Recently in Germanland a scandal surrounding a christian denomination called "the twelve tribes" was reveiled. Members of that sect had been abusing children by constantly and repeatedly wipping them with cains for purposes of "disciplin". These measurs of "disciplin" were so severe that when arrests recently took place and the children were taken from their parents they didn`t show any sign of resistance against being seperated from their parents. It was found that inflicting violence on children is a main principle of that sect and is made use of throughout the entire community. Yet in this country, inflicting violence on your children in any form is a criminal offence that can be punished with very severe sentences. Generaly, the laws concerning child protection are very strict here. As such an organisation which has the violent abuse of children writen down within it`s charta, stands in defiance to the law and is either to be disbanded or has to change it`s charta.
This is not the first time that "the twelve tribes" came into conflict with the law here. Homeschooling is forbidden here as a crime categorised under the section of child abuse, it is seen as defying a child an education and social integration aswell as damaging it`s future prospects. A family of that comunity refused to abide to these laws and homeschooled their children (an kept the "unchristian parts" out of the curiculum). As a result the father of the family was sentenced to 5 years in jail.
Here we do not have a "German FBI", instead we have the "Verfassungsschutz" = Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. It`s job is to surveil, investigate and if necessery even prosecute organisations which have chartas demaning the overthroal of the republic with violent methods, defiance of the law or harming the broader population in organised ways. Al Quaida offshots in Germany, Hamas and Hizbollah representatives in Germany, PKK representatives in Germany, the communist terror group RAF, neo nazis, millitant communists, millitant neo nazis, islamist organisations and others have been the usual targets of this federal organisation ( I am not sure but I thing that the persecution of those who produce and distribute child pornography is also their job). But so have also scientology, since scientology collects private data on a massive scale, threatens opposition in occassionaly violent ways (psychological terror also counts) and has guidlines, principles and structures within it`s organisation which are not compatible with the republic and it`s constitutional values, scientology has been under surveilance by the bureau since 1997. Technicaly speaking, the buerau has the power to shut down and even forbid a religious organisation which is inflicting harm on the republic and it`s people or defies it. So I would not be suprised if the buerau will catch up to "the twelve tribes" and put them under surveilance or already has.
Unfortunatly, the sect has already reacted to recent events by emigrating most of it`s children to Austria where the laws concerning child abuse are not as strict.

Still, this recent news got me thinking about alot of things, and one of them is the releationship that religions have with a countries legal text.

Can a state/Should a state, forbid a religious organisation and faith that defies the law and the constitution aswell as inflicts harm on society???

I think it's within just about any governments power and duty to prosecute any organization and their members for disobeying laws, religious or not. Some governments require more societal help and other governments leave the enforcing to the societies themselves. When just laws are disobeyed by entire societies because of religious belief then the only ones who can and should stand up are the victims of those crimes and those who sympathize.

I think when the religion and the things being carried out by that religion start to become harmful to others that's when a government can ban a religion.

(September 20, 2013 at 10:32 pm)ananirvana Wrote: I think when the religion and the things being carried out by that religion start to become harmful to others that's when a government can ban a religion.

Teaching creationism harms others.

Telling others they were born sinners harm others.

Telling others they must debase themselves and subordinate their rational judgement in a manner pleasing to the religionist in order to be "saved" harm others.

Telling them not being saved is not as good as being saved harms others.

All in all, religion pretty much exist in order to do harm.

A government cannot ban the religion itself, but the government can and should ban the illegal acts carried out in the name of that religion. If the religion cannot be practiced without these illegal acts, then well, 2 birds with one stone. But I don't think the government should be allowed to prosecute religions, that's too much power.

In this case, the child abuse would be illegal and should be prosecuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

Quote:The Waco siege was a siege of a compound belonging to the religious group Branch Davidians by American federal and Texas state law enforcement and military between February 28 and April 19, 1993.[4]

The Branch Davidians, a Christian[5] sect led by David Koresh, lived at Mount Carmel Center ranch in the community of Elk, Texas,[6][7] nine miles (14 kilometers) east-northeast of Waco. The group was suspected of weapons violations and a search and arrest warrant was obtained.

The incident began when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) attempted to raid the ranch. An intense gun battle erupted, resulting in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians. Upon the ATF's failure to raid the compound, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the standoff lasting 51 days. Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out. During the attack, a fire engulfed Mount Carmel Center and 76 men, women, and children,[8][9] including David Koresh, died.

Controversy ensued over the origin of the fire; a government investigation concluded in 2000 that sect members themselves had started the fire at the time of the attack. Timothy McVeigh cited the Waco incident as a primary motivation for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Again, it is not "religion" that triggered the initial raid...it was the conduct of the so-called religious.

There are numerous examples of governments banning particular religions, the question in this case is the position of Brussels.
The EU Human Rights Charter does protect religious rights though to what degree they might censure Berlin for any violation could be questioned.

(September 20, 2013 at 9:26 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Still, this recent news got me thinking about alot of things, and one of them is the releationship that religions have with a countries legal text.

Can a state/Should a state, forbid a religious organisation and faith that defies the law and the constitution aswell as inflicts harm on society???

While the principle here is simple, its practical application is less so. The basic idea is that one person should not get to impose his religious ideology upon anyone else. And this goes beyond simply religious and applies to political ideology as well.

For example, if a group of people believe "all hard work is sin" and spread their ideology - which ultimately results in a lot of people choosing to remain unemployed and thus affecting the society's economy and inflicting overall harm on it - that is not something the government can or should shut down. These people aren't imposing their religious beliefs on anyone. Which is why the government should not forbid them. If it wants, it can pass a law against such behavior and prosecute these people on that basis - but that law would be in the wrong here.

On the other hand, if these people start forcing those still working to resign - then they are imposing their beliefs on others and then they should be shut down.

That is the relation the government and religion do - or rather should - have. We don't shut down religion because it is harmful to the society - well, I believe all religion is harmful to the society - we shut it down when it starts encroaching on someone else's beliefs.

(September 21, 2013 at 11:40 am)genkaus Wrote: The basic idea is that one person should not get to impose his religious ideology upon anyone else.

So Christians can't impose their religious ideology on their kids anymore like my parents did to me?

Sweet.

Quote:Sweet. *

* Caution: May not apply in the bible belt.