andrel wrote:
> I understand the US court point of view. Sort of. I think there are two 
> major holes in this theory. 1) what to do if someone claims that 
> something is not religious, do you have to believe him too? 2) what to 
> do with atheists, can they make up there own religious statements or is 
> on the contrary their statement less worthy than of someone that says he 
> does believe in god?

Functionally.. The later, since while their right to not believe is 
protected, their lack of an "organized religion" (which is what the 
founders feared and distrusted in the first place, ironically), means 
they function as "secular" entities, without the those protections. 
I.e., as though they, even if they had a group, building, etc., would be 
the equivalent of any other secular non-profit, not the equivalent of a 
church.

As for #1, no, they have to take the word of the person claiming it "is" 
religious, since the state cannot determine, based on the words or 
anyone other than the religions adherents, what is and isn't. Mind, if 
someone of authority in the church "said" is wasn't, then... it would 
come down to how high the authority was, and maybe how many people in 
the church agreed with that determination.

Personally, I think the only "valid" way to handle it is to either a) 
treat them exactly like any other organization, thus taking away the 
"special" protections they get, or b) if that isn't possible (and its 
not in the US), require that they provide clear specifics on the matter 
as to what they views and policies "are", such that only in cases 
sufficiently dissimilar as to require a new rule, do they get to, "make 
shit up", oh sorry, "make a such a new rule", for that case. Let the 
courts deal with each church on the basis of that churches "stated" 
rules, and require that those rules must change "prior" to a case, not 
in the middle of it. If they decide "after" someone is sent to prison 
for refusing the pay the plumber, or some similar BS, that they can set 
some rule that states that plumbers must "choose" to do the work for 
free, as part of their service to the church (yeah, there was another 
idiot case like this too, and the plumber lost), *after* the ruling and 
what ever results. Not just invent one in the middle, whole cloth, 
because they don't want to pay it.

In other words, if they have rules, make them follow those rules, by 
having them clearly posted "before" they make choices about who to hire, 
fire, pay, not pay, throw out, invite in, and so on. If they break their 
own rules, then they should be judged "by" those rules, not on the basis 
of something that pull out of their backsides at the last minute, and 
all the clergy nod and say, "Yep, its all been that way forever, the 
smell is just from us serving beans last night!"

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message