Should criminal co-conspirators be allowed to form a church and promulgate their criminal doctrine as a religion?

I don’t know, can you make a specific reference or example?

Eh, this question is too vague. There are way too many variables… a simple yes or no wouldn’t be sufficient. And delving into the possibilities would take a really long time.

@Schroedes13 I did, it is a question of the categories of permitted expression and activity based upon social criteria that have wide recognition for predictive purposes. Perhaps the idea of hypothetical and class/group behavior systems are outside your experience? If so I do apologize and ask that you foregive me the temerity of posting such where persons such as yourself might chance upon it.

Is Obfuscation a religion ?

@throssog there’s not need to try and be pejorative. I was just asking for an instance of this, such as would you consider the Westboro Baptist Church to be a group such as this?

@ANef_is_Enuf Vague? Hmmm, perhaps the hypothetical hasn’t been/ wasn’t covered in your education/experience? It is from such general questions that specific applications are derived…but then, it does require thought and time and does not lend itself to “yes/no” answers or T.V. sitcom zingers/sound bites, eh? :)
Perhaps another question might interest you more, be more pertinent, easier to answer?

@Schroedes13 Pejorative? Hmmm, alright: Do you consider this religious group (these Baptists) to fulfill the above stated criteria? It is not for me to say – I do not know them.

@throssog Why so aggressive?
I am not very tempted to answer if this is how you reward those that do.

That is a tough question. While their actions are not exactly criminal, I do find them incredibly offensive. Since I can’t categorize them as criminal, I can’t use them in this example. Sorry.

@Schroedes13 WBC has a reputation for knowing the laws and using them to their advantage as often as they possibly can. Without a doubt, what they do is offensive and repulsive to most of us, but they are well educated on their legal rights to do what they do. They have a history of using it for financial gain, as well. It’s despicable, but actually very smart, and it is not criminal. Feels like it ought to be, but they know that pushing to call what they do “illegal” or to make it so, would be skirting dangerous territory.

@whitenoise Terribly sorry you find my responses to be other than you would have them to be. _Perhaps you might consider that…later? I am concerned with the content and honesty of that offered. P.C. is of no interest to me. Only your ideas and opinions and their applicability.

@Schroedes13 Completely understand. It does, still, leave us with the original question though does it not? :)

Truly. I would say that if there religion has views which espouse criminal actions, this can be tolerated. But if the leader or members of the church are seen to encourage or aid in a criminal activity, then legal action could be taken.

@ANef_is_Enuf This group, WBC, seems to be one with which you and Schoedes13 are familiar. I must plead ignorance of them and their high-jencks.
Still, the original question remains,eh?

@throssog I would say to check out the WBC. They are quite the characters.

@ Hmm, you dis-swayed me from the first :). Don’t really care much for the overtly religious. Too personal a matter to be wallowed about with in public and cheapened,imho, thereby. I am, you see, quite religious myself.

Sure they should be allowed! Why not? Everyone else does it.

@CaptainHarley Ah, well, there you have it: The Vox Populi!

ROFLMAO!

Alternatively, they could just join a Scientology Church! : )

We all spew our own little form of bullshit. It’s up to each individual to decide what is right for them to believe or not believe, not the court system or federal regulators.

@Blondesjon

Yes, except where there are violations of the law.

The danger is that banning such a thing could create precedent for banning perfectly legitimate religions. Better to wait for one of them to commit an actual crime.
This would be a good time to point out that “criminal” and “religion” have a long and storied past, with incidents even in the present day. Christianity, for instance, is illegal in many parts of the world.

@Nullo

Some of the persecution of christains in Africa and parts of the Middle East are absolutely horrific. : ((

@CaptainHarley Yes, but some of the Christian persecutions are as bad iof not worse. I say worse because of the espoused qualities of the Christian faith.
You all do realize Jesus was as convicted criminal and his followers ( disciples) were regularly executed as enemies of the state as were quite a few of the highest ranking members of the faith. A true criminal conspiracy if I ever saw one.

For this very reason, we should “beware when all men speak well of” us! Christians are true revoluntionares, turning the world upside down. If they’re not, then chances are, they’re not christians.

@CaptainHarley Spoken like a true believer and a thought I can applaud – for you. I am not of your faith but am a believer. :)

Rastafarians faced this because they were criminalized for using marijuana as a religious rite. But there use was before they were considered criminals, not after.

Your question is poorly worded as to the sequence of events. Are they forming a religion before or after committing crimes? And what type of crime: theft? murder? Or sacrifice of animals? Tax evasion?

Groups claim to be churches all the time; the IRS apparently has a pretty good check list to qualify for tax exempt status. And courts take a dim view of proclaiming a religion to conduct property crimes or violent crimes.

@throssog

Then blessings upon you, my friend, and may God give you the desires of your heart! : ))

@CaptainHarley And you , my friend, and you.

@zenvelo My question(s) will always be “poorly phrased” if the responder wishes to have a clue, within the question, as to a “right or wrong” answer. The question dealt with conditions and status and conditions both post and prior to creating/forming/conducting a religion/church.
Its point, which few seem to have seen was/is: The christian church/faith was founded and conducted by recognized and convicted criminals for a criminal purpose and with criminal ends in mind. All of this “criminality” was in light of the law at that time and isn’t really “open to challenge”. We simply forget that to their contemporaries the “Christian Martyrs” were convicted criminals receiving their “just desserts” for criminal activity.

@throssog then I would ask, what was their criminal doctrine?

@Schroedes13 Among many others , that which caused them the most trouble was the 22 Psalm.

@throssog I just read over Psalm 22 and I’m sorry, but I can’t find anything criminal in that reading. Care to share your POV?

@Schroedes13 Ye are as gods. Hmmm?

that’s criminal?

also I’m looking over the Psalm again, which verse is that?

@ That is the source of the Blasphemy Indictment against Jesus. If you read the “case documents”, i.e., the stories of the New Testament, as though you were an attorney reviewing records for a trial/appeal this is the crux of the case. Jesus repeated, apparently without citing ( except to say: “You have said/it is said”) the meaning and content of this Psalm several times and ways. This was the basis and all that was needed to convict. The rest, as it is said, is history.

To answer your original question…

Yes, they should clearly be tolerated if their being judged criminals is merely based on the fact that they are forming a different religion and a church reflecting their different view on religion.

If and only if their doctrine would, however, support and encourage criminal behavior as judged from an other perspective than that of a religious point of view, then they should be evaluated for possible prohibition / criminal prosecution.

My apologies. For some reason, I had begun to think of this question in a modern context. I’m sorry. Yes. That is blasphemy/heresy.

@Schroedes13 My friend, it is for your honesty, as I have seen it here, and for your lack of intellectual fear that I regard so highly. No apology needed. We forget, so easily, that the law and custom were different – to say the least. :)

@whitenoise Thank you . But by what standard are we to judge the “criminality” ? It makes a great difference, does it not?

Yes, but in general the secular laws of the country would be a fair indication.

Religious laws, for instance shari’ah, are in general not the best base for justice, from my point of view. They would definitely not offer the best guidelines for judgment of other religions / churches.

@whitenoise Perhaps even secular law may not be a safe haven for such a judgment? I am reminded of modern European constraints upon “sects”, which in some countries include Baptists.

Secular law may not be the optimal haven indeed, it is likely a good starting point, though.

In general, laws should never be viewed as perfect, but always remain open for debate by people that continuously strive for better ones, with a better moral foundation.

@whitenoise Hmmm, moral foundation? Don’t know that I care for laws that reach toward or from morality. Could we try ethical basis instead? :)

@throssog
In my book a better moral foundation cannot be different from a (more) ethical basis (foundation=basis).

In most dictionaries ethics refer to morality and the other way around. Morals are about what is right or wrong; the playground of Moral Philosophers.
Ethically refers to the morally right thing.

ethical |ˈeθikəl| (adjective)
of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these:
ethical issues in nursing | ethical churchgoing men.
• morally correct : can a profitable business be ethical?
• [ attrib. ] (of a medicine) legally available only on a doctor’s prescription and usually not advertised to the general public.

@whitenoise I would suggest that you acquire a more in depth dictionary. :)

@throssog I have a few… I go by the ones I have :-)

@throssog So you like asking questions out of context, and then getting to say “Aha!”? I say your question is duplicitous. The first century answer to your question is “no”, and Christians were persecuted for it. But the law that was being broken was “don’t form another religion”.

@zenvelo thank you for ‘duplicitous’. Lovely new word to me.:-)

@zenvelo Actually no – on both counts. The first : as to the question being duplicitous, hardly bears consideration. It was straight forward and remains on point to all its criteria. Second point: the law(s) being broken were many and varied. Refusal to honour the Emperor by placing a bust within the church confines/denying the deification of the deceased emperors, by maintaining a higher authority existed than the emperor, by claiming godhead for themselves, refusal to kill on command, i.e., join the military and fight the enemies of Rome, the list goes on. And , lest we forget that a new ruler was coming to take over the world and its government.
More crimes were laid at their door but they were of the usual sort: incest , child sexual abuse, cannibalism and consorting with evil spirits – look to M. Aurelius letter to Asia Minor Provence were he denounces those charges ( possible forgery) for some more.

I fail to see how that’s blasphemy and heresey; Jesus is God.

@Nullo I am quite sure you do. My friend, you speak of matters of current day faith – the court of that day spoke of the law. Rather striking differences between the two, wouldn’t you say?

@throssog You purposely wrote your question in a manner as to be considered by modern standards, but then throw it back in our collective faces as “gotcha”, what about the early Christians.

And your list of the various crimes can all be summarized as “don’t form a new religion”.

Roman citizens were exempt from serving in the Roman army.

@zenvelo No, I wrote the question in general terms without era specification – intentionally so . My reason was that , perhaps, it might cause people to consider the changing face of acceptance and the nature of bias, prejudice, etc. Instead I see I am to be accused of many things I did not intend nor try to engineer. You aren’t a Roman , are you? :)
No where in the question is there anything to denote an era of history. You, my friend jumped to that conclusion.

@throssog Not really. Jesus was God then, too. Just… not the God they were looking for. Had they been checking their notes (the OT is full of them), they would have figured it out. But the Pharisees were a corrupt and legalistic class, Jesus made no friends there by calling them on it. Still, their errancy intersected nicely with the Plan.

@Nullo Ah, bit set on it aren’t you. Well, enjoy.