Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law#cite_note-GL_FAQ-0 - [1]} is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adage - adage formulated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Godwin - Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law#cite_note-canonical_version-1 - [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law#cite_note-WiredMCM-2 - [3]}

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum - reductio ad Hitlerum form.

A fundamentalist church group from the U.S. has announced it plans to picket the funeral of Tim McLean Jr. in Winnipeg, declaring, "God is punishing Canada."

"

1. Which one must you protect?
2. The ones of thjose who are acting peacefully
3. Or those who are abusing their right?

Yes there is, the protestors are not allowing the family of the dead person to have a peacefull RELIGIOUS ceremony....That's a conflict.

I know nearly nothing about Canadian law; however, it's difficult to imagine that any nation could make such an intangible guarantee as the right to a "peaceful ceremony."

Phelps followers are disturbing a peaceful religious ceremony, while the faily of the dead person have not oirrupted in a ceremony of Phelps "Church"

Civil rights aren't necessarily premised on fairness.  Should the government mandate that all of Winnipeg wear a black armband so as to honor the deceased, and of course, not offend its loved ones?  Furthermore, there's no need to surround "church" with quotation marks, as that's what it really is (his organization is no less inane than other religious ones, but this is besides the point).

Yes there's a situation of crisis, two groups in conflict will generate a riot, and I believed HATE CRIMES are tipified.

Every country?  It's doubtful that North Korea allows such religious freedom.  But we don't even to leave this part of the globe to encounter restrictions on the "free exercise of religion."  For Utah to join the Union, it had to forbid polygamy, which of course is a restriction on the practice of Mormonism.

You are going to the other extreme, that's another case.

How is it extreme?  Many thousands practice polygamy by religious mandate.  You asserted that "every" nation guarantees the exercise of religious beliefs.  But that just isn't so.

Not every Church is separatist and sexist.

How is it extreme?  Many thousands practice polygamy by religious mandate.  You asserted that "every" nation guarantees the exercise of religious beliefs.  But that just isn't so.

Ok, we are talking about countries with a democratic traditions, there will always be totalitarian Governments, but freedom of religion isn't the worst problem in those countries, they don't have freedom of speech, reunion, free elections, right to a fair trial, etc.

Most surely they wouldn’t have problems with Phelps, they would simply shoot a person who attempts against the burial of one of the Revolutionary heroes.

But those laws restrict religious practice, no?

No, polygamy is hardly a religious practice; it's like saying Christian and Jewish religions allow slavery because it's mentioned in the Bible.

Many religions including Judaism allowed polygamy, but this religions had to adapt their USES to the laws of the countries.

BTW: There’s a difference in admitting polygamy and being a religious practice.

I can't think of any counterexamples, can you?

Of course every religion believes they are the chosen ones, but not every religion attack people, goes to a funeral or claims everybody except them are doom.

I know you won't believe it, but since the Vatican II Council, the Catholic Church admits salvation outside the Church, also Buddhism is against any form of religious discrimination, some Christian Churches are pretty advanced in rights issues.

And as them there are others.

Iván

No, polygamy is hardly a religious practice; it's like saying Christian and Jewish religions allow slavery because it's mentioned in the Bible.

The Church generally supports the status quo, be it slavery or marital norms.

Many religions including Judaism allowed polygamy, but this religions had to adapt their USES to the laws of the countries.

No argument here.  My point is that such adaptation is a matter of restriction, no matter which way you interpret it.

BTW: There’s a difference in admitting polygamy and being a religious practice.

Of course.  But in the case of Mormonism it is a religious practice.

Of course every religion believes they are the chosen ones, but not every religion attack people, goes to a funeral or claims everybody except them are doom.

I can't think of one religion the practitioners of which have not persecuted some group during some era.  I'm not implying that all members of a particular religion behave this way all the time, but merely that such behavior occurs, and occurs rather ecumenically.

I know you won't believe it, but since the Vatican II Council, the Catholic Church admits salvation outside the Church, 

But liberation theology, as well as other themes of the Vatican II, is considered controversial amongst Catholics (outside of Central and South America).

No argument here.  My point is that such adaptation is a matter of restriction, no matter which way you interpret it

I can't think of one religion the practitioners of which have not persecuted some group during some era.  I'm not implying that all members of a particular religion behave this way all the time, but merely that such behavior occurs, and occurs rather ecumenically.

Times change, and religions also, could you imagine 30 years ago about sins against environment?

But liberation theology, as well as other themes of the Vatican II, is considered controversial amongst Catholics (outside of Central and South America).

No argument here.  My point is that such adaptation is a matter of restriction, no matter which way you interpret it