sex orientation, this is a reality of life people should be taught about. But again there should be no indoctrination, though that does not mean that bigotry and hatred should be allowed.

In any case, sexual orientation cannot be taught. That is a false flag believed in by some phobes. People are naturally either gay, straight or bisexual, which is an inherent part of them which cannot be changed. A kid cannot be taught to be gay, if that is the silly notion you are worrying about.

The real problem is "on campus" university religion. In my undergrad years anyone wishing to use the facilities of the university chaplaincy to discover a religion pretty quickly found themselves being taken by one of the chaplains, and usually in a group, to one of the city's many places of worship where the people in the community of that faith gathered. Because you'd be amazed how damn difficult it was in those days to run a proper brainwashing of the newly moved from home when the congregation had jobs to go to the next morning.

[Nick]

Then there'd be no case to answer — unless they were fitted-up, of course...

It would help the 'allahu akbar' convictions as it wouldn't matter what the offence was as it would have been done under an illegal entity. 

[patman post]

To your first paragraph- exactly, it could not be done in any sensible or sustainable way, which puts the burden on people who would want religion to be made illegal to present how they think it could be done so.

To paragraph two & three - the three definitions contain category's of people who could be said to meet the definitions and yet are non-religious.

Then there'd be no case to answer — unless they were fitted-up, of course...

[Nalaar]

I don't think religion could be made illegal — even though some administrations/countries discourage and ban beliefs that don't conform to the "state" religion (or political teachings).

But if UK authorities wanted to charge people with having and following a religious belief, the Crown Prosecution Service (E&W, I don't know about Scotland and NI) would only need to decide if a jury would be likely to decide if the defendant conformed to the accusations/definitions given in my Reply #14.

This would be similar to the way people can currently be charged with belonging to proscribed political movements...

To your first paragraph- exactly, it could not be done in any sensible or sustainable way, which puts the burden on people who would want religion to be made illegal to present how they think it could be done so. 

To paragraph two & three - the three definitions contain category's of people who could be said to meet the definitions and yet are non-religious. 

[Nalaar]

You question was clearly pointed at the relationship between the religious hate attack on Rushdie and making it illegal, that was the bit you quoted.

So as PP has pointed to, no I don't think we need to first decide what religion is, in the context of the OP it is quiet clear what I'm referring to.

No worries, I thought there was a different conversation to be had. 

[patman post]

It absolutely needs defining, specifically defined to a level that will create a clear bright line for a legal distinction in whether or not someone is a criminal.


I think these are all unsatisfactory. They may be useful as a contextual understanding of what 'religious' means, but they are not definitions exclusive to being religious.

A) References (but is not exclusive to) personal god(s)
B) Systems of faith/worship are not exclusive to religions.
C) by far the worst definition - pursued interests are not exclusive to religions.

I can give generalised examples of the the failure of these 3 definitions by applying them to a non-religious context if you want.

I don't think religion could be made illegal — even though some administrations/countries discourage and ban beliefs that don't conform to the "state" religion (or political teachings).

But if UK authorities wanted to charge people with having and following a religious belief, the Crown Prosecution Service (E&W, I don't know about Scotland and NI) would only need to decide if a jury would be likely to decide if the defendant conformed to the accusations/definitions given in my Reply #14.

This would be similar to the way people can currently be charged with belonging to proscribed political movements...

[Nick]

This did not answer the question I posed, I did not reference Rushdie, or any event. My question was to clarify your position -presented in the OP- that religions should be made illegal.

You question was clearly pointed at the relationship between the religious hate attack on Rushdie and making it illegal, that was the bit you quoted. 

So as PP has pointed to, no I don't think we need to first decide what religion is, in the context of the OP it is quiet clear what I'm referring to. 

[Nalaar]

Hi can it not be? The guy wasn't born for 10 years so he has no recollection of it, therefore his hatred is taught, same as no child is born a racist. Or do you believe he just randomly attacked someone and coincidentally it happens to be Salman Rushdie?

This did not answer the question I posed, I did not reference Rushdie, or any event. My question was to clarify your position -presented in the OP- that religions should be made illegal.

[Nalaar]

Does religion need defining? We're all supposedly grown ups here, and I don't think there'll be any argument with the idea religion will be one of the following:

It absolutely needs defining, specifically defined to a level that will create a clear bright line for a legal distinction in whether or not someone is a criminal. 

a) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

b) a particular system of faith and worship

c) a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion

I think these are all unsatisfactory. They may be useful as a contextual understanding of what 'religious' means, but they are not definitions exclusive to being religious. 

A) References (but is not exclusive to) personal god(s)
B) Systems of faith/worship are not exclusive to religions. 
C) by far the worst definition - pursued interests are not exclusive to religions. 

I can give generalised examples of the the failure of these 3 definitions by applying them to a non-religious context if you want. 

[Nick]

If you mean this earnestly, then you have to give details, for example how are you defining religion, and what evidence would be required for criminal punishment.

Hi can it not be? The guy wasn't born for 10 years so he has no recollection of it, therefore his hatred is taught, same as no child is born a racist. Or do you believe he just randomly attacked someone and coincidentally it happens to be Salman Rushdie?

[Nick]

India arranged to have its minority religions slaughtered or expelled in the late 1940s. They called it "partition".

That's not true, India partitioned the different religious factions, the fighting and deaths were not orchestrated by the state. 

[patman post]

Does religion need defining? We're all supposedly grown ups here, and I don't think there'll be any argument with the idea religion will be one of the following:

a) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

b) a particular system of faith and worship

c) a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion

For me, the first two may well lead to problems, as they require the follower to suspend critical analysis and believe un-evidenced hearsay at several hands distance.

The second also requires the practitioner to follow instruction — much as a soldier square bashes.

The third has devotees, I guess most of us seen from ardent sports followers to fanatical supporters of off the wall ideas...