Thread

Become a sect

SmartBoy, 17 Oct 2005 21:14:33

Perhaps the answer to retaining full consensual rights is to become a religion, since they cannot be touched, or even criticised.

Lothario, 17 Oct 2005 21:17:43

Unless you're the kind of religion that's considered to be a cult, in
which case you're likely to be banned outright.

Or is that terrorists? I tend to lose track, with all this banning going on.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

Manniq, 17 Oct 2005 22:00:35

Hmm....a modern breakaway from an obscure flagellant movement?

Regards,

M
Author wrote:
> Unless you're the kind of religion that's considered to be a cult, in
> which case you're likely to be banned outright.
> Or is that terrorists? I tend to lose track, with all this banning going on.
> --
> Lothario.
> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
> to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

Lothario, 17 Oct 2005 23:46:02

Opus Dei?

Already been done, unfortunately. Dan Brown has a lot to answer for.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

Morgarth, 18 Oct 2005 01:14:32

Author wrote:
> Perhaps the answer to retaining full consensual rights is to become a religion, since they cannot be touched, or even criticised.

The in-house training I did on Sexuality and Religious discrimination did warn us that there was no clear defintion of what constituted a religion ... and therefore to be vary wary of dismissing any claim to be a religion as frivolous. I think the presenter said that several hundred religions had been claimed in the last census but I don't know if this data has been published.

Unfortunately the same training pointed out that according to HMG sado-masochism was not a sexual orientation. But that is another story ...

Morgarth

doulos, 18 Oct 2005 02:08:49

I am not sure it is, to be honest. What makes an orientation different
from a preference, again?

On 10/18/05, morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:
>
>
> Author wrote:
> > Perhaps the answer to retaining full consensual rights is to become a religion, since they cannot be touched, or even criticised.
>
>
> The in-house training I did on Sexuality and Religious discrimination did warn us that there was no clear defintion of what constituted a religion ... and therefore to be vary wary of dismissing any claim to be a religion as frivolous. I think the presenter said that several hundred religions had been claimed in the last census but I don't know if this data has been published.
>
> Unfortunately the same training pointed out that according to HMG sado-masochism was not a sexual orientation. But that is another story ...
>
> Morgarth
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1687
>

Chris, 18 Oct 2005 08:49:05

I suspect a sexual orientation would be defined as what is inside you, your
very essence, whereas a preference is something you choose. They see BDSM
as something people choose, an opportunity to dress up on a Saturday night
and frolic in rubber and leather. They see it as inherently abusive,
because they cannot understand that a person could not just want to submit,
but could need to submit; or that a person could not just tolerate being
whipped, but derive enormous pleasure from it.

If you think about how long is took for homosexuality to be recognised as a
sexual orientation rather than a preference, then it would seem unlikely
that BDSM is on the fast track to acceptance.

----Original Message Follows----

doulos , 18 Oct 2005 08:49:05

I am not sure it is, to be honest. What makes an orientation different
from a preference, again?

On 10/18/05, morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:
>
>
> Author wrote:
> > Perhaps the answer to retaining full consensual rights is to become a
religion, since they cannot be touched, or even criticised.
>
>
> The in-house training I did on Sexuality and Religious discrimination did
warn us that there was no clear defintion of what constituted a religion ...
and therefore to be vary wary of dismissing any claim to be a religion as
frivolous. I think the presenter said that several hundred religions had
been claimed in the last census but I don't know if this data has been
published.
>
> Unfortunately the same training pointed out that according to HMG
sado-masochism was not a sexual orientation. But that is another story ...
>
> Morgarth
>

zak, 18 Oct 2005 10:18:35

Original Message:
-----------------

morgarth@z2bdsm.com, 18 Oct 2005 10:18:35

Author wrote:
> Perhaps the answer to retaining full consensual rights is to become a
religion, since
they cannot be touched, or even criticised.

The in-house training I did on Sexuality and Religious discrimination did
warn us that
there was no clear defintion of what constituted a religion ... and
therefore to be vary
wary of dismissing any claim to be a religion as frivolous.

Morgarth

Given that all religion is bollocks I think setting up as many new ones as
possible is a
Very Good Idea as it diminishes the power and impact of the established
superstitious
institutions. Go ahead, somebody - set up a Temple of the Twisted Libido
and see how many
ludicrous rules and practices you can make other people pretend to respect..

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

rosalee, 18 Oct 2005 10:36:42

A preference suggests choice to me whereas an orientation is more just the way you are, whether you like it or not.

Ginny

----- Original Message -----

: doulos, 18 Oct 2005 10:36:42

Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Become a sect

I am not sure it is, to be honest. What makes an orientation different
from a preference, again?

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

AV8R, 18 Oct 2005 10:52:29

"BDSM, like hetero/bi/homosexuality, is a legitimate sexual orientation, and is not a disorder."
from Columbia University in the USA.

The US BDSM scene has been very politically active and has had great success in campaigning for BDSM to be accepted as a sexual orientation in the US. This view is now accepted by a number of leading Psychologists and national organisations.

Author wrote:
> A preference suggests choice to me whereas an orientation is more just the way you are, whether you like it or not.
> Ginny
> ----- Original Message -----

om: doulos, 18 Oct 2005 10:52:29

> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Become a sect
> I am not sure it is, to be honest. What makes an orientation different
> from a preference, again?

Amelie, 18 Oct 2005 10:58:20

have we any weighty backing on this in UK? will check with Imperial College.
Govt can still point to World Health Organisations ongoing classification of
BDSM as a disease.
----- Original Message -----

, 18 Oct 2005 10:58:20

To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:52 AM

> "BDSM, like hetero/bi/homosexuality, is a legitimate sexual orientation,
> and is not a disorder."
> from Columbia University in the USA.
>
> The US BDSM scene has been very politically active and has had great
> success in campaigning for BDSM to be accepted as a sexual orientation in
> the US. This view is now accepted by a number of leading Psychologists and
> national organisations.
>
> Author wrote:
>> A preference suggests choice to me whereas an orientation is more just
>> the way you are, whether you like it or not.
>> Ginny
>> ----- Original Message -----

rom: doulos, 18 Oct 2005 10:58:20

>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Become a sect
>> I am not sure it is, to be honest. What makes an orientation different
>> from a preference, again?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1702
>
>

Amelie, 18 Oct 2005 11:17:41

CDT, ACLU File Constitutional Challenge to Utah Internet Censorship Law - A
broad group of bookstores, artists, content providers, and Internet service
providers filed a complaint challenging Utah House Bill 260 as
unconstitutional under the First Amendment and Commerce Clause. H.B. 260
forces would force web sites to remove lawful content from the Internet or
face prosecution, and forces ISPs to block access to web sites in a manner
likely to lead to the blocking of many innocent web sites. June 09, 2005

a.. Complaint filed on Utah H.B. 260 [PDF] June 09, 2005
----- Original Message -----

, 18 Oct 2005 11:17:41

rom: doulos, 18 Oct 2005 11:17:41

Amelie, 18 Oct 2005 11:18:03

also the US precedent for protection of internet liberty might have
something of use. This refers to speech, not images, but the principle is
the same.

Supreme Court Rules CDA Unconstitutional
[Thursday June 26, 1997 ]

"As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of
speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to
encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a
democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of
censorship." -- Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority
The Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that the Communications Decency
Act violates the First Amendment. Writing for the court, Justice John Paul
Stevens held that "the CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected
speech" and found that all provisions of the CDA are unconsitutional as they
apply to "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech. In a separate
concurrence, Chief Justice William Rhenquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
agreed that the provisions of the CDA are all unconstitutional except in
their narrow application to "communications between an adult and one or more
minors."

By the way, I have heard there is a research group but although I have
offered my services, I have not heard any more about it.

----- Original Message -----

, 18 Oct 2005 11:18:03

rom: doulos, 18 Oct 2005 11:18:03

Amelie, 18 Oct 2005 11:41:55

we are not alone in our battle which seems to extend even to personal blogs
in the states : is this the way our government wants to go?

Earlier Headlines
CDT Calls on Congress to Block Effort to Regulate Individuals' Online
Poltical Speech May 05, 2005
Feds Propose New Rules for Online Political Activity March 24, 2005
Utah Governor Signs Censorship Law March 22, 2005
Utah Passes Unconstitutional Internet Content Rules March 08, 2005
Pennsylvania Internet Law Struck Down as Unconstitutional September 10, 2004
----- Original Message -----

, 18 Oct 2005 11:41:55

rom: doulos, 18 Oct 2005 11:41:55

Amelie, 18 Oct 2005 11:41:55

, 18 Oct 2005 11:41:55

rom: doulos, 18 Oct 2005 11:41:55

SnowdropExplodes, 18 Oct 2005 17:16:08

zak, 18 Oct 2005 20:08:06

Original Message:
-----------------

-OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 18 Oct 2005 20:08:06

--- "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
wrote:

> Given that all religion is bollocks I think setting
> up as many new ones as
> possible is a
> Very Good Idea as it diminishes the power and impact
> of the established
> superstitious
> institutions. Go ahead, somebody - set up a Temple
> of the Twisted Libido
> and see how many
> ludicrous rules and practices you can make other
> people pretend to respect..

I did my best to ignore this, but it's just slightly
too offensive.

The argument of atheism versus theism (and in
particular athiest cynics against organised religion)
is not a topic that has any relevance to the campaign,
so I'll promise not to make overt references to my own
faith (beyond its direct relevance to my involvement
in this campaign) if you keep quiet about yours.

Thank you,

SnowdropExplodes

There *is* a point at which superstition is relevant to a free-speech
campaign, given that
many (though admittedly not all) of the superstitious are keen to restrict
free speech on
the grounds that what is being said about their imaginary friends offends
them. Now,
without identifying any particular brand of superstition, no one but a
completely deluded
person could deny that far more people have been killed, maimed, displaced,
etc in the
name of some or other imaginary supernatural being, than were ever harmed
by people who've
had a good wank over some porn. It is not, of course, the wish of anyone
into free speech
to stop the superstitous practising their rituals (as long as those rituals
aren't harming
anyone else) but there is always a better case to be made in sheer
statistical terms for
banning religion than there is for banning pornogra

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

�No Name Set�, 19 Oct 2005 03:19:24

orientation = who you want to do it with

preference = what you want to do with them

--
Rosemary

�No Name Set�, 19 Oct 2005 03:27:39

Now here's a thought...... is anyone in touch with the Sisters of
Perpetual Indulgence??

--
Rosemary

Paul C. Dickie, 19 Oct 2005 08:27:21

In message <905355.1129580059226.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
, smart_boy@tesco.net wrote:
>Perhaps the answer to retaining full consensual rights is to become a religion,
>since they cannot be touched, or even criticised.

Would you really want to be accused of sects mania?

--
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie, 19 Oct 2005 08:46:18

In message <1974543.1129594467947.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:
>Author wrote:
>> Perhaps the answer to retaining full consensual rights is to become a
>religion, since they cannot be touched, or even criticised.
>
>The in-house training I did on Sexuality and Religious discrimination did warn
>us that there was no clear defintion of what constituted a religion ... and
>therefore to be vary wary of dismissing any claim to be a religion as frivolous.

IIRC, it requires that the religion should recognise a deity and perform
acts of supplication to that deity. That's why the $cientology cult
isn't and never could be a religion unless, of course, the deity was
Hubbard's Boy of the Piss-bucket, the dwarf Miscavige and the acts of
supplication were to send money to Flag...

>I think the presenter said that several hundred religions had been claimed in
>the last census but I don't know if this data has been published.

Such as "Jedi Knight" and Scientology , neither of which is a
religion and each of which is at least as cracked as the other. At
least adhering to The Path Of The Force is *much* cheaper than being
cleared of all one's engrams, then having one's body cooties ^W thetans
removed through increasingly bizarre and expensive run-down exercises...

--
< Paul >

doulos, 19 Oct 2005 17:44:35

I move that we recognise The Flying Spaghetti Monster as the God of
BDSM: http://www.venganza.org/

We have all been touch in some way by his noodly appendage

On 10/19/05, Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> In message <1974543.1129594467947.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
> >, morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:
> >Author wrote:
> >> Perhaps the answer to retaining full consensual rights is to become a
> >religion, since they cannot be touched, or even criticised.
> >
> >The in-house training I did on Sexuality and Religious discrimination did warn
> >us that there was no clear defintion of what constituted a religion ... and
> >therefore to be vary wary of dismissing any claim to be a religion as frivolous.
>
> IIRC, it requires that the religion should recognise a deity and perform
> acts of supplication to that deity. That's why the $cientology cult
> isn't and never could be a religion unless, of course, the deity was
> Hubbard's Boy of the Piss-bucket, the dwarf Miscavige and the acts of
> supplication were to send money to Flag...
>
> >I think the presenter said that several hundred religions had been claimed in
> >the last census but I don't know if this data has been published.
>
> Such as "Jedi Knight" and Scientology , neither of which is a
> religion and each of which is at least as cracked as the other. At
> least adhering to The Path Of The Force is *much* cheaper than being
> cleared of all one's engrams, then having one's body cooties ^W thetans
> removed through increasingly bizarre and expensive run-down exercises...
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1829
>